42RM
Banned
No, the difference is just that we listen and learn.
Napalm the bocage!
Is anybody familiar with what the people ,who are reading these posts ,are thinking about Sam,when he is wasting bandwidth by posting nonsense?
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
samneanderthal
Active member
If you drop Napalm on a hedgerow full of Germans, the people in a farmhouse are more likely to escape than those in the Hedgerow, which is the main criterion for acceptable collateral damage.
Things didn't happen in a split second with Monty. He had all the time, men and equipment to wipe out Rommel during el Alamein or after he didn't, to follow Tedder's suggestion to anihilate Rommel with the planes after el Alamein II and he had all the time in the world to request that 7,000 tons be dropped in a battle area that he knew had very poor access and would take him a long time to arrive.
He wasted thousands of British, Polish and Canadian lives because of poor planning and slow action. Just like the stupid American General in Anzio. Misplaced caution was often more costly than daring action.
Among a dozen books, the well known 1,000 ton per mile waste is mentioned by Olivier Wieviorka in his book, that was written in French but I have in spanish, Historia del desembarco de Normandia. I'm surprised that an expert like you doesn't know about it.
It is a great irony that the overly cautious Monty would launch operation MArket Garden, where thousands of paratroopers were dropped far away from allied armor and suffered tremendous losses.
“Don't be buffaloed by experts and elites. Experts often possess more data than judgment. Elites can become so inbred that they produce hemophiliacs who bleed to death as soon as they are nicked by the real world” Collin Powell.
Things didn't happen in a split second with Monty. He had all the time, men and equipment to wipe out Rommel during el Alamein or after he didn't, to follow Tedder's suggestion to anihilate Rommel with the planes after el Alamein II and he had all the time in the world to request that 7,000 tons be dropped in a battle area that he knew had very poor access and would take him a long time to arrive.
He wasted thousands of British, Polish and Canadian lives because of poor planning and slow action. Just like the stupid American General in Anzio. Misplaced caution was often more costly than daring action.
Among a dozen books, the well known 1,000 ton per mile waste is mentioned by Olivier Wieviorka in his book, that was written in French but I have in spanish, Historia del desembarco de Normandia. I'm surprised that an expert like you doesn't know about it.
It is a great irony that the overly cautious Monty would launch operation MArket Garden, where thousands of paratroopers were dropped far away from allied armor and suffered tremendous losses.
“Don't be buffaloed by experts and elites. Experts often possess more data than judgment. Elites can become so inbred that they produce hemophiliacs who bleed to death as soon as they are nicked by the real world” Collin Powell.
Last edited:
Seehund
Banned
Monty took a calculated risk that if it had paid off would have knocked a few months off the war and left the Russians in possession of rather less Eastern European territory than they eventually ended up with.
Isn't all war about taking calculated risks and riding a knife edge between success and failure?
Isn't all war about taking calculated risks and riding a knife edge between success and failure?
samneanderthal
Active member
The manner of calculating the risk is the problem. Monty with 450 tanks, etc, refused to finish off a battered Rommel with 50 tanks left at el Alamein out of calculation. He even refused to use the planes to finish him off. Out of calculation he also sent several thousand men in an area ripe with German armor (and much better than the one he faced in Africa). Those paratroopers didn't stand a chance in hell.
LeEnfield
Active member
Rommel may have had only 50 tanks left but those German 88 mm Guns were taking them out by the score. When Monty started the Battle at el Alemien he had nearly 1.200 tanks yet the German guns had knocked out half them in the first few days and there is no way a Sherman Tank could resist a hit from a 88 mm gun and if it was hit by any thing it was prone to burst into flames. The Desert Air force did chase Romel all across the desert, and what paratroopers are you talking about.
Last edited:
samneanderthal
Active member
It's really difficult to use 88 mm guns when you are on the run, the enemy rules the air and you have lost most of your cannon, men, ammunition, spares, etc,
Incredibly Rommel did make it all the way back to his base. So all the sacrifice in Malta and el Alamein was wasted, since the axis stayed in Libya and then Tunisia, until the Americans arrived.
I am talking about operation Market Garden. Where American and British paratroopers had to face tanks without the benefit of the 88 mm cannon that held Monty's tanks back after el Alamein.
Incredibly Rommel did make it all the way back to his base. So all the sacrifice in Malta and el Alamein was wasted, since the axis stayed in Libya and then Tunisia, until the Americans arrived.
I am talking about operation Market Garden. Where American and British paratroopers had to face tanks without the benefit of the 88 mm cannon that held Monty's tanks back after el Alamein.
As usual,Sam is making a fool of himself :his arrogant incompetence(or is it his incompetent arrogance?) is convincing him tat he is posting briliant things,while he only is proving his arrogant incompetence(or is it his incompetent arrogance ?)
3 blunders in ONE post :not bad .
1) until the Americans arrived : of course,Sam never heard of the first British Army of general Anderson .
2) the Axis stayed in Libya and then Tunesia ,until the Americans arrived (=operation Torch): of course,Sam is unaware,that the war in NA continued for 6 months after Torch (till may 1943)
3)MG :American and British paratroops facing German tanks :
a)as far as I know,the US para's at Eindhoven and Nijmegen did NOT face German tanks
b)as far as I know,the role of the German tanks at Arnhem was insignifiant,because the number of German tanks at Arnhem was insignifiant .
But, of course,all these things are trivial for some one who's arrogant incompetence (or is it incompetent arrogance)is convincing him of being a military genius :Sam the Great,the successor of Alexander the Great .
Seehund
Banned
Today, Operation Market Garden is commonly regarded as a misguided blunder that unnecessarily sent thousands of men to their deaths. Such views are made with the benefit of hindsight. In reality, given the conditions at the time, it was a perfectly reasonable operation to have attempted. It was a gamble whether or not it would succeed, but given the potential prize, it seemed worth the risk. Market Garden was designed to exploit the belief that the German armies were beaten and would collapse before a renewed Allied onslaught. If this assessment had proved to be true, then it is certainly possible that the war could have been over before the end of 1944, and the plan that brought it about would have been hailed as a piece of tactical genius on behalf of Field Marshal Montgomery. Instead, Market Garden proved to the Allies that the Germans were far from beaten. Not only were they still capable of organised resistance, but three months later they shocked the Allies again by launching a sudden offensive in the Ardennes.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Have you any idea at all how many aircraft it would take to drop 1,000 tons of bombs per mile, not only that the fuel required plus aircraft servicing? You really dont have a clue.
Unlike you, I don't claim to be an expert at anything. Listening to you prattle on one would get the idea that if you were in charge during WW2 the war would have been over in three weeks.
I like to read fiction now and again, but only in English. I can only read, speak and write English and cockney, but I can swear at you in French, German, Russian, Manderin and Malay.
I guess that includes experts like you.
samneanderthal
Active member
They dropped 7,000 tons of bombs and Monty advanced only 7 miles, hence Eisenhower's comment of 1,000 tons per mile not being a viable policy.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
No its not, as the picture below shows, the 88 did not have to be dismounted from its carriage to be fired. Again you are talking out of your arse.
Where were these so called 7000 tons of bombs dropped, who are "they", and what 7 miles are you talking about?
Last edited:
About Montgomery and MG:
1)The in Mexico living Montgomery haters are forgetting that MG was a joint US/Britain operation (2 of the 3 airborne divisions involved in MG, were US),and,that as such,Eisenhower was co responsible
2)The decision to "do" MG was defensible,and,more than defensible:
a)the gains of a successful MG were outweighing the losses of a failed MG :saving of British civilian losses from the VI/V2,no allied losses after october 1944 (no battle of the Hurgtenwald,no Ardennes fighting,)rescue of a lot of Jews
b)if there was no MG,the Montgomery haters would claim that he was to cautious,unwilling to take risks
3)there were ,of course,some mistakes in the planning of MG(in the airborne part,but also in the ground operations,btw:these always are forgotten)
4)the same in the execution of MG
5)till today,it is unproved that points 3 and 4 were responsible for the failure of MG and,that without these mistakes,MG would succeed,because,there was some one who was forming an obstacle to the success of MG :the German Army
6)about the myth that Montgomery was sending the paratroops in the midst of 2 crack (of course
) SS PzDivisions,at the start of MG,the 9 th SS Pd had 3500 men and 5 panzers /StuG, the 10 th SS PD had 6000 men and 20 Pz.
And,we all know that a part of the tanks only were operational .
1)The in Mexico living Montgomery haters are forgetting that MG was a joint US/Britain operation (2 of the 3 airborne divisions involved in MG, were US),and,that as such,Eisenhower was co responsible
2)The decision to "do" MG was defensible,and,more than defensible:
a)the gains of a successful MG were outweighing the losses of a failed MG :saving of British civilian losses from the VI/V2,no allied losses after october 1944 (no battle of the Hurgtenwald,no Ardennes fighting,)rescue of a lot of Jews
b)if there was no MG,the Montgomery haters would claim that he was to cautious,unwilling to take risks
3)there were ,of course,some mistakes in the planning of MG(in the airborne part,but also in the ground operations,btw:these always are forgotten)
4)the same in the execution of MG
5)till today,it is unproved that points 3 and 4 were responsible for the failure of MG and,that without these mistakes,MG would succeed,because,there was some one who was forming an obstacle to the success of MG :the German Army
6)about the myth that Montgomery was sending the paratroops in the midst of 2 crack (of course
) SS PzDivisions,at the start of MG,the 9 th SS Pd had 3500 men and 5 panzers /StuG, the 10 th SS PD had 6000 men and 20 Pz.And,we all know that a part of the tanks only were operational .
42RM
Banned
There is no doubt that Arnhem was a complete disaster but is was not in any way the responsibility of those that fought and died there. The defence of Arnhem Bridge is a prime example of glory in defeat. It was one of the most courageous and determined stands in the history of modern warfare. The conduct of those men is beyond praise.
Sam´s views are made with the benefit of hindsight. It was a gamble whether or not it would succeed, but given the potential prize, it seemed worth the risk.
Sam´s views are made with the benefit of hindsight. It was a gamble whether or not it would succeed, but given the potential prize, it seemed worth the risk.
LeEnfield
Active member
The one thing the allies did not do which both the Germans and Russians did very well was encircling the enemy then wiping them out, apart for the Falsie incident, Ike would only advance on broad front which gave the Germans plenty of room to set some form of defensives line.
That is vey superficial :as far as I know,the broad front advance was the only option possible,because an advance on a narrow front was excluded by logistics.
84RFK
Active member
If you want to incinerate Germans in a hedgerow, you have to hit the hedgerow first, and not in just one spot.
The possibility of creating more damage to the surrounding areas, infrastructure, crops, farms, buildings etc. wold be a deterrent, as the allies was actually focusing on liberating France, not bombing and burning the country into rubble.
Liberating...look it up in case you mistook it for something else.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Maybe but it does bring up a major flaw in Sams just pull your troops back and napalm the Germans option as one thing the Germans were very good at was counter attacking at every available opportunity and if they saw allied troops pulling back they would have pressed them every step of the way thus the gap between the two sides would have remained the same.
LeEnfield
Active member
Quote
That is vey superficial :as far as I know,the broad front advance was the only option possible,because an advance on a narrow front was excluded by logistics.
Are you saying that the Allies were the only country that logistical problems, there was only one major attempt to cut of the retreating German armies and that was at Falsie, and even that was half hearted. When ever the situation arose when this could have been it was vetoed by Ike. The only time German troops were surrounded and left was in the French Ports
That is vey superficial :as far as I know,the broad front advance was the only option possible,because an advance on a narrow front was excluded by logistics.
Are you saying that the Allies were the only country that logistical problems, there was only one major attempt to cut of the retreating German armies and that was at Falsie, and even that was half hearted. When ever the situation arose when this could have been it was vetoed by Ike. The only time German troops were surrounded and left was in the French Ports