USA*** said:
True, but to be fair, at least to the Brits as a whole, they were nearing the end of their manpower reserves and feared a large casualty count for both political reasons and memories of the WWI slaughter. The Brits wanted a war of attrition by attacking the peripheries. (Which doesn't make sense to me when you are running out of men as well). They wanted to avoid the direct assault on Europe.
Ironically, their slow methodical approach cost them as much or more than a bolder approach.
Montgomery's failure to take Caen (which stalled the D-Day breakout and allowed the Germans to recover and threaten the beachhead), failure of Goodwood (with large armor and infantry casualties), failure to take the Scheldt before the Germans fortified it after losing Antwerp (which lead to in large part the fuel supply crisis as we approached the German frontiers) and Market-Garden which got the 1st Airborne Division virtually destroyed and 30 Corps manhandled. Poor planning, poor intelligence, marginal/bad and slow leadership all directly tied to Montgomery.
If Monty would have quickly and decisively closed the Falaise Gap with US Forces and not allowed German troops to escape, and if Market Garden would have been over the Rhine with Patton's armor in the lead WWII in Europe would have been over by Christmas 1944.dcbowers said:USA*** said:
True, but to be fair, at least to the Brits as a whole, they were nearing the end of their manpower reserves and feared a large casualty count for both political reasons and memories of the WWI slaughter. The Brits wanted a war of attrition by attacking the peripheries. (Which doesn't make sense to me when you are running out of men as well). They wanted to avoid the direct assault on Europe.
Ironically, their slow methodical approach cost them as much or more than a bolder approach.
Montgomery's failure to take Caen (which stalled the D-Day breakout and allowed the Germans to recover and threaten the beachhead), failure of Goodwood (with large armor and infantry casualties), failure to take the Scheldt before the Germans fortified it after losing Antwerp (which lead to in large part the fuel supply crisis as we approached the German frontiers) and Market-Garden which got the 1st Airborne Division virtually destroyed and 30 Corps manhandled. Poor planning, poor intelligence, marginal/bad and slow leadership all directly tied to Montgomery.
If Monty would have succeeded in only two of the above four, then the War in Europe would have been over by Christmas 1944.
YZ250 said:
When the war started in the Philippines MacArthur was promised supplies which was a lie. None were coming as they had already decided to sacrifice him. Despite this the Army held out for months while most of the Navy had fled.
As commander of the SWPA he received a very small percentage of the war supply at the beginning of the war. Yet, he was able to defeat the Japanese in New Guinea in one of the most difficult fighting terrains. He followed that up with the liberation of the Philippines, Borneo and then the occupation of Japan.
The attack took place about 10 hours after the Pearl Harbor raid. Still, no real excuse for the lack of preparation with what forces McA had at his disposal and just as at pearl Harbor, sabotage was feared more than surprise attack. Probably wouldn't have made much difference given they were too few for the AOR, too piecemeal in makeup and in general too poorly trained and equipped.JJMt said:
Eisenhower, who was MacArthur's Chief of Staff, was extremely critical of him. As just one example of his criticisms, MacArthur refused to disperse his aircraft despite repeated warnings of a Japanese attack. As a result, his entire Air Corps was destroyed on the ground, if I remember correctly.
These are good points, but I'm not real sure you can blame the Navy (other than the supplies and reinforcements never came. But the plan hinged on the Pacific Fleet still being viable).YZ250 said:
I don't understand the point of the criticism. He should have stuck to the plan that called for a defensive retreat for the purpose of delaying the fall? He, Wainright and Sutherland hated that plan. Don't forget that MacArthur was also in charge of the Philippine Army and had Filipino troops in addition to only 22,000 American troops. MacArthur tried to oppose the invasion but later implemented the retreat to Bataan. They successfully delayed the inevitable which is according to plan. I don't think we have a single general who wouldn't at least try to oppose the Japanese landings. So he did deviate from the plan but ended with the same result.
Whenever the fall of the Philippines is talked about nobody ever talks about the Navy. They got out of there and did almost nothing to oppose the landings even though they had 29 submarines in the Asiatic fleet. They didn't even try to supply the Army. You said that MacArthur should have known that supplies would not come. Why should he think this when he was repeatedly told that they were coming? Quezon was told the same thing. Eisenhower himself was one who was actually trying to get supplies there. To me that is the real failure if you are going to criticize the fall of the Philippines: the Navy doing nothing to oppose the Japanese and not even trying to bring in supplies.
Back to the plans. MacArthur didn't come up with the war plans himself as it was a joint plan with the Navy that had been in development for years. MacArthur hadn't been Chief of Staff since 1935. Almost 7 years. He had retired from the Army in 1937 and wasn't recalled to duty until July of 1941. During that time the plans had been revised.
My point is when talking of MacArthur in WWII they always focus on the fall of the Philippines and not on the New Guinea campaign or the liberation of the Philippines. I don't believe he lost a battle once he went on the offensive.
Caen was supposed to be taken on D-day. It took them two months to get 9 miles.CT'97 said:
The distinct difference between the British perspective and the US was noticeable. As far as Montgomery goes the overall impression was that at Normandy Montgomery was doing the hard fighting against the best Germany Panzer and SS units while the US was fighting old men and foreign conscripts. The historians corrected this to some extent, the US did face the Panzer Lehr division Germany's only fully mounted division, but still held to this primary opinion. On the stalled push to Caen they held to the opinion that he had to be cautious so as not to expose his flank to the heavy Panzer divisions to his north.
As if the Germans wouldn't have done the same if they'd had similar resources at their disposal. Americans go into warfare with no intention of fighting fairly. That's for the losers to whine about.JJMt said:My dad wrote a novel set in Germany during WW 2 (his main character was an Aggie!). My dad went to Germany in the 80s (I think) to do research on the settings and geography to make sure that he did not make any dumb mistakes. While there, he met an old German soldier from a Panzer unit and they talked for quite a while. The German soldier complained bitterly about exactly what you describe - he said that the U.S. forces wouldn't engage and fight like real men, but would hold off and simply pound the German lines with artillery.Quote:
Front line leaders were more willing to just let artillery hammer a position before pushing troops or even bypassing a known strong point to allow it to be hit with bombs and artillery and then mopped up by follow on units.
It's my impression that artillery is one of the areas in which the U.S. has always excelled. I wait to hear, though, what the more knowledgeable contributors to this board have to say.
Said the team that infiltrated entire armor divisions through impenetrable forests, not once but twice (1940 and 1944) and attacked multiple nations without provocations or warning. Yep... fighting like real men.JJMt said:My dad wrote a novel set in Germany during WW 2 (his main character was an Aggie!). My dad went to Germany in the 80s (I think) to do research on the settings and geography to make sure that he did not make any dumb mistakes. While there, he met an old German soldier from a Panzer unit and they talked for quite a while. The German soldier complained bitterly about exactly what you describe - he said that the U.S. forces wouldn't engage and fight like real men, but would hold off and simply pound the German lines with artillery.Quote:
Front line leaders were more willing to just let artillery hammer a position before pushing troops or even bypassing a known strong point to allow it to be hit with bombs and artillery and then mopped up by follow on units.
It's my impression that artillery is one of the areas in which the U.S. has always excelled. I wait to hear, though, what the more knowledgeable contributors to this board have to say.
Still applicable today. Saw lots of 120's expended on five Taliban one March morning at Khas Kunar.JABQ04 said:
.......not to mention murdering defenseless civilians in their millions. Manly, indeed.Rabid Cougar said:Said the team that infiltrated entire armor divisions through impenetrable forests, not once but twice (1940 and 1944) and attacked multiple nations without provocations or warning. Yep... fighting like real men.JJMt said:My dad wrote a novel set in Germany during WW 2 (his main character was an Aggie!). My dad went to Germany in the 80s (I think) to do research on the settings and geography to make sure that he did not make any dumb mistakes. While there, he met an old German soldier from a Panzer unit and they talked for quite a while. The German soldier complained bitterly about exactly what you describe - he said that the U.S. forces wouldn't engage and fight like real men, but would hold off and simply pound the German lines with artillery.Quote:
Front line leaders were more willing to just let artillery hammer a position before pushing troops or even bypassing a known strong point to allow it to be hit with bombs and artillery and then mopped up by follow on units.
It's my impression that artillery is one of the areas in which the U.S. has always excelled. I wait to hear, though, what the more knowledgeable contributors to this board have to say.
Let's no forget using anti aircraft guns to shoot tanks before the tanks could get into range with their own guns.....and using the best site optics in the world... totally unfair.
Russians were no slouch with artillery either and were rather good at the good ol' massed "overwhelm you with numbers" assaults too.
