Poll: Patton or Montgomery?

oceanhawk wrote:

Rommel’s was an overwhelmingly minority viewpoint. His superior, Rundstedt, supported a completely different approach to the defense of northwestern France. The Werhrmacht‘s senior active-duty field marshal found his position strongly supported by the commander of German armored forces in the West, General Schweppenburg. The Rundstedt-Geyr von Schweppenburg operational solution basically said that there was nothing they could do to prevent a successful Allied landing. Instead, they championed tactics much in consonance with German operational and tactical doctrine, as expressed in Die Truppenfuhrung (Troop Leadership, cant speak German very well, so spelling may be a bit off), the Wehrmacht‘s basic doctrinal manual. The two generals argued that German forces in the West should concentrate available armored forces for a massive counterattack against the Allies once they were ashore. , the panzer forces should be held back from the coast; then once the Allies had landed, the panzers would concentrate and move forward to counterattack. German armor would also then be available to execute a mobile defense that would utilize superior Wehrmacht training, tactics and equipment. Manstien was behind Rundstedt's idea, and helped to plan it.

Btw, Atlantic Wall defences were at its weakest in Normandy, and is why Allies successfully disembarked. An Allied disembarking at Cherbourg, Calais or Brest would have failed.

I'd have imagined attacking a channel port city would be a bad idea.

oceanhawk wrote:

As for the Atlantic Wall, it was a complete failure and an Huuugggeee waste of time and resources.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

As for the Atlantic Wall, it was a complete failure and an Huuugggeee waste of time and resources.

It stopped an Allied invasion before at Dieppe.

There is a rather large difference between invasion, and recon mission

oceanhawk wrote:

You mean that recon mission?

Objectives included seizing and holding a major port for a short period, both to prove that it was possible and to gather intelligence. Upon retreat, the Allies also wanted to destroy coastal defences, port structures and all strategic buildings. The raid had the added objectives of boosting morale and demonstrating the firm commitment of the United Kingdom to open a western front in Europe.

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

You mean that recon mission?

That wasn't recon. An invasion to capture, gather intel, hold, and destroy targets.

Objectives included seizing and holding a major port for a short period, both to prove that it was possible and to gather intelligence. Upon retreat, the Allies also wanted to destroy coastal defences, port structures and all strategic buildings. The raid had the added objectives of boosting morale and demonstrating the firm commitment of the United Kingdom to open a western front in Europe.

grand, happy days then..

An atlantic wall again, was a waste of resources, so was the U-Boat shelters..

oceanhawk wrote:

So a recon plus a search and destroy mission...

oceanhawk wrote:

An atlantic wall again, was a waste of resources

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

So a recon plus a search and destroy mission...

No, it's not. Recon does not involve directly storming a beach with air support and heavy tanks.

oceanhawk wrote:

An atlantic wall again, was a waste of resources

Proof? Stopped the Western Allies crossing the drink until '44. That is good.

the allies landed, broke the wall and then won the war

had germany had enough resources, then yea would have been good, but they didnt have enough to do it all, and even if they did do all of it, it still would have failed..

and guess what.. IT DID FAIL

oceanhawk wrote:

the allies landed, broke the wall and then won the war

oceanhawk wrote:

had germany had enough resources, then yea would have been good, but they didnt have enough to do it all, and even if they did do all of it, it still would have failed..

and guess what.. IT DID FAIL

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

the allies landed, broke the wall and then won the war

It was already won, and it was the weakest part.

oceanhawk wrote:

had germany had enough resources, then yea would have been good, but they didnt have enough to do it all, and even if they did do all of it, it still would have failed..

and guess what.. IT DID FAIL

What the hell do you propose they did with all that cement?

then maybe, have a cement fight? that would be class

k I wasnt being sarcastic, just joking lol

but there was pletny of uses for the cement.. could have built defenses in land for the armor units, or tried to put that back into producing german armor..

But eitherway, Normandy would have been better with the germans on the move, like look at all their previus engagements, you cant deny that the Germans were better at fighting on the move/ attacking

oceanhawk wrote:

but there was pletny of uses for the cement.. could have built defenses in land for the armor units, or tried to put that back into producing german armor..

oceanhawk wrote:

To revert back to static defense, which harkens back to the type of trench warfare used in WWI, proved the dire straits that Germany was really in.

oceanhawk wrote:

like look at all their previus engagements, you cant deny that the Germans were better at fighting on the move/ attacking

oceanhawk wrote:

or tried to put that back into producing german armor..

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

but there was pletny of uses for the cement.. could have built defenses in land for the armor units, or tried to put that back into producing german armor..

Wouldn't that be static though?

oceanhawk wrote:

To revert back to static defense, which harkens back to the type of trench warfare used in WWI, proved the dire straits that Germany was really in.

oceanhawk wrote:

like look at all their previus engagements, you cant deny that the Germans were better at fighting on the move/ attacking

Model did good when he dug-in, as @comrade dave pointed out. Bet he would've loved all that concrete on the sea front.

oceanhawk wrote:

or tried to put that back into producing german armor..

How the hell do you propose they make a tank light enough to move out of concrete?

No silly, but them into production lines, factories etc,

oceanhawk wrote:

To protect the german armor from air raids etc, I dont know but Id say the high command needs concrete elsewhere on the front..

oceanhawk wrote:

No silly, but them into production lines, factories etc,

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

To protect the german armor from air raids etc, I dont know but Id say the high command needs concrete elsewhere on the front..

Like Normandy?

oceanhawk wrote:

No silly, but them into production lines, factories etc,

Concrete? For tanks?

put the contrete to help fort the production lines or something.. but lets be honest, there was a lot of uses for it..

Nope, cos in normandy they put most of it on the beaches which was pointless, that my point..

The atlantic wall was not a good idea

oceanhawk wrote:

the allies landed, broke the wall and then won the war

Because Hitler didn't let Rommel fight the Allies how he wanted. Not because the Atlantic Wall failed. As you well pointed out, the purpose of the Atlantic Wall was never preventing a disembarkment. it was to act both as a deterrent and as a way to cause the maximum casualties possible.

Pablo22510 wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

the allies landed, broke the wall and then won the war

*cough cough*

Because Hitler didn't let Rommel fight the Allies how he wanted. Not because the Atlantic Wall failed. As you well pointed out, the purpose of the Atlantic Wall was never preventing a disembarkment. it was to act both as a deterrent and as a way to cause the maximum casualties possible.

Rommel was good, very good, but most of his succes relied on the moral boost his presence gave to the soldiers. He was bold, innovative, but not a strategic genius. He recognised that and pledged allegiance to a potential Manstein-led military government to coup off Hitler. Of course Manstein didn't want this and it never came, but the fact remains that Rommel recognised Manstein's over-all superiority.

Manstein was a strategic genius, whose brilliance I have defended eagerly before on this forum. But the simply fact is, Rommel is simply not as brilliant as Manstein. Of course Rommel was great, and second best Close tied with Guirden. But Manstein is the greatest General of the two. To be honest, Rommel is light years behind Manstien, ever here the Siege of Sevastopol? Or how do you think France fell in just 6 weeks?

The Atlantic wall was never intended to keep the allies boxed up on the beaches, it qas supposed to slow them down long enough for the armoured reserve to be mobilised and counterattack.

comrade dave wrote:

The Atlantic wall was never intended to keep the allies boxed up on the beaches, it qas supposed to slow them down long enough for the armoured reserve to be mobilised and counterattack.

oceanhawk wrote:

Dont think they managed to mobalise their armor now did they?

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Dont think they managed to mobalise their armor now did they?

Rommel and Hitler were being the party animals they were because of the poor weather. Only an idiot would attack at a time like that

Hitler was slow to realase the SS Panzer Divisions in reserve, Rhundstead pleaded and pleaded and got very fustrated, however Hitler didnt realse them, and hence we all are still speaking English