• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Some clarifications about Falaise

Not open for further replies.


Reaction score
Some clarifications about Falaise

Posted by Brad Sallows from Burnaby BC Canada on April 21, 1999 at 13:38:09:

In Reply to: Re: Maj/Gen R Rohmer/Monty posted by Brad Sallows on April 20, 1999 at 14:28:27:

1 Bradley proposed the short hook to Argentan, while Montgomery would‘ve
preferred the long hook to the Seine R. Eisenhower supported Bradley‘s
idea, which may have influenced Montgomery to concur.
2 1 Canadian Army was allotted the task of pushing through Falaise to
meet the Americans. As was pointed out by someone else previously, while
Simonds‘ Corps was experienced, the newly arrived 4th Armoured and Polish
Armoured divisions were not, and their drive stalled.
3 Patton was eager to push north past Argentan once he arrived there,
but it was Bradley and Bradley alone who ordered him to go no further,
ostensibly because of concerns about what would happen when the pincers
met the US forces were already across the inter-army group boundary.
This is directly verified by comments made by Bradley himself, although
there may be more to the story because it was obvious the two forces
would have to meet if the gap were to be closed, and ample liaison and
recognition procedures had already been established.
4 By this time, the Germans were reinforcing the gap. Montgomery
could‘ve reinforced the Canadians and chose not to, instead tasking the
British forces on the Canadian right to attempt to close near Falaise
a move that has been misinterpreted by some as a miscue that seemed to
be setting up to push the Germans out of the bag Rohmer is cited by
Carlo D‘Este in "Decision in Normandy" as one of the people making this
mistake, not to mention also that Rohmer is less than objective on the
subject of Montgomery in general.
5 Montgomery kept his options open by setting up to close the gap
further to the east Trun-Chambois since Falaise-Argentan was falling
behind schedule and the Germans were beginning to slip the trap. Patton,
meanwhile, was given the go-ahead by Bradley to resume the long hook to
the Seine since it didn‘t seem the Canadians would close the gap.
6 At the time, there was considerable concern about whether the Allies
could hold the door shut even if they did succeed in closing the gap
witness the fighting at Trun, and if that happened that the forces
further east would be too weak to hinder a German escape to the Seine.
An alternate view is to suggest not closing the gap was in fact a better
outcome for the Allies - they kept their options open in the race for the
Seine with less risk that their own forces would be badly mauled allowing
the Germans would escape outright, and the Germans ultimately had to run
a long gauntlet that cost them virtually all the equipment and a great
many of the soldiers in the pocket.
7 In short, the Falaise battle can hardly be called "Monty‘s Folly" since
it was never his idea or preference, he had nothing to do with causing
Patton to be withheld from driving north of Argentan, and Monty‘s battle
concept in fact ensured there would be sufficient forces to harry the
Germans all along their rout to the Seine.
Not open for further replies.