Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "Eisenhower’s Broad Front vs Monty’s Narrow Front in 1944" video.

  1. Regarding the broad front versus narrow front approach, I too agree that the broad front strategy was, in the long run, the better approach. The narrow front envisioned by Montgomery would still have encountered supply problems and ground to a halt, and would have given a single location for the Germans to focus their counterattacks on. The broad front strategy, that we first used to end WW1, entailed not only stretching out the German forces, but making them guess as to where the next attack would hit (and therefore where they should place their reserves). In WW1 it worked well - I have read that about 1/3rd the German army spent 1918 running from offensive to offensive, but never having a chance to engage. I think Eisenhower was aiming for this strategy in 1944, but didn't have the logistical support to do it (not to mention Hodges getting 1st Army stuck in the Huertgen Forest for 4 months!). The strategy did finally pay off in 1945, when the Allies broke through on multiple fronts.
    8
  2. I have always thought that Montgomery was a bold commander. You look at his repeated attempts to encircle Rommel after El Alamein, the way he "bounced" Rommel out of Tripoli, the bold moves to enter Tunisia, the partial successes/failures of Goodwood, Falaise and Market-Garden, and you can see he was a daring commander. His biggest problem was that he could come up with imaginative and bold strategies, but those under his command never quite seemed to be able to fulfill a lot of them. I am not disparaging the commanders, but rather that Monty's visions were possibly grander than what the men under his command could accomplish. I suspect if he had been a German commander he would likely have been another von Manstein or Guderian.
    7