soc.history.war.world-war-ii

In article ,
William Black wrote:
>>
>Patton never commanded an Army Corps.
>
Briefly.

>He never achieved the high command Montgomery did.
>
One step below. I feel reasonably comfortable comparing people
at adjacent steps. Sometimes I compare them two steps apart
(e.g., Patton would not have worked well in Eisenhower's job).
More than that I get definitely uncomfortable.

>The only area where their performance is comparable is North Africa.
>
Where Montgomery commanded an army, and Patton commanded a
corps. Um.....

>Patton got thrashed, Montgomery didn't...
>
If you're thinking of Kasserine Pass, Patton wasn't there. Patton
was brought in later to fix the damage a few bad commanders of
both nationalities had done. It wasn't a wholly US debacle.

Now, if you want comparable positions, try Sicily. I'm more
impressed by Patton than Montgomery in Sicily. (In fairness,
I don't think it was one of Montgomery's best, while it was
closer to being Patton's best.)

>Indeed Patton got thrashed by an army Montgomery had already beaten.
>
Actually, no. Only part of the forces were from Rommel's army,
the corps commander was Fredendall (who quite properly never
had a combat command again), the army commander was British,
and Patton was quite a distance away.

Now, if you want to pick on Fredendall's ability, I'm afraid you'll
have to wait in a long line to get your turn. He makes some of
the more political SS and Soviet appointments look kinda good.




--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-