coe Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Does anybody have any information on German attacks in the Bocage in Normandy and why they often failed. I read a carl.mil report on the St. Lo operation and it seemed that the U.S. was rather successful in the drive to St. Lo. For example, Panzer Lehr's attack at Le Desert was a disaster, as well as some attacks against the British by the best Panzer divisions. Were the Germans just as clumsy attacking through the bocage as the Allies. If so, why? Second of all, I read about Allied (U.S.) tactics about breaking through the bocage pre-hedgrow cutters and from what I understand it seemed rather successful (blow a hole into bocage wall, tank comes through silences machine guns on corners, mortar fire behind enemy prevents enemy from retreating, then tank pins infantry down, and U.S. infantry moves in)...were there many casualties in this manner of attack and what did the germans do to negate the tank that burst through the bocage at the opposite end of the field? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Panzer Lehr's counterattack failed because of the overwhelming odds stacked against them. The same could be said of 17th SS PzGr's attack towards Carentan in mid-June. The forward US positions were overrun in both cases, but then the American air and artillery, plus reserves, piled on to shift the odds in their favor. The terrain in the British and Canadian sectors were much more open, at least in the area north and NW of Caen. Yes there is Bocage in the area, but nothing like that found in the American sector. That said, the Bocage defintely does pose significant problems for the attacker. In the case of the Germans, the closeness of the terrain negates the advantages their excellent tank guns gave them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted March 31, 2006 Author Share Posted March 31, 2006 hmmm interesting...the thing I wonder is that in the Le Desert analysis, it seems the tank destroyers would get the quicker draw on the Panthers and hit them before they were even spotted even though both were approaching eachother...(I guess the supporting infantry might not have been able to easily communicate what they saw?). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 The bocage shortens the LOS and engagement ranges considerably, while also severly restricting the supporting infantry from securing flanks. This, plus the first-shot advantage the defender usually enjoys means the Panthers were at a disadvantage. BTW, although the US was successful in the drive on St. Lo, it did so after incuring very heavy casualties. It also benefitted from facing mostly second grade infantry formations, while the majority of the picked German troops were deployed against the British & Canadian. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoat Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Originally posted by Kingfish: BTW, although the US was successful in the drive on St. Lo, it did so after incuring very heavy casualties. It also benefitted from facing mostly second grade infantry formations, while the majority of the picked German troops were deployed against the British & Canadian. I don't think the quality of the troops was the major factor there. It is true that the British fought against the majority of the German armored divisions in Normandy, while the Americans squared off against mostly infantry units. However, the Americans did have to face German panzer units such as 2nd SS, 17th SS, and in the specific case of the St Lo battles, the Panzer Lehr division. The main problem facing the German defenders at St Lo and all the way until the breakout was a lack of manpower. Panzer Lehr was under nearly continuous air attack, and some of the infantry divisions, such as the 352nd, had been fighting since D-Day. The Germans had quality formations, but they were immobile infantry divisions that had been bled white. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Originally posted by stoat: I don't think the quality of the troops was the major factor there. It is true that the British fought against the majority of the German armored divisions in Normandy, while the Americans squared off against mostly infantry units. However, the Americans did have to face German panzer units such as 2nd SS, 17th SS, and in the specific case of the St Lo battles, the Panzer Lehr division.Agreed, and to that list I would add the 3rd FJ division and 6th FJ regiment, which although not panzer formations were still formidable units, especially on the defense in the bocage country. However, a good portion of the units facing the Americans were made up of second grade infantry divisions, or to be more precise, parts of second grade static infantry divisions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 coe Do you have a link to the report? Cheers Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wodin Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Air support pretty much decimated many German units before they even got to their starting points. Actaully the hedgerow fighting slowed down the Allies considerably. They just didnt appreciate the size of the Normandy hedgerows. Took awhile for them to sort out new tactics to fight successfully. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Originally posted by Wodin: Air support pretty much decimated many German units before they even got to their starting points. That is an oft-repeated myth that has little base in reality. I recommend a forum search on air power in the CMAK and CMBB forums, it has been discussed many times. Suffice to say that there is no evidence that e.g. Panzerlehr was considerably affected by aerial attacks, post-war claims to the contrary notwithstanding. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Originally posted by Andreas: coe Do you have a link to the report? Cheers Andreas Link-o-rama 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Ah, that one. I was hoping it was another report. Thanks a lot - and did you get my email? Cheers Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 As an aside, searching via Google for info took me to something I did not know. The US had a USS St. Lo in action (renamed MIDWAY, to honour the drive to St. Lo) and sunk by a Kamikaze attack at Leyte. USS St. Lo (CVE 63) http://www.bosamar.com/cve/cve63.html Picture of secondary explosion http://www.bosamar.com/kami/sl1.html Captain Kenna's report on her loss http://www.bosamar.com/reading/slloss.html There you go, your trivia for the day. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Originally posted by Andreas: and did you get my email? Yes, and now that I've released my most recent monster I am free to switch gears and get back into CMAK. 49th Reccee is first on the list. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Excellent. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Kingfish I have serious doubts as to the veracity of the linky you provided - I suspect April 1st belatedly. For instance: The commanding general of LXXXIV Corps reported that the American artillery, guided by air observers and supported by air attacks, was not only silencing German batteries but destroying the infantry even in their dugouts. Army made strong representations for a shift of all available air and antiaircraft strength to the west wing; Army Group concurred. But the 2d German Air Corps reported that such a shift could not be effected quickly because of heavy losses in fighter units and the lack of replacements. Obviously an infiltration of duff information! : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Dieseltaylor, Not sure what you mean. Plz 'splain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wodin: Air support pretty much decimated many German units before they even got to their starting points. That is an oft-repeated myth that has little base in reality. I recommend a forum search on air power in the CMAK and CMBB forums, it has been discussed many times. Suffice to say that there is no evidence that e.g. Panzerlehr was considerably affected by aerial attacks, post-war claims to the contrary notwithstanding.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 BTW, Michael Doubler's "Busting the Bocage" is available as a download. This thesis became the basis of the later book "Closing with the enemy". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wodin: Air support pretty much decimated many German units before they even got to their starting points. That is an oft-repeated myth that has little base in reality. I recommend a forum search on air power in the CMAK and CMBB forums, it has been discussed many times. Suffice to say that there is no evidence that e.g. Panzerlehr was considerably affected by aerial attacks, post-war claims to the contrary notwithstanding.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wodin Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 You won't get an argument on that from me. I do however think that that is a fundamentally different story from the 'Victory through Hare Power' that Bugs Bunny and the USAAF have drip-fed the world through the past, where swarms of 50 cal equipped P-47s blew up Tigers left, right, and centre, leaving little to do for the PBI other than collect the POWs. All the best Andreas [/QB]Even German memoirs state that they were severely happered by air attack. So its not just propaganda by the Americans. True they werent totally destroyed. However there operational effectiveness was diminished considerably. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 There is a difference between 'diminished operational effectiveness' and 'being decimated before you reach the startline'. One is a serious military concern, and the other describes a fantasy world in which P-47 pilots use ricocheting 50 cal bullets to kill Tigers, while non-existing Typhoons mythically appear over battlefields to slay German tank aces with their rockets. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Sorry Kingfish just a little joke pre-empting an expected post from JasonC. I think you may recall the very long battle, sorry debate, on Ju87D's effectiveness. Having said that I do not recall anyone mentioning artillery spotting planes when we were discussing airpower in the bocage. Quite an oversight-if you excuse the pun: ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wodin Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Originally posted by Andreas: There is a difference between 'diminished operational effectiveness' and 'being decimated before you reach the startline'. One is a serious military concern, and the other describes a fantasy world in which P-47 pilots use ricocheting 50 cal bullets to kill Tigers, while non-existing Typhoons mythically appear over battlefields to slay German tank aces with their rockets. All the best Andreas Sorry went abit over the top in my statement. However thats not to say Allied Airpower wasnt a big factor on the Western Front. [ April 04, 2006, 06:57 AM: Message edited by: Wodin ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wodin Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Also I never said 50 cal bullets took out Tiger Tanks. The HitlerJungend did lose a steady stream of AFV's whilst moving into position by rockets and bombs. They also suffered a fair amount of casualties. The major point is the severly restricted movement due to Air attack. If the Air attacks didnt amount to much then the Germans would have had no problems in moving around the battlefield. I was abit over the top but I also think to say Allied Airpower had a minor effect on the Germans is downplaying their role. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wodin Posted April 4, 2006 Share Posted April 4, 2006 Please delete 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.