Aragorn2002

Okay, okay... sorry to mention it, David, but what about the Magua Normandy mods? Especially the trees? Can't they be included as well?

Great idea, David, what about Magua's Normandy mods? For me they are the best. And it would be great to have more scenarios as well. Isn't it possible for those people who made the best Normandy scenarios/ops to give permission? After wll it would acknowledge the quality of their work.

I'm much more interested in tactical talk than morality. Dandelion, where are you?

Interesting article. Well written indeed.

Hahaha...well, In the mean time I already ordered my copy...me and my big mouth

Here is another interesting quote from 'It never snows in September', by Robert J.Kershaw, excellent read by the way (translated out of the German language, since I have the German language version of this book)" "The Americans didn't behave in a different fashion as we were already used to. They threw our wounded from the bridge in the Waal (river at Nijmegen, the book handles operation Market Garden) and shot the few prisoners among the Heeres-Ersatzleuten (probably troops from the replacement battalion, not entirely sure). Another quote: "The wounded lying on the bridge were brutally mutilated. Accourding to statements from Leutnant Schulz and Von Albrecht they had stab wounds on the head, neck and heart area." I've read quite a few accounts like these in the past years. It puts Malmedy in a rather different light. It doesn't make the German war crimes any less disgusting, but it puts it more in perspective, I guess. [ July 17, 2005, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: aragorn2002 ]

Yes, I must admit I was rather surprised so few people reacted upon this post...I've read it some time ago and after playing CMETO I noticed how Italian the landscape still looked. So I searched for this post. Another example of a mod which is downloaded quite a few times, but people don't bother to thank the person who made it...Anyway, I like it, Gurra, thanks again.

Their determination and toughness was remarkable. But I'm not going to argue about that any longer. I respect your point of view, but do not agree with it.

QUOTE "Evidence in German publications indicates that the purpose of these mass executions was to scare the rest of the Canadian prisoners into giving information. It didn’t work. The purpose of these atrocities was confirmed in a news story in the London Daily Herald as early as August the 3rd of 1944. It stated: "…The executions were ordered by an officer, said to be a major, apparently because he was infuriated at the Canadians for refusing to talk when interrogated... Hitler’s Last General, "a member of the 12th SS Reconnaissance Battalion stated that his company was given secret orders, the relevant part of which reads:"...the attitude at the front: SS troops shall take no prisoners. Prisoners are to be executed after having been interrogated..." QUOTE "We have the testimony of the German soldiers themselves that is was deliberate policy" Not very convincing. But again, I don't doubt the Germans did it AS WELL. German sources also mention Canadian secret orders...But I feel like an advocate for the devil now and that is not my intention. I think shooting POW's was pretty common practice throughout the whole war in the west and in the east (and the Pacific). [ July 16, 2005, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: aragorn2002 ]

http://grad.usask.ca/gateway/archive9.html

Got it. You're right, looks very good. Thanks for mentioning it.

QUOTE "Evidence in German publications indicates that the purpose of these mass executions was to scare the rest of the Canadian prisoners into giving information. It didn’t work. The purpose of these atrocities was confirmed in a news story in the London Daily Herald as early as August the 3rd of 1944. It stated: "…The executions were ordered by an officer, said to be a major, apparently because he was infuriated at the Canadians for refusing to talk when interrogated... Hitler’s Last General, "a member of the 12th SS Reconnaissance Battalion stated that his company was given secret orders, the relevant part of which reads:"...the attitude at the front: SS troops shall take no prisoners. Prisoners are to be executed after having been interrogated..." QUOTE I don't feel the need to defend shooting of POW's by anyone and utterly despise it, but I have the impression that it was so common on both sides (including the Canadians) that it is hardly justified to accuse only the Germans of shooting prisoners. I hope this won't end up in an endless discussion on war crimes, but I'm pretty sure the Canadians gave as good as they got. And like I said I'm not defending anyone, including the Waffen-SS, who no doubt had their share of ruthless thugs among their ranks. Shooting prisoners sadly enough is part of what makes war so cruel. It happens...even today. QUOTE Green SS units proved no better man for man than the western Allies, when attacking QUOTE Given the fact that they lacked the enormous fire support from artillery and air force the allies had I think their greatest merit lies in the fact that they (especially the 12th SS) attacked at all. And their training had been thorough, but they didn't have the almost limitless fuel resources and ammo for their training allied units had, which was a great disadvantage in making them ready. Apart from that part of their heavy equipment arrived shortly before the invasion. It won't do to belittle the performance of these German troops. They were remarkable soldiers.

The ETO terrain was quite nice, but reminded me of Italy too much.

Very nice, Gurra! Thank you. Much more European now.

Yes, I must agree with that. I always try to read between the lines, but you mention the plain facts and it sounds logical and convincing.

Yes, but no doubt the Germans would have made them pay dearly, so it might have taken a lot longer for the Brits to get their act together again. But that isn't the point. The point is that Montgomery would benefit more from a delay of a German counterattack than the Germans. And that might have been a reason for the allies to go for Geyr von Schweppenburg and endanger the ULTRA-secret. For me this can be seen as a strong indication that they tried to postpone the German offensive as long as possible. And the best reason I can think of is that they considered themselves to be not ready yet.

I agree. The allies could have survived a super-Buron, the Germans probably not a super-Bretteville-Norrey. But in that first week no one knew which way it would turn out. Not even Montgomery. Both sides had a large amount of relatively green troops and I think that Montgomery would have welcomed a delay in the German response as long as needed to be able to give his green troops some time to get used to battle conditions. I guess the Germans felt the same way, but they could not afford such a delay. Whether such a German defeat would have resulted in pulling back as long as Hitler was around is something I doubt, but perhaps it would have hastened the attempt to get rid of him. [ July 12, 2005, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: aragorn2002 ]

No, total tank strength. No doubt perhaps two-third or so would have been runners, but the rest would have become available in the following days to replace losses. Anyway, it wouldn't have got them to the beaches, but they most certainly could have given Montgomery some sleepless nights. I don't see any possibility for a decisive German victory in Normandy, but like I said before, Montgomery simply couldn't afford to take the risk of an early German counterattack if he had the choice.

The combined tank force of the 21st Panzer, the 12th SS and Panzer Lehr on the 10th of June was 462 tanks or so, according to Jentz. And allied airpower simply wasn't as effective in a tactical sense as one would expect. Naval gunfire support was effective, yes, but it doesn't change the fact that time was on the side of Montgomery and an early German counterattack wasn't what he wanted. And why would they destroy Geyr von Schweppenburgs HQ if a German counterattack was exactly what they wanted? Anticipating and planning for it is a different matter than hoping for it.

Ah,yes, forgive me, my mistake. I meant the destruction of his HQ. Not a good idea to cook and post at the same time...

Again, perhaps or even probably...but it wouldn't have been the first time the a German offensive would beat all odds and Montgomery, Eisenhower and many others were very well aware of that. It was a risk they simply could not take in the first weeks of the fighting in Normandy. Delaying such an offensive might have been a high priority.

Perhaps Montgomery would have welcomed it after the build-up of his armies, but most certainly not as early as the 10th of June.