I think that if you put Monty in the Normandy bocage country he never would have gotten out of it. On the other hand if you Patton and the Third Army on that nice level tank country that he Brits had he would have been long gone. Monty was a "straight ahead" general, he never quite caught on to the idea that if the enemy was strong in front of you go around him.

Monty was very casualty averse since the Brits were running out of manpower and he had been criticised for the losses incurred in the Alemein head on attacks. Patton was willing to spend lives to get into the German's rear areas where armor could run wild. This saved lives in the long run as our airpower limited the German's mobility. If Patton had been running down that two lane road in Market Garden his armored units would have just soaked up the German's firepower, taken casualties and kept going depending on the followup infantry to clean up the bypassed German units.

I'm not a great fan of Monty, but it has to be said that he was his own worst enemy. He wanted to give the impression that the Battle of Normandy went the way he planned right from the start. This was patently untrue, and in fact he was doing himself down;

..........snipped.............

I can't think of a better Army Group commander in the ETO than Monty, so things would certainly not have improved if he had been replaced.

Notwithstanding the extremely hypocritical whining from some historians with an agenda, .snipped for brevity

I'm not a great fan of Monty, but it has to be said that he was his own worst enemy. He wanted to give the impression that the Battle of Normandy went the way he planned right from the start. This was patently untrue, and in fact he was doing himself down; it would have reflected much better if he had acknowedged that in fact he was prepared to change the original plan to suit the circumstances. He was hopeless at the "PR" side of things, he even managed to alienate his own press corps at briefings following the start of "Goodwood" let alone American press men.
However he can take the credit for increasing the original scope of D Day to five beaches and eight assaulting divisions (3 airborne); the original plan was smaller in scope which may have been easier to contain for the Germans.
Other factors also need to pointed out. American accounts frequently criticise Monty for lack of progress in Normandy, while the US forces fought their way through the Bocage. What is frequently forgotten is that the Commonwealth forces faced by far the greater number of elite, effective German panzer divisions. There were up to 7 on their front: 1SS, 12SS, 9SS, 10SS, 9Pz, 2Pz, 21 Pz and most of the Tigers; with the exception of the Mortain offensive, US forces faced around 2 and a half: Pz Lehr, 2SS and 17SS (the only PzGr Div committed). The German infantry divisions counted for little in Normandy, immobile and less lavishly equipped, they quickly burned out in the mainly close quarters fighting. The German commanders continued to underestimate the abilities of the US forces, and most reinforcements went to the Commonwealth front; moreover this made tactical sense, since the Germans would need to withdraw to the east, so it was necessary that this side was secure. One can only speculate what would have happened if these positions had been reversed.
Monty was keenly aware of the fact that 21st Army Group was a diminishing resource; his tactics were being determined by the fact that he (but not the US) was running out of men.
I suspect very few American readers are aware of hard fought battles such as Hill 112 (the objective of Epsom). These actions showed that despite Allied air supremacy, significant casualties and lack of reinforcements or replacement equipment, the Germans were more than capable of holding their own.
Monty was, in fact, not the first choice for command in Normandy. Some of the British High Command favoured Alexander, who got on well with Americans, and was therefore the antithesis of Monty, or a little known but very capable general called Paget. Tedder, Ike's deputy, and Leigh-Mallory (both RAF), were distinctly anti Monty. Moreover, Monty had not even been first choice for command of the 8th Army in the desert, but the first choice was killed in an air cash. Monty's appointment as ground commander in Normandy wasmore or less dictated by public opinion, being the only victorious, high profile British commander, given that the increasing dominance in the alliance of the US dictated that the Supreme Commander had to be an American.

If Patton would have been running the ground element of Market Garden, The Germans would have knocked out the lead vehicle in a column, The US forces wold have blanketed the treeline with artillery, immoblising the defenders while the dead vehicle wass pushed out of the way and the Americans would have run right by them, leaving the bypassed Germans to be policed up by the follow-on infantry forces.

Patton's focus on spending lives to penetrate defensive lines was the correct action. Our airpower eliminated the mobility of the defenders.

What he can't do is what Monty would do- waste lives on failed attacks, then feed more men into the same meatgrinder. War is murder and destruction, plain and simple, you just need to tilt the scales towards your own men and make your opposition die.

I think that if you put Monty in the Normandy bocage country he never would have gotten out of it. On the other hand if you Patton and the Third Army on that nice level tank country that he Brits had he would have been long gone.

Quoted Text

---

If Patton would have been running the ground element of Market Garden, The Germans would have knocked out the lead vehicle in a column, The US forces wold have blanketed the treeline with artillery, immoblising the defenders while the dead vehicle wass pushed out of the way and the Americans would have run right by them, leaving the bypassed Germans to be policed up by the follow-on infantry forces.

---

Nice theory, but completely impossible during Market Garden.

This is exactly the tactics that were followed as long as the spearhead was in range of the artillery. One problem - the spearhead was out of range of artillery support halfway through day 1. Then the problem arose that the artillery had to be brought forward along the same single road which had to be used by the armoured columns and the engineers with the bridges. Since it is physically impossible for multiple objects to occupy the same space, the tactics you suggest would definitely fail. On many locations it was barely even possible to bring forward the engineering vehicles needed to clear the road (unless you put them in the lead of the column, exposing them even more to German fire).

Second, the landscape was perfect for the Germans to use their guns at maximum ranges against the Allied columns.

The only way to make up for the lack of artillery - which was inherent to the operation - was by using air support, exactly as planned by Monty and co. Of course that part failed for multiple reasons pretty much outside of Monty's control - and it would have equally failed Patton.

Quoted Text

---

Patton's focus on spending lives to penetrate defensive lines was the correct action. Our airpower eliminated the mobility of the defenders.

---

Of course this is exactly what Montgomery planned to do and initially did during Market Garden, until he outran his artillery, and his air support was either grounded in Britain or unable to make contact with the forces on the ground. For various reasons, it could not (at least not during Market Garden).

Quoted Text

---

What he can't do is what Monty would do- waste lives on failed attacks, then feed more men into the same meatgrinder. War is murder and destruction, plain and simple, you just need to tilt the scales towards your own men and make your opposition die.

---

Except that on various occasions, the meat grinder is the better option (like it or not), if anything to allow for a breakthrough elsewhere. And this has forever been the case. And as far as making the enemy die faster than them, the Americans by and large failed or succeed just as much as the British.

If Patton was that good why did Eisenhower leave him twiddling his thumbs in England ?

I think that if you put Monty in the Normandy bocage country he never would have gotten out of it. On the other hand if you Patton and the Third Army on that nice level tank country that he Brits had he would have been long gone. Monty was a "straight ahead" general, he never quite caught on to the idea that if the enemy was strong in front of you go around him. Monty was very casualty averse since the Brits were running out of manpower and he had been criticised for the losses incurred in the Alemein head on attacks. Patton was willing to spend lives to get into the German's rear areas where armor could run wild. This saved lives in the long run as our airpower limited the German's mobility. If Patton had been running down that two lane road in Market Garden his armored units would have just soaked up the German's firepower, taken casualties and kept going depending on the followup infantry to clean up the bypassed German units.

If Patton would have been running the ground element of Market Garden, The Germans would have knocked out the lead vehicle in a column, The US forces wold have blanketed the treeline with artillery, immoblising the defenders while the dead vehicle wass pushed out of the way and the Americans would have run right by them, leaving the bypassed Germans to be policed up by the follow-on infantry forces. Patton's focus on spending lives to penetrate defensive lines was the correct action. Our airpower eliminated the mobility of the defenders. After the armored columns bypassed them their only choice would have been surrender. A military leader has to be willing to expend his men. After all, they are assets like tanks, or ammunition. What he can't do is what Monty would do- waste lives on failed attacks, then feed more men into the same meatgrinder. War is murder and destruction, plain and simple, you just need to tilt the scales towards your own men and make your opposition die.

Quoted Text

---

If Patton was that good why did Eisenhower leave him twiddling his thumbs in England ?

---

Because Patton had a big mouth and wasn't a politician like Ike was. Ike was a politician, Bradley was a military manager and those two are the genesis of the modern military officer. Less attention is paid to leadership skills and battlefield ability than to staff ability.