More encirclements in West

When looking at the western front part 2 one can notice that Wallies failed to make any large scale encirclements. Exception being Ruhr and even that was late in the war. Falaise wasn't as much encirclement as massive slaughter of retreating forces and Gemrans were able to keep escape route open for a long time. Even after BoBulge failed Wallies had perfect opportunity to cut of exposed Germans but settled for driving them back frontally.

If there are more encirclements what are the effects? And what would have to be changed for this to happen? Surely the doctrine was there, it just seems it wasn't implemented properly.
 

mowque

Banned
If there are more encirclements what are the effects? And what would have to be changed for this to happen? Surely the doctrine was there, it just seems it wasn't implemented properly.

The terrain of Northern France isn't very much given to fast warfare if the enemy is well-trained, competent, and at equal doctrine level with you. The Germans were all this and more in 1944-45. Not only that, they had decent supplies and fairly high morale compared to the East.
 
Yes, too much of the W. Allies strategy/tactics was based on brute strength e.g. overwhelming firepower.
Perhaps, in Northern Europe there was a too greater need for balance along the whole front.
There were minor opportunities which didn't happen - for one reason or another e.g. Antwerp & Arnhem. But after Falaise - there wasn't much of an organised German 'front' until almost the Rhine.

Also earlier, because of coalition politics, the next objective was agreed earlier enough.
Hence, if Sicilly was known to be next - why wait till Tunis is captured!?
Hence, if Italy was known to be next - why wait till Sicilly is captured - land on the mainland before - and hey presto encirclement!
 
Top