new AK sets (2 Viewers)

I think I have heard that but am not 100% sure. This has turned into a fascinating thread and shows how the membership of this Board has grown. Before, it was just Louis and me arguing about these issues. Now, with the growth in members, a lot of other people are giving their views.
 
Rob said:
Brad,

Once again another excellant balanced view.Credit to both you and Ozdigger for laying it out as it really was.We need to look at all the facts and accept that yes he made mistakes but he was also a great leader.And whatever people might think he beat Rommel and put the heart back into the 8th Army.(unless of course people think it was Patton that won at Alamein!).And whilst i fully accept that Patton was a great general, he also made mistakes.What was he thinking trying to rescue his son-in law?.They were all human.

Brad you can possibly confirm this for me.Didn't i hear/read that the 101st at Bastogne flatly denied ever needing Patton to save them?.I may be wrong in this.


That idea comes at the end of the Band of Brothers episode Bastogne.
The words on the screen describe how QUOTE

"..the story of the 'Battle of the Bulge' as told today is one of Patton coming to the rescue of the encircled 101st airborne.
No member of the 101st has ever agreed that the division needed to be rescued."
 
Last edited:
Regarding the Montgomery/ Normandy breakout debate. I really don't see the problem.

Despite the slow progress as far i'm aware the breakout went on course with Monty's original time schedule and there was never a danger of the Allies being swept back into the sea. It was just that the Germans were fighting so hard. A lot of the German troops in Normandy were eastern front veterans. Good fighting divisions like LAH, Das Reich, Hitlerjugend, Panzer Lehr which even though they were a shadow of their former selves were still quality opponents.

Monty's big failures weren't in Normandy but in the ill conceived Market Garden and his failure to quickly clear the Antwerp approaches which would have made resupply and further advancement into Germany before Christmas much easier.
 
Last edited:
Easy

Wasn't all Monty either. Market Garden is perhaps more about missed opportunity to get in a few days sooner and cut off the Germans from S Holland - those old men and boys again ;) - whereas delay meant stronger and stronger forces against them. Monty was always accused of being timid - this wasn't but he didn't plan all of it did he? I read several accounts, revisionist or not, that suggested Browning's lack of airborne experience (but connections.....) was a significant factor in the planning and Urquhart also lacked airborne experience in command. John Frost, at Battalion level for example, had bitter experience of F.U.B.A.R. in Tunisia N. Africa so understood better the dangers of airdrop and supply. General Taylor and the US paras also were relatively experienced - they were also dropped complete instead of peicemeal.

Agree the Scheld should have been the priority but wouln't have won the war by Xmas - where have we heard that before?:rolleyes:

Surely the Germans must be given tremendous credit for the speed and flexibility of their reaction, especially the ability to create 'Kampfegruppe', plus the advantage of internal lines of communication - there was good allied co-operation however, see the Sherwood Foresters Armour teamed with 82 Airborne around the 'Hells Highway'.:)

Finally, if you want a bad experience as a paratrooper try the Dneipr bend if you are Russian or Nijmegen or Crete if German. Game over, just don't do it! :mad:

Mind you make good sets of soldiers....How about Crete in N Africa series or Nijmegen in FOB?

Kevin
 
Yep you're right i worded that badly regarding the Christmas comment, i just meant that with proper resupply from Antwerp the armies may have been able to advance across the German border and maybe a bit further before winter set in.

Some good ideas on the future soldier sets. Ive been thinking as well that Crete would make an excellent Fields of Battle series. Fallschirmjagers with drop tubes and some Anzacs, Maoris, British etc would be very cool.
 
Given all that's been said I think there could still be a case for Josip "Tito" Broz, especially given the amount of Axis men and material tied down in combating Partizan activity, not to mention the fact that the guerilla war achieved victory without any regular Allied divisons being deployed in the campaign. (Ok so Italy's capitulation also helped but at the end of the day the Germans had to commit several Divisionsright up until the bitter end).
 
Thanks Eazy,knew i'd heard it somewhere.And Brad you are so right.Its really good to read everyones perspective even if i don't agree with it.And whilst i'm here i'll throw in my tuppence worth:Would love to see some Crete sets.although my credit card bill might not be so enthused!.
 
Somehow I don't think we'll convince Louis about Monty, but I'll try and get some more facts into the discussion :)

A bit about the Desert War
Montgomery's plans for the Desert operations against the Afrika Korps were very cunning and well thought out. Rommel usually responded exactly as Montgomery expected him to and fell into the traps laid for him. The clever use of decoys, hidden reserves of men and material, and attacks on enemy infantry in lieu of armoured engagements took the Germans completely by surprise and they were rarely able to gain the initiative in Africa again. However Hitler only saw Africa as a buffer for attacks on Italy so was never actually committed to the theatre.

D-Day
Eisenhower arranged for Montgomery and Beddel-Smith to examine the original D-Day (Overlord) plan drawn up by Lt-Gen F. E. Morgan and C.O.S.S.A.C (Chief of Staff Allied Supreme Commander). Montgomery abruptly said the plan was 'impracticable' and Eisenhower asked him to submit an improved version. This subsequent plan was a VERY MUCH ammended plan. For example the original had the Commonwealth and US forces using fewer beaches and at the same time, rather than three + two separated beaches to allow faster movement inland. I suspect Ike's input may have been: "yeah that looks better, let's do it your way Monty". Of course as we all know Montgomery said they should attack on June 6th - and Ike agreed to that as well :)

The Caen Problem
The Allies went to great lengths to convince the Germans that the invasion would take place at the Pas de Calais and not Normandy. Therefore the Anglo-Canadian forces were expected to capture Caen on D-Day as they didn't expect German armoured forces (tanks etc) to be in that area. Unfortunetly for them, Rommel (under Von Rundstedt) had Command of Army Group B which had the job of protecting 'Fortress Europa'.

Rommel wanted armoured support close to the beaches to throw any invaders back into the sea. His superior the 71 year old Von Rundstedt wanted the armoured reserve well back, out of range from Naval and Air attack. Hitler wasn't sure which way to go until April 1944 when he allowed Rommel reinforcements to move westwards to cover the Normandy beaches. These included the young but keen Hitlerjugend and the experienced Panzer Lehr Divisions being the first SS-Panzer Divisions to be placed under Command of Rommel. Rommel also received three more army divisions to cover Normandy.

The initial engagement: The 34 year old Kurt (Panzer) Meyer Commanded the Hitlerjugend Division and from his high position in an Abbey in Caen he could see the Canadian 9th Brigade and a regiment of tanks slowly advancing towards him as if the were on a peacetime training excercise. Meyer decided to let them keep coming into his ambush of hidden tanks and AT guns. In fact by this time the Canadians had already bypassed one of Meyers advanced panzergrenader units that had been ordered to hold fire until the trap was sprung. The Allies did not realise the full strength of the armoured forces in and around Caen, but were soon to find out - the hard way. And in the following four days of bitter fighting the Hitlerjugend Division had effectively brought the Anglo-Canadian advance to a halt on the outskirts of Caen.

Montgomery subsequently tried several operations to take Caen which could not simply be bypassed because the fanatical troops that held it would continue to be a thorn in the Allied side - literally. The operations were, in order: Perch, Epsom, Windsor, Charnwood, Jupiter, Goodwood, Spring, Bluecoat, Totalize, Tractable and then on to the 'Failaise Pocket' etc. These operations varied in their 'success', some being total failures. It is easy to blame Montgomery as he planned most (not all) of them, however there are several and varied reasons for the failures.

For example 'Charnwood' was the first time the Allies had used Strategic bombers in support of tactical land operations (better late than never). Following the raid it was realised the heavy 500 & 1,000 lb bombs simply improved the German defensive positions by providing more rubble and craters as well as hindering Allied advancement. And instead of attacking straight after the bombing the Allies waited until the morning by when the Germans had long recovered from the 'shock' and also constructed better defence positions. However the Allies managed to now hold the Eastern end of Caen. At least the Allies learnt they should use smaller bombs in higher quantities.

As for 'Goodwood', this plan was in fact proposed by General Miles Dempsey, and he was also responsible for its poor initial execution. He allowed the tanks to proceed to their advanced positions well ahead of the artillery and infantry support because they couldn't all cross the few bridges in good time. Then the tanks etc had to make their way through a mine field recently laid by the 51st Highland Division. These delays allerted the Germans to the attack and the were well prepared for it. The allied bombing was more effective but failed to destroy several German artillery positions on surrounding higher ground. It is true the operation didn't achieve the large break-out but they gained ground and there is no doubt it did keep the Germans on the coast occupied while the US Forces put their operation Cobra into effect - which was a success.

Montgomery had a habit of telling his men (and superiors) they were supposed to achieve objectives further than he himself expected. His intention was to encourage them to strive harder, and by some good management or luck achieve them. This method often worked in the fluid battles of Africa but in Europe the Germans had most of the advantages and rarely were these bonus gains achieved. Montgomery was a positive thinker and a great motivator but clearly he should have been more honest with his men (and Eisenhower) in this matter as it would cause more confusion as the war progressed.

I'll bypass the 'Falaise Pocket' as I feel poor communications between the Allies is more to blame than 'anyone' in particular. And so we'll proceed on to the favourite of 'Monty Bashers', operation Market-Garden - soon :)
 
Just a quick thought on OzDigger's comments on Rommel and Monty. One big reason that Monty knew what Rommel was going to do was due to Ultra (i.e., the British at Blechley Park had broken the German Enigma code). They were not only able to determine Rommel's tactical plans, but equally important, they were able to attack and sink most of his resupply convoys. Rommel was convinced that there was a spy in the Italian Navy who was giving away German resupply information to the British. The British were very careful to always have a scout plane "discover" these resupply ships before they were attacked so as to not give away the real reason for their discovery.

P. S. I served for three years in the United States Army Security Agency, including one year each in Turkey and Germany, intercepting high-value encrypted Soviet communications.
 
Operation Market Garden

There is even conflict about how the Operation names were apportioned. Some reliable sources list Market as being the operation to capture the first two major bridges and operation Garden the capture of the furthest bridge at Arnhem. Other sources, including the movie 'A Bridge to Far' (which is anti-Montgomery), states that Market was the airborne op and Garden the attack by XXX Corps.

Enough with the introduction, who or what was to blame for the failure to capture 'The Bridge To Far'. Many blame Montgomery completely because he devised the plan even though the execution was altered and delayed by Eisenhower. Perhaps it would have succeeded if actioned earlier as planned while the Germans were in full retreat. However it would also be unfair to blame Eisenhower considering the problems before and after the operation began.

* The airborne Commander Boy Browning had only seven days to prepare for the raid.

* Browning decided to proceed despite the photo recon showing two (9th and 10th) SS Panzer Divisions around Arnhem - comprised of 9,000 elite troops with heavy weapons.

* There were insufficient aircraft for one drop so it was spread over three days.

* The drop for the Arnhem Bridge was made seven miles from the bridge because of heavy AA emplacements near it and similar probs with others.

* There was fine weather for the first drop, the remaining nine days were wet/overcast reducing available allied air cover and causing supply drops to go astray.

* There were many other problems including: narrow roads, flooded countryside, lack of food and equipment including AT weapons, orders restricting further advance of XXX Corps (as previously suffered from lack of Infantry and Artillery support), etc, etc.

Despite these problems Montgomery and Eisenhower still believed the operation was worth the risk. And when you think of it, further delays or a cancellation of Market Garden would have only given the Germans more time to establish their defences making the capture of the first two major bridges even more costly in lives.

Here's a link to further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden
 
Rob said:
And finally lets remember something else about Rommel. Great general he may have been,he was also a NAZI.

I've seen some interesting opinions in this forum thread. It was fun reading this one.

But Rob, I can't follow you in the "Rommel's a Nazi"-opinion. I don't think Rommel was a real Nazi. And if so, he was defenitely not a prominent one. He was no member of the party, he just fought for his country.

Might I remember you too that Rommel died because he had to commit suicide, when he was suspected of plotting against Hitler? I don't think a fanatic Nazi would not even come up with the idea of killing the Führer.
 
Oh, I disagree about that. Accounts I've read suggest otherwise and he and the other Generals only thought about trying to negotiate a peace when their beloved Army was threatened with extinction. There's also question about his degree of complicity with the July 44 plot so let's not get carried away. Just because he and others fought for their country make them no less guilty of complicity in the murder of over 30 million people.
 
Hi Joey.Good to read your post.Firstly we have to ask: are there different degrees of being a Nazi?.Either your a Nazi or not.I hear what you say about the Hitler plot,but lets be honest here he didn't mind taking the accolades when things were going well for them did he.Whilst i admire his skill(which was considerable) as a general for me he was a servant of the most evil regime in history and sooner dead the better.

I should also perhaps explain my position as a collector.Now i know many collectors out there admire the German army and thats why they collect them.(and all respect to them)I only collect them because they are the enemy(for my Brit/u.s troops).
I worry sometimes that some peoples admiration for military achievements can slip into idology,and forget what scum these soldiers represented.I'll give you an example of what i mean.I saw somewhere(i better not say where in case i give the wrong info)a leaflet about Michael Wittman.It talked about his victories and how he knocked out that armoured group in Normandy.(it did not mention how sad it was that many men probably died in that incident).

At the end of the article it said "sadly"he died on such and such a date.
Well i'm sorry (to all you wittman fans)but "sadly".I am only sad a Typhoon or T-34 didn't find him ages before.I don't really care how good he was at his job to me and millions of my countryman he was just another Nazi to be crushed under foot.Again i can really appreciate military prowess but it stops short of worshipping these awful people.
 
Rob,

Couldn't agree more. And supposedly he was a very strong believer in their twisted ideology.
 
Rob you are so right on that one.

I read that too in probably the same place you did and was a bit disgusted with it.

"sadlly he died" ? No way. Good job. It saved the lives of how many Allied tank crews i wonder? He was a fully paid up Nazi as well.

I remeber a couple of years back when Dragon Cyber Hobby released the rather nice Michael Wittman dual pack of Tiger 222 and 007. The advert carried the tagline "Glory of the Waffen SS"

Thankfully there must have been a lot of complaints and that tagline was quietly dropped.
 
Thanks you guys.So that is why if its a choice between Wittman/Rommel and co or Monty/Patton and Mark clark it will always,always be Monty & co.Whatever their faults they fought for us on the right side.
 
I have to agree with you that whenever a skillful German soldier (Nazi or not) was killed or captured, it only boded well. And as far as the Nazi's, the only good Nazi was a dead Nazi. And as much as I admired him for his skills, Rommel was a Nazi. He was very close to Hitler in the early war days, and even when he tried to talk Hitler into surrender for the survival of Germany late in the war, when Hitler told him to drop it he did. While he may or may not have participated in the plot to kill Hitler (he certainly was executed for it, but experts are still unsure as to the extent of his involvement) he was still prosecuting the war on Germany's behalf until injured by an RAF strafing run on his staff car.
 
This has been one of the best threads i've ever seen on this forum even if it didn't have much to do with the original title. :)

Some of the guys on here really know their subject.

Which controversial aspects of WW2 shall we tackle now?
 
How about the Malmady Massacre? Is that controversial enough? The surviving Germans still swear it never happened, while the Belgians claim that the same Nazis murdered nearly 100 civilians, including cutting a pregnant woman's fetus from her belly with a Nazi sword. I, for one, believe the G.I.'s, and think that every last Nazi present should have been executed in the same fashion, via machine gun.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top