Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anybody who rises to the rank of general is unlikely to be a shrinking violet, and Montgomery, Patton, and MacArthur rose to be not just generals but army commanders, army group commanders, or the equivalent. I picked these three because they had, even as compared to their colleagues, outsized egos and a flare for creating their own favorable publicity. Some who rose that high maintained a much lower profile, such as the British general Alexander and the American Omar Bradley. So did the aura match the actual competence? Or was there more flam than substance in one or more of the cases?
My vote for the least competent general of the three goes to MacArthur. Time after time, he ignored intelligence estimates from his own staff when these did not accord with what he wanted to believe. He was constantly trying to gain more control of the Pacific war at the expense of Nimitz and the navy, and was shamelessly political in those efforts. (Nimitz, in my view, was a superb professional). He allowed his personal feelings to dictate the "necessity" of re-taking the Phillipines over other possibilities. I believe his objectivity was seriously flawed.
My vote for the best general of the three goes to Patton, despite his flaws. The Germans had tremendous respect for him and viewed him as the best allied general. He had a certain flair and drive which could have conceivably won the war during the fall of 1944 if he had been in charge of overall Allied ground strategy rather than the more cautious and timid Eishenhower, Bradley, et al., who allowed things to stagnate around about September and October of that year.
So Montgomery (in my opinion) is the man in the middle of our trio. A competent field commander who maintained the respect of the men he was leading, but endlessly self-promoting, sort of a braggart, really, whose performance didn't quite match his words.
I feel certain there will be disagreement about this. Fire away!
McArthur was a brillant genral as he showed in Kporean war and WWII i his skipping islands. They did not get tot hsoe positions by being stupid.After WWII McArthur was even a great comnader in governaing Japan as a mitlary authrity.Allk had thier strong as weak points like all men that great.Mongonery was a very good set battle commnader and of course later in the war had to acknopwledge the politcains i Britain not wnating high casulties especailly after the numbers in WWI.All were premadonna's has is common with men of great leadership; of course.
I don't think you can really put MacArthur in the same group as Patton and Montgomery. MacArthur was a theater commander holding a higher rank and essentially the equal to Eisenhower. He was not a direct field commander.
Of Patton and Montgomery, I think you have to give the nod to Patton as the better general. Patton's accomplishments, particularly in France and at the Battle of the Bulge set him above Monty in my book.
I don't think Montgomery was a "bad" commander by any stretch, but his greatest triumph in Africa had as much to do with Rommel's mistakes as it did with Monty's ability.
Patton could be reckless. Montgomery could be too cautious. MacArthur gave new meaning to egotistical. My vote goes to Montgomery as the least talented because of Operation Market-Garden.
I don't think you can really put MacArthur in the same group as Patton and Montgomery. MacArthur was a theater commander holding a higher rank and essentially the equal to Eisenhower. He was not a direct field commander.
Yes, as far as the title MacArthus held (theater commander), but if we look at the ground forces under his command, weren't they more comparable in number to those of an army group commander in Europe following D-Day, at least up until the point MacArthus was well engaged in the Phillipines? Just as army group commander is only one step up from army commander, theater commander, at least in Europe in Eisenhower's case, was only one step up from army group commander.
Monty operated under a very limited manpower and resource pool.His armies mobility was much less than his American allies,and,having survived the trenches,did not wish to throw his men away.Market Garden was completely out of the box for him,and came within an ace of success.Bad luck that they landed on an SS Panzergruppe refitting.The hypothetical bridgehead at Arnhem would have had eveything thrown at it,and its true value probably would have been diverting troops facing the U.S. Army,possibly allowing an American crossing of the Rhine months earlier.Logistics would have ground the Allies to a halt in the fall of 1944 regardless w/o Antwerp.Patton never appreciated logistics well enough to rise above army command.He was the most brilliant on the battlefield of the three.MacArthur convinced Roosvelt to allow an elastic defense of the Phillipines,having a misguided faith in the ability of his airforces and embroynic Phillipine army to repel invasion.This led to starvation and disaster when the original plan was reimplemented.His subsequent campaign at Buna was bloody.At least he learned from that experience.His later campaigns were much more economically run.Would give Stalin a run in the insecurity department,rarely giving subordinates credit.
Montgomery's flaw in Market Garden was No one would listen to some of his intell folks when they told him[via Dutch underground] of tanks and FM Model being in the area. IF he had jumped off on it a week earlier he would have nailed em hard and taken all the bridges AND captured a large section of the German Army.
The Germans were cautious of Montgomery BUT feared Pattan because he could get more out of his men with less casualties.
My dad was in the Phillipines and said McArthur was a great leader. Knew how to talk to the man and get them to do what was needed. He used to tell me of a few times Mac was up in the front lines puffing on his pipe and talking to some of the troops and telling to go kill some more Japs.
One of my uncles was in PT boats and was on the one that brought M out in 1942 he said M was so upset about leaving his boys behind he looked back as they were leaving shaking his head and had tears in his eyes. and kept saying over and over" I will be back!!"
I doubt Patton was in the same ballpark as MacArthur when it came to reckless. It's very difficult imagining Patton advocating an actual invasion of China--which MacArthur most certainly did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
