CavScout Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: I'm in a bit of a hurry just now, but in reference to Croda's comments – it is a myth that the British and Canadians had it easy during the Normandy landings. In some areas it was comparable to Utah beach, in being relatively unopposed. In other areas they took heavy casualties. They didn't have it as bad as Omaha beach, but that doesn't mean they had it easy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From my understanding, from my readings/research, the UK/Canadians had an "easier" time because they made use of their equipment more effectivly. I think the British and Canadian leadership made better decisons in selecting the type of vehicles they would be using in the landings. Omaha was so much harder because of the lack of support vehicles, IMO. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: I want to bring this back on track, re: American "numerical superiority vs. quality." This whole notion that the US only won through bigger numbers pisses me off. (SNIP) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. I never understood it. I never hear folks attributing the fall of Poland to Germany's use of "numerical superiority", along with the Soviets, over the Poles. How about the Low Countries? Did Germany win simply because they overwhelmed them with numbers? If America could only win overwhelming numbers, why didn't the Germans crush the Americans in the Ardennes? They possed both the numerical advantage and the superior equipment. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oberly Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>America had McArthur, Germany had Rommel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not going to debate the other points,as I'm not going to change your mind,nor you mine.But this comparison is ludicrous,IMO.Mac did absolutely nothing on the battlefield compared to Rommel's quick advance in the west,his victories against superior forces time and again in Africa,and his retreat across most of Egypt and Libya with little loss. I would agree that they were both promoted out of proportion by their respective governments and media,but at least Rommel had noteworthy accomplishments. Anyway,this stuff is off topic,so I will drop it. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWorthing Posted September 29, 2000 Author Share Posted September 29, 2000 One reason i've read why Omaha was so bloody was because of the bombing method used there. In all other beaches (utah, gold, sword, juno), low flying mauraders were used, flying as low as 500 feet. While the b-17's dropping bombs for Omaha (and other places) were flying at 20,000 feet (plus there was a thick cloud cover) thus they usually missed their targets, as much as 3 miles inland if i recall correctly. The bombs never hit their targets, never supressing, shocking, scaring the enemy as they should have. This is from only one book so... anyone else have any opinions? I think this whole thing about "cakewalk" subject is OT. As one guy said I heard on the history channel talking about some other place: every soldier who was there was a hero for just being there (something like that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 since it appears that I started it, let me just agree that the cakewalk discussion is very off topic and should definately be dropped. Apparently my very tongue in cheek comments started a frenzy. I'm also noticing that those of us who don't know the war inside and out appear to be very much Stephen Ambrose and the History Channel educated. Kind of amusing, I must say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda: My point was that comparing the fighting on Gold, Juno, and Sword, to that on Omaha and Utah is comparing Apples to Oranges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you'll find that there might have been more fighting on Gold, Juno and Sword than there was on Utah, but opposition on all of them was much lighter than on Omaha, which was the exception. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda: I'm also noticing that those of us who don't know the war inside and out appear to be very much Stephen Ambrose and the History Channel educated. Kind of amusing, I must say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But the results of that aren't amusing if you're British or Canadian... ------------------ "He belongs to a race which has coloured the map red, and all he wants are the green fields of England..." - Joe Illingworth, Yorkshire Post War Correspondent [This message has been edited by Sirocco (edited 09-29-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchy Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 Mr. Johnson: In your reply you said "....When only like 20% of your soldiers are fireing their weapons its kind of hard to break the enemys will to fight. " This comes from S.L.A. Marshal's "research" after the war and has come under suspect...and has been for some time. While I cannot get specifics at this time I will try to post them later. I am contacting Keith Bonn "When the Odds Were Even" and Edward Miller, author of a book on the Huertgen Forest fiasco to get the latest. ------------------ Webmaster http://www.trailblazersww2.org http://www.vmfa251.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts