Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 16th, 2013, 03:49 PM   #121
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: SF bay area
Posts: 1,266

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
drilled them well
LOLOLOLOLOL

Fap! Fap!


Your humor just kills me.
Dzung is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 16th, 2013, 03:53 PM   #122

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 7,713
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzung View Post
He screwed up the campaign in Sicily turning what should have been a 10 day campaign into a 40 day bloodbath. He botched his end of the invasion at Normandy and led to the almost 2 month stalemate in the hedgerows, in the end the US First Army broke out (the British had been planned to lead the advance.) Then his animosity with the American Command caused the huge blunder at Falaise where 60,000 or so Germans escaped the pocket, (the ones the Americans later had to fight in the Ardennes) then came Market Garden, then came the Bulge, then for his final screw up the US First and Third armies beat him across the Rhine and the 9th Army would also have beaten him across had it not been under his command at the time and told to hold in place. Need I mention that the whole theater had been held back so Monty could be the first to cross the Rhine?

Allied unity meant that all this should be hushed up. It's now almost 70 years later, I believe we should call it like it really was.
Back it up with sources, then we have an avenue for debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzung View Post
LOLOLOLOLOL

Fap! Fap!


Your humor just kills me.
Childish.

Yes though, as a Brit, I do have a good sense of humour
Mangekyou is offline  
Old June 16th, 2013, 03:56 PM   #123
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: SF bay area
Posts: 1,266

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
Back it up with sources
Exactly what do you disagree with?
Dzung is offline  
Old June 16th, 2013, 03:59 PM   #124

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 7,713
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzung View Post
Exactly what do you disagree with?
I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with anything at the moment. I'm asking for sources of some description, so that we have an avenue for debate. AS of now, it's just our own unflattered opinions.

This is a thread for "worst generals".

Let's start with how you measure that equation?
Mangekyou is offline  
Old June 16th, 2013, 04:07 PM   #125
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: SF bay area
Posts: 1,266

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with anything at the moment. I'm asking for sources of some description, so that we have an avenue for debate. AS of now, it's just our own unflattered opinions.

This is a thread for "worst generals".

Let's start with how you measure that equation?
I'd go along with the premise that MacArthur was even worse than Montgomery.

Montgomery's incompetence didn't have any effect on starting any wars.
Had MacArthur been a little bit more on the ball the Japanese might not have tried what they did, and for sure the Soviets wouldn't have told Kim to go ahead and invade the south if there was a trap waiting for them.
Among MacArthur's other failures, he completely distrusted the information provided by intelligence experts.

Last edited by Dzung; June 16th, 2013 at 04:13 PM.
Dzung is offline  
Old June 16th, 2013, 05:08 PM   #126

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,161

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzung View Post
I'd go along with the premise that MacArthur was even worse than Montgomery.

Montgomery's incompetence didn't have any effect on starting any wars.
Had MacArthur been a little bit more on the ball the Japanese might not have tried what they did, and for sure the Soviets wouldn't have told Kim to go ahead and invade the south if there was a trap waiting for them.
Among MacArthur's other failures, he completely distrusted the information provided by intelligence experts.
MacArthur didn't start WW2 in the Pacific. The Japanese waited until AFTER Pearl Harbor to attack the Philippines. The war had already begun, and I'd honestly think Japan would have attacked REGARDLESS of what MacArthur did.
Sam-Nary is online now  
Old June 16th, 2013, 05:11 PM   #127

Underlankers's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,722

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzung View Post
What do you see as his role in the battle of the bulge?

AFIK he only contributed to command disunity at the top level, and on the ground the British became engaged in a battalion sized action against an out of gas German column just short of the Meuse river.
He provided co-ordination, command, and control for the northern edge of the salient, which was sorely lacking under the US generals at the time. The actual troops who did most of the fighting were Americans, but the general in command was British. Monty, of course, decided to embellish the truth to serve his own interests, which only makes him a standard general insofar as the truth is concerned, not the worst general in history. There are many worse than him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzung View Post
He screwed up the campaign in Sicily turning what should have been a 10 day campaign into a 40 day bloodbath. He botched his end of the invasion at Normandy and led to the almost 2 month stalemate in the hedgerows, in the end the US First Army broke out (the British had been planned to lead the advance.) Then his animosity with the American Command caused the huge blunder at Falaise where 60,000 or so Germans escaped the pocket, (the ones the Americans later had to fight in the Ardennes) then came Market Garden, then came the Bulge, then for his final screw up the US First and Third armies beat him across the Rhine and the 9th Army would also have beaten him across had it not been under his command at the time and told to hold in place. Need I mention that the whole theater had been held back so Monty could be the first to cross the Rhine?

Allied unity meant that all this should be hushed up. It's now almost 70 years later, I believe we should call it like it really was.
Monty didn't screw up the campaign in Sicily. The Allied plan as a whole was too unsound. When we look at what Patton actually accomplished at a strategic level, his accomplishments in that regard are on par with Montgomery's, i.e. they beat up the Italians again and were outthought and outfought by Kesselring snookering an entire German army group out of what should have been an easy capture.

The claim that he screwed up in Normandy has some merit to it, but only some. Insofar as he claimed he was going to advance deeper than Falaise, he did indeed screw up and screwed up badly with the kind of approach that makes me seriously question if he understood the manpower situation the way people say he did. That, however, is complicated when we factor in that Overlord did unfold at a strategic level according to his original design, just with the kind of modification friction in war generally produces where ideas are concerned.

Falaise was a mutual JAAFU between Monty and Bradley.
Underlankers is offline  
Old June 16th, 2013, 06:13 PM   #128

Spartacuss's Avatar
mmmmph! mmmMMMMmmph!!
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,575

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
He was actually extremely well liked by the American GI's that served under him. Before anything, he was a soldiers man.
I have read several accounts of this. He was not hostile to all US generals, either, and in Europe began to see a general maturing of junior officers that he fairly recognized among them.
Spartacuss is offline  
Old June 16th, 2013, 06:19 PM   #129

HISTORYbuff427's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: Salisbury, North Carolina
Posts: 54

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacuss View Post
I have read several accounts of this. He was not hostile to all US generals, either, and in Europe began to see a general maturing of junior officers that he fairly recognized among them.
From what I have read, though, is that Patton sure as hell hated him. He thought Monty brash, arrogant and too slow moving when it came to aspects of troop movement.
HISTORYbuff427 is offline  
Old June 16th, 2013, 06:35 PM   #130

Spartacuss's Avatar
mmmmph! mmmMMMMmmph!!
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,575

Quote:
Originally Posted by HISTORYbuff427 View Post
From what I have read, though, is that Patton sure as hell hated him. He thought Monty brash, arrogant and too slow moving when it came to aspects of troop movement.
There is merit in Patton's opinion. But, Patton did say he admired Monty's command ability once he decided to move. Montgomery apparently thought more of US air generals, overall, than field commanders. His tour through the Falaise Pocket convinced him that US tactical air commanders were a damned blood thirsty bunch, and was impressed when they screamed to high heaven when ordered to cease their attacks there.
Spartacuss is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
general, worst



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the worst battle of your favorite General? DS1967 War and Military History 45 July 7th, 2013 03:59 AM
Best and worst Queen's in history henry7 Speculative History 28 July 2nd, 2012 06:20 PM
Best and/or Worst Last Words in History Tuatha De Danann General History 25 June 20th, 2011 09:54 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.