Who do you think was the better commander. Though I'm a Brit I would choose Patton. If I get some good replies I'll tell you why.

Hey Tanks,

Although 'both' were a slight ego-maniacs, I would choose General Patton of Field Marshal Mongomery. (less words in their titles! )

Dave

Definitely Patton.

I'ld have to say Patton. Anyone who has read about him would go along with General Bradley's opinion of him, but at least you didn't have to jab a pitch-fork, figuratively or literally, into his posterior region or his delicate ego like General Eisenhower had to do upon occasion with Field Marshal Montgomery to get him to get up and get to moving.

Montgomery gets a lot of criticism from historians and in the movies, but I think he deserves credit where it's due. His skill in preparation and planning paid off with great dividends in North Africa. He accomplished what Rommel had failed to do and kept up an advance through the desert without running into supply problems.
I think much of his criticism comes from his apparent cautiousness, like BlueBear points out. The thing is that this was almost required for the armies of the Commonwealth. Throughout the war, British and Canadian forces had a shortage of infantry. In some cases, antiaircraft units were even retrained as infantry, that's how acute the shortage really was. Montgomery and his subordinates had to be careful not to throw too many infantry away in the bold kinds of assaults Patton made.

So, to reply to the initial question here, I find it difficult to compare the two commanders. Patton did not face some of the difficulties Montgomery did, so he was able to utilize different tacitcs, and particularly the bold kind that gave him so much fame. I'm not suggesting that Montgomery would have been different given Patton's army, but for the British Army in the state it was, he was the right man for the job.

Nic

I would have to choose Patton. Montgomery was a holdover infantryman from WW1. Pattton had also fought in WW1, but was a tank brigade commander and understood the use of armor.

Both shared a couple charateristics:

Outstanding motivational characters!!!!, for their own troops!!!! They both pissed off the other ally, and as stated above, both had huge egos!!!

Both commanders had the following advantages over their opponents: Air superiority in Africa & Sicily (air supremecy in NW Europe), materiel and personnel advantages, and secure supply lines.

Mention was made of the British waere short of infantry. Well most of Montgomery's battles were battles of attrition. Rommel was stopped at the first Battle of Alamein before Montgomery arrived. Monty had armor, artillery, ammunition and airpower supremecy over Rommel. He literaly battered his way thru the German/Italian defenses - a battle of attrition.
Now I will admit that his turning of the German lines along the Lybian/Tunisian border was a tactical masterpiece . On Sicily, he was outmanuevered by Patton even though he had less than half the distance to travel, although he did face tougher enemy. He was very willing to sacrifice the US forces for his own glory. Though Patton was also after Glory, by being first to Messina. Patton knew his history ("Palermo is the key to Sicily").

In Normandy, Montgomery had a chance to grab Caen on the first day, but he was too cautious and it was months before he finally got there. His offensives had little imagination and he ended up loosing tanks by the hundreds and these battles are the reason the Commonwealth was short of infantry. One of the major blunders of the war was Monty's failure to clear the Scheldt (spelling?) made capture of Antwrept useless. He also allowed the 15th Army to escape from NW Netherlands which cost him dearly during MARKET-GARDEN. He failed to capture a single Rhine River crossing on the run while the Americans and even the French captured several crossings without set-piece battles.

Now Patton understood something that Montgomery never did: Speed is Life!!! Patton knew that you must get inside the enemy's decision process to be able beat him decisively. His attacks in Sicily and his breakout at Avrances were lessons in "blitzkrieg".

Now Patton was not perfect by any means, but he understood military history and was willing to take calculated risks. He did have some blunders: his Hammelberg raid being an excellent example!

Patton was the Western Allies most feared commander, from the Germans own words.

The British had better commanders than Montgomery, but many of them were sacrificed in the early campaigns in North Africe and In the CBI. These commanders never had the materiel advantages of Montgomery.

Now I will step off my soap box.

Please don't think I'm in love with Monty, here. My initial response would be to say Patton, but I thought something good needed to be said about old Bernard. The Commonwealth faced infantry manpower shortages far before the landings in Normandy. It wasn't Caen that caused this, it was prewar and early war spending and planning.
Montgomery's first battle was not, in fact El Alamein, but the Battle of Alam Halfa. After Auchinleck had stopped Rommel at El Alamein he was replaced by Generals Alexander and Montgomery (despite Auchinleck's recent success). Montgomery guessed where Rommel's next attack would be and strengthened his forces at Alam Halfa. Rommel's attack was quickly turned back.
At El Alamein Montgomery built up his forces while Rommel received nothing. Indeed, by the time of his offensive, the battle was a foregone conclusion. However, we must admit that Montgomery proved he was a master at the set-piece battle. His plans were well carried out and his careful deception tactics resulted in his having complete surprise when the attack finally took place. I will quote Professor Richard Holmes: The attack "would be preceded by a powerful artillery bombardment which was entirely consistent with Montgomery's desire to let metal, not flesh do his business wherever possible."
Montgomery did not promote a strategy of fighting battles of attrition. This is what some of his battles, or portions of them, turned into, but it was not unusual to have some bitter fighting in World War II.
I might also note the casualties of the El Alamein campaign according to one website: "During the El Alamein campaign half of Rommel's 100,000 man army was killed, wounded or taken prisoner. He also lost over 450 tanks and 1,000 guns. The British and Commonwealth forces suffered 13,500 casualties and 500 of their tanks were damaged. However, of these, 350 were repaired and were able to take part in future battles." Considering Montgomery was did not have the advantage of being on the defensive, I would not say he lost inordinate amounts of men.
Furthermore, it is important that Montgomery was able to maintain the offensive through Egypt and Libya to Tunisia. This was a feat his predecessors and enemies had failed to do several times. Success here can not simply be attributed to the large amount of supplies available to the Allies at this time. This wasn't the problem. The difficulty was in not overstretching supply lines. Since supplies were based in Alexandria, the further away you got, naturally the harder it became to keep the army supplied. Montgomery was able to do this by not making a lightning thrust and quickly outstripping his supplies, while at the same time he managed to keep the pressure on the Axis, forcing them to keep falling back.
The problem with Montgomery had more to do with British doctrine than him personally. Most British commanders prescribed to the set-piece type of battle that Montgomery praticed. After seeing Montgomery's major success in North Africa, British (and Canadian officers as well) were further convinced in this doctrine. Later, Commonwealth forces met less success when everything didn't go according to plan.
So, when I analyzed the two generals more carefully, I realized the reason I would choose Patton is more due to the differences between their military ideology, than anything else. Both were adored by their soldiers and both met success, though this can be debated considering how you define success.
Was there someone more competent than Montgomery in the British Army to take his place? I can think of one British general that showed considerable imagination, less dependance on the set-piece battle, and considerable success. Lt. Gen. Richard O'Connor was the man Wavell placed in command of the Western Desert Force after the Italians joined the war and invaded Egypt. With 36 000 men, O'Connor attacked the Italians (170 000 men strong) using tactics similar to the German blitzkrieg. He was extraordinarily successful and showed much imagination and flexibility (the attack was originally supposed to be a "five-day raid"). For example, he would often fly his bombers over enemy lines long after they had run out of ammunition, suppressing the Italians without dropping a single bomb. It appeared that he would even capture Tripoli without the supply problems future commanders would encounter, when Churchill took much of his force away from him to fight in Greece. The North African campaign could have been ended before Rommel could even arrive. But, Rommel did arrive and in his subsequent attack, O'Connor was captured. It would have been interesting to see what he could have done......

Nic

PS--Sorry for rambling on. Didn't mean to, honest

You are correct in that Monty was a creation of the "British Method of War Fighting". And if you varied from those principles, in many cases you were sent off to the obscure areas of the world, particularly Burma/India, where some of the most ingenious British operations were conducted.

Good point, Ranger. Wavell, O'Connor's superior in North Africa was replaced by Auchinleck after his failed Operation Battleaxe. Wavell went on to fight a splendid campaign in Burma, though, and historians speak fairly highly of him.

Nic

While both commanders have their positive and negative points, I would choose Patton. Unlike Monty who chose to attack straight on, Patton was able to exercis some of the comcepts of blitzkrieg and gain his objectives quickly. Monty, on the other was a meticulous planner which would be appreciated by soldiers but by the time he finished his plan, the scenario may have changed.

I think both men are great but I personally prefer Monty. He was my childhood hero!

I like the fact that so far we haven't had to tear down one of the men to build up the other. Patton would get my vote though (big suprise huh with my avatar). He was the perfect man for certain jobs. If he held Ike's position it most likely would have not worked out so well, (maybe it would have worked out better) but history would be different. At flat out getting things done there was not a better person for the job. He took the tools he had and worked magic with them. That's the most inspiring thing about him to me, and he was able to get others to do this also. He was able to plan well from what I have seen, but even if the plans didn't work the objective would be accomplished. Although he was critisized for loosing a lot of troops his record in Europe at least looked pretty good to me, especailly when you consider he was almost always on the offensive. I have only read one book on Patton and of course seen the movie so my knowledge isn't very extensive.

As far as Monty I haven't studied him at all so all my information comes from the movie. that isn't enought to comment on him, but I have no ill will or bad opinions of him.

I would choose Patton, while his casualty rates were somtimes higher than average He understood one basic tennet of modern war, Keep moving and don't give em a chance to regroup. This is somthing we all learnt in the IDF, always take the battle to enemy territory and always use meneuver versus set piece attack anless there is no other option.

While I agree Brittish tactics left something to be desired and I won't fault Monty for that I do Fault him for bitting off more than he could chew. He Knew his troops limitations training and available numbers. If he couldn't complete the mission fo the given reasons he should have deffered some things to other allies. His refusal to let patton move to close the Falaise gap allowed to many Germans to escape to kill again another day. It is for this reason I choose Patton.

An interesting story was told to my history class by our Scottish teacher. After the war Ike had ameating with the king and said he always felt Monty wanted his job. To which the King replied thats funny I thought he wanted Mine.

Josh Weingarten
aKa shiryon

That is awsome. I will never forget that one. Thanks for sharing it. :-)

My vote goes to Patton. He was an egotist, no doubt, but he grasped the essentials of combined arms warfare from the beginning. You save lives by hitting hard, fast, and first.

Montgomery, even with all the information available to him from ULTRA (he knew DAK tank strengh as soon as Rommel did, as well as dispositions) would not attack unless he had overwhelming superiority. Not a bad thing to have, but sometimes, especially in war, you have to take a risk. With what he knew, and what he had available, Monty to me always seemed a mediocre general. And, I will never forgive his comments about his Allies during the Bulge. Anyway, history seems to be catching up with old Monty. His "rep" dwindles as the the years go by.

Mike

Yeah, no matter how hard I try to bolster it.

I think I if I were in charge and could chose either Patton or Montgomery to lead my army, I would choose Patton, but I don't think Monty was really as bad as people are saying these days. Poor Monty........

Nic