CM:Normandy - Bocage?

[Piecekeeper]

Sure...Montgomery was maybe too cautious. But the brits fought against a lot more german units and more SS-troops than the americans in the Normandy area.

[Secondbrooks]

2ndBrooks,

Yes, those were the good times... argh. The way that Mannerheim ignored signs of Soviet summer offensive is at par with the best WW2 leaders. Out of the strange fates of WW2, I feel most sorry for the poor sods fighting on the islands of Viipuri Bay under orders expecting them to keep the little rocks, with minimal troops, shelter and artillery support, against a swarm of invaders supported by gun boats. Elsewhere, you could at least run away. There you had to swim.

P.S. Name the book or it didn't happen!

Taistelu Viipurista 20.6.1944

Written by Uuno Tarkki, Captain at the time and was witnessing all that sh!te hitting the fan. He have written another (older) book about it, Miksi menetimme viipurin, but he stated that new evidence had emerged after that which required him to write new book about it.

[Sergei]

I find it really hard to accept that the British had trouble with manpower. Russians had lost blood and still gave a fight, taking risks. Germans had lost blood and still gave a fight, taking risks. But the British? Had they even started recruiting 16 year olds and women to the army? They had heaps of uncorked reserves. They merely lacked the will to use them, which is strange in a situation where your enemy is trying to starve you with U-boats and bombing your capital city with buzz bombs. Another point for Zhukov!

[Sergei]

Edit: Though I can't help but vote Voroshilov as the biggest douchebag of the all...

Voroshilov, that Göring of the Soviets...

[Michael Emrys]

It would certainly seem that no detailed planning and training was carried out for the post invasion period...

From what I've read, there was actually a fair good deal of training of the divisions stationed in the UK prior to D-Day. It just didn't concern fighting against a determined defense in bocage country. A rather regrettable oversight in retrospect, but they were well prepared for rolling through open country against an enemy that was largely defeated, as August showed.

Michael

[futon river crossing]

Whilst picking over the bones of history is nice, a real game bone would taste much better!

[Michael Emrys]

IMO, Montgomery could be regarded as mediocre at best.

Mmmm, I think that is a little too sweeping and unfair. I think he was an exceptionally fine division commander (as his performance during the retreat to Dunkirk would show) who through several quirks of fate got promoted above his level of competence.

As for Mark Clarke being an incompetent douchebag..well I can't really disagree with that one lol.

There's another case of being promoted beyond one's level of competence. Clark was in many ways the Army's bright boy. He was a brilliant staff officer who should have remained a staff officer. When he got the Fifth Army, he became transfixed by his own reputation and public image. When that happens, no matter how smart a man may start out, he is almost bound to do stupid things.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

Sergei - you seem ignorant of what the UK did use its womanpower for. But feel free to comment anyway : )

Just in case you wondered the Royal Navy grew by 731,000 during the war. The Merchant marine was about 280000 and lost 40000 so a higher loss rate than the fighting forces. [bomber Command had a 44% loss rate for aircrew-125000]

Perhaps you have figures/percentages of population for the other combatants?

This may help:

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/nw-europe/15313-normandy-no-real-british-manpower-shortage.html

showing a number of AA units being used to provide infantry

Fpr a demolition of D'Este:

Axis History Forum • View topic - US vs. British approach

extract:

D'Este's problem is that he simply takes the whole numbers of troops in the UK and ignores who they were, what they were doing and why they were in England and not on the continent. In effect, the same could be done re the US Army by simply declaring the roughly 250,000-odd infantry "overhead" personnel in the system to be replacements, and asking "why" ETOUSA was saying they were suffering a shortage. The totals include personnel on leave, limited duty personnel, personnel recently drafted but not reported, personnel in training and training cadre, and so on, as well as personnel in the replacement pipelines, Second Army wasn't the only one around.

The summary table (from WO 73/161 General Return of the British Army, 30th June 1944) on page 59 well illustrates how d'Este ignored the reality. We find there that of a possible total of 57,590 Rifle Infantry in the UK on that date under Home Forces and War Office Control, just 14,975 were draftable for 21st Army Group.

The total includes:

8,140 in 52nd ID (War Office Strategic Reserve), 0 draftable

347 in 9 Dorsets (War Office Control earmarked for other theater), 0 draftable

875 in 7 Inf Bde (Home Forces), 875 draftable

17,845 in 38, 45, 47, 55, 61 Lower Establishment Divisions (Home Forces Home Defense), 13,000 draftable

22,355 in 48, 76, 80 Reserve, 77 Holding Divisions, and 8 Sherwood Foresters (Training Establishment), 1,100 draftable

3,524 in five "Young Boys" Battalions, 0 draftable

2,892 in 15 Local defense Companys, 0 draftable

1,612 in "Other" (Lovat Scouts, 1/5 Leicsters, 4 Royal Berks), 844 draftable

"Draftable" troops were those eligible by law for overseas duty (A1 medical condition and from 19 to 38 years of age) and excluded training cadre (who in most cases were no longer considered fit anyway), troops who had not completed retraining, convalescent wounded, and so forth.

BTW, for those interested, troops still in the UK as of 30 June, but under 21 Army Group Command, included 2 AGRCA, 3 AGRA (embarking), 9 AGRA, 2 CID, GAD, 1 PAD, 4 CAD, 6 GTB, and 34 TB.

If you want further information on the UK's use of people look under Land Army, WRENS, WRAAF, etc. - and most industries had female labour replacing men.

[Sergei]

"Draftable" troops were those eligible by law for overseas duty (A1 medical condition and from 19 to 38 years of age) and excluded training cadre (who in most cases were no longer considered fit anyway), troops who had not completed retraining, convalescent wounded, and so forth.

So you just update the laws and suddenly you have new uncorked reserves willing to die for the empire. Every nation experiencing real manpower shortages resorted to this. Volksturm, anyone?

Things like women filling in in factories and supporting services like anti-aircraft artillery was standard stuff. Forming female tank units and air formations was what you did when you had shortage of men during a total war. Or you sued for peace.

What I'd like to know is how large a percentage of UK population served in the front during the war. For Soviets that is about 17%, but that is a bit low considering that a large portion of their population fell under enemy occupation during the first months of war, and millions of civilian lives were lost over the course of war. 20% might be more accurate.

At the end of the day, it all comes to the Soviet adage "you can't make an omelet without killing people". There were manpower reserves that could have been used easily, but the British government just wasn't willing or capable of utilizing them the same way as Bolsheviks and Nazis could, since it was easier just to roll thumbs and let Soviets do the hard work. It seems like modern Israel is the only parliamentary democracy that has been able to reach the same levels of conscription.

P.S.

[GSX]

Two pieces of luck. Montgomery got 8th Army after Straffer Gott was killed while on his way to taking over 8th Army. Montgomery got the nod as a second stringer, if you like. Still, it should be obvious (even if only with hindsight) to all that

a) Montgomery was a vastly more qualified and suited for the role than Gott

Even though the second choice, Montgomery wouldn't have got the nod to command Britian's preeminent army in the major active theatre if he'd been a chump (or even an "incompetent douchebag")

c) Montgomery's plan for Alam Halfa owed something to The Auk, but not a whole lot (unless you lap up Barnett like a puppy dog)

d) Although based on the prior work of others, Montgomery's successful integration of Army and Air Force was revolutionary

e) Montgomery's plan for the breakout in October '42 owed practically nothing to The Auk (unless you lap up Barnett like a puppy dog)

f) Montgomery's plan for the Sicilian invasion was better than the initial proposal. Like everyone on the Allied side, his execution of the land campaign wasn't that great

g) Montgomery's contribution to the NEPTUNE plan was crucial

h) Montgomery's plan prior to and throughout Normandy *was* that the UK/CW would tie down the Germans in the east while the US broke out in the west. Granted that plan wasn't exactly realised in terms of time and/or place, but that 'failure' is incidental to the overall success of the Army Group plan

i) Montgomery was a throughly unpleasant and unlikeable person, but he was also a highly successful commander

I have to agree with John here. Theres no doubt that Monty was someone who you probably wouldn't like if you met him in a pub, or anywhere for that matter. However, he was no idiot and certainly knew how to fight the Normandy battle.

He saw the original plan and added to it, made it more robust and made it work. He predicted quite correctly how long the battle would take and what it would take for his forces to win.

He also commander the whole battle and his forces fought the Germans every day of this battle. Much maligned by historians, especially on the US side for his supposed caution and British inactivity, in fact the opposite is probably true.

Sure he made bombastic claims such as Caen on day 1 which never came to fruition but overall he fought a great campaign using both US and CW forces.

Was he an arse, yes he probably was, does he deserve to be maligned for his plan, I dont think so. I dont think many people would have liked Patton either come to think about it. Another man who seemed to get up everyone's nose!

[dan/california]

Really nice people are very bad at ordering other people to go out and kill perfectly nice people on the other side until they give up or you get shot. Really nice people are also incredibly bad at winning wars.

[Michael Emrys]

Much maligned by historians, especially on the US side for his supposed caution and British inactivity, in fact the opposite is probably true.

The accusation may have been true on at least one critical occasion that would have left a bad odor among the Americans. That was the very casual "pursuit" by Eighth Army of the Germans after landing in Calabria. While the Fifth Army was fighting tooth and nail just to hang onto their beachhead, the Eighth took their own sweet time and applied little to no pressure on the Germans.

Michael

[Sgt Joch]

I know, and they were certainly useful there. Try to understand though that there were critical differences between the defenses of the beaches in the Pacific and Omaha Beach.

Michael

I reviewed some of my reference material. Let's look at an example of how amphibious assaults were carried out at the same time in the Pacific.

Saipan, june 15 1944

The U.S. wanted to capture Saipan to setup B-29 bases. Saipan was defended by 32,000 japanese military personnel, 1 Army division, 1 Army brigade, 1 navy brigade, various smaller units, artillery including 8x 6 inch guns, 90 tanks.

The assault force was made up of 2 USMC divisions. The infantry was landed in 700 LVTs. Each wave was composed of 100 LVTs, including about 20 LVT (A) which carried no troops, but were armed with 37 or 75 mm guns for fire support. The LVTs landed troops at the water's edge or up to 500 yds inland depending on the tactical situation. The LVTs would then retire and make way for the next wave 5 minutes behind.

Enemy resistance was heavy and continued all day, through the night and the next morning. There were no beach obstacles, but artillery, mortars, MG fire crisscrossed the beach. Artillery FOs in the mountains could view the beach and call down fire. Many LVTs were lost, but 8,000 marines had landed by nightfall.

I do not have the casualty figures for june 15th, but for the campaign as whole to july 9, the 67,000 americans suffered 3,300 dead, 13,000 wounded. No doubt, the LVTs reduced casualties since troops inside were protected from MG fire and shrapnel from nearby artillery/mortar bursts. The LVTs could cross the beach, where troops would be most vulnerable, and deposit them in a spot where they would find some cover and maintain unit cohesion. This is also how modern amphibious assaults are carried out since the USMC AAV in CMSF is the direct descendant of the WW2 LVT.

Omaha Beach

Let's now look at how the assault was carried out on Omaha Beach on D-Day. The first wave landed at the water's edge one hour after low tide, which meant that troops each carrying 40-60 lbs of equipment had to cross 700 yds of wet sand with no cover whatsoever until they hit the beach road, all the while being subjected to MG, mortar and artillery fire. The first two waves which hit "Dog Green", 3 companies in all (arguably the deadliest part of the beach) were literally wiped out within a few minutes of landing.

I have trouble seeing why the approach used at Saipan could not have been used in Normandy. LVTs are only 2 feet wider than DD tanks and could have navigated around the Beach obstacles and the amount of firepower put out by the German defenders does not appear to have been worse than what the Japanese put up on many Pacific islands.

[dieseltaylor]

Hindsight is wonderful - but a failed attack at Messina would have been catastrophic.

During this difficult time of preparation, General Montgomery's Eighth Army was making ready its crossing of the Strait of Messina. On the basis of intelligence reports that the Germans intended to withdraw from the toe of Italy, AFHQ expected the British to push up the Calabrian peninsula and along the west coast of Italy to the Naples area. But having never received a directive outlining the long-range course of BAYTOWN, Eighth Army planners had no clear idea of what was expected of the Eighth Army.45 The trouble was that Eighth Army was under 15th Army Group control, and AFHQ apparently never received the army's detailed plans. As a result of a lack of co-ordination, no one was entirely sure whether the army was simply to land in Calabria to open the Strait of Messina, whether after landing it was to prepare for a major advance, or whether it was to make an effort to contain the enemy in order to assist the Salerno invasion. As General Eisenhower's chief of staff, General Smith, saw it: "We are confident here that the BAYTOWN attack will get ashore but I think it will probably bog down and that some [amphibious] end runs may be required. Progress will certainly be slow because of the nature of the terrain, but the operation may attract [enemy] Divisions from the more critical area [salerno]."46 How General Montgomery saw his course of action beyond the landings was unknown. The distance that separated the Eighth Army and Fifth Army assault areas prevented mutual support in the opening stages of the operations, and this fact may well have weighed heavily on General Montgomery's mind.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-MTO-Salerno/USA-MTO-Salerno-3.html

and

There was no German opposition, and Italian resistance was practically nonexistent. Some Italian troops volunteered to unload Allied landing craft.25

The ease of the Messina crossing prompted considerable disappointment that General Montgomery had not launched his operation earlier. A gain in time of as little as one or two days would have facilitated the transfer of landing craft to the Salerno forces. But General Montgomery, acknowledged master of the set battle, was perhaps not the best commander for an impromptu operation. He may even have been unsympathetic with the AVALANCHE concept, for he believed passionately in the concentration of forces, and Salerno was distant from Calabria.26 Perhaps, too, he saw an opportunity to gain publicity by making an assault on the anniversary date.

It was soon evident that the natural obstructions of the terrain and German demolitions would be the main obstacles to an Eighth Army advance. For a while there was reason to hope that British troops would be closer to Salerno by the time of the AVALANCHE invasion than had earlier been expected, but the roads proved few and inferior, the army lacked sufficient transportation, and the farther the troops advanced into Calabria the more difficult their progress would become.

[JonS]

So you just update the laws and suddenly you have new uncorked reserves willing to die for the empire.

Sure, but that wasn't Montgomery's call to make.

Every nation experiencing real manpower shortages resorted to this. Volksturm, anyone?

Johnny-come-latelies. Ever head of the Home Guard?

Forming female tank units and air formations was what you did when you had shortage of men during a total war. Or you sued for peace.

Nah. That's what you do when your men are getting their asses handed to them, and need someone to show them how to actually fight. Britain didn't have that problem.

What I'd like to know is how large a percentage of UK population served in the front during the war.

Indubitably, the USSR would come off better in any such facile comparison. That's because the USSR had no navy, no air force, and no merchant marine. instead they leached off others to provide those functions. The tooth-to-tail ratios in those highly mechanised aspects of wafare are terrible, and since the UK had lots of them, and teh USSR none, then the USSR will come off looking 'better'.

There were manpower reserves that could have been used easily, but the British government just wasn't willing or capable of utilizing them ...

Remind me again who it was that fought the Germans continuously for 6 years, and who ended up wining?

P.S.

Noted.

[Michael Emrys]

What I'd like to know is how large a percentage of UK population served in the front during the war.

There is something important to note when making such comparisons though. The UK and even more the US held a lot of men out of uniform so that they could continue in industrial work to support the forces at the front. While the USSR produced the great bulk of it own war matériel, the fact that they received so much Lend-Lease meant that they could afford to put many more men and women into uniform.

It's also true that by the end of the war many of their divisions, especially the rifle divisions, were down to one-third or less of their establishment strength. So they were having manpower problems too.

Michael

[MikeyD]

So they were having manpower problems too.

You just reminded me of Belton Cooper mentioning the U.S. having BAD problems with the unexpectedly high tanker casualty rate. Replacement Shermans were soon going into action with three man crews or less(!), or augmented by some clueless private pulled out of the infantry and stuck in the turret. Sound like things were getting tough for all concerned by the time autumn arrived in France.

[Dietrich]

While the USSR produced the great bulk of it own war matériel, the fact that they received so much Lend-Lease meant that they could afford to put many more men and women into uniform.

According to Len Deighton in Blood, Tears, and Folly, Stalin called up no less than 15 million men by his mobilization order of June 22. By contrast, the Wehrmacht forces deployed in the invasion of the USSR totalled 3.2 million men.

[Other Means]

The Red Army was mostly staffed by conscripts from the captured territories by that the end of the war wasn't it?

[Secondbrooks]

The Red Army was mostly staffed by conscripts from the captured territories by that the end of the war wasn't it?

I'd guess it was. They couldn't muster enough men to fill ranks even during longer lull moments. During -44 for statics what i've read they already were short of manpower by 20-30% at least in divisional level at the point major campaigns were launched.

JonS:

Remind me again who it was that fought the Germans continuously for 6 years, and who ended up wining? .

Soviets needed just 4 years. And they fought all those 4 years.

We had to fight soviets for 5 years and loose two wars against them. After that we got wiser and decided to choose easier one. Germans

I'm just trying to be funny and probably failing at it. No wishing to harm anyone's feelings.

[sand digger]

The Resistance? WTF? What possible relevance does a couple of beret-wearers posing for photos with their grenades and Sten guns have to industrial-scale conventional operations? You might as well ask Al Qaeda to write the plan for the invaison of Iran.

I wonder why no one thought to ask the Russians, after all they were there in 1814, so I'm sure they must have had some light to shed on the subject

Sgt Joch:

Yes.

Yeh the Resistance were French after all and so would have no idea of the nature of their country, what could the know everything Americans learn from them?

[Sergei]

Johnny-come-latelies. Ever head of the Home Guard?

Weren't Home Guard mostly anyway eligible for conscription? I understand that they also included Dad's Army types, but at least for 1940-41 I have this vision of HoG rather filling in because of the material and organizational difficulties of forming enough regular units in the aftermath of Dunkirk, rather than having to push school boys and Boehr War veterans into service?

Nah. That's what you do when your men are getting their asses handed to them, and need someone to show them how to actually fight. Britain didn't have that problem.

Of course it helps when the homeland has 0 km of land border with the enemy, compared to 3000 km. Imagine what history would be like if there was an isthmus extending from Calais to Dover. Fortunately we now have the Eurotunnel, next invasion will be easier.

Indubitably, the USSR would come off better in any such facile comparison. That's because the USSR had no navy, no air force, and no merchant marine. instead they leached off others to provide those functions. The tooth-to-tail ratios in those highly mechanised aspects of wafare are terrible, and since the UK had lots of them, and teh USSR none, then the USSR will come off looking 'better'.

For not having an air force, it's surprising that they still lost nearly 90 000 airplanes over the course of war. Incidentally, they also had the only two female aces in history. But yeah, surely Air Strip One didn't leach off others in any way.

Remind me again who it was that fought the Germans continuously for 6 years, and who ended up wining?

WW2 was like football: there were no winners, only survivors. Hitler didn't survive, although some of the clones are still unaccounted for. But even Britain had to give up the empire's crown jewel. No, I'm certainly not talking about NZ...

[Jacksy]

Sure, but that wasn't Montgomery's call to make.

Johnny-come-latelies. Ever head of the Home Guard?

Nah. That's what you do when your men are getting their asses handed to them, and need someone to show them how to actually fight. Britain didn't have that problem.

Indubitably, the USSR would come off better in any such facile comparison. That's because the USSR had no navy, no air force, and no merchant marine. instead they leached off others to provide those functions. The tooth-to-tail ratios in those highly mechanised aspects of wafare are terrible, and since the UK had lots of them, and teh USSR none, then the USSR will come off looking 'better'.

Remind me again who it was that fought the Germans continuously for 6 years, and who ended up wining?

Noted.

well said....

[Jacksy]

Weren't Home Guard mostly anyway eligible for conscription? I understand that they also included Dad's Army types, but at least for 1940-41 I have this vision of HoG rather filling in because of the material and organizational difficulties of forming enough regular units in the aftermath of Dunkirk, rather than having to push school boys and Boehr War veterans into service?

Of course it helps when the homeland has 0 km of land border with the enemy, compared to 3000 km. Imagine what history would be like if there was an isthmus extending from Calais to Dover. Fortunately we now have the Eurotunnel, next invasion will be easier.

For not having an air force, it's surprising that they still lost nearly 90 000 airplanes over the course of war. Incidentally, they also had the only two female aces in history. But yeah, surely Air Strip One didn't leach off others in any way.

WW2 was like football: there were no winners, only survivors. Hitler didn't survive, although some of the clones are still unaccounted for. But even Britain had to give up the empire's crown jewel. No, I'm certainly not talking about NZ...

Do you hate Britain?

[Sergei]

No, but I dislike fish and chips. Does that count?