I'm sure we've seen this. I found it fascinating

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That kind of sounds like the Netherlands to me.

The highest point in the Netherlands is some 386 meters above sea level. In the Market Garden module, the marshy ground is located between the river levees. Not exactly terrain in which 30 tons Shermans could operate. Last time I was back was in 1991. 

[Warts 'n' all]

@chuckdyke I would never rely on proximity when it comes to Dutch History. I'll stick to Pieter Geyl's writings if it is all the same to you.

Of course in Limeyland some people use the word "chuck" when talking about ending a relationship. So I suppose dyke chucking could refer to Rita Mae Brown and Martina Navrattyratbag. Personally I was always more of a Chris Evert fan, probably because John Lloyd borrowed my mum's car to ferry Chris down to Eastbourne one summer.

In the meantime I hope to see some Zeeland polders if we ever get a late war West Front module.

 

[Lethaface]

14 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

One thing I know about being bilingual, one must be careful which words to use especially from another language. The route was through the eastern province of Brabant, Arnhem is in the province of Gelderland where the Meuse, the Rhine (which splits into the rivers Waal en de Rijn in Dutch) form a delta.  The Romans made the area already into defensive terrain and used Germanic auxiliaries to defend it (The Batavi) I appreciate the author gave you an enjoyable book. To my knowledge there are no polders in the provinces of Brabant and Gelderland. The terrain however may be similar.

Not that I'm a polder grog, but I'd been surprised if there weren't any polders around the area with the Maas, Waal & Rijn.

A quick google learned me that they've been poldering around Gelderland and Brabant for quite a while. Some polders in Brabant:

http://www.jvdn.nl/images/BD/Ham.jpg

A polder just means a piece of land with it's own watermanagement, or something like that (the watermanagement makes the polder useful for humans). But Wikipedia does a better job:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder

Edited January 8, 2021 by Lethaface

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, Warts 'n' all said:

@chuckdyke I would never rely on proximity when it comes to Dutch History. I'll stick to Pieter Geyl's writings if it is all the same to you.

Of course in Limeyland some people use the word "chuck" when talking about ending a relationship. So I suppose dyke chucking could refer to Rita Mae Brown and Martina Navrattyratbag. Personally I was always more of a Chris Evert fan, probably because John Lloyd borrowed my mum's car to ferry Chris down to Eastbourne one summer.

In the meantime I hope to see some Zeeland polders if we ever get a late war West Front module.

 

I thought chucking meant not properly bowling a ball in the game of cricket. Now the battles for the Scheldt Estuary will be a game I would be interested in. You had RM which stands for Real Marines and not US Marines and Commando troops among were Norwegians. Elite troops in Buffalo LVT's, it will be a wonderful scenario. Translate polderland just as marshy ground. Schiphol Airport is located in a polder the 'Haarlemmermeer'. They actually found shipwrecks from the Spanish wars there.

[chuckdyke]

4 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Not that I'm a polder grog, but I'd been surprised if there weren't any polders around the area with the Maas, Waal & Rijn.

A quick google learned me that they've been poldering around Gelderland and Brabant for quite a while. Some polders in Brabant:

http://www.jvdn.nl/images/BD/Ham.jpg

A polder just means a piece of land with it's own watermanagement, or something like that. But Wikipedia does a better job:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder

Amen 55 years is a long time since we left

[Lethaface]

Just now, chuckdyke said:

Amen 55 years is a long time since we left

Being born in 1982 it's quite a long time indeed ;-).

I think much of the land in The Netherlands are to be considered polders. I guess in south Limburg and South Brabant, which lay higher, there are less polders because there is no watermanagement necessary unless near to the rivers. 

[Warts 'n' all]

36 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

I thought chucking meant not properly bowling a ball in the game of cricket. Now the battles for the Scheldt Estuary will be a game I would be interested in. You had RM which stands for Real Marines and not US Marines and Commando troops among were Norwegians. Elite troops in Buffalo LVT's, it will be a wonderful scenario. Translate polderland just as marshy ground. Schiphol Airport is located in a polder the 'Haarlemmermeer'. They actually found shipwrecks from the Spanish wars there.

Chuck you don't need to tell me about the "Haarlemmermeer". Nor about shipwrecks in the Netherlands, whether they be Spanish, or even Roman for that matter.

[Lethaface]

I'll tell you about the times we sailed up the Thames and made you lot some proper cuppa. 

[Warts 'n' all]

2 hours ago, Lethaface said:

I'll tell you about the times we sailed up the Thames and made you lot some proper cuppa. 

Haha. I was already dead by then. It was the Stinkpots who you gave a hiding to.

Leaving Crommers aside for a moment. I actually live about ten miles away from the site of the Battle of the Medway. And once on a visit to Het Scheepvaartmuseum in Amsterdam as I came to a painting of the battle I heard an English woman loudly exclaim "I thought they were our friends." Her hubby had already wandered off and didn't hear her, so I gave her a quick history lesson.

[Lethaface]

12 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Haha. I was already dead by then. It was the Stinkpots who you gave a hiding to.

Leaving Crommers aside for a moment. I actually live about ten miles away from the site of the Battle of the Medway. And once on a visit to Het Scheepvaartmuseum in Amsterdam as I came to a painting of the battle I heard an English woman loudly exclaim "I thought they were our friends." Her hubby had already wandered off and didn't hear her, so I gave her a quick history lesson.

Interesting. Well, history is quite unlike most fiction I guess. Apart from the paintings, the stern piece of the captured 'HMS Royal Charles' is also preserved there if I'm correct. It was a long time ago I visited the place. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Lethaface

[chuckdyke]

Yes, in the UK RM stands for Royal Marines in the Netherlands it stands for Real Marines. The concept was first used at the Raid on the Medway. The good old days when Iron Men served on wooden ships. 

[chuckdyke]

10 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Being born in 1982 it's quite a long time indeed ;-).

I think much of the land in The Netherlands are to be considered polders. I guess in south Limburg and South Brabant, which lay higher, there are less polders because there is no watermanagement necessary unless near to the rivers. 

Matter of semantics for me a polder was reclaimed land under sea-level enclosed by dikes (not lesbians). Remembering my geography lessons from the early 60's. The rivers were controlled by summer-dikes and winter-dikes. The secondary roads are often located on the dikes. I imagine deviating from them risks the bogging down of heavy vehicles. Maybe disappointing for #Warts 'N' all I am actually a British Subject for the last 52 years. I am a strong admirer of their armed forces. Won't jump on the bandwagon of the anti-Monty brigade. He fought also with outdated equipment and under pressure by the cabinet to end the war by Christmas. CM reflects this the British Commonwealth battles are I found harder to win. The Lee-Enfield was a WW1 weapon the M1 Garand was not. Montgomery fought set piece battles Patton pursuit. Arnhem assume they had cancelled it; I see myself reading the books now. An opportunity was lost to end the war by Christmas. Respect the airborne involved of all nations participating. The finest infantry ever.  

[Warts 'n' all]

Meanwhile back in the bocage country... 

"Oi, Monty. Get off and milk it".

[LongLeftFlank]

Since this thread is already a bag of cats, I'll toss in a 'what if' history question: 

1. Was it a foregone conclusion that the British should take the left flank of the Normandy lodgement (the traditional BEF position, next to the Channel), leaving the Americans on the right? Any ideas why?

2. Was there a case to be made for reversing the roles? Let the British and Canadians systematically clear Cherbourg and the Brittany ports* with their heavy guns, naval support and 'Funnies'. Meanwhile, the US First and Third Armies take the 'Colossal Crack' to break Rommel's panzer troops in a decisive battle in the good tank country between Caen and Falaise.

Note that nobody went into Normandy expecting that the breakout would end up being a wide right hook (COBRA); that idea was only tabled later, as flanking operations usually are, in light of events.** 

Reversing the sectors, of course, would put the 82nd Airborne at Pegasus and the Big Red One against Hitlerjugend.

While both British para divisions drop in the flood zones around Carentan. And, oh dear! my poor uncles in the North Shores wind up on bloody Omaha

Note also that I'm not suggesting Bradley would have fared any better than Dempsey against the pakfronts of Caen in June. And I'm not Monty-bashing either, just interested in why they made this decision. Keegan doesn't mention it.

 

* in which case my BFC handle would now be "@LongRightFlank" 

** please don't Wiki at me unless you're also ready to discuss its source material. Yes, Bradley suggested in his memoirs that he and Ike planned a hook through the Loire valley all along, as did Monty (per Wilmot), but those hindsight claims should be taken with a big grain of salt unless there's pre-OVERLORD documentation to that effect.

Edited January 10, 2021 by LongLeftFlank

[Warts 'n' all]

I think that right from the days of COSSAC it was always a foregone conclusion, simply because of supplies and reinforcements coming across the Atlantic.

And as for Cobra, although the exact details would change as the situation evolved, The Anglican Prig had something like that in mind pretty much from day he threw Morgan's plan in the basket.

[Falaise]

I have been director of the Montormel memorial for 20 years now

Museum which maintains the memory of the battles of the Falaise-Chambois pocket

Originally from Falaise, my mother suffered the fighting and 4 members of the family died during the events.

If I am explaining this to you, it is to make you understand that I have a certain legitimacy to put forward the following.

The pocket fights are a consequence of the initial placement of the various armies and the chain of events that culminated in this battle.

Contrary to what we naturally imagine, the initial goal of the landing was not to head for Paris and then Germany but rather to go due west in order to conquer the ports necessary for the logistics which will allow the conquest and destruction of Nazi Germany.

Cherbourg, then and above all Brest, are the strategic objectives targeted primarily by the Allied offensive.

This objective will influence the initial placement of the various allies.

This starts from an observation, in 1944, the British army was bloodless.

She has been involved since 1939 in France then the Balkans, in the Mediterranean, in North Africa, in the Far East then in Sicily and Italy.

In 1944, the British ran out of reserves, this is so true that as the fighting progressed in North West Europe, divisions were dissolved to be cannibalized to supplement other units.

At the end of August 1944 it was the 59th Staffordshire Infantry Division and then in December the prestigious 50th Northumbrian to be in turn dissolved.

It reminds me of the visit of a British veteran, the man who was less than 1m50 explains to me that he was there in 1944, to my reaction of astonishment, he then retraces his career to me: reformed in 1939 he is integrated to the Home Guard after the June 1940 disaster. In 1943 he was integrated into the army but not "over sea", then in 1944 classified as "over sea" he took part in the campaign in North West Europe, in a unit of the RASC.

Thus it was established from the outset that the British could not, even if it broke through the front, to exploit this breakthrough for lack of reserve. They will then have to ensure the thankless role of shield against the Panzer Division and thus leave the field free for the American to seize Cherbourg and then to charge on the Breton peninsula to seize Brest which is the gateway to the Atlantic. for continental Europe.

Joining the initial theme of this post it is interesting to note that the British were equipped earlier with the long guns carried on the Firefly and with the 17 pound usefull in caen plain

The Americans did not receive the first 76s until it emerged from the boccage. If the bocage had not been assessed in all its complexity, Allied strategists had understood that for the initial phase of the battle the Sherman 75 would be perfectly sufficient.

To finish I want to clarify that this distribution of the roles undoubtedly explains the recklessness of Monty in Holland because in the configuration of the defined role, the glory of the liberation belongs to the American alone. For his ego, but also, there can be no doubt, for the prestige of the United Kingdom he will attempt this coup on the Rhine.

I am still annoyed by the General Montybashing which discredits the British Army and its veterans for whom I have great affection and admiration.

Regularly receiving cadets from West Point, I am always surprised at the violence of the criticism and always strive to restore a minimum of objectivity.

Surprising for a Frenchman, isn't it?

"For the king and the Country"

[LongLeftFlank]

Merci bien for the on the ground perspective!  And yes, I too am trying to be fair to Montgomery.

To the Lord Protector: I don't own Hastings, but I dipped into Wilmot (I may own the only extant copy in the Philippines, now a bit mildewed).

Ch 18: In April 1944, Montgomery wrote that British Second Army's initial role was to "protect the eastern flank of First US Army.... In its subsequent operations, the Second Army will pivot on its left and offer a strong front against enemy movement towards the lodgement area from the east". But its stated objectives were to shield the US opening up of the ports, and the subsequent build up. There's no mention of diverting the panzers, at least not before D-day.

Morgan of COSSAC (backed by Ike and Tedder) denounced this, plus his 'shortening of the [phase] lines' east as too timid. From which Wilmot seems to conclude that the pressure to take Caen on D-day and later, at any cost, emanated from SHAEF, not Monty or his amazing technicolour ego.

But there's no evidence I am aware of that, pre-landing, Monty expected the decisive stroke to occur to the west. And not being at the center of that Waterloo event doesn't seem consistent with the man. (So heck, maybe I'm just answering my own question).

Again, in the absence of a document, it seems more likely to me that the Allied commanders, especially Monty, expected to subject Rommel/Group West to a bigger, badder reprise of Second Alamein, with carpet bombing. Time and place tbd, but the good tank country around Falaise seems sensible. The Allies (plus LeClerc) could then stroll through the wreck and roll for Paris. Even pre-Bagration, the Russians had already shown that the heavy 'straight punch' worked well against the Wehrmacht.

On the other hand, as you all know, grand flanking operations are tricky beasts to plan in advance, as they tend to depend on the enemy's dispositions (witness Moltke the younger. Or Anzio).

So anyway, I'm having difficulty believing Monty or anyone had the foresight in April to say hey, a 300 mile end run sweep through the Loire Valley in late June is just the thing for our mainly unblooded American allies.

Edited January 10, 2021 by LongLeftFlank

[Sgt.Squarehead]

3 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

* in which case my BFC handle would now be "@LongRightFlank" 

Doesn't have the same ring to it.....Clearly the Allies were right left correct. 

[Warts 'n' all]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

To the Lord Protector: I don't own Hastings,  But there's no evidence I am aware of that, pre-landing, Monty expected the decisive stroke to occur to the west..

So anyway, I'm having difficulty believing Monty or anyone had the foresight in April to say hey, a 300 mile end run sweep through the Loire Valley in late June is just the thing for our mainly unblooded American allies.

"Bugger Hastings". As George V might say were he still with us. And just because you are unaware of something doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

The plans shown in Hamilton's 2nd volume clearly illustrate what The Anglican Prig had in mind as soon as he took over. And we all know that Morgan, Ike, and Tedder had personal axes to grind. Monty was a horrible man, but a great general.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Warts 'n' all

[Falaise]

The Allied HQ had to conform to the reality of the facts.
The inability to exploit a British breakthrough and the need to use Atlantic ports forced the placement of troops.
Evolution is only the adaptation to the German reaction while keeping the guideline
The Panzer Division was the only one with an offensive capability, which is why in fact the British found themselves forced to stick them, as they were deployed in the most suitable area to accommodate such an offensive.
The Allies did not expect to fight the decisive battle until they were truly able to do so.
It was Luttich who reshuffled the maps, from there the Allied strategists applied the basic principles of open-air adversary annihilation, this encirclement battle had not been planned before. This explains the hesitations of his resolution where once again the Anglo-Canadians are from my point of view unfairly accused of being responsible but it is another debate which has the gift of making me regularly angry and which I will not deal with  on a forum

15 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:

 Monty was a horrible man, but a great general.

exact, but what a dirty asshole

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, Falaise said:

1 hour ago, Warts 'n' all said:

 Monty was a horrible man, but a great general.

exact, but what a dirty asshole

My interpretation of most of why Montgomery was dissed even in GB was class-based.  He did not come from the aristocratic BG of all the other senior commanders who based their positions on privilege and entitlement.  From all accounts, Montgomery was loved by his men cos he was more "of them" than the distant aristos, who saw the men as expendable peasants only marginally better than their attitudes in WW1.  

I went to school with kids from that sort of BG and their arrogance and their sense of superiority/entitlement and contempt for ordinary people was awful.  

[LongLeftFlank]

6 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

I think that right from the days of COSSAC it was always a foregone conclusion, simply because of supplies and reinforcements coming across the Atlantic.

 

http://history.army.mil/brochures/normandy/nor-pam.htm

The Americans would take the western flank closest to Cherbourg while the British operated to the east, on the approaches to Caen. Logistics determined the arrangement. American forces had arrived in Britain via the country's western ports and had positioned depots in those areas. It made sense for them to operate near those bases. In addition, responding to the congestion in Britain's ports brought on by preparations for the invasion, American logisticians planned to load ships in the United States for direct discharge onto the beaches of France, without an intermediate unloading in Britain. The western flank was closer to that line of supply.

Right you are, milord.

[LongLeftFlank]

2 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

The plans shown in Hamilton's 2nd volume clearly illustrate what The Anglican Prig had in mind as soon as he took over.

On this item, I regret I remain unconvinced. Nigel Hamilton being a bit controversial himself, we'd need to consult the primary sources. However, this American historian seems to have done so:

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/11/books/the-ally-we-loved-to-hate.html

Mr. Hamilton's version denies that a large-scale British offensive seeking the rupture of the German lines on the eastern flank was ever contemplated. Unfortunately, the effort to confirm Montgomery's mastery of the battlefield through this argument does not square with the evidence. I have examined planning documents originating in Montgomery's own 21 Army Group headquarters that assigned the breakout role to the British and only a secondary mission of flank protection to the Americans. And Carlo d'Este's recent ''Decision in Normandy'' thoroughly demolishes the claim that such a plan was consistently followed.

Haven't read d'Este, but perhaps others have?

[Warts 'n' all]

25 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Right you are, milord.

Well I am right sometimes. But, I'm sure that you will be glad to know that I'm rubbish at this game.

[LongLeftFlank]

Well, I am shamefaced to confess that, in violation of my sacred vows to CMBN before God, I have been wantonly flirting of late with the Vassal version of AH 'The Longest Day', which is at a scale where the above kind of strategic question is more relevant.