255 replies to this topic

[thandiflight]

Koyangi, on Sep 30 2012 - 06:06, said:

I think there's a part on that on Patton 360. Where the operation went wrong?

1) There were ten times the number of prisoners than they expected in that POW camp.
2) Patton's son-in-law got shot during the taking of the camp and couldn't be moved for a short period of time, delaying the force falling back.

They didn't have enough trucks for everyone, so most got re-captured.

Task Force Baum: ill-conceived, poorly managed, under-manned exercise in futility. 300 men involved in the operation with 32 killed and only 35 making it back - the rest captured. As an operation it was a failure. If its intention was to distract and divert German forces from the northern advance and persuade them that the attack would be to the east, then some success can be claimed. As it stands Eisenhower was furious.

[isaacalmeida]

do Rommel next time :D

[_Freddy_]

Koyangi, on Sep 30 2012 - 06:20, said:

Interesting topic. I recommend Greatest Tank Battles:
http://www.amazon.co...at tank battles

This series contains interviews with American, British and German tankers who were there. In terms of WoT, it is interesting to see people complain about the M3 Lee in the game. The German tankers driving the Panzer 3 in Africa seemed to fear nothing, until the lend-lease Lee showed up in Brit hands. They didn't like that 75mm at all.

As for Montgomery, in Africa he had such a build-up of men and material, while Rommel's supplies kept getting intercepted in the Med, or destroyed by planes on the long desert road, I don't see Monty's win there as proof of his skill as a General.

Field Marshal Montgomery resisted the pressure from the politicians who had berated previous commanders and forced them to attack when not ready or send troops and equipment to other theatres when needed by themselves. He restored the morale of the British 8th Army and built it back up to ensure a victory.

He was not particularly a gambling leader preferring a secure logistical base to support operations.

Despite all the detractors of him in North Africa (especially El Alamein) I have yet to see anyone come up with a better plan with the resources he had against the fixed, in depth, built up defences with secure flanks that could be turned that he faced.

He is vilified for never taking risks yet he is also vilified for Market Garden (which had a chance of success) as being risky (it was by no means a total failure either), he  can't win.

[Fire_Horse]

good post.

the history they teach in school is incomplete if not selective.  since high school (30 years) I've been reading histories and biographies written by the enemy, as well as our own, to get a better sense of the whole story.  I recommend this approach for anyone serious about studying history.

[Skraeling]

Did we actually HAVE anyone the Germans feared?

[rabid_forest]

Skraeling, on Oct 03 2012 - 16:05, said:

Did we actually HAVE anyone the Germans feared?

Henry Ford

[_Freddy_]

rabid_forest, on Oct 03 2012 - 17:48, said:

Henry Ford

Well apart from the modern Ford truck plants in Germany building vehicles for the Wehrmacht, Ford along with a few others actually helped Germany modernise and improve its production facilities as well as investing in the country. So maybe not so scarey for them.

[thandiflight]

_Freddy_, on Oct 03 2012 - 10:01, said:

Field Marshal Montgomery resisted the pressure from the politicians who had berated previous commanders and forced them to attack when not ready or send troops and equipment to other theatres when needed by themselves. He restored the morale of the British 8th Army and built it back up to ensure a victory.

He was not particularly a gambling leader preferring a secure logistical base to support operations.

Despite all the detractors of him in North Africa (especially El Alamein) I have yet to see anyone come up with a better plan with the resources he had against the fixed, in depth, built up defences with secure flanks that could be turned that he faced.

He is vilified for never taking risks yet he is also vilified for Market Garden (which had a chance of success) as being risky (it was by no means a total failure either), he  can't win.

Not his plan, Chink Dorman-Smith's. Not first choice for command, Gott was. It was not just the fiasco that was Market Garden but also the performance at Caens (infantry with no armour, armour with no infantry). Monty's legend was created by Monty himself although I will not deny him the credit for raising morale in North Africa. He got away with delaying the assault not because he was such an effective commander and orator but because he was one of Alan Brooke's mates. It is not what you know but who you know. Monty was not bad, he was average. And for the British Army at the time maybe that's what made him good. Bill Slim he wasn't.

[PzKpfw_1]

DingBat, on May 23 2012 - 14:09, said:

This is another campaign that has been done dreadful damage by the movie.

Here are some realities about Market-Garden

5. The movie claim that the British didn't know where Bittrichs 2 SS Pz Korp was is bullshit. The British knew very well as XXX Corps had been pursuing them since the breakout

Allied inteligence, tracked II SS Pz.Korps from France to the Eindhoven - Arnhem area. On Sept 4th they lost track of II SS Pz.Korps. Intel then identified 1st Fallschrim Army, HQ near Hertogenbosch, & Army Group B near Arnhem. SHAEF believed II SS.Pz.Korps had moved to the vicinity of Kleve, east of Nijmegen, instead of moveing north. So no they did not know where II.SS.Pz.Korps was. Its interseting that when the 9th SS.Kg Walther made contact, they identified the OPFOR as 'Canadian troops'. While the 10th SS.Kg.Frundsmberg made contact & reported OPFOR armor as 'American' instead of an Guards Armoured Division.

Quote

6. Despite the name, the 2 SS Pz Korp was a joke. 1 division was little more than a headquarters cadre. The other could field one battalion sized battle group. Of the German tanks destroyed by 1AB in Arnhem, none were from 2 SS Pz Korp.

As of 12.09.44 II SS.Pz.Korps reportedly had 12 operational tanks. 9th SS.Pz.Div formed SS- Kampfgruppe Hohenstauffen under SS Obersturmbahnfuhrer Walther Harzer. It consisted of 1 Co of PzKpfw IV, & 1 Co of PzKpfw V, 2 batty of Jadgpanzer IV, a recce Co, an understrength PzGr Regt, & & Arty Bn, with 12 tubes.  Add in Harmels 10th SS-Kampfgruppen with a small number of PzKpfw IV, & JagdPz, Reece Bn, PzGr Regt, & 2 Arty Bns you get around 3000 effectives, with an overabundance of heavy weapons & LMGs. A lil more then say, an HQ cadre, and alot more then a joke, especialy since these men, were elite as well, & used to fighting understrength, in adverse conditions.

Regards, John Waters

Edited by PzKpfw_1, Oct 05 2012 - 12:07.

[lisajackus]

I remember in the 1st Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm) the US Army and US Marines moved so quickly that the fuel and supply forces had a hard time keeping up.  It was one of the limiting factors in how quickly Coalition Forces could advance.




________________________________________________________________________
WoW gold|diablo 3 gold|Guild Wars 2 gold

[Magick]

Chief, I actually live (well my room mate and I do) near a gentleman that served with Patton.  He's in his late 80's, smokes like a freight train and curses like a sailor.  Yep, old school Army all the way.

[OhSlowpoke]

Skraeling, on Oct 03 2012 - 16:05, said:

Did we actually HAVE anyone the Germans feared?

The British island, and American Factories. We had a huge strategic advantage over the other nations. We didn't share a land border with the Germans.

Gave us time to build up and fight on our own terms.

[MegaBMan25]

acmarines12, on May 22 2012 - 23:53, said:

The British and Canadian armies had little resistance on the beaches and through the hedgerow country  COMPARED to the Americans. I am not saying they didn't encounter heavy resistance. But compared to U.S. forces, they encountered much lighter resistance, U.S. casualties totaling 5,000 on Omaha ALONE compared to 2,500 British, Canadian, and Polish forces on their 3 Beach-heads COMBINED.

Well, what if the situation was different and the british/canadian/ and polsihed landed at omaha and the americans landed on sword, juno, or gold.  The brits/canadians and polish forces would have suffered heavy casualties, and the US would have the lower numbers.  It all comes down to deployment.  The Uk/canadian/Polish were assigned those beaches and because of either tactics or lighter resistance in this area of the normandy coast suffered less casualties.

Omaha was the most heavily defended beach.  Any force attempting a landing would have suffered a high number of losses.

[brian333]

My mother's father landed in France three days after D-Day and served in the U.S. First Army. He claimed to have walked from Normandy to Belgium before being assigned as an MP in Paris. (Tough duty, but hey, somebody's gotta do it!)
During the Battle of the Bulge he was somewhere in Flanders, and his unit was under the command of Montgomery at that point. He never said Montgomery's name without some vulgarity attached. He was of the opinion that Monty thought of Americans as undertrained, poorly lead, and expendable.
I only heard him refer to Patton once, after we had seen the George C. Scott movie, as a 'blowhard' who didn't care how many soldiers he had to kill to make himself look good.
Bradley, on the other hand, was his hero. "Bradley won the war, and Ike got to be President."

I realise that the scuttlebutt which soldiers pass around is usually less than accurate, but the general impression of those who served under them says a lot about a leader. Does this make one more effective than another? I don't know. But all else being equal, a soldier who believes his leaders are superior will have higher morale and will be willing to stick to the plan longer and in the face of greater odds than one who has no respect for his leaders.

[MegaBMan25]

brian333, on Dec 12 2012 - 22:23, said:

My mother's father landed in France three days after D-Day and served in the U.S. First Army. He claimed to have walked from Normandy to Belgium before being assigned as an MP in Paris. (Tough duty, but hey, somebody's gotta do it!)
During the Battle of the Bulge he was somewhere in Flanders, and his unit was under the command of Montgomery at that point. He never said Montgomery's name without some vulgarity attached. He was of the opinion that Monty thought of Americans as undertrained, poorly lead, and expendable.
I only heard him refer to Patton once, after we had seen the George C. Scott movie, as a 'blowhard' who didn't care how many soldiers he had to kill to make himself look good.
Bradley, on the other hand, was his hero. "Bradley won the war, and Ike got to be President."

I realise that the scuttlebutt which soldiers pass around is usually less than accurate, but the general impression of those who served under them says a lot about a leader. Does this make one more effective than another? I don't know. But all else being equal, a soldier who believes his leaders are superior will have higher morale and will be willing to stick to the plan longer and in the face of greater odds than one who has no respect for his leaders.

+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 to this^^^^

[Tiger505]

I recently had the pleasure of finding a stack of old news papers from 1945. One has an artical about Hodges returning to GA post VE day, and the other has as its headline Erine Pile Killed in Action. The best part was i paid 3 bucks a pop and they are certified authentic. I also found a 1919 july 4th paper outlining Wilson signing the Treaty of Verstille (cant spell it)