General Ratings for Montgomery

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

General Ratings for Montgomery

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold >> General Ratings for Montgomery

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

General Ratings for Montgomery - 8/18/2008 6:36:22 PM

Texican

Posts: 248
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline

First, thanks for the latest patch in this game.

Secondly, and not that the prima donna British General Montgomery needs anyone to stand up for him, but why does this particular Allied general not warrant a plus 1 rating for Defense? Arguably, General Montgomery was the most solid defensive strategist of the war. They give Zhukov a plus "1" defense for throwing away 100's K of lives in human wave attacks, but the detail-oriented Montgomery is passed over?

Montomery's "defense-related" accomplishments:

Defense of Dunkirk so other units could safely evacuate: Success!

Inland-defense structure in Britain (in anticipation of the never launched Operation Sealion): Success, very strong in-depth and reinforceable defensive placements; Germans would have been hammered.

Reorganization of the 8th Army into more solid powerful units: Success!

Defense at El Alamein: Success, smashed the Afrika Korps' attacks.

Defense at Medinine: Success, again smashed the Afrika Korps.

Montgomery's only shortcomings, strategically or tactically, appear to have been when he was on the offense (i.e., not aggressive enough, or overshooting his goals, etc...) But on the defense, he had little or no faults. Now some of you might say he had Ultra (code-breaking) on his side, but then so did every Allied general, and the Germans had their own intelligence network in their favor (i.e., the book "Desert War in North Africa" stated that the Axis spies were so thick in Cairo they were "stepping on each other's toes", figuratively, of course).

So whether "Monty" was great on defense because of planning, because of Ultra, or because of some combination of the two, he was still great on the defense. Suggestion: In the next patch, bump General Montgomery's defensive values up to a "1".

Thanks.

Post #: 1

RE: General Ratings for Montgomery - 8/18/2008 8:05:39 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

I don't think Montys defence at Dunkirk should be praised too much, it was the French who protected the English rear

in NA, he happened to land into a great spot, on the defence already, and with a rapid rebuilding of his army, he was in a overly strong postion with a enemy at the end of his supply line and very much weaken

and when he went on the OFF, it was always a question of when he would finally attack, and not if he could, his blunders later in the war, were pretty much grandstanding, and any successes on the field of battle, became after the fact, part of his overall plan

he is a General, who became much better, after the war, then during it

_____________________________

(in reply to Texican)

Post #: 2

RE: General Ratings for Montgomery - 8/18/2008 8:50:46 PM

Texican

Posts: 248
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline

Well, I'm thinking he rebuilt the morale of the 8th Army (before the battle), reorganized it, ensured everyone was properly supplied and such, and basically had an impact of pumping up the combat factors of the units themselves. Instead of a bunch of demoralized independent units, the 8th Army's forces became highly-structured, well-prepared, combined arms teams.

Even if he had handed over command right before the battle after retraining, he still would have left the new commander with a better and more spirited fighting force. That would have to count for something.

But, thanks for your reply.

< Message edited by Texican -- 8/18/2008 8:55:33 PM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 3

RE: General Ratings for Montgomery - 8/20/2008 7:12:00 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

I think a lot of that kind of stuff, is really how people try to explain things, after the fact, from my point of view, troops are troops, Monty didn't make them better, he didn't train them from the start and make them better troops, those kinds of morale gains, really can come from just that fact that someone says, we standing here and we are fighting, instead of, well, we got a line of retreat ready, oh wait, lets pull out now while we got the chance

I don't know if you know the story of when Gen Puller took over the defence of the Pushan area in Korea, where the US and Allies needed to hold or be driven into the water

at his meeting with his commanders he told them were there postions were, and told them they had to stand fast, one of the Army units was on the far side of the hill line, the Army commander broke in while he was telling his Armor commander where he wanted him, and asked, but sir, what is our line of retreat, Puller didn't even look at him, but told his Armor commander, kill anything that is coming over that hill, if you see any body coming over that hill, it means that army unit has died to the last man, defending his postion and the enemy has gotten past him, anybody coming over the hill, is the enemy, kill them, do not let them get away

the morale of that command skyrocketed

the 8th Army was ready to fight, they were ready to defend, and in fact stayed in place for way too long, but Monty did win (the main thing being, if you could change the roles, if you could give the 8th army to Rommel and the DAK to Monty, there wouldn't of been much of a Desert War)

the biggest trouble with the major leaders, is most people either love them, or hate them

_____________________________

(in reply to Texican)

Post #: 4

RE: General Ratings for Montgomery - 8/30/2008 1:02:06 AM

Harrybanana

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
the biggest trouble with the major leaders, is most people either love them, or hate them

Well this is probably the only thing we both do agree on Sarge. I hate defending Monty because than someone will call me a" Monty Apologist" like Monty has something to apologize for. Suffice to say there are those who think Monty was a good general (most of whom are British or Commonwealth) and those who think he was a poor general (most of whom are American). The argument usually goes something like this:

"British Guy: Monty was a great general, he defeated Rommel at El Alamein.

American Guy: Monty was useless, he out numbered Rommel 3 to 1 in Tanks, manpower and artillery. My Grandma could have commanded the British to victory in that one. He was too consrvative in the attack.

BG: He waited because every prior British attack in the Desert petered out due insufficient supply and logistics and this time he wanted to make sure that didn't happen. In the end his 8th Army advanced further in a shorter period of time, across inhospitable terrain, than any other army in the entire war.

AG: Well Duh, there was no opposition. Had he pursued with any speed at all he wouldn't have allowed Rommel to escape with his 10 tanks.

BG: Well when he came up against the Mareth line he was smart enough to out flank it and force the Axis to retreat.

AG: Only after his direct assault on the line failed. And don't forget Patton beat him into Messina.

BG: Grrr... You'll never let us forget that. But you seem to have forgotten that British troops beat the Americans into Tunis a few months earlier. But it was Monty who changed the Overlord Plans from the original plans which were seriously flawed. Had he not done so things would have been much worse or even disatrous. He also planned from the beginning to draw the main weight of the German forces onto the British sector so that the Americans could breakthrough in the West.

AG: Oh GEEZ, not that rubbish again! This was all made up by Monty after the fact to try and take credit for the Breakout. All those Memos which he purported to write prior to the invasion about this being his plan from the beginning were forged or made up. And he sure screwed up with Market Garden didn't he.

BG: Market Garden failed yes, but the plan itself was good and in fact came close to succeeding. Or put another way, there was no better plan which could have worked. Well except for landing the 1st Airborne closer to the objectives, but we don't want to talk about that. At least it showed he was willing to take chances and be agressive. Had he not done anything to try and end the War in 44, that would have been a bigger black mark against him than to have tried and failed. Or should we, for example, say that Rommel was a poor General due to all his failures. And of course Ike himself gave Monty command of the Northern Sector (including all American units) in the Battle of the Bulge so that he could save the day.

AG: OK, now you are getting me mad. Everyone knows that Monty did nothing in the Battle of the Bulge and that it was Patton with his magnificent left turn who trapped the Germans.

I could go on, but you get the gist. This is one debate that will never be resolved. Oh yeah and before someone points out that I got my facts wrong in something repeated above; I am not saying any of these things are true. This is just a general idea of what I have read on these forums before.

It would be interesting to know what the Germans thought of him; does anyone have any quotes from Rommel or other German Generals about Monty?"

One final point is that I am glad that Monty does not give a defense bonus in the game as if he did so he would be more expensive to purchase. In my opinion the attack and defense bonuses provided by the generals in the game are usually not worth the additional cost. But others may have a different opinion.

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 8/30/2008 1:05:31 AM >

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 5

RE: General Ratings for Montgomery - 8/30/2008 1:11:02 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

interesting, but mainly you back up most of what I say :)

but one point is interesting, the idea he defeated Rommel, so that made him a Great General, the West thinks Rommel was the best General the Germans had, but If I remember correctly, Rommel is rated around 50 when seen from the Germen side

but, Rommel was doing it against the West, while the others were doing it against the East and are mainly unknown to the Western people

_____________________________

(in reply to Harrybanana)

Post #: 6

RE: General Ratings for Montgomery - 8/30/2008 4:27:35 AM

Harrybanana

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

interesting, but mainly you back up most of what I say :)

Actually by saying this I believe you are backing up what I was saying. The point I was trying to make is that people believe what they want to believe. The British believe Montgomery was a great general so they recite all his accomplishments and ignore anything that would detract from his reputation. Meanwhile you (and I am guessing you are an American) do not believe that Montgomery was a great general so you believe everything that suggests he was not and ignore or belittle everything that suggests he was.

Perhaps the only way of resolving this dispute would be to have a debate. An American debating team against a British/Commonwealth one, with the judges being a German, a Russian and an Italian.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 7

RE: General Ratings for Montgomery - 8/30/2008 8:11:21 AM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

why, he was a overblown *** who thought the Sun went down when he closed his eyes, his greatness came from with in his own mind

where most Commanders know that it is the blood of there men that give them there fame, he thought his fame was all due to his greatness, and though out history, he is the only one who could read a map

I really like the one where the troops in the desert, when somebody did something good,, something slick, they would say, he pulled a Rommel, Monty issued a order, that Troops had to say, he pulled a Monty

and the plans for MG was not to get across the Rhine River or end the war, it was to put a stop to Patton, so he would have to stand in place, while Monty got the glory, and with all of the recon and intell that was coming in, telling him he was wrong, was shoved aside, as it would mean if he stopped, Patton would get his supplies

the yanks have a General who is close to Monty, Mark Clark, another General who thought he would be the greatest of them all, until he started to count how many men he had to lose for his greatness

of course, there is alway the Mac, but at least, he was decent, but just as much of a person living with his own mind

Monty shouldn't get a bonus to defence, don't think he should get one for Off either, but he should get bonuses for supply and replacementss

_____________________________

(in reply to Harrybanana)

Post #: 8

RE: General Ratings for Montgomery - 8/30/2008 8:55:49 PM

Harrybanana

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

why, he was a overblown *** who thought the Sun went down when he closed his eyes, his greatness came from with in his own mind

I don't deny this and I don't think even Monty's staunchest supporters do. The guy definitely had a huge ego. But then again so did Patton, MacArthur, Napoleon, Wellington, etc. But whether he had a huge ego or not is immaterial as to whether or not he was a good general. Indeed most good generals throughout history have had huge egos. Of course even compared to the worst of them Monty takes the cake.

quote:

where most Commanders know that it is the blood of there men that give them there fame, he thought his fame was all due to his greatness, and though out history, he is the only one who could read a map

I think you are being unfair here. Monty fought in WWI and from all accounts did generally care about the men under his command and their welfare. He knew that morale was important and it was for this reason that he spent so much time vistiting with the regular soldiers. Again because of his experiences in WWI he was careful (some would say too careful) not to squander the lives of his soldiers. If an attack was not going well (such as the first assault in the 2nd battle of El Alamein. or the original assault on the Mareth Line) he would halt it and find another way to breach the enemy lines. His men knew of his ego (who didn't) but for the most part they loved him anyway.

quote:

I really like the one where the troops in the desert, when somebody did something good,, something slick, they would say, he pulled a Rommel, Monty issued a order, that Troops had to say, he pulled a Monty

I had never heard of this one, but it certainly sounds like something Monty would do. I had heard the one about Auchinleck telling his officers that they had to inform their men that Rommel was just a man and not that great a general.

quote:

and the plans for MG was not to get across the Rhine River or end the war, it was to put a stop to Patton, so he would have to stand in place, while Monty got the glory, and with all of the recon and intell that was coming in, telling him he was wrong, was shoved aside, as it would mean if he stopped, Patton would get his supplies

So now it comes out, the real reason the Americans don't like Monty, because he took Patton's oil. After the Breakout the Allied Command had a choice. They could either advance on a broad front sharing supplies evenly between all the Armies, or they could put all their effort into one big push with just a part of their force in an effort to knock Germany out of the War quickly. Both Monty and Patton favored the Big Push (but of course they each had different ideas about where the push should be made); but for political and other reasons Ike chose the broad front approach. This Broad Front strategy lasted until September when it became clear that there was just not enough supplies for even this to continue. At this point both Patton and Montgomery requested of Ike that they be given what supplies there were for one big push. Ike chose to accept Monty's plan over Patton's for a number of reasons. The most important being that Monty was closer to the Rhine. Did Monty want Patton's oil? Absolutely. Just as Patton wanted Monty's oil. But did he want it just becasue he was afraid Patton was going to show him up or steal his glory? Well you can believe that if you want (just as you can believe that Monty never intended for the breakout to occur in the American sector despite the paper evidence to the contrary); but I believe it more likely that MG was a legitimate attempt to get across the Rhine and end the War in 44.

It is true that information came to the Allies that there were German panzer formations regrouping around Arnhem; unfortunately the information came too late to change the plans. Monty didn't "ignore" the intelligence, he just had to make the decison of either going ahead as planned or scrapping the whole operation. He chose to go ahead and as you point out many brave Red Devils (along with many others) lost their lives as a result. Did he make the wrong decision? Well that is a tougher one to call. In hockey coaches often pull their goalie in the last minute if they are down by a goal to try and tie it up, more often than not it backfires and the other team scores another goal to put the game away. Does that mean the decision to pull the goalie was the wrong one? Well if it is the best chance you've got I would say no. For the same reason I would say Monty made the right decision to proceed with MG. But I can certainly appreciate that others have a different opinion. Don't forget Ike was faced with a similar decision when he decided to go ahead with Overlord (after a 1 day delay) notwithstanding that the weather reports were not altogether favorable. Had the weather turned and the Landings failed Ike would have lost his job and history would have been a lot different, but would that have made his decision wrong?

quote:

the yanks have a General who is close to Monty, Mark Clark, another General who thought he would be the greatest of them all, until he started to count how many men he had to lose for his greatness

I would personally rate Monty as being a much better general than Mark Clark, but again everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Monty was not nearly as wasteful of his men or resources as Clark and he was a much better planner. For the record, I do not think Monty was a "Great" General, but I do believe he was a Very Good one. I actually like the ratings given for the Generals in CEAW, including rating Patton, Rommel, Manstein and Guderian above Montgomery. I am not so sure about Eisenhower, but he was certainly the right man for the job.

quote:

Monty shouldn't get a bonus to defence, don't think he should get one for Off either, but he should get bonuses for supply and replacementss

I agree. I think this is generally what is reflected in his leadership rating.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 9

RE: General Ratings for Montgomery - 8/30/2008 10:40:33 PM

Hard Sarge

Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

why, he was a overblown *** who thought the Sun went down when he closed his eyes, his greatness came from with in his own mind

I don't deny this and I don't think even Monty's staunchest supporters do. The guy definitely had a huge ego. But then again so did Patton, MacArthur, Napoleon, Wellington, etc. But whether he had a huge ego or not is immaterial as to whether or not he was a good general. Indeed most good generals throughout history have had huge egos. Of course even compared to the worst of them Monty takes the cake.

Yes, but it would be nice, if he had a reason to have such a super Ego

quote:

where most Commanders know that it is the blood of there men that give them there fame, he thought his fame was all due to his greatness, and though out history, he is the only one who could read a map

I think you are being unfair here. Monty fought in WWI and from all accounts did generally care about the men under his command and their welfare. He knew that morale was important and it was for this reason that he spent so much time vistiting with the regular soldiers. Again because of his experiences in WWI he was careful (some would say too careful) not to squander the lives of his soldiers. If an attack was not going well (such as the first assault in the 2nd battle of El Alamein. or the original assault on the Mareth Line) he would halt it and find another way to breach the enemy lines. His men knew of his ego (who didn't) but for the most part they loved him anyway.

I got to disagree here, we know that the English didn't have many men to waste, but most of his battles were very wasteful, where someone like Rommel who would of moved faster and hit HARDer, would of taken less losses, trying to save men, he lost them

quote:

I really like the one where the troops in the desert, when somebody did something good,, something slick, they would say, he pulled a Rommel, Monty issued a order, that Troops had to say, he pulled a Monty

I had never heard of this one, but it certainly sounds like something Monty would do. I had heard the one about Auchinleck telling his officers that they had to inform their men that Rommel was just a man and not that great a general.

quote:

and the plans for MG was not to get across the Rhine River or end the war, it was to put a stop to Patton, so he would have to stand in place, while Monty got the glory, and with all of the recon and intell that was coming in, telling him he was wrong, was shoved aside, as it would mean if he stopped, Patton would get his supplies

So now it comes out, the real reason the Americans don't like Monty, because he took Patton's oil. After the Breakout the Allied Command had a choice. They could either advance on a broad front sharing supplies evenly between all the Armies, or they could put all their effort into one big push with just a part of their force in an effort to knock Germany out of the War quickly. Both Monty and Patton favored the Big Push (but of course they each had different ideas about where the push should be made); but for political and other reasons Ike chose the broad front approach. This Broad Front strategy lasted until September when it became clear that there was just not enough supplies for even this to continue. At this point both Patton and Montgomery requested of Ike that they be given what supplies there were for one big push. Ike chose to accept Monty's plan over Patton's for a number of reasons. The most important being that Monty was closer to the Rhine. Did Monty want Patton's oil? Absolutely. Just as Patton wanted Monty's oil. But did he want it just becasue he was afraid Patton was going to show him up or steal his glory? Well you can believe that if you want (just as you can believe that Monty never intended for the breakout to occur in the American sector despite the paper evidence to the contrary); but I believe it more likely that MG was a legitimate attempt to get across the Rhine and end the War in 44.

his paper record is interesting, since from the beginning, he planned on taking Caen on the first day, but his paper record keeps Caen as part of the focus point for his holding all of the Germen armor on his side of the front, over and over again, he couldn't take Caen, and wasted men and AFV's trying, and then when the push broke though on the other sector, it was all his idea

It is true that information came to the Allies that there were German panzer formations regrouping around Arnhem; unfortunately the information came too late to change the plans. Monty didn't "ignore" the intelligence, he just had to make the decison of either going ahead as planned or scrapping the whole operation. He chose to go ahead and as you point out many brave Red Devils (along with many others) lost their lives as a result. Did he make the wrong decision? Well that is a tougher one to call. In hockey coaches often pull their goalie in the last minute if they are down by a goal to try and tie it up, more often than not it backfires and the other team scores another goal to put the game away. Does that mean the decision to pull the goalie was the wrong one? Well if it is the best chance you've got I would say no. For the same reason I would say Monty made the right decision to proceed with MG. But I can certainly appreciate that others have a different opinion. Don't forget Ike was faced with a similar decision when he decided to go ahead with Overlord (after a 1 day delay) notwithstanding that the weather reports were not altogether favorable. Had the weather turned and the Landings failed Ike would have lost his job and history would have been a lot different, but would that have made his decision wrong?

yes, but the biggest, most dangerous thing a Airborne unit can run into is Armor, and it wasn't just a Armor Bdr or a Armor Div they found out was there, but a Armored Corps, and even worse, a SS Armored Corps

but I still got to like the Dutch, who couldn't believe what was going on, any of the Dutch who went though Officer training, were shocked, as the plan, was pretty much the same as on there final test, and if you agreed with it, you failed the course, and that was designed, before the advances in Armor weapons, but before the war, the Dutch knew you couldn't do what Monty wanted to try

I can agree with the idea of it was a choice, but in your setup, I think it more like the Hockey Coach, pulling his goalie in the 2nd Period

quote:

the yanks have a General who is close to Monty, Mark Clark, another General who thought he would be the greatest of them all, until he started to count how many men he had to lose for his greatness

I would personally rate Monty as being a much better general than Mark Clark, but again everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Monty was not nearly as wasteful of his men or resources as Clark and he was a much better planner. For the record, I do not think Monty was a "Great" General, but I do believe he was a Very Good one. I actually like the ratings given for the Generals in CEAW, including rating Patton, Rommel, Manstein and Guderian above Montgomery. I am not so sure about Eisenhower, but he was certainly the right man for the job.

quote:

Monty shouldn't get a bonus to defence, don't think he should get one for Off either, but he should get bonuses for supply and replacementss

I agree. I think this is generally what is reflected in his leadership rating.

< Message edited by Hard Sarge -- 8/30/2008 10:41:21 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Harrybanana)

Post #: 10

RE: General Ratings for Montgomery - 9/1/2008 1:34:30 AM

Harrybanana

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Yes, but it would be nice, if he had a reason to have such a super Ego

I agree no one has the right to have the super ego he did, but he was a very successful general and had the right to at least a modest ego. Say somewhere around 1/2 of MacArthur's. Oh wait a second, his ego was about 1/2 of MacArthur's. Ok 1/3rd of MacArthur's then.

quote:

I got to disagree here, we know that the English didn't have many men to waste, but most of his battles were very wasteful, where someone like Rommel who would of moved faster and hit HARDer, would of taken less losses, trying to save men, he lost them

And in which of his battles would you have suggested he employ the techniques which Rommel used so successfully in the desert? At El Alamein there was no room to maneuver and minefields several hundred yards wide which had to be crossed no matter where you attacked. There was no hope of hitting the enemy fast and hard. At the Mareth Line he did in fact successfully flank the enemy lines. In Sicily the terrain did not permit quick movement or "Hard Hitting." Patton was able to sweep through Western Sicily unopposed but he had no better luck than Monty once he encountered the Germans. Yes he beat Monty into Messina, but only by a few hours. In Normandy the hegderows again did not permit any fast movement or hard hitting. There was no possibility to flank the enemy or attack him where he wasn't as Rommel had done in the desert; this was not tank country. Once the breakthrough was achieved Monty's forces pursued the retreating Germans just as quickly as the Americans. In the final battles for Germany in the Spring the British and Canadians again achieved significant breakthroughs just as their American counterparts did.

quote:

his paper record is interesting, since from the beginning, he planned on taking Caen on the first day, but his paper record keeps Caen as part of the focus point for his holding all of the Germen armor on his side of the front, over and over again, he couldn't take Caen, and wasted men and AFV's trying, and then when the push broke though on the other sector, it was all his idea

It depends on what you mean by "planned on taking Caen on the first day." Yes Caen was one of the D-Day objectives; but the planners (including Monty) knew that there was little real hope of taking it on the first day unless they met no resistance on the beach at all. It was standard military planning to set objectives beyond those you actually expected to achieve. The reasoning being that if you only set objectives you anticiapted reaching and your troops reached those objectives earlier than expected, you wouldn't want them just stopping. In the event of course only 1 small company of Canadian soldiers (did I mention I was Canadian) actually reached their final D-Day objective. So I don't think it is fair to say that Monty "planned" on taking Caen on the first day.

On the other hand I don't think he expected it was going to take well over a month to take either and he does have to take some of the blame for the slow initial progress of the Allied forces (British, Canadian and American). This is one of the reasons I would not rate him as a "great" general. One thing to keep in mind is that while Monty had a great deal to do with the planning of D-Day, once the troops were ashore he lost direct operational control. He was by this time an Army Group Commander and while he would direct his army commanders to attack in certain directions and certainly influenced their planning, he was not the one who made the actual plans of attack. In any event his plan did eventually work. Or are you suggesting that he never in fact had such a plan and forged the "papers."

quote:

yes, but the biggest, most dangerous thing a Airborne unit can run into is Armor, and it wasn't just a Armor Bdr or a Armor Div they found out was there, but a Armored Corps, and even worse, a SS Armored Corps

I would have to reread my sources, but I do not believe the intelligence reports the British were receiving at the time indicated that it was an entire armored corps that was regrouping in the Arnhem area. If they were receiving reliable reports to this effect then I would agree with you that the plan should have been scrubbed. Though again the fact it came so close to succeeding suggests to me that it was at least worth the attempt. Most of the wargames I have played about this battle actually seem to favor the Allies a bit, but of course these are just games. The biggest mistake was landing the 1st Airborne too far from their objectives. The reason for this was that the closer they attempted to land to Arnhem the more thick the AA. Still I agree with you that hitting them hard and fast (ie by landing closer to Arnhem) would have been better. Would Patton or Rommel have done it differently? Who knows.

I am curious Sarge. You obviously don't think too much of Monty's generalship but I am not sure where you would rate him. Do you think he deserves the leadership rating given him in CEAW? If not what would you give him if you had designed the game?

(in reply to Hard Sarge)

Post #: 11

RE: General Ratings for Montgomery - 9/3/2008 7:08:59 AM

Texican

Posts: 248
Joined: 10/30/2006
Status: offline

You guys have to remember, Monty took over the American northern flank and basically won the Battle of the Bulge.

(Ducks.)

Hehe.

But anyway, having read part of an extensive biography on Monty, the two things favorable that I can conclude about the man is that he...

1. Increases the organizational effectiveness of his commands.
2. Is a master at setting and implementing defenses.

I'd rate Monty as...

Offense Bonus: 0
Defense Bonus: 1 (and not just for any unit he's stacked with, but any and all ground units within his command rating range.
Command Rating: 7 or 8

Incidentally, I think Patton has always been overrated by us armchair generals. Great armored corp commander, but not the end all that the film portrays him as. His own superiors did not rate him as highly, either.

In this game, I'd rate Patton as...

Offense Bonus: 1 (only with the unit he is stacked with)
Defense Bonus: 0
Command Rating: 6 or 7

(in reply to Texican)

Post #: 12