Comments by "TheVilla Aston" (@thevillaaston7811) on "Who was The Most Feared Tank Commanders Of WWII? | Greatest Tank Battles | War Stories" video.
-
19
-
19
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@smellygoatacres
‘Montgomery didn't defeat Rommel. His loss to kill ratio was disastrous vs Rommel.’ Your words.
Alamein (23 October – 11 November 1942):
195,000 allied troops, 4,810 Killed (2.5%). 116,000 Axis troops, 2,400 – 9,000 killed (2% -7.8%).
Operation OVERLORD (06 June – 30 August 1944):
2,052,299 allied troops, 36,980 killed (1.8%). 640,000 Axis troops, 23,019 (3.6%).
‘You wouldn't follow that man into battle’ Your words
From US General Walter Bedell Smith:
‘22 June 1944
Dear General [Montgomery],
I have just received from a most reliable and intelligent source a report on attitude and state of mind of American troops in action. The writer is completely unbiased, and his report contains the following paragraph, which I hope will give you as much pleasure as it has given me:
Confidence in the high command is absolutely without parallel. Literally dozens of embarking troops talked about General Montgomery with actual hero-worship in every inflection. And unanimously what appealed to them beyond his friendliness, and genuineness, and lack of pomp was the story (or, for all I know, the myth) that the General Visited every one of us outfits going over and told us he was more anxious than any of us to get this thing over and get home/ This left a warm and indelible impression.
The above is an exact quotation. Having spent my life with American soldiers, and knowing only too well their innate distrust of everything foreign, I can appreciate far better than you can what a triumph of leadership you accomplished in inspiring such feeling and confidence.
Faithfully
Bedell’
From US General Omar Bradley:
‘Even Eisenhower with all his engaging ease could never stir American troops to the rapture with which Monty was welcomed by his’
THE MEMOIRS OF FIELD-MARSHAL EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS
CASSELL, LONDON
1962
P16
‘Montgomery is a first-class trainer and leader of troops on the battlefield, with a fine tactical sense. He knows how to win the loyalty of his men and has a great flair for raising morale.’
'You wouldn't follow that man into battle knowing your odds of being killed were 10:1.' Your words.
How would a person follow that man into battle know what their odds were of being killed?
5
-
@rsmithajd
Germany slaughter the British?.. With what? And how were they going to get here?
'I think the British were the weakest link in the allies.....'
You do not think, your comments make that clear.
'the Canadian and Australian forces fought good'
Yep, alongside Britain, across SIX years of war
'but British sucked at every battle they were in'
You mean apart from the Battle of Britain, the war at sea, East Africa, Crusader, Alam el Halfa, Alamein, Husky, Italy, Normany, the Scheldt, the Northern half of the Bulge, and the Bulge?..
5
-
@dennisweidner288
'A fair assessment'
British 2nd army at Caen tied down 6.5 of the 8 German armoured divisions in Normandy, leaving the US 2nd Army free to take the major port that the allies needed - Cherbourg, followed by a break to the south. Capturing Caen, or not capturing Caen made little difference to outcome of the campaign. Montgomery delivered victory in Normandy by D+78, 12 days ahead of schedule, and this with the delays to the allied build up caused by the great storm of 19th -20th June.
CRUSADE IN EUROPE
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
WILLIAM HEINEMANN LIMITED 1948
P282
‘Knowing that his old antagonist of the desert, Rommel, was to be in charge of the defending forces, Montgomery predicted that enemy action would be characterized by constant assaults carried out with any force immediately available from division down to a battalion or even company size. He discounted the possibility that the enemy under Rommel would ever select a naturally strong defensive line and calmly and patiently go about the business of building up the greatest possible amount of force in order to launch one full-out offensive into our beach position. Montgomery’s predictions were fulfilled to the letter.’
P288
‘Montgomery’s tactical handling of the British and Canadians on the Eastward flank and his co-ordination of these operations with those of the Americans to the westward involved the kind of work in which he excelled.’
'From Omar Bradley's book A Soldier's Story':
‘The British and Canadian armies were to decoy the enemy reserves and draw them to their front on the extreme eastern edge of the Allied beachhead. Thus, while Monty taunted the enemy at Caen, we were to make our break on the long roundabout road to Paris. When reckoned in terms of national pride this British decoy mission became a sacrificial one, for which while we trampled around the outside flank, the British were to sit in place and pin down the Germans. Yet strategically it fitted into a logical division of labors, for it was towards Caen that the enemy reserves would race once the alarm was sounded.’
Any questions?
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marysullivan3326
'i certainly have no idea where thats coming from.'
It just pours out of the USA on a conveyor belt...Films, TV programmes, books, lectures, YouTube comments...All full of America this, America that.
Let us be absolutely clear, Britain was the only major power to fight from the first day, to the last day of the war. Britain fought in every major theatre of war, it was only country to fight Germany on its own. Britain was the only major power to go to war on behalf of another country (Poland) - all the others either attacked other countries, or were attacked by other countries. Britain out-mobilized every other country (even Russia). Relative to its circumstances, Britain out-produced every other country. On its own, Britain out-produced Germany. All this from a country that was uder air assault, a sea blockade, and for four years had the enemy 21 miles away. As far as who did what in the Second World War is concerned is concerned, we rule.
'Britain asked the US of A to join in the fight.'
When did that happen?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardbono5540
Really...
All I can find is a diary entry from Eisenhower's naval aide Butcher. Tedder was supposedly the ring leader of a plot to get rid of Montgomery. Something he later denied:
WITH PREJUDICE
The War Memoirs of Marshall of the Royal Air Force
Lord Tedder G.C.B.
CASSELL & COMPANY 1966
P 563
According to the diary of Eisenhower’s aide, Captain Butcher, I told the Supreme Commander on the evening of 19 July that Montgomery had in effect, stopped his armour from going farther. Later, I am reported as saying that he British Chiefs of Staff would ‘support any recommendation that Ike might care to make with respect to Monty for not succeeding in going places with his big three-armoured division push’
I am sure that this record is misleading for although I strongly disapproved of Montgomery’s action, it was quite beyond my powers to speak in the name of the British Chief’s of Staff.’
This from the diary of Alanbrooke, CIGS:
July 27th.
‘Then Dinner with the P.M., Ike and Bedell Smith’
‘ "The Strategy of the Normandy landing is quite straight forward. But now comes the trouble; the press chip in and we heard that the British are doing nothing and suffering no casualties whilst the Americans are bearing all the brunt of the war"
“There is no doubt that Ike is all out to do all he can to maintain the best relations between British and Americans. But it is equally clear that Ike knows nothing about strategy. Bedell Smith, on the other hand, has brains but no military education in its true sense. He is certainly one of the best American officers but still falls far short when it comes to strategic outlook. With that Supreme Command set-up it is no wonder that Monty’s real high ability is not always realised. Especially so when ‘national’ spectacles pervert the perspective of the strategic landscape.” ’
Hardly the words of a Chief of Imperial General Staff that wanted to sack Montgomery...
As for Churchill, I am very familiar with his six volume history of the Second World War. There is no mention of a desire, or plan to sack Montgomery in that work.
Atkinson and Beevor were not even born when the war ended, and therefore could not have been there, unlike the people I have quoted. So what do Atkinson and Beevor offer in regard to 'everyone from Churchill to the Imperial General Staff wanted to sack him in Normandy'?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1