Historically incurrate ww2 series?

[WickedPenguin]

There were actually quite a few battle-hardened German troops in France at the time of D-Day (one of them being this guy). Many were on "light duty" after being in combat on the Eastern and other fronts. While their ranks were being refilled with "green" recruits, there were quite a few veterans amongst their units.

As with many battles on all the fronts, the two things the Germans did not have going for them were 1) numbers and 2) air superiority. The Allies could lose large numbers of men and material, but there would always be more to replace them. The Germans, by 1944, were already running short on both. Also, where the Allies could move freely without worrying about being attacked from the air, the Germans were under constant and massive bombardment.

One thing that needs to be considered, when you see large numbers of Germans surrendering, is that they had been battered for days and weeks with aerial bombing, land-based artillery, and naval cannon. They had seen Allied tanks flow off the beach by the dozens. There was little to no support coming from the rear. All of these factors led to a general demoralized state.

Even under these conditions, the Germans were able to stage several strong defenses. Look up information on Operation Goodwood. It was an operation planned by Montgomery in mid-July that was shut down fairly quickly, due to a mixture of planning errors and German action.

 

[Heldentod]

ah monty

he sucked in europe

 

[Jack]

LOL yeah if we want to talk about "overblown," man Monty was it.


He is upheld as such a great field commander by many, yet few bring up the fact that his most successful battle was against an exhausted enemy force, while his own forces had huge disparity in numbers, and much greater air and artillery assets. During the battle, undue casualties were absorbed by the Australians, such as the plan had been designed for a few key Commonwealth units (hmmm) to litterally clear a path through minefields and pre-ranged kill zones and then have the Brits proper follow-up. I am of coures speaking of 2nd Alamein.


Where else did he ever distinguish himself? Sicily? Normandy breakout? Holland?

No, no, and resoundingly no.

 

[DingBat]

LOL yeah if we want to talk about "overblown," man Monty was it.


He is upheld as such a great field commander by many, yet few bring up the fact that his most successful battle was against an exhausted enemy force, while his own forces had huge disparity in numbers, and much greater air and artillery assets. During the battle, undue casualties were absorbed by the Australians, such as the plan had been designed for a few key Commonwealth units (hmmm) to litterally clear a path through minefields and pre-ranged kill zones and then have the Brits proper follow-up. I am of coures speaking of 2nd Alamein.


Where else did he ever distinguish himself? Sicily? Normandy breakout? Holland?

No, no, and resoundingly no.

If you want to have a debate on Montgomery, I suggest a separate thread. He's no where near as bad as you make out.

I'll throw down an even heavier gauntlet: Montgomery was no where near as "overblown", as you say, as Rommel was.

If you're going to take credit away if the winner has an advantage in forces, a lot of generals are going to be reduced in stature, including Patton and most soviet generals.

 

[Zbojnik]

I have to agree with Dingbat. Though Rommel was a good General the propaganda has bolstered his image way over the top.

 

[DingBat]

I have to agree with Dingbat. Though Rommel was a good General the propaganda has bolstered his image way over the top.

Part of that was the doing of the British. I mean, when all of your army is fighting, and breaking even, with what amounts to basically a single german tank corps, you tend to explain it away by saying the enemy general is a genius.

 

[BuddyLee]

Part of that was the doing of the British. I mean, when all of your army is fighting, and breaking even, with what amounts to basically a single german tank corps, you tend to explain it away by saying the enemy general is a genius.

I would...

 

[Zbojnik]

Hey who wouldn't.

 

[Santini]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that for every 2 germans that died, 7 americans died, in that zone of operation
But then again, the storys told in the books are told by the survivors

 

[JudgeMental]

LOL yeah if we want to talk about "overblown," man Monty was it.


He is upheld as such a great field commander by many, yet few bring up the fact that his most successful battle was against an exhausted enemy force, while his own forces had huge disparity in numbers, and much greater air and artillery assets. During the battle, undue casualties were absorbed by the Australians, such as the plan had been designed for a few key Commonwealth units (hmmm) to litterally clear a path through minefields and pre-ranged kill zones and then have the Brits proper follow-up. I am of coures speaking of 2nd Alamein.


Where else did he ever distinguish himself? Sicily? Normandy breakout? Holland?

No, no, and resoundingly no.

Much as I hate to find myself agreeing with Jack LOL (see other posts for details) I broadly agree with him about Monty. One thing he has forgotten though is that by the time Monty locked horns with Rommel, not only did he have all the advantages previously stated, he was also getting 'real time' decrypts of enigma messages sent in that theatre of operations which by all accounts he freely used....For those who don't know about Enigma and Ultra, it meant that in essence he knew what Rommel was telling his sub commanders and what they were telling him. A bit of an advantage, playing poker and KNOWING what cards your opponent has in his hand
All the more ironic that when later in the war before operation 'Market Garden' he was warned via 'ultra' about the dangers of deploying his troops against panzer regiments beleived to be in the area , and he did it anyway. The rest, as they say, is history.

 

[K.Johansen]

Many of the Germans on the western front were untrained and underequipped conscripts, very young or very old. The 101st Airborne, in Band of Brothers, though, was an elite division, with possibly the best training that could be given to a light infantry unit.

I beg to differ, 12.SS was leaded by experienced 1.SS officers/NCO's. There were also Fallschirmjager in the west that had seen combat in multiple fronts. 2.SS was in France, which was a very reputable, experienced division seeing action on the eastern front.

 

[DingBat]

Much as I hate to find myself agreeing with Jack LOL (see other posts for details) I broadly agree with him about Monty. One thing he has forgotten though is that by the time Monty locked horns with Rommel, not only did he have all the advantages previously stated, he was also getting 'real time' decrypts of enigma messages sent in that theatre of operations which by all accounts he freely used....For those who don't know about Enigma and Ultra, it meant that in essence he knew what Rommel was telling his sub commanders and what they were telling him. A bit of an advantage, playing poker and KNOWING what cards your opponent has in his hand
All the more ironic that when later in the war before operation 'Market Garden' he was warned via 'ultra' about the dangers of deploying his troops against panzer regiments beleived to be in the area , and he did it anyway. The rest, as they say, is history.

I knew we would get to this eventually.

1. First of all, if we're going to detract points from a commander when he has advantages then we'd also have to detract points from a lot of other famous commanders, including Patton.

I'm not arguing Montgomery can be compared to Manstein, just that he isn't nearly as bad as many people make out. Not by a long shot.

2. As for Market Garden, the panzer divisions you refer to weren't "believed" to be in the area, they were known to be there.

XXX Corp was well aware of the existence of 9 and 10SS. They should have been, since these divisions had retreated in front of the corp ever since the Normandy breakout.

The impact of the SS Panzer Korp on MG tends to be overestimated. These divisions were in sad shape. IIRC, one division was little more than a headquarters cadre. The other could barely field a battalion sized kampgruppe's worth of combat troops. Of the tanks knocked out by 1st Airborne in Arnhem, barely any belonged to the SS panzer divisions.

The existence of the 1st Allied Airborne Army made MG, or something like it, inevitable. There was no way these troops would have been allowed to linger in England for much longer. Aircraft capacity limits demanded they be used in 21st AG's area. Ergo, MG was going to happen, no matter who was in command.

Despite Cornelius Ryan's book, MG was by no means doomed to defeat. The irony of the battle was that it wouldn't have mattered had the allies won since even then the germans were beginning to gather reserves for Wacht Am Rein. Even had the allies held Arnhem, the germans would simply have committed these reserves and the envisioned breakout into the Ruhr would not have been feasible.

 

[JudgeMental]

Nice reply Dingbat ,
My use of 'beleived' was inapropriate, for that I apologise. I meant known.My point remains though that he DID know what was there. I still feel that there was more to his decision to pursue MG than just military needs.
The use of ULTRA cannot be over estimated since its agreed that it shortened the war considerably, Therefore I am mystified as to why he used it extensively in the Desert campaign, and disregarded it when it suited him. It should be remembered that by the time of MG, ULTRA was far more reliable and more quickly decoded than earlier in the war, thanks to more reliable and more powerful decoding equipment (no I don't mean Colossus as that was used to decode geheimschreiber traffic)
Don't get me wrong Dingbat, Monty was a good commander, though not in my opinion great. Back when I first studied WW2 history I was a big Monty fan, its just that the more I read about him, his opponents and his ego, the more disappointed I became. Hope that makes my viewpoint clear mate.

 

[2ltben]

You have to remember that this series is about:

1. An elite unit.
2. An elite unit that had a great leader.
3. An elite unit that had a great reputation, even in an elite unit.
4. No one writes a book or makes a mini-series about a unit that got themselve shot to hell every battle they were in.

Easy was also the battalion's assault company.

 

[DingBat]

Nice reply Dingbat ,
My use of 'beleived' was inapropriate, for that I apologise. I meant known.My point remains though that he DID know what was there. I still feel that there was more to his decision to pursue MG than just military needs.
The use of ULTRA cannot be over estimated since its agreed that it shortened the war considerably, Therefore I am mystified as to why he used it extensively in the Desert campaign, and disregarded it when it suited him. It should be remembered that by the time of MG, ULTRA was far more reliable and more quickly decoded than earlier in the war, thanks to more reliable and more powerful decoding equipment (no I don't mean Colossus as that was used to decode geheimschreiber traffic)
Don't get me wrong Dingbat, Monty was a good commander, though not in my opinion great. Back when I first studied WW2 history I was a big Monty fan, its just that the more I read about him, his opponents and his ego, the more disappointed I became. Hope that makes my viewpoint clear mate.

As I said, he was no Manstein, who in my opinion is the overall best field commander of the war.

After reading extensively about MG, I believe the primary reason the operation went off was "political". The 1st Allied Airborne Army, consisting of the 101st, the 82nd, and 1st airborne divisions and the 1st Polish brigade had been cooling their heels in england since the breakout. That's over 50,000 men. 4 elite units. They had to be used.

The lack of air transport capabilities again meant that any use of 1AAB had to be in 21st army group area of operations. I'm sure it was strongly suggested to Montgomery that he make use of this unit. Any why not? The best thing about 1AAB, from Montgomery's point of view, was that they were supplied from england, not out of 21st AG.

What I find amusing is that most critics of Montgomery miss his REALLY big mistake. That was not having XXX corp clear the approaches to Antwerp. This was an error that cost our canadian troops dearly during the battle for the Scheldt.

 

[1.AR[GSC]=[ENIGMA]=]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that for every 2 germans that died, 7 americans died, in that zone of operation
But then again, the storys told in the books are told by the survivors

In here maybe?...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963869213/sr=8-1/qid=1151369103/ref=sr_1_1/002-3736671-7163255?ie=UTF8

 

[Lionel-RIchie]

I would say the series is pretty accurate, seeing as how it comes from a primary source: the veterans. Sure, they're not clerical/administrative battle reports, but we also see from the series that those aren't the be-all-end all accurate either

 

[Creutz]

You have to remember that this series is about:

4. No one writes a book or makes a mini-series about a unit that got themselve shot to hell every battle they were in.

I disagree, That would make a hell of a book.

 

[myzko]

I disagree, That would make a hell of a book.

but wouldent the main character switch all the time? seeing as how they die and are replaced

 

[Bolt]

Russians have a lot of such books. POW who got captured in the begining of war often wrote memoirs. But they are mostly about conditions of living in a deathcamp and german behavior, not the war itself. I've read about 3 such books, all of them have a chapter or two about the training, battle and that's it - then the author talks about the imprisonment.