Another post about U boats

[Randell Daigre]

Double post.

[Randell Daigre]

Double post.

[gorski]

"The Allies failed to break out of the Salerno beachead due to overwhelming enemy numbers and tough German defenses.

Not true. The allied general at salerno was an idiot. He did not expand the beachhead in the first few days before the surprised Germans managed to move in forces to contain Salerno.

Gorski

[husky65]

Originally posted by David Brown:

"An effective, good, and dare I say, 'finessed' use of intelligence is good strategy. The Western Allies did not, in the case of Overlord, rely strictly on overwhelming material force to get ashore."

Of course they did - they used deception to delay the reaction, not to get ashore - they used B17s as decoy ducks for 6 months to get air superiority to get ashore, they used a mass of naval bombardment, air bombardment etc to get ashore - and then in a brilliant piece of strategy, did so in Bocage country that was great defending country...

" Without the proper use of intelligence, in a strategic sense, I do maintain that Overlord might have failed - it was never a given. You wrote:"

Overlord was a given, the intelligence delayed the response but frankly it wasn't that big a deal - the allies had the airpower to drop the critical bridges and keep them down, as well as the fighter bombers to decimate AFVs and supporting vehicles on the move to the area.

"Remember that the landings against Salerno did not have the same success, despite local air and sea superiority:"

And without anywhere near the commitment of forces and supply that was used in overlord.

"The Allies failed to break out of the Salerno beachead due to overwhelming enemy numbers and tough German defenses. The American and British forces remained pinned to the coast until the British Eighth Army threatened Kesselring's troops from the south and forced them to withdraw up the peninsula. A week after the Salerno landings the British Eighth Army made contact with the American Fifth Army ending the greatest worries of the Allied leaders."

[Dr. Robert M. Browning, Jr]

I have no idea why you raised Salerno, it was just another continuation of allied lack of strategy - to quote Monty "I have not been told of any master plan for this theater and I must therefore assume that there was none".

The entire Med theater was done 'off the cuff' and with NO strategy for victory, is it any wonder that an unplanned sideshow of a sideshow theater that had limited US support and was mainly intended to tie down German units was not an immediate huge success?

However, NGS was very effective against German tanks, at Gela a Col of the HG Div stated that 'naval gunfire forced us to withdraw' - his unit lost 50% of its Tanks in several hours.

Eisenhower commented in his dispatch on the Sicily campaign that NGS had proved 'so devestating in its effectiveness as to dispose finally of any doubts that naval guns are suitable for shore bombardment'

and at Salerno von Vietinghoff said 'above all the advancing troops had to endure the most severe heavy fire that had hitherto been experienced; the naval gunfire from ships lying in the roadstead. with astonishing precision and freedom of manouvre, these ships shot at every recognised target with very overwhelming effect'.

in Overlord according to one SS officer cadet: 'our counter-attack was brought to a standstill mainly by the arty of the invasion fleet. because of this concentrated fire, such as I had never seen before on any european battlefield, both officers and men became demoralised and were forced to dig in'

(I could add the destruction of the remnants of 4 Pz divs around Mortain on 7 Aug, or 29 Jun - 2 SS Pz Corps or Rundsteadts report that NGS had 'inflicted particularly heavy damage on our assault formations' - suffice to say that NGS and Fighter bombers had the ability of the Germans to counter attack under control)

"For Overlord itself, there were serious problems at Omaha beach. High seas and shore bluffs greatly reduced naval gunfire accuracy."

But had no effect on the mass of available fighter bombers.

" The point is that as significant as naval gunfire can be, it is no guarantee of success."

It is when combined with massive air superiority.

"After all, Rommel had 34 divisions under his command to face 5 Allied divisions. Had the Germans handled their forces better, and had they not been spread out due to the Allied deception, Overlord might have been a disaster."

Rubbish - had the germans concentrated, then the NGS would have had a field day and it would have been an early Xmas for the Typhoons.

Its also worth noting that most of the German divs were (if full strength) less powerful than an equivalent allied div and none of them were near establishment strength.

1 Jun 1944 1 and 2 SS Pz Divs reported tank strengths of 88 and 69 respectively - their authorised strengths were 200 tanks and the Germand had aprox 17 replacements available.

You also ignore the 'sub divisional' units that the allies put in, mostly armoured brigades - in 1st CDN and 2nd Brit armies these were mostly armoured brigades (10 of which went in in Jun/July 44) and each of these Bdes had almost exactly the same tank strength as an Armoured Div.

The US aslo put in sub div units - tank and tank destroyer Bns, at the end of jul 1944 14 tank and 22 TD bns were in Normandy.

Tanks committed to normandy Jun/July 1944

Germans - 1347 tanks + 337 assault guns.

Allied - Medium 5,083 + Light 1,411 + SP Guns 1,182

Unlike the German (OKW war diary) figures, the allied figures don't include replacement vehicles, the US was losing about 500 shermans a month in Normandy (and there is no reason to suggest the Brits/Canadians were losing markedly less), so you can tack on about another 2000 allied medium tanks shipped in to the above numbers.

OB West could call on 45 inf divs, 26 divs were static and many of the others were poorly manned/equipped - by mid 44 their best troops were on the eastern front and had been replaced by 18 year olds, men over 35, men with 3rd degree frostbite etc.

Army group B (forces nth of the Loire) at the end of Jan 44 had only 170 75mm AT guns and 68 88mms + 4 of its Divs had been stripped of their assault guns (they were sent to bolster the Rumanians in the east).

"You wrote much earlier, "the allies didn't use finesse". I don't think that anyone is disagreeing with you that the Allies certainly did use their material superiority to win the war, but I, amongst others, are simply claiming that there were indeed cases where the Allies did show good strategic planning and execution sometimes (as well as showing poor strategic planning and execution sometimes). You asked for examples of finesse: I gave Midway as an example. Your response was to claim the whole Pacific war was mishandled. Even if that is true (and I don't intend to argue it), that doesn't invalidate the Midway example."

So you are claiming that because the allies did it once that invalidates the fact that they had a track record that covered rest of the war?

"I'm still going to read Ellis as I earlier offered to do, and perhaps he'll convince me of your case better than you. My main contention is simple: as important as Allied material superiority during the war was (and it was important), it did not, in and of itself, predestine Allied victory. The Allies had to fight. Did they fight as well as the Germans? Perhaps, and perhaps not, but in the end they fought well enough."

Of course they had to fight and they did so without finesse, by simple brute force, but the factories predetermined the outcome.

[ July 27, 2002, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: husky65 ]

[Marc]

Originally posted by husky65:

Because Husky has read hundreds of books on the subject and one or two that purport to prove (in spite of the well documented facts) that the US was a shining example of strategic finesse are not going to change the overwhelming balance of evidence.

The American military (and as I pointed out, the entire western allies) were hulking neanderthals that used mass in place of strategy - tell me again about how well run the Huertgen forest battles were and how strategicly vital that area was to winning the war?

.[/QB]

Folks,

If you cant recognize this by now, shame on you. Already shame on me. None of us has made the statement that US, or Western Allies relied solely on finesse, nor that brute strength wasnt used, and used effectively at times. Husky will simply discount any examples you use, carry your examples to ludicrous ends and generally discount any and all sources which dont support his arguement.

I would be more then willing to compare professional credentials. Husky has read many books, and that is admirable. I am not trying to be glib, I do admire the fact you bother to research instead of relying on one book or one source. However, some of us have been cited in books, have National planning experience and have actually come under fire.

The one thing I wont accept, no matter how impassioned your arguement is this casting of the Western Alliance as ignorant brutes while showing the German soldier as some sort of shining Knight on a noble cause and the epitome of tactical finesse. Almost seems some think the wrong side won the war?

V/R

Marc

[Massattack]

Overlord a done deal! Husky I think you need to revise that lengthy reading list of yours. The odds were always heavily in favour of it succeeding, but very few academic war historian would consider that "Overlord was a given." As it was, unseasonal weather conditions were nearly as dangerous to the operation as any enemy action. Of course its easy to make opinions like Husky's with the benefit of hindsight.

Regards.

Sorry guys, thought I would throw in my 2 cents about subs!

[David Brown]

I think it best if I simply recognize that we are not going to have much give and take on this particular topic and give it a rest. Thanks for tuning in!

(No subs here either!)

[Marc]

David;

I do think you are right. Though must say need the full game rather then where the Gold Beta cuts off to see what effect the expenditure in UBoats will have vis-a-vis the Eastern Front.

Cheers

Marc

[Randell Daigre]

Anyone who thinks that the success of Overlord was a forgone conclusion should visit the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana. One of the displays there is an apology, written on June 5, 1944. This apology takes full responsibility for the failure of the Overlord invasion and the attendant loss of lives and war material. The author of this apology was Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower.

[husky65]

"Folks,

If you cant recognize this by now, shame on you. Already shame on me. None of us has made the statement that US, or Western Allies relied solely on finesse, nor that brute strength wasnt used, and used effectively at times. Husky will simply discount any examples you use, carry your examples to ludicrous ends and generally discount any and all sources which dont support his arguement."

Good move, play the man not the ball - going ad hom does not support your argument, it just points out the weakness of it.

"I would be more then willing to compare professional credentials. Husky has read many books, and that is admirable. I am not trying to be glib, I do admire the fact you bother to research instead of relying on one book or one source. However, some of us have been cited in books, have National planning experience and have actually come under fire. "

None of which changes well documented facts, to date I have been presented with a couple of int coups, some tactical examples and Midway as evidence that the allies were masters of finesse.

All of which are countered by example after example that I have given - look at the Med - we didn't even have a plan for it.

"The one thing I wont accept, no matter how impassioned your arguement is this casting of the Western Alliance as ignorant brutes while showing the German soldier as some sort of shining Knight on a noble cause and the epitome of tactical finesse."

The German Generals were frequently better than ours and their troops were frequently better than ours, they were hamstrung by an idiot in charge, a farcical production system, lack of resources, and an inability to play with the big boys when it came to the all important numbers game to name but a few things.

They (Hitler) willingly took on 3 superpowers simultaneously, they were never going to win.

" Almost seems some think the wrong side won the war?"

So if we are not on your side we are neo-nazis?

Congrats, that is taking ad hom to a new, and genuinely pathetic, level that I have not seen before in years of reading usenet posts.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Massattack:

[QB] Of course its easy to make opinions like Husky's with the benefit of hindsight.

[QB]

Agreed, that is why they did so much contingency planning and why they went with such overwhelming force.

6 Jun Luftflotte 3 put up a total of 319 sorties, the allies 10,585 sorties - a ratio of 33:1

[husky65]

Originally posted by Randell Daigre:

Anyone who thinks that the success of Overlord was a forgone conclusion should visit the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana. One of the displays there is an apology, written on June 5, 1944. This apology takes full responsibility for the failure of the Overlord invasion and the attendant loss of lives and war material. The author of this apology was Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower.

The fact that Eisenhower prepared for a failure of D-Day does not make it likely, just shows that (as noted above), he lacked all the facts that we now have, and that he was a conscientious leader who planned for the worst case as well as the likely case.

[Massattack]

"Rubbish", "Fail" "Pathetic", just some of the words used by Husky in his numerous postings throughout this thread. Whatever your thoughts on the opinions and arguments of others, your manner of debate comes across as very arrogant to say the least, and words such as above only serve to alienate rather than persuade people to your way of thinking. No matter how wrong you think the opinions of others, it would be nice if you could at least show them some respect. Attack the man and not the argument, and you wonder why? One of the reasons I have enjoyed the Battlefront forums has been the generally high level of maturity and debate that exists here, especially when compared to some of the other forums around. The end result of postings like the above are to stifle debate and put people off posting their opinions.

Regards.

[Randell Daigre]

Maybe we need to get Doug Beman over here from the CM forums (fora?) to do a group hug.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Massattack:

"Rubbish", "Fail" "Pathetic", just some of the words used by Husky in his numerous postings throughout this thread.

When people post rubbish, I'll call it that - grown ups can survive this.

For example the part of the post that I called rubbish, suggested that the Germans were capable of concentrating a massive force against the Overlord invasion beaches and that the force had been spread because of deception, both aspects of it were rubbish - the German force was spread to cover all possibilities as is standard, deception just delayed the redeployment of the other forces.

Equally the Germans were incapable of concentrating a force against the initial allied force of 5 inf divs, 3 armoured brigades (each having the same tank strength as an armoured div) and 3 airborne divs.

German forces were only 6 Inf Divs and 1 x Pz Div (all heavily understrength) within immediate range of the D-Day beaches and were subject to massive NGS plus heavy air attack.

A further 6 inf Divs and 3 Pz Divs (all understrength) were within 100 miles, but had to cope with massive air attacks, destroyed bridges, partisan attack and the standard german logistic problems of the time.

Moving anything by day was acknowledged as a way to lose it to Jabos.

To quote Rommel in a report to Hitler in 1943 re defending the French coastline - 'British and American superiority in the air alone has again been so effective that all movement of major formations has been rendered completely impossible, both at the front and behind it, by day and by night'

Suggesting that the forces could have made a difference if 'handled better' simply flys in the face of facts.

[ July 28, 2002, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: husky65 ]

[angel]

[ July 30, 2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

[TrionDelta]

posted July 24, 2002 09:34 PM

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

quote:

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

a myth, its fact, we swamped them, in the air, on land and at sea - the bomber offensive was just attritional warfare (BC aircrew had less chance of surviving the war than WW1 Tommies did), the 8th AF was used as clay pigeons to draw the luftwaffe up to be attrited by 'escorting' fighters (whose orders were to hunt the Luftwaffe, not protect the bombers).

______________________________________________

what u dont realise is that B-17 crewa acounted for 2/3 of all german fighters shot down, "escorts" didnt reach germany till '44 i belive mayb late '43. this was stated on a history channle specail on the best bomber of all time

[TrionDelta]

Husky,

ive heard from many sources on the history channle, Books etc. that the germans had the ability to destroy the allied landings on D-Day. An SS officer had drawn up the plans to send his Panzers in action,though he couldnt move w/o hitlers ok and no one would wake him in Berchesgarten(dont know how to spell it). This has been stated by many ppl including Eisenhower and his Aide. also not all of the Divisons were understrength before D-Day a crack SS divison had been transfered from the russian front and they were near full strength.

[Briggs]

Please don't tell me that you actually believe the History Channel to be a credible source.

[arax3]

PL: Yes. THC is a credible source in matters relating to WWII. All: If you want to know how close a thing the operations in NW Europe were, Please see: "Eisenhower's Lts.," by: Russell Weigly; Ind. U. Press (1981.) The war was won by the blood and courage of the Red Army on the Eastern Front. Yes, they would have eventually won with US logistic assistance, even without D-Day but at what cost to post-war Europe? The campaign in Italy was lost. N. Africa was important because of the possibility of taking the Arab oil fields and attacking USSR from the South. Both were possible to the Axis forces. L3

[husky65]

Originally posted by TrionDelta:

what u dont realise is that B-17 crewa acounted for 2/3 of all german fighters shot down, "escorts" didnt reach germany till '44 i belive mayb late '43. this was stated on a history channle specail on the best bomber of all time

Utterly, utterly, wrong B-17 (all US bomber) crews were renowned for massive overclaiming - the reason for this is that whenever a fighter was shot down, usually 50 or so gunners were shooting at it, and they all claimed it in good faith.

You also run into the problem that a/c engines belch smoke when sharply throttled back (as you tend to when you roll into a dive) - so 50 gunners see a fighter, that they are shooting at, belch smoke and dive away = 50 claims for a kill, all submitted in good faith and no fighter actually destroyed.

Compare kill claims from Schweinfurt to actual Luftwaffe losses - 288 claimed - according to Adolf galland 35 actually lost.

I would suspect the figure that Bombers shot down 2/3s of all German fighters is wildly erroneous - if this had been the case there would have been no need for escorts.

Re the B-17 being the best bomber of all time - that can be argued for and against on a number of points (I would restrict any argument to between it and a/c from a similar time frame)

But personally, I would argue that the Mosquito B.XVI was a better bomber (delivers a more effective bombload for less resources expended), you could make the same claim for a Lancaster.

The B-17 made a great decoy duck, which was its most effective role - bringing the Luftwaffe up so the fighters could kill them.

If you feel the best WW2 bomber must be an American a/c, I would suggest the B-24 or B-29

[husky65]

Originally posted by TrionDelta:

Husky,

ive heard from many sources on the history channle, Books etc. that the germans had the ability to destroy the allied landings on D-Day. An SS officer had drawn up the plans to send his Panzers in action,though he couldnt move w/o hitlers ok and no one would wake him in Berchesgarten(dont know how to spell it). This has been stated by many ppl including Eisenhower and his Aide. also not all of the Divisons were understrength before D-Day a crack SS divison had been transfered from the russian front and they were near full strength.

Having a plan to send your Panzers into action is not the same as being able to do any good with them, I have already posted a number of quotes relating to the effectiveness of NGS against armoured formations (to quote Rommel), the reason that ops in Normandy were 'tremendously hampered, and in some cases even rendered impossible' was the 'effect of the heavy naval guns. up to 640 guns have been used. the effect is so immense that no operation of any kind is possible in the area commanded by this rapid fire artillery, either by infantry or by tanks', I have also posted the fact that the allied put up 10,585 sorties on Jun 6 in the invasion area.

If you mean Panzer Lehr as being the full strength elite unit -

"The ordeal of the German Panzer-Lehr Division offers a good example of the fate awaiting German ground forces in Normandy. Ordered north to confront the invasion, the armored division got underway in the late afternoon of June 6, and came under its first air attack at 0530 on the 7th near Falaise. Blasted bridges and bombed road intersections hindered movement, particularly of support vehicles. So intense were the attacks along the Vire-Beny Bocage road that division members referred to it as a Jabo Rennstrecke-a fighter-bomber race-course. Air attack destroyed more than 200 vehicles on June 7 alone. Despite the rainy weather, which had threatened the Allies' landing on the beachhead, fighter- bombers continued to strike at the Panzer-Lehr Division, to the dismay of German soldiers who had hoped the worsening weather would offer some respite. This was just the beginning of an ordeal that would last throughout the French campaign; Panzer-Lehr was in for some more rough times in the near future."

[Briggs]

Originally posted by arax3:

PL: Yes. THC is a credible source in matters relating to WWII.

Please let me rephrase:

The History Channel may be credible by saying, "On such and such a day, the Army of someone or other took this or that city," but under no account would I turn to them for in-depth, unbiased factual history.

[Flibble]

I was really pleased with the response to my post till I realised that 95% of the entries had nothing to do with what I said lol.

:eek:

Anyhow, I have learned a lot of v interesting stuff that will enhance my gameplaying experience greatly - thanks v much!

I hope everyone enjoys SC as much as I think I'm going to.

[Wisbech_lad]

Hmm. Let’s check out the German record for “finesse”, strategic or otherwise after the end of 1941

North Africa. Drive your tanks into a British PAK front and minefields. Then, massively reinforce you troops (Tunisia) in an irrevelant sideshow (N Africa) and have them all surrender shortly afterwards

Italy. Conduct effective fighting withdrawal in difficult terrain. OK, I’ll give Kesselring that.

Norway/ Balkans/ Greece/ Denmark/ Benelux. Have large amounts of troops tied down in mostly irrelevant sideshows fighting partisan resistance who really don’t want you in their country.

Russia. Get bogged down fighting for “prestige” city. Get cut off and defeated

Kharkov – OK, give them that

Citadel. Drive tanks into Russian PAK front and minefields

Korsun/ Bagration. Get overrun, cut off and defeated in detail

Berlin. Send last strategic reserves down to Hungary to retake Budapest

Western Front. Argue about best way to defend beaches. Conduct effective fighting withdrawal in difficult terrain. (Normandy/ Alsace Lorraine) Waste last strategic reserves in hopeless counterattacks (Lorraine/ Ardennes) in difficult terrain

Apart from Italy & Normandy (skillfully fought delaying actions in difficult terrain) don’t see much finesse. And arguably there isn’t much finesse involved in digging into bocage and mountains…

Face it, after the easy victories of 39-41 both sides where much of a muchness. However, the Allies were always going to out produce the Axis, and the Axis made more blunders after 1942 than the Allies, which didn’t help. The Allies were more rational in playing to their strengths, whereas the Germans kept on looking for the magic bullet. The Italians just did the sensible thing.

Oh yes, be a invading force of such horrendous brutality that amazingly enough a communist dictator, democratic president and the last of the imperialists all manage to bury their differences just long enough to agree no separate peace negotiations will be allowed… Or peace negotiations full stop.

Such finesse.