Posts made by Lazarus

@KurtGodel7:

As you’ve seen fit to regurgitate your earlier quote from the German generals, I will likewise revisit the following text from the Wikipedia article about Patton……

Feel free to repeat your errors.
I remind you that the ‘quotes’ contained in the Wiki article are � corruptions of the original quotes from Liddel Hart.

To wit the part where Wiki claims Rundstedt said:
@KurtGodel7:

In an interview conducted for Stars and Stripes just after his capture, Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt summed up the predominant German view of the American general: “Patton,” Rundstedt concluded simply, “he is your best.”[4]

has been doctored by removing the words that refer to Montgomery.

The original:

In a reference to the Allied commanders, Rundstedt said:
“Montgomery and Patton were the two best that I met”.

Deliberate falsification.

@KurtGodel7:

As for the chart, I have not made the claims you’ve said I’ve made. I will not allow you to sidetrack the discussion with something so petty. My only observation about it had been that it was relevant for only a very narrow time range (around two months, with Operation Goodwood occurring around the middle of that time).

It is hard to take seriously someone who clearly has trouble understanding a simple  chart.
First you  falsely claimed  the chart was  only relevant for the period of Goodwood (3 days July 18/19/20)
Now you  opine that the chart covers a 2 month period.
How hard is it to figure out the chart covers the period  June 25th to July 25th, a month?

@Col.:

@Lazarus

From

“If you’re claiming there was no political component to the Allies’ command decisions, then your perspective bears no relationship with reality.”

How did you derive the exact opposite of that?

You also go from one post where you say Eisenhower was always in overall command, then in more than one post say how many people didn’t know that Montgomery was in overall command. Which is it?

If you can’t even keep your own story straight, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

It is quite simple. Montgomery was in Command from June 6th to September 1st.
From that date Eisenhower assumed the mantle.
I am at a loss as to how such a simple statement can be the cause of any confusion.
.

.@KurtGodel7:

Lazarus, you are confusing the issue. “It was decided he was the best man for the job” makes the decision to appoint Monty appear merit-based and apolitical. If you’re claiming there was no political component to the Allies’ command decisions, then your perspective bears no relationship with reality.

I think I see your problem.
Your hatred of Monty makes you assume he could never get the job on merit.
You are wrong and furthermore your (implied) assumption that the choice of a US Supreme Commander  had nothing to do with ‘politics’ shows your are naive in the extreme.
Let me give you one example where US Elections distorted the campaign in France:

17 August 1944
MARSHALL TO EISENHOWER
"Stimson and I and apparently all Americans are strongly of the opinion that the time has come for you to assume direct command of the American contingent because reaction to British criticism has been so strong by American journalists that it could become an important factor in the coming Congressional Elections. The astonishing success has produced emphatic expressions of confidence in you and Bradley but this has cast a damper on public enthusiasm

Not that I think anything I say can open your eyes to reality……

@KurtGodel7:

Lazarus seems intent on convincing us that Montgomery was at least Patton’s equal. He’s not going to be able to do that by objectively discussing the relative merits of the two generals; because that kind of discussion would clearly favor Patton

That  claim is demolished by the words of  Rundstedt and Blumentritt who both clearly state Montgomery and Patton were ‘the best’
It must really irk Kurt  to hear the Germans so comprehensively  reject his argument.

@KurtGodel7:

As an example, in post 70 on this thread, he mentioned that in June and July of '44, most of Germany’s Western European tank strength was allocated against the British portion of the Normandy invasion, not the American portion. But his data are relevant only for the time around Operation Goodwood.

Must be bad when you have to resort to fabrication.

Here is the chart again.

Note the exact opposite of Kurts claim.
At the time of Goodwood (July 18-20th) the German tank totals are at their second lowest since June 25!
Yes that s right for the time Kurt says the numbers were highest they were actualy lower than they were 5 days later
How wrong can one man be?
Throughout the campaign the bulk of the panzers were facing 21st Army Group and that is a solid fact. If it wasn’t then Kurt would post figures showing otherwise, something he will never be able to do.

@KurtGodel7:

I agree that Lazarus lacks credibility; and that his participation in this discussion has been very biased. For him, “Montgomery never suffered a reverse” means the same thing as “Montgomery was at least as good as Patton,” and anyone who thinks otherwise has succumbed to “legend.” He has used his participation in this discussion to make exaggerated or misleading claims, biased interpretations, inflammatory rhetoric, etc.

I will again post the words of the actual German Generals. Remember these are not my words but the thoughts of the men who faced both Patton and Montgomery.

The Other Side Of The Hill

page 355

What did the German generals think of their Western opponents
? They were diffident in expressing an opinion on this
matter, but I gathered a few impressions in the course of our
talks. In a reference to the Allied commanders, Rundstedt said:
"Montgomery and Patton were the two best that I met. FieldMarshal
Montgomery was very systematic." He added: “That
is all right if you have sufficient forces, and sufficient time.”
Blumentritt made a similar comment. After paying tribute to
the speed of Patton drive, he added: “Field-Marshal Montgomery
was the one general who never suffered a reverse. He
moved like this”-Blumentritt took a series of very deliberate
and short steps, putting his foot down heavily each time.
Giving his impression of the different qualities of the British
and American troops, Blumentritt said: “The Americans attacked
with zest, and had a keen sense of mobile action, but when
they came under heavy artillery fire they usualy fell back-even
after they had made a successful penetration. By contrast, once
the British had got their teeth in, and had been in a position
for twenty-four hours, it proved almost impossible to shift them.
To counter-attack the British always cost us very heavy losses.
I had many opportunities to observe this interesting difference
in the autumn of 1944, when the right half of my corps faced
the British, and the left half the American.”

There you have it straight from the horses mouth.
The choice is clear.
Do you share  Kurt’s view or the considered opinion  of Rundstedt and Blumentritt?
Tough choice isn’t it?

Test

@Deaths:

I believe he was Commander of land forces only, not naval or Air, and I am pretty sure Churchill did it to appease Monty

Incorrect. It may be hard for some to swallow but  it was decided he was the best man for the job.
You should look into how difficult it was for Eisenhower to get the USAAF/RAF to work with him.  Control of them (or the Navy) was never on offer.

@Deaths:

Montgomery, imagine if he would have been supreme commander……scary

He was ‘supreme commander’ of the forces in Normandy  from June 6th to August 31st.
Not a lot of people seem to know that.

@Clyde85:

with every post you just keeping digging the “i’m a jingoistic Anglophile” hole you’ve put yourself in alittle bit deeper……God Save the Queen!

As usual you make a collosal error. Would it make any difference if I told you I am Irish?

@Clyde85:

I am going to ignore any further posts you put here

A wise move. So far you have not managed to find a single fact that  confirms any of your claims.  Forced to use  Wiki and then  misrepresent the number for  POW’s you found as KIA. totals you lack the grace to admit  the data I posted shows your claim of 72 US Divisions in Europe is wrong.  I would say your defeat is of the same magnitude that befell the Germans in the summer of 1944.
I hold you no malice as I watch you running for the hills…… toodle pip old bean!

@Clyde85:

Yeah sure, if you want to include the ENTIRE armed forces of Britain in Europe, but im sorry, there is no way in hell that your figures are correct. The whole reason Monty was dropped as over all commander in Europe was because US forces outnumbered British forces by. As I said before 72 out of the 85 divisions in Europe by the surrender in 1945 were American and not British.

You can repeat your fabrications as often as you want but it will never change the actual numbers.
Your claim there were 72 US Divisions in NW Europe is bogus.
The Commonwealth numbers are the exact comparison to the US numbers.
It is incorrect to say it is the total of the entire Commonwealth Armed Forces.
Your claim is a falsification.
The figures I gave you come from a book entitled
US Army In WW2. The European Theatre Of Operations. The Supreme Command.  and are in  Appendix D,
Forces Under SHAEF, 1944-45.
The full citation  for the printing is:
CMH Publication 7-1
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WASHINGTON, D.C., 1954
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 53-61717
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C., 20402
Nothing to do with appease their(British) sense of national pride

@Clyde85:

This is your source? LOL bwahahahahah! Yes im sure this is a very reliable source as the British would never fudge some numbers to appease their sense of national pride  :

bwahahahahah to you because I gave you 2 sources. The official British numbers and the official US ones.
It is up to you which ones you want to use but they both blow apart your bogus numbers.

So far in this thread every ‘source/number’ you give turns out to be wrong!

Just in case you missed it here are the US figures

US Forces in Europe
Infantry Divisions:    42
1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 26th, 28th, 29th,
30th, 35th, 36th, 42d, 44th, 45th, 63d, 65th, 66th, 69th,
70th, 71st, 75th, 76th, 78th, 79th, 80th, 83d, 84th, 86th,
87th, 89th, 90th, 94th, 95th, 97th, 99th, 100th, 102d, 103d,
104th, 106th
Armored Divisions:  15
2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 20th
Airborne Divisions:    4 
13th, 17th, 82d, 101st

From:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Supreme/USA-E-Supreme-D.html

Please use them to confirm your earlier claim:

@Clyde85:

The US had 72 divisions in the field by the end of the warout of a total of 85 allied divisions, a factor of more then 4 to 1

The claim Monty was ‘dropped’ is frankly bizzare and betrays a complete lack of any real understanding. Eisenhower was always the overall Commander but he (wisely) allowed the most experienced man run the battle on his behalf. A wise move as it turned out!

Victory in the West Volume II of the Official British History of the Second World War by Major LF Ellis, Appendix VII

Allied strength on April 30th 1945 was:-

British: Army 835,208 Naval 16,221* Air Force 460,000** Total 1,311,429
Canadian: Army 183,421 Naval 0 Air Force34,000** Total 217,421
Australian/NZ: Army 0 Naval 0 Air Force 12,500** Total 12,500
American: Army 2,618,023 Naval 7,035 Air Force 447,482*** Total 3,072,540
French: Army 413,144 Naval 0 Air Force 24,000**** Total 437,144
Others: Army 34,518 Naval 0 Air Force 15,500** Total 50,018
Totals: Army 4,084,314 Naval 23,256 Air Force 993,482 Grand Total 5,101,052

*RN & USN in the campaign area
**RAF: Bomber Command, Fighter Command, Coastal Command (16,18 & 19 Groups), 2nd Tactical AF and Special Groups (38 & 46)
***USAAF: 8th & 9th AF, First (Provisional) Tactical AF and IX Troop Carrier Command
****First French Air Corps, French Western Air Forces and French Sqns in RAF commands
*****Others relates to contingents from Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Norway and Polish

@Clyde85:

The US had 72 divisions in the field by the end of the war out of a total of 85 allied divisions, a factor of more then 4 to 1……you can try again now

The reality can be seen here

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Supreme/USA-E-Supreme-D.html

US 61

UK 17
Can  5

F/French 7

These figures are for Divisions only. For the UK/Can this  excludes 6 Armored Brigades. For the uninitiated an Armoured Brigade was the tank strength of an Armoured Division and they  do not appear on the Divisional  headcount.
Furthermore one of the UK Armoured Divisions (79th) was a specialised Unit that had 3 times the tank units of an ordinary Armoured Division.
It is obvious now that an attempt to count Divisions only is a partial counting method that undercounts the Commonwealth contribution.

@Clyde85:

Also, I don’t think you should get to count Canadian forces under the British total as they were a separate and equal power in the war. Canada had its own Army and its own indigenous commanders who were raised and trained in Canada. Men like Guy Simonds, Harry Crerar, Andrew MaNaughton, and the men of the first Canadian Army were the one who led the breakout from Normandy and closed the Falaise pocket, not Monty.

Ah but you said earlier  Monty ‘failed’ to close the gap. Now you backtrack and say the Canadians were responsible?
What made you change your  line of argument?
I might add that the 2 Divisions chosen to ‘close the gap’ were relative newcomers and ony one  was Canadian. I leave you to find  out the nationality of the other……

@Clyde85:

And I think this really proves it. Here is an army and a group of commanders that gets over shadowed by the “British” war effort and grouped in with what Monty did, when in reality they should be recognized for their individual contributions to the war as Canadians not British and not Monty.

OK now point me to a US source that seperates out the achievements of the French Armoured Division as distinct from the US success.

Perhaps you could also give me the force ratio for Bradley during Cobra.
If Monty is said to have only won because he vastly outnumbered the
Germans then it can  be said Bradley and Patton had greatly superior advantages (than Montgomery) when they attacked

@Clyde85:

The US had 72 divisions in the field by the end of the war out of a total of 85 allied divisions, a factor of more then 4 to 1……you can try again now

Wrong.

The reality can be seen here

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Supreme/USA-E-Supreme-D.html

US 61

UK 17
Can  5

F/French 7

These figures are for Divisions only. For the UK/Can this  excludes 6 Armored Brigades. For the uninitiated an Armoured Brigade was the tank strength of an Armoured Division and they  do not appear on the Divisional  headcount.
Furthermore one of the UK Armoured Divisions (79th) was a specialised Unit that had 3 times the tank units of an ordinary Armoured Division.
It is obvious now that an attempt to count Divisions only is a partial counting method that undercounts the Commonwealth contribution.

@Clyde85:

US forces out numbered British force by more then 4 to 1 by the end OF THE WAR. The US had 72 divisions in the field by the end of the war out of a total of 85 allied divisions, a factor of more then 4 to 1.

And yet the numbers say the manpower totals are 1.5 million to 3  million?

@Clyde85:

US forces out numbered British force by more then 4 to 1 by the end OF THE WAR.

Note the dates I gave. May and June 1945.
That, I believe, is THE END OF THE WAR

@Col.:

I’ll think you’ll find that he as the only command at D-Day who failed to get off the beach and blame their problems on logistical failures.

Sorry but that is just plain wrong. Every single beach failed to  reach its D-Day ‘phase line’ Every beach.
If you want we can talk about the one beach where progress was so bad there were serious  thought given to  re-embark and  abandon it.
Can you guess which one it was……

@Col.:

Or are you speaking of how he couldn’t get off the beachhead in Normandy.

I think you will find he did because I saw photos of him taking the German surrender in 1945.

@Col.:

SO tanks were the only thing on the continent?

No sir.

Manppower numbers

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Supreme/USA-E-Supreme-E.html

UK/ Canadian 16 June 1945   1,072.717 Â

US  May 3,021,483

and the note on UK/Canadian  numbers says:

 These statistics must be used with the warning that they cannont be the basis of comparison between the U.S. and British air efforts. U.S. air strengths listed in Table 7 inlcude the air forces both in the United Kingdom and on the Continent. The British forces in this table include only those on the Continent. Total British air force strength (including WAAF) amounted to 819,578 on 1 May 1945. Needless to say a considerable part of this force was used in the preinvasion period and during the campaigns in northwest Europe in support of the Allied campaigns

So if done on a like for like comparison we can say 1.5 million v 3 million

Who said 4 to 1 in Normandy again?

@Clyde85:

Only during the initial landings on June 6th were there an even number of US and British forces(5 and 5) and as the battles progressed US forces outnumbered their British counter-parts more then 4 to 1 by the end.

June US Tank strength  1710
June UK Tank strength  2666

July US    3407
July UK    3828

Aug US      4379
Aug UK      4297

Have another try.