Napalm the bocage! - Page 6




 
--
 
December 19th, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
Barnes Wallis stated that Nelson used it at Trafalgar against the French and Spanish ships.

I wouldn't be surprised if neanderthal says Nelson lost at Trafalgar, was a useless commander and Barnes Wallis copied the bouncing bomb from someone else.
December 19th, 2011  
lljadw
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
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
At the end of november 1944,incomplete German loss figures on the western front since 6 june 1944 were :516000 men,of which 398000 MIA (most of them being POW)
Source :WWII Stats .
2 Sources on the broad front/narrow front discussion
on Armchair General :Broad front versus narrow thrust strategy
Logistics and the Broad front (by Ruppenthal )
December 19th, 2011  
LeEnfield
 
 
Yet they found another 400.000 men to fight in the Battle of the Bulge
--
December 19th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
The Turks used it to blockade Constantinople, sinking a Venetian ship with a cannon from a fortification. However, skipping implies retaining a high velocity and a low trajectory, otherwise it is rather bouncing. A P-47 flying a few feet above the treetops is much more likely to smash the container against the trees that to make it bounce over them.
December 19th, 2011  
42RM
 
December 19th, 2011  
Del Boy
 
Say one for me.
December 19th, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
lol, this bloke is a right plonker lol

Can you guess who?
December 19th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
Sorry, you are right, Monty was indeed a brilliant commander, in 1942 in el Alamein II, soon after Rommel had been trounced in el Alamein I (but not finished off, by the likewise brilliant Auchinleck) he used over 100,000 Anzacs, Indians, Frenchmen, etc, fighting with incredible amounts of American fuel, tanks, planes, cannon and ammunition and in heavily mined and long prepared defenses just to stop Rommel (who was over 1,000 miles away from his ports), short of fuel, water, ammunition, tanks (using many tanks captured from the British), planes and men and could not finish him off, just because Rommel had a few 88 mm cannon (which the German had been using very efficiently for antitank purposes since 1939, but the brilliant Brits couldn't imitate 3 years into the war).

Monty also shone in Sicily, where he allowed hundreds of thousands of Italian and German troops to escape dragging his feet.

Monty also shone in Libya, Tunisia, Caen, Falaise, Market Garden and Germany.
Long live Monty. But please do not compare him with Nelson, who had 10 times more guts and brains and 10 times less ego, was out numbered and in an era when the British fought their battles and made their ships and cannon.
December 19th, 2011  
BritinBritain
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Sorry, you are right, Monty was indeed a brilliant commander, in 1942 in el Alamein II, soon after Rommel had been trounced in el Alamein I (but not finished off, by the likewise brilliant Auchinleck) he used over 100,000 Anzacs, Indians, Frenchmen, etc, fighting with incredible amounts of American fuel, tanks, planes, cannon and ammunition and in heavily mined and long prepared defenses just to stop Rommel (who was over 1,000 miles away from his ports), short of fuel, water, ammunition, tanks (using many tanks captured from the British), planes and men and could not finish him off, just because Rommel had a few 88 mm cannon (which the German had been using very efficiently for antitank purposes since 1939, but the brilliant Brits couldn't imitate 3 years into the war).
Well you don't beat an enemy by being on equal terms numbnut. As for an anti tank gun, Britain had a brilliant anti tank gun in the 3.7

Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Monty also shone in Sicily, where he allowed hundreds of thousands of Italian and German troops to escape dragging his feet.
Yes he did shine in Sicily, but as far as I am aware, it was a British/US operation, so what you are saying the Americans were not at fault for allowing Germans and Italians to escape, but the British were?

Quote:
Originally Posted by samneanderthal
Monty also shone in Falaise and in Market Garden.
Long live Monty. But please do not compare him with Nelson, who had 10 times more guts and brains and 10 times less ego, was out numbered and in an era when the British fought their battles and made their ships and cannon.
You need to remember it was Bradley who wanted the Germans to escape from the Falaise pocket, Monty was tied up with German special forces and para's. As far as Market Garden, we are all aware after the event, Monty saw a chance to shorten the war and he took it. Unfortunately it didn't pay off.

Monty never sat in an armchair criticising others, he went to war and saw the horrors of WW1, he changed a lot that was wrong with the British Army in WW1.

Monty was more of a man then you will ever be, to be honest you and people like you are not fit to lick his feet, let alone criticise.

As I keep telling you, why don't you come right out with it and say you are anti-British. Are you that much of a coward?
December 19th, 2011  
samneanderthal
 
Yes the 3.7 was brilliant, but had less than half the effective range of the 88

Alexander the Great, Caesar, Nelson, Rommel, Napoleon, Guderian, the Tiger of Malaya, etc, beat their enemies with much inferior numbers, let alone equal terms.

The problem with the Americans is that they thought that after a few battles, Monty had acquired experience. Too bad Ike did not put the Polish general I mentioned before who ended up as a bar tender, in charge of the invasion he was far above Monty in brains and guts, or even Patton. It was a combined operation under British leadership. Patton was under Monty and he had to ask their Bitish superior permission to advance on his own. Ike's big mistake. Like I said it is remarkable that the british provided the fewest men and equipment and kept the leadership.

Monty did sit in an armchair criticizing Bradley, Ike, etc, and claiming that if they had listened to him war would have ended a few days after landing in Normandy. His mouth was as big as his ego. He was lucky that ike's brain was much larger than his ego or Monty would have been dismissed.

I have told you I am not anti British, I admire Wellington, Nelson, Slim, Tedder, O´Connor, etc, But am amazed at the incompetence of most British leaders in WW I and of Churchill, Ritchie, Mountbatten, Auchinleck, Wavell, etc, I have even defended Percival in my thread about Churchill's blunder in Singapore. It is interesting that Churchill replaced Auchinleck with Monty in NA for not finishing off Rommel in el Alamein I, but he rewarded Monty for doing exactly the same in el Alamein II. So desperate was Churchill to manufacture a heroic commander.
 


Similar Topics
WW2 Trivia
Air Force Cadence
Pentagon confirms using white phosphorous in Iraq
US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq