What's your opinion? Monty came out the winner in Africa but IMHO he was a far lesser general than Rommel. Monty had the numbers, he had the intel, he had the supplies. Rommel had shortages on all of the above and also had his enigma communications all decyphered and delivered streight to monty's office. Finally, Monty faced a broken Rommel, not "the Rommel of before". Too much time in the desert had seriously impeded his health, which in turn affected his command/judgement abilities.
When the germans had the advantage the British didnt break,when the british got the advantage the germans were kicked out of north africa all together.
Still rommel was better..no doubt,but at al elamein monty actually outsmarted rommel and predicted his next move...which cost the germans dearly.
I must respectfully disagree. At El Alamein Monty may have expected Rommel's move from the south but that hardly qualifies as "outsmarted". Because 1) there was no other viable rout to follow and 2) The Ultra device delivered Monty every one of Erwin's Enigma communications. So Monty knew both the where and the when.
Also, Monty could afford to strengthen so many positions given the numbers at his disposals (approx 195.000 men vs 29.000 of the Afrika Korp).
Finally, according to Kesserling Rommel would have pulled it off anyway, but hesitated due to the lack of fuel (the Ultra gave Monty every one of the ships that were bringing fuel to Rommel from Italy and consequently they were all sunk). The old Rommel, says Kesserling, would not have hesitated. He had already outflanked the "Tommies". But the broken sick Rommel could not command the attacks from the front line like he used to do.
A though i'd agree that overall Rommel may have the edge on Montgomery as far as capabilities go i'd have to say the difference wasn't a big one.
You fail to mention that the reason that Rommel had limited resources during the battle was because of British/Commonwealth efforts to starve his army of supplies in the previous 12 months and because those efforts were so successful, part of the thinking behind these efforts was Montgomery's.
"Monty could afford to strengthen so many positions given the numbers at his disposals (approx 195.000 men vs 29.000 of the Afrika Korp)."
Not sure where you get your numbers from but my figures are more like between 195,000 and 210,000 British/Commonwealth troops and approx 1200 tanks and 2,300 artillery pieces against between 100,000 and 120,000 axis troops and approx 550 tanks and 1,250 artillery pieces.
So the British/Commonwealth forces had an approximate 2/1 advantage (at best) over the axis forces not an approximate 6.5/1 advantage as your figures would indicate.
You fail to mention that the reason that Rommel had limited resources during the battle was because of British/Commonwealth efforts to starve his army of supplies in the previous 12 months and because those efforts were so successful, part of the thinking behind these efforts was Montgomery's.
Well, I don't "fail" to mention it, on the contrary I explained Rommel's desperate intel situation with the Enigma. Noone in the Axis camp knew at that time of the existence of the Ultra device. As a result, all his supply ships were sunk in the Med before they reached Tobruk. Not Rommel's fault and surely not Monty's own credit.
"Monty could afford to strengthen so many positions given the numbers at his disposals (approx 195.000 men vs 29.000 of the Afrika Korp)."
Not sure where you get your numbers from but my figures are more like between 195,000 and 210,000 British/Commonwealth troops and approx 1200 tanks and 2,300 artillery pieces against between 100,000 and 120,000 axis troops and approx 550 tanks and 1,250 artillery pieces.
So the British/Commonwealth forces had an approximate 2/1 advantage (at best) over the axis forces not an approximate 6.5/1 advantage as your figures would indicate.
My numbers come from David Irvings: The Desert Fox and refer specifically to October 1942 for the battle of El Alamein. Of the total of 45.000 Afrika Korps men 16.000 were taken by disease or malnutrition and the remaining 29k were fighting men. Tanks were 750+ for Monty and less than 200 for Erwin during the battle. Artillery pieces even worse.
So it's not MY FIGURES, you might wanna take it up with the historian himself (I hear he's in jail though). You probably quote numbers that refer to total deployement throughout the war and including original Italian troops before Rommels arrival (who were mostly captured during the British offensive into Libya). Not relevant I'm afraid.
2:1 is a nice effort to support Monty's case however it's VERY misleading and inaccurate. When we speak about the specific battle that Rommel lost to Monty we should refer to the numbers available during that same battle.
Cheers,
Miltos
AIEN ARISTEYEIN!
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Erwin vs Monty
February 9 2006, 11:58 AM
Rommel was probably one of the best division commanders in the Wehrmacht during WW2. But as a corps commander he was not without failure. His surprise offensive when he arrived in Africa (against direct orders) was handled like a divisional attack, but he had a corps now.
The greatest blame that can be put on him is that he did overlook logistics in an alarming way. Often putting it in the hands of his CoS or the Italians (whose merchant crews did splendid work in contrast to many parts of the navy).
His ass was saved numerous times by Kesselring's planes. He was certainly a dashing and likeable fellow, but certainly not the best German general he is often made out to be.
Montgomery was a good field officer, not brilliant, but good. He could motivate his troops and establish a functioning chain of command (before his arrival British command was a complete mess, with division commanders doing their own thing and Churchill interferring repeatedly). He was meticulous and tended not to gamble, his victories were often the result of superiour numbers and material on the Allied side. All in all, a good general.
"Still rommel was better..no doubt,but at al elamein monty actually outsmarted rommel and predicted his next move...which cost the germans dearly."
Alamein was a foregone conclusion. The only hope Rommel had of getting to Alexandria was to rush in as fast as possible. Alamein was the last viable defence, had a short logistics chain, the British grouped superiour masses of men and material there.
Had Montgomery actually got that Rommel was withdrawing, he could have destroyed the Afrika Korps right there by advancing all along the front.
Rommel basically led the Korps to safety while sacrificing the Folgore paratroopers, which made a great stand and were instrumental to the successful evacuation.
a good short analysis on Alamein. With regards to Rommel himself you wrote:
The greatest blame that can be put on him is that he did overlook logistics in an alarming way. Often putting it in the hands of his CoS or the Italians
which is often said against him. Even in the book it's one of the 1st things that are made clear to the reader. But as you go on as see this man in command of his troops right where the action is, taking over units and advances and sleeping in his car, you realize that with such a style of command (probably a necessary ingredient for his successes) it would have been impossible to deal with the logistics at the same time. It was I believe a wise decision to pass over that responsibility to other people. It was however a bad choice of people.
I couldn't agree more about Monty. If he had realized what was going on (and he should have since one desperate signal of Rommel to Berlin describing his situation reportedly fell into his hands) he would have rushed forward and crushed all Axis forces right there. But being reluctant as he was he let Rommel escape right under his nose.
An interesting sidenote, I read that Rommel had asked for Guderian to take over Afrika during his sick leave. Berlin refused however as Guderian had already fallen from grace by that time.
How do you think that pioneer of Blitzkrieg would have faired against Monty's initial offensive?
monty is often critisized for being overly cautious - only moving forward when he had a significant advantage over his enemies (eg el alamein and caen). he is also considered by many to be over rated and that he was just an average general with enormous material superiority at his disposal. rommel on the other hand was more daring and also had less resources to work with.
whether monty was just an average general or not, he has more battle honors under his belt than any other allied general. actually he was responsible for almost all major allied operations in europe such as el alamein, sicily, normandy, and NE europe.
i must mention market garden as well. imo, this was the most ambitious operation of wwii. this operation was completely out of character for montgomery but it shows that he isn't always overly cautious. just imagine, had market garden been a success and british tanks made it into germany and the war was over by christmas, montgomery would've been like a saint!
Also it seems that, despite the fact that everyone accuses Rommel that he neglected logistics, Monty had quite a lot of trouble supplying his forces as soon as his own lines were extended. In the chase towards Tripoli, many times the only force able to pursue the fleeing Axis powers was 1 mech division. Everyone else was behind waiting for gas. Had Romel turned and attacked them - as Kesserling suggested - he would have wiped them out. But Rommel no longer cared for this. He needed his gasoline to make it to Tunisia and the freshly arrived Americans.
Why does everyone blame Erwin for the lack of Gas when clearly the continuous losses of supply ships in the Med were not his responsibility/fault ?
Cheers,
Miltos
AIEN ARISTEYEIN!
Reaver180 (Login Reaver180) Panzer Brigade(Germany)
Re: Erwin vs Monty
February 15 2006, 6:31 PM
"which is often said against him. Even in the book it's one of the 1st things that are made clear to the reader. But as you go on as see this man in command of his troops right where the action is, taking over units and advances and sleeping in his car, you realize that with such a style of command (probably a necessary ingredient for his successes) it would have been impossible to deal with the logistics at the same time. It was I believe a wise decision to pass over that responsibility to other people. It was however a bad choice of people."
Quite frankly, while his style of command certainly was popular with the troops, a Feldmarschall has to keep track of the big picture. Blaming his officers is not right IMO.
And anyway, Rommel had a big bag of luck not to be killed during his stunts.
Certainly a very capable leader in the true sense of the word, but that brought its disadvantages.
"I couldn't agree more about Monty. If he had realized what was going on (and he should have since one desperate signal of Rommel to Berlin describing his situation reportedly fell into his hands) he would have rushed forward and crushed all Axis forces right there. But being reluctant as he was he let Rommel escape right under his nose."
Well, one also has to give credit to the Italians of the Folgore division who did an excellent rearguard action. Easily the most impressive display of the Italian army in WW2.
"An interesting sidenote, I read that Rommel had asked for Guderian to take over Afrika during his sick leave. Berlin refused however as Guderian had already fallen from grace by that time."
Never heard about that. Anyway, Guderian was in Russia IIRC.
"How do you think that pioneer of Blitzkrieg would have faired against Monty's initial offensive?"
The one at Alamein? Rommel didn't do bad there at all. He was just hopelessly outmatched in anything, troops, tanks, artillery, planes, supplies etc.
"i must mention market garden as well. imo, this was the most ambitious operation of wwii. this operation was completely out of character for montgomery but it shows that he isn't always overly cautious. just imagine, had market garden been a success and british tanks made it into germany and the war was over by christmas, montgomery would've been like a saint!"
Market Garden was built on the imagination that the Wehrmacht was routed after Falaise, which it obviously wasn't.
Monty thought the German troops would melt away before his paratroopers if any were there at all.
In spite of numerous Dutch intelligence reports that said that two SS divisions were resting there, he ordered the action and effectively accusing them of lying.
It was not a bad plan per se, but the presumptions behind it were utterly wrong. On top of that, the quick reaction of the various German units, from SS to railway workers armed with captured French rifles, Luftwaffe aircrew acting as infantry and others, was probably one of the best displays of the German army in 1944.
They formed independent battlegroups almost instantly and pinned the Allies down.
Just a couple of things. If Rommel had only 200+ tanks versus Montgomery's 750+ then why was he silly enough to engage in a battle with such odds? Does'nt make sense, even if he is a good commander.
Montgomery was not overly cautious especially when compared to the previous commanders in the region. This thread unfortunately compares the two when one was particularly weak and the other strong, relatively of course.
A better comparison may be between Rommel and Auchinleck or perhaps even Wavell before him, both of these British Generals were removed by Churchill for being over cautious and not attacking.
However, both these Generals id rate much higher than Montgomery because of their cautiousness which in the tenous position in North Africa at the time is understandable. Even with restricted resources they still managed to beat the italians and hold out against the Germans fighting to a stalemate almost by late 1941.
Monty was competant and meticulous. But not
as good a general as Rommel.
Slim however was a superb general, our best of WW2 imho.
______
The Ministry of Defence is to consider giving British soldiers basic equipment such as clothes that fit and boots that don't melt in the summer, it announced today. The MoD was responding to a report by MPs that suggested that such equipment would have been "actually quite useful" during the war in Iraq and other recent military escapades.
Slim was undoubtedly the best and unfortunately the least recognised along with the rest of the 'forgotten army'. a good discussion for another thread perhaps!
"Just a couple of things. If Rommel had only 200+ tanks versus Montgomery's 750+ then why was he silly enough to engage in a battle with such odds? Does'nt make sense, even if he is a good commander."
Because he really had no fuel left. At Alamein, he didn't exactly attack and before that the supply situation wasn't as dire.
A disengagement would really have presented the British a chance to do a rout of the Axis forces.
"Montgomery was not overly cautious especially when compared to the previous commanders in the region. This thread unfortunately compares the two when one was particularly weak and the other strong, relatively of course.
A better comparison may be between Rommel and Auchinleck or perhaps even Wavell before him, both of these British Generals were removed by Churchill for being over cautious and not attacking. "
Problem with Wavell, Auchinlek and all the other Brits in North Africa before Monty is that they were practically fighting for themselves with little top down organisation and division commanders often overriding the higher commands and going on independent chases. Monty brought leadership and controlled command.
"However, both these Generals id rate much higher than Montgomery because of their cautiousness which in the tenous position in North Africa at the time is understandable. Even with restricted resources they still managed to beat the italians and hold out against the Germans fighting to a stalemate almost by late 1941."
Holdout against the Germans? You make it seem as Rommel had any advantage whatsoever...
Well not really a general (id have had to mention cunningham lol)
but yes he did a lot... if i recall
he pushed for radar, spits etc and he got done over because he
insisted on fighting over britain to minimise pilot loss?.
Sensible given the situation imho.
______
The Ministry of Defence is to consider giving British soldiers basic equipment such as clothes that fit and boots that don't melt in the summer, it announced today. The MoD was responding to a report by MPs that suggested that such equipment would have been "actually quite useful" during the war in Iraq and other recent military escapades.
Like at the beggining of the desert war when British forces were outnumbered by more than 13-1? Counting all personell!(half of the 35000 troops we had were non-combatants) .Rommel never had to face such odds.He never really got chance to fight such opposistion tho either..lol.Well maybe the indian divisions...lol
Here are the Wikipedia figures (so we may keep careful):
First battle of El Alamein (july):
Strengths
Allied side: 150,000 troops in 3 army corps, 7 infantry and 3 armoured divisions 1,114 tanks, over 1,000 artillery and over 1,500 planes
Axis side: 96,000 troops (including 56,000 Italians) 8 infantry and 4 armoured divisions (2 Panzer 2 Italian) 585 tanks (less than half of which were Panzers), less than 500 planes.
Rommel was the more imaginative and pragmatic of the two and ultimately the best. This isn't to say the Montgomery was bad, no. But Rommel, while with obvious faults, was the marginal better of the two.
As for Rommel's defense of the French coast later on, his plan for fortification was about as sound as could be. Had he been able to utilize his infantry and armor reserves situated further inland, then it's very possible he could have stunted the invasion relatively quickly. But, he wasn't. Afterall, at the end of Day One, many in the Allied staff believed the landings has been a net failure simply from the resistance of coastal defenses.....
well the d-day was very very unlucky from the german side(thank god)
1.2 days before the invasion,all German aircrafts stationed in the normandie were braught deeper into france(Rommel was against this)
2. On the day of the Invasion,Rommel was on holiday at his wife and was unable to give fast orders.
3.In the time of the invasion 5 divisions were stationed in the Normandy.2 of these were tank divisions,which were only allowed to get into action under the direct order of hitler himself.
In the time of the attack,Hitler was still sleeping.´His generals were to afraid to wake him up.So the 2 divisions had to hold their ground.Till Hitler finaly woke up and gave the attack order,the 2 divisions were almost totaly destroyed by allied bombers.
4.Rommel always knew that the invasion would come some where near the normandy.But Hitler always thaught the invasion would come at pas de calais.so the pas de calais was much better defended then the normandy.
5.A few hours before the invasion,the allies sended a code to the french resistance to tell them the exact time of the invasions.The German Nachrichten Dienst intercepted this message,but they didnt inform rommel about this.Instead they thaught the invasion would come at pas de calais,so they only gave this information to the german soldiers stationed at pas de calais.
Rommel always knew that the invasion would come some where near the normandy.But Hitler always thaught the invasion would come at pas de calais.so the pas de calais was much better defended then the normandy.
Not according to David Irving's book, he claims that Rommel was largely responsible for leaving Normandy with so little whereas Hitler thought a landing there more likely.
Not according to David Irving's book, he claims that Rommel was largely responsible for leaving Normandy with so little whereas Hitler thought a landing there more likely.
