The Whale has Wings

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't see any British force breaking through ahead of the Americans simply by virtue of the fact that for every tank and 88mm AT gun facing the Americans FIVE were facing their poor British & Canadian Allies.:(:(:(

Would the British, Commonwealth, and American forces necessarily get the same landing beaches as OTL though? If the US forces end up on the left flank, rather than the right, that will affect which army makes the fastest progress.
 
Would the British, Commonwealth, and American forces necessarily get the same landing beaches as OTL though? If the US forces end up on the left flank, rather than the right, that will affect which army makes the fastest progress.

That analysis was about O'Connor and what he would do with situations that Monty faced. Obviously, where the troops go is up to the OP. Personally, I'd trust the Americans to the west where tactical and individual initiative is needed more, and the British-Canadians to the East, where courage, tenacity, and discipline is much more vital.
 
Less British lives lost both at sea and on land should be very helpful to Britain in the post-war era as well as having a larger reserve.
 
Not sure about Mac, but I am still coming to terms with AD describing 1942 Alice Springs as a ..metropolis..?:p
Maybe Doug could convalesce there, boating with the Todd River Yacht club.
Re commanders, ITTL Blamey actually has more and wider command experience, in combat, with larger forces than Doug does.:D


Well, its a town, anyway :)
At least by Australian standards....:D:p
 
I posted a very interesting analysis of O'Connor that was produced at a US staff college. Basically, the conclusion was that to succeed, he needed a certain degree of autonomy, and when heavily constrained to fit into a grand plan and limited discretion about how to deploy his forces he did nowhere near as well. It sees to be that, rather than force size, that was the problem.

He either needed to be in charge, or given wide latitude to interpret his orders, so if he was in Monty's place, he's likely to have done vastly better than he did as his subordinate.

Alratan

I think that was what I was thinking of but remembering badly.:( Don't suppose there's any chance of seeing the full thing, pretty please?

Suspect in Monty's place O'Connor would still be significantly constrained by both being part of a larger allied force and by the terrain, although he might well do better than Monty in some of the breakouts as you say.

Steve
 
On D-Day.

I always thought the allocation of beaches had a lot to do with locations of troops in the UK and planning for resupply during the advance through France, US getting reinforcements and supplies direct from the USA. They are frankly insurmountable - you cant move Aldershot and there is no mileage in having a damn great seaborne traffic junction in the middle of the Channel.

Switch things round (and ignoring that there are three CW beaches /assault divs and two US OTL) I suggest this.

The UK forces would be better equipped both the get ashore (tanks likely to be landed on Omaha in the first minutes) and fight through the bocage. That’s partly because the fighting is a better fit for the type of formal attack the UK excelled at and partly because of equipment - I am thinking about AVRE and Crocodile not to mention any bocagist funnies developed beforehand. Also I suspect that there may be a better understanding of what the bocage is among more brits and some of the fundamental misunderstandings may not arise.

The US around Caen will have some problems. US airborne were not coup de main forces OTL in the way the Brits were so Pegasus bridge becomes more problematic (and the gun battery in theory at least). The US have inferior AT guns and a (slightly) less developed artillery doctrine so II SS PzCorps attack may be less of a washout than it was OTL The US will also be inclined to use lots of infantry in its assaults. OTL there were massive tank losses but only 1.5 men per tank lost. Stick in a full compliment of infantry and you have Hurtgen early and a lot of dead GI’s more probably than OTL, as well as the tank losses. Not to mention the US having to clear the channel ports.
 
Quite some damage was done to the British by Sherman Fireflys, tanks the Americans didn't really have. Of course this might be a good thing, getting a big butchers bill at Caen might see the Americans make an earlier call for better-armed tanks, and thus be capable of corralling the Germans at the Bulge much more quickly.
 
Quite some damage was done to the British by Sherman Fireflys, tanks the Americans didn't really have. Of course this might be a good thing, getting a big butchers bill at Caen might see the Americans make an earlier call for better-armed tanks, and thus be capable of corralling the Germans at the Bulge much more quickly.

They may do that anyway given some of the designs that the British have in train, though obviously with the focus on the Pacific ATM we haven't heard a lot about those recently.
 
I am thinking about AVRE and Crocodile not to mention any bocagist funnies developed beforehand. Also I suspect that there may be a better understanding of what the bocage is among more brits and some of the fundamental misunderstandings may not arise.

From Carlo D'Este's 'Decision in Normandy' - P87

'Sir Alan Brooke had been extremely pessimistic at all times about our prospect of fighting through the bocage country...'

This was apparently from an Eisenhower interview so the boccage shouldn't really have been a surprise.
 
From Carlo D'Este's 'Decision in Normandy' - P87

'Sir Alan Brooke had been extremely pessimistic at all times about our prospect of fighting through the bocage country...'

This was apparently from an Eisenhower interview so the boccage shouldn't really have been a surprise.

I think Alan Brooke had been there in 1940 as he was involved with the evacuation of British troops in the 'other Dunkirk' from Cherbourg and other western ports. He was also asked by Churchill if it were possible to retreat to a bridgehead in North West France and holdout. He may have noticed the bocage and became aware of its defensive qualities.
 
They may do that anyway given some of the designs that the British have in train, though obviously with the focus on the Pacific ATM we haven't heard a lot about those recently.
They didn't OTL, and they've little more opportunity her to face the kind of tank-on-tank action that would lead to the development of such vehicles.
 
Astrodragon, a random thought but what sort of quality steel has gone into the construction of the various classes of carriers? Having a read through Riain's old Challenge: Keep Britain's Forces Under Budget thread to track down a separate piece of information reminded me that post-war in our timeline a lot of the British carriers had been worked to death thanks to there being fewer of them and their being made of low quality steel due to wartime constraints so that they had little operational life left in them. In this timeline though a lot of them were built before hostilities kicked off so I can't see the Admiralty using anything less than the best quality stuff for their new toys and and there's been much less invasion scare so even the follow on ones might not be too bad, plus with more of them to go around they wont be run ragged. Granted I know that post-war considerations are a long way off considering that it's only early 1942 but it just got me thinking. :)


I think Alan Brooke had been there in 1940 as he was involved with the evacuation of British troops in the 'other Dunkirk' from Cherbourg and other western ports. He was also asked by Churchill if it were possible to retreat to a bridgehead in North West France and holdout. He may have noticed the bocage and became aware of its defensive qualities.
On the bocage they already had one attempt at making something to try and alleviate the conditions of it for tanks with the Rhinoceros additions, although they don't seem to of been all that widely used and also have to double for taking care of beach defences as well. Might not one solution be something the equivalent of a large saw mounted sideways at the front with sharpened serrated teeth so that if they run into heavy vegetation they could drive into, then use the tracks to wiggle the front from side to side and use the 'saw' to try and cut away the obstacle near its base? Seems fairly low-tech and possibly work better than the Rhino 'prongs' for making their way through it, although it doesn't help with the limited visibility. The fact that nothing like this was used does seem to point to there being a flaw in the idea somewhere that I'm overlooking.
 
Last edited:
Simon

I imagine the RN would prefer to use their higher graded steel for their BBs

Regarding bocage cutting machines? AIUI, they WERE employed. But they tended to draw the fire of every German AT gun and tank on the battlefield, for obvious reasons.:(
 
Quite some damage was done to the British by Sherman Fireflys, tanks the Americans didn't really have. Of course this might be a good thing, getting a big butchers bill at Caen might see the Americans make an earlier call for better-armed tanks, and thus be capable of corralling the Germans at the Bulge much more quickly.

Not.A.Chance.

McNair and his friendly ghouls in the Detroit Division of the American Military-Industrial Complex would start taking German language lessons before allowing the retooling of their plants to start manufacturing the Pershing tank. Detroit could make THREE TIMES the $$$ making Shermans that they could making Pershings. Hence, this is why the infrastructure was never built up to allow easier logistics for the Pershing.

What the scandal of NTS Rhode Island and the Mark XIV torpedo was for the US Navy, the blockage of the Pershing tank was for the US Army. OTL, it took a direct order from Roosevelt to get the Pershings in the US and the UK into the battleline, and even THEN they were kept in reserve until the Rhine River Campaign. Of course, McNair had been KIA by this time.

"The war will be won or lost with the M-4!"-US Armor Replacement Command, 1943:mad:
 
OT I know, but how do they make less money on a larger tank that uses more steel and more of pretty much everything else?

Efficiencies in M4 production?

Lower fixed prices for the Pershing?

Just curious?
 
The American Military-Industrial Complex

OT I know, but how do they make less money on a larger tank that uses more steel and more of pretty much everything else?

Efficiencies in M4 production? (1)

Lower fixed prices for the Pershing? (2)

Just curious?

1) Yes, because they've been making them all along with all the kinks in the assembly line completely worked out. Also, a smaller tank, with lighter materials, means quicker production time per tank.

2) IDK:eek:

There were logistical restrictions on transporting tanks the size of the Pershing. But of course, to just keep saying that they were too "insurmountable" to be overcome would suggest the US Army would be relying on the Sherman to this day.:rolleyes: Clearly, they COULD be overcome, as the Ardennes proved. But the excuse of numbers-numbers-numbers would not be let go of by US Armor Replacement Command. I wonder how many of these bastards wound up serving on Big 3 corporate boards after the war?:mad:

The thing is, if you could MAKE three Shermans in the time it takes to make ONE Pershing, assuming all other factors being equal, you'll make a lot more $$$. Then there's the issue of downtime on the assembly line while everything is being retooled. And the ferocious demand for new tanks because the old ones keep getting blown apart so fast.

It's like saying you don't have time to plug the leaks in the lifeboat because you are too busy bailing water, and you are making more money bailing than you could make plugging.:p

But when I think of the results gained from the handful of tank-to-tank encounters between Pershings and panzers...:( A lot of GI's never came home because people back home wanted to become MORE rich than they already were.:mad:
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top