What do you think of the generalship (entire career) of Field Marshal Sir Bernard Law Montgomery?

Question

Just kinda curious - This is meant to cover his entire career, not any one campaign or theater. 'Monty' has a mystique about him, especially among the Brits.

What do you think of his generalship?

Curious as to how you'd balance North African campaign (not sure I agree as to its brilliance) with Operation Market: Garden - and other conduct in European theater.

Thanks!

Answer 1

Grossly over stated.


In answer to "Your addition".
Consider this. Montgomery went from the North Africa campaign, where at El Alamein He had overwhelming manpower and Ordnance superiority and His Army's flanks were protected on one side by the Mediterranean Sea and on the other the Quatara Depression, where He could not be out flanked, and His opponent's under strength force was funneled into a rectangular killing field with artillery laying down a box barrage from three sides.
To Sicily were once again his flank was covered by the Sea. Once again He was engaging the enemy with the aid of superior equipment and logistics. And once again, with a numerically super force in an "asymmetrical warfare situation'. The enemy were already in total disarray and short of all the perquisite materials to conduct a substantial layered defense in depth.
"D-Day". If You have studied the planning of the Normandy invasion You will no doubt have noticed one singular peculiarity with the dispersal of the troops and the landing areas. It is.....? That from the time of the initial planning until "D-Day- 5" the American Area of Operations was continually being moved further along the French coast. (Yes. I have over simplified.) The Britsh landed where they had always been going to and got bogged down in the "Bocage" terrain before making Their break out. The Americans fought their way off the beaches and eventually took Carantan, the Port of Cherborg, meeting up with the Canadians and the British, before Caen, and the eventual surrounding of the German Army at Falaise.
Eisenhower favoured a wide front. Montgomery a narrow. Montgomery's Second army group was ordered toadvance towards Belgium and Holand. "Monty" Maintaned that a rapid advance and deployment of troops through the Low Countries and into Germany through the Rhine would shorten the war by many months. Eventually He was given permission: and Operation "MarketGarden" was born.
On the morning of Sundaly, September 17th,1944 The largest Airborne Assault in the history of warfare commenced. Some 34,876 men otf the Britsh 1st Airbourne Division, The Polish 1st Parachute Brigade and the U.S. Armies 82nd and 101st Airbourne Divisions began to invade Holland fom the sky. The object of the excercise was to capture all the strategic bridges between Nijmegen and Arnhem ( Maas-Waal canal at Heumen, Eindhoven and the bridges across the Son and the Rhine) following a plan that had been put together in only 7 days. The idea was to lay a carpet of Paratroops across Holland, taking and securing all the major bridgeheads and thuss allowing the British XXX Corp a fast run from Nijmegen to the ultimate objective, namely the bridge at Arnhem. The British Armoured Corp were intended to follow 'Highway # 69' AKA "Hell's Highway" fighting and securing Their flanks as They advanced along a two lane road.

Answer 2

His campaign in North Africa was brilliant, as was the man himself. His meticulous planning gave him the undeserved impression of being over-cautious; but who wouldn't appear to be over-cautious when being compared to the likes of Patton or Guderian.

Market Garden? An intelligence disaster much like our own Iraq today. Some people have also called Dubya brilliant ya know....not me of course. How about Lord Mountbatten's role?

Answer 3

Monty was a primadonna, like MacArthur. The difference is Mac lived like an aristocrat and Monty lived more like his troops. Where Mac was not very popular with his men, Monty's men loved him. Monty also knew the chain of command and while he would comment publicly about fellow commanders (Patton for one) he never held those over him up to public ridicule. Something Mac failed to learn and ultimately, Mac got fired.

I think the entire invasion of Europe would have gone better if Monty had been in overall command rather than Eisenhower as Monty had much greater command experience, having served in combat in WW One and a number of command positions between the wars, rising to the rank of major general by 1938.

Eisenhower on the other hand, just three years younger than Monty served in a number of staff positions (like Colin Powell) and had very limited command experience, even in peace time.

Eisenhower spent 16 years as a major...only being promoted to Lt. Colonel in 1936. Clearly he was junior to Monty in both rank and experience.

When WW Two started, Eisenhower received several quick promotions and senior command positions. However, in my opinion, he was only appointed Supreme Commander because of the ongoing US tradition that US troops do not serve under the command of foreign generals. (About 300,000 US troops were under foreign command in WW Two but since those foreign commanders were in turn under US generals and admirals acting as Supreme Commanders, that was considered acceptable.)

I think if we had put Monty in charge and supported his battle plans to the fullest, the war would have been over a few months earlier.

Answer 4

His downfall in Europe was largely a result of US political influence/interference. As a result, the war was probably extended by 3 to 6 months.

Answer 5

this is simple he was great in africa and not so great in europe