Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 24th, 2013, 05:25 AM   #181

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,672
Blog Entries: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefany View Post
There is a difference between an attack through the center, and a frontal assault...
Umm, no, there is not. It's exactly the same thing. Lee launched a frontal assault across open terrain towards heights controlled by Union infantry and studded with artillery. When the pitiful remnants of the assault divisions fled, the Union defenders actually chanted "Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!" It was literally Fredericksburg in reverse.
Viperlord is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 24th, 2013, 05:58 PM   #182

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,168

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synorbs View Post
Put yourself in Rommel's shoes. You've been promised over and over again that you'll get more and more supplies. You actually come to know that there are enough setting out from Southern Italy etc but they're being sunk by the RAF and the Navy. So then after more and more impressive victories, you being heralded as a hero in Germany you're sure that you'll finally be given some real attention by the jumped up Nazi's running the show because you know they love and need heroes. Also you probably supposed they can see that if we get kicked out of Africa all together we'll have almost no oil and Germany will have more than enough. After all it was the main reason Rommel lost, fuel and that's it. Nothing to do with Monty.
There was no oil in Germany, but there was in Romania. Germany got most, if not all, of its oil from the oil fields at Ploesti during the war. But having oil is of minor importance to El Alamein because of the geography.

Rommel had won all of his prior battles by going around an unprotected flank and surprising it. This is partially why the supply issue comes up so often. People think that had he more oil and bullets, he would have gotten through. There is one problem with that theory... at El Alamein, there was no open flank to hit. Monty's line was anchored by the Mediterranean in the north and a massive depression in the south. The only way Rommel could have won there would be to attack and somehow inflict more casualties on the British than they did on him...

To do that, Rommel needed German reinforcements to do the job. He needed men, tanks, and guns. And while some ammunition might go to him, NONE of that was in the offering for him... because at the same time, Hitler has committed Germany's last reserves on the Eastern Front to take Stalingrad and win the Baku oil fields for the Third Reich from the Soviet Union. Rommel may have been promised reinforcements, but there was no realistic way they were going to arrive until AFTER the Battle of Stalingrad is finished, and when that battle ends as a decisive Soviet victory... it's a moot point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synorbs View Post
Just doing the only things his inflexible mind knew best and he go so very lucky.
While luck plays a role in every general's career, the odds were stacked in Monty's favor. Thanks to enigma, he knew the general size of Rommel's forces and knew their condition. And knowing that he held a bottleneck that Rommel couldn't go around, he knew that so long as he had more men and more supplies (which the British generally did in Africa) it was unlikely that any additional support that Rommel received would do much to defeat Monty.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old June 24th, 2013, 05:59 PM   #183

spellbanisher's Avatar
Incorrigible Recluse
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: The Celestial Plain
Posts: 4,135
Blog Entries: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefany View Post
How about that American general who fought sided with the Union, Ambrose Burnside? Here is his offical strategy:

"We shall attack the enemy on the left and on the right. If all fails, we shall just attack them on the front."

Simply brilliant, huh?
How about that American general who fought sided with the Union, Ulysses Grant? Here is his offical strategy:

"We shall send wave after wave of our own men at the enemy until they run out of bullets. If all fails, we shall just send Canadians, eh."

Simply brilliant, huh?

Last edited by spellbanisher; June 24th, 2013 at 06:11 PM.
spellbanisher is offline  
Old June 24th, 2013, 06:31 PM   #184

botully's Avatar
With the Ball People
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Amelia, Virginia, USA
Posts: 3,309

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefany View Post
There is a difference between an attack through the center, and a frontal assault...
There can be, I suppose, but Lee did both: He made a frontal assault on the center.

I'm not sure, but I think this must make Burnside "awesome".
botully is offline  
Old June 24th, 2013, 06:50 PM   #185

Viperlord's Avatar
Scalawag
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: VA
Posts: 7,672
Blog Entries: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefany
Click the image to open in full size. How about that American general who fought sided with the Union, Ambrose Burnside? Here is his offical strategy:

"We shall attack the enemy on the left and on the right. If all fails, we shall just attack them on the front."
This fails even as a loose analogy for what Burnside did at Fredericksburg. Burnside's strategy was simply to make a simultaneous assault all along the front, and have Franklin break through on the Confederate right. He completely failed at actually enacting that plan, as hardly more than 10,000 of Franklin's approximately 50,000 Union soldiers went into action against Jackson's 30,000 on that flank. It is however, an almost precise description of what Lee tried at Gettysburg.
Viperlord is offline  
Old June 24th, 2013, 06:59 PM   #186

Spartacuss's Avatar
mmmmph! mmmMMMMmmph!!
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 7,575

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord View Post
This fails even as a loose analogy for what Burnside did at Fredericksburg. Burnside's strategy was simply to make a simultaneous assault all along the front, and have Franklin break through on the Confederate right. He completely failed at actually enacting that plan, as hardly more than 10,000 of Franklin's approximately 50,000 Union soldiers went into action against Jackson's 30,000 on that flank. It is however, an almost precise description of what Lee tried at Gettysburg.
And of course, Burnside has not gotten the benefit of efforts to saddle his subordinates for his failure that Lee has received.
Spartacuss is offline  
Old June 24th, 2013, 08:03 PM   #187

botully's Avatar
With the Ball People
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Amelia, Virginia, USA
Posts: 3,309

Well, poor Burnside wasn't Virtue Incarnate. He just had epic facial hair.
botully is offline  
Old June 24th, 2013, 08:08 PM   #188

Salah's Avatar
Baltimorean
¤ Blog of the Year ¤
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: Maryland
Posts: 23,286
Blog Entries: 182

Lee's subordinates weren't actively plotting his disgrace and downfall at Gettysburg, either. Ole Burn's most hateful enemies wore blue.
Salah is offline  
Old June 24th, 2013, 11:59 PM   #189
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 1,986
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by spellbanisher View Post
How about that American general who fought sided with the Union, Ulysses Grant? Here is his offical strategy:

"We shall send wave after wave of our own men at the enemy until they run out of bullets. If all fails, we shall just send Canadians, eh."

Simply brilliant, huh?
Since everyone here knows my opinion of Grant, I thought it would be a waste of forum space to include him in this thread, so I thought he would be included automatically...
Stefany is offline  
Old June 25th, 2013, 03:06 AM   #190
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: London
Posts: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
There was no oil in Germany, but there was in Romania. Germany got most, if not all, of its oil from the oil fields at Ploesti during the war. But having oil is of minor importance to El Alamein because of the geography.

Rommel had won all of his prior battles by going around an unprotected flank and surprising it. This is partially why the supply issue comes up so often. People think that had he more oil and bullets, he would have gotten through. There is one problem with that theory... at El Alamein, there was no open flank to hit. Monty's line was anchored by the Mediterranean in the north and a massive depression in the south. The only way Rommel could have won there would be to attack and somehow inflict more casualties on the British than they did on him...

To do that, Rommel needed German reinforcements to do the job. He needed men, tanks, and guns. And while some ammunition might go to him, NONE of that was in the offering for him... because at the same time, Hitler has committed Germany's last reserves on the Eastern Front to take Stalingrad and win the Baku oil fields for the Third Reich from the Soviet Union. Rommel may have been promised reinforcements, but there was no realistic way they were going to arrive until AFTER the Battle of Stalingrad is finished, and when that battle ends as a decisive Soviet victory... it's a moot point.



While luck plays a role in every general's career, the odds were stacked in Monty's favor. Thanks to enigma, he knew the general size of Rommel's forces and knew their condition. And knowing that he held a bottleneck that Rommel couldn't go around, he knew that so long as he had more men and more supplies (which the British generally did in Africa) it was unlikely that any additional support that Rommel received would do much to defeat Monty.
Agree in the end with most of what you say. The bottleneck + enigma meant that unless the german navy could swim theri unis around to our rear they couldn't go anywere. Or at least not in the way Rommel liked to. It wuold have been bloody charges again and again into the breach...then who knows. Planning all goes out the window, as does luck.

I was already more than aware of the oil situation in Germeny, hence them always having been leading proponents in synthetics. That is what they could have taken from us in oil rich north africa and beyond. But here i go again lol.

It's been fun talking it out with you old topics i have covered from a thousand other angles and in a hundred different situations, esp in material i've been made to publish "for the greater good." Thank you for playing your part so well. I might yet glean something from our small discussions.
Synorbs is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
general, worst



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the worst battle of your favorite General? DS1967 War and Military History 45 July 7th, 2013 03:59 AM
Best and worst Queen's in history henry7 Speculative History 28 July 2nd, 2012 06:20 PM
Best and/or Worst Last Words in History Tuatha De Danann General History 25 June 20th, 2011 09:54 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.