Comments by "TheVilla Aston" (@thevillaaston7811) on "War Stories"
channel.
-
21
-
19
-
19
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
@Petal4822
Not really...
Half of the 14,000 tanks supplied to Russia were British. This should be set against Soviet tank production of 105,000.
The numbers of aircraft supplied ws 18,000, of which 7,000 came from Britain. Soviet aircraft production amounted to 143,000.
The boots came from Britain - 15 million pairs. The wheeled vehicles amounted to one third of Russian vehicles - in February 1945.
Russia was invaded by Germany, Britain was bombed, blockaded, and it had the Germans 21 miles away for four years. The USA was 3,000 miles from any threat to its homeland.
7
-
@Heathcoatman
Primary sources (do I know what that term means?)
Who can say?.
WINSTON S CHURCHILL.
THE SECOND WORLD WAR.
CASSELL & CO LTD REVISED EDITION NOVEMBER 1950.
VOLUME Vl TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY
P174/5
‘Heavy risks were taken in in the Battle of Arnhem, but they were justified by the great prize so nearly in our grasp. Had we been more fortunate in the weather, which turned against us at critical moments and restricted our mastery of the air, it is probable that we should have succeeded.’
CRUSADE IN EUROPE
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
WILLIAM HEINEMANN LIMITED 1948
P340
'The attack began well and unquestionably would have been successful except for the intervention of bad weather. This prevented the adequate reinforcement of the northern spearhead and resulted in finally in the decimation of the British airborne division and only a partial success in the entire operation. We did not get our bridgehead but our lines had been carried well out to defend the Antwerp base.'
UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II
The European Theater of Operations
THE SIEGFRIED LINE CAMPAIGN
By Charles B. MacDonald
CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY
UNITED STATES ARMY WASHINGTON, D.C., 1993
P199
Field Marshal Montgomery has written: "We had undertaken a difficult operation, attended by considerable risks. It was justified because, had good weather obtained, there was no doubt that we should have attained full success."
CHESTER WILMOT
THE STRUGGLE FOR EUROPE
WM. COLLINS, SONS AND CO LTD. 1954
P 586
In Gavin's opinion, the performance of Frost's force was " the outstanding
independent parachute battalion action of the war." Frost's " tactical handling " was,
says Gavin, " a model for parachute unit commanders."
P 120.
Montgomery says that " Had good weather obtained, there was no doubt that we should have attained full success." (Op. cit., p. 186.) Student, when interrogated by Liddell Hart, did not go quite so far as this, but gave the weather as the main cause of
the failure.
A DROP TOO MANY
MAJOR GENERAL JOHN FROST CB, DSO, MC
PEN & SWORD BOOKS. 1994
P xiii
‘However, by far the worst mistake was the lack of priority given to the capture of Nijmegen Bridge. The whole essence of the plan was to lay an airborne carpet across the obstacles in southern Holland so that the Army could get motor through, yet the capture of this, perhaps the biggest and most vital bridge in that its destruction would have sounded the death-knell of the troops committed at Arnhem, was not accorded priority. The capture of this bridge would have been a walk-over on D-day, yet the American 82nd Airborne Division could spare only one battalion as they must at all costs secure a feature called the Groesbeek Heights, where, incidentally, the H.Q. of Airborne Corps was to be sited.
It was thought that the retention of this feature would prevent the debouchment of German armour from the Reichwald in Germany. This armour was there courtesy of a rumour only and its presence was not confirmed by the underground. In fact, as a feature it is by no means dominating and its retention or otherwise had absolutely no bearing on what happened at Nijmegen Bridge.
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@smellygoatacres
‘Montgomery didn't defeat Rommel. His loss to kill ratio was disastrous vs Rommel.’ Your words.
Alamein (23 October – 11 November 1942):
195,000 allied troops, 4,810 Killed (2.5%). 116,000 Axis troops, 2,400 – 9,000 killed (2% -7.8%).
Operation OVERLORD (06 June – 30 August 1944):
2,052,299 allied troops, 36,980 killed (1.8%). 640,000 Axis troops, 23,019 (3.6%).
‘You wouldn't follow that man into battle’ Your words
From US General Walter Bedell Smith:
‘22 June 1944
Dear General [Montgomery],
I have just received from a most reliable and intelligent source a report on attitude and state of mind of American troops in action. The writer is completely unbiased, and his report contains the following paragraph, which I hope will give you as much pleasure as it has given me:
Confidence in the high command is absolutely without parallel. Literally dozens of embarking troops talked about General Montgomery with actual hero-worship in every inflection. And unanimously what appealed to them beyond his friendliness, and genuineness, and lack of pomp was the story (or, for all I know, the myth) that the General Visited every one of us outfits going over and told us he was more anxious than any of us to get this thing over and get home/ This left a warm and indelible impression.
The above is an exact quotation. Having spent my life with American soldiers, and knowing only too well their innate distrust of everything foreign, I can appreciate far better than you can what a triumph of leadership you accomplished in inspiring such feeling and confidence.
Faithfully
Bedell’
From US General Omar Bradley:
‘Even Eisenhower with all his engaging ease could never stir American troops to the rapture with which Monty was welcomed by his’
THE MEMOIRS OF FIELD-MARSHAL EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS
CASSELL, LONDON
1962
P16
‘Montgomery is a first-class trainer and leader of troops on the battlefield, with a fine tactical sense. He knows how to win the loyalty of his men and has a great flair for raising morale.’
'You wouldn't follow that man into battle knowing your odds of being killed were 10:1.' Your words.
How would a person follow that man into battle know what their odds were of being killed?
5
-
@rsmithajd
Germany slaughter the British?.. With what? And how were they going to get here?
'I think the British were the weakest link in the allies.....'
You do not think, your comments make that clear.
'the Canadian and Australian forces fought good'
Yep, alongside Britain, across SIX years of war
'but British sucked at every battle they were in'
You mean apart from the Battle of Britain, the war at sea, East Africa, Crusader, Alam el Halfa, Alamein, Husky, Italy, Normany, the Scheldt, the Northern half of the Bulge, and the Bulge?..
5
-
@alanle1471
Many of the German formations that fought in the Bulge were created in the Autumn of 1944. After Eisenhower had given the the Germans the two things they most wanted then, time and space.
Montgomery warned that Eisenhower that his policies would leave the allied forces too thinly spread out, one of Bradley's subordinate commanders, Patton specifically warned about the danger in the Ardennes just before the German attack.
Come the battle, Bradley lost control of events, Hodges went to ground. To his credit, Eisenhower seems to have learned by previous mistakes, he went straight to Montgomerey, who postponed Operation Veritable and sorted out the northern half of the bulge. The American troops on the ground seem to have acquitted themselves well.
Here is Alanbrooke's observation on the battle.
‘There was no doubt that the Americans had had a severe shock. Their commanders had chosen to ignore the two most elementary rules of war – concentration and the possession of a reserve to counter the enemy’s moves and keep the initiative.’
German commanders had given the German plan at best a 5% chance of success.
The later successful campaign was British, Canadian, French and US.
5
-
5
-
5
-
@dennisweidner288
'A fair assessment'
British 2nd army at Caen tied down 6.5 of the 8 German armoured divisions in Normandy, leaving the US 2nd Army free to take the major port that the allies needed - Cherbourg, followed by a break to the south. Capturing Caen, or not capturing Caen made little difference to outcome of the campaign. Montgomery delivered victory in Normandy by D+78, 12 days ahead of schedule, and this with the delays to the allied build up caused by the great storm of 19th -20th June.
CRUSADE IN EUROPE
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
WILLIAM HEINEMANN LIMITED 1948
P282
‘Knowing that his old antagonist of the desert, Rommel, was to be in charge of the defending forces, Montgomery predicted that enemy action would be characterized by constant assaults carried out with any force immediately available from division down to a battalion or even company size. He discounted the possibility that the enemy under Rommel would ever select a naturally strong defensive line and calmly and patiently go about the business of building up the greatest possible amount of force in order to launch one full-out offensive into our beach position. Montgomery’s predictions were fulfilled to the letter.’
P288
‘Montgomery’s tactical handling of the British and Canadians on the Eastward flank and his co-ordination of these operations with those of the Americans to the westward involved the kind of work in which he excelled.’
'From Omar Bradley's book A Soldier's Story':
‘The British and Canadian armies were to decoy the enemy reserves and draw them to their front on the extreme eastern edge of the Allied beachhead. Thus, while Monty taunted the enemy at Caen, we were to make our break on the long roundabout road to Paris. When reckoned in terms of national pride this British decoy mission became a sacrificial one, for which while we trampled around the outside flank, the British were to sit in place and pin down the Germans. Yet strategically it fitted into a logical division of labors, for it was towards Caen that the enemy reserves would race once the alarm was sounded.’
Any questions?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@broncoteno7181
Have it your own way.
When did the British 'beg America to save them'?..
'Can you name any successful British only WWII campaigns?'
Can you name any successful American only campaigns in the Second World War?
'The British lost every battle other than Battle of Britain (arguably still a loss)'
The idea that the Battle of Britain was 'arguably still a loss' is absurd.
The Germans went into the Battle of Britain with 2,550 aircraft in order to to give Germany the aerial superiority it would need for an invasion of Great Britain. When the Battle of Britain ended on 31st October, 1940, Britain had won a resounding victory, the most important allied victory of the entire war, in which Germany lost 1,977 aircraft. The German airforce would never be as powerful again in relation to its opponents, and the tasks it faced, as it was in the summer of 1940, both in quality and quantity. Half of the German fighter Aces of the entire war fought in the Battle of Britain. By the middle of the SIX war (1942), four of the six aircraft types that the Germans used in the battle were obsolete - a state of affairs that their own Hossbach Memorandum of November 1937 had predicted. Just over eight months after the Battle of Britain ended, Germany invaded Russia with just 2,400 aircraft.
Before you decide to answer this comment, consider this... What do you think the chances are that you will know more about this subject than me?
5
-
5
-
Why should Eisenhower have fired Montgomery? Eisenhower approved MARKET GARDEN, which freed a fifth of the Dutch population, hindered German rocket attacks on London, stretched German defences another fifty miles, and left the allies well placed to attack into Germany in the months ahead. MARKET GARDEN’s casualties (17,000), should be compared to allied failures in the same period at Aachen (20,000 casualties), Metz (45,000 casualties), and the Hurtgen Forest (55,000 casualties).
In any case, Montgomery's appointment came from the Imperial General Staff in london, not Eisenhower.
As for Patton, what did he ever do?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@KrisBurns22
'You really think after Russia left the battlefield in WW1 Britain and france could stop Germany without the American expedition force ???'
The US contribution to the allied war effort in the First World War was miniscule, and did not even make any sort of impact until September 1918 with the Meuse–Argonne offensive, which has been described thus:
'The offensive was the principal engagement of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) in World War I. It was one of a series of Allied attacks, known as the Hundred Days Offensive, which brought the war to an end. It was the largest and bloodiest operation of World War I for the AEF even though, given the scale of other battles on the Western Front, its size was limited and the operation itself secondary, being far from the main offensive axis.'
The sacrifice of British, French, and Russian troops, along with the Royal Navy blockade of Germany did for the Kaiser. The USA turned up when it was time for the victory parades, and the sharing out of the spoils of victory.
Harsh but fair.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5