Printable View
Now Now............they were ALL driven by a little or big bit of ego, and one upmanship, and Monty had plenty of that don't forget.
I suppose when you get to that dizzy height by what you have achieved and the battles you have been responsible for, I suppose you are allowed a little bit of that.
You had to be made of the right stuff regardless of your size or habits;)
Yeah, I didn't say anything earlier because I figured I'd be polite but Monty has a lousy reputation in the States. Over cautious being his worst fault in leadership aside from a massive ego. His victories came with overwhelming superiority in numbers and his failures are legendary. In all fairness, McArthur wasn't much of a leader either in many circles. Simply being in the right place at the right time and having a big enough ego and/or mouth to get away with things.
Does anyone think that Monty would have been better making an all out attempt to capture Caan on D-Day it's self but as a result leaving the flank wide open for a possible counter attack from behind by the Germans?
He would have been too far forward and more of a chance of being cut off had he done that.
For some reason that era of Generals had this need to sit on beaches and wait until everything was ashore, a bit like Gallipoli, and look what happened there.
I think there needed to be more coordination with local resistance units to cut off reinforcement to those German units cut off by the landings, and perhaps considered an airborne drop ahead of the troops before Caan to secure the ground....................."as long as they didn't AGAIN get left holding bridges for too long, waiting for the tea swillers to turn up":lol:
One aspect which I don't think Americans always fully understand is that British and Commonwealth senior officers of WW2 were often or tried to be cautious to avoid the the horrendous losses that they witnessed as junior officers during WW1. It is probably fair to say that the U.K. is still haunted by the loss of almost an entire male generation, 100 years on. For example, we had "Pals Brigades" in the early part of WW1 in which most of the young men from one neighbourhood would enlist together, join the same unit, go into battle together and die together or be seriously wounded, all in the same action.
Have to say, ALL countries lost an unacceptable amount of its youth in both wars, as did the U.S. who fought squarely beside us. Did they need too? is one for history, but had they not done so, de glockenspiel in Big Ben would be so different today IMHO.
Both wars saw differing tactics employed, men walking in line "Don't run" syndrome with cavalry charges in WW1, to a different approach to tactics in WW2.
Coming back to Monty.........the Bocages and narrow lanes that fed from the landing beaches of DDAY to Caan were the hold ups. Especially as such much armour had to travel down and through it. Thats where a parachute assault ahead of the movement could have swept up at least some of the blockages.
I was trying to provide an explanation as to why some British officers during WW2 may appear today to have been over cautious.
The same explanation may be true of French officers during the period of May/June 1940?
America didn't experience the losses of many of the major battles during WW1 because it was still a neutral country until 1917. But the material support that it did give while still neutral was very welcome and the overwhelming military support that it gave after it entered the war was also most welcome. I am personally very grateful to all the American individuals who took it upon themselves to travel to Europe during both WW1 and WW2 to fight on the Allied side while their homeland was still a neutral country.
Indeed. One must remember that the Majors, Colonels and Generals of both the British and French Armies (as well as many of the Australian and Canadian senior officers) in 1939 to 1941 had been Subalterns, Lieutenants and Captains in 1914 to 1917. If nothing else, they had learned the cost of war as they saw their friends, the men they had grown up with, gone to school with perish on a wholesale scale, often to an unmarked grave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Try reading through the biographies of men like Wavell who had been a Lieutenant in the Black Watch during the Boer War, and started WWI as a Captain then lost an eye during 2nd Ypres as a newly promoted Major. it gives one a better understanding of why they made decisions that can be second guessed today.
Interesting theory on why Commonwealth officers may have been over cautious and a reasonable one also but the times changed. The German Blitzkrieg proved that and this isn't second guessing. The criticism of Monty by US officers occurred then, at the time, during the battles and campaigns. He was pushed and still did not move. Patton and Montgomery despised each other and were also at opposite ends of the spectrum. Patton moved so hard and fast he outstripped his supply chain. Was he lucky he didn't get burned? Maybe but faster movement, and a faster end to the war reduces casualties in the long run.
I'm not saying, with hindsight, that senior British officers were right in being "over cautious", I'm just just trying to provide an explanation as to why some of them may have been like that. After all, wars are not won by generals who don't take risks.
I think that it's fair to say that generally the average British soldier of WW2 liked and respected Montgomery as did the general British public. But it's also probably fair to say that Montgomery was a little eccentric which Americans may find difficult to understand. You only have to look as far as his choice of uniform to realise this, 2 cap badges, corduroy trousers, flying jacket etc etc. He had his good points as well as his bad points and no doubt made a few mistakes along the way. No different to the rest of us, American Generals, included.