Poll: Patton or Montgomery?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Poll: Patton or Montgomery?

      Which historical person is better known? 51
      1.  
        Montgomery (14) 27%
      2.  
        George S. Patton (37) 73%
      Dear players,

      here is a small poll for you. Which of these two generals do you know or even like better?

      George S. Patton, US Army general
      or
      Bernard Montgomery, Field Marshal of the British Army

      We would love to hear your opinions and see some discussions here!

      Your Call of War Team
      Griseldis / Faey
      Community Manager
      Bytro Labs GmbH

    • Monty! Patton is great too, dont get me wrong(maybe a bit too overplayed). Patton was a great leader, had the quickest liberation/capture of enemy territory and enemy armies. ^^ Monty was an excellent strategist, it was mainly his victory at El Alamien that helped turn the tide of battle and allow Patton to gain victory in Europe. If its about who is better known, its Patton. If its who is the best, Id say Monty wins. :)

    • Sir McSquiggles wrote:

      Monty! Patton is great too, dont get me wrong(maybe a bit too overplayed). Patton was a great leader, had the quickest liberation/capture of enemy territory and enemy armies. ^^ Monty was an excellent strategist, it was mainly his victory at El Alamien that helped turn the tide of battle and allow Patton to gain victory in Europe. If its about who is better known, its Patton. If its who is the best, Id say Monty wins. :)
      Too true. I voted for Patton though because I'm pretty sure more people will have heard of him versus Monty.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • I agree Patton is probably known more but Monty was by far the better of the two, I hope I am right he led the Battle of El Alamein (second one) which turned the war on Africa on its head (and WWII).

      To comapre both in my books is like comparing Lionel Messi with Alexis Sanchez or Putin and Ukraine only one winner :P

      I am not biased in any way as an Irish Leprechán I should not like Monty in anyway, it was he who said;;

      "Personally, my whole attention was given to defeating the rebels but it never bothered me a bit how many houses were burnt. I think I regarded all civilians as 'Shinners' and I never had any dealings with any of them. My own view is that to win a war of this sort, you must be ruthless"

      That was during the Irish War of Independence (as you can guess he was not on the Irish side :P

      But he was the better of the two with no comparison
      Chánfucius
      Community Support

    • Monty was worse. Anyone could've won El Alamein. Rommel had no gasoline for his tanks, and Monty outnumbered him 3 to 1. Then, in the second major operation he organized, he failed. I'm talking about the disaster of Market Garden. Furthermore, when Patton and Monty fought next to each other in Sicily, Patton reached the objective (Messina) so much earlier than Monty. Monty, like, I think, Sir Alan Brooke put it, was the British attempt at having a great war general like Patton. However, most of his so-called 'triumphs' are propaganda triumphs, because they portray his as a great strategist when he wasn't. I think the best British general during the war was Sir Miles Dempsey, Monty's deputy. He did great in Italy, and he was the one who did the best by far at Market Garden.
      The past is a foreign country.

    • Pablo22510 wrote:

      Monty was shit - excuse my language. Anyone could've won El Alamein. Rommel had no gasoline for his tanks, and Monty outnumbered him 3 to 1. Then, in the second major operation he organized, he failed. I'm talking about the disaster of Market Garden. Furthermore, when Patton and Monty fought next to each other in Sicily, Patton reached the objective (Messina) so much earlier than Monty. Monty, like, I think, Sir Alan Brooke put it, was the British attempt at having a great war general like Patton. However, most of his so-called 'triumphs' are propaganda triumphs, because they portray his as a great strategist when he wasn't. I think the best British general during the war was Sir Miles Dempsey, Monty's deputy. He did great in Italy, and he was the one who did the best by far at Market Garden.
      Do you want to play some WT? I got a mic so turn the chat on if you do want to play, can't type fast on the PS4.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • Patton is the better of the two. Death to all those who do not pick ole' blood and guts. Pound for pound the British Army officer corps was pretty terrible.

      Too bad you didn't have an option for von Manstein, Guderian, Rommel, or Zhukov ;p

      The post was edited 1 time, last by mfncff ().

    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      Pablo22510 wrote:

      Monty was shit - excuse my language. Anyone could've won El Alamein. Rommel had no gasoline for his tanks, and Monty outnumbered him 3 to 1. Then, in the second major operation he organized, he failed. I'm talking about the disaster of Market Garden. Furthermore, when Patton and Monty fought next to each other in Sicily, Patton reached the objective (Messina) so much earlier than Monty. Monty, like, I think, Sir Alan Brooke put it, was the British attempt at having a great war general like Patton. However, most of his so-called 'triumphs' are propaganda triumphs, because they portray his as a great strategist when he wasn't. I think the best British general during the war was Sir Miles Dempsey, Monty's deputy. He did great in Italy, and he was the one who did the best by far at Market Garden.
      Do you want to play some WT? I got a mic so turn the chat on if you do want to play, can't type fast on the PS4.

      Pablo22510 wrote:

      Maybe later on today. Say 22:00? GMT+1

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      So 9 P.M. for me? Sounds good.
      Please do not use the forums to organize playing of non-Bytro games.
      Pax Romana Communications Officer

    • General Patton. I do not feel that Montgomery got the chance to prove himself like Patton did, but there are just way too many accomplishments by Patton to even consider Montgomery. It may be because of circumstance but I guess we will never truly know.
      "They're on our left, on our right, in front of us, and behind us... They can't get away this time!" - LTGEN Chesty Puller

    • The difference between the two can be simplified and summed up like this: Patton was better at winning, and Monty was better at not losing. A subtle difference to be sure, but it explains it well. Monty always tried to make sure when he could that should an attack fail, at least it wouldn't risk losing the campaign. He might get bogged down, Even lose the battle, but not lose completely. Patton took greater risks and got more out of his army, but there were certain times he left himself open for an even bigger catastrophe should his aggressive attack fail.

      When Monty did try to make that very aggressive battle plan (market garden), he fell short. It just wasn't his forte. Likewise Patton was not good at the slow but tried and true sure steady onward attack that Monty excelled at.

      It is a clear cut example two working together being stronger than each alone.

    • the public enemy wrote:

      Ordo66 wrote:

      + Rommel
      Agree, he was the best one but unfortunely he is not in the poll :(
      Mainstein was a little better than Rommel,

      haha, Rommel was still good do, if him and Mainstein had more power, they would have won the war.



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye