Bill Slim v Monty
Bill Slim v Monty
I've always wondered how Bill Slim would have performed if it was he, and not Montgomery, who led the British Army during the Invasion of Europe.
Both capable, but totally different In personality and the approach to war. Both did outstanding jobs in building up morale and skill in armies that had suffered defeats eg Monty in the Western Desert and Slim in Burma.
From there though their approaches differ considerably.
Slim approach to training was superior to that of Monty, giving much more latitude to subalterns in the decision making process and putting plans into practice. In this way his approach is more reminiscent of the German approach. It's interesting to note that Slims approach to training is the basis of the British Army's modern day training methods, and not that of Monty. Slim is also acknowledged as far more flexible in his approach manoeuvre warfare than Monty, not surprising given the type of battlefield environment with which he fought.
But given the above, how would Slim have performed with the greater emphasis on armour in battle in Europe; in this he was much less experienced than Monty.
Both capable, but totally different In personality and the approach to war. Both did outstanding jobs in building up morale and skill in armies that had suffered defeats eg Monty in the Western Desert and Slim in Burma.
From there though their approaches differ considerably.
Slim approach to training was superior to that of Monty, giving much more latitude to subalterns in the decision making process and putting plans into practice. In this way his approach is more reminiscent of the German approach. It's interesting to note that Slims approach to training is the basis of the British Army's modern day training methods, and not that of Monty. Slim is also acknowledged as far more flexible in his approach manoeuvre warfare than Monty, not surprising given the type of battlefield environment with which he fought.
But given the above, how would Slim have performed with the greater emphasis on armour in battle in Europe; in this he was much less experienced than Monty.
Re: Bill Slim v Monty
Slim had nothing like the background in corps and army level operations against the Germans. Montgomery had fought against the Germans as a divisional commander, played a significant role in training the Home Forces to fight as Corps and Armies against the Germans. He demonstrated that these methods worked against Rommel, who prior to Montgomery's appointment had established a morale superiority over the 8th Army. He led the 8th Army to victory in North Africa, Sicily and as far as the Sangro in Italy, shaping the Op Husky plan.
In what way has Bill Slim's career prepared him for senior command in 1944? Slim was junior to Montgomery and his progression two years behind. Maybe the Bill Slim of 1945 would have been considered for Army Group Command - in 1945.
In what way has Bill Slim's career prepared him for senior command in 1944? Slim was junior to Montgomery and his progression two years behind. Maybe the Bill Slim of 1945 would have been considered for Army Group Command - in 1945.
Re: Bill Slim v Monty
Eh?Pips wrote: From there though their approaches differ considerably.
Slim approach to training was superior to that of Monty, giving much more latitude to subalterns in the decision making process and putting plans into practice.
-
- Member
- Posts: 3211
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
- Location: UK
Re: Bill Slim v Monty
Pips,
Regards
Tom
Is that your opinion - based on what? After all, Slim never fought the Germans...Slim is also acknowledged as far more flexible in his approach manoeuvre warfare than Monty, not surprising given the type of battlefield environment with which he fought.
Regards
Tom
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Bill Slim v Monty
Between them Montgomery and Slim seem to have served in every major British Army campaign of the war, except Norway. However, their activities seem never to have overlapped.
Given their different experiences in separate theatres throughout the war, I would suggest that nothing definitive can be said on the matter. Each won in his own theatres, but whether their experiences and talents were fully cross-transferable is another matter.
Cheers,
Sid.
Given their different experiences in separate theatres throughout the war, I would suggest that nothing definitive can be said on the matter. Each won in his own theatres, but whether their experiences and talents were fully cross-transferable is another matter.
Cheers,
Sid.
- Terry Duncan
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 6270
- Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
- Location: Kent
Re: Bill Slim v Monty
I would say that Montgomery was the right man to lead the Normandy invasion, his experience in the style of warfare to be expected was greater than that of Slim, who would have been in a position of having to learn a lot on the spot, which for such a crucial campaign would hardly be desirable.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Bill Slim v Monty
Hi Terry,
I would suggest that the reverse also holds true. To paraphrase:
I would say that Slim was the right man to lead the Burma campaign, his experience in the style of warfare to be expected was greater than that of Montgomery, who would have been in a position of having to learn a lot on the spot, which for such a crucial campaign would hardly be desirable.
Each won in his own theatres, but whether their experiences and talents were fully cross-transferable is another matter.
Cheers,
Sid.
I would suggest that the reverse also holds true. To paraphrase:
I would say that Slim was the right man to lead the Burma campaign, his experience in the style of warfare to be expected was greater than that of Montgomery, who would have been in a position of having to learn a lot on the spot, which for such a crucial campaign would hardly be desirable.
Each won in his own theatres, but whether their experiences and talents were fully cross-transferable is another matter.
Cheers,
Sid.