Michael Kenny wrote: ↑11 Dec 2018, 04:31
German manpower losses in Normandy were substantially greater than Allied losses.
Of course the final sacking of German forces. This was bought on "writing" down German forces in unfavourable exchanges. Which kinda is the point, did Montgomery knew the way to defeat the German forces is fighting battles he will lose due to his inferiority until his numbers turn the tide? Such a tactic is only possible if you vastly outnumber the enemy. The amateurs way. Forces superior in "combat" overran their enemies at minimal cost. Inferior forces with more numbers grind their enemy down. I also appreciate the revionism surrounding Montogomery that he was working in tandem with the US forcres and was merely softning up the tiny German forces. Everytime hundreds of British tanks went moving followed by thousands of bombers and even more artillery only to be halted a couple miles later he would say "yeah only grinding down". Everybody knows he wanted Breakthroughs. His forces were easy enough to achieve this. German forces with comparable force ratios annihilated enemy forces in no time. But when Montogomery attempted this and failed it was "softening" up.
The German Armies in Normandy were destroyed and sent scuttling for the Rhine in 12 weeks. A tremendous victory. No amount of trolling can detract from that stunning performance.
Depends on how you define tremendous. German forces would have broken within days/weeks if the roles would have been reversed. Days or weeks what do you think?
Picture 1000 German tanks with stratgical bomber forces pulverizing enemy positions attacking against a couple hundred British tanks? How far would they go within a week? 8000 German tanks landing with 3 million soldiers and thousands of bombers relentlessly pounding enemy forces who trained 4 weeks with their divions. How long until German forces move into Berlin?
Monty had rules.
Rule 1: Go straight for the throat of the nearest German Army and engage it until it breaks and runs. Follow up whilst not exposing yourself to any counter-attacks until such time as said Germans build a new line and make a new stand.
Rule 2:
Repeat rule 1.
This is just a nice way of saying, embrace inferiority and grind the enemy down while sustaining higher losses. Montogomery was uninspired as it gets. If you can sustain battles like Goodwood and still be in charge you are most definitely a British general because there is nobody to replace you. Running 1000 tanks down a small corridor against superior long range combat forces and grinding to a halt within hours. I normally hate hindsight arguments and thinking "you know it better"", but Montogomery was truly a masterful amateur. Enemy vastly outperforms you in tank combat due to tactics and weapons but you outperform him in numbers? Better cram all your tanks into a small corridor. A truly magnificent fool. I always loath arguments against many Soviet Generals, they were dealt bad hands and had to make due. Montogomery was dealt a full house and played it like two pair. How many British lives did this fool cost? Never understood the fascination with truly bad Generals. How many lives did they squander due to ego? How much British soldiers died in Normandy with a good General breaching German lines in early June? If he would be a Russian or German general they would have executed him on the spot ( not that I condone this ). But is truly remarkable that somebody who is given everything can achieve so little and still satisfy people. Which is kinda the point of my question, did they accept his inferiority or those of his troops? Reading quite a lot about British forces and their tenacity I doubt it was their fault.
There is also some irony to those rules. Those rules are clearly made by somebody who knows he is incapable of achieving anything besides grind downs. A General who knows his trade and commands powerful armies would never set up such rules. The same for Soviet armies,
Worked pretty well for him from Alamein to The Baltic.
Could have let his dog ( did he have one ? ) decide his battle plans and would have had the same results maybe even better.
edit: I guess I am doing you a favour by switching topic away from the 5:1
edit2:
Follow up whilst not exposing yourself to any counter-attacks until such time as said Germans build a new line and make a new stand.
This also highlights how truly bad Montogomery was. And bad is a nice word, truly horrific. The highest losses are sustained during initial breach when your infantry grinds down, the best casualty rates are achieved when the sacking of enemy formation begins. This fool did the worst part of attack over and over again. Attack enemy positions run into their prepared fire, consolidate meaningless ground and repeat. Mindboggling incompetent. Repeat the highest casualty phase over and over and over. You lost your tanks against a pak line? Stop your attack and let the enemy finish his new defensive lines....