Note The Parachute Regiment badge and beret on Monty's head, he opened Montgomery Lines in Aldershot when the Brigade was stationed there as 16 Para Brigade in the late 60's.....enjoy;)
Printable View
Note The Parachute Regiment badge and beret on Monty's head, he opened Montgomery Lines in Aldershot when the Brigade was stationed there as 16 Para Brigade in the late 60's.....enjoy;)
Great picture of a great man Gil...
You give him a beer and a dark corner, and he'd wear anybodies cap badge, he was renowned for it. I suppose WW2 allowed him at his rank to do what he liked. Had a Bridge to Far come off he would have been a national hero :lol::lol::bow:
Montgomery was a teetotaller IIRC.
It's easy to remember him as the motivator behind a plan that went 't*ts up' for a lot of reasons and forget what he did (and what personal cost) during both wars, his successes in the desert campaign and his contribution to winning the war. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/histori..._bernard.shtml
Monty was a very cleaver man, he took risks, but didn't they all, you only have to look at bloody Omaha to see how close disaster can be snatched from the jaws of victory, that was a very close won victory...
Market Garden could have worked, unfortunately sometimes fortune dosen't favour the brave...
Monty should be righty remembered as a great allied Military leader and a truly great British hero...
I can see why he chose to ware a certain cap badge. In the desert he would ware a tank corp cap badge, it was a good way to show the troops he was with them. He was also one of the first to go to the front line to inspire his men. Something I think most of his men appreciated.
We perhaps have to remember that after the catastrophic losses of WWI the pool of potential senior officers was very much depleted, one could say it was three quarters empty in fact. What was left was those who had survived by good luck or good planning. Of the former, the proportion who could be expected to show real brilliance was probably about the same as it had been in 1914, except now there were far, far fewer of those men. Then the question was of those who had real brilliance such as Fuller or Ironside or Hobart, how would they "get on" in the Army between the wars, if they even stayed in the Army at all, to enjoy miserable pay and often miserable postings? Those who had somewhere better to go often went, those who did not, or had an agenda they believed had to be pushed, remained. The reality was that the upper reaches of the Army were very clannish and and those who were not "good club men" either pretended that they were or paid the price. Why did Churchill say to certain upset senior officers after he made Percy Hobart a Major General (again) instead of a Corporal in the Home Guard: "The Army is not a club!"? In other words, membership and office is not by popular consent! The fact that he needed to say it at all tells us nothing good about their mentality. If Churchill had court-martialed and cashiered a few of the incompetent failures a greater sense of urgency might have taken hold. The Club Men then went to work to make sure that Hobart was not allowed to command in North Africa the armoured divisions he had trained. The fortunes of the country and the empire be damned: the Club Men were not going to have Percy Hobart win laurels in the field that their incompetent friends had failed to win! Not really much different from dock workers going on strike in 1942 is it?
Full of his own sense of self importance ,Bill Slim was a far better man and one of the most under rated.
KG
A difficult one to overcome really, assessing leadership in Generals!!
I suppose with hindsight, Operation Market Garden could have been so successful in ending WW2 by many months had it succeeded, saving countless lives, civilian and Military.
However, there was, dare I say it, many ego's to please at General level from all sides, all of whom wanted a piece of their respective cake..........until it started going wrong, with the Armoured Corps not reaching their objectives as planned and scheduled at the briefings, and drop zones not being accurately hit, and overweight gliders etc etc.
As I say, it is easy to criticise, but ego's did play a part in its failure, and reading Surpmil's account, clearly we all have some patching up to do on exceptance of GOC levels and who is actually calling the shots at times!!
You recall of course the majority of the officers in WW1 were still of the aristocracy. It's been stated that no commission was purchased after 1914, but I can tell you for a fact it's still going on. It's just done differently. That creates the "Club" atmosphere you describe. Thus the incompetence of many senior officers during the first great unpleasantness... They weren't actual soldiers, they were rich guys that wanted to be in charge. Self entitlement...Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
That, and that the majority of British Army officers at the beginning of both world wars had attended the same public schools (US readers: very expensive, exclusive, private boarding schools). That alone created a club or clique atmosphere with an attitude of disdain for those who weren't from the same 'class of people'. Churchill, in fact, had attended one of the elite public schools (Harrow) in his day before going to Sandhurst and the Army. He knew of which he spoke.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
The RAF and RN was equally bad, if not worse. Oxford and Cambridge universities were much the same way back then as well. It was as it was, and change a bit during the interwar years and much more so from the early 1950s onward.
Familiarity with social history offers contextual depth to military history. Reading Chesterton's writings about pre-WWI and WWI Germany and Europe offers some insights into their social mentalities and subsequent events during the interwar period.
I just watched the Blue Max today. When Stachel (George Peppard) meets his commanding officer he starts with a little small talk and then asks, "who are your people?" Searching for the aristocratic connection because probably unheard of to be a pilot in those days from lower classes.
"...Monty was a very clever man..." Yep. BS'd his way around Allied HQ and changed what he said his plan was to suit what actually happened. Never ever did anything he said he'd do. And he wasn't Churchill's first choice to replace Auchinleck. Gott was.
"...Operation Market Garden could have been so successful..." Except for the part where the Dutch Resistance, who reported the 9th and 10th SS Panzer divisions were in Arnhem, were ignored by 21st Army Group. The entire operation was a huge waste of resources given that Patton was closing on the Saar River. Mostly politically motivated too.
"...Montgomery was a teetotaller..." Yep. Rabidly anti-smoking too.
I had all forgotten a story my 7th grade history teacher told us. She was a nurse in the 8th Army and was taking a break with a group of nurses and doctors at a field hospital. They were standing around under a palm tree smoking when Monty and several staff officers walked by. They all popped to attention then he yelled "drop those nasty ***s and get back to work!" I loved her class because she brought first hand experience to the classroom. I even built her a Lancaster bomber from a kit that she proudly hung from the ceiling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunray
I was once told that during WW1 "nasty and incompetent" British officers and N.C.O.'s were sometimes deliberately shot by fellow soldiers of their own side. It was suggested that this may have occurred during the confusion and melee of going "over the top", advancing on the enemy. I have no idea if there is any truth in this or if it ever happened but one can imagine that it could easily have done so. With bullets flying everywhere and soldiers dropping like flies, who would have noticed a British soldier taking a shot at a British officer?
Wasn't it Monty that was suppose to take Caan on D-day and it took almost 6 weeks?
The main priority was to stop the Germans counter attacking on the flank which Monty was extremely worried about. This Monty was very successful in doing.
If you say so. Most of the American generals didn't think much of him.
Who's to say Monty and others didn't feel the same about American Generals?:)
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDNv5N3p4-E
Or if you fancy even more convoluted theories: Spitfire List | FTR #810 A Prince Too Far
;)
Probably true, but other than making ground when they should have done regardless of what they found on the roads, and used them as an excuse, getting to Arnhem Bridge was the armours priority, and they knew it.
I probably agree with Barry Wynne, men should have made progress on foot if need be, and tried to link up, and then WW2 would have been re written and certainly shortened, and saved countless lives.
There would then have been no need for Operation Varsity, the Rhine Crossing in March 1945, to effectively do the whole thing once again..................thankfully, with lessons learnt in Sept 1944, it worked.
1944...most people hoped to survive the war...Maj. Lionel Wigram's study...and the "Guards mentality"?
When does phlegmatism become nonchalance and then merely something worse?Quote:
An initial study in the British Army was carried out in Italy by Major Lionel Wigram. Wigram estimated that in most platoons only a small handful of men really did the fighting. Another small group of men were likely to run away at the first opportunity. Those in the main group in between would follow the fighters, if things went well, or the potential deserters if they went badly. General Montgomery was so horrified by the report that he had it suppressed. Yet other armies were no different, it turned out. The Germans divided their soldiers’ combat performance into four categories, which were essentially the same as Wigram’s breakdown except that they split the main group in the middle in two. And American studies came up with similar results, showing that most enlisted men seldom fired their rifles in combat. The Red Army found that most of its conscript soldiers were no different.
A country cannot pour out by the millions it's best citizens in war and peace and remain all that it was or would have been without those losses.
That loss however was the world's gain.
Some really interesting points here from Eisenhowers point of view about his top five contemporaries:
President Eisenhower's Top 5 Most Disliked Contemporaries