Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "WHY the Germans FAILED at Stalingrad? BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD E28" video.

Agreed. And it is always how "historians" sneer at Montgomery's "set piece battles". Really, all he was doing was making sure he had sufficient supplies and equipment to get the job done. His few failures stem primarily from trying to get the jump on the Germans and not having everything in place beforehand.
17
@FelixBat The real issue wasn't logistics. The Americans had logistics galore. The issues lay in 1) not studying what the political situation was before getting involved (including learning from that nation's history, 2) knowing how to fight their opponents and 3) not thinking about what they would do to win over the populace and win the peace after their opponents had been pushed back.
14
@adamjaquay4279 I think there are a couple of other reasons for the American High Commands negative views on Montgomery. First, I don't think they grasped the fact that, definitely by 1944, the British Army was pretty much on its last legs. In the winter of 1944-45 they were actually breaking up divisions to provide men to other frontline units. Second, Montgomery had a tendency to be somewhat condescending towards certain officers of equal or lower rank who he felt didn't "make the grade". This sort of attitude does not ingratiate one to fellow officers or allies. In some ways this tendency got even worse after the end of the war. Third, the British had tried to engage the Wehrmacht using blitzkrieg-style tactics, and had come off badly each time. Montgomery basically went back to an updated form of the 1918 playbook to win against the Germans. It was a more methodical approach, but also meant that one never got over-extended. The U.S. Army, on the other hand, had not tapped out their manpower reserves, and could afford to be more aggressive, following the doctrine they had worked out independently. Montgomery realised the American reliance on maneuver, hence his use of the British forces in Normandy as an anvil to the American forces hammer.
6
@MrCarpelan Because it explains why the Germans ended up getting defeated on the Eastern Front, a narrative that has been obscured by German generals for over 50 years for their own aggrandizement.
5
@johnnydavis5896 However, you need to remember Montgomery was under a lot of political pressure to attack. He wasn't just building up supplies during this time, he was training his army how to fight properly by coordinating all three arms - infantry, armour and artillery. He was also changing his plans based on what he saw, realizing his infantry were the better arm of his forces. It also ignores the deception tactics he had put into place to fool Rommel as to where the main blow would fall. Montgomery had about the same manpower and armour advantage over the Germans that Auchinleck had at El Gazala, but will use it effectively. I also think Rommel is a bit overrated as a general, if for no other reason than he faced opponents who didn't know how to coordinate an army. He is now, although he will be saved in part due to errors committed by some British unit commanders.
5
@FelixBat And yet history is full of examples of this kind of thing happening. It is a question of whether or not you learn from your mistakes. For example, how many times did the French nobility impale themselves on flights of arrows from English longbowmen? How many times in history have armies made the mistake of chasing after "fleeing" nomadic horsemen? It's a very important lesson from Sun Tzu that people ignore at their peril.
4
Overy's book "Why the Allies Won" covers this quite well.
3
@Conn30Mtenor I suspect the Germans wanted to do it on a grander scale. After all, bigger is better, right?
2
@davemason9555 Unfortunately, I am stuck living next door to all that, and am wondering what will happen if everything south of the border goes to hell in a handbasket. I can only hope beyond hope that cooler heads will prevail, and can bring things back from the brink of self immolation.
1