Patton .................

[Richard Anderson]

Joachim Ludewig the author of "Ruckzug" seemed to think that a push north from Antwerp towards Moerdijk would have done the trick.

With what? When?

Ludewig would have done better to more closely examined Peter Beale's The Great Mistake...along with The Quartermaster Corps, Operations in the War Against Germany; The Transportation Corps, Operations Overseas; The Ordnance Corps, On Beachhead and Battlefront, and Logistical Support of the Armies, Volume I and II before saying such a thing.

From 4 to 6 September, when it was joined by 231 Brigade of 50 Division, the 11 Armoured Division was it and it was having a hard enough time holding onto its own positions, let alone attacking. By noon on 7 September, 15. Armee had already succeeded in getting 25,000 men across to Walcheren. Also by then, 719. Inf.-Div. was in position defending the canal lines north and northeast of the city. By 8 September, it was already obvious that German strength north of Antwerp was too great for the limited resources at hand to advance further. Instead, 11 Armoured shifted east and was replaced at Antwerp by 53 Division.

[Richard Anderson]

The sources are very much part of tendency for "Mythstory" to dominate US Military History. Wild un-sourced generalisations that support a well developed national myth. It sells history books and gets your lecture on You tube

The past master is Stephen Ambrose. My particular favorite is the opening paragraphs of the chapter in Band of Brothers called "Foy." He starts by lambasting Montgomery for over caution and a lack of aggressiveness in his plans to deal with the Bulge. The rest of the chapter is spent describing the costly frontal assault by Easy Company, 506 PIR on the village of Foy apparently unsupported by artillery or armour. If this was written ironically it is not spelled out for his irony free readership. There are similar dollops of chauvanism masquerading as informed commentary in his book on D Day.

This big issue is that America did not suffer the WW1 experience. Dulcet et Decorum est is part of the national ethos and not a bitter war poem. It is seen as proper that Americans should die to wipe out the memory of being caught by surprise in the Bulge. Maybe there is a PhD in looking at American and British interpretations of WW2...

Tripe

Not exactly tripe, but a little over the top.

Mythstory dominates ALL military history, not just U.S. Military historians are geeks and like all geeks have to firmly hold their fanboisdom in check...and too often fail.

The assessment of Ambrose is accurate and, if anything, too kind.

I could as easily say that the UK did not suffer the American Civil War experience, which also firmly ensconced a dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori belief into the national ethos, so we beat you to it by about fifty years. Meanwhile, who sees it as "proper that Americans should die to wipe out the memory of being caught by surprise in the Bulge"? You? Brits in general? What a daft argument.

[Gooner1]

There is a good case for claiming that the Germans won the race to the Rhine It is quite a remarkable feat, given that they many traveled on foot

The Germans must have been channelling their inner Zulu if they made their way to the Rhine (Westwall) ahead of the Allies by foot!

[Hanny]

I could as easily say that the UK did not suffer the American Civil War experience, which also firmly ensconced a dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori belief into the national ethos, so we beat you to it by about fifty years.

Only if you wanted to appear kinda foolish.

WW2 was fought by a generation who had participated in ww1. No one alive from the WBTS to participate in WW2, and besides the CS was fighting and dying for different country than the USA. Death was commonplace in 1860`s America* 3% of total population died every year, the WBTS total death toll was under the expected annual death toll that normaly occured. No one in US command posistions had the same memoiries of WW1 effects, as did the French and Uk.

Men from United Kingdom in army in August 1914:
733,514
plus recruited from England :
4,006,158
plus recruited from Scotland:
557,618
plus recruited from Wales and Monmouth:
272,924
plus recruited from Ireland:
134,202

Total UK mobolised 5,704,416 of which 704,803 died, a loss rate of 12.3%.

USA North mobolised 2,672,341 of whom 334,680 died a loss rate of 12.5% CS was over twice that loss but were fighting for a different nation so i believe the "we" you refered to,was a dispute over who we the people were in any event.

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJHMbpl ... e=youtu.be

Dr. Earl J. Hess- “Arguing Over the Civil War Death Toll: Does It Really Matter?

When American historians come up with a number of Black deaths suffered in the WBTS, to free them, that will a contribution to understanding history. America does appear to have issues with history, its WBTS period much more so than anything inn WW2, but not on the same level as say Japan teaching currently the Emp did not surrender at the end of WW2.

[Mori]

Ludewig would have done better to more closely examined Peter Beale's The Great Mistake...along with The Quartermaster Corps, Operations in the War Against Germany; The Transportation Corps, Operations Overseas; The Ordnance Corps, On Beachhead and Battlefront, and Logistical Support of the Armies, Volume I and II before saying such a thing.

Is the US official history really the best source on British/Canadian's supply situation? Or was that just random name dropping ?

[Gooner1]

Without this Montgomery would have completed a 'right hook' at the Scheldt trapping 15th Army almost completely.

Two things. The Germans had the ability, using ferries, boats and barges, to transport much of their 15th Army from south of the Scheldt to the north of the Scheldt. I don't doubt they had the ken to keep moving forces northwards by the same means if they had to.
Second, would trapping a whole German army in territory the Allies intention is to liberate as rapidly as possible really be the wisest course of action?

[Sheldrake]

There is a good case for claiming that the Germans won the race to the Rhine It is quite a remarkable feat, given that they many traveled on foot

The Germans must have been channelling their inner Zulu if they made their way to the Rhine (Westwall) ahead of the Allies by foot!

The soldiers from 711 infantry division made it to the Scheldt. On 15th August my favourite German battery in the Normandy campaign 1./1716 extricated the guns from Merville battery, hitched up new teams of horses to replace theirs that had become unfit in two months of action and withdrew. This battery with the mobility of Napoleon's gunners managed to get the guns and horses across the Seine. One section reached Ieper in Belgium where they were ordered to stop the Polish Armoured Division. The other section reached the Scheldt where its ferry was bombed.

Static Infantry Division 716's foot sloggers managed to beat the 7th US Army's tanks and trucks to Alscace despite starting omn the coast in the region of Salses-Perpignan-Elne, close to the Spanish border. They started their withdrawal on 19th August 1944, and retreated through Languedoc to the region around Lyon. After this movement the division was engaged by the French resistance before later arriving in the area of Sélestat in Alsace.

[Richard Anderson]

Only if you wanted to appear kinda foolish.

Or wanted to be as over the top as the OP's statement was.

WW2 was fought by a generation who had participated in ww1. No one alive from the WBTS to participate in WW2, and besides the CS was fighting and dying for different country than the USA. Death was commonplace in 1860`s America* 3% of total population died every year, the WBTS total death toll was under the expected annual death toll that normaly occured. No one in US command posistions had the same memoiries of WW1 effects, as did the French and Uk.

Yes, many of the commanders of World War II did participate in World War I, but I would hesitate to describe World War II as being "fought by a generation who had participated in ww1". New war, new generation, old memories and ethos colliding with new.

BTW, you may want to check your sources on mortality in the USA during the 1860's. Mortality for all states combined in the 1860 Census, recorded for the year 1859-1860, was 1.253%. Albeit was noted the returns were incomplete, only one state, Arkansas, reported a 2% rate and none came close to a 3% rate.

(snip)Dr. Earl J. Hess- “Arguing Over the Civil War Death Toll: Does It Really Matter?

No, it doesn't, but then I wasn't. Anyway, I wasn't comparing the death rate for the mobilized manpower, but for the nation. Each suffered about 2%.

When American historians come up with a number of Black deaths suffered in the WBTS, to free them, that will a contribution to understanding history. America does appear to have issues with history, its WBTS period much more so than anything inn WW2, but not on the same level as say Japan teaching currently the Emp did not surrender at the end of WW2.

Indeed. I suspect you are referring to the controversy spurred by Dr. Hacker's demographic study a few years ago? It reminds me of the Overmans controversy and has the same problems, as well as its own.

[Richard Anderson]

Is the US official history really the best source on British/Canadian's supply situation? Or was that just random name dropping ?

No, but it contains a lot of good data on that subject, they were allies after all...and unfortunately the link to the 21st Army Group Administrative History I always used when compiling my logistical notes is broken now and it isn't on the Wayback Machine, so all that wonderful information isn't easily accessible anymore. Anyway, I was too lazy to search it out yesterday and didn't want to put up a broken link for you to whinge about.

No! Huzzah, I found it again... http://web.archive.org/web/201009010952 ... 200514.htm

Knock yourself out.

[Richard Anderson]

There is a good case for claiming that the Germans won the race to the Rhine It is quite a remarkable feat, given that they many traveled on foot

The Germans must have been channelling their inner Zulu if they made their way to the Rhine (Westwall) ahead of the Allies by foot!

The soldiers from 711 infantry division made it to the Scheldt. On 15th August my favourite German battery in the Normandy campaign 1./1716 extricated the guns from Merville battery, hitched up new teams of horses to replace theirs that had become unfit in two months of action and withdrew. This battery with the mobility of Napoleon's gunners managed to get the guns and horses across the Seine. One section reached Ieper in Belgium where they were ordered to stop the Polish Armoured Division. The other section reached the Scheldt where its ferry was bombed.

Static Infantry Division 716's foot sloggers managed to beat the 7th US Army's tanks and trucks to Alscace despite starting omn the coast in the region of Salses-Perpignan-Elne, close to the Spanish border. They started their withdrawal on 19th August 1944, and retreated through Languedoc to the region around Lyon. After this movement the division was engaged by the French resistance before later arriving in the area of Sélestat in Alsace.

Yep, mechanization did not actually significantly increase the average mobility of armies beyond that of the pre-mechanical era. http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2016 ... -verities/

[Hanny]

Or wanted to be as over the top as the OP's statement was.
.

Arf, is it a game all can play?

BTW, you may want to check your sources on mortality in the USA during the 1860's. Mortality for all states combined in the 1860 Census, recorded for the year 1859-1860, was 1.253%. Albeit was noted the returns were incomplete, only one state, Arkansas, reported a 2% rate and none came close to a 3% rate.

Hess i believe was using the decades census value. 2.2% But have never had the chance to ask him, so could be talking out my arse. In any event its one thing to count infant mortality, i would guess the largest entry in the Census, and another to count adult mortality. But an intresting angle he presents none the less, in any event its higher than the UK and Union 1.5% of loss if counting total population.

https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial ... 60d-01.pdf
1850, with- a population of
twenty-three millions, 323,023 persons died, showing 28 deaths in every two thousand, whilst thero
weTe 394,153 who died in 1860, in a population of nearly thirty-one and a half Iuillionsi ,revealing
this fact in the latter year, that there were 25 deaths to every two thousand, thus indicating an increasJ}
in vitality over the previous decennialperiod of 15-100 of one per cent., or of three persons in every
two thousand; it being established that although the mortality from 1850 to 1860 was 22 per cent."
the increase in population for the same period was 35~ per cent., and that, according to this ratio 0 f
increase, the beginning of the year 1900 will find within the present limits of this Republic on(~
hundred and seven millions of inhabitants.

https://www.cairn.info/revue-annales-de ... ge-33.html
Counties with less than 1% of the population living in urban areas had crude death rates of 17.7 per 1,000 population, while those with 1%-25% urban had average death rates of 19.2 and those with more than 25% of the population urban had death rates of 25.4.

This was intresting about the variation in rural to urban mortality.

And now back to our WW2 coverage.

[Gooner1]

The soldiers from 711 infantry division made it to the Scheldt. On 15th August my favourite German battery in the Normandy campaign 1./1716 extricated the guns from Merville battery, hitched up new teams of horses to replace theirs that had become unfit in two months of action and withdrew. This battery with the mobility of Napoleon's gunners managed to get the guns and horses across the Seine. One section reached Ieper in Belgium where they were ordered to stop the Polish Armoured Division. The other section reached the Scheldt where its ferry was bombed.

711 infantry division was pulled out of Normandy before the end. I am sure there are exceptions but most of the troops retreating out of Normandy on foot, who weren't bagged in the pursuit, got no further than the Channel/Atlantic 'Fortresses'.

Static Infantry Division 716's foot sloggers managed to beat the 7th US Army's tanks and trucks to Alscace despite starting omn the coast in the region of Salses-Perpignan-Elne, close to the Spanish border. They started their withdrawal on 19th August 1944, and retreated through Languedoc to the region around Lyon. After this movement the division was engaged by the French resistance before later arriving in the area of Sélestat in Alsace.

Over 500 miles. Seems like an epic of rapid distance marching. I bet the train took the strain for a good part of it.

[Sheldrake]

The soldiers from 711 infantry division made it to the Scheldt. On 15th August my favourite German battery in the Normandy campaign 1./1716 extricated the guns from Merville battery, hitched up new teams of horses to replace theirs that had become unfit in two months of action and withdrew. This battery with the mobility of Napoleon's gunners managed to get the guns and horses across the Seine. One section reached Ieper in Belgium where they were ordered to stop the Polish Armoured Division. The other section reached the Scheldt where its ferry was bombed.

Note 1. 711 infantry division was pulled out of Normandy before the end. I am sure there are exceptions but most of the troops retreating out of Normandy on foot, who weren't bagged in the pursuit, got no further than the Channel/Atlantic 'Fortresses'.

Static Infantry Division 716's foot sloggers managed to beat the 7th US Army's tanks and trucks to Alscace despite starting omn the coast in the region of Salses-Perpignan-Elne, close to the Spanish border. They started their withdrawal on 19th August 1944, and retreated through Languedoc to the region around Lyon. After this movement the division was engaged by the French resistance before later arriving in the area of Sélestat in Alsace.

Note 2 Over 500 miles. Seems like an epic of rapid distance marching. I bet the train took the strain for a good part of it.

re 1 No it didn't. 711 Infantry division started to pull back on the 15th August and fought a withdrawal in contact with 6th Airborne Division to around 28 August by which time it had broken clean and crossed the Seine.

Re 2. Most of the moves by 716 Infantry seem to have been on foot. They were part of the force which stopped the allies south of Beaune around 5th September.

[Kingfish]

Second, would trapping a whole German army in territory the Allies intention is to liberate as rapidly as possible really be the wisest course of action?

Um, yeah...

Trapping them in the scheldt means fewer troops standing in the way of an allied drive into Germany.
How is that a bad thing?

[Tom from Cornwall]

Kingfish,

Trapping them in the scheldt means fewer troops standing in the way of an allied drive into Germany.
How is that a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing unless you want to open Antwerp relatively quickly.

It's a pretty much intractable question really - Eisenhower wanted to gain bridgeheads over the Rhine but also wanted to open Antwerp quickly. In going for both he ended up with neither.

Regards

Tom