Most over-rated WWII Leader

[Col. Ty Webb]

SO tanks were the only thing on the continent?

Please tell more of these Montogemry victories. Do you speak of the one he finally got in North Africa with far superior forces against Germans with no supplies and no further reinforcements?

Or are you speaking of how he couldn't get off the beachhead in Normandy then failed miserable at Market Garden?

Kind of hard to give him credit for El Alamein, then give him a pass everywhere else.

[Lazarus]

SO tanks were the only thing on the continent?

No sir.



Manppower numbers

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Supreme/USA-E-Supreme-E.html

UK/ Canadian 16 June 1945   1,072.717  

US  May 3,021,483

and the note on UK/Canadian  numbers says:

 Â These statistics must be used with the warning that they cannont be the basis of comparison between the U.S. and British air efforts. U.S. air strengths listed in Table 7 inlcude the air forces both in the United Kingdom and on the Continent. The British forces in this table include only those on the Continent. Total British air force strength (including WAAF) amounted to 819,578 on 1 May 1945. Needless to say a considerable part of this force was used in the preinvasion period and during the campaigns in northwest Europe in support of the Allied campaigns

So if done on a like for like comparison we can say 1.5 million v 3 million

Who said 4 to 1 in Normandy again?

[Lazarus]

Or are you speaking of how he couldn't get off the beachhead in Normandy.

I think you will find he did because I saw photos of him taking the German surrender in 1945.

[Clyde85]

Nope.
It was always the case that Eisenhower was to take over command. The time was not fixed and the option was not exercised until September 1st-after Montgomery beat the Germans.

I must assume you are a barber because you sure do like splitting hairs. Also I am very impressed with you selective reading skills (I've heard of selective hearing and all though) as you seem to only read the parts of the posts you dislike and ignore all the rest. Though to be fair, I suppose I should have been more specific with such a delicate reader, US forces out numbered British force by more then 4 to 1 by the end OF THE WAR. The US had 72 divisions in the field by the end of the war out of a total of 85 allied divisions, a factor of more then 4 to 1.

Have another try.

No, you can try again now

[Col. Ty Webb]

I'll think you'll find that he as the only command at D-Day who failed to get off the beach and blame their problems on logistical failures.

[Clyde85]

Also, I don't think you should get to count Canadian forces under the British total as they were a separate and equal power in the war. Canada had its own Army and its own indigenous commanders who were raised and trained in Canada. Men like Guy Simonds, Harry Crerar, Andrew MaNaughton, and the men of the first Canadian Army were the one who led the breakout from Normandy and closed the Falaise pocket, not Monty.

And I think this really proves it. Here is an army and a group of commanders that gets over shadowed by the "British" war effort and grouped in with what Monty did, when in reality they should be recognized for their individual contributions to the war as Canadians not British and not Monty.

[Lazarus]

I'll think you'll find that he as the only command at D-Day who failed to get off the beach and blame their problems on logistical failures.

Sorry but that is just plain wrong. Every single beach failed to  reach its D-Day 'phase line' Every beach.
If you want we can talk about the one beach where progress was so bad there were serious  thought given to  re-embark and  abandon it.
Can you guess which one it was.....................

[Lazarus]

 US forces out numbered British force by more then 4 to 1 by the end OF THE WAR. The US had 72 divisions in the field by the end of the war out of a total of 85 allied divisions, a factor of more then 4 to 1.

And yet the numbers say the manpower totals are 1.5 million to 3  million?


 

US forces out numbered British force by more then 4 to 1 by the end OF THE WAR.

Note the dates I gave. May and June 1945.
That, I believe, is THE END OF THE WAR

[Lazarus]

Also, I don't think you should get to count Canadian forces under the British total as they were a separate and equal power in the war. Canada had its own Army and its own indigenous commanders who were raised and trained in Canada. Men like Guy Simonds, Harry Crerar, Andrew MaNaughton, and the men of the first Canadian Army were the one who led the breakout from Normandy and closed the Falaise pocket, not Monty.

Ah but you said earlier  Monty 'failed' to close the gap. Now you backtrack and say the Canadians were responsible?
What made you change your  line of argument?
I might add that the 2 Divisions chosen to 'close the gap' were relative newcomers and ony one  was Canadian. I leave you to find  out the nationality of the other................

And I think this really proves it. Here is an army and a group of commanders that gets over shadowed by the "British" war effort and grouped in with what Monty did, when in reality they should be recognized for their individual contributions to the war as Canadians not British and not Monty.

OK now point me to a US source that seperates out the achievements of the French Armoured Division as distinct from the US success.

Perhaps you could also give me the force ratio for Bradley during Cobra.
If Monty is said to have only won because he vastly outnumbered the
 Germans then it can  be said Bradley and Patton had greatly superior advantages (than Montgomery) when they attacked

The US had 72 divisions in the field by the end of the war out of a total of 85 allied divisions, a factor of more then 4 to 1...........................you can try again now

Wrong.

The reality can be seen here

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Supreme/USA-E-Supreme-D.html

US 61

UK 17
Can  5

F/French 7

These figures are for Divisions only. For the UK/Can this  excludes 6 Armored Brigades. For the uninitiated an Armoured Brigade was the tank strength of an Armoured Division and they  do not appear on the Divisional  headcount.
Furthermore one of the UK Armoured Divisions (79th) was a specialised Unit that had 3 times the tank units of an ordinary Armoured Division.
It is obvious now that an attempt to count Divisions only is a partial counting method that undercounts the Commonwealth contribution.

[Cromwell_Dude]

Any Allied Navy Commanders over-rated?

[Lazarus]

Victory in the West Volume II of the Official British History of the Second World War by Major LF Ellis, Appendix VII

Allied strength on April 30th 1945 was:-

British: Army 835,208 Naval 16,221* Air Force 460,000** Total 1,311,429
Canadian: Army 183,421 Naval 0 Air Force34,000** Total 217,421
Australian/NZ: Army 0 Naval 0 Air Force 12,500** Total 12,500
American: Army 2,618,023 Naval 7,035 Air Force 447,482*** Total 3,072,540
French: Army 413,144 Naval 0 Air Force 24,000**** Total 437,144
Others: Army 34,518 Naval 0 Air Force 15,500** Total 50,018
Totals: Army 4,084,314 Naval 23,256 Air Force 993,482 Grand Total 5,101,052

*RN & USN in the campaign area
**RAF: Bomber Command, Fighter Command, Coastal Command (16,18 & 19 Groups), 2nd Tactical AF and Special Groups (38 & 46)
***USAAF: 8th & 9th AF, First (Provisional) Tactical AF and IX Troop Carrier Command
****First French Air Corps, French Western Air Forces and French Sqns in RAF commands
*****Others relates to contingents from Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Norway and Polish

[Gargantua]

*SNORE*

*Sleeps through this part of the class*

[Clyde85]

Yeah sure, if you want to include the ENTIRE armed forces of Britain in Europe, but im sorry, there is no way in hell that your figures are correct. The whole reason Monty was dropped as over all commander in Europe was because US forces outnumbered British forces by. As I said before 72 out of the 85 divisions in Europe by the surrender in 1945 were American and not British.

Victory in the West Volume II of the Official British History of the Second World War by Major LF Ellis, Appendix VII

This is your source? LOL bwahahahahah! Yes im sure this is a very reliable source as the British would never fudge some numbers to appease their sense of national pride 

[Lazarus]

Yeah sure, if you want to include the ENTIRE armed forces of Britain in Europe, but im sorry, there is no way in hell that your figures are correct. The whole reason Monty was dropped as over all commander in Europe was because US forces outnumbered British forces by. As I said before 72 out of the 85 divisions in Europe by the surrender in 1945 were American and not British.

You can repeat your fabrications as often as you want but it will never change the actual numbers.
Your claim there were 72 US Divisions in NW Europe is bogus.
The Commonwealth numbers are the exact comparison to the US numbers.
It is incorrect to say it is the total of the entire Commonwealth Armed Forces.
Your claim is a falsification.
The figures I gave you come from a book entitled
US Army In WW2. The European Theatre Of Operations. The Supreme Command.  and are in  Appendix D,
Forces Under SHAEF, 1944-45.
The full citation  for the printing is:
CMH Publication 7-1
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WASHINGTON, D.C., 1954
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 53-61717
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C., 20402
Nothing to do with appease their(British) sense of national pride 

This is your source? LOL bwahahahahah! Yes im sure this is a very reliable source as the British would never fudge some numbers to appease their sense of national pride  :

 bwahahahahah to you because I gave you 2 sources. The official British numbers and the official US ones.
It is up to you which ones you want to use but they both blow apart your bogus numbers.

So far in this thread every 'source/number' you give turns out to be wrong!

Just in case you missed it here are the US figures

US Forces in Europe
Infantry Divisions:     42
 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 26th, 28th, 29th,
 30th, 35th, 36th, 42d, 44th, 45th, 63d, 65th, 66th, 69th,
 70th, 71st, 75th, 76th, 78th, 79th, 80th, 83d, 84th, 86th,
 87th, 89th, 90th, 94th, 95th, 97th, 99th, 100th, 102d, 103d,
 104th, 106th
Armored Divisions:   15
2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 20th
Airborne Divisions:    4   
13th, 17th, 82d, 101st

From:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Supreme/USA-E-Supreme-D.html


Please use them to confirm your earlier claim:

The US had 72 divisions in the field by the end of the warout of a total of 85 allied divisions, a factor of more then 4 to 1
 

The claim Monty was 'dropped' is frankly bizzare and betrays a complete lack of any real understanding. Eisenhower was always the overall Commander but he (wisely) allowed the most experienced man run the battle on his behalf. A wise move as it turned out!