|
Posts:
863
Registered:
3/31/01
|
|
(16 of 33)
Wrong and doesn't answer my point.
Aug 18, 2004 1:32 AM
|
Bronk, try to stick to facts. Most of your post is either irrelevant or wrong. My point was that Monty did plan and execute a successful offensive operation at Alamein, while you claimed he did not.
> 1. Monty had overwhelming advantages[supplies being the big one,intelligence, etc..] at Alamein.
Irrelevant. If anything, it shows Monty at least had some ability as a general. After all, it's a general's job to make sure he can bring overwhelming force against the enemy line, when attacking the enemy. Patton had the same advantages in France, so does that mean his efforts can be discounted, by your reasoning?
>2. not only that, he was in the defense at first,...the Germans were ATTACKING HIM..so this doesn't appear to look like great generalship by Monty<>just fortify the position and wait for the disadvantaged attacker...
Irrelevant. He took command after a successful defensive operation that regained the initiative from the enemy. That has nothing to do with whether his later attack at Alamein was successful or not. Besides, the USMC on Guadalcanal or the US in the Ardennes did the same. Does that mean, in your eyes, that their later offensive efforts have no merit?
>2. after stopping the UNDERSUPPLIED Germans, Monty couldn't immediately break through the German line
Don't you mean "3"? Wrong. It wasn't Monty who stopped Rommel, it was the Auk- at 1st Alamein. Rommel had only just taken charge when Rommel launched his 30 August attack at Alam Halfa, so Monty can't claim credit for thaat, either, as the preparations were Auk's. Not only that, but Monty didn't try to attack the Germans after Alam Halfa, despite Rommel expecting him to (and conventional military wisdom also calling for an immediate attack). So your comment that Monty "couldn't" break the German line is also wrong. He didn't even try.
>Monty had all the advantages, and he didn't breed these either
Irrelevant WTF? What does this mean? And what's wrong with having an advantage over your enemy (I understood that bit, not the comment about breeding)? If it's wrong to have an advantage over your enemy, then Patton, Bradley, Devers, etc don't deserve their reputations, either.
>if you think stopping an under supplied attacker is a great offensive victory, then that's your opinion
Wrong. It's your problem, mate, because we were talking about Montgomery's offensive at 3rd Alamein. Not the Auk's defensive battle at 1st Alamein. Not Rommel's attack at 2nd Alamein. Monty's attack at 3rd Alamein. Got the right battle, now? The offensive where he attacked, defeated and then pursued the Germans? Like it or not, by any military definition it was a successful offensive operation.
Interesting that you should bring up the poor German supply situation, so often, as a reason for discrediting Monty, too. Considering that most US operations were made against poorly supplied and/or equipped enemies, from Torch to Operation Cobra to the island campaigns of the Pacific, it must mean that you see no merit in those, either. Or is you criterion of merit decided by which uniform the Allied general wore?
All your post proves is that you have no substantial reason for your apparent hatred of Monty. It's all prejudice and bias. What I don't understand is why? Do you hate any other successful, non-US generals? Do you know of any other non-US Allied generals, for that matter?
Dal.
If "The System" is the answer, who asked such a bloody silly question?
|
|
|
Posts:
2,366
Registered:
9/17/03
|
|
(17 of 33)
Aug 18, 2004 4:38 AM
|
|
Guadalcanal was TOTALLY different<>the marines were undersupplied, were shelled by naval[bigger than most land]guns,cut-off by the sea,etc etc...it wasn't Monty that gave the Brits ALL the advantages, but the strategists and intell who stopped the germans' supplies...we're talking about how Monty stopped an UNDERSUPPLIED, WORN DOWN ENEMY..wow..real hard job....
|
|
|
Posts:
2,366
Registered:
9/17/03
|
|
(18 of 33)
Aug 18, 2004 4:52 AM
|
|
create the advantage...and if you have all the advantages and win, can you really call that great generalship???
|
|
|
Posts:
863
Registered:
3/31/01
|
|
(19 of 33)
Stick to the point or give up, mate.
Aug 20, 2004 4:02 PM
|
G'day, Bronk.
Your point, which I challenged, was this:
>El Alamein was NOT a decisive OFFENSIVE victory
As Monty can only take credit/blame for the attack, defeat and pursuit of Rommel's forces at 3rd Alamein, then it was an offensive victory, by any standard definition of such. So how well the Poms defended, how better supplied they were, how many of them there were, are all irrelevant to the main point of this discussion- Monty's battle at 3rd Alamein was a successful offensive victory. And considering the subsequent fate of Rommel's armies, it was also decisive.
>Guadalcanal was TOTALLY different<>the marines were undersupplied, were shelled by naval[bigger than most land]guns,cut-off by the sea,etc etc...
And they did well. But the point remains that, after stopping a poorly-supplied and out numbered Japanese force, they then went over to the offensive to clear them from the island. In your previous post you argued that if the enemy was under-supplied and stopped, then the later ofensive operations brought no credit to the force that conducted them. If that holds true to the Poms in NA, it also holds for your USMC blokes on Guadalcanal.
>it wasn't Monty that gave the Brits ALL the advantages, but the strategists and intell who stopped the germans' supplies..
Patton wasn't responsible for all the advantages his troops had, either. Neither was Guderian, Mac, Bradley, Rommel, Slim or any other general commanding a force. That's what their staff was for, to organise replacements, new equipment, co-ordinate air support, lines of supply and supply columns. The general's job was to ensure that all this new kit and information was used in the best, or at least a competent, manner against the enemy. If Monty can't be a good general because he benefitted from Enigma and the work of his staff, than Patton and the other US generals have to be discreditted as well, on the same grounds.
>we're talking about how Monty stopped an UNDERSUPPLIED, WORN DOWN ENEMY..wow..real hard job....
NO! We're talking about whether Monty launched a successful offensive operation against Rommel. You claim he didn't, I (and history) claim he did. The question about a defensive victory at Alamein (which is to the Auk's credit, not Monty's, in any case) is one you keep bringing up, in an attempt to lead the discussion off track and away from the error you made. And I won't fall for that trick.
> create the advantage...and if you have all the advantages and win, can you really call that great generalship???
So you think the US commanders in NW Europe are all over-rated? I wouldn't be so quick to condemn on just this criterion, but you do have a point. Considering the overwhelming advantages they enjoyed in NW Europe, from Operation Cobra to the Elbe, none of the Allied (that includes the Poms, Canadians and French, by the way) had to be more than competent to get their jobs done. When they operated without the benefit of all those advantages (outnumbering the enemy, far better supply, air superiority, good intelligence, better equipment), they looked fairly ordinary (Market-Garden, Metz, Huertgen Forest, Ardennes).
Why not just admit that your original point was wrong and that Monty's attack at Alamein was a successful, offensive victory? Are you so blinded by bias and prejudice that you'll even deny history, just to try to lower Monty's reputation a little more? That you'll even call the competence of your own heroes into question, rather than accept Monty may have once attacked with success?
Why this hatred of Monty, for that matter?
Dal.
If "The System" is the answer, who asked such a bloody silly question?
|
|
|
Posts:
15
Registered:
8/15/04
|
|
(20 of 33)
Re: Weapon of War? NOW NOW GRIESBACH
Aug 20, 2004 11:25 PM
|
To Griesbach: You have no imagination, do you? You seem intent to shun imagination as if it is the evil that valiant men fought against some 60 years ago. Let us have our fun, will you?
To the bagpipers: I don't know about any of you, but the bagpipe (when played correctly) has one of the most soothing sounds and effects I have ever encountered. Also, it can rouse me to do rather ingenius acts in respect to writing. Good thing we are not a bunch of "Taz the Tazmanian Devils."
|
|
|
Posts:
2,366
Registered:
9/17/03
|
|
(21 of 33)
the marines at Guadalcanal didn't have the supplies
Aug 23, 2004 4:44 AM
|
|
that the Brits had at Alamein!!!!!!!!and they were on an island....where the enemy had a naval advantage!!!I repeat<>1.the enemy was just about stopped because of supplies at Alamein..2.Monty's original attack at Alamein was STOPPED...he had numerical advantages in supply/ tanks/manpower...you are supposed to have a 3-1 ratio when attacking,so, Monty really didn't do anything a sergeant couldn't do!!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
1,507
From:
southern bc
Registered:
11/12/07
|
|
(22 of 33)
Re: Monty's latest victory!
Jun 26, 2009 12:49 AM
|
Good grief Toomtie and here I thought you were a Shotts and Dykehead fan ! 
Well since we Canadians won it in 2008 I guess we'll soon find out who'll be the champs of 09
|
|
|
Posts:
888
From:
South Texas, where the snow never falls.
Registered:
1/12/09
|
|
(23 of 33)
Jun 28, 2009 11:53 AM
|
> El Alamein was NOT a decisive OFFENSIVE victory...in
> Sicily, his troops were stopped..in Normandy, his
> troops were stopped, [as mentioned in the Falaise
> post, it was Monty's fault], Monty's market-garden
> was another failure, he didn't open up the Scheldt
> estuary for the CRITICAL supply situation,
> etc,,etc,,,Monty was a loser....
An excellent and accurate post sir.
|
|
|
Posts:
888
From:
South Texas, where the snow never falls.
Registered:
1/12/09
|
|
(24 of 33)
Jun 28, 2009 12:13 PM
|
|
The point of the spear in the so-called British 8th army was Australians and New Zealanders. The 51st Scottish Highland division was present (miraculously re-birthed after their total surrender in France) Not to mention troops from Australia, India, Canada, Free French Forces, Greece, New Zealand, Poland, Rhodesia, South Africa and more. Monty was a cartoon character and unworthy of command of this fine international army.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,397
From:
Stockport UK
Registered:
2/11/03
|
|
(25 of 33)
Jun 29, 2009 4:05 AM
|
> The point of the spear in the so-called British 8th
> army was Australians and New Zealanders. The 51st
> Scottish Highland division was present (miraculously
> re-birthed after their total surrender in France) Not
> to mention troops from Australia, India, Canada,
> Free French Forces, Greece, New Zealand, Poland,
> Rhodesia, South Africa and more. Monty was a cartoon
> character and unworthy of command of this fine
> international army.
Don't feed the troll :P
--
If in doubt..... Panic !!!!!
|
|
|
Posts:
5,015
From:
Seattle Area
Registered:
5/6/03
|
|
(26 of 33)
Re: Monty's latest victory!
Jun 29, 2009 9:25 AM
|
|
Patton was of Scots-Irish heritage. Does that explain anything?
|
|
|
Posts:
5,057
Registered:
2/15/03
|
|
(27 of 33)
Re: Monty's latest victory! Patton was of Scottish heritage
Jun 29, 2009 11:17 AM
|
like U.S. Grant and Douglas McArthur Pattonm- was of Scottish origin.
His Scottish male ancestor Robert Paton (pronounced PAYTON as in ''Peyron Place''-Patton is an American spelling and affectation and pronounciation) who emigrated from Mauchline (pronounced ''MOCKLINE') IN 1760 emigrated to Virginia U.S.A, where he prospered in colonial businnes matters founding the fortune that funded George S's lifestyle and education ultimately.
Mauchline is in Ayrshire where Patton's boss Dwight D Eisenhower enjoyed vacationing at Culzean (Killain) Castle in the apartmwents gifted to him and his family in perpetuity as a token of thanks from the Scottishpeople to Ike for his leadership in WW2.
Just south of Patton's ancestral Scottish homeland of Ayrshire (incidentally the only part of the U'K. vistied by Elvis Presley-in 1960) is Kirbubright (Kir-coo-bray) birthplace of the Scottish founder of the United States Navy, John Paul Jones here you can still see in the parish church the baptismal font donated in 1945 ny Admiral Stark U.S.N. as a token of thanks to the Scottish people for givibng the USA the founder of the USN-Paul Jones.
Jones whose statue adorns the Naval Academy at Annapolis was baptised n the church where Admiral Stark U.S.N. dnated the new baptismal font.
Incidentaly, Patton's wife's paternal Scottish ancestor from Aberdeen, Scotland, who fought with Bonnie Prince at Culloden in 1746 against the Redcoats later became a hero of the American War of Independence fighting for the 13 colonies and a much admired friend of George Washington..
Just one of countless Scots who have played a key role in the history of the USA.THROUGHOUT THE AGES..
|
|
|
Posts:
1,623
From:
Utica, IL
Registered:
5/5/08
|
|
(28 of 33)
Re: Monty's latest victory!
Jun 29, 2009 2:23 PM
|
Field-Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery has scored another famous victory!. In Glasgow, Scotland, on Saturday August 14th,2004,the Field Marshal Montgomery Pipe band from Northern Ireland, won the World Bagpiping
Championships-so where is yer Ike Eisenhower and
Geordie S. Patton noo!?.
Dear TT,
Has Monty ever won an Academy Award(Patton)? Been on the New York Times Best Seller list( Crusade In Europe and A Soldier's Story)?. I don't think so. SO, let's be grateful for all the honors bestowed on all our ALLIED heroes.
TH
P.S. Why wasn't the Pipe Band from Tasmania?
|
|
|
Posts:
888
From:
South Texas, where the snow never falls.
Registered:
1/12/09
|
|
(29 of 33)
Re: Monty's latest victory!
Jun 29, 2009 4:04 PM
|
> Patton was of Scots-Irish heritage. Does that
> explain anything?
Not a thing. He was 100% American made.
E Pluribus Unum
|
|
|
Posts:
2,855
Registered:
10/20/03
|
|
(30 of 33)
Re: Monty's latest victory!
Jun 29, 2009 4:41 PM
|
|
I believe his grandfather was a rebel who was a colonel that got killed at Gettysburg leading some Virginia regiment at Picket's charge.
|
|
|
|
|
