The Normandy "Masterplan"

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Post Reply
Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#76

Post by Gooner1 » 28 Oct 2020, 12:42

Pips wrote:
28 Oct 2020, 01:27
Does anyone know the reasons behind Tedder's animosity towards Montgomery? Is it grounded in personal or professional causes?
There was the controversy over air support at the battle of the Tebaga Gap.

Possibly what galled the most was how Monty was feted like a film star when he came back to blighty.


Aber
Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#77

Post by Aber » 29 Oct 2020, 09:51

Richard Anderson wrote:
27 Oct 2020, 19:31
Eisenhower was "in charge" as CG, ETOUSA, and as SCAEF, but only so within the parameters of those jobs. He certainly was not "managing" Marshall since Marshall, as Army Chief of Staff, was "in charge" of Eisenhower rather than the other war round. :lol:
"Managing" your boss is a very important skill :D especially for example when he has suggestions about the use of airborne troops.

There is no doubt that nominally Eisenhower was in charge, but the fact that at various points he had to emphasise in letters etc that he was "in charge" slightly undercuts it.


Aber
Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#78

Post by Aber » 29 Oct 2020, 10:13

Michael Kenny wrote:
28 Oct 2020, 08:01
I believe it nothing more than a fight over who 'won the war'.

This paper has a lot of the personal invective https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/centr ... -normandy/
Very interesting paper. Key quote from Tedder in the Western Desert in mid 1942
‘You should know that the RAF in the Desert realise that they have saved the Army, both in the recent advance and the withdrawal, and naturally resent any suggestion that the Army should control them.’ The spirit of the RAF personnel was ‘give us some tanks and we will stop this retreating if the Army does not wish to fight.’

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#79

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 29 Oct 2020, 17:13

Aber wrote:
29 Oct 2020, 09:51
...
There is no doubt that nominally Eisenhower was in charge, but the fact that at various points he had to emphasise in letters etc that he was "in charge" slightly undercuts it.
About every commander I remember working for & most of my peers had to give such remainder. Every leader worth a damm pushes boundaries. They must be reminded when they are at a hard boundary. Its business as usual.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3209
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#80

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 29 Oct 2020, 21:31

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
29 Oct 2020, 17:13
About every commander I remember working for & most of my peers had to give such remainder. Every leader worth a damm pushes boundaries. They must be reminded when they are at a hard boundary. Its business as usual.
Carl,

Brooke would agree with you that some commanders needed reminding when pushing too hard at the boundary of their responsibility; this is from David Fraser's Alanbrooke, p.258:
For the CIGS was also sharply aware, as he had been from the days when he had firmly commanded in his Corps this gifted, energetic and idiosyncratic soldier, that Montgomery possessed a powerful strain of egocentricity and an assurance which was indispensable when well-directed but which could appear provocative and ill-mannered when not. So it continued. ‘Monty still requires the occasional kick on the backside’, Brooke wrote to Wavell about their fellow Field-Marshal as late as 1944, ‘and I am trying to make certain he gets it!’ [Note 25: Alanbrooke Papers (section 12).]
:D

Regards

Tom

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#81

Post by Michael Kenny » 29 Oct 2020, 23:42

Aber wrote:
29 Oct 2020, 10:13
Key quote from Tedder in the Western Desert in mid 1942
‘You should know that the RAF in the Desert realise that they have saved the Army, both in the recent advance and the withdrawal, and naturally resent any suggestion that the Army should control them.’ The spirit of the RAF personnel was ‘give us some tanks and we will stop this retreating if the Army does not wish to fight.’
Saw it and to me it sums up the problems that Tedder ( The RAF?) had with Monty. It appears he thought 'The Army' forgot they were just there to move forward and secure the area after the Germans fled when air-power destroyed their Armies. I think Tedder believed 21 AG was attached to The RAF Regiment

Sean Oliver
Member
Posts: 177
Joined: 14 Sep 2007, 19:18
Location: Wisconsin USA

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#82

Post by Sean Oliver » 30 Oct 2020, 03:51

As the Jan 44 notes indicate by the US objectives of Cherbourg and Brittany, the 'masterplan' of the initial Normandy campaign required 21 Army Group 's deployment around Bayeux-Caen to - among other things - prevent any German counterattack from threatening the Americans' flank and rear as they drove north toward the port of CHERBOURG and west towards the ports of BRITTANY. This role for 21 AG was necessary only insofar as the Americans were driving north and west, and the Germans tried to interfere with this. Seizing those ports quickly was considered by Montgomery to be the first important priority of the whole campaign, which is why 21 AG was designated to help ensure their capture.
This is the extent of Montgomery's pre-D-day masterplan. It does not mention or suggest American breakouts rolling up the Wehrmacht all the way to Paris while the British 'protect' them, beyond the issue of the US moves to take the ports.
But once Cherbourg was taken there was no need for 21 AG to 'protect' the Americans. 21 AG could be free to go all the way to Germany.

Does anyone honesty think Montgomery would gather all of his commanders months before D-Day and explain to them that his masterplan calls for the British troops under his command to remain stuck at Caen for 3 bloody and demoralizing months of positional warfare against a dozen German Panzer divisions so that Patton and the Americans can get all the glory and credit for smashing the Germans as they drive around the flank and into Paris?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#83

Post by Michael Kenny » 30 Oct 2020, 12:10

Sean Oliver wrote:
30 Oct 2020, 03:51
It does not mention or suggest American breakouts rolling up the Wehrmacht all the way to Paris while the British 'protect' them, beyond the issue of the US moves to take the ports.
Correct so it is puzzling that you feel the need to state it. The 'Plan' was to land, consolidate the beaches and then the US Army heads west to open the Atlantic ports so reinforcements and supplies could be landed direct from the USA whilst the Commonwealth dealt with the arriving German reinforcements. The Allies would then pause and consolidate in western France before a general advance east. It was never expected that this 'hinge' would be as far north as Caen. Circumstances dictated the 'Caen' fixation and instead of being a Monty setback that delayed the advance the decisive battle that was expected to be fought in central France was fought Caen/Falaise and the eventual Allied victory was achieved months ahead of the most optimistic forecasts
Far from a 'failure to take Caen' being a defeat or setback it was a gift from the Germans where their no-retreat order ensured the complete destruction of the forces expected to delay the advance to the Mass (remember those phase lines?) which was expected on D+330 (April 1945) and ultimate victory which was penciled in for June-July 1945. Whichever way you look at the campaign in NWE 1944-45 there is no denying it was a brilliant success. Those who harbour an irrational visceral hatred of a certain general are thus forced to fixate on the few setbacks in order to further their vindictive agenda.


Sean Oliver wrote:
30 Oct 2020, 03:51
Does anyone honesty think Montgomery would gather all of his commanders months before D-Day and explain to them that his masterplan calls for the British troops under his command to remain stuck at Caen for 3 bloody and demoralizing months of positional warfare against a dozen German Panzer divisions so that Patton and the Americans can get all the glory and credit for smashing the Germans as they drive around the flank and into Paris?
No one honestly believes it but their is a large number of dishonest people who see the campaign as two competing Armies where only one can 'win the war' and the other then relegated to an also-ran who was more of a hinderance than a help.

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3209
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#84

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 30 Oct 2020, 16:54

Sean,
Sean Oliver wrote:
30 Oct 2020, 03:51
As the Jan 44 notes indicate by the US objectives of Cherbourg and Brittany, the 'masterplan' of the initial Normandy campaign required 21 Army Group 's deployment around Bayeux-Caen to - among other things - prevent any German counterattack from threatening the Americans' flank and rear as they drove north toward the port of CHERBOURG and west towards the ports of BRITTANY. This role for 21 AG was necessary only insofar as the Americans were driving north and west, and the Germans tried to interfere with this. Seizing those ports quickly was considered by Montgomery to be the first important priority of the whole campaign, which is why 21 AG was designated to help ensure their capture.
Well not quite, as for most of this period First US Army was part of 21 Army Group.
Sean Oliver wrote:
30 Oct 2020, 03:51
This is the extent of Montgomery's pre-D-day masterplan. It does not mention or suggest American breakouts rolling up the Wehrmacht all the way to Paris while the British 'protect' them, beyond the issue of the US moves to take the ports.
True, but then again the objective of Operation 'COBRA' wasn't Paris.
Sean Oliver wrote:
30 Oct 2020, 03:51
But once Cherbourg was taken there was no need for 21 AG to 'protect' the Americans. 21 AG could be free to go all the way to Germany.
Which contradicts your opening statement about the British Commonwealth forces shielding the US forces whilst they captured both Cherbourg and the Brittany ports.

And, as I have shown before in this thread in post #33, when Cobra was launched the British and Canadian forces' objective absolutely was to support the US effort:
Dempsey Diary
TUESDAY - 25 JUL 44
1730
Flew to Headquarters 21 Army Group and saw C-in-C. In order to give even more help to the First Army operation, he wishes Second Army to carry out an operation at the beginning of August, either EAST or WEST of R ORNE. It will have no geographical objective, but will be a continuation of the policy which has held good the whole time - that Second Army shall deal with the main enemy force while First Army swings forward with its RIGHT.
And finally,
Sean Oliver wrote:
30 Oct 2020, 03:51
so that Patton and the Americans can get all the glory and credit for smashing the Germans as they drive around the flank and into Paris?
Who cares about Patton and glory, this thread is trying to be about 'history'. :roll:

Regards

Tom

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#85

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 01 Nov 2020, 03:31

... Saw it and to me it sums up the problems that Tedder ( The RAF?) had with Monty. It appears he thought 'The Army' forgot they were just there to move forward and secure the area after the Germans fled when air-power destroyed their Armies. I think Tedder believed 21 AG was attached to The RAF Regiment
Top.
Sounds like light work arbitrating that. This is dealing tired old men in late middle age. Try it with a room full of 28 y/o testosterone charged Captains with the egos of youth.

Aber
Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#86

Post by Aber » 01 Nov 2020, 11:43

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
29 Oct 2020, 17:13
About every commander I remember working for & most of my peers had to give such remainder. Every leader worth a damm pushes boundaries. They must be reminded when they are at a hard boundary. Its business as usual.
Agree that reminding your subordinates who is in charge is normal; Eisenhower was having to tell Marshall that it was his plan (not Montgomery's). That was probably due to reactions from US population, press and politicians about coverage of the campaign. Alexander probably had the same issues in North Africa.

Aber
Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#87

Post by Aber » 01 Nov 2020, 11:59

Michael Kenny wrote:
29 Oct 2020, 23:42
Saw it and to me it sums up the problems that Tedder ( The RAF?) had with Monty. It appears he thought 'The Army' forgot they were just there to move forward and secure the area after the Germans fled when air-power destroyed their Armies.
I'm sure I've seen quotes from senior RAF leaders that victory at Alamein was so certain "my chief of staff could have won it".

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#88

Post by Michael Kenny » 01 Nov 2020, 17:32

Aber wrote:
01 Nov 2020, 11:59


I'm sure I've seen quotes from senior RAF leaders that victory at Alamein was so certain "my chief of staff could have won it".
I think Tedder was Ingersoll's main source!

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#89

Post by Michael Kenny » 20 Nov 2020, 06:29

Leigh-Mallory kept a Diary.

https://rafoverlord.blogspot.com/p/leigh-mallory.html

It is long (173 pages) but it shows the scale of the problem. He has no positive view of 'the army' at all.

Sample:
Leigh Mallory June 14th.jpg
Screenshot_53.jpg
Screenshot_66.jpg
Screenshot_66.jpg (89.46 KiB) Viewed 559 times
Screenshot_73.jpg
Screenshot_74.jpg
He clearly states it was the Air Force that 'won' Normandy but he also expected the war would end in September!

User avatar
Pips
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: 26 Jun 2005, 09:44
Location: Country NSW, Australia

Re: The Normandy "Masterplan"

#90

Post by Pips » 28 Nov 2020, 02:29

Just a further note on the animosity between Monty and the RAF leaders, particularly Tedder and Conningham.

I've come across a Research paper at the AWM, titled 'Me, myself and I: How important were personality, ego and personal relationships to British Air Land Integration in the Western Desert and Normandy?' by Wg Cdr P Rait RAF. Rait attended the Joint services Command And Staff College in 2014.

It addresses the formulation of 'Air Land Integration' developed in the Western Desert during WWII; and the three men that made it work ie Tedder, Coningham and Montgomery, who did so through their initially close personal relationships. And the fracture of those personal relationships during the Normandy Campaign, and how that affected both the Land and Air war.

As I've only just started it, it should make for interesting reading.

The three following quotes at the beginning of the Paper seem to highlight the root cause of the animosity:
‘We’ve been taken for suckers by Montgomery!’1 Air Chief Marshal Tedder, July 1944.

‘It’s always “Montgomery’s Army”, “Montgomery’s Victory”, “Montgomery strikes again”. You never say “Coningham’s air force”.’2 Air Marshal Coningham to journalists, 1944.

‘I readily admit that the decision to become the focus of their attention was personally enjoyable to me.’3 General Montgomery, 1942.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”