Like when he got stuck in Lorraine? Patton had many skills, but attacking prepared defences was not one of them.
Final clearance around Metz took until 13 December.He did well when fully supplied. When logistics were diverted for Market Garden, did less well.
Start of advance from Seine bridgehead 29th August; Brussels 3rd September; Antwerp 4th SeptemberMonty was the opposite. V. Good at breakthrus at prepared areas(excepting Caen, that was a botch), V. bad at exploitation
...
*****
The Dirty Dozen!
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.
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
Still better than expected.
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. ...
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?
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.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
![]()
To me, plenty of room for a V
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.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.
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.
What about something like the V2 Russian diesel ?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.
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.
What about something like the V2 Russian diesel ?