Most over-rated WWII Leader

@Lazarus:

" why is it that when Bradley’s First Army took a month to cover the last five miles to St. Lô this is attributed (correctly) to the bocage and the enemy but when the British Second Army took as long to cover the six miles into Caen that is attributed to Monty’s “timidity,” “caution,” and “slowness”? The presence of seven German panzer divisions in front of Caen is usually left out of this equation "

Because Monty was an over-rated commander hence his inclusion on this list. He was only pulled from Italy for Normandy for political and propaganda reasons. Britain’s hero, victor of the El Alamein, Returns to the continent to lead the allied armies in the liberation of Europe. Sounds good and I bet it sold a lot of newspapers, but he was only in command to please British public opinion and boost moral on the home-front, which after nearly six years at war, was becoming a little weary. Only during the initial landings on June 6th were there an even number of US and British forces(5 and 5) and as the battles progressed US forces outnumbered their British counter-parts more then 4 to 1 by the end. This is why Monty was dropped as overall commander 3 months after the landing, which proves his appointment was for purely political reasons.

@Clyde85:

This is why Monty was dropped as overall commander 3 months after the landing, which proves his appointment was for purely political reasons.� Â

Nope.
It was always the case that Eisenhower was to take over command. The time was not fixed and the option was not exercised until September 1st-after Montgomery beat the Germans.

@Clyde85:

Only during the initial landings on June 6th were there an even number of US and British forces(5 and 5) and as the battles progressed US forces outnumbered their British counter-parts more then 4 to 1 by the end.

June US Tank strength  1710
June UK Tank strength  2666

July US    3407
July UK    3828

Aug US      4379
Aug UK      4297

Have another try.

SO tanks were the only thing on the continent?

Please tell more of these Montogemry victories. Do you speak of the one he finally got in North Africa with far superior forces against Germans with no supplies and no further reinforcements?

Or are you speaking of how he couldn’t get off the beachhead in Normandy then failed miserable at Market Garden?

Kind of hard to give him credit for El Alamein, then give him a pass everywhere else.

@Col.:

SO tanks were the only thing on the continent?

No sir.

Manppower numbers

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Supreme/USA-E-Supreme-E.html

UK/ Canadian 16 June 1945   1,072.717 Â

US  May 3,021,483

and the note on UK/Canadian  numbers says:

 These statistics must be used with the warning that they cannont be the basis of comparison between the U.S. and British air efforts. U.S. air strengths listed in Table 7 inlcude the air forces both in the United Kingdom and on the Continent. The British forces in this table include only those on the Continent. Total British air force strength (including WAAF) amounted to 819,578 on 1 May 1945. Needless to say a considerable part of this force was used in the preinvasion period and during the campaigns in northwest Europe in support of the Allied campaigns

So if done on a like for like comparison we can say 1.5 million v 3 million

Who said 4 to 1 in Normandy again?

@Col.:

Or are you speaking of how he couldn’t get off the beachhead in Normandy.

I think you will find he did because I saw photos of him taking the German surrender in 1945.

@Lazarus:

Nope.
It was always the case that Eisenhower was to take over command. The time was not fixed and the option was not exercised until September 1st-after Montgomery beat the Germans.

I must assume you are a barber because you sure do like splitting hairs. Also I am very impressed with you selective reading skills (I’ve heard of selective hearing and all though) as you seem to only read the parts of the posts you dislike and ignore all the rest. Though to be fair, I suppose I should have been more specific with such a delicate reader, US forces out numbered British force by more then 4 to 1 by the end OF THE WAR. The US had 72 divisions in the field by the end of the war out of a total of 85 allied divisions, a factor of more then 4 to 1.

@Lazarus:

Have another try.

No, you can try again now

I’ll think you’ll find that he as the only command at D-Day who failed to get off the beach and blame their problems on logistical failures.

Also, I don’t think you should get to count Canadian forces under the British total as they were a separate and equal power in the war. Canada had its own Army and its own indigenous commanders who were raised and trained in Canada. Men like Guy Simonds, Harry Crerar, Andrew MaNaughton, and the men of the first Canadian Army were the one who led the breakout from Normandy and closed the Falaise pocket, not Monty.

And I think this really proves it. Here is an army and a group of commanders that gets over shadowed by the “British” war effort and grouped in with what Monty did, when in reality they should be recognized for their individual contributions to the war as Canadians not British and not Monty.

@Col.:

I’ll think you’ll find that he as the only command at D-Day who failed to get off the beach and blame their problems on logistical failures.

Sorry but that is just plain wrong. Every single beach failed to  reach its D-Day ‘phase line’ Every beach.
If you want we can talk about the one beach where progress was so bad there were serious  thought given to  re-embark and  abandon it.
Can you guess which one it was……

@Clyde85:

US forces out numbered British force by more then 4 to 1 by the end OF THE WAR. The US had 72 divisions in the field by the end of the war out of a total of 85 allied divisions, a factor of more then 4 to 1.

And yet the numbers say the manpower totals are 1.5 million to 3  million?

@Clyde85:

US forces out numbered British force by more then 4 to 1 by the end OF THE WAR.

Note the dates I gave. May and June 1945.
That, I believe, is THE END OF THE WAR

@Clyde85:

Also, I don’t think you should get to count Canadian forces under the British total as they were a separate and equal power in the war. Canada had its own Army and its own indigenous commanders who were raised and trained in Canada. Men like Guy Simonds, Harry Crerar, Andrew MaNaughton, and the men of the first Canadian Army were the one who led the breakout from Normandy and closed the Falaise pocket, not Monty.

Ah but you said earlier  Monty ‘failed’ to close the gap. Now you backtrack and say the Canadians were responsible?
What made you change your  line of argument?
I might add that the 2 Divisions chosen to ‘close the gap’ were relative newcomers and ony one  was Canadian. I leave you to find  out the nationality of the other……

@Clyde85:

And I think this really proves it. Here is an army and a group of commanders that gets over shadowed by the “British” war effort and grouped in with what Monty did, when in reality they should be recognized for their individual contributions to the war as Canadians not British and not Monty.

OK now point me to a US source that seperates out the achievements of the French Armoured Division as distinct from the US success.

Perhaps you could also give me the force ratio for Bradley during Cobra.
If Monty is said to have only won because he vastly outnumbered the
Germans then it can  be said Bradley and Patton had greatly superior advantages (than Montgomery) when they attacked

@Clyde85:

The US had 72 divisions in the field by the end of the war out of a total of 85 allied divisions, a factor of more then 4 to 1……you can try again now

Wrong.

The reality can be seen here

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Supreme/USA-E-Supreme-D.html

US 61

UK 17
Can  5

F/French 7

These figures are for Divisions only. For the UK/Can this  excludes 6 Armored Brigades. For the uninitiated an Armoured Brigade was the tank strength of an Armoured Division and they  do not appear on the Divisional  headcount.
Furthermore one of the UK Armoured Divisions (79th) was a specialised Unit that had 3 times the tank units of an ordinary Armoured Division.
It is obvious now that an attempt to count Divisions only is a partial counting method that undercounts the Commonwealth contribution.

@Clyde85:

The US had 72 divisions in the field by the end of the war out of a total of 85 allied divisions, a factor of more then 4 to 1……you can try again now

The reality can be seen here

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Supreme/USA-E-Supreme-D.html

US 61

UK 17
Can  5

F/French 7

These figures are for Divisions only. For the UK/Can this  excludes 6 Armored Brigades. For the uninitiated an Armoured Brigade was the tank strength of an Armoured Division and they  do not appear on the Divisional  headcount.
Furthermore one of the UK Armoured Divisions (79th) was a specialised Unit that had 3 times the tank units of an ordinary Armoured Division.
It is obvious now that an attempt to count Divisions only is a partial counting method that undercounts the Commonwealth contribution.

Victory in the West Volume II of the Official British History of the Second World War by Major LF Ellis, Appendix VII

Allied strength on April 30th 1945 was:-

British: Army 835,208 Naval 16,221* Air Force 460,000** Total 1,311,429
Canadian: Army 183,421 Naval 0 Air Force34,000** Total 217,421
Australian/NZ: Army 0 Naval 0 Air Force 12,500** Total 12,500
American: Army 2,618,023 Naval 7,035 Air Force 447,482*** Total 3,072,540
French: Army 413,144 Naval 0 Air Force 24,000**** Total 437,144
Others: Army 34,518 Naval 0 Air Force 15,500** Total 50,018
Totals: Army 4,084,314 Naval 23,256 Air Force 993,482 Grand Total 5,101,052

*RN & USN in the campaign area
**RAF: Bomber Command, Fighter Command, Coastal Command (16,18 & 19 Groups), 2nd Tactical AF and Special Groups (38 & 46)
***USAAF: 8th & 9th AF, First (Provisional) Tactical AF and IX Troop Carrier Command
****First French Air Corps, French Western Air Forces and French Sqns in RAF commands
*****Others relates to contingents from Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Norway and Polish

SNORE

Sleeps through this part of the class

Yeah sure, if you want to include the ENTIRE armed forces of Britain in Europe, but im sorry, there is no way in hell that your figures are correct. The whole reason Monty was dropped as over all commander in Europe was because US forces outnumbered British forces by. As I said before 72 out of the 85 divisions in Europe by the surrender in 1945 were American and not British.

@Lazarus:

Victory in the West Volume II of the Official British History of the Second World War by Major LF Ellis, Appendix VII

This is your source? LOL bwahahahahah! Yes im sure this is a very reliable source as the British would never fudge some numbers to appease their sense of national pride  :roll:

@Clyde85:

Yeah sure, if you want to include the ENTIRE armed forces of Britain in Europe, but im sorry, there is no way in hell that your figures are correct. The whole reason Monty was dropped as over all commander in Europe was because US forces outnumbered British forces by. As I said before 72 out of the 85 divisions in Europe by the surrender in 1945 were American and not British.

You can repeat your fabrications as often as you want but it will never change the actual numbers.
Your claim there were 72 US Divisions in NW Europe is bogus.
The Commonwealth numbers are the exact comparison to the US numbers.
It is incorrect to say it is the total of the entire Commonwealth Armed Forces.
Your claim is a falsification.
The figures I gave you come from a book entitled
US Army In WW2. The European Theatre Of Operations. The Supreme Command.  and are in  Appendix D,
Forces Under SHAEF, 1944-45.
The full citation  for the printing is:
CMH Publication 7-1
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WASHINGTON, D.C., 1954
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 53-61717
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C., 20402
Nothing to do with appease their(British) sense of national pride

@Clyde85:

This is your source? LOL bwahahahahah! Yes im sure this is a very reliable source as the British would never fudge some numbers to appease their sense of national pride  :

bwahahahahah to you because I gave you 2 sources. The official British numbers and the official US ones.
It is up to you which ones you want to use but they both blow apart your bogus numbers.

So far in this thread every ‘source/number’ you give turns out to be wrong!

Just in case you missed it here are the US figures

US Forces in Europe
Infantry Divisions:    42
1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 26th, 28th, 29th,
30th, 35th, 36th, 42d, 44th, 45th, 63d, 65th, 66th, 69th,
70th, 71st, 75th, 76th, 78th, 79th, 80th, 83d, 84th, 86th,
87th, 89th, 90th, 94th, 95th, 97th, 99th, 100th, 102d, 103d,
104th, 106th
Armored Divisions:  15
2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 20th
Airborne Divisions:    4 
13th, 17th, 82d, 101st

From:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Supreme/USA-E-Supreme-D.html

Please use them to confirm your earlier claim:

@Clyde85:

The US had 72 divisions in the field by the end of the warout of a total of 85 allied divisions, a factor of more then 4 to 1

The claim Monty was ‘dropped’ is frankly bizzare and betrays a complete lack of any real understanding. Eisenhower was always the overall Commander but he (wisely) allowed the most experienced man run the battle on his behalf. A wise move as it turned out!

Lazarus,
You have to realize that you have zero credibility at this point and with every post you just keeping digging the “i’m a jingoistic Anglophile” hole you’ve put yourself in alittle bit deeper. You came here to wave the union jack and try to uphold the honor of your golden boy Montgomery, but have only made yourself look silly.

I am going to ignore any further posts you put here about how glorious the bold and invincible Montgomery was and How the British had the biggest army in NW Europe and single handedly won the war, God Save the Queen!

So what are some over-rated Axis commanders?

This topic is as dangerous as politics. I think I got into one of these arguments a few pages back for hatin’ on MacArthur.

@Clyde85:

with every post you just keeping digging the “i’m a jingoistic Anglophile” hole you’ve put yourself in alittle bit deeper……God Save the Queen!

As usual you make a collosal error. Would it make any difference if I told you I am Irish?

@Clyde85:

I am going to ignore any further posts you put here

A wise move. So far you have not managed to find a single fact that  confirms any of your claims.  Forced to use  Wiki and then  misrepresent the number for  POW’s you found as KIA. totals you lack the grace to admit  the data I posted shows your claim of 72 US Divisions in Europe is wrong.  I would say your defeat is of the same magnitude that befell the Germans in the summer of 1944.
I hold you no malice as I watch you running for the hills…… toodle pip old bean!