Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 20th, 2013, 07:41 PM   #101

Underlankers's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,114

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I would call them "strategic reversals". Something very different to a "major tactical defeat". Except Crusader, that was a success (being a British victory).
I think you need to look up what tactics and strategy are and then get back to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Am I correct in assuming I'm dealing with someone who doesn't know the distinction between "strategic" and "tactical"? No I wouldn't say that the situation with the BEF in 1940 where they suddenly found themselves overwhelmed and cut-off yet still managed to evacuate is even comparable.Where a small, token, British contingent assisted the Greek rearguard against an overwhelming German assault (and successfully evacuated much of the Greek army)?
You are that person, so yes, you are dealing with them. If you're not going to claim Thermopylae and Dunkirk are tactical reversals, you don't understand the term sufficient for the sake of this discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Once again; apples and oranges.Oh yeah, really "shattered the line"...
It might help if you remotely engaged in a pretense of respect for the other person in the discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
That would be three hours and 3/4 strength at Bir Hacheim? Or would it be the 15th Pz division almost bottling it? Or would it be the standstill brought by the 1st Armoured division?
What the British 8th army did to the Mareth line in 1943 is what most people would call "shattering a line", not taking three hours losing most of your men and having the enemy still close by...:la ugh:
And as Viscout Alamein said of the Mareth line, Rommel made a bollocks of it. It wasn't the British that enabled them to do that, it was Rommel. I think Montgomery knew more about how Montgomery's battles were won than you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Oh yeah just like Napoleon Bonaparte. So that's why there where those enormous sweeping advances afterwards?(en sarc).
If you don't know what tactics is, you can't critique statements about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
In any case; if these were "tactical victories", then it would be to the credit of the OKW and their prescribed tactics and doctrines, not Rommel would it? So make up your mind, are you praising Erwin Rommel or are you praising the OKW.
It would be to the credit of Rommel. If you're unaware of the OKW's actually existent orders to defend and their grudging at best acceptance of what Rommel did to them, you need to read about the campaign before you insult someone else's lack of knowledge in the discussion. The moreso since you cannot differentiate between the high command and the tactical commanders who implement and conduct operations in the field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Well you should really be praising the OKW, because that's what you were originally trying to argue. After-all one commander doesn't make an army.
Likewise neither does a high command in Berlin capture Gazala. These are very simple, elementary terms you should already know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Right from the outset I never denied that the Germans began the war enjoying a distinct advantage in armoured tactics and doctrines.
What I'm disputing is; your rather uneven (and biased) dismissing of the British army.LOL you see an Australian? Where? I don't. Be careful to keep your mouth shut and your personality hidden.
For starters that From: Sydney, Australia bit might be where I see the Australian. Naturally, if I see someone's from Australia I might presume they're Australian. Before you mouth off about terms you might do well to define them. The OKW didn't shape tactics, they had no means to do so. It was the Army and Corps and Division commanders who directed responsibilities at Operational and Tactical levels. It's not biased to describe the litany of sloppily-fought defeats the UK suffered between 1939-41 as sloppily fought defeat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Now you've made this ad-hominem with your incorrect assumption about my nationality, I'm going to return the favour and speculate that I'm seeing some guy from one of the low countries who is basking in his imagined glory of Germany and/or running down British achievements to compensate for the inferiority complex he suffers over coming from a country that as good as surrendered in the war.LOL so why is it that Axis losses from the North African war were higher than those of the British?
You would be quite mistaken, as I'm from the United States, southern Louisiana to be precise. Noting you were Australian when your own profile says Sydney, Australia, is not an argumentum ad hominem. You should learn what words mean before you use them. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Rather amusing how you pull this "cannon fodder" stuff out. I'm pretty certain the British were far more casualty-conscious and reluctant to waste lives and tanks than either the Germans or Italians were and the history would confirm it.
What history? I'm not sure how British poor performance against Germans in 1940, 1941, or in Caen justifies any assertion of British lack of willingness to spend lives or to commit troops in horrendously mismanaged herky-jerky assaults where infantry, armor, artillery, and air power were all fighting separate wars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
The Britsh had lend-lease?
I guarantee you they weren't fighting in Shermans by random chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
The Germans had occupied Europe and the USSR to pillage...LOL not sure how you guessed that, the person who broke out the insults here was you, not IWell the Germans didn't think they were incompetant judging by their accounts and the lengths they went to."Ruffled feathers"?! The only feathers I'm seeing being ruffled is someone who feels he's just been "insulted".
Naturally, one might feel insulted by someone who deigns to lecture on terms they don't understand to someone who does understand them. You don't know what tactics is or how it operates. Mentioning the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht as responsible for the tactical level of operations is incorrect. Tactics is the responsibility of corps and division commanders, and as it turns out corps commander is Rommel's competence plateau.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
So with the Germans enjoying complete air superiority and superiority in numbers;
What alternate history timeline did 18,000 Germans outnumber 42,000 Allied soldiers in Crete in? Because that's not what happened in the historical Crete battle. The Germans were greatly outnumbered, to a point where Maleme airfield was perfectly capable of being recaptured had Freyberg realized the landing was airborne 24 hours earlier than he did.

The airborne assault commenced at dawn, with fleets of Ju-52s roaring over the Cretan coast, disgorging clouds of tired paratroopers while additional soldiers arrived via glider. The initial airdrops were made by a force of 3,000 men under the command of Maj. Gen. Eugen Meindl near Maleme and Canea on Crete's northwest coast. These were followed on the afternoon of the 20th by 2,600 soldiers at Heraklion and 1,500 at Rethymnon.
Student's forces suffered such ghastly casualties that massive reinforcements became necessary to stave off outright defeat. Opposition to the invasion was much stiffer than had been anticipated. More than 40,000 troops, including Greek soldiers evacuated from the mainland and British Commonwealth forces under the command of Maj. Gen. Bernard Freyberg, a New Zealander, fought ferociously.


From here:



Battle of Crete: It Began with Germany's Airborne Invasion ? Operation Mercury


I'm sorry, I refuse to be condescended to by someone who obviously has no knowledge of what he's talking about. If this is numerical superiority, your maths were not taught you well.



Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
the British should've won Crete. LOL well you're entitled to your opinion but the general consensus amongst historians is that it should've been a walkover for the Germans, and that they almost lost it due to... ...incompetence...
What historians? This is not like any version of the battle I've read in any history book. John Keegan, to use one example, treats it as anything but a guaranteed walkover for the Germans. Likewise Davies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Well how about you go to the next Fallschirmjager reunion and put that to the test? Go on, tell them how they lost so many of their comrades and almost the entire battle to an incompetent enemy.Is that incompetence is it?Offensive level where? At Crete? Newsflash; it was the British putting up a deliberate defence? They had no armour and next to no air cover?
They had 42,000 troops against a mismanaged air drop. They had force sufficient to derail the last victory of Hitler had they tried hard.
The Germans were ludicrously outnumbered and mismanaged the airdrop. Freyberg bungled the battle, Student did not win it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
And yet they did manage to counter attack at tactical level, and often wipe the Germans out?LOL So by that logic, after 5 years of warfare Germany must've been utter dolts to get so badly hammered in June 1944?
Actually, yes, Germany was a bunch of utter dolts to be hammered the way they were, and even stupider to keep fighting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Ridiculous inflammatory comment from someone clearly insecure. Like the Germans in much of 1944, "combined arms warfare" wasn't really relevant with next to no airpower nor armour nor artillery and only a thin screen of infantry to rely upon. Nor had the British really had "3 years of warfare". They'd merely had a few months experience in total of army operations to learn from, hadn't they?
Er, no. They had three years of warfare. They declared war on Germany in September 1939, and they were incapable of fighting them in 1941. Somewhere, somehow, they could and should have learned lessons rapidly. GIs could do it. Germans and Soviets could do it. What stopped the British if not the utter idiocy of their high command? Combined-arms warfare, incidentally, was not at all irrelevant to the 1944 Germans and any look at the bocage campaign and the Siegfried Line battles would illustrate that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
As the German veterans would testify; the British put up a very strong defence in Crete and outfought the Germans and made their victory Pyrrhic, which had wider consequences on the war itself.Oh you're insulted by my mentioning of your inappropriate usage of English words? A bit touchy aren't we? Well, we all know why those who try and dish it out struggle to cop it back . Maybe you should look up some more suitable hyperboles than "needless"?
Maybe you need to actually read a book about the war and learn the definitions of tactics and strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I never even mentioned Montgomery nor Anderson.No you didn't.
You said that the British army were "shallacked" across North Africa and that the "Wallies" didn't make any progress until the Americans turned-up. I frankly don't know why you'd try and argue otherwise as anyone can scroll back and see it verbatim.
The word is shellacked. Now, person from Sydney, Australia, who doesn't understand tactics, strategy, or the basic manpower levels of the Battle of Crete, don't lecture me again about basic information you have no understanding of.
Underlankers is offline  
Remove Ads
Old September 20th, 2013, 11:29 PM   #102
Citizen
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Sydney Australia
Posts: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
I think you need to look up what tactics and strategy are and then get back to me.
Yes, but you also think the British were "shalacked" across North Africa and didn't go anywhere until the US troops arrived (), so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
You are that person, so yes, you are dealing with them. If you're not going to claim Thermopylae and Dunkirk are tactical reversals, you don't understand the term sufficient for the sake of this discussion.
Now you mention Dunkirk, I would hardly call a successful evacuation of more than 300,000 men a "tactical reversal" either.

From my extensive study of the fall of France; the British performed rather well "tactically" despite their impossible strategic situation and inept doctrine.

"Tactical reversal" is a term more suited to the near-annihilation of US II Corps at Kassarine pass, where their methods of waging war were exposed as poor enough to offset their clear strategic advantages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
It might help if you remotely engaged in a pretense of respect for the other person in the discussion.
Well yes it might help. But respect is something earned and a two-way street. So it might also help of you didn't try and say something that goes against all recorded and accepted history such as; that the British army were "shellacked" across North Africa and that they made no headway until US troops showed up?
I mean what next? Are you also going to say that the Salerno landings went well? or that the US 36th division did well at Monte Casino? or that General Lucas was storming at Anzio? Or that Mark Clark had a good reason for liberating Rome instead of cutting-off and encircling the Germans?
This forum is discussing history, not alternative history or extreme revisionist history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
And as Viscout Alamein said of the Mareth line, Rommel made a bollocks of it. It wasn't the British that enabled them to do that, it was Rommel. I think Montgomery knew more about how Montgomery's battles were won than you do.
Or maybe most of us know more about Montgomery's battles than you do?
I've never heard of Mont'y ever saying any such thing. And it would surprise me that an Anglo-Irish noble would use such a word. Seems odd he'd even mention Rommel with regards to the Mareth line when the Axis commander was Maresciallo Gianni Messe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
If you don't know what tactics is, you can't critique statements about it.
Yeah, so therefore I can critique tactics. *claps*

Out of interest; have you got any counter to my points of how the British lines at Gazala can't be described as "shattered"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
It would be to the credit of Rommel. If you're unaware of the OKW's actually existent orders to defend and their grudging at best acceptance of what Rommel did to them, you need to read about the campaign before you insult someone else's lack of knowledge in the discussion. The moreso since you cannot differentiate between the high command and the tactical commanders who implement and conduct operations in the field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Likewise neither does a high command in Berlin capture Gazala. These are very simple, elementary terms you should already know.
Well by the same token I could say it was the German soldaten (and their overlooked Italian co-belligerents) who won the battle of Gazala and not Rommel. But I'm not going to say it, I'm merely using it to draw an illustrative metaphor for your statements.
Rommel was a fine commander, one of the war's best. In my opinion he is also somewhat a little overrated in the Anglosphere due to his good performances against the British and Americans, his anti-Nazi activities and the fact he never was tested against the Soviets. Gazala was his greatest victory.
However he was employing the tactics and overall strategic doctrine of Guderian that the the OKW had adopted. He wasn't doing anything against the grain of contemporary German Marshaling. He benefited from the advantages of German armoured doctrine to the squadron level.

What's funny here is the glaring contradiction you repeatedly make, where you give the accolades to Rommel for Gazala yet rubbish the British army against whom he was victorious. You should think about that one. Would Hitler promote a man to Field Marshall if they'd defeated the Romanian army? Or the early US army?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
For starters that From: Sydney, Australia bit might be where I see the Australian. Naturally, if I see someone's from Australia I might presume they're Australian.
Well to be frank; it's rather sad for you that you'd even make an issue of where I'm posting from let alone make assumptions about my nationality.

You might want to note that more than 30% of the population of Sydney was born overseas. Hmm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Before you mouth off about terms you might do well to define them. The OKW didn't shape tactics, they had no means to do so. It was the Army and Corps and Division commanders who directed responsibilities at Operational and Tactical levels.

Oh my god! Are you seriously trying to say that the German army employed different tactics across it's many different commands?!


I think, I've heard it all now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
It's not biased to describe the litany of sloppily-fought defeats the UK suffered between 1939-41 as sloppily fought defeat.
If they were actually "sloppily-fought defeats", instead of respectable fought rearguards and victories (excepting Norway)...sloppily-fought defeats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
You would be quite mistaken, as I'm from the United States, southern Louisiana to be precise.
Oh okay my mistake based upon your poor choice of words. Instead you're an American with an inferiority complex towards the British (and probably the rest of Western Europe) and about the far-than-stellar US performance in the ETO. And rather than being grateful for them carrying the US army in the war, instead you grow an affection for the superior opposition.

But do you what, I partly said that to get a reaction from you (and it worked) frankly I am not interested in you nor where you're from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
I only guessed where you are from Noting you were Australian when your own profile says Sydney, Australia, is not an argumentum ad hominem.
If it's not ad-hominem. than what is it?
This is not about me, nor you. Why the interest in me personally again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
You should learn what words mean before you use them. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
*smirks* "Needless" battle for Crete...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
What history? I'm not sure how British poor performance against Germans in 1940, 1941
Oh yah really poor performance *claps*.
So there's the successful rearguard and withdrawal from France (after being left in the hock) against overwhelming German strength.
The successful rearguard in Greece that allowed the evacuation of much of the Greek army against an enormous German attack.
Making Germany's assault on Crete Pyrrhic (and killing some of their best and most expensivley-trained soldier dead). And making Hitler afraid of airborne assaults.
Booting the Italians across North and East Africa.
Oh and defeating Rommel in Operation Crusader.

With the exception of the latter too, this was all achieved without much of the RAF to speak of in support. And while they were still mobilising a large conscript army out of their peacetime professional outfit.

I suppose there's the baptism of fire in Norway as the black mark, although if you include the Naval war, that too was a Pyrrhic victory for Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
or in Caen justifies any assertion of British lack of willingness to spend lives or to commit troops in horrendously mismanaged herky-jerky assaults where infantry, armor, artillery, and air power were all fighting separate wars.
Caen?
Oh now you're really talking funny. So you think the British Army taking-on the bulk of the German Panzergruppe West wasn't something to be respected? Taking on 8 Panzer divisions and 7 infantry divisions and some Tiger tank battalions with inferior numbers and quality of tanks? Using infantry and artillery and airstrikes to defeat German armour, advance and hold against counter attacks wasn't coordinated combined arms? If you want "herky-jerky" uncoordinated assaults, take a look at the US army doddering around the bocage to the west while the British were bearing the brunt!
You're like some kid from the special class trying to mock a b-grade student. The British destroyed more than 500 German tanks in the fighting around Caen, that's more tanks than the Germans almost smoked the US army with in the battle of the bulge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
I guarantee you they weren't fighting in Shermans by random chance.
Yeah good thing too! Average-at-best tank. So inferior to the T34, Pzkpfw IV (let alone the Panther) and the Cromwell. The British had to put in a 17 pounder to make it competitive! The tommy-cooker...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Naturally, one might feel insulted by someone who deigns to lecture on terms they don't understand to someone who does understand them.
Yeah maybe.
Or they might be insulted because they're very insecure and take themselves far too seriously, even when they talk biased nonsense. Although insecurity is generally why people get biased in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
You don't know what tactics is or how it operates. Mentioning the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht as responsible for the tactical level of operations is incorrect.
Okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Tactics is the responsibility of corps and division commanders, and as it turns out corps commander is Rommel's competence plateau.
Bit surprised they had him in a field command rather than in the OKH or OKW developing tactics and doctrines for the wider German Heer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
What alternate history timeline did 18,000 Germans outnumber 42,000 Allied soldiers in Crete in? Because that's not what happened in the historical Crete battle. The Germans were greatly outnumbered, to a point where Maleme airfield was perfectly capable of being recaptured had Freyberg realized the landing was airborne 24 hours earlier than he did.

The airborne assault commenced at dawn, with fleets of Ju-52s roaring over the Cretan coast, disgorging clouds of tired paratroopers while additional soldiers arrived via glider. The initial airdrops were made by a force of 3,000 men under the command of Maj. Gen. Eugen Meindl near Maleme and Canea on Crete's northwest coast. These were followed on the afternoon of the 20th by 2,600 soldiers at Heraklion and 1,500 at Rethymnon.
Student's forces suffered such ghastly casualties that massive reinforcements became necessary to stave off outright defeat. Opposition to the invasion was much stiffer than had been anticipated. More than 40,000 troops, including Greek soldiers evacuated from the mainland and British Commonwealth forces under the command of Maj. Gen. Bernard Freyberg, a New Zealander, fought ferociously.


From here:



Battle of Crete: It Began with Germany's Airborne Invasion ? Operation Mercury
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
They had 42,000 troops against a mismanaged air drop.
LOL I like the part of that source that states the following:

"On land, 1,700 Allied soldiers were killed... ....A total of 4,000 German soldiers were killed, and 220 of the nearly 500 transport aircraft involved were lost. After the invasion of Crete, Hitler told Student that the day of the paratrooper was over. The German armed forces would never again launch a large-scale airborne assault."

Yes, yes a real "Shellacking" there.
I think I like the following source with respect to the actual numbers deployed:
http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/rec...-vol2-ch10.pdf
So that's a total of ~30,000 effective Allied troops with no air cover and poor supply against a total of ~32,000 Axis troops enjoying full supply and aerial support.

But in any case; your entire argument is bunk, because those 30,000 Allied defenders were spread across the entire Island. Those assaulting German Fallschirmjager waves of ~3000 would've been opposed by pockets of NZ and British troops each numbering less than 2000 in total (including non-combatants).
This wasn't the Napoleonic wars where entire armies all converged marching on a field of battle. This was one of the world wars where attacking forces concentrated their assaults to breakthrough on one segment of the defences.
Most of those 30,000 Allied defenders would've been withdrawn or only engaged once the Maleme airfield was captured and the Germans flooded the Island with Gebirgsjager and heavy weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
I'm sorry, I refuse to be condescended to by someone who obviously has no knowledge of what he's talking about.
I don't see what you're apologising about nor what you're going to do about being condescended
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
If this is numerical superiority, your maths were not taught you well.

Shall we start posting functions to integrate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
What historians? This is not like any version of the battle I've read in any history book. John Keegan, to use one example, treats it as anything but a guaranteed walkover for the Germans. Likewise Davies.
Can you quote what they actually said?
Everything I've read was that the Germans enjoyed an enormous advantage but were thwarted by the stiff British resistance and bungling of the air landing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
They had force sufficient to derail the last victory of Hitler had they tried hard.
Nah they weren't trying hard enough shooting the Germans to pieces.
Last victory of Hitler? So what ewas that battle at Hurtgen wood? I mean even Kharkov was after this. LOL...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
They had 42,000 troops against a mismanaged air drop. The Germans were ludicrously outnumbered and mismanaged the airdrop. Freyberg bungled the battle, Student did not win it.
I don't see how the Germans mismanagad the aerial drop any more than the Allies did at Normandy or Sicily or Operation Varsity. Granted they took heavy casualties as aerial assaults always do, and as with aerial assaults they're difficult to defend against. Those who survived the air drop landed all over the place providing a nightmare for defenders. And once they consolidated into groups these elite soldiers could wreak havoc on the already wary defenders.
And actually Freyberg's not a fault for losing Crete. Most scholars believe it was due to a miscommunication between some of his NZ subordinates; Where the commander of the battalion defending the crucial hill was given permission to withdraw his exhausted soldiers by his commander who'd mistakenly overestimated the progress of the relieving force. One small error any army of the war frequently made that cost the battle.

Of course you didn't answer my previous question of how you think the Brtitish could've done it better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Actually, yes, Germany was a bunch of utter dolts to be hammered the way they were, and even stupider to keep fighting.
LOL I hardly think the overall strategic failures of Hitler reflects on the operational effectiveness of the Wehrmacht who served him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Er, no. They had three years of warfare. They declared war on Germany in September 1939, and they were incapable of fighting them in 1941.
Um no.
Three years of Naval warfre and aerial warfare. But as I said; only a few total months of Army operations to gain combat experience from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Somewhere, somehow, they could and should have learned lessons rapidly.
LOL where and how then Mr expert-in-hinsight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
GIs could do it.
*stunned face* Huh?! Are you talking about the GI's of the US army still getting slapped-around at Aachen and Hurtgen wood near Christmas 1944?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Germans and Soviets could do it.
Yeah the Germans after two years of Spanish civil war and a new army to re-build and train with Guderian's Blitzkrieg. The Soviets after... ..two years? Or two-and-a-half?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
What stopped the British if not the utter idiocy of their high command?
Would this be the same utter idiocy that managed to prove Mark Clark and Patton and every US commander in the ETO wrong and incompetent time after time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Maybe you need to actually read a book about the war and learn the definitions of tactics and strategy.
Or maybe you need to get a social life with more socially-adjusted people, and learn when you've made a hypocritical fool of yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
The word is shellacked. Now, person from Sydney, Australia, who doesn't understand tactics, strategy, or the basic manpower levels of the Battle of Crete
I sincerely think you need to see a psychiatrist about this imaginary Australian friend of yours
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
don't lecture me again about basic information you have no understanding of.
Too late, I already have. And you can get all hot and bothered about being wrong even more.

Last edited by NelsonMuntz; September 20th, 2013 at 11:55 PM.
NelsonMuntz is offline  
Old September 20th, 2013, 11:31 PM   #103
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,850

Manpower levels on Crete, 10,000 of the allied troops were not armed or combat personnel, the defending forces were a real mixed bag of operational units and flotsam of the Greece evacuation.

from
Battle_of_Crete Battle_of_Crete

"On 4 May, Freyberg sent a message to the British commander in the Middle East, General Archibald Wavell, requesting the evacuation of about 10,000 personnel who did not have weapons and had "little or no employment other than getting into trouble with the civil population""

While there may have been 40,000 allied personnel while less than 30,000 "troops". The Effective fighting force was less 40,000. 30,000 is the top figure.

The Germans were outnumbered but had a number of advantages. Out while sucessful paid a high cost.
pugsville is offline  
Old September 20th, 2013, 11:49 PM   #104
Citizen
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Sydney Australia
Posts: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Manpower levels on Crete, 10,000 of the allied troops were not armed or combat personnel, the defending forces were a real mixed bag of operational units and flotsam of the Greece evacuation.

from
Battle of Crete - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"On 4 May, Freyberg sent a message to the British commander in the Middle East, General Archibald Wavell, requesting the evacuation of about 10,000 personnel who did not have weapons and had "little or no employment other than getting into trouble with the civil population""

While there may have been 40,000 allied personnel while less than 30,000 "troops". The Effective fighting force was less 40,000. 30,000 is the top figure.

The Germans were outnumbered but had a number of advantages. Out while sucessful paid a high cost.
Not only that; as I've pointed-out, the overall strengths for the battle are superfluous. What matters are the opposing numbers and strengths where the actual fighting took place. How many of those 30,000 Allied soldiers were engaged in the battle for Maleme? And how much did the Germans exploit the advantage of air superiority?

I don't want to get too ad-hominem but I really think a certain someone is using any strawman to reinforce his bias.
NelsonMuntz is offline  
Old September 20th, 2013, 11:53 PM   #105

Edgewaters's Avatar
Contrarian
 
Joined: Jul 2007
From: Canada
Posts: 8,470

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
Manpower levels on Crete, 10,000 of the allied troops were not armed or combat personnel, the defending forces were a real mixed bag of operational units and flotsam of the Greece evacuation.

from
Battle of Crete - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"On 4 May, Freyberg sent a message to the British commander in the Middle East, General Archibald Wavell, requesting the evacuation of about 10,000 personnel who did not have weapons and had "little or no employment other than getting into trouble with the civil population""

While there may have been 40,000 allied personnel while less than 30,000 "troops". The Effective fighting force was less 40,000. 30,000 is the top figure.

The Germans were outnumbered but had a number of advantages. Out while sucessful paid a high cost.
Effective manpower was much larger than that. The entire island rose up to resist. Civilians stopped German advances in some areas, after capturing small arms. There's even an eyewitness account of an old man beating a German paratrooper to death with his cane.

Insular societies are like that, I guess. The Brits planned to counter any invasion of England the same way.
Edgewaters is offline  
Old September 21st, 2013, 12:00 AM   #106
Citizen
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Sydney Australia
Posts: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edgewaters View Post
Effective manpower was much larger than that. The entire island rose up to resist. Civilians stopped German advances in some areas, after capturing small arms. There's even an eyewitness account of an old man beating a German paratrooper to death with his cane.

Insular societies are like that, I guess. The Brits planned to counter any invasion of England the same way.
I don't mean to be rude, but c'mon I hardly think a few partisan actions from civilians would slow the Germans down much.
NelsonMuntz is offline  
Old September 21st, 2013, 06:29 AM   #107

Underlankers's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,114

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Yes, but you also think the British were "shalacked" across North Africa and didn't go anywhere until the US troops arrived (), so...
Well, if you want to look at where they were after Beda Fomm and where they were at the time of Torch and say they went somewhere, you're free to do so. Anyone who can read a map would raise an eyebrow at the assertion, to say the least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Now you mention Dunkirk, I would hardly call a successful evacuation of more than 300,000 men a "tactical reversal" either.
Wars are not won by evacuation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
From my extensive study of the fall of France; the British performed rather well "tactically" despite their impossible strategic situation and inept doctrine.
When did they perform well? If we want to say they performed well tactically, the French surely performed even better than they did in such battles as Hannut and Gembloux.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
"Tactical reversal" is a term more suited to the near-annihilation of US II Corps at Kassarine pass, where their methods of waging war were exposed as poor enough to offset their clear strategic advantages.Well yes it might help. But respect is something earned and a two-way street. So it might also help of you didn't try and say something that goes against all recorded and accepted history such as; that the British army were "shellacked" across North Africa and that they made no headway until US troops showed up?
Near annihilation is not an accurate description of the attack. Kasserine was yet another tactical victory that did nothing to redress the strategic situation. Again, the recorded histories I've read do say this. If you're willing again to argue that the British were driven to El Alamein because their war was going well, I think you need a great deal of evidence to validate that assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I mean what next? Are you also going to say that the Salerno landings went well?
If Montgomery had actually advanced instead of parading and giving his troops medals, the landings would have been shorter and less bloody. Montgomery was slow and the US Army had to fight a much bloodier battle than otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
or that the US 36th division did well at Monte Casino?
I don't recall that the British role at Cassino, (it has two s's, you really should read about the war) was very positive. First Cassino was motivated as a means to distract from Anzio, Second Cassino to relieve Anzio, Third Cassino was a British catastrophe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
or that General Lucas was storming at Anzio?
Lucas's decision to not press the offensive was valid. The Germans, after all, managed in a very short time to send a strong second army to attack his troops. The Cassino attack made very little difference to this.

HyperWar: US Army in WWII: Salerno to Cassino [Chapter 22]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Or that Mark Clark had a good reason for liberating Rome instead of cutting-off and encircling the Germans?
This forum is discussing history, not alternative history or extreme revisionist history.Or maybe most of us know more about Montgomery's battles than you do?
I rather doubt that Kesselring and Mackensen would have been encircled. They withdrew through entirely different passes than those intended to be targeted to encircle them and if the Allies punch into thin air they'll blow up more Italian cities without killing more Germans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I've never heard of Mont'y ever saying any such thing. And it would surprise me that an Anglo-Irish noble would use such a word. Seems odd he'd even mention Rommel with regards to the Mareth line when the Axis commander was Maresciallo Gianni Messe. Yeah, so therefore I can critique tactics. *claps*
That can happen when you haven't read anything about Viscount Alamein or his war or his view of his opponents and his superiors. Technically speaking Rommel was always under Italian control from first to last in North Africa, so resurrecting this datum now doesn't alter anything. Noting who was in command of a battle says nothing about tactics. It says nothing about the British use of massed artillery, armor, or methodically prepared set-piece engagements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Out of interest; have you got any counter to my points of how the British lines at Gazala can't be described as "shattered"?
Battles 1942

BBC - WW2 People's War - Timeline

The Battle of Gazala | The Globe at War

If you're willing to refute British descriptions of the battle as such, you're welcome to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Well by the same token I could say it was the German soldaten (and their overlooked Italian co-belligerents) who won the battle of Gazala and not Rommel. But I'm not going to say it, I'm merely using it to draw an illustrative metaphor for your statements.
When you apply that logic for Viscount Alamein and Leese and Alexander and Clark and 21st, 12th, and 6th Army Groups you'll be consistent. When you insist on applying it only some of the time you're not making the point except insofar as to win an argument on the Internet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Rommel was a fine commander, one of the war's best. In my opinion he is also somewhat a little overrated in the Anglosphere due to his good performances against the British and Americans, his anti-Nazi activities and the fact he never was tested against the Soviets. Gazala was his greatest victory.
I would agree with these assertions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
However he was employing the tactics and overall strategic doctrine of Guderian that the the OKW had adopted. He wasn't doing anything against the grain of contemporary German Marshaling. He benefited from the advantages of German armoured doctrine to the squadron level.
I seem to recall that the Germans in the East relied more on airpower and less on 88 mm guns and that the Soviets were less willing to repeatedly send large tank forces dead on into the path of 88 mm guns than Wavell and the Auk were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
What's funny here is the glaring contradiction you repeatedly make, where you give the accolades to Rommel for Gazala yet rubbish the British army against whom he was victorious. You should think about that one. Would Hitler promote a man to Field Marshall if they'd defeated the Romanian army? Or the early US army?Well to be frank; it's rather sad for you that you'd even make an issue of where I'm posting from let alone make assumptions about my nationality.
To be honest, you wouldn't be the first person in the Commonwealth countries who's a plastic Englishman I've met. The British army performed lousily, and any argument that it did not runs against the grain of actual British histories of the war.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
You might want to note that more than 30% of the population of Sydney was born overseas. Hmm?
Oh my god! Are you seriously trying to say that the German army employed different tactics across it's many different commands?!
Yes, actually, I am arguing precisely that. In no small part because North Africa is not the USSR and both Axis and Allied forces were smaller.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I think, I've heard it all now...If they were actually "sloppily-fought defeats", instead of respectable fought rearguards and victories (excepting Norway)...sloppily-fought defeatsOh okay my mistake based upon your poor choice of words. Instead you're an American with an inferiority complex towards the British (and probably the rest of Western Europe) and about the far-than-stellar US performance in the ETO. And rather than being grateful for them carrying the US army in the war, instead you grow an affection for the superior opposition.
I have no inferiority complex. The only major defeat my ancestors had was Kasserine. We did much better than you did in the war despite starting far greener than you did. We did most of the bleeding. The British used a lot of our weapons and repeatedly failed to understand the basics of co-ordinated combined arms warfare into 1944. Even at Caen they displayed no comprehension of these basic lessons. See: Operations Epsom and Goodwood, where the infantry and armor attacked in disjointed fashion, coming on in the same old way and being seen off in the same old way. As someone who's proudly argued that the Nazi war machine is overrated, I think at this point I must seriously question if you've read anything of my posting history on these matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
But do you what, I partly said that to get a reaction from you (and it worked) frankly I am not interested in you nor where you're from.If it's not ad-hominem. than what is it?
This is not about me, nor you. Why the interest in me personally again?*smirks* "Needless" battle for Crete...Oh yah really poor performance *claps*.
Fall of Crete

Antony Beevor - Crete ? The Battle and the*Resistance

The Battle of Crete, May 1941 - Clarksburg Conservative | Examiner.com

When I say that Crete was a needless defeat, I'm arguing that with the right decisions Freyberg easily had the option to win the victory there and he proceeded to hand the Germans a victory that they did not have any reason to win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
So there's the successful rearguard and withdrawal from France (after being left in the hock) against overwhelming German strength.
The successful rearguard in Greece that allowed the evacuation of much of the Greek army against an enormous German attack.
Do you sincerely think that the British went into France and Greece to make brilliant rearguard withdrawals?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Making Germany's assault on Crete Pyrrhic (and killing some of their best and most expensivley-trained soldier dead). And making Hitler afraid of airborne assaults.
A Pyrrhic victory that should have been a defeat, as Beevor argues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Booting the Italians across North and East Africa.
Oh and defeating Rommel in Operation Crusader.
Yes, the British were as militarily effective as the Greeks, if we want to credit Beda Fomm as a testament to their power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
With the exception of the latter too, this was all achieved without much of the RAF to speak of in support. And while they were still mobilising a large conscript army out of their peacetime professional outfit.
Oddly you don't give US troops at Kasserine Pass the benefit of that double-standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I suppose there's the baptism of fire in Norway as the black mark, although if you include the Naval war, that too was a Pyrrhic victory for Germany.Caen?
Oh now you're really talking funny. So you think the British Army taking-on the bulk of the German Panzergruppe West wasn't something to be respected? Taking on 8 Panzer divisions and 7 infantry divisions and some Tiger tank battalions with inferior numbers and quality of tanks? Using infantry and artillery and airstrikes to defeat German armour, advance and hold against counter attacks wasn't coordinated combined arms? If you want "herky-jerky" uncoordinated assaults, take a look at the US army doddering around the bocage to the west while the British were bearing the brunt!
The British handlings of the various battles of Caen were handled poorly. The British were halted outside the city when it was a first day objective for them. At Villers-Bocage, Epsom, and Goodwood the Germans inflicted repeated casualties on poorly co-ordinated offensives. I'm describing the elementary histories of the battles you can find in books like Max Hastings' Overlord. Notice that I'm primarily using British authors to critique Viscount Alamein, not Americans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
You're like some kid from the special class trying to mock a b-grade student. The British destroyed more than 500 German tanks in the fighting around Caen, that's more tanks than the Germans almost smoked the US army with in the battle of the bulge.Yeah good thing too! Average-at-best tank. So inferior to the T34, Pzkpfw IV (let alone the Panther) and the Cromwell. The British had to put in a 17 pounder to make it competitive! The tommy-cooker...Yeah maybe.
Given that you're criticizing the Americans for not fighting the bulk of the German Army in Normandy, I take it you know nothing of what Viscount Alamein planned to do with the offensive. You must not, because if you did you would not make these ridiculous and unsupported assertions. Destroying tanks is not a measure of success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Or they might be insulted because they're very insecure and take themselves far too seriously, even when they talk biased nonsense. Although insecurity is generally why people get biased in the first place. Okay.Bit surprised they had him in a field command rather than in the OKH or OKW developing tactics and doctrines for the wider German Heer
For someone who whines about ad hominem, you sure love doing it. Accusing someone of being insecure and biased while making unsupported assertions supported by no British histories of the war is well, it's not actually a matter of insecurity, it's confusion and a great deal of amusement in the ignorant criticizing the knowledgeable over hijacking British histories of the war which no reputable scholar would assert.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
LOL I like the part of that source that states the following:

"On land, 1,700 Allied soldiers were killed... ....A total of 4,000 German soldiers were killed, and 220 of the nearly 500 transport aircraft involved were lost. After the invasion of Crete, Hitler told Student that the day of the paratrooper was over. The German armed forces would never again launch a large-scale airborne assault."

Yes, yes a real "Shellacking" there.
You do understand the English language sufficiently to know why I'm arguing such a near-run defeat should have by all circumstances been a British victory, right? Nah, you just want to insult the other person and illustrate that you can't discuss the war based on anything backed by substance. You're as bad with this as the guy advocating the Frisian Option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I think I like the following source with respect to the actual numbers deployed:
http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/rec...-vol2-ch10.pdf
So that's a total of ~30,000 effective Allied troops with no air cover and poor supply against a total of ~32,000 Axis troops enjoying full supply and aerial support.

But in any case; your entire argument is bunk, because those 30,000 Allied defenders were spread across the entire Island. Those assaulting German Fallschirmjager waves of ~3000 would've been opposed by pockets of NZ and British troops each numbering less than 2000 in total (including non-combatants).
See my sources above. All the Allies had to do to win the battle was interdict Maleme Airfield.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
This wasn't the Napoleonic wars where entire armies all converged marching on a field of battle. This was one of the world wars where attacking forces concentrated their assaults to breakthrough on one segment of the defences.
Most of those 30,000 Allied defenders would've been withdrawn or only engaged once the Maleme airfield was captured and the Germans flooded the Island with Gebirgsjager and heavy weapons.I don't see what you're apologising about nor what you're going to do about being condescended
I'm sure someone incapable of arguing based on the actual British history of the war doesn't see a lot of things. To win the battle all Freyberg had to do was interdict Maleme airfield. If he does this, the British win. He did not do this, and the British lost. If you want to attribute this to anything but incompetence and poor command decisions, well......

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Shall we start posting functions to integrate?Can you quote what they actually said?
Everything I've read was that the Germans enjoyed an enormous advantage but were thwarted by the stiff British resistance and bungling of the air landing.Nah they weren't trying hard enough shooting the Germans to pieces.
I'm sure if you've only read the Daily Mail version you might have read that. What I've read with Keegan and Beevor's takes indicates that the Germans were within a whisker of defeat salvaged by idiotic British generalship, not anything that they did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Last victory of Hitler? So what ewas that battle at Hurtgen wood? I mean even Kharkov was after this. LOL... I don't see how the Germans mismanagad the aerial drop any more than the Allies did at Normandy or Sicily or Operation Varsity. Granted they took heavy casualties as aerial assaults always do, and as with aerial assaults they're difficult to defend against. Those who survived the air drop landed all over the place providing a nightmare for defenders. And once they consolidated into groups these elite soldiers could wreak havoc on the already wary defenders.
The Huertgen Forest battle was not a German victory by any stretch of the term. Market-Garden was certainly a nice illustration of why the British couldn't be trusted with mobile operations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
And actually Freyberg's not a fault for losing Crete. Most scholars believe it was due to a miscommunication between some of his NZ subordinates; Where the commander of the battalion defending the crucial hill was given permission to withdraw his exhausted soldiers by his commander who'd mistakenly overestimated the progress of the relieving force. One small error any army of the war frequently made that cost the battle.
Which scholars? The writers of the Daily Mail?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Of course you didn't answer my previous question of how you think the Brtitish could've done it better.LOL I hardly think the overall strategic failures of Hitler reflects on the operational effectiveness of the Wehrmacht who served him.Um no.
I've answered it repeatedly. Interdict Maleme and the battle is won.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Three years of Naval warfre and aerial warfare. But as I said; only a few total months of Army operations to gain combat experience from.LOL where and how then Mr expert-in-hinsight?*stunned face* Huh?! Are you talking about the GI's of the US army still getting slapped-around at Aachen and Hurtgen wood near Christmas 1944?
You don't understand anything about the Battle of Aachen or how it unfolded to argue that the US Army there was getting slapped around. Try reading histories of the war, not simply speaking with patriotic fervor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Yeah the Germans after two years of Spanish civil war and a new army to re-build and train with Guderian's Blitzkrieg. The Soviets after... ..two years? Or two-and-a-half?Would this be the same utter idiocy that managed to prove Mark Clark and Patton and every US commander in the ETO wrong and incompetent time after time? Or maybe you need to get a social life with more socially-adjusted people, and learn when you've made a hypocritical fool of yourself?I sincerely think you need to see a psychiatrist about this imaginary Australian friend of yours Too late, I already have. And you can get all hot and bothered about being wrong even more.
Italy did more in Spain than Germany did. Guderian's claim to authorize modern combined-arms tactics is a Big Lie. The Blitzkrieg Myth is just that: a myth. Created in no small part with the deliberate complicity of one Basil Liddell Hart. I'd love to see how you're arguing that US officers in the ETO are incompetent. By what means are you then going to argue that Market-Garden and two US bridgeheads over the Rhine before Montgomery's slow and unnecessarily elaborate bridgheads were achieved.

I see no evidence here, only the usual argumentum ad hominem and the kind of nationalistic fervor that makes for completely unsupported generalizations. It's curious that in listing all US army commanders as incompetent that you neglected US army group command, but then I can imagine that might happen if someone who knows very little about the war wants to argue with someone who knows rather more about it than all that.

You accuse me of being ignorant, biased, and mentally ill. I take it this must be what British people call civility.
Underlankers is offline  
Old September 21st, 2013, 05:41 PM   #108
Citizen
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Sydney Australia
Posts: 13

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Well, if you want to look at where they were after Beda Fomm and where they were at the time of Torch and say they went somewhere, you're free to do so. Anyone who can read a map would raise an eyebrow at the assertion, to say the least.
Oh dear you seem to lack a sense of chronology.
The Torch landings were after the 2nd battle of El Alamein, which is generally recognised as the victory that ruined Germany's North African campaign. Where Rommel's forces were defeated heavily enough to rendered incapable of further offensive action. At the time of Torch the 8th army had the initiative and were at the Libyan-Tunisian border looking at the Mareth line.
Britain could've easily conducted the Torch landing by themselves without US involvement, and America were given the task because 1) it was seen as a soft task for the Green US army to gain some experience from and 2) because Vichy French forces might not fight against invading Americans.
Many historians believe that the Torch landings may not have actually been necessary.
The British army could've also invaded Sicily without any US involvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Wars are not won by evacuation.
Sadly for you that cheap, jingoistic statement does not salvage you inappropriately calling Dunkirk a "tactical reversal".
Oh and it's wrong. Battles and wars are won by evacuations actually. Would've it been better for the US forces to not be evacuated from the Philippines in 1941 and wasted? Hmm?
Rather simple strategy Bubba, you withdraw and allow your attacking enemy to spread their forces and stretch their supply lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
When did they perform well? If we want to say they performed well tactically, the French surely performed even better than they did in such battles as Hannut and Gembloux.
Well that's hard to say, because the French weren't virtually abandoned by the high command in Paris and only told of Belgian capitulation as the Germans were attacking like the BEF were.
Although Hannut and Gembloux gap were good performances from the French army, better than anything the US army could ever manage...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Near annihilation is not an accurate description of the attack. Kasserine was yet another tactical victory that did nothing to redress the strategic situation. Again, the recorded histories I've read do say this. If you're willing again to argue that the British were driven to El Alamein because their war was going well, I think you need a great deal of evidence to validate that assertion.
If it wasn't for the British army coming to the rescue, the capitulation of US II Corps at Kassarine pass might well have had further reaching strategic effects.
And no I never said the British war was "going well" prior to 2nd El Alamein (I notice you seem to like putting words in other people's mouths), it's that on the account of one German victory (Gazala) you've generalised the entire British war effort as a "Shalecking". Frankly I find that as absurd as if someone said the same thing of the Germans on the account of operation Crusader or 2nd El Alamein...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
If Montgomery had actually advanced instead of parading and giving his troops medals, the landings would have been shorter and less bloody. Montgomery was slow and the US Army had to fight a much bloodier battle than otherwise.
LOL now you're making up fantasies about Montgomery. How sad. What parades where and what medals? C'mon name a location and a date.
Salerno was almost a disaster because of terrible leadership and fighting of the US army. They actually landed two divisions with no prior artillery bombardment (!). Despite suffering from poor US logistic support; Monty managed to come and rescue those poor US troops. And that's the version accepted by historians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
I don't recall that the British role at Cassino, (it has two s's, you really should read about the war) was very positive. First Cassino was motivated as a means to distract from Anzio, Second Cassino to relieve Anzio, Third Cassino was a British catastrophe.
Ahahahaha um no sorry.
The first Cassino battle was US affair. The 36th Division was cut to pieces at the Rapido river while the German allowed the 38th to advance unsupported into the hills where they were almost cut-off and obliterated.
Then the British had to again come and rescue them, with them now being made responsible for the western side of the peninsular and foiling Clark's plans to enter Rome.
The 2nd and 3rd Cassino battles were almost victories despite Freyberg's mistake (endorsed by all US commanders) of bombing the Monastery. They actually managed to make it into the town on both occaisions and up the slopes, something the Americans could only dream of as they got shot to pieces.
Then there was the 4th Cassino which was the victory.

I'm not saying Cassino was a glorious chapter of the British army history, but I frankly can't see how you could argue that the British didn't do it far better than the Americans could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Lucas's decision to not press the offensive was valid. The Germans, after all, managed in a very short time to send a strong second army to attack his troops.

Excuses excuses.
Well none of the other Allied commanders (US ones included) thought Lucas has any valid reason to sit on his bottom and almost get pushed back into the sea.
There weren't very strong Axis forces at Anzio when Lucas first landed! And even when he did reinforce the defenders, it was only the Herman Goering Panzer division and mostly other Luftwaffe troops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
I rather doubt that Kesselring and Mackensen would have been encircled. They withdrew through entirely different passes than those intended to be targeted to encircle them and if the Allies punch into thin air they'll blow up more Italian cities without killing more Germans.
Well they didn't rather doubt it, they even expected the attempted American encirclement that never came and later spoke of their surprise when it didn't.
And if Clark had managed to do what almost any other Army's commander British or German or Russian would've attempted, that would've saved thousands of lives and would've allowed the Allies almost a free run up to the Po valley. And who knows what wider positive effects that could've had? A total withdrawal of German forces from France into Germany after D-Day? No Ardennes offensive for Germany? A push into Yugoslavia? or Hungary? Or Austria and into the heart of the Reich?
But no, the US army were on the job...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
That can happen when you haven't read anything about Viscount Alamein or his war or his view of his opponents and his superiors. Technically speaking Rommel was always under Italian control from first to last in North Africa, so resurrecting this datum now doesn't alter anything. Noting who was in command of a battle says nothing about tactics. It says nothing about the British use of massed artillery, armor, or methodically prepared set-piece engagements.
Ah yes that's nice.
Sadly what's really happened here is that you're factually wrong yet again and are trying any straw-man to salvage it. Too bad for you. Messe was the commander at the Mareth line, not Rommel. And Monty never said any such thing you've claimed.
And once again you're going off-topic, but now you're bringing it up (out of the blue), what commander wouldn't use an organised, timed set-piece against a fortified line? Nobody German that's for certain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Battles 1942

BBC - WW2 People's War - Timeline

The Battle of Gazala | The Globe at War

If you're willing to refute British descriptions of the battle as such, you're welcome to do so.
Let's see these "British descriptions" shall we?

"On May 26th at 2:00 P.M. Rommel struck the northern portion of Ritchie's defensive line with the Italian XXI and X Corps south of Gazala. Rommel also feinted with his mobile units to draw off British strength. Moving at night Rommel then reversed his path. He flanked Bir Hacheim during the early morning hours on May 27th. Rommel had organized into a potent fist the German 15th and 21st Panzer Divisions and 90th Light Division and the Italian Trieste Motorized Division and Ariete Tank Division. Unfortunately for Rommel's armor, they suffered heavy losses when British tanks lit up the lightly armored German panzers. Although victorious regardless of the initially stiff British resistance Rommel's two panzer divisions shortly thereafter ran headlong into elements from the British 7th Armored Division. The British engaged the German panzers from dug in positions at long range, but the German superiority at the point of contact allowed them to destroy the British forces. The Germans than ran into the rest of the 7th Armored Division and fought this powerful British Division throughout the day and night.

After suffering heavy losses, Rommel was lucky to still have the Afrika Corps in one piece. Nevertheless, the British had committed their armor poorly yet again. Rommel thus gathered his forces and struck west, destroying the isolated Allied 150th Brigade and capturing 3,000 men, 90 tanks, and 100 guns. Rommel then defeated several convoluted and overly intricate British attacks that lasted well into June."


Well I'm not seeing anything in there about any British line being "shattered". If I didn't know any better, I'd say it backed my version of events.
Or do you suffer problems with reading comprehension?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
When you apply that logic for Viscount Alamein and Leese and Alexander and Clark and blah blah I'm a fat comic book guy
*interrupring* No my point was to illustrate the absurdity of discounting the wider German tactical doctrines and solely attributing success to Rommel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
I seem to recall that the Germans in the East relied more on airpower and less on 88 mm guns and that the Soviets were less willing to repeatedly send large tank forces dead on into the path of 88 mm guns than Wavell and the Auk were.
Well then I suggest you get your memory tested (or actually do some research).
Not only was the Soviet Union far too vast and lacking airfields for the Luftwaffe to be spread and meet the requirements of the Wehrmacht, but the Germans employed the 88mm all across the eastern front in anti-tank roles. The first T34 attack was defeated by 88mm guns, and Stalin's disastrous summer offensive of early 1942 and the German drive on Stalingrad soon afterwards heavily featured Luftwaffe 88mm gunners being deployed to destroy Soviet armour coordinated with Panzers and armoured cars. This subject has probably been written-about more than the desert war, although I understand being American it might have been overlooked and ignored where you're from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
To be honest, you wouldn't be the first person in the Commonwealth countries who's a plastic Englishman I've met. The British army performed lousily, and any argument that it did not runs against the grain of actual British histories of the war.
You haven't met me.
To be honest, you're another of countless Americans I've come-across from some dull, sad little small town or suburb. And who's thus been limited in his social development and exposure to outsiders. And who thus suffers a massive inferiority complex that manifests in having to act obnoxious and abrasive to reassure himself around things outside his comfort zone that make him feel inadequate. And who thus makes an issue of whatever nation a foreigner he encounters comes from and applies a generalised stereotype.

In all my years living in Australia I have never once met any Australian whom I (nor I would imagine you) would describe as a "plastic Englishman" and I frankly find it hilarious you'd even imagine anything exists.
You don't know who I am, where I'm from and you have no rational reason to want to. All you know about me is where I live (which I was required to declare) and that I'm not Australian and it looks that's more than you need to know.

Now back on topic...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Yes, actually, I am arguing precisely that. In no small part because North Africa is not the USSR and both Axis and Allied forces were smaller.
Well then you're greatly mistaken.
The basic tactics at squad level were identical across the German Wehrmacht. Certainly the local conditions created some amendments, but the overall applied methods were the same. And that extended to more senior command. While Rommel and the other German generals on the eastern front were all personally very different men, they applied very similar methods of war. I frankly don't imagine other top German generals doing much different to what Rommel did at Gazala and the cauldron had they been given his command. Poor generals like Paulus yes, but not Guderian nor Manstein.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
I have no inferiority complex.
Could've fooled me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
The only major defeat my ancestors had was Kasserine.
The US army suffered bigger a defeat than Kassarine pass at Hurtgen wood! Oh and at 1st Cassino...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
We did much better than you did in the war despite starting far greener than you did. We did most of the bleeding.
1st of all, you're once again assuming my nationality.
The fact you're making that an issue only proves that this is all about you feeling inferior over the US army's performance.
I could be from any country. For all you know, I could also be an American? hmm?

Second of all, your argument is bunk because the US army was only committed once the tide of war had already turned against Germany. So the US army was spared being exposed to overwhelming German forces. While the Red Army was fighting the meat grinder the US army only had the Italian rearguard to contend with. The only time the Germans attacked in Italy was counter-attacking those disorganised US beachheads.
By the time the US army got to encounter German armour in 1944 the Germans were clearly losing the war anyway, with their ranks being filled by soldiers with fluff or whiskers growing on their chin. The US got the easier end of the Normandy breakout and even then US armour was easily outperformed by German armour and continued to be until the end of hostilities.
The US suffered less defeats simply because it never bore the brunt of Germany's military. Oh, except for the tired 1944 Ardennes offensive where German fuel shortages saved them. Had the US also declared war in september 1939 and thus there been an AEF in France in 1940 they would've been more useless than the Dutch, and they would've done no better than the British in the other theatres. Very probably they would've fared far worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
The British used a lot of our weapons and repeatedly failed to understand the basics of co-ordinated combined arms warfare into 1944.
LOL the only American weapons I'm aware of the British making much usage of was the Sherman tank and the Thompson SMG. And even then; the Sherman was only due to the superior Cromwell tank suffering production and development cuts in favour of strategic bombers.
The British also seemed to use them far more effectively than the Americans could, used a better gun too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Even at Caen they displayed no comprehension of these basic lessons. See: Operations Epsom and Goodwood, where the infantry and armor attacked in disjointed fashion, coming on in the same old way and being seen off in the same old way.
Oh I suppose you think they should've just dug-in and let the Germans counter-attack like Lucas did at Anzio?
All quick to criticise when the US army were meanwhile afraid of approaching hedgerows. The fact is that the Germans concentrated most of their Panzer forces in France in and around Caen. By attacking them, Montgomery was tying them down and preventing them from moving westwards and driving the weaker Americans back into the sea. Oh and the German losses inflicted at Caen were also heavy. The gains may have been modest and the attacks may have lost coordination at times but it still was winning the battle for the Allies. And it was still a far stronger performance than the US army's usual blundering...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
As someone who's proudly argued that the Nazi war machine is overrated, I think at this point I must seriously question if you've read anything of my posting history on these matters.
"proudly argues"
I expected you to resort to questioning my credibility from the start, but I didn't think you'd keep flogging that horse this long. Would've thought that the pointlessness of repeating it would've dawned on you by now.
Play the ball, not the man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Fall of Crete

Antony Beevor - Crete ? The Battle and the*Resistance

The Battle of Crete, May 1941 - Clarksburg Conservative | Examiner.com

When I say that Crete was a needless defeat, I'm arguing that with the right decisions Freyberg easily had the option to win the victory there and he proceeded to hand the Germans a victory that they did not have any reason to win.
I'm sure posting those links made you feel self-assured. But I can't see anything in them that makes you calling Crete "needless" look any less silly.
So can you elaborate exactly what you think Freyberg should've done differently?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Do you sincerely think that the British went into France and Greece to make brilliant rearguard withdrawals?
NO they didn't go to France to withdraw, they went to assist the French. As they were abandoned by the French command and found themselves overwhelmed, they successfully withdrew and evacuated and thwarted the Germans.
And yes the W force with only ~60,000 men was never intended to defeat the hundred of thousands of axis forces and was really only an assisting rearguard to help slow the Germans and evacuate the Greek forces.

Seems funny how you use examples of the British army being overwhelmed by superior numbers and firepower of Germans yet successfully managing to escape destruction to try and imply that they were operationally poor....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
A Pyrrhic victory that should have been a defeat, as Beevor argues.
If he actually said that (and it's not another reading comprehension failure from you) it's merely one man's opinion.
You could argue that America's Pyrrhic victory at Aachen should've been a defeat...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Yes, the British were as militarily effective as the Greeks, if we want to credit Beda Fomm as a testament to their power.
LOL so now you're complimenting the British?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Oddly you don't give US troops at Kasserine Pass the benefit of that double-standard.
Huh? What double standard?
I was naming the respectable military performance of the British army in 1940-1, not the shameful capitulation of the US army at Kasserine pass (where they enjoyed air superiority BTW).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
The British handlings of the various battles of Caen were handled poorly. The British were halted outside the city when it was a first day objective for them. At Villers-Bocage, Epsom, and Goodwood the Germans inflicted repeated casualties on poorly co-ordinated offensives.
And the Germans also didn't suffer heavy casualties around Caen?
Did the landings at Salerno or Anzio or Omaha beach meet their objectives? Did the Germans or Soviets always meet their objectives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
I'm describing the elementary histories of the battles you can find in books like Max Hastings' Overlord. Notice that I'm primarily using British authors to critique Viscount Alamein, not Americans.
So you're saying that American authors are biased?

I read Overlord some years ago. Don't remember forming the same opinions you have...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Given that you're criticizing the Americans for not fighting the bulk of the German Army in Normandy, I take it you know nothing of what Viscount Alamein planned to do with the offensive. You must not, because if you did you would not make these ridiculous and unsupported assertions.
Lashing-out with this ad-hominem really looks silly when you don't actually directly counter anything I said.
Got any examples of how my assertions are "ridiculous and unsupported"?
And please no convenient little links, I'd like your own writing this time.
Monty planned prior to the invasion to capture Caen on the first day. However at the end of the first day when it became obvious that Rommel had deployed most of Panzergruppe West's armour (and overall forces) in Caen he revised the battleplan. He issued the new directive on 7th of June where Caen would draw in the German forces while the Americans broke out to the west and began to outflank and encircle the concentrated Germans.
He is not the first and wont be the last commander forced to revise the plan due to enemy reaction or faulty intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Destroying tanks is not a measure of success.
Yahahahahahaha! Oh my god you're hilarious.
During the second world war, tanks were the chief strength of the German and Soviet armies. Both armies would go to extraordinary lengths to recover and recondition tanks that were lost or abandoned on the battlefield. Even each others types. Even obsolete types.
One tank in the right place let alone 4 could turn the tide of an engagement and even an entire battle. One tank was worth a considerable amount cost of dedicated resources and assembly and maintenance time.
Those 500+ tanks could've created endless headaches in ambushes and counter-attacks (possibly even a counter-offensive) for the allies had they not been destroyed by the British and AAF in the fighting around Caen. Their destruction was one of the biggest reasons why the Germans abandoned Paris and almost fled France to German and Dutch borders.

After-all, it was destroying the 8th Army's armour that really puts Rommel's victory at Gazala amongst the greats.

The fact is that while Monty annoyed the other allied commanders with his abrasive excuses for not meeting objectives, he took-on and tied down a superior German force for the Americans to outflank and encircle. I'm sure Manstein quietly admired that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
For someone who whines about ad hominem, you sure love doing it.
Yes you're right I love getting ad-hominem. Not sure why you think I'm "whining", I could get to you all day (until the admins tell me to stop). So you made a big mistake getting ad-hominem and speculating on me being Australian and making an issue of it.
I promise I'll spare your hurt feelings if you apologise and stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Accusing someone of being insecure and biased
Truth hurts doesn't it?
I'm sure I'm not the only one who detects a strong undertone of self-gratification when you tell the British their army got "shellacked" across north Africa. It's like "I'm telling these Brits what's what"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
while making unsupported assertions supported by no British histories of the war is well
Or British histories that you can interpret to your liking...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
it's not actually a matter of insecurity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
it's confusion and a great deal of amusement in the ignorant criticizing the knowledgeable over hijacking British histories of the war which no reputable scholar would assert.
Out of interest; are you actually a reputable scholar?
Because on the good chance you're not, do you really think it's good to speak on their behalf?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
You do understand the English language sufficiently to know why I'm arguing such a near-run defeat should have by all circumstances been a British victory, right?
"needless" defeat at Crete. I bet you thought that one up some time ago and have used it ever since thinking you sound clever...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Nah, you just want to insult the other person and illustrate that you can't discuss the war based on anything backed by substance. You're as bad with this as the guy advocating the Frisian Option.
Well you started the insults and personal angle. I'm happy to just beat you with the facts.

Once again; in the actual engagements of the battle of Crete, the Germans enjoyed local superiority in numbers. And all of the tangents you try can't change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
See my sources above. All the Allies had to do to win the battle was interdict Maleme Airfield.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
To win the battle all Freyberg had to do was interdict Maleme airfield. If he does this, the British win. He did not do this, and the British lost. If you want to attribute this to anything but incompetence and poor command decisions, well......
Oh yes it was all that easy wasn't it? Yes one glaringly obvious thing that a career military officer and veteran of 5 years of combat (and VC winner) somehow overlooks.
Can you give the map coordinates of this master plan of yours (or *cough" A. Beevors ) and what battallions Freyberg should've used for this "interdiction" of yours?I mean you know better and know that those Kiwis (whom if you'd ever met one you'd know are some of the toughest nuts and best soldiers on earth and whom typically would eat a GI for breakfast) didn't fail for a good reason? Having to attack whilst being continually bombed and strafed by the Luftwaffe (something no American ever had to worry about), to me is pretty incredible that they almost pulled it off anyway.

Freyberg knew what to do and his plan was sound. He was let down by some bad luck stemming from poor communications. And yet he almost won it back.

Now have you got anything to say about the actual opposing strengths or are you going to hand me another point by trying tangents?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
I'm sure someone incapable of arguing based on the actual British history of the war doesn't see a lot of things.
Yeah that's why you think the US army were better than the British Army (buahaahahahahaa)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
I'm sure if you've only read the Daily Mail version you might have read that. What I've read with Keegan and Beevor's takes indicates that the Germans were within a whisker of defeat salvaged by idiotic British generalship, not anything that they did.
Um yah that's nice.

So what has Beevor's book and his synopsis (as alleged by you) got to do with my point that (contrary to your claim) it looks as though the British defenders did "try hard" and inflicted heavy casualties on the German paratroopers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
The Huertgen Forest battle was not a German victory by any stretch of the term.
*splutter*
Are you for real?!
So the US Army fails to make any advance let alone meet any objectives. The Germans meet all of their objectives and inflict heavy casualties against veteran US Soldiers.
The US army thinks it was a German victory. For the first (and p[ossibly last) time ever; I'd sincerely like to hear what your alternative take on this was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Market-Garden was certainly a nice illustration of why the British couldn't be trusted with mobile operations.
Going -off topic again I see. And yet you'd try and have us believe this isn't some petty, insecure personal weeing contest against the British from you.

For the record; I would think the British command of mobile operations (which included commanding some US divisions) did well rather during that battle considering they were up against superior opposition. Sure the airborne assault failed, but being dropped in top of a previously undetected refitting SS Panzer Corps was a pretty impossible task. Aside from the strong and admirable stand the Allied airborne forces put up, I think the drive into Holland gained a good solid foothold and managed well to thwart German counter-attacks. A good base to support the Scheldt and a good springboard for Operation Aintree.

Certainly a better performance in mobile operations and combined-arms operations than Operation Queen (waaaahahahahahaa)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Which scholars? The writers of the Daily Mail?
What's "the daily mail" is it one of those tabloid newspapers like the national enquirer?

Anyway; what I sated was recorded fact. The unit being relieved was 22nd NZ battalion commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Leslie Andrew (VC) and the luckless NZ general who suffered the communication was Brigadier James Hargest. Nothing to do with Freyberg. Feel free to try and refute this recorded history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
I've answered it repeatedly. Interdict Maleme and the battle is won.
LOL actually you only started with this vague "interdiction" nonsense with this reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
You don't understand anything about the Battle of Aachen or how it unfolded to argue that the US Army there was getting slapped around.
LOL I don't think I need to try hard to understand a slapping-around of the US army. And against a bunch of teenagers and unfit thirty-somethings. Aren't you ashamed?
No USMC to help them along like in Guadalcanal. No Australian army like in New Guinea. No British army like in Italy and Normandy. The weakest major army of the war struggles on its own two feet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Try reading histories of the war, not simply speaking with patriotic fervor.
When you give advice it should be from personal experience.
P.S. If I'm Australian like you seem to think then how would my demolishing of your biased afgaisnt the British army be from "patriotic fervour"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Italy did more in Spain than Germany did.
Well operationally the Italian army were also better than the US army. Poor organisation and leadership riddled with incompetent fascists, but they could fight on the battlefield better than popular British and American history credit them for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
Guderian's claim to authorize modern combined-arms tactics is a Big Lie. The Blitzkrieg Myth is just that: a myth. Created in no small part with the deliberate complicity of one Basil Liddell Hart.
Sonds like you need to calm down there.
This is one of those rare occasions where you're actually correct. Blitzkrieg and Schwerpunkt weren't just the work of Guderian, they were the culmination of several theories from several military thinkers from Germany and the wider world.

But Guderian was the man in the OKH who made it the main doctrine of the Panzerwaffe and generals of the rebuilt German army.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
I'd love to see how you're arguing that US officers in the ETO are incompetent.
Oh you'd love to pick up a book and study US military history of the ETO? Well go ahead my friend be my guest...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
By what means are you then going to argue that Market-Garden and two US bridgeheads over the Rhine before Montgomery's slow and unnecessarily elaborate bridgheads were achieved.
LOL there you go going off-topic again.

It was a bit easier for the Americans to capture a bridge intact over the Rhine against weak opposition than for Monty to build them against experienced SS troops don't you think? I mean we all know Monty was a difficult man personally, but try and cut him some slack for sparing Americans from the harder German forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
I see no evidence here
*interrupting* I'm still waiting for your own words as how Rommel "shattered" the British lines at Gazala or anything resembling a plan of a British/NZ "interdiction" of Maleme airfield.
Oh and how the see-saw of the North African campaign was a "shellacking"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
only the usual argumentum ad hominem and the kind of nationalistic fervor that makes for completely unsupported generalizations.
LOL yeah... ...from you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
It's curious that in listing all US army commanders as incompetent that you neglected US army group command
How many poor or mediocre US commanders can I name?
Like any army, the US also had its good commanders like Omar Bradley and Abe Abrams and even dug-out Douggie. It's just that you're quick to harshly criticise British WW2 command that for all its shortcomings was still much better than US command (as recorded events prove).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
but then I can imagine that might happen if someone who knows very little about the war wants to argue with someone who knows rather more about it than all that.
*smirks*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Underlankers
You accuse me of being ignorant, biased, and mentally ill. I take it this must be what British people call civility.
So first I'm Australian, now you think I'm British?
I have to marvel at your lack of common-sense and social-skills that you're still making this a nationalist thing. Oh and your obliviousness to your own rudeness and abrasiveness. So funny...

Last edited by NelsonMuntz; September 21st, 2013 at 06:25 PM.
NelsonMuntz is offline  
Old September 21st, 2013, 07:07 PM   #109

Underlankers's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,114

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Oh dear you seem to lack a sense of chronology.
Coming from you that's quite rich.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
The Torch landings were after the 2nd battle of El Alamein, which is generally recognised as the victory that ruined Germany's North African campaign. Where Rommel's forces were defeated heavily enough to rendered incapable of further offensive action. At the time of Torch the 8th army had the initiative and were at the Libyan-Tunisian border looking at the Mareth line.
Torch rendered Second El Alamein a typically Montgomery useless, wanton waste of British life for the unnecessary reason of prestige. Torch guaranteed the battle no matter what happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Britain could've easily conducted the Torch landing by themselves
But would they have conducted it or would Montgomery have demanded and received all reinforcements instead?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
without US involvement, and America were given the task because 1) it was seen as a soft task for the Green US army to gain some experience from and 2) because Vichy French forces might not fight against invading Americans.
Many historians believe that the Torch landings may not have actually been necessary.
Which historians?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
The British army could've also invaded Sicily without any US involvement.Sadly for you that cheap, jingoistic statement does not salvage you inappropriately calling Dunkirk a "tactical reversal".
Could means very little. Actually it is one. If you're going to call a heroically managed evacuation anything but a tactical reversal, again, you don't understand what tactics is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Oh and it's wrong. Battles and wars are won by evacuations actually. Would've it been better for the US forces to not be evacuated from the Philippines in 1941 and wasted? Hmm?
US Forces as a whole were not evacuated, only MacArthur. That, unfortunately, was much more harmful for the US cause than helpful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Rather simple strategy Bubba, you withdraw and allow your attacking enemy to spread their forces and stretch their supply lines.Well that's hard to say, because the French weren't virtually abandoned by the high command in Paris and only told of Belgian capitulation as the Germans were attacking like the BEF were.
Always convenient to blame it on someone else. And typically British thinking. Sure, your armies fail but it's always someone else's fault.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Although Hannut and Gembloux gap were good performances from the French army, better than anything the US army could ever manage...If it wasn't for the British army coming to the rescue, the capitulation of US II Corps at Kassarine pass might well have had further reaching strategic effects.
Better than anything the US Army ever managed? I'm laughing right now because I see here that discussion with you is futile. Who conducted Operation Dragoon against the advice of whom? Which amphibious operation conducted by which army was the most perfect one of the entire war?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
And no I never said the British war was "going well" prior to 2nd El Alamein (I notice you seem to like putting words in other people's mouths), it's that on the account of one German victory (Gazala) you've generalised the entire British war effort as a "Shalecking".
The word is shellacking. If you can't spell it, at least copy-paste it from my posts. It's really distracting to be lectured by someone who can't spell a word and changes the misspelling in every single post. It wasn't just one German victory. Look at what Rommel did to all of the painfully won victories gained at the expense of the Italians in a single sweeping offensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Frankly I find that as absurd as if someone said the same thing of the Germans on the account of operation Crusader or 2nd El Alamein...LOL now you're making up fantasies about Montgomery. How sad. What parades where and what medals? C'mon name a location and a date.
HyperWar: US Army in WWII: Salerno to Cassino [Chapter 8]

I expect as usual you're going to rudely dismiss the source out of hand because you're impervious to any evidence provided as a counterargument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Salerno was almost a disaster because of terrible leadership and fighting of the US army. They actually landed two divisions with no prior artillery bombardment (!). Despite suffering from poor US logistic support; Monty managed to come and rescue those poor US troops. And that's the version accepted by historians.Ahahahaha um no sorry.
Which historians? You keep mentioning these phantom figments of your imagination without naming any of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
The first Cassino battle was US affair. The 36th Division was cut to pieces at the Rapido river while the German allowed the 38th to advance unsupported into the hills where they were almost cut-off and obliterated.
Then the British had to again come and rescue them, with them now being made responsible for the western side of the peninsular and foiling Clark's plans to enter Rome.
Not according to this:

General Lucas at Anzio

Again, see, I'm providing evidence to support my views. You provide bupkiss to support your incoherent insulting irrelevancies that display not even a rudimentary knowledge of any of the campaigns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
The 2nd and 3rd Cassino battles were almost victories despite Freyberg's mistake (endorsed by all US commanders) of bombing the Monastery. They actually managed to make it into the town on both occaisions and up the slopes, something the Americans could only dream of as they got shot to pieces.
Then there was the 4th Cassino which was the victory.
A victory won by Juin and Wladislaw Anders, because neither Leese nor Clark were able to break through. By no means see my statements as endorsing Mark Clark's leadership. I am, however, simply finding it extremely amusing that you're rationalizing away two egregious failures of Eighth Army's command under a wooden knockoff of Montgomery (i.e. Oliver Leese). It should be noted that as Operation Olive proved Alexander was no better able to battle the Germans in flatter terrain than he was in mountains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I'm not saying Cassino was a glorious chapter of the British army history, but I frankly can't see how you could argue that the British didn't do it far better than the Americans could.
Excuses excuses.
Claiming that getting into the town justifies two failures? Excuses, excuses. And typically double-standard against the US conduct of the war .

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Well none of the other Allied commanders (US ones included) thought Lucas has any valid reason to sit on his bottom and almost get pushed back into the sea.
There weren't very strong Axis forces at Anzio when Lucas first landed! And even when he did reinforce the defenders, it was only the Herman Goering Panzer division and mostly other Luftwaffe troops.Well they didn't rather doubt it, they even expected the attempted American encirclement that never came and later spoke of their surprise when it didn't.
General Lucas at Anzio

Actually other US generals *did* defend his behavior. Both Bradley and Collins considered his conduct justified in their memoirs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
And if Clark had managed to do what almost any other Army's commander British or German or Russian would've attempted, that would've saved thousands of lives and would've allowed the Allies almost a free run up to the Po valley. And who knows what wider positive effects that could've had? A total withdrawal of German forces from France into Germany after D-Day? No Ardennes offensive for Germany? A push into Yugoslavia? or Hungary? Or Austria and into the heart of the Reich?
The Twelve Battles of the Isonzo repeating themselves with WWII weaponry? Heartbreakingly moronic Churchillian delusions of crossing the Alps against more Germans occupying the high ground? I understand that you are incapable of seeing how the geographic contours of the Italian campaigns affected Alexander's army group. Attacking up the high ground against German troops also showed that Churchill's idea of what a soft underbelly involved was not based on a reasonable appreciation for geography or what he expected Allied troops to do. Note that Norway, Greece, Crete, North Africa, Salerno, and Anzio, as well as the Dodecanese campaigns all owed themselves to Mr. Churchill's military genius.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
But no, the US army were on the job...Ah yes that's nice.
Sadly what's really happened here is that you're factually wrong yet again and are trying any straw-man to salvage it. Too bad for you. Messe was the commander at the Mareth line, not Rommel. And Monty never said any such thing you've claimed.
Technically speaking the Italians were always in command in North Africa. Rommel nullified this by appealing to Berlin whenever convenient, but it was always the case. If you're unaware of this basic fact, you have no business commenting on North Africa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
And once again you're going off-topic, but now you're bringing it up (out of the blue), what commander wouldn't use an organised, timed set-piece against a fortified line? Nobody German that's for certain.Let's see these "British descriptions" shall we?
Technically speaking the Germans didn't use elaborate set-piece attacks against fortifications. They found ways to bypass them and leave them to rot in isolation. Failure to understand this is precisely why British armor kept getting reduced to smoking rubble by 88 mm guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
"On May 26th at 2:00 P.M. Rommel struck the northern portion of Ritchie's defensive line with the Italian XXI and X Corps south of Gazala. Rommel also feinted with his mobile units to draw off British strength. Moving at night Rommel then reversed his path. He flanked Bir Hacheim during the early morning hours on May 27th. Rommel had organized into a potent fist the German 15th and 21st Panzer Divisions and 90th Light Division and the Italian Trieste Motorized Division and Ariete Tank Division. Unfortunately for Rommel's armor, they suffered heavy losses when British tanks lit up the lightly armored German panzers. Although victorious regardless of the initially stiff British resistance Rommel's two panzer divisions shortly thereafter ran headlong into elements from the British 7th Armored Division. The British engaged the German panzers from dug in positions at long range, but the German superiority at the point of contact allowed them to destroy the British forces. The Germans than ran into the rest of the 7th Armored Division and fought this powerful British Division throughout the day and night.

After suffering heavy losses, Rommel was lucky to still have the Afrika Corps in one piece. Nevertheless, the British had committed their armor poorly yet again. Rommel thus gathered his forces and struck west, destroying the isolated Allied 150th Brigade and capturing 3,000 men, 90 tanks, and 100 guns. Rommel then defeated several convoluted and overly intricate British attacks that lasted well into June."


Well I'm not seeing anything in there about any British line being "shattered". If I didn't know any better, I'd say it backed my version of events.
That can happen when you partially quote a link.

On June 11th, Rommel resumed his principal attack.
Although absorbing a steady stream of reinforcements Ritchie again suffered defeat when Rommel skillfully deployed his anti-tank guns in conjunction with his armor and decimated the British tank brigades. By June 21st the British armies had begun streaming across the desert in retreat. This time there were no heroics in Tobruk, the British had left it lightly defended. Rommel's men quickly captured the port. British Commonwealth casualties had reached nearly 100,000 men, including 60,000 prisoners of war. Tobruk's loss and the concomitant defeat at Gazala stood among Britain's greatest defeats during the War.

So when someone disingenuously and falsely only quotes those parts of a source that fit their preconceived ideas, yes, things work marvelously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Or do you suffer problems with reading comprehension?*interrupring* No my point was to illustrate the absurdity of discounting the wider German tactical doctrines and solely attributing success to Rommel.Well then I suggest you get your memory tested (or actually do some research).
I have done some research. The allusion to The Blitzkrieg Myth was a sign to anyone who has done research on what was actually happening with German tactical development. Blitzkrieg, to put it crudely, is a postwar lie concocted by the Germans to reflect what was far more ad hoc development of methods during the war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Not only was the Soviet Union far too vast and lacking airfields for the Luftwaffe to be spread and meet the requirements of the Wehrmacht, but the Germans employed the 88mm all across the eastern front in anti-tank roles. The first T34 attack was defeated by 88mm guns, and Stalin's disastrous summer offensive of early 1942 and the German drive on Stalingrad soon afterwards heavily featured Luftwaffe 88mm gunners being deployed to destroy Soviet armour coordinated with Panzers and armoured cars. This subject has probably been written-about more than the desert war, although I understand being American it might have been overlooked and ignored where you're from.You haven't met me.
Actually I've read all of David Glantz's works, and those of Beevor. The greatest German armored victories of the war were boosted by Soviet tactics being very badly handled and of course by skillful use of Stukas, with the degree of their use reflecting the sheer catastrophe inflicted on the Red Air Force. In the summer of 1941, Brody, Smolensk, Kiev, Minsk, Viazma, Briansk, and the like were won not by the 88 mms, but by airplanes. Likewise, the first T-34s were defeated by running out of fuel and ammunition, not airplanes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Now back on topic...Well then you're greatly mistaken.
The basic tactics at squad level were identical across the German Wehrmacht. Certainly the local conditions created some amendments, but the overall applied methods were the same. And that extended to more senior command. While Rommel and the other German generals on the eastern front were all personally very different men, they applied very similar methods of war.
Then surely you can define these tactics? Because so far, other than poor attempts at psychoanalysis and repeatedly failing to show even a basic familiarity with the literature on the war I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I frankly don't imagine other top German generals doing much different to what Rommel did at Gazala and the cauldron had they been given his command. Poor generals like Paulus
What, precisely, was poor about Paulus's performance at Second Kharkov?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
yes, but not Guderian nor Manstein.
The von Manstein of Stoltsy and Wintergewitter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Could've fooled me...The US army suffered bigger a defeat than Kassarine pass at Hurtgen wood!
It's Kasserine Pass. You keep misspelling both Kasserine and Huertgen. My ability to take you seriously declines each time you display an inability to spell the names of the battles you claim to know so much about. It's not even that difficult to copy-paste the spellings. That you neglect the US Army's repulse in the opening days of the Bulge, which brought the largest surrender by US troops of the entire war says all you need to know about your complete ignorance of the war and what US writings state about it. Patton is a movie, not a historically accurate guide to anything about the US military experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Oh and at 1st Cassino...1st of all, you're once again assuming my nationality.
The fact you're making that an issue only proves that this is all about you feeling inferior over the US army's performance.
I could be from any country. For all you know, I could also be an American? hmm?
No, actually, it might just be that I'm guessing from your dishonest, double-standard ridden defense of the British that you're British. Actually for all I care you could be some Saudi writing things to troll people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Second of all, your argument is bunk because the US army was only committed once the tide of war had already turned against Germany.
The USA entered the war around the time of the Battle of Moscow, so yes, that's true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
So the US army was spared being exposed to overwhelming German forces. While the Red Army was fighting the meat grinder the US army only had the Italian rearguard to contend with. The only time the Germans attacked in Italy was counter-attacking those disorganised US beachheads.
True, and you'll see me in other threads arguing that the WAllies fought against third-string German forces for just that reason. Thing is that the British weren't fighting very many or the very best German troops, either.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
By the time the US army got to encounter German armour in 1944 the Germans were clearly losing the war anyway, with their ranks being filled by soldiers with fluff or whiskers growing on their chin. The US got the easier end of the Normandy breakout and even then US armour was easily outperformed by German armour and continued to be until the end of hostilities.
Yes and this is precisely according to Viscount Alamein's plan which unfolded in the big picture just as he predicted. That you seem unaware of this is surprising. That you have not used it to further bash the US military is revealing of why Wikipedia is a poor guide to the war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
The US suffered less defeats simply because it never bore the brunt of Germany's military. Oh, except for the tired 1944 Ardennes offensive where German fuel shortages saved them. Had the US also declared war in september 1939 and thus there been an AEF in France in 1940 they would've been more useless than the Dutch, and they would've done no better than the British in the other theatres. Very probably they would've fared far worse.LOL the only American weapons I'm aware of the British making much usage of was the Sherman tank and the Thompson SMG. And even then; the Sherman was only due to the superior Cromwell tank suffering production and development cuts in favour of strategic bombers.
I'm sure you're only aware of that much and would not accept any links that argued otherwise. The claim that the USA faced the Germans on the offensive only at the Ardennes is true, insofar as it goes, when one neglects Mortain. The US Army performed quite well on the defensive, and like all victorious armies neglected the very real flaws its war revealed about itself. This is, however, a thread about German military issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
The British also seemed to use them far more effectively than the Americans could, used a better gun too.Oh I suppose you think they should've just dug-in and let the Germans counter-attack like Lucas did at Anzio?
I don't know. I certainly can't see Montgomery doing anything different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
All quick to criticise when the US army were meanwhile afraid of approaching hedgerows. The fact is that the Germans concentrated most of their Panzer forces in France in and around Caen. By attacking them, Montgomery was tying them down and preventing them from moving westwards and driving the weaker Americans back into the sea. Oh and the German losses inflicted at Caen were also heavy. The gains may have been modest and the attacks may have lost coordination at times but it still was winning the battle for the Allies. And it was still a far stronger performance than the US army's usual blundering..."proudly argues"
Not really. The US Army, after all, managed to capture Cherbourg in a rather simple operation while the British kept falling all over themselves to push past Caen to Falaise. The British were very willing, as always, to fight to the last Canadian and the last Pole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I expected you to resort to questioning my credibility from the start, but I didn't think you'd keep flogging that horse this long. Would've thought that the pointlessness of repeating it would've dawned on you by now.
Play the ball, not the man. I'm sure posting those links made you feel self-assured. But I can't see anything in them that makes you calling Crete "needless" look any less silly.
As I predicted, you dismissed sources out of hand and reveal that discourse with someone dishonest and unwilling to accept anything that argues against preconceived ideas is futile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
So can you elaborate exactly what you think Freyberg should've done differently?
Send a great many troops to Maleme Airfield and interdict it. If he holds the field, the offensive fails. If he does not hold it, the offensive succeeds. If he concentrates everything for one mighty crack, the British win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
NO they didn't go to France to withdraw, they went to assist the French. As they were abandoned by the French command and found themselves overwhelmed, they successfully withdrew and evacuated and thwarted the Germans.
And yes the W force with only ~60,000 men was never intended to defeat the hundred of thousands of axis forces and was really only an assisting rearguard to help slow the Germans and evacuate the Greek forces.
So in other words they were sent in and failed at their strategic goals and met tactical defeats? Thank you for conceding the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Seems funny how you use examples of the British army being overwhelmed by superior numbers and firepower of Germans yet successfully managing to escape destruction to try and imply that they were operationally poor....If he actually said that (and it's not another reading comprehension failure from you) it's merely one man's opinion.
You could argue that America's Pyrrhic victory at Aachen should've been a defeat...LOL so now you're complimenting the British?Huh? What double standard?
Aachen was not a Pyrrhic victory. It was a straightforward victory in an urban battle. If you want a Pyrrhic victory from this era won by US arms, look no further than Metz, which was the product of what happened when the Patton legend had to work for a living.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I was naming the respectable military performance of the British army in 1940-1, not the shameful capitulation of the US army at Kasserine pass (where they enjoyed air superiority BTW).And the Germans also didn't suffer heavy casualties around Caen?
Did the landings at Salerno or Anzio or Omaha beach meet their objectives? Did the Germans or Soviets always meet their objectives?So you're saying that American authors are biased?
At Omaha? Yes, actually, they did. At Salerno and Anzio? No, but then the objectives were poorly devised in the first place, with Anzio yet another Churchillian disaster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I read Overlord some years ago. Don't remember forming the same opinions you have...Lashing-out with this ad-hominem really looks silly when you don't actually directly counter anything I said.
Got any examples of how my assertions are "ridiculous and unsupported"?
The allegations of the capitulation of the US II Corps, the USA never winning a single major battle, those two will do for starters. If you didn't, you didn't read Hastings' book very well. He is extremely scathing on Montgomery's conduct of Caen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
And please no convenient little links, I'd like your own writing this time.
Monty planned prior to the invasion to capture Caen on the first day. However at the end of the first day when it became obvious that Rommel had deployed most of Panzergruppe West's armour (and overall forces) in Caen he revised the battleplan. He issued the new directive on 7th of June where Caen would draw in the German forces while the Americans broke out to the west and began to outflank and encircle the concentrated Germans.
He didn't revise it all that far. The original plan was for the Anglo-Canadian landings at Gold, Juno, and Sword to tie down the bulk of German armor.....around Falaise. Insofar as he changed it, it reflected that the Canadians were incapable of fighting the mother country's battles for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
He is not the first and wont be the last commander forced to revise the plan due to enemy reaction or faulty intelligence.Yahahahahahaha! Oh my god you're hilarious.
I could say the same for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
During the second world war, tanks were the chief strength of the German and Soviet armies. Both armies would go to extraordinary lengths to recover and recondition tanks that were lost or abandoned on the battlefield. Even each others types. Even obsolete types.
One tank in the right place let alone 4 could turn the tide of an engagement and even an entire battle. One tank was worth a considerable amount cost of dedicated resources and assembly and maintenance time.
So what's your point? What you describe is more of a German approach than a Soviet approach as-is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Those 500+ tanks could've created endless headaches in ambushes and counter-attacks (possibly even a counter-offensive) for the allies had they not been destroyed by the British and AAF in the fighting around Caen. Their destruction was one of the biggest reasons why the Germans abandoned Paris and almost fled France to German and Dutch borders.
I think that the collapse of the German army group at Mortain and Falaise had more to do with it, with the escape from the Falaise Pocket reflecting badly on Bradley (for his revolving door orders which were overly bold and overly fearful) and Montgomery (for assigning the task to Canadians and Poles incapable of achieving it and displaying his usual will to waste Canadian lives).

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
The fact is that while Monty annoyed the other allied commanders with his abrasive excuses for not meeting objectives, he took-on and tied down a superior German force for the Americans to outflank and encircle.
Yes, that was his plan. You are seriously not aware of that, are you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I'm sure Manstein quietly admired that.Yes you're right I love getting ad-hominem. Not sure why you think I'm "whining", I could get to you all day (until the admins tell me to stop). So you made a big mistake getting ad-hominem and speculating on me being Australian and making an issue of it.
I'm fairly sure Manstein was thinking more about how to salvage his reputation by blackening Hitler's after the war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I promise I'll spare your hurt feelings if you apologise and stop. Truth hurts doesn't it?
I'm sure I'm not the only one who detects a strong undertone of self-gratification when you tell the British their army got "shellacked" across north Africa. It's like "I'm telling these Brits what's what"...Or British histories that you can interpret to your liking...Out of interest; are you actually a reputable scholar?
You at least managed to spell shellacked right in this part of the post. Actually, all this reveals about you is that in your very first posts to this community you're willing to insult others and have not a leg to stand on with anything you say out of it. I've encountered much more hurtful statements online, and you, actually, are more boring than anything else. It's not self-gratification, it's anger that the United States had to salvage the UK's mess at the expense of arming our own troops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Because on the good chance you're not, do you really think it's good to speak on their behalf? "needless" defeat at Crete. I bet you thought that one up some time ago and have used it ever since thinking you sound clever...Well you started the insults and personal angle. I'm happy to just beat you with the facts.
When you provide them I'll be sure to congratulate you on learning what facts are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Once again; in the actual engagements of the battle of Crete, the Germans enjoyed local superiority in numbers. And all of the tangents you try can't change that.
Yes, because Freyberg was slow on the uptake to realize the landing was all-airborne instead of amphibious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Oh yes it was all that easy wasn't it? Yes one glaringly obvious thing that a career military officer and veteran of 5 years of combat (and VC winner) somehow overlooks.
Given his performance at Second and Third Cassino, it's clear that Freyberg was no WW2 general, whatever else the Salamander was in WW1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Can you give the map coordinates of this master plan of yours (or *cough" A. Beevors ) and what battallions Freyberg should've used for this "interdiction" of yours?I mean you know better and know that those Kiwis (whom if you'd ever met one you'd know are some of the toughest nuts and best soldiers on earth and whom typically would eat a GI for breakfast) didn't fail for a good reason? Having to attack whilst being continually bombed and strafed by the Luftwaffe (something no American ever had to worry about), to me is pretty incredible that they almost pulled it off anyway.
Americans were smarter about air support than to put themselves in such situations in the first place. The air landing on the first day, as those links I provided you showed, was a horrendously mismanaged affair. Freyberg would have easily been able to move troops and mortars there. The USA managed to do this at Guadalcanal against the Japanese, who had advantages against them there no German troops ever had. Are you arguing that US Marines are superior troops to Kiwis?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Freyberg knew what to do and his plan was sound. He was let down by some bad luck stemming from poor communications. And yet he almost won it back.
Interesting. So Kiwi incompetence is bad luck but GIs were retards incapable of fighting anything? Talk about double-standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Now have you got anything to say about the actual opposing strengths or are you going to hand me another point by trying tangents?Yeah that's why you think the US army were better than the British Army (buahaahahahahaa)Um yah that's nice.
I have evidence to back up my assertions. What do you have for yours? Your say-so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
So what has Beevor's book and his synopsis (as alleged by you) got to do with my point that (contrary to your claim) it looks as though the British defenders did "try hard" and inflicted heavy casualties on the German paratroopers?*splutter*
Are you for real?!
Yes, that's why I call it a needless defeat. Once again, it was needless because the British should have won the battle and they lost it as a near-run thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
So the US Army fails to make any advance let alone meet any objectives. The Germans meet all of their objectives and inflict heavy casualties against veteran US Soldiers.
You must not have heard of Utah Beach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
The US army thinks it was a German victory. For the first (and p[ossibly last) time ever; I'd sincerely like to hear what your alternative take on this was.Going -off topic again I see. And yet you'd try and have us believe this isn't some petty, insecure personal weeing contest against the British from you.
http://www.history.army.mil/books/St...l-I-Part_1.pdf

I mean let's face it, it's obvious you don't take well to disagreement. The US Army refers to Kasserine Pass as a command failure and a partial German success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
For the record; I would think the British command of mobile operations (which included commanding some US divisions) did well rather during that battle considering they were up against superior opposition. Sure the airborne assault failed, but being dropped in top of a previously undetected refitting SS Panzer Corps was a pretty impossible task. Aside from the strong and admirable stand the Allied airborne forces put up, I think the drive into Holland gained a good solid foothold and managed well to thwart German counter-attacks. A good base to support the Scheldt and a good springboard for Operation Aintree.
A few more such victories and the Allies would lose the war.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Certainly a better performance in mobile operations and combined-arms operations than Operation Queen (waaaahahahahahaa)...What's "the daily mail" is it one of those tabloid newspapers like the national enquirer?
Based on what? Your imagination?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Anyway; what I sated was recorded fact. The unit being relieved was 22nd NZ battalion commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Leslie Andrew (VC) and the luckless NZ general who suffered the communication was Brigadier James Hargest. Nothing to do with Freyberg. Feel free to try and refute this recorded history.LOL actually you only started with this vague "interdiction" nonsense with this reply.LOL I don't think I need to try hard to understand a slapping-around of the US army. And against a bunch of teenagers and unfit thirty-somethings. Aren't you ashamed?
Recorded fact to whom? Your imagination? I have my sources. Where are yours?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
No USMC to help them along like in Guadalcanal. No Australian army like in New Guinea. No British army like in Italy and Normandy. The weakest major army of the war struggles on its own two feet.When you give advice it should be from personal experience.
And when that experience consists of defeat.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
P.S. If I'm Australian like you seem to think then how would my demolishing of your biased afgaisnt the British army be from "patriotic fervour"?Well operationally the Italian army were also better than the US army. Poor organisation and leadership riddled with incompetent fascists, but they could fight on the battlefield better than popular British and American history credit them for.Sonds like you need to calm down there.
You base this assertion on what? Italian_Commando's posts?


Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
This is one of those rare occasions where you're actually correct. Blitzkrieg and Schwerpunkt weren't just the work of Guderian, they were the culmination of several theories from several military thinkers from Germany and the wider world.
Blitzkrieg didn't exist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
But Guderian was the man in the OKH who made it the main doctrine of the Panzerwaffe and generals of the rebuilt German army.Oh you'd love to pick up a book and study US military history of the ETO? Well go ahead my friend be my guest...LOL there you go going off-topic again.
According to his memoirs, yes. If you trust a general's memoirs I'd like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. I actually I have studied it. I've provided links to US Military sources on the ETO, links you rudely dismiss because you don't want to accept anything that disagrees with you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
It was a bit easier for the Americans to capture a bridge intact over the Rhine against weak opposition than for Monty to build them against experienced SS troops don't you think?
That applies to the first US bridgehead, not the second. If 6th and 12th Army Groups could captured bridgeheads on the bounce, that indicates Monty's show was an unnecessary waste of time and resources typically Montgomery in concept and execution.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
I mean we all know Monty was a difficult man personally, but try and cut him some slack for sparing Americans from the harder German forces.*interrupting* I'm still waiting for your own words as how Rommel "shattered" the British lines at Gazala or anything resembling a plan of a British/NZ "interdiction" of Maleme airfield.
Oh and how the see-saw of the North African campaign was a "shellacking"...LOL yeah... ...from you...How many poor or mediocre US commanders can I name?
I can name several: Fredendall, MacArthur, Allen, Clark, Walker, McNair....

I have the honesty to admit that the USA made mistakes. So far I've never seen anything remotely approaching honesty from you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
Like any army, the US also had its good commanders like Omar Bradley and Abe Abrams and even dug-out Douggie. It's just that you're quick to harshly criticise British WW2 command that for all its shortcomings was still much better than US command (as recorded events prove).*smirks*So first I'm Australian, now you think I'm British?
I have to marvel at your lack of common-sense and social-skills that you're still making this a nationalist thing. Oh and your obliviousness to your own rudeness and abrasiveness. So funny...
MacArthur's your idea of a good general? The man who led one of the worst campaigns in US military history, displayed all the failings of 1950 repeatedly in WWII, and needed the Australians to do all his heavy lifting for him?
Underlankers is offline  
Old September 21st, 2013, 11:31 PM   #110
Citizen
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Sydney Australia
Posts: 13

LOL.

Hopefully when I hget some more spare time I can fulfill "Underlankers" desire for sources.

I was really hoping he'd explain how Hurtgen... ...sorry... ...Hürtgen wood wasn't a German victory ...
NelsonMuntz is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
highly, nazis, overrated


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Overrated? Komrade War and Military History 43 November 16th, 2013 01:01 PM
German officers who called Nazis Nazis crcook84 European History 11 March 17th, 2012 09:03 AM
Aztecs: Savages or a highly civilized society? jeroenrottgering American History 52 February 12th, 2012 07:11 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.