Auchinleck

[phylo_roadking]

Exception: he badly botched the Arnhem operation.

And to that add Goodwood and elements of the british sections of the Westwall. Goodwood was hugely costly, and hugely late. There are are SO many times where you can see that apart from incorporating new tech nology etc., Monty's tactical ideas are firmly "entrenched" in the Somme....!

[Reb]

Redcoat

No argument from me.

But please allow me to pose a question to you:

Who would rather have had in charge of the pursuit after Second Alamein - Monty or Auchinleck?


cheers
Reb

[redcoat]

Redcoat

No argument from me.

But please allow me to pose a question to you:

Who would rather have had in charge of the pursuit after Second Alamein - Monty or Auchinleck?


cheers
Reb

Monty.
He was a master of logistics. His army advanced 780 miles in twenty days after El Alamein.
If this rate of advanced had been maintained in the German attack on the Soviet Union, Moscow would have been in German hands by the 18th day of the invasion.
Even in the campaign in NW Europe his rate of advance after the breakout was excellent, even when compared to Patton's
For example. from the 1 Aug, when Patton's Third Army was activated at Avranches, to 26 Aug, when it's lead elements reached the Seine near Troyes, the army had advanced approximately 260 miles an average of 10 miles a day. Meanwhile, 21st Army Group was still facing the bulk of the German panzer divisions and facing an enemy fighting for it's life while attempting to escape the Falaise pocket. Patton was advancing against negligible opposition. But from 26 August on, when the bulk of the Allied forces had closed to and crossed the Seine, 21st Army Group reached Antwerp on 4 Sep, a distance of approx 200 miles in nine days an average of 22 miles a day, and Maastricht on 14 Sept, a distance of 250 miles from the Seine. Meanwhile, in that same period, Patton advanced 100-150 miles.

The claim that Monty was always slow in following up, centers around the first day or two after the 2nd battle of El Alamein. When due to the disorganised state of the break-through forces, the continued resistance from Rommels static units which had been left behind, and the fact that the majority of his army was stuck behind the 5 mile deep minefields, the advance was slow.
Also his troops, despite Monty's orders to 'crack on' showed some initial caution in following up after Rommel, not quite believing that Rommel had been decisively defeated.

[Reb]

Redcoat

I disagree - and I'm a fan of Monty.

But not always.

The pursuit after Alamein may have been a logistical triumph but it was hardly impressive from the military perspective. Had their roles been reversed and Rommel leading the pursuit it would have been over in two weeks.

He let a minor counterattack at Villiers Bocage stop a whole corps. (so did Dempsy but Monty rarely had any problem with micro managing his commanders)

Monty's conduct at Arnhem was disgraceful. Decent idea but then mister micro manager failed to micro manage! I've never understoon that one.
And what was up with Horrocks? That guy usually was johnny on the spot!

Had Patton been in command at Arnhem 1 A/B would most certainly not have been wiped out - the commander of Guards Armd would have though!

cheers
Reb

[redcoat]

Redcoat

I disagree - and I'm a fan of Monty.

But not always.

The pursuit after Alamein may have been a logistical triumph but it was hardly impressive from the military perspective. Had their roles been reversed and Rommel leading the pursuit it would have been over in two weeks.

What makes you say that ?
After all, Rommel never managed to trap the 8th army in any of its retreats, and he was supposed to be the master of fluid warfare.
The only time an army was totally outflanked in the desert was in 1941, and that was a Italian army which was fairly immobile.
Remember the Axis army which retreated after El Alamein left all its heavy equipment behind, it was a rabble in effect, and because of this it could retreat quickly.
The Axis army that fought at El Alamein was destroyed as an effective fighting force, if Hitler hadn't sent over massive amounts of replacement equipment and men, the campaign in North Africa would have been over

He let a minor counterattack at Villiers Bocage stop a whole corps. (so did Dempsy but Monty rarely had any problem with micro managing his commanders)

It was the corps commander who over-reacted to the counterattack,Monty was furious when he found out what they had done

Monty's conduct at Arnhem was disgraceful. Decent idea but then mister micro manager failed to micro manage! I've never understoon that one.
And what was up with Horrocks? That guy usually was johnny on the spot!

Monty like the rest of the Allied high command was under the impression that the German army had been totally defeated in the Battle of France. they had been , but their powers of recovery caught all the Allied commanders by surprise.

Had Patton been in command at Arnhem 1 A/B would most certainly not have been wiped out - the commander of Guards Armd would have though!

Maybe, maybe not. his performance at Metz at around the same time was not something to write home about.

[Reb]

Redcoat

I disagree - and I'm a fan of Monty.

But not always.

The pursuit after Alamein may have been a logistical triumph but it was hardly impressive from the military perspective. Had their roles been reversed and Rommel leading the pursuit it would have been over in two weeks.

What makes you say that ?
After all, Rommel never managed to trap the 8th army in any of its retreats, and he was supposed to be the master of fluid warfare.
The only time an army was totally outflanked in the desert was in 1941, and that was a Italian army which was fairly immobile.
Remember the Axis army which retreated after El Alamein left all its heavy equipment behind, it was a rabble in effect, and because of this it could retreat quickly.
The Axis army that fought at El Alamein was destroyed as an effective fighting force, if Hitler hadn't sent over massive amounts of replacement equipment and men, the campaign in North Africa would have been over

Losing your vehicles and petrol supply hardly allows you to move faster. I truly believe if Rommel had been Monty's position - full gass tanks, lots of supplies, vast numbers etc the coup de grace would have happened.

Admittedly, pursuit ops are more complicated than usually believed which is why we always talk about the sames ones (Jena etc) but Rommel had proven his ability to go for the jugular in France.

He let a minor counterattack at Villiers Bocage stop a whole corps. (so did Dempsy but Monty rarely had any problem with micro managing his commanders)

It was the corps commander who over-reacted to the counterattack,Monty was furious when he found out what they had done

But why so late in finding out? He rarely distanced himself from important ops.

Monty's conduct at Arnhem was disgraceful. Decent idea but then mister micro manager failed to micro manage! I've never understoon that one.
And what was up with Horrocks? That guy usually was johnny on the spot!

Monty like the rest of the Allied high command was under the impression that the German army had been totally defeated in the Battle of France. they had been , but their powers of recovery caught all the Allied commanders by surprise.

That's the excuse one commonly hears. But I bet it rang hollow with the surviving red devils.

Had Patton been in command at Arnhem 1 A/B would most certainly not have been wiped out - the commander of Guards Armd would have though!

Maybe, maybe not. his performance at Metz at around the same time was not something to write home about.

Patton's forte was that sort of thing. Metz? I quite agree. That's the kind of battle where you really need a Monty - but on the other hand, perhaps Patton too thought Jerry was finished and got surprised?

cheers
Reb

[raj-rif]

Redcoat

I disagree - and I'm a fan of Monty.

But not always.

The pursuit after Alamein may have been a logistical triumph but it was hardly impressive from the military perspective. Had their roles been reversed and Rommel leading the pursuit it would have been over in two weeks.

What makes you say that ?
After all, Rommel never managed to trap the 8th army in any of its retreats, and he was supposed to be the master of fluid warfare.
The only time an army was totally outflanked in the desert was in 1941, and that was a Italian army which was fairly immobile.
.

Indeed in 1942 when Benghazi fell Rommel's Africa corps closed arounf the town on the night of January 28th, inside the town was 7 Brigade of 4th indian division, now everyone would expect a brigade that size in a town surrounded like Benghazi was to be put in the bag, however Brigadier Briggs ordered the Brigade to form into 3 groups, Gold Group, Silver Group and Headquaters Group, these three groups 4,100 men in all slipped out into the desert, passed through the encircling Germans and crossed Rommel's line of advance, all had been ordered not to fire on aircraft but to instead wave. 2 groupd did this and never lost any men, however one group opened fire at a plane and was shot up losing a handfull of men, thus by guile and daring 4,080 men who should have gone into the bag returned to their divisional lines.

[stevenz]

Auchinleck belived in the faulty tactics of deploying Brigade size battle groups in the desert with no tank support and commnwealth frorces paid dearly for it time and time again Rommel had it over them becaause he fought his Divisions as divisions with infantry and tanks supporting each other.

The New Zealand leadership had no support for Aukinleck he was a failure.

[Hans]

I worked with about 7/8 Rats of Tobruk. They revered "The AUK". Had little to say about Monty apart from "He was up himself." Also worked with a number of Pakistanis who thought that The AUK was a God [and they only met him long after the war]. His reputation with his "Indian" troops seems to have been second to none. What do I think? Probably Monty owed a lot to The Auks planning.

- Hans

[Reb]

Stevenz

Auchinleck won the first battle of Alamein. Monty used his plans for Alam Halfa. He was one smart fellow and had but a single (and fatal) flaw: he picked bad subordinates (Cunningham, Ritchie) and then stuck with them longer than he should.

The NZ Div was instrumental in Auchinlecks victory at First Alamein. His strategy was to mass his guns (surprisingly, a new concept) and blast the Italian troops, then over-run them in massive infantry attacks.

His was in effect, playing tennis with the Germans - making them dance to his tune. Which was rather new in the desert...

cheers
Reb

[stevenz]

Stevenz

Auchinleck won the first battle of Alamein. Monty used his plans for Alam Halfa. He was one smart fellow and had but a single (and fatal) flaw: he picked bad subordinates (Cunningham, Ritchie) and then stuck with them longer than he should.

The NZ Div was instrumental in Auchinlecks victory at First Alamein. His strategy was to mass his guns (surprisingly, a new concept) and blast the Italian troops, then over-run them in massive infantry attacks.

His was in effect, playing tennis with the Germans - making them dance to his tune. Which was rather new in the desert...

cheers
Reb

Auchinlecks weakness was he persisted with the brigade sized battle group which was a failure because not only were they dispersing there infantry,artillary,anti tank gun fire but also there were no tanks in support they were off doing there own thing and we got over run by German tanks on several occasions after we had taken our objectives because we had no tank support and this was not corrected until Montgomery took charge.

Auchinleck should have seen this and fixed it sooner the same mistakes were made over and over again.

Cheers
steve

[Reb]

Monty made a big deal about not using Brigade Groups and then went ahead and used them!

The Germans used Brigade sized battle groups routinely and after the war this became sort of an accepted practice.

The problem the Brits had with it was not that the Brigade Group itself was bad (see Armd Div Org in Normandy - they codified it!). IT was that they didn't do it well.

Oddly enough - the NZ Div was pretty good at it. Which explains why they were assigned an integral armoured brigade (the 9th) and used as sort of a pz gren div.

cheers
Reb

[sid guttridge]

Hi Guys,

One of the problems for Auchinlek and his predecessor Wavell, was that their responsibilities covered enormous areas of the Middle East, Africa and Asia. They were therefore not the direct equivalent of Rommel and could not micromanage the tactical battle from the front as he did. They relied on subordinates who were either not as good as Rommel, such as Ritchie, or not as lucky as Rommel, like O'Connor or Gott.

Monty was not likeable, any more than Patton, but in their different ways they were both capable, lucky and got things done.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Rodger Herbst]

Hi Sid, didn't Wavall and the Auk have the job of trying to make the transfer from UK to India when India gained independance? As I understand it was one hell of a mess, expecting so much in such a short time line, all the political bickering, it must have taken the patience of a Saint.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Rodger,

Neither Wavell nor Auchinleck were responsible for the partition debacle. That was down to Mountbatten.

Wavell was Mountbatten's predecessor and therefore left when he arrived. Auchinlek soon fell out with Mountbatten and resigned.

Cheers,

Sid.