Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

quote:

If you are familiar with the concept of "chain of command"

And would that not also include the concept that the commander is utlimately responsible for the success and/or failure of the plan?

A good supervisor gives credit where credit is due, but also take the blame for failure. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

quote:

If you are familiar with the concept of "chain of command"

And would that not also include the concept that the commander is utlimately responsible for the success and/or failure of the plan?

A good supervisor gives credit where credit is due, but also take the blame for failure. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: SireChaos

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

quote:

If you are familiar with the concept of "chain of command"

And would that not also include the concept that the commander is utlimately responsible for the success and/or failure of the plan?

A good supervisor gives credit where credit is due, but also take the blame for failure. 

Aww... not that old "The buck stops here" thing again. This is SO outdated, you know?

Now, take a piece of chalk, go to the blackboard and write 100 times: "It is ALWAYS someone else´s fault - ALWAYS!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I guess it comes down to a simple question if you had to have a commander who would you want in the following circumstances

1. to prepare an army for battle
2. to command a set piece battle
3. to command a pursuit/exploit
4. to have as a subordinate
5. to be your commander

who would you choose ?

My list would be

1. Monty
2. Monty
3. Patton
4. Anyone but Patton or Monty
5. Monty

My answers:

1. Patton
2. Monty
3. Patton
4. Bradley
5. Patton

The main reason I pick patton over Monty for number one is that sitting on one's duff while the rear area commandos stockpile supplies for one, althewhile whining for yet more supplies, does not constitute "preparing an army for battle". Preparing them for battle constitutes instilling in them a desire to win. Patton did a much better job of that than Monty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

We will need to agree to disagree on this point

Monty's training exercises for his men were legendary in rebuilding the morale and professionalism of the Army in England in 41/42, 3rd Div was the best performing British Div in France in 40 when he commanded and he rebuilt shattered morale of the 8th Army and led them to victory - whatever the logistical superiority the army still had to use it and for that they needed leadership he organised them to fight and win. In large degree it was as a trainer of soldiers (and officers) that Monty was at his best.

Now I am not saying Patton was bad at it (far from it - post Kasserine he also rebuilt shattered morale and prepped a green army to beat the enemy at their own game and did it at a speed that surpised a British Army that had taken two or more years to learn lessons the US forces absorbed in months)
I read Monty's opinions of US forces in Sicily and he rated them very highly indeed especially the manouverability which 8th Army lacked I cannot remember which book it was in but he underestimated US forces and by the end of Sicily was a convert. Given that was what 4 months after Kasserine no one can say Patton wasnt good in this area.

I guess I pick Monty because of the impact he had on the forces he took over and the training he instilled and the confidence he built.

Patton was a lot more fire and brimstone which was probably better just before battle but Monty edges it for me in the weeks and months before that for prepping men to fight - but the fact is whichever you pick you don't win without training the weapon and they both won....

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Dorosh, you come across more and more like a Monty fanboi with every post.

You provide detailed post after detailed post descrying why none of the the things that went wrong with Monty's operations were Monty's fault.

You want evidence of my claim that Patton did a better job of instilling a desire to win in his men.......take a long hard look at the performance of his army.

I have been a wargamer for 34+ years as well as an incorridgible book worm with a decided bent toward military history. My beliefs regarding Patton and Montgomery are NOT based on Hollywood fantasy. Try slinging that mud at something it has a chance of sticking on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

We will need to agree to disagree on this point

Monty's training exercises for his men were legendary in rebuilding the morale and professionalism of the Army in England in 41/42, 3rd Div was the best performing British Div in France in 40 when he commanded and he rebuilt shattered morale of the 8th Army and led them to victory - whatever the logistical superiority the army still had to use it and for that they needed leadership he organised them to fight and win. In large degree it was as a trainer of soldiers (and officers) that Monty was at his best.

Now I am not saying Patton was bad at it (far from it - post Kasserine he also rebuilt shattered morale and prepped a green army to beat the enemy at their own game and did it at a speed that surpised a British Army that had taken two or more years to learn lessons the US forces absorbed in months)
I read Monty's opinions of US forces in Sicily and he rated them very highly indeed especially the manouverability which 8th Army lacked I cannot remember which book it was in but he underestimated US forces and by the end of Sicily was a convert. Given that was what 4 months after Kasserine no one can say Patton wasnt good in this area.

I guess I pick Monty because of the impact he had on the forces he took over and the training he instilled and the confidence he built.

Patton was a lot more fire and brimstone which was probably better just before battle but Monty edges it for me in the weeks and months before that for prepping men to fight - but the fact is whichever you pick you don't win without training the weapon and they both won....

A very fair assessment. I highlighted in bold the sentence you provided that best sums up why I would pick Patton over Monty. He had a penchent for accomplishing in a fraction of the time what other commanders took far, far longer, if ever, to achieve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

We will need to agree to disagree on this point

Monty's training exercises for his men were legendary in rebuilding the morale and professionalism of the Army in England in 41/42, 3rd Div was the best performing British Div in France in 40 when he commanded and he rebuilt shattered morale of the 8th Army and led them to victory - whatever the logistical superiority the army still had to use it and for that they needed leadership he organised them to fight and win. In large degree it was as a trainer of soldiers (and officers) that Monty was at his best.

Now I am not saying Patton was bad at it (far from it - post Kasserine he also rebuilt shattered morale and prepped a green army to beat the enemy at their own game and did it at a speed that surpised a British Army that had taken two or more years to learn lessons the US forces absorbed in months)
I read Monty's opinions of US forces in Sicily and he rated them very highly indeed especially the manouverability which 8th Army lacked I cannot remember which book it was in but he underestimated US forces and by the end of Sicily was a convert. Given that was what 4 months after Kasserine no one can say Patton wasnt good in this area.

I guess I pick Monty because of the impact he had on the forces he took over and the training he instilled and the confidence he built.

Patton was a lot more fire and brimstone which was probably better just before battle but Monty edges it for me in the weeks and months before that for prepping men to fight - but the fact is whichever you pick you don't win without training the weapon and they both won....

A very fair assessment. I highlighted in bold the sentence you provided that best sums up why I would pick Patton over Monty. He had a penchent for accomplishing in a fraction of the time what other commanders took far, far longer, if ever, to achieve.

And how do their butcher's bills compare?

How long did it take to subdue Metz?

How many times did he try to turn the flanks on the north coast of Sicily?

I'm not putting him down, but somewhere in that vast library you pretend to have read, isn't there something in there about the type of opposition 8th Army was facing in the mountains on Sicily, or 21st Army Group faced in Normandy?

Personally, I think it's idiotic to compare Patton vs. Montgomery since they were similar in their approach, and commanded very different armies in very different situations. Only someone small minded would take praise of one as criticism of another. There's plenty of praise, and plenty of criticism, to be spread around for both.

But if you're trying to convince us that in your vast scholastic career of "reading books" you've gotten a handle on the respective abilities of each, you haven't demonstrated it with your huffy pronounciamentos.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Let's go to an alternate reality here for a second and ask the following question - if two weeks before Market-Garden, you swap Monty for Patton (assuming in this alternate reality that the swap is instantanous, no up to speed time required), do things go better, worse or about the same?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBoats

Character flaws dogged them both -- I think Brooke was much more forgiving of Monty than Eisenhower was of Patton. But that may be just the difference between the British Army culture and that of the US Army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

So the question is, would Monty have done better if he didn't have a moustache?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great

So the question is, would Monty have done better if he didn't have a moustache?

Well, it was a bit of a shocker, but on principle I'll say "never!"

Cheers, Neilster

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Neilster I greatly admire your talent for deflection.

I assumed all along that your avatar picture was a a depiction of some tank commander from history. Now, since the unmuostachioed painting bears such a striking resemblence to the photo you provided, I have to wonder if you or a friend painted a portrait of you as a tank commander.

The reason I wonder is that one of the hobbies of my youth was portrait painting. I once took a theme from a cover of an Avalon Hill General magazine which depicted Rommel with a scene from north Africa in the background and used it in the creation of a portrait of my best friend and wargaming buddy putting him in his pharmacy lab coat in the place of Rommel and depicting him at work daydreaming about the campaign in north Africa.