How would you execute Overlord if you were placed in charge?

Ramontxo

Donor
Ultra was still critical and in fact was used quite a lot after the war, as the Germans had sold enigma to several countries.
 
Like when he got stuck in Lorraine? Patton had many skills, but attacking prepared defences was not one of them.

He did well when fully supplied. When logistics were diverted for Market Garden, did less well.

He's still the guy you want for exploitation of an attack, or Counter-Attack not a setpiece where a grind was expected.

Monty was the opposite. V. Good at breakthrus at prepared areas(excepting Caen, that was a botch), V. bad at exploitation
 
He did well when fully supplied. When logistics were diverted for Market Garden, did less well.
Final clearance around Metz took until 13 December.

Monty was the opposite. V. Good at breakthrus at prepared areas(excepting Caen, that was a botch), V. bad at exploitation
Start of advance from Seine bridgehead 29th August; Brussels 3rd September; Antwerp 4th September :)
 
Last edited:
...

*****

The Dirty Dozen! :p
This is the crazy method. Send in the SAS to infiltrate the beach from behind, kill the commanders, smash the radios, cut the phone lines, wreck the big guns and soften up the approach. This is going to break a lot of rules especially with the need to wear German uniforms to get in and the high possibility that these very well trained men are lost in action on a one-way mission. If they can hold out until the main force arrive then it's all to the good. Timing will be critical in this.
I'm sure this was thought about and discarded at the time.

That the scattered AB killed a corps commander, cut communications across the Cotientin, took out some battalion CP. Caused entire regiments to be misdirected. It makes a few commando teams seem redundant.
 
Last edited:
Final clearance around Metz took until 13 December.


Start of advance from Seine bridgehead 29th August; Brussels 3rd September; Antwerp 4th September :)

When were the approaches to Antwerp cleared, so the Port could be used?
November 8, and not till the 29th for the Port to unload supplies
 
But as everything else blew past the original targets for progress, that was the one thing that Ike got downright angry with Monty about.

That's fine and all, but what was the reason for the delay? Its all good to just say "because Patton is awesome and Montgomery sucks", but what is the actual reason for any delay? And if there was a delay, what could have done to minimise it?
 
I would change the airborne assault in two ways.
First focus better on delivering troops to specific targets, like Pegasus Bridge. This will require gliders and good navigators.

Focus on capturing an airfield on D-Day. If Carpiqet Airfield looks too far, then focus on a large farmer’s field closer to the beaches. After the first wave of light infantry land, succeeding waves land (C-47s) with AT guns, mortars, bulldozers, etc. Older bombers (Whitely) could fly in bulk cargo like ammo and fuel drums. Also reinforce them with Naval Gunnery Officers and Forward Air Controllers. NGOs would limit them to landing within range of cruisers and battleships. The key point is to open an air bridge on D-Day to evacuate wounded and provide another supply route.
 
That's fine and all, but what was the reason for the delay? Its all good to just say "because Patton is awesome and Montgomery sucks", but what is the actual reason for any delay? And if there was a delay, what could have done to minimise it?

Actually, that's what Ike had been asking, and he didn't have much more than 'the Nazis stopped running' on why the hard fighting Canadians were not joined by other UK forces, forces tied up with Market Garden
 
I would change the airborne assault in two ways.
First focus better on delivering troops to specific targets, like Pegasus Bridge. This will require gliders and good navigators.

Focus on capturing an airfield on D-Day. If Carpiqet Airfield looks too far, then focus on a large farmer’s field closer to the beaches. ...

The January plan had a US AB Div landing on and near a unused airfield on the west side of the Cotientin peninsula. Capturing the Carpiqet airfield was considered or the AB force, but priority was given to securing the bridges east of Caen. It was assumed the airfield would be over run the afternoon of 6th June, as part of the general advance inland that day.

That's fine and all, but what was the reason for the delay? Its all good to just say "because Patton is awesome and Montgomery sucks", but what is the actual reason for any delay? And if there was a delay, what could have done to minimise it?

When XXX Corps swept north from the Seine to Antwerp the German 15th Army also 'swept' north across the Flanders coast and during September entrenched itself on both sides of the Scheldt estuary. That is the channel to the Antwerp docks. When 21 Army Group set to clearing both banks of the Scheldt they found a couple corps of German infantry entrenched across the farms and towns of the south bank, and the polder of Beveland and Walchern islands on the north side. It took weeks to dig out the defenders. Additionally the Germans had set to mining the channel and sunk assorted boats, coaster, and cargo ships in the Scheldt channel. Tho Antwerp was captured 4 September, it took tis mid November to get rid of the Germans and clean up the mess they had made in the waterway. Antwerp had a peace time capacity of close to 20,000 tons per day, enough for supplying 21-22 US or Brit divisions and all their corps and army support in sustained full offensive operations. That capacity was unavailable for some 9-10 weeks after XXX Corps pulled off their stunning August advance across northern France and Belgium.

Several of us in this discussion have hashed over how that could have been avoided. I'll pass this time and leave it to them for any comment.
 
Just for my own amusement here is a map showing the 6th June landing sites, the limit of advance 6th June (shaded bands), and some of the subsequent operations to the end of July.

Neptune.jpg
 
Flat 12 1296 cubic inches 350HP@2000rpm
Torque 960 ft lbs@800-1600 rpm

More HP, won't need the gearing that limited the top speed to 14mph

Lets look under the hood. It's a model
205357-13385-50-pristine.jpg


To me, plenty of room for a V
Besides the gearing part of the limiting factors for the speed was the suspension. And the gearing is part of what gave the Churchill its excellent hill climbing. What the model doesn't show is the transmission control rods that ran down the top of the hull back to the transmission. The heads of the V type engine may have interfered with them. It would be interesting to see a scale GAA in the same space. I'm also unsure of the engine transmission interface.
 
Simultaneous Op Sledgehammer/Overlord and Anvil/Dragoon in early May would be very effective
That was the original plan but there were not enough landing craft available. They had to postpone D-Day a month to get extra production. So Dragoon was postponed to allow them to reposition vessels from the U.K to the Med.
 
That was the original plan but there were not enough landing craft available. They had to postpone D-Day a month to get extra production. So Dragoon was postponed to allow them to reposition vessels from the U.K to the Med.

That was aggravated by the February expansion from four to five corps/beaches. The original time line set by COSSAC in 1943 was for Op ANVIL to be executed in April, and OVERLORD in May. Both were smaller operations than contemplated in January 1944 after Ike and Monty were deep into the planning. Ike could have told Monty to scale back the OVERLORD Op to a three corps/beach assault & gotten the ANVIL attack in April. But, Ike favored a maximum effort in NW France, which precluded Op ANVIL. There was still a option of a single division assault in a reduced ANVIL Op. but the build up would have been too slow across a lodgment of a single division front.
 
Besides the gearing part of the limiting factors for the speed was the suspension. And the gearing is part of what gave the Churchill its excellent hill climbing. What the model doesn't show is the transmission control rods that ran down the top of the hull back to the transmission. The heads of the V type engine may have interfered with them. It would be interesting to see a scale GAA in the same space. I'm also unsure of the engine transmission interface.

Churchill
Bedford Flat 12 1296 cubic inches max rpm??? 350hp@2000
4 speed 1st 6.22 2nd 2.263 3rd 1.176 4th 0.703 Reverse 10.658
Torque 960 ft lbs@800-1600 rpm 12.5 mph


M4A1
Continental R975 973 cubic inches max rpm 2400 400 hp at 2,400 rpm
5 speed 1st 7.56 2nd 3.11 3rd 1.78 4th 1.11 5th 0.73 Rev 5.56
Net Torque 940 ft lbs@1700rpm 24 mph

The important number is Torque more than HP. the Transmission is just to keep the motor at a good powerband

Motor values are fairly close, the M4 had a wider range of gearing in the tranny, Churchill had over twice the reduction in the final drive.

That worked out that the M4 had a 30 degree climb gradient, the Churchill had 34 degree.

For suspension travel, they were not that different, the VVSS had 4 inches of suspension travel, not much different than the coils on the Churchill

The real difference was the location of the sprocket to the first road wheel, the M4 could do a two foot obstruction, the Churchill could do 4

watch here


But in the end, having more HP per ton rating, the better off you are for acceleration
 
Quite so Marathag and when the going gets difficult it is ft lbs per ton that counts, The Bedford was designed to optimise torque not bhp. Modern mobile plant is built around the same concept and the Bedford kept it's power even at very low engine revs. I have seen a military cross country competition see a 7 ton lorry beat all the other wheeled vehicles but just putting it in crawler gear and leaving it there giving maximum multiplication of the engine's torque. BHP/ton is a species of Top Trumps comparison compared to actual movement over bad terrain. Hence the A39 had excellent tactical mobility given it's gearing. People have talked about putting a Meteor in a Churchill and point to the 350bhp Bedford as against the 550/600bhp Meteor. More significant is the Bedford's 960 ft lb torque as against the Meteor's 1450 but more significant is that the Bedford's torque is maintained at 800 rpm which is a car tick over speed. The Meteor's 1450 is severely degraded at those sort of revs. A Meteor will give you better performance but not as much as some would think.
 
Quite so Marathag and when the going gets difficult it is ft lbs per ton that counts, The Bedford was designed to optimise torque not bhp. Modern mobile plant is built around the same concept and the Bedford kept it's power even at very low engine revs. I have seen a military cross country competition see a 7 ton lorry beat all the other wheeled vehicles but just putting it in crawler gear and leaving it there giving maximum multiplication of the engine's torque. BHP/ton is a species of Top Trumps comparison compared to actual movement over bad terrain. Hence the A39 had excellent tactical mobility given it's gearing. People have talked about putting a Meteor in a Churchill and point to the 350bhp Bedford as against the 550/600bhp Meteor. More significant is the Bedford's 960 ft lb torque as against the Meteor's 1450 but more significant is that the Bedford's torque is maintained at 800 rpm which is a car tick over speed. The Meteor's 1450 is severely degraded at those sort of revs. A Meteor will give you better performance but not as much as some would think.
What about something like the V2 Russian diesel ?
 
Just for my own amusement here is a map showing the 6th June landing sites, the limit of advance 6th June (shaded bands), and some of the subsequent operations to the end of July.

And some detail of the German dispositions at the end of July - 3 Pz and 4 SS Pz divisions

Victory-12.jpg
 
What about something like the V2 Russian diesel ?

It was a huge V-12 engine, 2,368 cubic inches, almost twice the displacement of the Bedford

Here's a M36 Slugger re-engined with a the postwar version of that engine by Croatia
yu-m362.jpg

Note that TD Hull was very roomy, as the M10 had the twin GM 6-71 setup
 
Top