History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Did Monygomery say this?
no-neck
Member Since: August 26, 2005
entire network: 87 Posts
KitMaker Network: 67 Posts
Posted: Thursday, March 13, 2008 - 08:42 PM UTC
I recently ran across a statement attributed to Montgomery in early Dec. of 44'. His statement suppoedly was; "The enemy is at present fighting a defensive campaign on all fronts; his situation is such that he cannot stage major offensive operations. Furthermore, at all costs he has to prevent the war from entering a mobile phase; he has not the transport or the petrol that would be necessary for mobile operations, nor could his tanks compete with ours in the mobile battle." Can anyone confirm or refute this?
GSPatton
Member Since: September 04, 2002
entire network: 1,411 Posts
KitMaker Network: 785 Posts
Posted: Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 03:47 PM UTC
Sounds like something Monty would have said - oh, mid-December 1944 - right before the Germans launched the Ardennes offensive. 
footsie
Member Since: May 13, 2007
entire network: 305 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, March 31, 2008 - 01:08 AM UTC
Montgomery did say this, but it was after Eisenhower said the enemy has lost the will to fight , and you are right it was december 1944. !!!!!!!!!
no-neck
Member Since: August 26, 2005
entire network: 87 Posts
KitMaker Network: 67 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 08:55 AM UTC
Tony, the quote I posted came from "Lucky forward" by Col. Robert S. Allen. Can you tell me where to find the Eisenhower "lost the will to fight" quote?
Finch
Member Since: August 03, 2005
entire network: 411 Posts
KitMaker Network: 134 Posts
Posted: Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 12:42 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I recently ran across a statement attributed to Montgomery in early Dec. of 44'. His statement suppoedly was; "The enemy is at present fighting a defensive campaign on all fronts; his situation is such that he cannot stage major offensive operations. Furthermore, at all costs he has to prevent the war from entering a mobile phase; he has not the transport or the petrol that would be necessary for mobile operations, nor could his tanks compete with ours in the mobile battle." Can anyone confirm or refute this?
Yup.
But, hey, not to beat up on Monty too much.....Bradley and the US 12th Army Group staff were convinced the Germans had nothing left with which to attack and therefore were not worried about the US VIII Corps sector (where the Germans attacked). This was despite BOTH G-2s (intelligence officers) from the US 1st Army AND US 3rd Army predicting enemy offensive action in the Ardennes. Remarkably 12th Army Group G-2 did not ensure 1st Army and 3rd Army were aware of each others' predictions.
GSPatton
Member Since: September 04, 2002
entire network: 1,411 Posts
KitMaker Network: 785 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 09:02 AM UTC
Actually, almost all Allied generals were convinced Germany was finished by December '44 - Except George Patton. He predicted that the German's would attack through the Ardennes, because that is what history told him they would do. Old Georgie was one smart fellow...
BigJon
Member Since: July 12, 2005
entire network: 757 Posts
KitMaker Network: 110 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 02, 2008 - 01:46 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Old Georgie was one smart fellow...
not so smart as to realise the shortcomings of the M4 Medium over the newly developed Pershing
whittman181
Member Since: December 30, 2006
entire network: 646 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 02, 2008 - 04:19 PM UTC
Georgie didn't like the Pershing? 
Stoottroeper
Member Since: June 10, 2007
entire network: 1,107 Posts
KitMaker Network: 18 Posts
Posted: Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 03:40 PM UTC
Hi Frank,
This is the story we are indeed normally told. But there are rumours that Eisenhower was looking for a way to get the Germans out of the Siegfriedline and inviting them to use their best men and equipment in the Ardennes so the Allies could have an easier pass through the heavy fortifications would readily fit in these rumours.
Mind you, this was shortly after the Battle for the Hurtgenforest, and he knew better than all of us how many US casualties that battle gave in a non-fortified area.
Further more, the German generals were surprised that the US forces could change their main axis of attack so quickly. Does this mean that the US high command was more flexible then the battle-seasoned German who were used to fighting the war with adhoc battlegroups in stead of the renowned panzerdivisions?
I think not
Must say, fighting a defensive winterbattle in the Ardennes will probably give less allied casualties than a all out attack on a well manned Siegfiedline.( Off course the Siegfriedline was still manned after the Battle of the Bulge, but these troops were fewer and of a lesser grade than the attackers on December 16.)
So, my guess is that Eisenhower made a calculated risk to save allied lives and took the loss of prestige for granted.
Quoted Text
Actually, almost all Allied generals were convinced Germany was finished by December '44 - Except George Patton. He predicted that the German's would attack through the Ardennes, because that is what history told him they would do. Old Georgie was one smart fellow...
This is the story we are indeed normally told. But there are rumours that Eisenhower was looking for a way to get the Germans out of the Siegfriedline and inviting them to use their best men and equipment in the Ardennes so the Allies could have an easier pass through the heavy fortifications would readily fit in these rumours.
Mind you, this was shortly after the Battle for the Hurtgenforest, and he knew better than all of us how many US casualties that battle gave in a non-fortified area.
Further more, the German generals were surprised that the US forces could change their main axis of attack so quickly. Does this mean that the US high command was more flexible then the battle-seasoned German who were used to fighting the war with adhoc battlegroups in stead of the renowned panzerdivisions?
I think not
Must say, fighting a defensive winterbattle in the Ardennes will probably give less allied casualties than a all out attack on a well manned Siegfiedline.( Off course the Siegfriedline was still manned after the Battle of the Bulge, but these troops were fewer and of a lesser grade than the attackers on December 16.)
So, my guess is that Eisenhower made a calculated risk to save allied lives and took the loss of prestige for granted.
m4sherman
Member Since: January 18, 2006
entire network: 1,866 Posts
KitMaker Network: 67 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 30, 2008 - 12:48 PM UTC
Sounds like a Monty quote, and what just about everyone else was saying. Keep in mind of course that the Allied intelligence was helped by Ultra, and since the Germans did not radio the plans there was great skeptisim from most high ranking officers over what those at the local level were seeing. Ultra did not filter down to the men observing the German buildup first hand.
Patton and other US generals had a battle savvy that Ike lacked. From my perspective if Ike had decided to let them come, he would have thumped his chest later, and reacted far more quickly at the time.
Patton and other US generals had a battle savvy that Ike lacked. From my perspective if Ike had decided to let them come, he would have thumped his chest later, and reacted far more quickly at the time.
Drader
Member Since: July 20, 2004
entire network: 3,791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 765 Posts
Posted: Monday, June 30, 2008 - 08:23 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextOld Georgie was one smart fellow...
not so smart as to realise the shortcomings of the M4 Medium over the newly developed Pershing
Patton was described by one of his own divisional commanders as knowing less about tanks than virtually anyone else he knew. Which is fair enough since army commanders generally have other things to think about than micro-managing equipment supply.
David
Splinty
Member Since: February 06, 2004
entire network: 114 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 02:23 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextOld Georgie was one smart fellow...
not so smart as to realise the shortcomings of the M4 Medium over the newly developed Pershing
Patton was described by one of his own divisional commanders as knowing less about tanks than virtually anyone else he knew. Which is fair enough since army commanders generally have other things to think about than micro-managing equipment supply.
David
Yeah, but ya' think even a 4 star General would know something about the main weapon his men used...
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.