Date: 2025-05-01 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00017605
Military
Some History
Quora ... If Montgomery was a bad general, how did he defeat Rommel?
Peter Burgess
Rommel and Montgomery both had their strengths and weaknesses as generals. Rommel was a bold, aggressive offensive general in the Prussian tradition, put into a situation where his tactics created more risk than they would have had he employed them in continental Europe. Rommel’s logistics were never good, and Rommel himself understood that unless he won a complete victory in a short time, his enemies had far greater resources and would overwhelm him.
Montgomery, on the other hand, is more what you’d expect from a capable British general. You couldn’t drive him from a position he wanted to hold, but he wasn’t as good when he had the tactical initiative, as his dilatory pursuit of Rommel after Alamein demonstrates. If the British had a “Rommel” of their own pursuing the original, then the Afrika Korps never makes it to Mareth. But that general might not have won such a crushing victory at Alamein in the first place.
Montgomery held his position at Alamein and methodically built up a force that allowed him to grind Rommel’s forces down. After Alam el Halfa, Rommel wanted and expected Montgomery to counterattack him before he was ready, and attrit his own forces in so doing. He even complained to Kesselring that Monty wouldn’t attack him! Instead, Montgomery waited until he had overwhelming force and then used it properly; his “crumbling” tactics against Rommel’s defense were exactly what were needed. And by building up his forces before pitching into the Axis forces, Montgomery had an almost 2:1 advantage in troop strength, tanks, artillery pieces and anti-tank guns—something that the disposition map above doesn’t show.
He knew he had superior resources at his disposal, he was in a strong position, and he handled his army well. He forced Rommel to fight the last battle at Alamein on his terms, whereas in the past, the British had fought on Rommel’s terms far too often.
Ironically, in that battle and its aftermath, Rommel’s skills were best shown on his retreat, when he got away from the methodical Montgomery and escaped capture in a retreat of more than 1,500 miles.
48.1k views · View Upvoters · View Sharers
Peter Burgess
Recommended
All
Marco Antonio Muñoz
Marco Antonio Muñoz
Sep 15 · 57 upvotes
I would like to add one precision: it is not that Montgomery was a bad general, it's just that he is overrated.
From what I have read, it's true that Montgomery led the British forces that achieved victory at El Alamein. However, the initial defense, the build up of forces and the overall plan were not Montgonery’s work, it was the work of his predecessor, Claude Auchinleck. In fact, Montgomery simply took command and proceeded to execute a plan that had already been laid out and prepared by Auchinleck. And in consequence also took the glory and credit for the whole operation, while Auchinleck faded into obscurity.
Al. S. Neworth
Al. S. Neworth
Oct 24 · 9 upvotes
Marco Antonio Munoz: When Montgomery replaced Auchinleck (an able Commander, but rather too methodical), Monty found an Army that was utterly demoralised. Seeing this, he had them form a parade.
He would walk along their lines and stop every so often, and ask the man his name, rank, and “What is your most important possession?”
After reaching his dais, he addressed the assemblage [shortened and paraphrased]: Every man I asked to name his most important possession replied, ‘My rifle, sir.’ I am here to tell you that it is not! Your most important possession is your life! And if you listen, I will tell you how to save it!”
With that simple summary, he earned the troops’ respect, and began the turnaround in morale which, more than any other single factor, wins wars.
And THAT is why he was a FAR greater General than Patton could ever hope to have been.
Martyn Dawson
Martyn Dawson
Oct 7 · 8 upvotes
Montgomery was also the man that made Overlord happen, taking the flawed plan and making it into one that was successful.
Marco Antonio Muñoz: You’re the second person that makes that claim, but I find no source on the matter....
View More Replies
Malcolm Keen
Malcolm Keen
Sep 15 · 10 upvotes including John Cate
Montgomery was the master of the st piece battle which was why during the Normandy campaign and after the saying was, “If you want something done quickly, don't ask Monty'. Nevertheless, he knew that he was leading an army of citizen soldiers and he was insistent on not uselessly expending their lives as he had seen in WWI; for that reason, he built up his forces, defended his lines of communication and then attacking. His departure from that at Arnhem was a disaster.
John Cate
John Cate
Original Author · Sep 15 · 7 upvotes
Exactly. I thought about Arnhem while I was writing that too.
As for Alamein, when Montgomery made that into a set-piece battle, Rommel was toast and I think he knew it.