Could the Allies have prepared better for Normandy

[Stalins Organ]

Of course tehy could have prepared beter - another year plannign and developing woudl have helped...somewhat (diminishing returns on training, etc).....perhaps the difference would be more significant if they'd delayed until 1950 ....except they'd be invading the Peoples Socialist Soviet Repubic of France so there'd be no need....

[Sergei]

I agree that Repubic of France doesn't sound like a good place to invade - you might need some heavy duty hedge trimmers down there...

[Affentitten]

And yeah, how much can you train for a tactical solution that people haven’t encountered before? Mounting ‘by the numbers’ training drills against English hedges is probably not going to cover things like Germans lying hidden and allowing themselves to be over-run so they can shoot you in the back. Or Germans press ganging all manner of weaponry into improvised defensive lines. Or the value of telephone handsets at the back of tanks. All these things have to be learnt and adjusted to in the field by trial and error. And the Allies did it pretty quickly.

[Sergei]

I would argue all that makes for extremely competent NCOs. And it was German army officers, with their standards of auftragstaktik - something the other armies only managed to implement in select forces like the paratroopers and commandos.

I would further argue that in the Anglo-Saxon armies, the expansion and willingness to transfer experienced leaders up or laterally, and maintaining big elite formations, plus of course not being obliged to fight the Russians since 1941, left the Allies with very diluted units: sure there were a few combat-experienced leaders in them, but not enough to prevent the unit as a whole from making bonehead mistakes once it went into combat for the first time.

But the thing is, offense is always far harder than defense, so you're comparing apples to oranges. In Normandy Germans were tragically incapable of any offensive action on their part, while Allies had no trouble defending against those feeble attempts. You might pull out all sorts of excuses for that, but if their Unteroffiziers were so hot and their Allied colleagues didn't know their job, they should have performed better. As it was, this never happened except for a few elite formations and even they didn't have much to tout.

[Stalins Organ]

Some allied units were almsot completely fought out - the British 7th armoured, for example, got a reputation for being combat shy that was attributed to "veterans" in it having been in action since the early days of the Desert campaign & not wanting to cop a bullet this late in the war.

On the flip side it's combined arms tactics were much better than other British armoured divisions for a while until they learned better - also attributable to its extensive combat experience!

so having veterans is not an adequate explaination for supposed german superiority - the 7th had plenty of veterans!

IMO the ease of conducting a defence against the difficulty of conducting an attack is sufficent explaination - that there was also good defensive terrain in the bocage just amplifies the gap.

[mididoctors]

could they have planned better...sure

but

the US army can be forgiven for naffing up pre invasion training for the bocage because its obsession with getting off the beaches on DAY 1 was the right thing to obsess on.. once they got on land in strength it was a done deal,, they could learn the tactical lessons as they went on

but D-Day had to be a success and they had one shot at it.. they were extremely well prepared and they still messed up in places but the overall outcome was success

if they got ahead of themselves with bocage training or this or that at the expense of the logistical strategy of getting men and material into Normandy then history would be different

[Secondbrooks]

dieseltaylor:

Secondbrooks - the quality of the German fighting man was no doubt superior and that was due to training/mindset. Their has been discussion before here whether a language is important in forming the way in which people think ....... : )

This is interesting question. I babble bit now:

From what i've read from Finnish sources Germans weren't considered great soldiers. Their basic training (weaponry, marksmanship etc...) must have been okay on any level, but by Finnish standards they weren't as Finns put great emphasis on fieldcraft and having understadnment of how to live and act in backwoods. There seemed to be largish training program during the war to get Germans used to local conditions, they simply didn't know how to move in terrain, how to observe it, were afraid of it, winter served it's own challenges etc. Using Finnish phrase: They weren't good individual combatants.

But Germans were discplined and that is where their main strength lied. Their bravery was stunning and has received lots remarks from Finns: Ability to endure large casualties while trying to fulfill their task. Without doubt they earned trust of their officers by that, while Finnish commander was much more often forced to think that is task too risky and will men even try to complete it.

Back to bocages:

Overall i'd guess quality was favoring Germans in bocages, but not that much after all. German units or individuals didn't prove very capable in Finland. Organization was far to heavy, inability to form light units which would make their way into flank, not clear picture of what kind of units to use, not willing to create roads over swamps etc. I base my analysis on that as i see some similarities with both cases, mostly the fact that it was unfamiliar terrain with limited ability to use firepower. I don't know did Germans train or prepare to defend in them, but guess that not very therally. So after rough start for US both were in same level when it came to operating in bocage. Both sides' organization might not have been tuned for such terrain.

About defending being simplier than attacking... Hmm. Not necessarily. I'm not sure Germans had proper training for it, nor had they proper time to prepare defensive positions in terrain which requires quite much both. I'd guess that road network was rather complete and by thus even when US might have had reluctance of going outside road network (which might prove impossible if road network is widespread) they had sufficient amount of roads by which they could advance. Same time Germans was more or less in chaos while US was having constantly initiative on their side. At same time you have very restricted killzones for weapons (mainly MGs), men needs to be spread out thinly, there probably are lightly defended holes which serves only as alarm bell. But at same time there were multiple roads which US could use, so Germans couldn't consentrate too much manpower into one area. Later on when US found way to breach bocages in haste manner it got worse.

[bboyle]

There's an excellent study somewhere (Glantz?) that breaks down the sizes and outcomes of engagements in France in 1940. The main finding is that the larger the size of the component units involved, the better the Germans did. In other words, squad to squad the Germans weren't any better than the French (maybe worse) but their operational expertise was simply overwhelming.

[costard]

Communications plays a great part: in Normandy, the German lines of supply were being smashed and they had fewer reserves to put in place against an Allied army whose supply line was largely uninterrupted. In 1940, the French army was reliant on a telephone system (the German Army was using radios to a far greater extent) and an organisational structure that required the higher level commanders in the field receive their orders from Paris. Several French counterattacks were planned, but by the time the intelligence from the front had reached Paris, the plans made and the orders sent back out (days later) the circumstances had changed and the plans were of no use.

[Blackhorse]

Then perhaps the question should be "Could the Nazis have prepared better for Normandy?"

[gunnergoz]

could they have planned better...sure

but

the US army can be forgiven for naffing up pre invasion training for the bocage because its obsession with getting off the beaches on DAY 1 was the right thing to obsess on.. once they got on land in strength it was a done deal,, they could learn the tactical lessons as they went on

but D-Day had to be a success and they had one shot at it.. they were extremely well prepared and they still messed up in places but the overall outcome was success

if they got ahead of themselves with bocage training or this or that at the expense of the logistical strategy of getting men and material into Normandy then history would be different

I would agree to some extent, except that there were many divisions of the follow up waves (say after the first 8-9 that landed on D-Day) that were exclusively used in the follow up and not in the beach assault. These divisions would have needed little or no amphibious assault training and got little beyond what they learned in the US before deploying to England. They did get some strategic embarkation/debarkation practice but not too much else and many (as was noted earlier) arrived in France extremely green. It is these divisions that some argue could have been better prepared for the bocage and close-quarters fighting, rather than for the grand, mobile sweeps that the US Army prided itself upon.

[Michael Emrys]

In 1940, the French army was reliant on a telephone system...

Hell, in 1940 the French were largely reliant on messengers on motorcycles. Since in many areas near the front the roads were jammed with refugees, you can imagine how well that worked.

Michael

[mididoctors]

Then perhaps the question should be "Could the Nazis have prepared better for Normandy?"

it was an organizational mess of there own and specifically Hitlers creation.

getting exercised about the Elan of Wehrmacht small unit leaders or this or tha relative strengths of equiment or doctrine is not where the problem was...

[Michael Emrys]

getting exercised about the Elan of Wehrmacht small unit leaders or this or tha relative strengths of equiment or doctrine is not where the problem was...

True. The fundamental problem was the idea of starting wars with your neighbors. Especially if you treat them badly when you win. It does tend to put people's backs up.

Michael

[mididoctors]

True. The fundamental problem was the idea of starting wars with your neighbors. Especially if you treat them badly when you win. It does tend to put people's backs up.

Michael

+1 as they say...

the whole Third Reich concept was not going to fly...

short of an absolute miracle they were never going to pull it off

[mididoctors]

If the figure of 500 fields/sq. mile you then quote is accurate, that works out to about 1.28 acres per field. That sounds a bit too small. Could it be that the true figure for average falls somewhere in between? The 200 X 400 meters would surely have been the largest encountered. Could Doubler have intended feet instead of meters? That sounds more consistent with the other figures you mention.

Michael

the average size i know not

the fields were tiny at times

stems from a local medieval custom/law of dividing the land equally between all the sons on death.. lead to the atmosiation of plot sizes

[Michael Emrys]

the whole Third Reich concept was not going to fly...

short of an absolute miracle they were never going to pull it off

It was a very long shot at success. To work, all the breaks had to fall their way. Hitler thought that they very well might, but he had a gambler's optimism. What he forgot is that unless you own the casino, gambling is a short road to poverty. The odds were not on his side.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

+1 as they say...

the whole Third Reich concept was not going to fly...

short of an absolute miracle they were never going to pull it off

"Miracle" being a relative term in this case. :D

[Kanonier Reichmann]

So, does this mean that they may well get it right with the 4th Reich? You know what they say... practise makes perfect!

Regards

KR

[Michael Emrys]

So, does this mean that they may well get it right with the 4th Reich? You know what they say... practise makes perfect!

Yes. This time instead of Wehrmacht soldiers, they are using Mercedes Benz salesmen.

Michael

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Yes. This time instead of Wehrmacht soldiers, they are using Mercedes Benz salesmen.

Michael

A more callous and brutal foe with a 'take no prisoners' attitiude I could not imagine.

Regards

KR

[Stalins Organ]

Tax assessors/inspectors?

[hoolaman]

So, does this mean that they may well get it right with the 4th Reich? You know what they say... practise makes perfect!

Regards

KR

You mean the EU?

[Michael Emrys]

You mean the EU?

I thought that that was a French idea. You know, de Gaulle realizing Napoleon's dream.

Michael

[Sergei]

I thought that that was a French idea. You know, de Gaulle realizing Napoleon's dream.

Michael

No, Napoleon's dream was to bring England closer to the mainland, de Gaulle's dream was to distance it from the mainland.