Shermans and Burning Too easily.....

[Bastables]

Originally posted by busboy:

[QB

Could the Anglo American forces have performed their lightning thrusts with tanks that required constant maintence or broke down? No. Their advance would have been, by necessity, slower and more methodical.

[/QB]

Which cast them in a pretty poor light when compared the only partially mechanized armies of the Germans of 1940 and the Germans and the British experience in the desert. Considering the complete break down of German opposition post Normandy the Anglo Americans would have done just as well with Bren carriers in the race to the German borders.

I find it hard to belive the British would have forgotten how to carry out armoured trust with unreliable tanks. And I'm not that pro German to belive that without reliable tanks the US army could not have driven almost uncontested to the German French border.

[busboy]

I think there is a misunderstanding in communication here, and that we're arguing over a non-issue and, in fact, hold the same opinion.

Let me add some things that should clarify my position:

The German conquest of France was spectacularly sucessful, but it was delivered against split, broken foes that were expecting WW1 all over again. As good as the French tanks were, they were not deployed well, and suffered from tactical problems.

It is possible to compare the Anglo-American advance to the German attack of France, but only so far. In 44, the Allies were fighting against a battle hardened foe using tanks without tactical flaw, which were well led and used in a modern fassion.

I am not suggesting that one side's tactics would be lost in the face of unreliable tanks. Germany in France shows this. That I am saying is if the Allies were down to 25% armored strength in December of 1944 due to mechanical failures, things would be dramatically different.

The Germans proved they were capable of mounted a compatent counteroffensive when given the breathing space. If the Allies lost tank after tank to mechanical failure and by December of 1944 were down to 25% strength, they would have been in serious trouble.

Reliability doesn't effect tactics, it effects weight. That is what I'm saying. In France, it took less relative weight to keep pressing on than it did against Germany in 44. That difference must be taken into account. If the Sherman was not as reliable as it was, the Anglo-American forces would have lacked the weight to maintain such lightning advances as some commanders were able to make.

On a side note, potentially opening up a new can of worms, when did the British ever exhibit an armored breakthrough and persuit? I cannot recall a single British action of the war that consisted of British tanks knocking a hole in enemy lines and then pouring through, capturing large amounts of ground very rapidly.

The British approach to armored warfare seemed much more methodical, gain superiority in firepower and number, then hammer them. El Alimain springs to mind.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by busboy:

The British approach to armored warfare seemed much more methodical, gain superiority in firepower and number, then hammer them. El Alimain springs to mind.[/QB]

Look to the battles Pre DAK, They did it all long range tank SQN and truck/armoured battlegroups insertions to block Italian lines of retreat etc. Montys "Cookie crumble" battle was actully a large departure from previous British tank operations.

[Priest]

Caen springs to mind also.

[busboy]

I wouldn't count Caen, it was a flop. Tough terrain considered, it still took an unfortunate length of time and resources to get to that damn town.

Good observation Bastables. I know the British were also very active in armored development and the development of tactics in the interwar years.

My question is, what happened? Surely the change in methodology can't be contributed soley to Montgomery.

[Spinlock]

First post,

Been reading up on my East Front and it seems to me that probably the number one reason (according to the sources I'm reading - Glantz, House, Erickson) for the less than lightning pace of Soviet advance was lack of logistical support. Basically soviet offenses seemed to have been stopped more by they inability to keep up supplies than anything else.

In France, the allied advance also slowed appreciably when the supply lines drew thin. Headed into the Bulge, logistical supplies had to be carried cross country still from the channel which resulted in a slow down in the offensive.

It appears the maxim that professionals talk logistics holds true in either case.

[Michael Emrys]

From about mid-44 on, the Soviets made pretty quick advances until they would have to stop to permit their logistics tails to catch up with them. They were smart enough by that time not to outrun their supplies. That seems to be a lesson the Germans could have used earlier on.

But then, of course, the Germans didn't have the luxury of feeling that time was on their side. They knew that they had to win big and win fast. Seems silly to embark on a policy of aggressive warfare under those circumstances when you don't need to.

Michael

[Bastables]

Originally posted by busboy:

My question is, what happened? Surely the change in methodology can't be contributed soley to Montgomery.

My own opinion but I'd say that Monty was the reason for the switch. He was the man who said who could stay in command and who had to go. He moulded a staff and kept them relatively intact until the end of the war. Simplistically the old colour and glory boys such as O'Conner were captured, dead or sacked. They were further diluted as more and more conscript soldiers with their middle class officers arrived.

O’Connor himself was never the same and his poor grasp of the battle in Normandy showed it.

Yes I know our argument is only different in the details, but this is a lot more interesting than all those anti-CDV threads and other assorted junk that seems to have seeped into these boards.

[ October 04, 2002, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[busboy]

Oh hell yes Bastables,its a great debate, thanks!

I personally happen to be a huge Patton fan and thus rather, well, anti-Montgomery. Hard to be one without the other. However, I try not to come off as an Anglophobe or something.

I would say Monty was the main reason, but the only big reason? The desert enviroments he started in, and his vast logistical and numerical superiority should have allowed him to polish off the Africa Korps much sooner than he did, what inspired the trademark Monty...patience for attack? Was it merely his personality to talk big and deliver later, or was there any logic to it?

[Renaud]

You're probably thinking of the "europowerpack" a replacement for the M1's normal petrol-fueled turbine engine. It's intended for export customers. as the US Army runs its M1's on petrol exclusively.

The M1 turbine would burn most things you put in it. At various times I fueled it up with diesel or JP8. I think it was usually diesel (judging by the smell). I think JP8 was some sort of avgas used by the attack helicopter squadron, not sure though. We put it in there and it burned. The one thing I don't ever remember using was normal gasoline (petrol).

The exhaust plates on the tank get pretty hot, I'd be afraid to get gasoline near them, but diesel just evaporates into a thick white cloud when it hits the 600f plates (which by the way is how they make giant smoke screens, a sprayer pumps several gallons per minute of diesel onto the hot plates where the jet exhausts). The two filler caps are at the back very near the exhaust plates.

Ren

[MikeyD]

Ah, you reminded, the T34-85's and T54's smoke generator was in fact diesel oil squirted onto the hot engine manifold (I think). Nobody in their right mind would do that with petrol!

Someone asked about German petrol engines starting in the Russian cold. Actually, they had awful problems. I recall reading a document on keeping the German tank engines from freezing up. It would involve keeping a fire lit under the engine compartment and turning over the engine (hand-crank?) every two(?) hours during the night! geepers, what an awful chore. Russian recon could count the enemy tanks simply by counting the number of fires burning beneath them at night.

If you remember that Clint Eastwood movie "Kelley's Heroes" a major plot point was that the Tigers had to run their engines every 2 hours or so and the noise would cover their entry into the town.

[Ex Bellator]

Cool, another Patton/Monty thread, I haven't seen one of these in ages

Busboy - After reading your posts, I'd like to hear what you think an approximate ratio for Monty's 'vast' numerical superiority was in the desert, and also what you think an alternative to a methodical attack at Alamein could have been.

Just curious, hehe.

[Guest Mike]

The change to "attrition" tactics ws mainly due to Monty - he kept it up when lots of other parameters were suitable for manouvre.

But also due to:

1/ at el Alamain the flanks of both armies were anchored on hte Med & the Quatara depression, hence a frontal attack owas the only option

2/ the Italians were seriously out-equipped & out thought by the Brits, the Germans weren't!!

3/ British cavalry doctrine had taken a hammering at the hands of Rommel and it was time for a change!!

Monty did still try the occasional outflank - eg Tebourga Gap in late March 1943, but they usually didn't work because he wasn't whole heartedly behind them and would start them late, or not plan them properly or whatever.

[ October 04, 2002, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]

[c3k]

M1 _TURBINE_ engine can burn a bunch of different fuel. It's operated mainly on the equivalent of NATO JP-5 and now JP-8. Yep, jet fuel. Pretty similar to diesel and kerosene. I'm not a petrochemical engineer, but they're all about the same as diesel. With the switch to the cheaper, more widely available, less caloric content JP-8, the range of the M-1 has taken a big hit. Now, in an emergency, since it's a computer controlled turbine, you can burn almost anything in there, even gasoline.

Ken

[busboy]

Hehe, unfortunately if there is a Patton vs. Monty thread, I'm usually the culprate. This is unintentional, I assure you, but you cannot bring up one without the other it seems.

As for the numbers, if you'd like I can dig out my sources, but the disatvantage that the Germans, stretched thin already, were confronted with were astounding. If I recall off the top of my head, the British had a 4 to 1 superiority in armor and a 10 to 1 superiority in artillery, and something like a 3 to 1 ratio in general manpower. (again, these are purely off the top of my head, I'd have to look it up to be sure.)

Simply put, Monty could not have lost El Alimain unless he had accidentally ordered all of his tanks to reverse toward the foe (CM pun intended.)

The Germans attacked prepared British defenses in which they had no prayer of defeating and then, when they were exausted, the British attacked...and where tactically fuddled mainly by minefields.

WIth the resources Monty had against his foe, the Africa Korps should have been finished then and there. But the war in Africa dragged on.

A little Monty humor that I feel inclined to throw in. (Irony to be technical)

"The great point to remember is that we are going to finish with this chap Rommel once and for all. It will be quite easy. There is no doubt about it. He is definately a nuisance. Therefore, we will hit him a crack and finish with him.

-Bernard Law Montgomery, Africa, early 1940.

"Montgomerys"

Ernest Hemingway's expression for a shaker of martinis made with a 15 to 1 gin-vermouth mixture, sarcastically referring to Montgomery's incessant striving for a 15 to 1 advantage on the battlefield.

(paraphrased) "I shall cut into Germany with a dagger thrust!"

-Monty

"Hah, more like a bitterknife thrust!"

-Patton to Bradley on the above statement.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by busboy:

"The great point to remember is that we are going to finish with this chap Rommel once and for all. It will be quite easy. There is no doubt about it. He is definately a nuisance. Therefore, we will hit him a crack and finish with him.

-Bernard Law Montgomery, Africa, early 1940.

Huh??? He didn't get to Africa until August 1942. In early 1940 he was commanding the 3rd. Division of the BEF in France and likely had never heard of Rommel.

Michael

[busboy]

Thats what the book siad...I was kind of thinking the same thing, but I figured I was just not knowledged enough about it.

Gee, my sources sure don't seem very up to snuff right now...I feel like burning them all and starting over...

That particular quote comes out of the easily found coffee table book "The Quotable Soldier" available at any bookstore chain I've ever been in.

[busboy]

Thats what the book siad...I was kind of thinking the same thing, but I figured I was just not knowledged enough about it.

Gee, my sources sure don't seem very up to snuff right now...I feel like burning them all and starting over...

That particular quote comes out of the easily found coffee table book "The Quotable Soldier" available at any bookstore chain I've ever been in.

[fire-fox]

You are saw, saw, rong:

A)....read Achtung Panzer! by Guderian.

....The Panther's were sniping tank's (remember the Ferlise highway).

C)....in france the germans used a lot of capterd Czech-built 38t tank's.

D)....The gun of the sherman M4A1 fails point blank on a Pz Kw III

E)....and if you think that any sherman can take out a kingtiger you wont your head cheked.

F)....the resen americens advansed that fare in france is because thay were only up agensed 1/5th the german strength in france were as the Brit's and the canadens were up agenst 3.5/5th's inkluding the Das Rich, and all if not most ove the then operashanol king niger and nebulwafer units in westen europe. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[fire-fox]

Monty new over rommel and saw wat he cud do.

rommel was in franse comanding the 7th Panzer devision. saw upyour's :cool:

[fire-fox]

P.s. you wont a flame war,!!! I'm pakeing naparm wot u got. :mad:

[Prinz Eugen]

Originally posted by fire-fox:

P.s. you wont a flame war,!!! I'm pakeing naparm wot u got. :mad:

Aye !

[PiggDogg]

Guys,

Chill out on this flame war stuff. I'll be polite & stop here on that subject.

One must remember that for all of WWII but especially for the last 2 to 3 years of WWII (1942-45), the overriding problem and influence in the British strategy was a severe lack of manpower, especially infantry manpower. :eek:

Without spending too much time on this subject, this Brit manpower shortage dictated the total Brit war effort from grand strategy to tactics at the company and squad level. The Brit tendency and desire to achieve overwhelming force in battle (such as, El Alamain, Overlord, the Brit Normandy & Caen battles, etc.) reflects and eminates from the manpower shortage.

In addition to the Brit normal inate caution, this manpower problem was a major part, if not the biggest single problem and influence behind Brit WWII caution at all levels.

Is this good? Is this bad? I don't know, but it is a fact.

Cheers, Richard

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by fire-fox:

P.s. you wont a flame war,!!! I'm pakeing naparm wot u got. :mad:

It's reeely hard to take one seriously when the number of :mad: in your posts exceeds your total posts to this forum!

Runalong now, laddie, and let the grownups be.

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by fire-fox:

You are saw, saw, rong:

A)....read Achtung Panzer! by Guderian.

....The Panther's were sniping tank's (remember the Ferlise highway).

C)....in france the germans used a lot of capterd Czech-built 38t tank's.

D)....The gun of the sherman M4A1 fails point blank on a Pz Kw III

E)....and if you think that any sherman can take out a kingtiger you wont your head cheked.

F)....the resen americens advansed that fare in france is because thay were only up agensed 1/5th the german strength in france were as the Brit's and the canadens were up agenst 3.5/5th's inkluding the Das Rich, and all if not most ove the then operashanol king niger and nebulwafer units in westen europe. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Grogs, pounce!