Who was better, monty or patton?

Question

Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, Knight of the Order of the Garter, Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, DSO, MID, Slayer of Rommel and saviour of North Africa and Europe

or General George Patton

Answer 1

I know that this post isn't going to be popular but then anything that trys to defend Monty's reputation tends to be unpopular so I dont really care but anyway:

Bernard Law Montgomery is lambasted by history in general for being an arrogant, big headed egomaniac who refused to admit that his plans had gone even slightly astray. He is also lambasted by history in general because he rubbed many people the wrong way...notably Bradley, Patton, Eisenhower, Marshall and the Americans in General as well as many British Generals.

Take his personality out of the picture and you have one of the most sucessful generals of the 20th century whose only real failure was Market Garden (I wont try to defend it).

Monty did something no other British General did and that was to realise his advantages over his enemy and use those advantages to their fullest to get victory. He is lambasted often for doing so where, in reality, if he hadn't done that he would be lambasted for not doing it.

Monty also did something no other British general did and that was to force his adversary to fight him as he wanted him to not the other way around. Before Monty came along, with one notable exception when the Auk was in charge, the British commander were just lining up their forces for Rommel to crush.

So he may not have been a dashing and daring general. Big deal. You dont have to be flashy to win wars. He was methodical and calculated and rarely did anything unless he was 90% cirtain of suceeding.

Was he the greatest general of the 20th century? Probably not but he is far from as bad as he is made out to be.

Between Patton and Monty my personal preference is with Monty but I dont think the two can be compared properly to decide who was better. After all beyond their egos they are not very alike in their military theories.

I would like to finish this with a quote from an Article I read a while ago from Carlo D'Este about Monty:

Historians of World War II have proven remarkably incapable of judging Montgomery on his merits. From Alexander the Great to Napoleon, history records that most successful military commanders were ruthless b******s. Montgomery was merely the latest in this long lineage. He has been bashed and castigated with equal fervor by British and Americans unable to separate his professional virtues from his personal faults, of which there were indeed many. As his official biographer writes, "the very virtues which gave his leadership its inspiring quality - absolute conviction, insistence on proper planning, ruthless professionalism - made him an infuriatingly opinionated and stubborn ally."

Answer 2

Patton, Montgomery was too cautious which caused terrific casualties, did you know Patton was related to the Robert e. Lee family?

Answer 3

First, I'm not that impressed with Montgomery.  He beat Rommel when DAK had no supplies, supply lines were overextended, he had huge numbers in tanks, artillery and troops, and complete air control.  

Second, Montgomery was not even the best of the British officers.  I agree that William Slim was better.  I though that Wingate (granted, not as senior of an officer) was better.   Horrocks I think was better.  I think that Alexander (who had a very difficult role) was better.  

But Monty was popular because after years of British forces getting pummeled on the ground (the war against Italy in North Africa before Rommel arrived being the exception), the Brits had a "winner."  His performance elsewhere in the war was either what you would have expected or disappointing.  For instance, the strategic and tactical handling of Market Garden was terrible and prolonged the war.  Furthermore, in a war that required cooperation for the western allies to succeed, Monty continually pushed the boundaries as far as he could. Eisenhower and even Alexander expressed exasperation with him and his behavior repeatedly--he quite simply, was not a good ally.

I'm not one to argue that Patton was brilliant.  He, like Monty, was full of himself.  He was far more aggressive than Monty, capable of accomplishing more with less and one of the best in all of the allied armies at offensive war.  But I would take Patton over Monty.

I agree that Patton made the US forces in North Africa combat effective than successful in Sicily.  After that, there would be no point at which you could arguably say that British ground units were consistently better than Americans (and in North Africa you would have said that and been right).

Answer 4

Patton.

Monty couldn't even defend Patton's flank.

Answer 5

George is better...in the depths of his accomplishments for his country.

Forget about the military accomplishments, the most important thing that George did was, through his own showmanship and bluster, gain leadership of the Allied forces in Europe...even though the Viscount had more men.

This was a far bigger part than the US ever had, even compared to WWI.  Because for the first time, the US was

Leader of the Free World...and, she hasn't given up that post since.

Answer 6

Both were big blowhards, but I would have to give the nod to Patton (although I am speaking with an American bias).  Montgomery wasn't even the best British general as that would have to go to Gen. William Slim.  Monty worked off the sweat of Gen. Auchinleck who did most of the work in North Africa.  He was good with the press, hence he became Britain's most famous General.  

Patton took a soft American Army and toughened them up through Africa, Sicily, Italy, and France.  If given the go ahead, the United States would have been first in Berlin (although the Russians rightfully deserved to take Berlin since without them, there would have been no victory in Europe).

Answer 7

George S. Patton

United States:  American Defense Service Ribbon,  Bronze Star,  Distinguished Service Cross with One Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster, Distinguished Service Medal with Two Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters,  Distinguished Service Medal (U.S. Navy)

European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Ribbon with One Silver Star and Two Bronze Stars, Legion of Merit

Purple Heart, Silver Star with One Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster

Victory Medal (WWII),  Victory Medal with Four Bronze Stars (WWI)

Great Britain: Most Honourable Order of the Bath,

Order of the British Empire, Enteur Pin of Malta

France:  Croix de Guerre of 1939 with Palm,  Croix de Guerre with Bronze Star, Medal of the Legion of Honor,

Medal of Verdun (WWI),  Metz Medal of Liberation (1944)

*Liberation of Tours "Patton" Medallion,  *Liberation Medallion, City of d'Epernay,  *Liberation Medallion, City of Metz (1918), *Medallion of the City of Rheims,

Belgium:  Croix de Guerre of 1940 with Palm, Grand Officer of the Order of Leopold with Palm, Civilian Shield,  

Czechoslovakia: Military Cross,  Order of the White Lion,

Luxembourg: Croix de Guerre, Order of Adolphe of Nassau, Grand Croix,

French Morocco: Grand Cross of Ouissam Alaouite,

Russia: Guard's Badge, Order of Koutouzov 1st Grade,

Protector of Monty's flank, Master of Tank Warfare and Old Blood and Guts.

Answer 8

I'd say Patton. Montgomery was very patient, never to force anything, and only took action when everything was in his favor. He was really good at making something out of nothing.

Answer 9

They were both different types of leader but Eisenhower trusted Montgomery enough to give him overall control of the land forces for the Normandy invasion which was a total success and the one thing that had to be got right for the liberation of Western Europe.

He had the intelligence to realise that, after the Germans managed to defend Caen during the first few days, the invasion would turn into a hard slogging battle  and decided to take on the major part of the German tank forces on the British and Canadian front so allowing the Americans to build up their forces in comparative comfort for the right hook out of the Cotentin peninsular.

The Americans did this OK and once Patton was into Brittany he found that most of the opposition had already been destroyed allowing him to capture a lot of territory with few casualties.

The main problem between Montgomery and Eisenhower was that Montgomery favoured an advance in overwhelming force on a narrow front to strike at the heart of Germany before winter set in and made tank battles difficult whereas Eisenhower wanted a wide advance to the German frontier.

Montgomery attempted to put his ideas into action with Operation Market Garden which aimed at crossiing the Rhine at Arnhem with a series of airborne drops which succeded except fot the final one at Arnhem which failed due to thick low cloud preventing the Allied airforce from supporting the ground troops.

After that Eisenhower insisted on doing things his way but still had to call on Montgomery to plug the gap in the American front when the Germans attacked during December 1944 in the Ardennes.

If Montgomery had been successful in his strategy the war would have finished in 1944.

Patton never had the same breadth of vision.