 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
I think quick victory in Iraq shows the soundness of a war plan premised on bypassing pockets of resistance and going straight for the enemy's capital, using airpower to blast elite enemy formations in the way.
This is what Patton wanted to do in the Summer of '44. He wanted to bag the German army in a great sweep around Paris, and then drive straight for Berlin. With the army of the West captured, the Italian army pinned down, the armies of the East far away and tied down holding off the USSR, the Germans could not have stopped Patton.
Franks clearly has used and vindicated Patton's plan.
Too bad Montgomery torpedoed it.
Last edited by Ned on 14-04-2003 at 05:00
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alvaro
|
|
the land of the not so free
Apr 2003
time: 05:27
|
|
It all depends on how rotten the governing body of the country/how demoralized the army & population are.
Germany has long before the arrival of allied armies adapted the semi-closet approach of Hitler kaputt!. Same applied to Saddam's regime now.
The Wehrmacht coughed blood when fighting such pockets during Barbarosa, and that inspite of general collapse of the Red Army in the first 3 months.
All because of a motivated and inspired belief in saving the Rodina, in sacrifcing their lives for the motherland's freedom.
No such thoughts even crossed the minds of the Iraqi army's troops who surrendered to every westerner they saw, even reporters. The germans who resisted in the end did so not because they believed in the rightness of the cause - but because they feared the retribution of the Red Army for what was done to the USSR.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
Actually I think I would argue that Montgomery was right.
Once the Allies were securely ashore, victory was assured. So why pursue a risky strategy that could concievably result in disaster due to supply considerations?
Of course, it is then impossible to excuse Montgomery's ridiculous Market-Garden plan later in the year.......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Too bad Montgomery torpedoed it. |
Logistics torpedoed it, Ike couldn't get the GAS & AMMO
& FOOD to him in the interior of France for a highball into
Germany.
That's why the allies wanted ANTWERP, werp.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
I think quick victory in Iraq shows the soundness of a war plan premised on bypassing pockets of resistance and going straight for the enemy's capital, using airpower to blast elite enemy formations in the way.
This is what Patton wanted to do in the Summer of '44. He wanted to bag the German army in a great sweep around Paris, and then drive straight for Berlin. With the army of the West captured, the Italian army pinned down, the armies of the East far away and tied down holding off the USSR, the Germans could not have stopped Patton.
Franks clearly has used and vindicated Patton's plan.
Too bad Montgomery torpedoed it. |
IIRC, Montgomery also wanted a narrow front attack. It was Eisenhower who was against this idea.
What worked in 2003 cannot be compared to 1944 simply because any comparison between the German military of '44 and the Iraqi military is absurb. The German military at that time was a battle-hardened group of well-trained (for the most part) and well-led soldiers equipped with relatively comparable technology. The Iraqi army was a poorly trained, poorly led mob with outdated technology.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Actually, the relative quality of the German Army vs. the Iraqi Army has virtually nothing to do with this. The issue is speed of advance of the ground attack and the use of overwhelming airpower to blast through elite formations. The rapid advande is designed to prevent an organized resistance and to cut off bypassed troops that can be reduced by follow-on forces. Airpower kills any enemy that tries to dig in and block the advance. Airpower also disrupts resupply and redisposition, and prevents counterattacks on the flanks.
We saw all this in Frank's plan. It is the same plan as Patton's. |
If that's what you're talking about then it is not Patton's plan. Guderian was arguably the first to develop the concept of the Blitzkreig. The Russians copied the idea at Stalingrad and elsewhere. Montgomery used this strategy in North Africa.
Patton was simply following the crowd.
As well, the relative strength of the opponent is important. A well-led army can counter the blitz by cutting off the primary attack at its base, or by counterattacking into the enemy's line with a counter-blitz which is what the Israelis effectively did in 73.
The US strategy in Iraqi assumed the enemy would collapse without a fight. That assumption was slightly incorrect although it only caused a slight delay.
Eisenhower operated on the assumption that the German could and would put up a fight so saying the Iraqi war proves him wrong is unfair.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Airpower wasn't anywhere near as effective as it is today, at the mercy of weather conditions, frightfully inaccurate bombing technology, far more vulnerable to German AA... Frankly, the forces were far to equally matched for this to be possible and the Germans were far too adept at these tactics and their counters. We would have been offering too many vulnerabilities to an enemy who was all too able to capitalize.
...and yeah, supply was a problem even without a rapid advance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:27
|
|
Umm... first of all the great sweep was at Falaise and it was very successful: two entire armies wiped out and 10,000 germans killed. Airpower, of course, nowhere near as effective today was quite an important factor, as most German testimonies will atest too, dozens of tanks were destroyed during Typhoon strikes for example.
What escaped from the Falaise pocked were shattered remnants with little heavy equippment and posed no threat to the Allied armies until mid/late september when the front consolidated itself again, the Germans actually called it a "miracle".
I am not sure what you are referring to with this wide sweep around Paris, after Falaise the Germans were in full retreat, and the Allies marching at full speed, there was hardly no front whatsoever so it is difficult to imagine how a wide sweep could have bagged enough troops. Once Patton ran out of fuel it was worthless too, and by that time the Allies had bypassed Paris by much so it is wrong to say Montgomery killed the plan since the plan was dead already.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
Umm... first of all the great sweep was at Falaise and it was very successful: two entire armies wiped out and 10,000 germans killed. Airpower, of course, nowhere near as effective today was quite an important factor, as most German testimonies will atest too, dozens of tanks were destroyed during Typhoon strikes for example.
What escaped from the Falaise pocked were shattered remnants with little heavy equippment and posed no threat to the Allied armies until mid/late september when the front consolidated itself again, the Germans actually called it a "miracle".
I am not sure what you are referring to with this wide sweep around Paris, after Falaise the Germans were in full retreat, and the Allies marching at full speed, there was hardly no front whatsoever so it is difficult to imagine how a wide sweep could have bagged enough troops. Once Patton ran out of fuel it was worthless too, and by that time the Allies had bypassed Paris by much so it is wrong to say Montgomery killed the plan since the plan was dead already. |
Patton's plan was to sweep West and South of Paris then North to Holland to link up there with the Brits. This was a much greater sweep than was approved. I believe the problem was that de Gaul wanted to be the one to liberate Paris. Also Monty argued for a more conservative approach.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:27
|
|
I understant what you're getting at Ned, I think, basically I think the issue is not so much the sweep around Paris but rather the Patton vs Monty idea of an Allied offensive in mid September. These are my views.
Market-Garden was a sound plan, destroyed by faulty intelligence and bad luck. If the Brits had been able to get reliable intel about the 2 panzer divisions in the area they would not have launched the attack. As it was, it was a complete failure for that reason IMO.
Now, the Germans expected Patton to lead the Allied charge so perhaps they would have been better prepared down south. Anyway, there's no way to confirm this as it is all speculation.
As for the capital, that's another story whatsoever. The supply problem as during August/september, after that it was a hard slog through the winter under not so favorable terrain. The Rheinland campaign pitted the entire Allied armies against the Germans with very small advances, add to this the German counterattack and you can get the picture.
Eisenhower could have gotten to Berlin quickly after the Rhine crossings however I agree. However, he did have a point in not wanting to risk casualties as the demarcation line between east and west was already drawn during Yalta. So what if the Allies had advanced more and taken Berlin? It might not have made a difference.
BTW, the Allies actually did penetrate much farther to the east than the eventual "line", as far as Leipzig and Pilsen which were all well into the Soviet zone. In that sense Ike wasn't so much as being conservative but unwilling to risk casualties for nothing.
BTW, most allied generals and historians actually applauded the wide-front strategy post-war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
quote:
...given adequate supplies. |
This is the key phrase. We just didn't have them, remember our supply lines were strung out across the Atlantic entering Europe through what were, in the early stages, very limited port facilities. The great sweeping maneuvers previously practised by Germany and Russia were done in much different situations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Patton's plan was to sweep West and South of Paris then North to Holland to link up there with the Brits. This was a much greater sweep than was approved. I believe the problem was that de Gaul wanted to be the one to liberate Paris. Also Monty argued for a more conservative approach. |
Montgomery did not argue for a more conservative. He argued for the narrow front strategy.
You keep trying to blame Montgomery for the broad front approach when it was Eisenhower who wanted to take this approach.
The situation with Paris changed when the Resistance rose up and the Allies had to divert forces to support the fighters. Or are you suggesting it would have been better to let the Germans destroy the resistance?
Yes, the French wanted to be the first into Paris. The decision to let them arrive first had no effect on the war.
One thing that you haven't considered is that Patton was an extremely over-rated general. His army had only faced third-line troops. If he had charged into Germany, he would have gotten himself way over his head.
Of course, Patton would have blamed everyone else if that happened, just as he blamed Eisenhower, Bradley, Montgomery, and everyone else for their supposed failures and his unrealistic demands.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-04-2003 03:36
Attachment: 
|
