Gavin and All

I agree Montgomery was a great general in Africa and europe.

Yeah,

He was good but his attitude wasn’t the best

as he took to much credit for saving

American soldiers lives. I’ll take Patton

over Monte. Monte was extremely conservative

and waited until he had superior numbers on

Rommel (the combined allies) to fight him.

This is elementry and he wouldn’t have dared

take on Rommel and the deadly african corps
with equal numbers.

Thank God for Bradley and Eisenhower they

held the western allies together. Gavin

In Africa Montgomery fought a very cautious war of atrition against Rommel. Rommel commented several times that he and his men were always up against fresh troops and equipment on the Allied side. How clever Monty was, I don’t know. I do know in Afica, he took no chances and let the overwelming odds in his favor win for him…

Monty used deception perfectly. He staged SO many false attacks preluding his attack to break out of Egypt. He attacked falsly from the sea, air, southern and southeastern flanks. This kept the German tanks guessing where to attack and not backing up the front lines. One of his chief advisors was actually a career Magician.

“History is just a set of lies agreed upon”

• Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte

[ This Message was edited by: Yanny on 2001-12-22 05:54 ]

I think that monty was I solid general but he wasn’t the type that had all those brilliant strategies like rommel but he got the job done and that’s what matters.

Rommel himself wasn’t really fooled with Montgomery’s tactics. During the desert war, bad communications hurt the German cause. Rommel’s generals had made desisions in the field outside Rommel’s main objectives. This hurt the overall effort. The main German problem was supply (especially fuel) and replacement troops. Rommel got away with taking what he could from the British when he was winning. This as we all know changed after El Alamein…

I don’t know if monty could have beat rommel if it wasn’t for rommel’s lack of fuel supplies and fresh troops.

No, Rommel just wasn’t there :smile:. One thing that always puzzled me, for every single war decided battle Rommel was supposed to lead, he was back in Berlin. The Breakout of the British in Egypt, The defense of Tunisia, D-Day. He even tried to kill Hitler, maybe Rommel was on the allied side.

Rommel WAS at El Alamein. He knew the war was over after that battle. He fought on professionally, but he knew it was over…

What I always liked about Rommel was how he knew when the war was over and not fanatacial.

Montgomery an idiot?!?! Bite your tongue, friend! He was only one of the great generals at the disposal of the British Empire! All i have to say about that is look who ultimately won in north africa! Rommel could not took Tobruk in a timely manner and frequently overstretched his supply lines. Flashy generalship will usually lead to defeat.

“British Generals and American Troops, the best of both worlds…” - Some movie

I the British weren’t so great at commanding =)

And I didnt think Rommel was there? I could be wrong. Time to hit the books and check.

Now I think you’re giving Monty bit too much credit.Sure he did beat a depleted Rommel in north Africa but come on he wasn’t the best general in the history of the british empire.

I think the reason everyone doesnt like Monty is because in the movies, and french books <no offense=“” french=“” people,=“” i=“” am=“” french-canadian=“” myself=“”>always put him down. He was a cross of Rommel and Good old Ike. He had the administration skills and the battle skills.

And, in 1940-1942, Monty was all the British had.</no>

from 1940 to 1942 Montgomery was hardly a major figure in Britan.Monty didn’t really become a household name untill his arrival in north africa.

When exactly did Monty arrive in North Africa? I forget.

I don’t know ethir.Have to hit the books

really, that late? Wow, I thought it was a good year earlier.