Ricardo Klement: Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

And the best proof of the fact that armor and firepower do not determine which tank is best. The Soviet numbers are close to the truth for the number of tanks in the units they engaged. The discontinuity has to do with how many broke down trying to get to the battle.

/An M-1 tanker turned analyst convinced me the Sherman actually wins the contest for best tank of the war, for a variety of reasons - none of which were terribly glamorous.
//One of the most survivable tanks of the war
///If you didn't survive, it's because it burned, and got a reputation based on the gruesome outcome
////Far less spalling, unmatched shock protection, and its short logistical tail made it rock



Well, yeah, man, you see, like, all the tanks we come up against are bigger and better than ours, so all we can hope to do is, like, scare 'em away, y'know. This gun is an ordinary 76mm but we add this piece of pipe onto it, and the Krauts think, like, maybe it's a 90mm. We got our own ammunition, it's filled with paint. When we fire it, it makes... pretty pictures. Scares the hell outta people! We have a loudspeaker here, and when we go into battle we play music, very loud. It kind of... calms us down.

Norv Turner: Ricardo Klement: Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

And the best proof of the fact that armor and firepower do not determine which tank is best. The Soviet numbers are close to the truth for the number of tanks in the units they engaged. The discontinuity has to do with how many broke down trying to get to the battle.

/An M-1 tanker turned analyst convinced me the Sherman actually wins the contest for best tank of the war, for a variety of reasons - none of which were terribly glamorous.
//One of the most survivable tanks of the war
///If you didn't survive, it's because it burned, and got a reputation based on the gruesome outcome
////Far less spalling, unmatched shock protection, and its short logistical tail made it rock

[hornetskensington.files.wordpress.com image 320x400]

Well, yeah, man, you see, like, all the tanks we come up against are bigger and better than ours, so all we can hope to do is, like, scare 'em away, y'know. This gun is an ordinary 76mm but we add this piece of pipe onto it, and the Krauts think, like, maybe it's a 90mm. We got our own ammunition, it's filled with paint. When we fire it, it makes... pretty pictures. Scares the hell outta people! We have a loudspeaker here, and when we go into battle we play music, very loud. It kind of... calms us down.

Movie. Which. From.

meyerkev: Norv Turner: Ricardo Klement: Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

And the best proof of the fact that armor and firepower do not determine which tank is best. The Soviet numbers are close to the truth for the number of tanks in the units they engaged. The discontinuity has to do with how many broke down trying to get to the battle.

/An M-1 tanker turned analyst convinced me the Sherman actually wins the contest for best tank of the war, for a variety of reasons - none of which were terribly glamorous.
//One of the most survivable tanks of the war
///If you didn't survive, it's because it burned, and got a reputation based on the gruesome outcome
////Far less spalling, unmatched shock protection, and its short logistical tail made it rock

[hornetskensington.files.wordpress.com image 320x400]

Well, yeah, man, you see, like, all the tanks we come up against are bigger and better than ours, so all we can hope to do is, like, scare 'em away, y'know. This gun is an ordinary 76mm but we add this piece of pipe onto it, and the Krauts think, like, maybe it's a 90mm. We got our own ammunition, it's filled with paint. When we fire it, it makes... pretty pictures. Scares the hell outta people! We have a loudspeaker here, and when we go into battle we play music, very loud. It kind of... calms us down.

Movie. Which. From.

Kelly's Heroes. It has to be one of my favorites, it never gets old. Clint Eastwood, Donald Sutherland, Don Rickles. Basically a bunch of soldiers find out about a bunch of nazi gold behind enemy lines so they push through and try to steal it, it literally never gets old

Norv Turner: meyerkev: Norv Turner: Ricardo Klement: Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

And the best proof of the fact that armor and firepower do not determine which tank is best. The Soviet numbers are close to the truth for the number of tanks in the units they engaged. The discontinuity has to do with how many broke down trying to get to the battle.

/An M-1 tanker turned analyst convinced me the Sherman actually wins the contest for best tank of the war, for a variety of reasons - none of which were terribly glamorous.
//One of the most survivable tanks of the war
///If you didn't survive, it's because it burned, and got a reputation based on the gruesome outcome
////Far less spalling, unmatched shock protection, and its short logistical tail made it rock

[hornetskensington.files.wordpress.com image 320x400]

Well, yeah, man, you see, like, all the tanks we come up against are bigger and better than ours, so all we can hope to do is, like, scare 'em away, y'know. This gun is an ordinary 76mm but we add this piece of pipe onto it, and the Krauts think, like, maybe it's a 90mm. We got our own ammunition, it's filled with paint. When we fire it, it makes... pretty pictures. Scares the hell outta people! We have a loudspeaker here, and when we go into battle we play music, very loud. It kind of... calms us down.

Movie. Which. From.

Kelly's Heroes. It has to be one of my favorites, it never gets old. Clint Eastwood, Donald Sutherland, Don Rickles. Basically a bunch of soldiers find out about a bunch of nazi gold behind enemy lines so they push through and try to steal it, it literally never gets old

Oh, he's in for a movie treat, isn't he.

Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

And the list also had Second El-Alamein, one of the most overrated WWII tank battles.

meyerkev: Norv Turner: Ricardo Klement: Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

And the best proof of the fact that armor and firepower do not determine which tank is best. The Soviet numbers are close to the truth for the number of tanks in the units they engaged. The discontinuity has to do with how many broke down trying to get to the battle.

/An M-1 tanker turned analyst convinced me the Sherman actually wins the contest for best tank of the war, for a variety of reasons - none of which were terribly glamorous.
//One of the most survivable tanks of the war
///If you didn't survive, it's because it burned, and got a reputation based on the gruesome outcome
////Far less spalling, unmatched shock protection, and its short logistical tail made it rock

[hornetskensington.files.wordpress.com image 320x400]

Well, yeah, man, you see, like, all the tanks we come up against are bigger and better than ours, so all we can hope to do is, like, scare 'em away, y'know. This gun is an ordinary 76mm but we add this piece of pipe onto it, and the Krauts think, like, maybe it's a 90mm. We got our own ammunition, it's filled with paint. When we fire it, it makes... pretty pictures. Scares the hell outta people! We have a loudspeaker here, and when we go into battle we play music, very loud. It kind of... calms us down.

Movie. Which. From.

Really? Wow! You will loooove the movie.

/Or not. it depends on if you can get past the 70s influences.

Hmm...I always wondered what would have happened if the Allies had to invade Japan and had have delt with the Chi Nu. Of course, we woud have had more Pershings by then, and the Brits the Firefly. And the air supremacy. I am sure there would have still been the little bits of messiness.

Here's a reasonably accurate simulation of what all of those battles were like.

Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

The Crossing of the Dniepr Battle would like a word with you. Most people know about kursk.

And ive never seen such a whitewash of Goodwood before. Goodwood was a sound thrashing for the British, and really wasnt much of a Tank battle either. It was more of a tank vs. anti tank gun battle. The british bombed the hell out of everything and smashed up most of the german formations before they tried to break through with their armor, and the 88s and few remaining tigers and mark4s still knocked out huge numbers of brit tanks, and they had to break off the attack.

mathildas and shermans against Krupp 88s = burning shermans and mathildas and british tankermen scurrying for the rear.

the anglo americans were really lucky they rarely had to fight an evenly matched german opponent after africa; the germans got a whole generation ahead between el alamein and normandy with their various tigers and panthers and tankkillers, which always made short work of anglo american armor. However, the preponderance of allied airpower, and the fact that most of germany's armor was in the east, made it such that this rarely happened. But when it did, it would result in 10 shermans down to 1 tiger, the remaining shermans would retreat and call in typhoons, which would do what the A-10 does now and clear the roads of axis armor, and then the angloamericans would push on again after replenishing the lost tanks with fresh ones and new crews. Rinse wash repeat.

vossiewulf: Torqueknot: /Or not. it depends on if you can get past the 70s influences.

Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves.

that movie sucked. and not because of don sutherland's hippie character, but just the overall premise was absurd. and don rickles east coast "cmere!" accent made me want to punch someone /cut myself.

they need to make a good ww2 tank movie. they need to do Saving Gefreiter Ryan in the East, and have lots of good Panzer vs. Tanki battles. I want to see the Battle of Pellenor fields, except instead of Rohan Cavalry against Orcs and Elephants, i want to see grenadiers and panzers against soldiers and tanki of the Red Army.

Therion: b2theory: McNamara? Explain how.

Tank, not Robert.

(took me a minute to remember, too. lame cartoon was lame)

The only thing I remember of the strip, was when he was having some sort of PTSD-type problem where he was having fumble flashbacks, and even the ball of his electric typewriter jumping around wigged him out. That was a loooooooong time ago.

vossiewulf:
Relatively untrained guys in T-72s with crappy officers against the 2nd ACR, the only question was how many minutes it was going to take before every single Iraqi armored vehicle was a burning wreck.

Except for the rest of the vehicles on that battlefield: most of the US forces were M3 Bradley armored fighting vehicles. A T-72 round will punch through a Bradley with very little trouble. The Iraqis also had BMP-1 AFVs with 73 mm main guns, which would do the same, along with ground troops carrying RPGs that would toast a Bradley pretty convincingly.

Even though the US forces had better weapons, the Iraqis were dug in, had a large numerical advantage, and had some experienced soldiers in the mix. None of the US tanks had crews with actual fighting experience at the start of 73 Easting.

The article understates the results, too. The Iraqis lost well over 600 men, 85 tanks, 40 APCs, and a bunch of other vehicles. The US? One man killed, one Bradley AFV destroyed. Besides being one of the biggest tank battles in history, it was easily the most lopsided.

cirby: vossiewulf:
Relatively untrained guys in T-72s with crappy officers against the 2nd ACR, the only question was how many minutes it was going to take before every single Iraqi armored vehicle was a burning wreck.

Except for the rest of the vehicles on that battlefield: most of the US forces were M3 Bradley armored fighting vehicles. A T-72 round will punch through a Bradley with very little trouble. The Iraqis also had BMP-1 AFVs with 73 mm main guns, which would do the same, along with ground troops carrying RPGs that would toast a Bradley pretty convincingly.

Even though the US forces had better weapons, the Iraqis were dug in, had a large numerical advantage, and had some experienced soldiers in the mix. None of the US tanks had crews with actual fighting experience at the start of 73 Easting.

The article understates the results, too. The Iraqis lost well over 600 men, 85 tanks, 40 APCs, and a bunch of other vehicles. The US? One man killed, one Bradley AFV destroyed. Besides being one of the biggest tank battles in history, it was easily the most lopsided.

Don't forget the air support the US had.

What, no battles involving the Ghost Division (new window)?

"During the Battle of France, the 7th Panzer Division earned the name of the Ghost Division (German:"Gespensterdivision") because its rapid movements led to few knowing exactly where the Division was, including the German High Command"

Also, very related music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzlaun8tO4A

that bosnian sniper: Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

And the list also had Second El-Alamein, one of the most overrated WWII tank battles.

Operation Goodwood wasn't that much of a tank vs tank battle either, since Montgomery's tanks had to travel across a wide, broad plain with the Germans dug in and waiting for them. It was a one-sided slaughter that did little but put a lot of British soldiers in the ground.

rikkards:
Don't forget the air support the US had.

Oh, and the artillery, too - but the Iraqi tanks that were killed were pretty much all by Abrams main gun rounds. All the artillery did was keep the infantry down and blow up soft targets (though some Iraqi armor was wiped out in neighboring areas by artillery, where the US could use antiarmor rounds without risk to our own tanks). Most of the air support was tied up in keeping even more Iraqi reinforcements from closing too quickly, and shutting down Iraqi artillery units.

Something else to remember is that The Battle of Norfolk, another (but smaller) of those "great tank battles," kicked off about two hours after 73 Easting came to an end, just a few miles to the east. In actuality, there were three or four "great tank battles" that all happened within about 30 miles, that would have been considered one great big tank battle in most wars.

Father_Jack: Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

The Crossing of the Dniepr Battle would like a word with you. Most people know about kursk.

And ive never seen such a whitewash of Goodwood before. Goodwood was a sound thrashing for the British, and really wasnt much of a Tank battle either. It was more of a tank vs. anti tank gun battle. The british bombed the hell out of everything and smashed up most of the german formations before they tried to break through with their armor, and the 88s and few remaining tigers and mark4s still knocked out huge numbers of brit tanks, and they had to break off the attack.

.

Goodwood pinned down the Germans and was a battle of attrition, without Operation Goodwood to weaken the German defenses the US Operation Cobra would not have been a success, these battle were not independent of each other but rather all part of Montys plan.

MasterSFV: Father_Jack: Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

The Crossing of the Dniepr Battle would like a word with you. Most people know about kursk.

And ive never seen such a whitewash of Goodwood before. Goodwood was a sound thrashing for the British, and really wasnt much of a Tank battle either. It was more of a tank vs. anti tank gun battle. The british bombed the hell out of everything and smashed up most of the german formations before they tried to break through with their armor, and the 88s and few remaining tigers and mark4s still knocked out huge numbers of brit tanks, and they had to break off the attack.

.

Goodwood pinned down the Germans and was a battle of attrition, without Operation Goodwood to weaken the German defenses the US Operation Cobra would not have been a success, these battle were not independent of each other but rather all part of Montys plan.

Ahh, another Monty apologist. He was really good at justifying enormous failures after the fact; trouble was, his memos and plans at the time that were preserved for history say something different. Montgomery wanted the glory of breaking out of the bridgehead, which is why he kept hammering at the Caen defenses. The Germans knew a breakout in the Caen region meant an immediate collapse of their defensive line, and the terrain in that area was suited for armored formations, so that's where their armored divisions were located. Monty wasn't trying to "pin down" the Germans; he was trying to break through the line so he could claim success where the Americans failed.

Even after Cobra succeeded (beyond even the Americans' wildest dreams), and wanted Monty to advance to Falaise to cut off the German forces, he hesitated, then put in some of his least experienced units so he could blame them for his failure. Yeah, Monty "pinned down" the Germans all right.

Father_Jack: vossiewulf: Torqueknot: /Or not. it depends on if you can get past the 70s influences.

Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves.

that movie sucked. and not because of don sutherland's hippie character, but just the overall premise was absurd. and don rickles east coast "cmere!" accent made me want to punch someone /cut myself.

they need to make a good ww2 tank movie. they need to do Saving Gefreiter Ryan in the East, and have lots of good Panzer vs. Tanki battles. I want to see the Battle of Pellenor fields, except instead of Rohan Cavalry against Orcs and Elephants, i want to see grenadiers and panzers against soldiers and tanki of the Red Army.

See Cross of Iron.

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: What, no battles involving the Ghost Division (new window)?

"During the Battle of France, the 7th Panzer Division earned the name of the Ghost Division (German:"Gespensterdivision") because its rapid movements led to few knowing exactly where the Division was, including the German High Command"

Also, very related music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzlaun8tO4A

are you a nazi?

List fails because it doesn't mention any tank battles from more than 100 years ago.

Father_Jack: vossiewulf: Torqueknot: /Or not. it depends on if you can get past the 70s influences.

Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves.

that movie sucked. and not because of don sutherland's hippie character, but just the overall premise was absurd. and don rickles east coast "cmere!" accent made me want to punch someone /cut myself.

they need to make a good ww2 tank movie. they need to do Saving Gefreiter Ryan in the East, and have lots of good Panzer vs. Tanki battles. I want to see the Battle of Pellenor fields, except instead of Rohan Cavalry against Orcs and Elephants, i want to see grenadiers and panzers against soldiers and tanki of the Red Army.

Of course it was absurd. That was the whole point.

Ricardo Klement: Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

And the best proof of the fact that armor and firepower do not determine which tank is best. The Soviet numbers are close to the truth for the number of tanks in the units they engaged. The discontinuity has to do with how many broke down trying to get to the battle.

/An M-1 tanker turned analyst convinced me the Sherman actually wins the contest for best tank of the war, for a variety of reasons - none of which were terribly glamorous.
//One of the most survivable tanks of the war
///If you didn't survive, it's because it burned, and got a reputation based on the gruesome outcome
////Far less spalling, unmatched shock protection, and its short logistical tail made it rock

I would disagree.

The firefly was the only one that could reasonably go up against a tiger. Panther tank had better guns and armour, they ran on ounleaded so caught fire (germans called them tommycookers), the Russians were given them and found them extremely inferior to their own tanks, both in terms of armour and quality of parts and the germans could fire further and if going in an open field your average panther could take out three shermans before they were in firing range. There are too many stories from normandy of a column of sherman tanks being taken out by single German tanks to really not see the Sherman as a crappy tank.

Russians >Germans>Us>Brits>Japanese

T34 best tank of the war. Simple to make, wide carriage made it good in mud, good firing distance. superior armour. The reason so many peole died in them was because the Soviet offficers were abysmal.

The Bolo laughs at this thread.

Bendal:
Goodwood pinned down the Germans and was a battle of attrition, without Operation Goodwood to weaken the German defenses the US Operation Cobra would not have been a success, these battle were not independent of each other but rather all part of Montys plan.

Ahh, another Monty apologist. He was really good at justifying enormous failures after the fact; trouble was, his memos and plans at the time that were preserved for history say something different. Montgomery wanted the glory of breaking out of the bridgehead, which is why he kept hammering at the Caen defenses. The Germans knew a breakout in the Caen region meant an immediate collapse of their defensive line, and the terrain in that area was suited for armored formations, so that's where their armored divisions were located. Monty wasn't trying to "pin down" the Germans; he was trying to break through the line so he could claim success where the Americans failed.

Even after Cobra succeeded (beyond even the Americans' wildest dreams), and wanted Monty to advance to Falaise to cut off the German forces, he hesitated, then put in some of his least experienced units so he could blame them for his failure. Yeah, Monty "pinned down" the Germans all right.

During Goodwood Monty faced 6+ German divisions and forced the Germans to throw in their reserves so that the US only faced one German division thus leading to the success of Cobra.

Patton claimed post battle that the U.S. Army could have prevented the German escape had General Bradley not ordered him to stop at Argentan.

Monty was a great General and needs no apologists, he looked after his troops and
tried as far as possible to avoid needless casualties.

Monty was never big on politics and it was said that the only Allied General worse at politics then Monty was Patton.

nigeman: Ricardo Klement: Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

And the best proof of the fact that armor and firepower do not determine which tank is best. The Soviet numbers are close to the truth for the number of tanks in the units they engaged. The discontinuity has to do with how many broke down trying to get to the battle.

/An M-1 tanker turned analyst convinced me the Sherman actually wins the contest for best tank of the war, for a variety of reasons - none of which were terribly glamorous.
//One of the most survivable tanks of the war
///If you didn't survive, it's because it burned, and got a reputation based on the gruesome outcome
////Far less spalling, unmatched shock protection, and its short logistical tail made it rock

I would disagree.

The firefly was the only one that could reasonably go up against a tiger. Panther tank had better guns and armour, they ran on ounleaded so caught fire (germans called them tommycookers), the Russians were given them and found them extremely inferior to their own tanks, both in terms of armour and quality of parts and the germans could fire further and if going in an open field your average panther could take out three shermans before they were in firing range. There are too many stories from normandy of a column of sherman tanks being taken out by single German tanks to really not see the Sherman as a crappy tank.

Russians >Germans>Us>Brits>Japanese

T34 best tank of the war. Simple to make, wide carriage made it good in mud, good firing distance. superior armour. The reason so many peole died in them was because the Soviet offficers were abysmal.

I think its a wash between the T34 and the Sherman.

1) They were both easy and cheap to produce, so call it a tie.
2) T34 used the American suspension system the damned Sherman should have: T34 better ground pressure/maneuver
3) Sherman had a gun stabilizer and could fire reasonably accurately (or at least, far more accurately) than the T-34 while moving
4) Sloped armor made protection on the T34 far superior: point T34
5) Ergonomics: The T34 was abysmal. Small, cramped, uncomfortable. The Sherman was far and away far more comfortable for crews to man and work in
6) Reliability: T34's were notoriously unreliable. They were designed to be driven roughly and hard for a set amount of mileage and then would just breakdown and fall apart. Shermans were very, very reliable and if they weren't knocked out you could keep them running for a very long time
7) Guns: depends on the model. The Firefly variants 17lber gun was actually equal to and even superior to the German 88 in various aspects. The US 76 mm gun was also roughly comparable to the German 88. Of course, the standard 75mm gun was abysmal in terms of armor penetration. Much of these troubles go the same with the T34. Its intial gun 76mm gun was ok for 1941 (like the US 75mm) but could not handle the later german tanks. With the introduction of the 85mm they got a much improved gun, but it wasn't as good as the specialty sherman guns. *If you put their 100mm gun that was on the SU100 in there.. hot damn that would have been a good tank. I call this one a tie as well since the default tank models each suffered from the same gun problems.

Both tanks had their pluses and minuses. I find it hilarious that the US didn't use the Christie suspension system (and tragic) but there ya go.

Ricardo Klement: Fix any one of the three, and things turn ugly, because even T-72 rounds can penetrate Chobham at under 300m.

Bwah-hahahahaha.

/Har-har.

MasterSFV: Bendal:
Goodwood pinned down the Germans and was a battle of attrition, without Operation Goodwood to weaken the German defenses the US Operation Cobra would not have been a success, these battle were not independent of each other but rather all part of Montys plan.

Ahh, another Monty apologist. He was really good at justifying enormous failures after the fact; trouble was, his memos and plans at the time that were preserved for history say something different. Montgomery wanted the glory of breaking out of the bridgehead, which is why he kept hammering at the Caen defenses. The Germans knew a breakout in the Caen region meant an immediate collapse of their defensive line, and the terrain in that area was suited for armored formations, so that's where their armored divisions were located. Monty wasn't trying to "pin down" the Germans; he was trying to break through the line so he could claim success where the Americans failed.

Even after Cobra succeeded (beyond even the Americans' wildest dreams), and wanted Monty to advance to Falaise to cut off the German forces, he hesitated, then put in some of his least experienced units so he could blame them for his failure. Yeah, Monty "pinned down" the Germans all right.

During Goodwood Monty faced 6+ German divisions and forced the Germans to throw in their reserves so that the US only faced one German division thus leading to the success of Cobra.

Patton claimed post battle that the U.S. Army could have prevented the German escape had General Bradley not ordered him to stop at Argentan.

Monty was a great General and needs no apologists, he looked after his troops and
tried as far as possible to avoid needless casualties.

Monty was never big on politics and it was said that the only Allied General worse at politics then Monty was Patton.

You should read Antony Beevor's D Day. He comes across there as an egotistical fool. Also on the subject of tanks, when faced with the superiority of german armour, Eisenhower sought improvements, Monty decided to keep the tankists in the dark, not wanting to spread fear of engagement. I think that speaks volumes

MasterSFV: Bendal:
Goodwood pinned down the Germans and was a battle of attrition, without Operation Goodwood to weaken the German defenses the US Operation Cobra would not have been a success, these battle were not independent of each other but rather all part of Montys plan.

Ahh, another Monty apologist. He was really good at justifying enormous failures after the fact; trouble was, his memos and plans at the time that were preserved for history say something different. Montgomery wanted the glory of breaking out of the bridgehead, which is why he kept hammering at the Caen defenses. The Germans knew a breakout in the Caen region meant an immediate collapse of their defensive line, and the terrain in that area was suited for armored formations, so that's where their armored divisions were located. Monty wasn't trying to "pin down" the Germans; he was trying to break through the line so he could claim success where the Americans failed.

Even after Cobra succeeded (beyond even the Americans' wildest dreams), and wanted Monty to advance to Falaise to cut off the German forces, he hesitated, then put in some of his least experienced units so he could blame them for his failure. Yeah, Monty "pinned down" the Germans all right.

During Goodwood Monty faced 6+ German divisions and forced the Germans to throw in their reserves so that the US only faced one German division thus leading to the success of Cobra.

Patton claimed post battle that the U.S. Army could have prevented the German escape had General Bradley not ordered him to stop at Argentan.

Monty was a great General and needs no apologists, he looked after his troops and
tried as far as possible to avoid needless casualties.

Monty was never big on politics and it was said that the only Allied General worse at politics then Monty was Patton.

Monty was a logistician and should have never had operational command of any battle. Operation Market Garden is a clear and firm demonstration that he was, is, and will forever be entirely overrated.

Monty is the British equivalent of Admiral Halsey. Both performed acts of dumbfarkery that just can't happen (but did) at such high levels in the chain of command.

Wicked Chinchilla: Monty was a logistician and should have never had operational command of any battle. Operation Market Garden is a clear and firm demonstration that he was, is, and will forever be entirely overrated.

Had he been a decent logistician, Market Garden wouldn't have failed. There were several critical logistical failures in that operation, among them:

1. The Brits totally fouled up their communications by using radios not powerful enough, and not set to the proper frequencies, and by not providing something as basic as wire so that the operators could mitigate the first two problems with improvised antennas more effective then the whip antennas used.

2. Not forward staging the boats, nor providing enough paddles, causing unnecessary delays.

3. Depending on a single exposed and elevated road to send all of the ground troops. Part of this is of course just the geography of the area, but any decent logistics guy could see what a problem that would cause. Even in the absence of enemy action, that's a major bottleneck just waiting to happen.

nigeman:
You should read Antony Beevor's D Day. He comes across there as an egotistical fool. Also on the subject of tanks, when faced with the superiority of german armour, Eise ...

Read that book last year, an excellent history. So Monty was not a warm sweet person? So what?

Norv Turner

meyerkev: Norv Turner: Ricardo Klement: Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

And the best proof of the fact that armor and firepower do not determine which tank is best. The Soviet numbers are close to the truth for the number of tanks in the units they engaged. The discontinuity has to do with how many broke down trying to get to the battle.

/An M-1 tanker turned analyst convinced me the Sherman actually wins the contest for best tank of the war, for a variety of reasons - none of which were terribly glamorous.
//One of the most survivable tanks of the war
///If you didn't survive, it's because it burned, and got a reputation based on the gruesome outcome
////Far less spalling, unmatched shock protection, and its short logistical tail made it rock

[hornetskensington.files.wordpress.com image 320x400]

Well, yeah, man, you see, like, all the tanks we come up against are bigger and better than ours, so all we can hope to do is, like, scare 'em away, y'know. This gun is an ordinary 76mm but we add this piece of pipe onto it, and the Krauts think, like, maybe it's a 90mm. We got our own ammunition, it's filled with paint. When we fire it, it makes... pretty pictures. Scares the hell outta people! We have a loudspeaker here, and when we go into battle we play music, very loud. It kind of... calms us down.

Movie. Which. From.

Kelly's Heroes. It has to be one of my favorites, it never gets old. Clint Eastwood, Donald Sutherland, Don Rickles. Basically a bunch of soldiers find out about a bunch of nazi gold behind enemy lines so they push through and try to steal it, it literally never gets old


You know who else was in it?

Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

Underrated??? It gets at least a mention when any other tank battle is the topic of a documentary or book.

Just fark Monty. Bluberring egotistical idiot. Also British.

dittybopper: Wicked Chinchilla: Monty was a logistician and should have never had operational command of any battle. Operation Market Garden is a clear and firm demonstration that he was, is, and will forever be entirely overrated.

Had he been a decent logistician, Market Garden wouldn't have failed. There were several critical logistical failures in that operation, among them:

1. The Brits totally fouled up their communications by using radios not powerful enough, and not set to the proper frequencies, and by not providing something as basic as wire so that the operators could mitigate the first two problems with improvised antennas more effective then the whip antennas used.

2. Not forward staging the boats, nor providing enough paddles, causing unnecessary delays.

3. Depending on a single exposed and elevated road to send all of the ground troops. Part of this is of course just the geography of the area, but any decent logistics guy could see what a problem that would cause. Even in the absence of enemy action, that's a major bottleneck just waiting to happen.


I completely agree with you, I just attribute all three of these too operational planning, rather than how I was thinking of logistics. I consider him a logistician in that he managed to scrape together, store, and maintain all of the supples necessary for Market Garden, get all the scheduling for the air drops with limited airlift, etc. etc. In the grand strategic sense, I do credit him with managing to get everything together. I mean, in terms of actual succesful drops Market Garden was a smashing success. No other allied airborne assault was as efficient or successful. The majority of the troops were dropped at the correct spots with the vast majority of their gear, which was/is a major accomplishment. Monty horrifically dropped the ball when the plan transitioned from paper to real terrain. In this you have the radio problem: as a general he probably didn't have a farking clue about the field radios and potential problems: someone somewhere though managed to stockpile them. Same thing with the boats. Its good that XXX corps possessed boats which was sort of standard, but non-standard, equipment. But thats where it stopped being a concern. He SHOULD have considered the possibility of needing a waterborne assault and forward staging them, but didn't. A fighting general might have considered that possibility where as Monty was just crossing his I's and dotting his T's.

Then, multiplying all of the errors in transitioning from nice, neat depots and filing cabinets was the completely ridiculous idea of marching an entire armored corps down a two lane country road. That road compounded everything. Traffic jams, repeated bottlenecks, tactical/strategic predictability. The Germans played a tower defense game with XXX corps.

There were a whole host of other problems as well. Ignoring intelligence from the Dutch underground (Monty was an arrogant SOB), the Arnhem drop zone being 7 miles from the target (fracking STUPID), waiting to completely (or at least mostly) clear Nijmegan before moving advancing. The fact the battle was still a near-run thing is a testament to the sheer tenacity of the Allied units involved.

chuckufarlie: Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

Underrated??? It gets at least a mention when any other tank battle is the topic of a documentary or book.

I would imagine Kursk might have been underrated before the wall came down but any student of history who has been read/watched anything about armor since that point has heard of Kursk...a lot. I wouldn't know for sure, I was only 6 or 7 when the USSR fell but it would make a lot of sense to me.

dittybopper: Wicked Chinchilla: Monty was a logistician and should have never had operational command of any battle. Operation Market Garden is a clear and firm demonstration that he was, is, and will forever be entirely overrated.

Had he been a decent logistician, Market Garden wouldn't have failed. There were several critical logistical failures in that operation, among them:

1. The Brits totally fouled up their communications by using radios not powerful enough, and not set to the proper frequencies, and by not providing something as basic as wire so that the operators could mitigate the first two problems with improvised antennas more effective then the whip antennas used.

2. Not forward staging the boats, nor providing enough paddles, causing unnecessary delays.

3. Depending on a single exposed and elevated road to send all of the ground troops. Part of this is of course just the geography of the area, but any decent logistics guy could see what a problem that would cause. Even in the absence of enemy action, that's a major bottleneck just waiting to happen.

If Monty had been even a halfassed logistician, he would not have even considered launching Market-Garden. He only did so because he wanted the spot light.

If Monty had even the slightest idea of the importance of logistics, he would have focused his energy on getting the port of Antwerp and its approaches cleared and ready for use.

All Monty cared about was getting as much fame as possible. He somehow thought that he should have been put in charge of all of the American troops as well as the British Commonwealth troops AND then capture Berlin.

As for the points that you raised - Monty was in no way responsible for the fiasco with the radios. That mess was the responsibility far below Monty's level. The same thing goes for the number of oars available for the boats. Monty should have stressed to his commanders that the boats needed to be placed closer to the front but the failure to do so was not Monty's fault.

Monty would have made a pretty good general in WWI, but he was not suited for the mobile war that was WWII,

Wicked Chinchilla: chuckufarlie: Mentat: Ah, Kursk. The most underrated of WWII battles.

Underrated??? It gets at least a mention when any other tank battle is the topic of a documentary or book.

I would imagine Kursk might have been underrated before the wall came down but any student of history who has been read/watched anything about armor since that point has heard of Kursk...a lot. I wouldn't know for sure, I was only 6 or 7 when the USSR fell but it would make a lot of sense to me.

I have books written prior to the end of the Soviet bloc and those books still mentioned Kursk. It was and still is the largest tank vs. tank battle in the world. That alone gets it mentioned in any book on armored warfare. Many books by western authors were dedicated to Kursk long before the wall came down.