Comments by "Bullet-Tooth Tony" (@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @bigwoody4704  At least Monty didn't leave his men behind like Macarthur
    2
  2. @idahorodgersusmc It was the Brits who planned Operation Overlord. - Frederick Morgan - Bernard Montgomery - Leigh Mallory - Admiral Ramsay. All British officers. By your logic, shall we say the same to Hodges in the Southern Hurtgen Forest offensive that was a waste of men and material?
    2
  3. @C B " refusing to learn the concepts of combined arms warfare" Two words.....Operation Compass.
    2
  4.  @phann860  "but I think that attacks were not really their forte." Blenheim, Operation Compass, the Hundred Days Offensive, and Cambrai shows the British could be very good on the attack. In 1918 whilst on the offensive they captured over 188,700 German troops and 2,840 guns!
    2
  5.  @phann860  "Waterloo a successful defence against Napoleon but it was the Prussians who really won the battle." That's like saying it was the British who won the Battle of the Bulge....
    2
  6.  @phann860  You clearly misinterpreted my comment. I said you comparing the Prussian efforts to the British, is like saying the British won the Battle of the Bulge, in other words you're trying to claim the Prussians did the equivalent of what the British did ( or in the Bulge's case, the USA) when they did not. Wellington fought the bulk of the French army the entire day.
    2
  7.  @phann860  Wellington had 68,000 men, the Prussians had 50,000 ( and didn't arrive until 5-6 hours after the battle started) and the British in that time managed to repulse the French army at Hougomont, Papelotte, drove back Napoleon's cavalry and broke the Imperial Guard in the Centre etc. Prussians only lost around 6,600 men while Wellington lost 15,000 so the Prussians didn't do most of the fighting.
    2
  8.  @Jerry-sw8cz  Market Garden fell far short of expectations but it wasn't a total failure as it advanced the front in that sector by around 90 miles and inflicted almost twice the number of casualties on the German's than what the Allies suffered. It was certainly a better operation than Bradleys Hurtgen Forest campaign
    2
  9.  @sean640307  Yes Montgomerys build ups might have been methodical but his army was definitely capable of fast advances as was pointed out above. That's where people are getting the facts wrong, when they say slow, they are always relying on his supply build up but forget about what he did when his army got moving, i'm pretty sure that the advance from the Seine to Brussels 250 miles in just 4 days was a rate of advance unmatched by any other allied unit.
    2
  10. @TIK You should do the Battle of Caen, lots of tank combat and street fighting against the Waffen SS
    2
  11.  @bigwoody4704  "Monty lost over 400 tanks" The chief problem with how Operation Goodwood has been looked at is tank losses and the fact it's been calculated differently for the two sides. The losses for Allied tanks have normally been counted by the number of tanks still operational at the end of each day of the operation, even though a large number of those counted as lost will be operational within a couple of days. While German tanks losses only count those tanks which are completely lost and unrecoverable after the end of the operation. So you end up with Allied losses of nearly 500 tanks against German losses of around 100 tanks, but if you use the same type of calculation for both sides, in this case the German system, Allied losses fall to 150-200 while German losses remain the same at 100
    2
  12.  @lufasumafalu5069  Wilhelm Bittrich on the British paratroopers at Arnhem Quote "*In all my years as a soldier,*I have never seen men fight so hard*"
    2
  13.  @lufasumafalu5069  Held off the Germans for 9 days, hardly what i would call destroying the British
    2
  14. ​ @lufasumafalu5069  Still took them a week to get through a couple of hundred paratroopers 🤣
    2
  15.  @lufasumafalu5069  I've made up nothing i can provide plenty of sources that suggest otherwise
    2
  16.  @lufasumafalu5069  Neither do you the Germans struggled to clear the British out of their positions and had to bring in tanks
    2
  17.  @lufasumafalu5069  Propaganda? Lol it's from Wilhelm Bittrich himself 🤣
    2
  18.  @lufasumafalu5069  I'll let the Germans give their view on the British soldier. German General, Siegfried Westphal, Chief of Staff to Rommel in North Africa, in his book, “The German Army in the West”(Cassel 1952) stated the following “The hardest, toughest in attack, and most persistent in defence were the British divisions, and of these the 7th Armoured Division was undoubtedly the best. These were the original Desert Rats. The uniformity of the British personnel was most striking. One saw not so much extraordinary audacity but the absence of failures."
    2
  19.  @lufasumafalu5069  Pfftt, the very fact that 21st Army Group defeated an obdurate and tactically enlightened German opponent in the difficult country of Normandy, Flanders and Holland in less than 6 months should point to the fact they were not bad in the field at all. Remember who it was that wrote down the bulk of Rommels Panzer units in France, the British 2nd army.
    2
  20.  @lufasumafalu5069  Wehraboos: "OMG THE ALLIES ARE USING AIR POWER! NO FAIR! FIGHT ON EVEN TERMS!" Also wehraboos: sits behind hedgerow relying solely on ambush tactics while boasting about how brave German soldiers are 😂 Placing tanks and AT guns behind well concealed hedgerows isn't exactly rocket science...
    2
  21. Operation Compass?
    2
  22.  @bigwoody4704  "explain why the French came back across the channel with the GIs" Errr the French surrendered?
    2
  23.  @bigwoody4704  France was no where to be seen at the table of the big three, Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, so what exactly are you trying to say? That france was any help? They SURRENDERED.
    2
  24.  @tonyolivari2480  I wouldn't say that it was all about Montgomery's ego. The British & US chiefs were both pushing IKE to use the 1st Airborne army, and Monty's plan was the ONLY one that was submitted. Ike himself said "I not only approved Market Garden, I insisted on it" Had no airborne operation been authorised, Monty still would have had to attack in the general direction of Arnhem, probably with far more casualties and far less progress.
    2
  25.  @tonyolivari2480  Also Market Garden almost certainly blocked an easier routed German counter attack on Antwerp. Quote The Allies did possess a deep salient into German occupied territory that was quickly reinforced. Milton Shulman observed that the operation had driven a wedge into the German positions, isolating the 15th Army north of Antwerp from the First Parachute Army on the eastern side of the bulge. This complicated the supply problem of the 15th Army and removed the chance of the Germans being able to assemble enough troops for a serious counterattack to retake Antwerp. Chester Wilmot agreed with this, claiming that the salient was of immense tactical value for the purpose of driving the Germans from the area south of the Maas and removing the threat of an immediate counterattack against Antwerp.
    2
  26. ​ @aniksamiurrahman6365  Feelings hurt? No, i just won't put up with ignorance..
    2
  27.  @aniksamiurrahman6365  I'm not talking about Omaha beach dude....i meant the fighting in the British sector of Caen, in the country side where the British a long with the Canadians fought major tank and street battles against the elite Waffen SS.
    2
  28.  @aniksamiurrahman6365  Just type in British bloodbath at Caen and check out the video by Mark Felton Productions.
    2
  29.  @aniksamiurrahman6365  Right so in other words you have no real rebuttal other than calling me a butt hurt idiot? At the end of the day no matter how you look at it, If there had not been a D-Day, then the Russian army could very well have taken ALL of western Europe all the way to the Atlantic. Then the allies would have had to fight the Russians. Without a D-Day, the world would be a lot different today, nothing you say changes that fact.
    2
  30.  @aniksamiurrahman6365  I assume English isn't your first language because literally not a single thing you just said makes any sense, i'm not talking about the cold war, what are you going on about ?! READ the comment if there had not been a D-Day, then the Russian army could very well have taken ALL of western Europe all the way to the Atlantic. Then the allies would have had to fight the Russians. Without a D-Day, the world would be a lot different today
    2
  31.  @johnlucas8479  "US II Corp was under the command of Anderson" Anderson? I think you mean Lloyd Fredendall.
    2
  32. The Soviet Union survived '41-42, repulsed the last major German summer offensive in '43, and started making major headway taking back ground without major support from the US or UK. Does that mean they could have won the war alone? No, because the Germans were still deep in Soviet territory at this time.
    2
  33. No they don't Hollywood does.
    2
  34.  @ToolTimeTabor  The Germans thought such an attack would've torn the German front wide open. "Blumentritt disagreed with the Allies′ strategy in the west, discussing the precarious nature of the German position with its meager one armoured division against the twelve of the Allies, and he stated that had Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery's Anglo-Canadian 21st Army Group been unleashed earlier for a concentrated armoured assault (as he had wished) rather than fighting on a broad front, "Such a breakthrough ... would have torn the weak German front to pieces and ended the war in the winter of 1944."
    2
  35.  @ToolTimeTabor  Of course that's hindsight, but the reality is the situation for Germany in August 1944 was dire. Their army had been mauled in France and comprehensively routed and driven all the way back to the Rhine. The Allies had air superiority in the West, the Germans did not, the narrow front strategy had a good chance of working given these circumstances.
    2
  36.  @ToolTimeTabor  This wasn't the first time ideas like this have been thought up either, look at Plan 1919 by JFC Fuller. The concepts are similar.
    2
  37.  @ToolTimeTabor  The Broad front strategy was to encircle the Ruhr in the fall of 1944. Instead the Allied armies were stopped at the Rhine and fought a series of very costly battles (Aachen, Metz, Hurtgen forest) for small gain. By March they were still stuck behind the Rhine, and stayed there until the Red army broke down the front door in the Vistula-Oder offensive., at which point German resistance degraded rapidly. The Broad Front strategy would only work if the Germans were in disarray, otherwise all 3 attacks would fail. Brooke and Monty believed (correctly) that the Germans were reconstituting their defences, therefore a single powerful thrust at a decisive point to seize a Rhine crossing was the best option. Plus the narrow front plan would open more ports quicker and thus make the supply issues be at least partially resolved quicker.
    2
  38. ​ @johnlucas8479  If the Scheldt was addressed after Market Garden, Antwerp, Rotterdam etc would recieve priority in supplies. The attacks towards Hurtgen and Aachen would be more like diversionary moves to draw German troops away. The main strike would be through the North German plains. The thing is with the Broadfront the Germans managed to defend everywhere and still build up a 25 division reserve and launch it into the Ardennes and almost split the US line. Frederick the Great said that “he who defends everything defends nothing” By trying to attack everywhere Eisenhower could attack nowhere with the strength needed to force a decision. Each thrust was weak enough to be held and that allowed the Germans to build their reserves and take the initiative. A concentrated attack on the disorganised German troops would see more success than to also spread the Allied lines along the broad front. A significant factor in this is that had the Germans tried to hold on the Seine, the Allied supply lines wouldn’t have terribly far to travel. Moving forward beyond the Seine, the Allies had very long supply lines down to the south of the line. It was difficult to maintain offensive operations for extended periods of time. This was not helped by Patton’s brilliant run to the east, which further pushed the bounds of their supply. A narrow front in Monty’s zone would be closer to the main supply hubs. It could be kept in supply more easily than troops in the south. His plan was to capture additional ports as he moved to the north-east. Thus, he would never be far from a supply depot.
    2
  39.  @johnlucas8479  The best chance would've been after the liberation of Paris the situation on August 25th was that the Germans were in full retreat all over, on the northern front, the Germans had only 2 weakened armoured divisions and nine infantry divisions. Montgomery had 13 infantry divisions and 5 armoured divisions under his command. His plan further called for Hodge’s 4 infantry and 1 armoured division. This would have been more than enough to push in through the narrow front. Not only that, but supplies would be funnelled to his troops while the German supply lines were in disorder at best The Germans did not have the means to counterattack to the north. Any attempt to do anything but retreat would see them cut off by the 7th Army. They also did not have the manpower to both hold back the Allies in Italy and attack Patch's army to the west. Overlord and Dragoon forces linked up by mid September. They would have sooner, yet Dragoon troops were trying to chase down the German Army Group G before they made it to the more defensible mountains. The Allies could have had a defensive line from Normandy to the French Riviera by the end of August, thus allowing for a narrow front attack in the north without fear of a surprise attack from the south. Even if they had waited as they did, it was not possible for the Germans to mount any kind of attack that was more than an inconvenience.
    2
  40.  @blakesutherland519  Fifth largest economy in the world, not what i would call irrelevant.
    2
  41.  @nickdanger3802  There wasn't one road of advance, there were two. And despite attempts by the Germans to cut the road, they did not manage to delay the British advance or attack it in any meaningful way, which arrived at Nijmegen on schedule.
    2
  42.  @bigwoody4704  Except there wasn't one road past Nijmegen. The route XXX Corps used to get to the Oosterbeek Cauldron went to Driel. As the Germans must retain strong forces to prevent a breakout eastwards towards Roermond, and from Nijmegen eastwards towards Cleve and Germany.
    2
  43.  @davemac1197  Yeah I tried getting Big Woody onto it but I don't think he's come across it yet, it would open his mind up thats for sure. There's nothing wrong with admitting you're wrong about a subject. The trouble is theres people who are so entrenched in their beliefs due to politics and nationalism that it's hard to convince them.
    2
  44.  @nickdanger3802  Nope the difference is i'm objective and not brainwashed by Hollywood nonsense. As Albert Einstein once said "The important thing is to never stop questioning" If i believe something is flawed and inaccurate I WILL call it out.
    2
  45.  @bigwoody4704  "A lot of lads with the British inferiority complex that were weakest of the allied armies with the most humiliating defeats" You clearly have never studied the defeats the Soviets suffered on the Eastern front in the first year of the German invasion. Kiev 1941 is more humiliating than anything the British had.
    2
  46.  @weirdshibainu  Hmmm interesting point, you could be right, the Germans could even link up from the South.
    2
  47.  @blakesutherland519  "The French plan was actually sound but the British failure to commit a larger ground army meant that the French couldn't form reserve units and we're stretched thin and had to use the area around the arddens as the weak point.' Wrong. It was Gamelin's decision to send the French strategic reserve ( the 7th Army) into the Netherlands that denuded the Allies of a force capable of parrying the German advance through the Ardennes.
    2
  48. @wastelander89 The British needed a commander who could crack down on all of the inter service rivalry which the Auk had failed to do, Monty was the man to do it in the end.
    2
  49. It doesn't mean that Monty himself is going to be carrying it out, it would be his Corps commanders on the ground, who were well suited for this nature of warfare ie Horrocks, Pip Roberts, Miles Dempsey, etc
    2
  50.  @bigwoody4704  First of all, The British 21st Army deployed to France in 1944 with over 1,020,581 men, and of those only 30,000 were killed at Caen. That still leaves 990,581 soldiers in France to take the fight into Germany. German Army Group B on the other hand lost over 158,930 men. So in fact German losses were much worse as proof by the fact on the evening of the 1st July 1944 in a conversation with Von Rundstedt said to his officers " Make peace, you fools "
    2