Looking back it is very easy for you to say that the Weimar Republic set the stage and Hitler just following their plans, but to the average German at this they viewed the Weimar Republic as a total failure, then this man came along speaking of greatness for the German people once more and he played the race card, anti-semitism was present the world wide, which led to him taking over the government of Germany even after a failed coup. Hitler, in the eyes of the average German at this time, had rebuilt the military, economy and industry of Germany, it was Hitler who built the autobahn and it was Hitler who sent Germany troops into the Rhine, Austria, Czeckloslovakia, Polond and the Balkans, in the eyes of the average German Hitler had erased the shame that followed Versailles. This is what they saw.

Personally, I think you have read way too many books about this subject and need to "dumb it down" a little. Look at this from the perspective of the average German who did not have near the resources you do and you can see why Hitler was seen as such a great leader to the Germans. Germany may not have had the poortest economy in Europe during the 20's, but so much was going to France and Britain that they might as well have. Hitler made Germany arguably the most powerful nation in the world, however briefly, during his tenure as "Der Fuhrer."

According to Creveld, the casualty ratio was between 1.2-1.4:1 against the western Allies. This ratio has come under considerable fire by critics, but I am unsure of alternatives. Know any?

On a man for man basis the German ground soldier consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50% higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances. That is when they were attacking or defending, when they had a numerical superiority or when they were outnumbered when they had air superiority and not when they did not, when they won and when they lost. From a detailed analysis of WW2 by Trevor Dupoy (American Colonel) from Overlord, Max Hastings

(note : this applies to all battlefields not just Normandy)

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

(B) WWII American tactics and ground force weapons systems were poor. Think about the MG-42 or "Panther" or nearly all German equipment in relation to that of their American enemy.

It is easy to generalise about equipment.

Some American was of superior quality to the German weapons. The main infantry weapon is the rifle. The Americans had the garand, which is a semi-automatic rifle. The Germans had the the Kar98, which is bolt action. Comparing standard infantry soldier to soldier, one armed with the M1 garand had greater fire power.

The M1 carbine was a good weapon too.

The Browning Model 1919 machine gun (30cal) was an excellent weapon, as was the M2 machine gun (50cal). Both weapons had extensive service after WW2.

The BAR was a good weapon too rugged and reliable but with a small magazine.

M1911 pistol was another excellent weapon, used long after WW2. Its still used today.

I have to agree I would rather be in a Panther than in a Sherman.

Ollie, whilst I generally agree with your thesis regarding the poorer quality of allied field command and troops, compared with German this does not do some of them fair justice.

Second, the British army was totally routed in France (1940) yet historians sometimes celebrate Dunkirk like a victory.

Are you referring to the planned strategic withdrawal of the allies to lure the Germans across the channel and infiltrate the French behind the lines?

More seriously, whilst your statement may be generally true, perhaps it is somewhat misleading since the British and some strong French divisions were outflanked by more powerful German forces which attacked at weaker points in the French sector. In fact the British were ranked as highly competent in Defence by Hitler himself.

Third, the Americans (and this is important) could not encircle and destroy the remnants of OB West after the Germans desperately broke out of the Falaise pocket and retreated by foot in the direction of the German border.

I thought that Bradley agreed with Montgomery and Eisenhower that the Americans would stop at an agreed line, and leave the British, Canadians and Poles advancing from the North to plug the gap?

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

(1) the quality of German pilots deteriorated owing to losses against the bomber fleets and in Russia

This a case of poor German management compared to the western allies, as well as allied numbers. The Germans let their "experts" fly on, whilst being skilled pilots they flew on with some amassing huge scores, but inevitably becoming tired. I am sure battle stress played a part. There is still some debate about the size of German scores on the eastern front, due to over claiming, but they were certainly high.

Britain and America set tours of duty. Reducing the possibility of battle tiredness and helping those with experience pass on their knowledge.

Are you prepared for total war? That was what goebbels minister for propaganda asked the German people. The unaquivicle answer is no, this is where the problems lie with Germany's defeat not in one but two world wars. Modern wars are not just fought effectively by the professional warriors but by he who understands what industrialy and strategically must be done and in what time frame. It is also on a political level where alliances are made. And even if i do not agree on much of what you say of Britains performance in both these wars(Which i wholeheartedly do not agree with!) The one thing that all the books tell you about both wars are on a Strategic/political level Britain was without a doubt far ahead of most of the Allies,from the necessity of making sure it secured the most powerful nation in the worlds support,mobilising more of its population in support and fighting the war. And whats more to boot it helped defeat a nation that had been planning and preparing its country idealogically and militarillary for 20years. That it was able to endure to become the anvil of freedom and after only 4 years train an Army of citizen soldiers able to meet the german soldier,support the Russians and was the only Army of the war to fight it from the very beginning to the very end on all the continents of the world and yet amazingly turns out according to you lot was pretty crap! Well so be it. I just hope the next time there is a great tyrant that needs to be delt with that we're there, what iraq? no problems even though we're crap we're there!

Originally Posted by perseus

(1)"In fact the British were ranked as highly competent in Defence by Hitler himself".

(2) "I thought that Bradley agreed with Montgomery and Eisenhower that the Americans would stop at an agreed line, and leave the British, Canadians and Poles advancing from the North to plug the gap?"

Greetings,

The first point was of course the case. I speculate that most of the Wehrmacht establishment was truly thrilled and relieved by the events of 1940. Perseus, do you know of any works that touch on the subject of German "relief" in 1940?

The second point was made more in relation to the Falaise gap and less in regards to the breakout. Right from the start, we have the problem that the British and Canadians engaged the German armoured divisions owing to the open flat terrain around Caen. Anyway, the Canadians were ultimately in the horrible position of closing the Falaise gap. The British Second Army had the easier job of pushing the German pocket. From what I remember, a friend of mine harped on the fact that the Americans could have provided far more assistance. In any case, the decision to hold the advance was probably a catastrophic error. The complete destruction of OB West would obviously have shortened the war. And, plainly, I cannot understand how the Germans even stabilized the region for a few months.

after the Germans desperately broke out of the Falaise pocket

Yes, sorry Ollie I wasn’t reading your post properly, you are talking about Bradley’s wider envelopment at the Seine. According to this account he largely did accomplish this, or the bits which made it that far were destroyed by air attack. However I was always under the impression that significant numbers did get back to fight another day
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_17.htm
Regarding the non-close of the Falaise gap itself most accounts suggest that the allies were not capable of putting a strong enough force there to hold the Germans, 'better a strong shoulder than a broken neck' perhaps this tells a bigger story and betrays the true relative capabilities of the forces involved. i.e. the allies were frightened of cornering a wounded animal, and preferred to pound it from afar!

Originally Posted by perseus

However I was always under the impression that significant numbers did get back to fight another day

So was I. Blumenson points out that the "armored divisions managed to get the infinitesimal total of 1,300 men, 24 tanks, and 60 artillery pieces of varying caliber across the Seine." [Fifth Panzer Army Report, 1650, 28 Aug, in AGp B KTB] The quality of the source tells it all. Unless he misread it, the German armies mobilized against the Allies in Normandy were effectively destroyed. I however disagree [now only in a minor sense] with his assertion that "If any part of Bradley's decision might be considered a mistake, it is only that he halted the XV Corps before it took and secured Argentan, and this in retrospect seems far less momentous than it may have seemed at the time." In any case, my dismissal of logistical realities--I now remember the reason for the slower Allied advance--is grossly wrong.

Yeah I know it's

However, I just have to point out that those here who've criticised Eisenhower's tactical abilities are obviously unaware of his planning the Louisiana War Games of 1940 where his brilliance shown so clearly that General Marshall promoted him from Lt. Colonel to Brigadier General completely skipping "chicken" Colonel and made him director of all Army war plans. You don't do that unless you're very, very competent.

As for the topic, I think our biggest mistake overall was the same one the Brits, and the French made. We so wanted to avoid another devastating war like WWI that we allowed ourselves to be blinded to the growing threat until it was almost too late. I'll point out also to those who've critcised FDR for being President at the time that if there had been a Republican in office the isolationists would've had things much more their way. Who knows what the ramifications of that would've been?