Most important battle of WWII???
-
Catch-22, damned if they did, damned if they didn't. Omaha had to be taken to link the other beaches together, but the Allies knew it would be costly.Originally posted by Shotgun:D-day, Omaha Beach.
Perfect demonstration on how NOT to conduct an amphibious invasion. Hur hur.
A lot has been made about the German's failure to listen to Rommel and respond to the invasion with their armour as a mistake, well, they were caught in a Catch 22 of their own.
Move their armour forward full speed, and they'll be caught by Allied firepower and airpower in daylight.
Move at night, and they won't be able respond in time to prevent the establishment of the beach head.
Hold their forces and wait for the Allies to move inland, and the Allied beach-head would have been too big to throw back -
Why did they end up in that situation in the first place? Because some people didn believe the invasion would come from northern france. The fortifications in northern fronts were REALLY hastily constructed.
Not to mention the horrible logistics leading to do the fortifications.... Oh wait, there were none! They had to use donkey carts to pull ammo, captured russian prisoners to hold the beaches.
In fact, there is a whole conspiracy theory going on that it was done on purpose in hope that the allies would reach berlin before the Russians. Well...f a t hope. -
Viper the armoured divisions were commanded by hitler himself and were not under OKW(or was it OKH?) command.....if they had counter attacked or even rushed troops forward they would have a chance of not allowing the beaches to be linked and thus the allied would have to pull back
-
With their kind of logistics chain, they didn't have a chance. The only option for them was to shorten their log line. Which was wat the allies expected them to do.
-
Yes I know that Hitler commanded the armoured divisions in the West, but quoting from my previous post, "Move their armour forward full speed, and they'll be caught by Allied firepower and airpower in daylight."Originally posted by |-|05|:Viper the armoured divisions were commanded by hitler himself and were not under OKW(or was it OKH?) command.....if they had counter attacked or even rushed troops forward they would have a chance of not allowing the beaches to be linked and thus the allied would have to pull back
Lots of historians like to make that claim that the Germans would have stood a chance had they advanced once word of the invasion spread. However, to reach the beaches in time to prevent the Allied setting up a beach-head, the Germans will have to move in daylight as well as night. And thats where Allied naval firepower and air supremacy will destroy the bulk of German armour before it can be effective. Not to forget that the "Rail Plan" had knocked out most of the bridges in the Normandy area.
As it was, the invasion was a close run thing, Monty got pinned down at Caen, while the Americans were stuck fast in the bocage for almost 1 whole month till they finally broke out after Carentan fell. The terrain was overwhelmingly in favour of the defenders, and had the Germans concentrated more defences in the area, I think the Overlord might have gone the way of Dieppe in '42
Shotgun, the Germans knew they couldn't defend the entire coast, thats why they required good intel to forecast the location of attack. They believed Calais was the place as it was the shortest point from France to England, helped by Allied deception which placed lots of phantom units opposite Calais.
For a good read on the planning, buildup and the actual invasion, read Stephen Amborse's D-Day and Citizen soldiers. -
Well if the Panzer reserves had be in the right place they wont have had to deal with that much....they mostly came under fire when they had to move from east to west.....in doing so the got bombarded by the ships.The counter0-strike wasnt so much as a major armoured punch but a movement of soldiers and armour to cut of the para's and thus trap the allied troops on the beaches.As powerful as the allied were they could not mantain themselves on the beaches for that long a time.They'd suffer too much loses.....The main victory they had was the size of the beachhead they managed to capture during the 1st 24 hours......if they had been confined to the beaches many believe it would have been a failure.Originally posted by Viper52:Yes I know that Hitler commanded the armoured divisions in the West, but quoting from my previous post, "Move their armour forward full speed, and they'll be caught by Allied firepower and airpower in daylight."
Lots of historians like to make that claim that the Germans would have stood a chance had they advanced once word of the invasion spread. However, to reach the beaches in time to prevent the Allied setting up a beach-head, the Germans will have to move in daylight as well as night. And thats where Allied naval firepower and air supremacy will destroy the bulk of German armour before it can be effective. Not to forget that the "Rail Plan" had knocked out most of the bridges in the Normandy area.
As it was, the invasion was a close run thing, Monty got pinned down at Caen, while the Americans were stuck fast in the bocage for almost 1 whole month till they finally broke out after Carentan fell
For a good read on the buildup and the actual invasion, read Stephen Amborse's D-Day and Citizen soldiers. -
oh and i'd try to get those books you've mentioned
i'm in need of a good read anyway 
-
Time to trott to the library.
-
me alsoOriginally posted by Shotgun:Time to trott to the library. -
Winston said that to boost morale??? Where you got that fact from???Originally posted by |-|05|:just to boost morale lah........shipping loses werent that great since they started conveying very very early......it wasnt like ww1 where britian was nearly stranggled!
EDit:Alfred von Tirpitz was ww1 lah.......ww2 it was that great a threat....
By the way,I know my history whether it is Alfred von Tirpitz or George Kennan... -
from comparing the tonnage lost and tonnage needed compared to tonnage lost and tonnage need in ww1......ww2 the U-boats just werent that great a threat anymore......all they did was keep destroyers in conveys and maybe threaten the independent ships but not really the fast or slow convoys!Originally posted by Doenitz:Winston said that to boost morale??? Where you got that fact from???
By the way,I know my history whether it is Alfred von Tirpitz or George Kennan... -
Yes the soviets are to take berlin side of divided germany, yet berlin too is of 4 sector divisions. Suppose the russians were late..Originally posted by Viper52:The Race to Berlin was basically over after the Yalta conference when the Allies agreed that the Red Army was to have Berlin. I still don't think the Germans would have collapsed had Market Garden succeeded. Remember even if it succeeded the Allies still had to counter the 25 divisions used at the Ardennes Offensive which would undoubtedly have been used to counter any Market Garden success.
But fair enough, 506th of the 101st got the eagle's nest at Berchtesgarden. Finder's keepers.
By late 1944, the fall of Germany was but a matter of time with the Red Army on the eastern side and their cities getting crapped by intense American bombing, Italy getting liberated, Allied advance through France and other countries. Market Garden was more than not, a catalyze and a proposal to the supply problem on the broad western front, I agree a fatal blow it probably isn't. Cheers. -
Check out the book titled "Espionage" by Ernest Volkman. The chapter "All Quiet on the Western Front" details how Operation Bodyguard (the ruse about the fake attack pas de calais to fool germans from normandy) was executed.Originally posted by Shotgun:Time to trott to the library. -
Well I'm not disputing the fact that IF the Germans had sufficient forces to deny the Allies the beachhead Overlord would have failed, and most historians adopt that view (hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20) but they conveniently ignore the fact is that if the Germans had tried hitting the invasion beaches they'd have facedOriginally posted by |-|05|:Well if the Panzer reserves had be in the right place they wont have had to deal with that much....they mostly came under fire when they had to move from east to west.....in doing so the got bombarded by the ships.The counter0-strike wasnt so much as a major armoured punch but a movement of soldiers and armour to cut of the para's and thus trap the allied troops on the beaches.As powerful as the allied were they could not mantain themselves on the beaches for that long a time.They'd suffer too much loses.....The main victory they had was the size of the beachhead they managed to capture during the 1st 24 hours......if they had been confined to the beaches many believe it would have been a failure.
- Attacking through the bocage country that trapped the Allies later
- Intense naval firepower
- Overwhelming Allied air supremacy
- Paratroopers at the flanks and behind (thats what they were dropped there for)
I'm not saying a German rush for the beaches would have failed, I'm just trying to inject a little objectivity into what is undoubtedly a conclusion drawn from hindsight.
Anyway, read the Ambrose books, he gives a little more analysis on this issue that I did.
Most -
[quote]Originally posted by M:
Yes the soviets are to take berlin side of divided germany, yet berlin too is of 4 sector divisions. Suppose the russians were late..
No they weren't. Yalta had 2 conclusions about Berlin
1) The Russians were assigned to take it. The other Allies wouldn't even try
2) The partition was to happen after the war
Both were achieved. The Russians launched an overwhelming offensive to take Berlin in Mar-Apr '45 while the rest of the Allies halted west of the city or moved south towards Czechoslovakia and Austria. Again, refer to "Citizen Soldiers"(Ambrose) and also "The Last Battle" by Cornelius Ryan. Only after Berlin fell and the Germans surrendered did the other Allies enter the city.
Market Garden was more than not, a catalyze and a proposal to the supply problem on the broad western front, I agree a fatal blow it probably isn't. Cheers.
Good plan, poor execution -
As far as Europe is concerned, the most important battle was the one that was not fought on 7 March 1936, when German troops began the reoccupation of the Rhineland. Because the British and the French took no political or military action, Hitler's position in Germany was unassailable from that point on, and the military establishment finally came firmly under his control.
Then again, I make this observation with the hindsight to make an optometerist despair. -
I'm not saying kick them off the beaches i'm saying like quite a few book i've read to keep them ON the beaches......They should have destroyed the para's and thus confined the allies to the beaches and giving them little room for extra men.I believe the reason they were so sucessful was the fact that they managed to expand they're beach head so fast!Also the germans did not have that much troops there.If they had released the panzers,the tanks not withstanding they could actually have more foot soldiers there to keep the allies on the beaches.After all the 1st few waves were made up of infantry and special shermans only!!But i do agree and infact it did happen when the tanks actually made an attack towards the beaches at round day 6.I quote a german officer here"we were driven back by the highly accurate support fire from the battleships"Originally posted by Viper52:Well I'm not disputing the fact that IF the Germans had sufficient forces to deny the Allies the beachhead Overlord would have failed, and most historians adopt that view (hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20) but they conveniently ignore the fact is that if the Germans had tried hitting the invasion beaches they'd have faced
- Attacking through the bocage country that trapped the Allies later
- Intense naval firepower
- Overwhelming Allied air supremacy
- Paratroopers at the flanks and behind (thats what they were dropped there for)
I'm not saying a German rush for the beaches would have failed, I'm just trying to inject a little objectivity into what is undoubtedly a conclusion drawn from hindsight.
Anyway, read the Ambrose books, he gives a little more analysis on this issue that I did.
MostGood plan, poor execution
Errr i do not call trying to cover that distance in 3 days through enemy terrtoriy(sic) using a road that at times could support only a single line of tanks and assuming that all the bridges would be intact a good plan.I believe XXX corps could not have done it even under better conditions -
war is never a sure thing...
-
makes life all the more interestingOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:war is never a sure thing...