Poll: Patton or Montgomery?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Pablo22510 wrote:

      oceanhawk wrote:

      Not really, Rommel wanted the wall,


      Give me one good argument why Rommel is better... and some examples in combat..
      Rommel obviously wanted the wall. Makes it harder to disembark, doesn't it?
      Look, I'll give you an example. When the Allies disembarked, Rommel wanted to fall back to the Seine-Rhone line, fortify himself there, where his inferiority in numbers wouldn't matter, and then launch a quick counterattack with two Panzer divisions and send the Allies back to the beaches.
      Well, the wall didnt work, did it?
      K time to debunk this once and for all

      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.





      As for the Atlantic Wall, it was a complete failure and an Huuugggeee waste of time and resources. The Germans had, with stunning effect, shown the advantages of mobile warfare. 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. It had already lost air superiority and had never really gained mastery of the seas. This, combined with the vast amount of men and materials chewed up in the East, made it's loss in Normandy an all but forgone conclusion....



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • 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.
      Which is pretty much what Rommel said, too.

      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.
      "You can't break a man the way you break a dog, or a horse. The harder you beat a man, the taller he stands." -Jackal (Far Cry 2)

    • 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.
      You mean that recon mission?


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



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • 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.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • 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.
      So a recon plus a search and destroy mission...

      grand, happy days then..

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



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • 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.
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • 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.
      Didnt stop them...

      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 :P



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • 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?
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • 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?
      I personally, would have built a giant swimming pool, no seriously, one with a big diving board..

      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



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • 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?
      Forum Gang Commissar



      I changed it for you Dia <3
    • 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?
      To protect the german armor from air raids etc, I dont know but Id say the high command needs concrete elsewhere on the front..


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



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • 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?
      The buildings in which they make the 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



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


    • 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.
      "You can't break a man the way you break a dog, or a horse. The harder you beat a man, the taller he stands." -Jackal (Far Cry 2)

    • 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.
      The Germans are better attacking on the advance, not defending



      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?



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye


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



      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye