Newb Review of Croix de Guerre

Jeffrey D Myers

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
962
Reaction score
392
Location
ABQ, NM, USA
Country
llUnited States
Rommel's 'Western' adversary, Montgomery and the Eighth Army seem to have accomplished a rather effective result of bringing him and the DAK to grief in the North African campaign.
The British Navy may have had something to do with that....
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Rommel's 'Western' adversary, Montgomery and the Eighth Army seem to have accomplished a rather effective result of bringing him and the DAK to grief in the North African campaign.
Montgomery was a plodder for sure, but it was just what 8th Army needed. The DAK was only part of Rommel's command, incidentally. By early 1942 it was just one corps among many in what was known as Panzer Army Africa. Right after El Alamein it became the German-Italian Panzer Army - perhaps to shift the blame? :) Rommel was good at that, too. In February 1943 it expanded again to an entire Army Group, of which the DAK was still just one corps.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Over rated? Yes and no. He was a brilliant tactical and lower level operational (divisional/corps) commander. His recklessness and bravery paid dividends when faced by Western forces, but would likely come to grief against a more plodding but more resolute opponent like the Soviets. In the Eastern front the result would likely have seen him pocketed/captured/killed while on one of his usual jaunts.

He was too inclined to lose his grasp of the bigger picture due to his concentration on local actions (target fixation). That bit him in the arse with him and DAK being temporarily pocketed in the Gazala Cauldron. Only the tardiness of the British response allowed him to escape. So as a higher operational/strategic commander (army/army group) I would rate as just adequate to good, but not brilliant.

At the ASL level I would not have been horrified if he was represented by a 10-4, never mind a 10-3. His local tactical effect was usually that good. His fame in the West is partly due to have been executed (forced suicide) after the July 20th plot, but mainly to explain many Western defeats ("We were facing Superman!").
Mostly agree, though as you point out, he never fought in the big league of Russia. Against an opponent that knew what they were doing - Montgomery - he comes off poorly. My fav professor did a great send-up of him in his lecture on the North African campaign. Basically Rommel standing at a mapboard at El Alamein wailing "why won't the fucker attack?" when Montgomery didn't react like his predecessors, throwing stuff piece meal at concentrated 88 batteries.

Not sure what to make of his performance in Normandy either, including his 'fight on the beaches' strategy which worked for less than half a day. Not that I think they had many really good choices, but the one thing he could have done that no one on either side bothered with - he could have had his men practicing how to fight in bocage. Commander of Panzer Lehr was quite candid that they had never bothered with it, and of course the Americans didn't either, so both sides made it up as they went along.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Rommel could sometimes make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. That he couldn't do it every time does not seem to me to be a surprise.

Montgomery could make a silk purse out of a silk purse. Although that doesn't sound like much of an achievement, sometimes it is.

JR
 

boylermaker

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
581
Reaction score
526
Location
Virginia
Country
llUnited States
Montgomery could make a silk purse out of a silk purse. Although that doesn't sound like much of an achievement, sometimes it is.
Great way to put it! I'll have to revisit my annoyance with Monty, then, because that's the same argument for US Grant, and he is one of the all time greats in my book.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Montgomery could make a silk purse out of a silk purse. Although that doesn't sound like much of an achievement, sometimes it is.
I'd more say Montgomery could make a silk purse out of a bale of silk and with a room of seamstresses. Having said that, he was what the British Army needed after the regular drubbing it got from DAK. The one time he tried something fancy, Market-Garden, he failed. His forte was the methodical battle, more akin to Allied 1919 or 1940 doctrine. Somewhat limited objectives and a tight control over early and middle advances were necessary where the enemy had a better very low level doctrine and training, to avoid overextending and getting knackered.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
The one time he tried something fancy, Market-Garden, he failed.
If by fancy you mean daring, he was often not rewarded for efforts to do that. He planned the initial Dieppe Raid, which was cancelled in July 1942, and when it was remounted all his insurance policies - paratroops, aerial bombardment, battleship support - had been stripped out, dooming the raid to failure.

Operation PERCH comes most readily to mind, though. Anyone surprised by MARKET-GARDEN's audacity should review the fact that Montgomery wanted a second airborne drop in the days immediately after D-Day, to create a breakthrough around Caen. The operation was scrubbed when the RAF rejected his plan.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I'd more say Montgomery could make a silk purse out of a bale of silk and with a room of seamstresses. Having said that, he was what the British Army needed after the regular drubbing it got from DAK. The one time he tried something fancy, Market-Garden, he failed. His forte was the methodical battle, more akin to Allied 1919 or 1940 doctrine. Somewhat limited objectives and a tight control over early and middle advances were necessary where the enemy had a better very low level doctrine and training, to avoid overextending and getting knackered.
It's not clear that was his forté was only plodding, stolid attacks. One could argue that Market-Garden's failure was due to a mis-reading of the German's willingness to continue the war as well as some tactical intelligence failures. If it had succeeded (and if the underlying assumptions had been correct, it might have), we would be praising the bold Field Marshal Montgomery. In an analogous way, if Rommel's attack at Gazala failed with serious losses, we might be talking about the foolhardy Rommel instead of the Desert Fox. Against an experienced, determined and morally corageous opponent it is hard to gain crushing defeats that we like to think mark a great general.

JR
 

Ric of The LBC

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
1,881
Reaction score
1,838
Location
Peoples Republic of California
Country
llUnited States
It's not clear that was his forté was only plodding, stolid attacks. One could argue that Market-Garden's failure was due to a mis-reading of the German's willingness to continue the war as well as some tactical intelligence failures. If it had succeeded (and if the underlying assumptions had been correct, it might have), we would be praising the bold Field Marshal Montgomery. In an analogous way, if Rommel's attack at Gazala failed with serious losses, we might be talking about the foolhardy Rommel instead of the Desert Fox. Against an experienced, determined and morally corageous opponent it is hard to gain crushing defeats that we like to think mark a great general.

JR
Isn't this analogous to the difference between a hero and a fool is a well-placed bullet?
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
It's not clear that his forté was only plodding, stolid attacks.
Sure it is. He said as much himself. The book COLOSSAL CRACKS goes into detail about his way of war.

What isn't clear is why anyone would criticize him for not being willing to gamble the lives of his men the way other, "flashier" generals were.

There is no doubt Montgomery had a healthy opinion of himself and his abilities, which tends to muddy the waters in discussions about him. It's amusing to note that the last 4 or 6 weeks of his time commanding 8th Army in southern Italy is absent from his memoirs - a period that Advancing Fire is now exploring with their Orsogna project. One does note however that in place of an analysis of their failure to breach the Winter Line in late 1943, he reproduced a two page poem about his winter coat instead.

But as for "plodding" - not only does he admit it but he is getting more credit for doing it, since a rational analysis of the resources available to 8th Army and later 21st Army Group leads one to the conclusion that it would have been foolish not to rely on the overwhelming amounts of artillery and air support they enjoyed, and the numerical advantage in tanks, particularly in the face of severe shortages of trained infantry reinforcements.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Isn't this analogous to the difference between a hero and a fool is a well-placed bullet?
Usually it's a question of intention. There are plenty of dead heroes who were awarded a medal, and plenty of dead fools who weren't. Sometimes you can't be sure, but often you can. Of course if you are saying that if you end up dead you must be a fool and not a hero, then perhaps.

With generals having a win will get you more good press and losing will get you bad. It's hard to call a general who loses a good general even if he did more than most could.
When you look at the Market Garden attack, it was a big gamble. But there was little downside (as long as you weren't in the British/Polish airborne), and if it had worked it would have been a big payoff because there wouldn't have been the big pause while waiting to build up for the crossing.

JR
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
. But there was little downside (as long as you weren't in the British/Polish airborne), and if it had worked it would have been a big payoff because there wouldn't have been the big pause while waiting to build up for the crossing.
There was a huge downside, and that was the delay in opening Antwerp and the Scheldt. Had the airborne been used at Walcheren - like Simonds wanted - the critical supply problem would have been ended about six weeks earlier. This is in hindsight, naturally. Terry Copp discusses the operations planning for Walcheren in detail. Montgomery gave priority to Market-Garden after Eisenhower gave Montgomery priority for supplies. Had they moved on the Scheldt instead, KG Chill would not have been in a position to punish the Canadians as badly as they did.
 

Gordon

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
2,488
Reaction score
2,940
Country
llUnited States
No question that Antwerp was useless without the Scheldt being clear,. It was one of the biggest blunders of the war. But how much of the big pause to build up for the Rhine crossing was just Ike's insistence on a broad front strategy? There were several instances where the Allied armies could have jumped the Rhine earlier than they did. That could have had a cascading effect of putting more pressure on the Germans which would have allowed more crossings, etc., etc.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
No question that Antwerp was useless without the Scheldt being clear,. It was one of the biggest blunders of the war. But how much of the big pause to build up for the Rhine crossing was just Ike's insistence on a broad front strategy? There were several instances where the Allied armies could have jumped the Rhine earlier than they did. That could have had a cascading effect of putting more pressure on the Germans which would have allowed more crossings, etc., etc.
Patton proved it by sneaking a division across the day before PLUNDER.

The pause was not that long, though. The fight for the Rhineland had been grueling and only ended after the slog through the mud on the west side in early March. Whether they could have gone a week or so earlier, I don't know in detail, but it's possible. I doubt the soldiers minded much having a breather.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
This thread has gone massively off topic. Even though slightly interesting, let's take the Montgomery elsewhere.
If you want it steered back on topic, maybe just say something interesting about the topic.
 
Top