Originally Posted by samneanderthal

Among a dozen books, the well known 1,000 ton per mile

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.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

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.

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.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

“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.

I guess that includes experts like you.

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.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

It's really difficult to use 88 mm guns when you are on the run,

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.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

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.

Where were these so called 7000 tons of bombs dropped, who are "they", and what 7 miles are you talking about?

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 .

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.

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.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

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.

Originally Posted by samneanderthal

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.

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.

Originally Posted by lljadw

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.

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.

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