The Normandy campaign.

[Steve Wilcox]

Lightbob,

Lightbob wrote: Can I point out the following from my reference;
How the 150 officers and 1,250 other ranks gathered and swiftly passed back vital
information throughout the war in Europe and elsewhere is told here.

Can you list your references, you stated from your references, but did not list any.

Mike

It would appear to be from this:
http://www.thewarillustrated.info/211/n ... giment.asp

[The_Enigma]

While Fortitute kept the Germans busy; i think its a little wrong to suggest the Germans kept their armoured reserves in the Pas de Calais area. We already know, as mentioned above, the immediate forces were already pushed into the area although the planned big counterattack didnt happen.

But over the next few days practically everything else was ordered in that direction for example the 101st Tiger battalion ordered to hit the road on the 7th iirc.

[Lightbob]

Delta tank says; Can you list your references, you stated from your references, but did not list any.

Sorry I thought I had put them in. I have added internet sites that gives details of its original formation in 1940 as you can see it was still at this early stage of the war it was still a high-power organisation. The second is intresting for its photos.

June Sampson, . "Force of the Phantom"

Andy Parlour & Sue Parlour, (2003). Phantom at War: The British Army's Secret Intelligence and Communication Regiment of WWII

Niven, David(1994). The Moon's a Balloon.


http://www.royal-signals.org.uk/of_interest/phantom.php

http://www.vmarsmanuals.co.uk/newslette ... ignals.pdf

[Delta Tank]

Lightbob,

Thank-you

Mike

[Lightbob]

Rich I mentioned on an earlier submission that the British took most of the early fighting in Normandy because the Germans thought the British to be the greatest threat..

I’m surprised you had to ask for a reference with your knowledge of the battle and its geography. You realise of course that Caen is only approximately 160 miles to Paris or 50 miles to the River Seine and then another 300 miles approx to the West wall at Aachen’

Ah! But I have not finished. According to Antony Beevor’s ‘D-Day’ page 184;


“Both Rundstedt and Rommel regarded the Second Army as the chief threat. This was partly because they considered the British more experienced soldiers (they later admitted to underestimating the Americans), but also because a south-easterly breakthrough towards Falaise opened the possibility of an Allied dash for Paris. Such a disaster, if it came about, would cut off all German forces in Normandy and Brittany. Even Hitler agreed with this analysis, if only because of the symbolic value of Paris. His obsessive desire to hold on to foreign capitals was described as `a peevish imperialism' by the intelligence chief at Montgomery's 21st Army Group headquarters. Geyr was the only one who disagreed with the OKW's determination `to block the enemy direct route to Paris.”

[RichTO90]

I'm afraid it'll be a bit before I have time for a more extensive reply to your other "points", but this is almost too easy...

Rich I mentioned on an earlier submission that the British took most of the early fighting in Normandy because the Germans thought the British to be the greatest threat..

I’m surprised you had to ask for a reference with your knowledge of the battle and its geography. You realise of course that Caen is only approximately 160 miles to Paris or 50 miles to the River Seine and then another 300 miles approx to the West wall at Aachen’

Does anyone notice the logical fallacy? Apparently, "geographic knowledge" is "proof" that the "British took most of the early fighting in Normandy"? Nevermind of course that no "proof" has been offered of what constitutes most of the fighting. I would rather of thought that casualties suffered and inflicted might have been a better measure of the scale of the fighting than the location of Caen was?

Ah! But I have not finished.

Why am I unsurprised?

According to Antony Beevor’s ‘D-Day’ page 184;


“Both Rundstedt and Rommel regarded the Second Army as the chief threat. This was partly because they considered the British more experienced soldiers (they later admitted to underestimating the Americans), but also because a south-easterly breakthrough towards Falaise opened the possibility of an Allied dash for Paris. Such a disaster, if it came about, would cut off all German forces in Normandy and Brittany. Even Hitler agreed with this analysis, if only because of the symbolic value of Paris. His obsessive desire to hold on to foreign capitals was described as `a peevish imperialism' by the intelligence chief at Montgomery's 21st Army Group headquarters. Geyr was the only one who disagreed with the OKW's determination `to block the enemy direct route to Paris.”

You do realize of course that Beevor is not a "source" in this case? A "source" would be his reference for where he found these putative opinions by Rundstedt, Rommel, Hitler, and Geyr expressed...

Note the further logical fallacy that, although apparently the Germans did not know where the landings were to be, they did know that the greatest threat there would be the British?

BTW, Geyr was also one of the ones who was obsessively concerned with the possibility of a massive Allied airborne assault that would seize Paris, cutting off the German armies in France that way.

Sorry, all I have time for now...is that enough "abuse" for you today?

Cheers!

[Lightbob]

The Enigma says: While Fortitude kept the Germans busy;

The delay with hindsight looks insignificant perhaps, but the delay in OKW in releasing its armoured reserve certainly caused consternation to Rommel and his staff so much so that stories of suspected conspiracies among the German Generals have arsen since the war A conspiracy to prevent the Allies being driven into the sea by preventing these armoured reserves arriving in time and so help bring down Hitler

[Lightbob]

Recently we were discussing the Japanese 47mm Anti-Tank gun.

If you are intrested the following site gives plenty of intresting information and will answer many querys

http://www.lovettartillery.com/47mm_Typ ... T_Gun.html

[The_Enigma]

The Enigma says: While Fortitude kept the Germans busy;

The delay with hindsight looks insignificant perhaps, but the delay in OKW in releasing its armoured reserve certainly caused consternation to Rommel and his staff so much so that stories of suspected conspiracies among the German Generals have arsen since the war A conspiracy to prevent the Allies being driven into the sea by preventing these armoured reserves arriving in time and so help bring down Hitler

TBH i think that "consipricy" is a load of tosh and just a theory; what happened on the ground doesnt support it.

As for Beevor, imo his book on the whole makes good loo roll. To expand a little: he seems to have not bothered to check out the mountain of research done over the last 20 years that show the Allies in a bit a positive light or the more detailed and accurate work done on various battles. The few bits and bobs i checked out i was bitterly disappointment at the various inaccuries that imo could have been amended via a quick glance at any modern secondary source to umpf his book somewhat.

[The_Enigma]

Recently we were discussing the Japanese 47mm Anti-Tank gun.

If you are intrested the following site gives plenty of intresting information and will answer many querys

http://www.lovettartillery.com/47mm_Typ ... T_Gun.html

I just checked out the wiki article: Link

Doesnt state what page but the source is: McLean, Donald B. Japanese Artillery; Weapons and Tactics. Wickenburg, Ariz.: Normount Technical Publications 1973. ISBN 0-87947-157-3; in which it is claimed that that the weapon was ineffective agaisnt the Honey tanks and even less so agaisnt the Grant and Sherman.

Although the source Chant, Artillery of World War II. Pp. 61 states that the 47mm APHE shell could penetrate 50mm/30degrees armour at 500 yards. Looking at some stats on the Sherman that seems like its not able to poke through the frontal armour of the Sherman at that range. It would seem the Japanese would need to have the tanks on top of them before they could be stopped - near enough (no pun intended) - or passed their gunline for rear shots.

[Lightbob]

The enigma says;Looking at some stats on the Sherman that seems like its not able to poke through the frontal armour of the Sherman at that range. It would seem the Japanese would need to have the tanks on top of them before they could be stopped - near enough (no pun intended) - or passed their gunline for rear shots.

i bit of a red herring here! I think there were no Shermans in Burma and also there are reports from various battles that the gun could and did knock out Lee tanks I did say that the Japanese engaged lee tanks at point blank range in Jungle actions which is what we were talking about.

[The_Enigma]

A bit ... if that; iirc the M3 had similar armour thickness but on a much larger angle. I also have a feeling that the Grant had slightly better armour that the Sherman although thats a feeling i havent got figures to hand. But to be honet that doesnt all matter its similar preformace armour wise to the Sherman.

But main point is that you said they had effective weapons - stopping a tank dead in its tracks after its had the chance to shoot the crap out of you or it can just sit over there and you cant harm - doesnt seem to be the definition of the word. The thing i can remember from my reading of Slim's book a few years back is even though the fighting in Burma and India took place in jungle areas there was allot of tank country to use and iirc 7th Arm Bde fighting it out protecting our troops during the retreat in open areas around roads etc


Shermans in Burma

[Lightbob]

I'm sorry but I seem to remember that I had already mentioned about the fighting in the central plain and the Carabiniers fighting Jap tanks. I think I used Bill Slim’s Defeat into Victory as a reference.

Regarding what is an effective A/T gun comparing the Jap gun against the best in the European theatre is comparing apples and pears. After all the weapons systems used by the 14th Army were not in the same league as those used in Europe most being obsolescent.

The point was originally Burma was an example that Tanks could fight in close country. By the way are those tanks Shermans in the picture? I have read many books about tanks in far east and the only one I am reminded of, that Shermans were mentioned, was one that said that in a trial run by the Australians to choose a tank for far east operations, between the Churchill and the Sherman, the Sherman failed miserably.

I repeat that in several accounts of the battles around Imphal there are references to Jap A/T Guns knocking out a Lee Tank and I cannot see the point in arguing that in theory a Jap A/T guns could not knockout a Lee tank or a Sherman against evidence that in the battles in Burma they did

[The_Enigma]

I never said the Japanese never knocked out a Sherman or Grant; you said their ATG were effective weapons; i have argued the position that is a twoddle.

Regarding what is an effective A/T gun comparing the Jap gun against the best in the European theatre is comparing apples and pears. After all the weapons systems used by the 14th Army were not in the same league as those used in Europe most being obsolescent.

Then would it not also be "apples and pears", use the stairs, to compare how tanks were used in a theater of war were ineffective AT weapons were the primarily threat agaisnt how the tank was used in Normandy with an enemy equipped with extremely effective hand held anti tank weapons not to mention proper ATGs?

But to be honest am not that convinved no more that the 14th Army was using the scrapes of the barrel. 7th Arm Bde was sent over with their Honeys - that were deemed (however so!) approbirate for use in the desert as a MBT; seems the armour was updated with the Grant ASAP and by wars end were swanning about with Shermans. They were using the same basic rifle and a locally produced, if somewhat different, variant of the BREN iirc. Where they supplied with the good old 25 pounder as well?

Yes they are Shermans in the picture, with the 62nd Brigade. I would assume that is an Indian Army outfit since it aint in the British OOB.

[Lightbob]

]Rich says; I would rather of thought that casualties suffered and inflicted might have been a better measure of the scale of the fighting than the location of Caen was?

Rubbish! Caen was the centre of communications for the whole area had good communications to the West and East. It was closer to Germany and Paris. If Geography was not important why were the Americans so insistent for an attack across the Channel. They could have not have had an invasion and just killed Germans in Italy or where ever.

Body counts do not win wars tactics and strategy do. How do you allocate all the Germans killed by Naval Gunfire, there were far more British ships providing fire support. The same applies to those killed by Allied Aircraft how do you proportion them of course. And whose figures are we to accept?

How do assess the claims of units who supposedly kill over 500 Germans but the bodies are carried away by their comrades ( No commander worth his salt risks the lives of his men to recover the bodies of the dead). Do we include those killed by friendly fire which according to US defence Department may be as many as 30% The USAAF was quite good at it). Then are those self inflicted wounds and suicides. etc

POWs, how do you factor in the surrender of thousand of Russians, as Poles etc most without firing a shot. As against SS men who often fought to the very end

I would have thought you would have learned that depending on kill and death ratios is not a very reliable way to asses winning or losing a war. In Vietnam and to a certain extent Korea The US claimed massive body counts ,in the case of Vietnam more than the whole population of North Vietnam. 59,883 Americans killed and missing in Vietnam against 1,100,000 Vietnamese killed and you lost. Korea 36,516 Americans killed in Korea against 1,545,822 North Koreans/Chinese killed result a poor draw

Do you accept that Montgomery’s plan was to draw the German Panzer division onto the British to give Bradley time to blood his men and to finally breakout?