Commonwealth Tactics

[CEO]

I know there is a lot of info out there about German infantry, TD, and Tank tactics, but what about the Commonwealth forces? Or the Americans for that matter? Are there any good sources out there that contain any good info?

Thanks

------------------

No smilies were harmed in the making of this post.

[Maximus]

Well if your Commonwealth forces are under the command of Monty, then you'll spend most of your time sitting around drinking tea and eating crumpettes, while Eisenhower and Patton are out there winning the war.

------------------

"The greatest risk...is not taking one."

[DEF BUNGIS]

Good god CEO;

As for American WWII tactics, I dont know where to start, there are assloads out there. Are you looking for something specific?

------------------

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all

[JeffRaider]

I just finished D-Day, by Ambrose for the tenth time or so. . . Does it seem like Brits spend a lot of time "brewing up a bit of tea" to anyone else?

[jekell]

A good place to start is a book called "Closing with the Enemy: How GI's Fought the War in Europe" by Michael Doubler. It contains a wealth of information including hedgerow tactics, assaulting towns and cities, fighting in the Huertgen, and the Siegfried Line...

[Guest Big Time Software]

jekell hit Charles and my personal favorite. Really is a fantastic book. Another one, but a little US baised is "Against the Panzers" by Vannoy and Karameales. ISBN 0-7864-0129-X. I don't have much on Commonwealth tactics, but if Simon Fox gets his butt on over to this thread he'll suggest a few I am sure

BTW, using the Commonwealth forces effectively is pretty tough. They are sorta on a par with the Germans in many ways, while the US has certain advantages. That is one reason I like playing with Commonwealth stuff (I am partial to the Poles myself ).

Steve

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JeffRaider:

I just finished D-Day, by Ambrose for the tenth time or so. . . Does it seem like Brits spend a lot of time "brewing up a bit of tea" to anyone else?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the USA myth factory that is Ambrose sure.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 06-05-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hehe... I am just waiting for The History Channel's new spin off...

The Ambrose Channel 24 hours of Ambrose with his overly dramatic camera presence Anybody who has seen the HC lately knows what I mean!

Actually, I like Ambrose to an extent, as I do Whiting or Lucas. I just have to take some of what they say with a grain of salt.

Steve

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

American tactics????

1. Make sure everyone is comfortable.

2. Get the ice-cream vans 200 yds behind the lines.

3. Provide a good supply of coca-cola

3. Get G3 guys together and discuss, discuss...discusss... discuss... (are these men warriors or girls with PMT?)

4. Generate FRAGO but postpone 'till following day as its raining and late.

5. Shout thats a 'Rodge' or 'Rodge that'

6. Repeat.

------------------

Dulce Et Decorum Est

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JeffRaider:

I just finished D-Day, by Ambrose for the tenth time or so. . . Does it seem like Brits spend a lot of time "brewing up a bit of tea" to anyone else?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now everybody who knows me also knows that I am not that partial to the English, but that is quite unfair. Have a look at Reynold's 'Steel Inferno' or any of Delaforce's books about some of the UK divisions. If that is really what Ambrose is saying, he must have learned his trade from either the Brother's Grimm or Mother Goose.

Please note that all smilies on this iBook have mysteriously disappeared after being taken away by mustachioed people in fantasy uniforms at night.

------------------

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[Formerly Babra]

Failure in High Command - The Canadian Army and the Normandy Campaign Lt. Col., Dr. John A. English, Golden Dog Press 1991, ISBN 0-919614-60-4

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[Maximus]

I'll have to come to JeffRaider's defense here. Doesn't MarketGarden ring a bell to anyone? XXX Corps to be exact? While the American Airborne units were fighting dilligently in Nijmegan and else where, XXX Corps found it kosher to stop off for tea. Only because they felt they were "ahead" of schedule, when they weren't!

Let's not even bring up the Caen debacle. While the Amis were slogging it through the hedgerows and taking heavy casualties in the West, Monty was taking his good ol' time taking Caen.

Bottom line is that in times of war, the best way to prevent casualties is to attck and attack quickly. Not sit around or attack in a defensive posture. Patton himself would tell you that. "We're gonna run through him like crap through a goose!" Gawd, I could just see how the Gulf War would have gone if England was the leader. Faulklands anybody??

------------------

"The greatest risk...is not taking one."

[Walter]

Yeah, because the attack on Caen wasn't preventing massive amounts of the German armour in Normandy from reinforcing the German lines that were facing Bradley's American forces, so that Bradley's fourteen divisions only had to face:

'six, of which three remnants mangled in the battle of D-Day - 91st, 77th, and 243rd forming one division, 265th and 275th another, 352nd a third, although only in regimental strength. The intact divisions, 3rd parachute, 353rd and 17th SS Panzergrenadier, were strong, but had little counter attack edge. The 17th SS, armoured in name, had no more than a panzergrenadier's standard allotment of a single armoured battalion.'

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[Black Sabot]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiloIndiaAlpha:

American tactics????

1. Make sure everyone is comfortable.

2. Get the ice-cream vans 200 yds behind the lines.

3. Provide a good supply of coca-cola

3. Get G3 guys together and discuss, discuss...discusss... discuss... (are these men warriors or girls with PMT?)

4. Generate FRAGO but postpone 'till following day as its raining and late.

5. Shout thats a 'Rodge' or 'Rodge that'

6. Repeat.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

British tactics:

1) Call on America to finish what they can't.

------------------

"I do like to see the arms and legs fly"

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus:

Let's not even bring up the Caen debacle. While the Amis were slogging it through the hedgerows and taking heavy casualties in the West, Monty was taking his good ol' time taking Caen.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the UK divisions were not taking any casualties? Uh, sorry Max, but maybe reading actual history books instead of fairy tales would help you come to a better understanding?

Reynolds 'Steel Inferno'

Delaforce 'The Polar Bears' and 'The fighting Wessex Wyverns'

Hastings 'Overlord'

Keegan 'Six Armies in Normandy'

come to mind.

Fact is AFAIK, the battle plan as envisioned by Monty was to be across the Seine within 90 days. That they were. There certainly were failures in the British/Canadian command, but it is not as if the US Army was faultless. AFAIK the 90th ID came close to being disbanded for ineptitude and lack of fighting spirit.

I can not believe I come to the defense of the English... well, must be the Scottish Highland Division then... Must brew a cuppa now.

------------------

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[PawBroon]

Hi all,

Say, I'm french, surely that must qualify as a most common target?

Is that something cultural between you yanks and brits that you should take a shoot at them?

------------------

Either he's dead or my watch has stopped

[waffen]

They fought like lions on both sides so that the dead lay corpse by corpse. We searched every house, every courtyard to avoid ambush. And here is the confirmation of how ferocious last night's battle must have been. The Commandos lie dead in rows beside the dead SS. Grenades are scattered all over the roads and on the porches of houses. Here we see a commando and an SS man, dead in each other's arms, having slaughtered each other. There, a German and a Canadian tank have engaged each other to destruction, and are still smouldering, and from each blackened turret hangs the charred corpse of a machine gunner. Over here are a group who ran towards the wall for shelter and were shot down before they got there. And there, by the church, as the advance guard of C Company and the carriers turn the corner, there are three Germans. Only three. But one of them instantly draws his pistol and hits one of our men. A Bren gunner kills two of the three SS men, but the survivor still does not surrender; he dodges us and gets away. Now, we understand with what kind of fanatic we have to deal."

[Guest Big Time Software]

Please, let us not get into the sterotypes again. This has come up far too often on this BBS.

Brits on Americans - "no fighting spirit. Have to rain shells all day long before they even think of moving forward"

Americans on Brits - "no fighting spirit. Sit on their cans all day long drinking tea until the Germans are obligated to withdraw due to some fantastic US action"

It has all been said before. While there are grains of truth in every setreotype, that is about all you can say. The Americans did have tactics and strategies that involved massive quantities of firepower. This was because they had it available to them, so the stuff was used even when it was total overkill. The Commonwealth Forces on the whole were less likely to have "dash and elan", the reason being was they could not afford paving roads with blood like the Americans could (and did). As for leadership, both sides had there good and bad commanders. Mark Clark ranks right up there with Monty in many historians' eyes, both in terms of military ability and pursuing non-military agendas. And don't forget, Ike approved of Market Garden, so the US generals are NOT off the hook for that debacle.

Anyhoo, please stop the bickering. The Commonwealth forces fought well as did the Americans. Since the US forces made up the bulk of the Allied forces in NW Europe, it should be no wonder why they "did more to win the war". If they hadn't, then they would have had to hang their heads in shame for not fulfilling their proportionate share of the fight.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-05-2000).]

[Guest smbutler]

Now, now fellahs,

I'm not sure all of this rancour is necessary.

If the Brits were a bit tentative

in '44, it was because of their Generals. (I'm an American, by the way). Also, let's not forget that they had been fighting since '40. (Dunkirk, Greece, Crete, N. Africa, The Middle East, CBI, Malaysia, etc.)I've read a couple of sources which suggest that they weren't so much war leary as war weary. Very easy to understand, if you ask me.

I also suspect that the Yanks and Brits had differing long term pictures of how the war would unfold. We believed that it could end with a series of relatively quick victories, whereas the Brits, who had been locked in an four-year death match with a formidable and cagey foe, believed that the war would drag on. What would be the point, then, of rushing off to be slaughtered? Who can blame them?

As far as far as the toughness of individual soldiers is concerned, let's not forget that Tommy had trudged across deserts, nearly starved to death in the Jungles of Burma, and duked it out tooth and nail in the mountains of Italy, and he never quit. Given what he had been through---let's not forget WWI--I'd say he was one tough hombre.

For me, the battle of Inkermann Heights during the Crimea War (1850) reveals the essence of the British foot soldier.As 10,000 Russian soldiers moved forward in column formation,2,000 red coats, freezing, starving, and sick, methodically formed into line, fixed bayonets, and waded calmly and deliberately into the enemy's ranks. The Russians were simply unnerved by the attack...

[This message has been edited by smbutler (edited 06-05-2000).]

[This message has been edited by smbutler (edited 06-05-2000).]

[This message has been edited by smbutler (edited 06-05-2000).]

[Formerly Babra]

I would never be the one to say Commonwealth Forces were "better" than their allies. I would, however, challenge anyone who said they were not as good.

But I had thought this thread was about combat tactics, not national characteristics in grand strategy.

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[DEF BUNGIS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiloIndiaAlpha:

American tactics????

1. Make sure everyone is comfortable.

2. Get the ice-cream vans 200 yds behind the lines.

3. Provide a good supply of coca-cola

3. Get G3 guys together and discuss, discuss...discusss... discuss... (are these men warriors or girls with PMT?)

4. Generate FRAGO but postpone 'till following day as its raining and late.

5. Shout thats a 'Rodge' or 'Rodge that'

6. Repeat.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot my cell phone, pager, and INTERNET connection.

------------------

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

So the UK divisions were not taking any casualties? Uh, sorry Max, but maybe reading actual history books instead of fairy tales would help you come to a better understanding?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read books?? Hell I wait for the movies or History Channel to cover them.

[Major Tom]

Well, going back to the original topic, one is not restricted to using just Commonwealth Tactics. The weapons and equipment are different and do require other tactics than the Germans or the Americans, but, basic tactics, like flanking, etc. are the same. Their squads aren't as powerful as a German or American Squad, so, you have to have larger numbers (Better concentration) to make up for this. The PIAT (PAIT?) is a much better weapon for defending buildings, as, they do not have a back flame spray (which tends to burst them into flames in the wrong situation!).

Historical misconceptions? Well, everyone likes to claim that their own nationality was the prime reason for victory, purely out of nationalistic feelings. But, without any one of the Allies (Americans, British, Canadians, Poles, French) the 1944-45 campaign could not have been won the way it was. If Britian was to have fallen in 1940, then, an invasion of Europe would have been Impossible. Without the Americans, the massive amounts of men and equipment would not have been availible. Without the Canadians or Poles the British army would have been drastically reduced in size and power. Without the French the liberation of France would have been more akin to an invasion.

Just a note of historican nomenculture. The Allied French forces AFTER 1942 (ie. the fall of Vichy) was not called Free French Army, but, the French Army. Without the comparison army of Vichy France, there is no need for the extra name of Free for the French forces fighting in World War Two. At least this is what I have gathered.