Was General Montgomery really overrated in WW2? - Page 12




 
--
 
February 8th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
If you can toss out our discussion about Montgomery in favor of Russia I can talk about Italy :P
February 8th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
"They also never faced the same level of quality"

Wrong. We were in Africa, Sicely, and Italy in 1942. We faced "quality" units then and defeated those too.
I'll give you that but I was referring to the general quality level of the German forces on the Western Front in 1944, which was of a poorer quality than German forces stationed on the Eastern Front. For a greater understanding the following article may prove interesting.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...s/default.aspx
February 8th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
No arguement there. I was just making sure you clarified that he he.

Noticed we're flying the same flags now. We ought agree more.
--
February 8th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
No arguement there. I was just making sure you clarified that he he.

Noticed we're flying the same flags now. We ought agree more.


Take a look at the article I linked if you haven't already. It deals with the claims and counter-claims about the quality of both the US and German forces in the Western European theatre in WW2. It's a long read but a very well researched and balanced document.

One telling statement is:

"Nonsensical as well, and for the same reasons, are Mansoor's comments about the "cream of the Wehrmacht" and the "average German infantry division." Anyone who has read the present work carefully will realize that the U.S. army did not encounter either the "cream of the Wehrmacht " or the "average German infantry division" in Western Europe in 1944-1945. Both the "cream" of the German army and its "average" divisions were buried in Russia, where the Red Army had been hard at work grinding them up for three years before a single American soldier set foot on European soil. It is, nevertheless, true that the Western Allies encountered formidable resistance from many German formations, which fought well and bravely almost to the end. "
February 9th, 2005  
Strongbow
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
No arguement there. I was just making sure you clarified that he he.

Noticed we're flying the same flags now. We ought agree more.


Take a look at the article I linked if you haven't already. It deals with the claims and counter-claims about the quality of both the US and German forces in the Western European theatre in WW2. It's a long read but a very well researched and balanced document.

One telling statement is:

"Nonsensical as well, and for the same reasons, are Mansoor's comments about the "cream of the Wehrmacht" and the "average German infantry division." Anyone who has read the present work carefully will realize that the U.S. army did not encounter either the "cream of the Wehrmacht " or the "average German infantry division" in Western Europe in 1944-1945. Both the "cream" of the German army and its "average" divisions were buried in Russia, where the Red Army had been hard at work grinding them up for three years before a single American soldier set foot on European soil. It is, nevertheless, true that the Western Allies encountered formidable resistance from many German formations, which fought well and bravely almost to the end. "
I really enjoy reading your posts Sir! You have an excellent understanding of the German forces. Thanks for the great article.

The Western Allies were very fortunate to not have face the full weight of the German forces of 41/42 calibre in 1944.

Godofthunder, we have a lot to thank the Russians for. Sure, Lend Lease was a big help to them.

I read somewhere that Monty's force at Al Alamein faced an enemy force of only about 10% German. They had also cracked the enemy codes so Monty always new what the enemy plans were.

In Italy, Kesselring and his German divisions were good but the Allies had overwhelming firepower. They still had great difficulting in overcoming the Germans. That why they called it "Tough old Gut".
Charge-7, we didn't beat them that easily.
February 9th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow
Godofthunder, we have a lot to thank the Russians for. Sure, Lend Lease was a big help to them.
Wouldn't it be great if both countries could finally mutually say a big "Thank you for saving our sorry asses!" to each other?? Seriously, the USA+UK and the former USSR have both been rather chilldish by not bothering to express any gratitude. USA and UK tend to downplay the importance of the USSR's role in victory. They never bother to say or imply, "Thank you Russia for saving us from Germany. You stopped them where nobody else could." Russia never bothers to say, "Hey thanks for all the free stuff and thanks for helping out."
February 9th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
No arguement there. I was just making sure you clarified that he he.

Noticed we're flying the same flags now. We ought agree more.


Take a look at the article I linked if you haven't already. It deals with the claims and counter-claims about the quality of both the US and German forces in the Western European theatre in WW2. It's a long read but a very well researched and balanced document.

One telling statement is:

"Nonsensical as well, and for the same reasons, are Mansoor's comments about the "cream of the Wehrmacht" and the "average German infantry division." Anyone who has read the present work carefully will realize that the U.S. army did not encounter either the "cream of the Wehrmacht " or the "average German infantry division" in Western Europe in 1944-1945. Both the "cream" of the German army and its "average" divisions were buried in Russia, where the Red Army had been hard at work grinding them up for three years before a single American soldier set foot on European soil. It is, nevertheless, true that the Western Allies encountered formidable resistance from many German formations, which fought well and bravely almost to the end. "
I really enjoy reading your posts Sir! You have an excellent understanding of the German forces. Thanks for the great article.

The Western Allies were very fortunate to not have face the full weight of the German forces of 41/42 calibre in 1944.

Godofthunder, we have a lot to thank the Russians for. Sure, Lend Lease was a big help to them.

I read somewhere that Monty's force at Al Alamein faced an enemy force of only about 10% German. They had also cracked the enemy codes so Monty always new what the enemy plans were.

In Italy, Kesselring and his German divisions were good but the Allies had overwhelming firepower. They still had great difficulting in overcoming the Germans. That why they called it "Tough old Gut".
Charge-7, we didn't beat them that easily.
Cheers For me there's a little too much bias towards the Western Front and how D-Day won the war etc etc. Nothing could be further from the truth and it's important to see things for what they were. The US and UK Armies faced a gutted Wehrmacht that had little or no mobility, very poor combat replacements, very little air support or cover and wholly inadequate logistics. The Allied Armies did their job but on the face of it, should have probably done it a little better given the state of the enemy that they faced, a shadow of the army that marched into the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941.
February 9th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
"In Italy, Kesselring and his German divisions were good but the Allies had overwhelming firepower. They still had great difficulting in overcoming the Germans. That why they called it "Tough old Gut".
Charge-7, we didn't beat them that easily."

That was exactly my point. I was disputing the idea that we never had faced serious German opposition from quality troops. My case was that we had indeed - in 1942 - and that we defeated these also. So we were capable of defeating either the best or the lesser quality troops. It was never my statement that it was done _easily_ in Italy.

What really told the difference wasn't even so much our skill in battle or the British skill in battle or the Russian skill or even the German skill. What told the difference was that Germany could not match the industrial might of the allies as a whole. The majority of which was borne by the Americans although the Soviets certainly did a great deal in that regards. The fact is that the Soviets as well as the British were dependant on Lend Lease while America was dependant on British intelligence work and Russian men at arms. The fact these were the main contribution for each of the Allies in no way lessens the value of the other contributions they made. American manpower and intelligence were essential, British industry and manpower were essential, and Russian industry and intelligence were essential. All three nations' contributions were essential to defeating the Third Reich and it is this truth more than any other that calibrates the power of the Wehrmacht.
February 10th, 2005  
Strongbow
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
"In Italy, Kesselring and his German divisions were good but the Allies had overwhelming firepower. They still had great difficulting in overcoming the Germans. That why they called it "Tough old Gut".
Charge-7, we didn't beat them that easily."

That was exactly my point. I was disputing the idea that we never had faced serious German opposition from quality troops. My case was that we had indeed - in 1942 - and that we defeated these also. So we were capable of defeating either the best or the lesser quality troops. It was never my statement that it was done _easily_ in Italy.

What really told the difference wasn't even so much our skill in battle or the British skill in battle or the Russian skill or even the German skill. What told the difference was that Germany could not match the industrial might of the allies as a whole. The majority of which was borne by the Americans although the Soviets certainly did a great deal in that regards. The fact is that the Soviets as well as the British were dependant on Lend Lease while America was dependant on British intelligence work and Russian men at arms. The fact these were the main contribution for each of the Allies in no way lessens the value of the other contributions they made. American manpower and intelligence were essential, British industry and manpower were essential, and Russian industry and intelligence were essential. All three nations' contributions were essential to defeating the Third Reich and it is this truth more than any other that calibrates the power of the Wehrmacht.
1942.......an interesting year.

How often did we beat quality German units in 1942 when it was reasonably even and the Western Allies demonstrated superior skill over the Germans?

Axis forces in Africa were made up of about 10% German around the time of Al Alamein. Rommel had been ill.
February 10th, 2005  
redcoat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow
Axis forces in Africa were made up of about 10% German around the time of Al Alamein.
Nonsense.
The Axis forces at El Alamein consisted of 200 German and 300 Italian tanks, and 53,000 German and 55,000 Italian troops.