SasGuru was right all along. Apologies

[EternalOptimist]

I am not taking the piss. The Axis forces in Normandy had one tremendous advantage that you have overlooked and that is the terrain.
The allies were hemmed in by Bocage on their right and centre, a city and a series of rivers and flooded ground on their left.
Germand first rate divisions in the campaign, in the order they arrived, 309 inf, 315 inf,
21 pz, 101 nebels,12 ss pz, pz Lehr, 10 pzgrn, 9 ss pz, 10 ss pz, 5 fall, 6 fall,1 ss pz, 2ss pz,

and they are just the ones I can remember. Each of those panzer divisions had a full strength panther battallion and a full strength pzIV battallion. I have not even included the army and army group assets which probably amount to a couple of dozen heavy tank and nebelwerfer battallions.

You seriously underestimate what happened here. The allies were right to take the gamble at Arnhem

[AtW]

I am not taking the piss. The Axis forces in Normandy had one tremendous advantage that you have overlooked and that is the terrain.

Yes, the terrain (all those hedges) were perfect for mobile tank deployment, NOT!

German tanks had excellent long range guns and superb optics - you need ~2 km visibility for best results.

Hedgerows is certainly not something good for tanks - they are good for infantry lead anti-tank defence though, STUGs did well too.

Also think about bridges - it is terrible feature of terrain as tanks can't be reliably deployed, also I think Axis could not use train system to deploy tanks near the front like they usually did in USSR.

You seriously underestimate what happened here. The allies were right to take the gamble at Arnhem

It was a big mistake not to detect large german unit there and also assume you can just break through german lines to save your paratroopers from destruction.

Germans learnt their lesson with paradrops in Crete, where they actually WON, but they lost so many that it precluded them from doing paradrops.

Come to think of it - would germans use paradrops in operation Sea lion? I don't think they even planned it.

[AtW]

Most people just don't get (on both sides - UK/USA and Russia), that the critical importance that UK/USA played in WW2 was not D-Day at all, and not even bombings of Germany in 42/43, it was the decision NOT to make deal with Hitler in 1940 after Dunkirk, now THAT took a lot of balls and it was THAT action (along side with successful defence in air war over Britain) that is actually critical.

Another aspect was lend lease from USA that supplier Soviet forces with trucks - otherwise it would not be possible for Soviet forces to support tanks that were pushing Axis out of USSR.

[EternalOptimist]

Yes, the terrain (all those hedges) were perfect for mobile tank deployment, NOT!

German tanks had excellent long range guns and superb optics - you need ~2 km visibility for best results.

Hedgerows is certainly not something good for tanks - they are good for infantry lead anti-tank defence though, STUGs did well too.

Also think about bridges - it is terrible feature of terrain as tanks can't be reliably deployed, also I think Axis could not use train system to deploy tanks near the front like they usually did in USSR.



It was a big mistake not to detect large german unit there and also assume you can just break through german lines to save your paratroopers from destruction.

Germans learnt their lesson with paradrops in Crete, where they actually WON, but they lost so many that it precluded them from doing paradrops.

Come to think of it - would germans use paradrops in operation Sea lion? I don't think they even planned it.

The allies did just break through the German lines though. They got held up by rivers and by counter attacks to the flanks.

The Germans had 5k fallshemjager(sp) casualties on crete, but the Italians had half a dozen troopships sunk by the RN. (My dad was on the HMS valiant)

The Germans treated Sea lion as a river crossing, it would have been a disaster. They had no concept, in their military doctrine, of a sea invasion, or of the difficulties.

[AtW]

The allies did just break through the German lines though. They got held up by rivers and by counter attacks to the flanks.

It's not breaking if you get held up: German army was very well experienced in mobile warfare, but in France 1944 it was infantry person who had command and also terrain was not good for tanks - Russia's plains were very good.

The Germans had 5k fallshemjager(sp) casualties on crete, but the Italians had half a dozen troopships sunk by the RN. (My dad was on the HMS valiant)

Those were massive casualties considering quality of people and number deployed, for Russians it would have been acceptable but not for Germans.

The Germans treated Sea lion as a river crossing, it would have been a disaster. They had no concept, in their military doctrine, of a sea invasion, or of the difficulties.

Well, no one really tried it in large scale before D-Day, from this point of view it was certainly very well planned invasion with some bad elements. It is not however the main contribution to war that the allies did - Hitler would have lost without it, essentially D-Day can be viewed as unnecessary loss of life from UK/USA point of view.

Though if it didn't happen then Stalin would have had whole of Western Europe under his thumb, which is precisely why D-Day did happen.

[EternalOptimist]

It's not breaking if you get held up: German army was very well experienced in mobile warfare, but in France 1944 it was infantry person who had command and also terrain was not good for tanks - Russia's plains were very good.



Those were massive casualties considering quality of people and number deployed, for Russians it would have been acceptable but not for Germans.



Well, no one really tried it in large scale before D-Day, from this point of view it was certainly very well planned invasion with some bad elements. It is not however the main contribution to war that the allies did - Hitler would have lost without it, essentially D-Day can be viewed as unnecessary loss of life from UK/USA point of view.

Though if it didn't happen then Stalin would have had whole of Western Europe under his thumb, which is precisely why D-Day did happen.

So, taking everything into account, the allied attempt at Arnhem was bold but justified risk. With a little more luck it might have worked.

[AtW]

So, taking everything into account, the allied attempt at Arnhem was bold but justified risk. With a little more luck it might have worked.

Nope, I think it was reckless gamble by a commander who wanted to get higher rank at the expense of lifes of his men.

Real objective of land invasion (D-Day) was to ensure that Stalin won't control whole of europe when the war is over - this means that allied ground forces should have been more concerned about maintaining their military capability rather than bleeding to death like Stalin no doubt wanted to see.

Essentially high allied losses on the ground contributed to the fact that Stalin/USSR kept bigger part of Europe for longer, from this point of view D-Day was a complete strategic failure.

You probably read it here first...

HTH

[EternalOptimist]

Nope, I think it was reckless gamble by a commander who wanted to get higher rank at the expense of lifes of his men.

Real objective of land invasion (D-Day) was to ensure that Stalin won't control whole of europe when the war is over - this means that allied ground forces should have been more concerned about maintaining their military capability rather than bleeding to death like Stalin no doubt wanted to see.

Essentially high allied losses on the ground contributed to the fact that Stalin/USSR kept bigger part of Europe for longer, from this point of view D-Day was a complete strategic failure.

You probably read it here first...

HTH

Higher than field Marshall eh ?

thats good. very good.

Beer and pepperami for me now.

[AtW]

Higher than field Marshall eh ?

Of course!

[sasguru]

D-Day was a complete strategic failure.

You probably read it here first...

HTH

You regret wasting your time now, eh, Eeeh Oh?