The Normandy campaign.

[Ostkatze]

" What exactly does it mean? Can somebody translate, please? "
I'll do my best.
At first I thought that our new lighthouse keeper friend was merely an attempt at a National embarrassment joke.
Since his trip to the Hotel Sordide in sunny Spain I believe he is actually a sockpuppet of old man Steptoe. Got some bad lobster and the wog doctor didn't help.
Fortunately back in the real world our commie conspiracy to undermine American Family Values has been going according to plan.
A few Yanks became aware when our Commie Jewish tool Norman Lear introduced " All In The Family " as a plant from " Till Death Do Us Part " Very few noticed when he slid in " Sanford and Son " from " Steptoe and Son ".
The landslide of Spin-Offs from these 2 shows blew away traditional American TV mainstays that revolved around talking horses and Hillbilly millionaires. The decline of traditional pop culture values has been steady and inexorable.
As a Commie Mole in the US for the last 40 years I would hope that this current Steptoe incarnation would desist from stirring up American animosity to our cause.
Besides, if the CSA soldiers had paused for Smore flavoured Schnapps, instead of coffee, perhaps Chattanooga would have been held and Cleveland, Tennessee saved from the Bluebelly ravaging!
Regards, Robert E. Cartman.

[Attrition]

'Hitler's Last Gamble: Battle of the Bulge, December 1944 to January 1945' may give you the last laugh.

Sometimes you go beyond cryptic...or are you just trying to be arch?

Eh?

Yes, exactly...

Explain.

[RichTO90]

'Hitler's Last Gamble: Battle of the Bulge, December 1944 to January 1945' may give you the last laugh.

Sometimes you go beyond cryptic...or are you just trying to be arch?

Eh?

Yes, exactly...

Explain.

I remain confused by your meaning. I.e., your message was too cryptic for me to translate. Sometimes less is more, but...

Cheers!

[Attrition]

'Sometimes you go beyond cryptic'. I'm not cryptic so if that is how I seem I'm curious why you think so.

[RichTO90]

I remain confused by your meaning. I.e., your message was too cryptic for me to translate. Sometimes less is more, but...

Cheers!

"Cryptic" - Having hidden meaning; mystifying.

You said, "'Hitler's Last Gamble: Battle of the Bulge, December 1944 to January 1945' may give you the last laugh."

I am one of the authors, but why should being the author of a book about the Battle of the Bulge give me a "last laugh" about a discussion of the Normandy Campaign? I remain confused by the cryptic nature of that comment.

Savvy?

Cheers!

[Lightbob]

Ostkatze says: What exactly does it mean? Can somebody translate, please? "
I'll do my best.

Dogs bark, but the caravan goes on!

[The_Enigma]

The Cat meows, but the owner ignores it! *passes the briefcase to Lightbob and walks off*

[Lightbob]

by phylo_roadking says; Not the best comparison to use The Btirish/Indian forces were using their Lee/Grant tanks as SPGs for their 75mm HE capability, for they had very little else to do as tanks, the Japanese VERY soon found out how pointless it was going tank-to-tank with them with what THEY had...

Instead - look at the Australians in New Guinea for a terrain comparison....where their Matildas etc. had a LOT of trouble negotiating jungle terrain, frequently only moving a few hundred yards a day at most...then bogging down as mobile strongpoints [/quote]

Half right, The British Tanks in burma had varied roles because of the difference in terrain and conditions in Different parts of Burma. Although the japanese tank were very inferior they had an effective A/T gun and were expert in using it.

At Imphal and Kohima the fighting was much as you describe,but after all the tank was original designed to do much the same job in 1916 onwards. In Burma the engineers would cut a route through the jungle, protected by the infantry. When the tank was in a position it would take on the target . However the crew had to watch for snipers after the commander or Japs with a Gammon type of bomb The Japs would even manpack or carry in by elephant/mule an A/T Gun in, at the relief of Kohima several tanks were knocked out attempting to destroy bunkers. regards o moving a hundred yards in Jungle a day I can tell you from experience that to move a thousand yards or less through secondry jungle, would often take a day if operating in 'bandit' country

In the central Burma plain the tanks undertook a pursuit role carrying infantry the 2nd Carbiniers Regimental history descreibs clashes with Jap tanks and A/T guns. The British Indian army had almost 2 divisions of armour in Burma deployed in 3 brigades and independant regiments. 3 regiments were British, and 8 where indian. Each Brigade- 154, 254 & 255 had a battalion of Bombay Grenadiers as motorised Infantry. These regiments won many battle honours inc Arakan, Imphal, Kohima, Meiktila, Mandalay, Irrawaddy, Pokoku, Rangoon and Pegu.

I picked Burma because it was an example of tanks operating in close country. by the way Australians carried out tests of the Sherman and Churchill tanks in the jungle and the Churchill was found to be the best.

The point being if you can use tanks in those conditions you can almost use them any where

See; Louis Allen, Burma: The Longest War, Michael Hickey, The Unforgettable Army and o course Bill Slims Deafeat into Victory

[Lightbob]

Rich such a clever but rather uncouth fellow like you surely would know about the Phantoms,

See; http://www.thewarillustrated.info/211/n ... giment.asp

The article is from the War Illustrated news which is now on line. The magazine was published through out the war It was claimed that it was the best News magazine published during that period

[The_Enigma]

Half right, The British Tanks in burma had varied roles because of the difference in terrain and conditions in Different parts of Burma. Although the japanese tank were very inferior they had an effective A/T gun and were expert in using it.

Effective AT? a 57mm and a 45mm AT gun was outdated by the second half of the war. Even our beloved 6 pounder was dropped for bigger and nastier guns.

So ok am a little skeptic; is there evidence of these weapons being effective agaisnt Shermans and Grants .... and at what range? ???

At Imphal and Kohima the fighting was much as you describe,but after all the tank was original designed to do much the same job in 1916 onwards.

I think you may have missed out a little ... like the nearly quarter of a century of tank design and doctrine development.

In the central Burma plain the tanks undertook a pursuit role carrying infantry the 2nd Carbiniers Regimental history descreibs clashes with Jap tanks and A/T guns. The British Indian army had almost 2 divisions of armour in Burma deployed in 3 brigades and independant regiments. 3 regiments were British, and 8 where indian. Each Brigade- 154, 254 & 255 had a battalion of Bombay Grenadiers as motorised Infantry. These regiments won many battle honours inc Arakan, Imphal, Kohima, Meiktila, Mandalay, Irrawaddy, Pokoku, Rangoon and Pegu.

if we wanna be picky thats 3 divisions "worth of armour"

[RichTO90]

Rich such a clever but rather uncouth fellow like you surely would know about the Phantoms,

See; http://www.thewarillustrated.info/211/n ... giment.asp

The article is from the War Illustrated news which is now on line. The magazine was published through out the war It was claimed that it was the best News magazine published during that period

Uncouth? Really? Could you point out for everyone just where a moderator has rebuked me for responding in an appropriate amnner to your trolling? You continue to dodge all questions, requests for sources for your dubious claims, and recycle items not actually germaine to the thread or that are not actually being contested. For example, your response above is apparently to my:

"Patton's "Household Cavalry" AKA as the 6th Cavalry Group, was not PHANTOM. PHANTOM was the General Headquarters Liaison Regiment, which was not a "Reconnaissance Regiment"...it was a communications and liaison organization that operated throughout the Allied command structure."

Where in the source you referenced is there any contraindication to what I wrote? If you were not intending to claim that PHANTOM was the sole source of communications, liaison, and information in Third Army, then fine, my response was unneccessary. If you were also unaware that 6th Cavalry Group functioned in a similar manner and provided much of the frontline reconnaissance that was passed by PHANTOM up the chain, then fine as well. But, otherwise I suggest you put down the bottle of Cava, Priorato, or whatever Catalunyan beverage you are imbibing and attempt to re-engage your brain, since you continue to have a hard time following what has actually been posted here.

[John Hilly]

The point being if you can use tanks in those conditions you can almost use them any where

Let's keep skipping off the topic. See:

http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=17831

Greets
Juha

[Lightbob]

]The enigma Says: Effective AT? a 57mm and a 45mm AT gun was outdated by the second half of the war. Even our beloved 6 pounder was dropped for bigger and nastier guns.

Considering that the Lee tank was of the same era itself and like the Jap A/T guns obsolescent. I cannot see where there is a problem and after all the 14th Army was the forgoten Army

The enigma says; So ok am a little sceptic; is there evidence of these weapons being effective against Shermans and Grants .... and at what range? ???[

All the evidence I have that the tanks operating in close country were hit from short range. As the view in the Jungle is often down single figure yards. I have never seen any evidence about the Sherman being used at all. I have read several versions of battles in Burma and it appears to me that the Lee seemed to be the most favoured tank

The Enigma says; I think you may have missed out a little ... like the nearly quarter of a century of tank design and doctrine development.

No the war in the jungle was often fought by troops using weapons similar to those in 1916. I cannot see what modern technology as to do with a tank climbing a tree clad hill to destroy a strong point (bunker) That is very similar to the tactics in 1916. Was that not, what the tank designed to do to crawl forward under fire and destroy strong points. I have been lambasted by Rich for suggesting that the US (inc the design of the Sherman) tactics were originally for the TDs would fight the tanks. And the Shermans destroy the infantry. Similar tactics in Burma but different terrain and no appreciable tank enemy.


Extract from Louis Allen’s ‘Burma, The Longest War. - Nunshigum Ridge battle, Imphal

“13 April the 5th Indian Division counter-attacked, supported by air strikes, massed artillery and the M3 Lee tanks of B Squadron of the 3rd Carabiniers. The Japanese had expected that the slopes were too steep for tanks to climb, and indeed Lee tanks had never been tried before on such gradients in action. The Japanese regiment had very few effective anti-tank weapons, and their troops were driven from the ridge with heavy casualties. The attackers also lost heavily; every officer of the Carabineers and the attacking infantry (1st Bn, the 17th Dogra Regiment) was killed or wounded”

The 3rd Carbiniers Won the following Battle Honours in Burma; Imphal, Tamu Road, Nunshigum, Bishenpur, Kanglatongbi, Kennedy Peak, Shwebo, Sagaing, Manadalay, Ava, Irrawaddy River, Yenangyaung 1945, Burma 1944–45. But the battle above Nunshigum Ridge is clebrated every year as the regimental day. (compare only 11 honours in WW1)

The North Irish Horse Did something similar at Longstop in Tunisia, 23 December 1943 with their Churchills. so maybe your the idea of tank tactics should after all be broadened

The Enigma says; if we wanna be picky thats 3 divisions "worth of armour"

Oh well, I suppose that would beg the question why would Bill Slim have 3 divisions of armour if they were no use. I don’t think the British had much more in Italy

The fact is that tanks were used in close country in Burma, so they could have been used by the Germans in the Bocage or any where else in France. If they had been free to do so.

[bf109 emil]

The fact is that tanks were used in close country in Burma, so they could have been used by the Germans in the Bocage or any where else in France. If they had been free to do so.

But why, the panzerfaust worked very good in the confined area's of the bocage, or do you suggest removing armor (tanks) from Caen.

sure they might have been used, had Germany had access to move armor freely that wasn't needed elsewhere, but to place Tigers and Panthers in the hedgerows would have allowed a further destruction by hand held bazooka's and been a waste or resources.

[The_Enigma]

]The enigma Says: Effective AT? a 57mm and a 45mm AT gun was outdated by the second half of the war. Even our beloved 6 pounder was dropped for bigger and nastier guns.

Considering that the Lee tank was of the same era itself and like the Jap A/T guns obsolescent. I cannot see where there is a problem and after all the 14th Army was the forgoten Army

Forgotten Army, in the press!, or not; that doesnt change mathmatics. What sort of penetration power did low velocity 57mm AT gun and a high velocity 45mm AT gun have compared to the armour deployed?

The Enigma says; I think you may have missed out a little ... like the nearly quarter of a century of tank design and doctrine development.

No the war in the jungle was often fought by troops using weapons similar to those in 1916. I cannot see what modern technology as to do with a tank climbing a tree clad hill to destroy a strong point (bunker) That is very similar to the tactics in 1916. Was that not, what the tank designed to do to crawl forward under fire and destroy strong points. I have been lambasted by Rich for suggesting that the US (inc the design of the Sherman) tactics were originally for the TDs would fight the tanks. And the Shermans destroy the infantry. Similar tactics in Burma but different terrain and no appreciable tank enemy.

You said the tanks had been designed with the same as those of 1916; this is clearly wrong. How the tanks were used, the tactical usage of how they shot infantry onto their objectives etc had changed. The two wars are not as simple to compare as they used the same tactics etc - thats a very simplisitic view.

Extract from Louis Allen’s ‘Burma, The Longest War. - Nunshigum Ridge battle, Imphal .... so maybe your the idea of tank tactics should after all be broadened

Relevence to your assertion that tanks were employed and designed to the same 1916 standard?
Your extract actually shows that the tank is being used in a combind arms fashion; support from artillery, infantry and air. The extract doesnt suppoort your assertion that the tanks were used as pillboxes nor does it support that nothing had changed since 1916; iirc the first usage of tanks they went ahead and the infantry followed not supported.

Oh well, I suppose that would beg the question why would Bill Slim have 3 divisions of armour if they were no use. I don’t think the British had much more in Italy

Who said they were no use? Iirc the final campaign invovled mechnaized and armour forces flooding over the centeral plains. You also need to understand that from mid-war the armour division was based around a single armoured brigade of three regiments, even indy brigades were laid out in the same fashion.

I think its a safe bet to suggest that there was more than a 1,000 tanks wandering around Italy:1st and 6th divs were active through most of the campaign and 7th fought for few months there too. 2nd, 7th, 9th, and 23rd armoured brigades fought in Italy. 21st, and 25th Tank Brigades also fought there. I would estimate in the region of, in and around mids 1944 when the 7th arm was no longer there, 2,500 frontline tanks. Of course there are allot of factors so it may have been more or less than that figure.

[/quote]The fact is that tanks were used in close country in Burma, so they could have been used by the Germans in the Bocage or any where else in France. If they had been free to do so.[/quote]

But tanks were used, by both the Allies and Germans, in the close confinds of the Normandy campaign... I would suggest looking at the likes of their defense of Hill 112, Operation Epsom, the battle of Villers-Bocage ... basically every major engagement fought by the Anglo-Canadians and the Germans prior to the fall of Caen has some sort of close quarter tank engagement.