The Battle for Caen.

The only way possible would have been if more Germans were elsewhere.

 

Re: Caen taken on schedule

Not captuirng Caen may have been a blessing in disguise, given allied manpower and supply problems. Not capturing Caen kept the Germans close on a short front and allowed massed firepower to chew up the Germans while they tried to defend a key objective. The relatively open ground beyond Caen may have played to German advantages in equipment (longer ranged and more powerful AT guns) and mobile tactics, by providing more opportunities to find chinks in the longer, less densely manned allied lines.
Still, I don't buy the line that everyhting went according to Monty's plan. I think he was looking for a British breakthrough on more than one occasion.

 

Well, yes. When was the last time you ever heard of a general (or a politician!) who was not self-serving? Monty was no exception! Many would say that he was worse than most.

 

Many would say so, indeed. Operations Epsom, Charnwood and Goodwood all rank between Pyrrhic victory and spectacular failure, the latter being named more often; how can he defend them as if they were all part of his plan? I never really understood the 'self-serving'-ness of this character.

But let's take that to the Monty topic.

 

Quote:

" For example, during operation Goodwood (18-24 July 1944) the British lost no less than 250 tanks to AT guns and enemy armour in two days."

Not quite the full story. The most common mistake is to compare the number of German tanks completely destroyed with the number of Allied tanks that were hit or disabled. When you realise the total of Allied tanks copmpletely destroyed 18th-21st July was 140 then you get a better understanding of the real situation.

18/7/44 Allied tanks hit=197
19/7/44=99
20/7/44=18

Total =314 (of which 140 completely destroyed)

 

My point was that the entire British armour in Normandy was disabled for the time it took to repair or replace the lost tanks. The amount of tanks lost, whether temporarily or permanently, only serves to illustrate the proportions of the defeat.

 

Only one Armoured division had high losses and that was rectified within a few days. Both Gaurds Armoured and 7th Armoured were available as well as 2 other Armoured Brigades.
'British Armour' was far from disabled by Goodwood and all of Monty's offensives gained ground and inflicted heavy losses. They were not defeats in any shape or form.
Allied tank losses in Goodwood were not catasrophic.

 

Well, maybe they weren't defeats in the long run because the battle of Normandy obviously did succeed. However, on an operational scale these battles were defeats, I don't see how you can deny that. Goodwood especially gained the Allies just a few square kilometers of ground, at the loss of, as you said, over 300 tanks. These losses could of course be replaced, but for the time being, the Germans had knocked out that little bit of the British industrial output with very little loss in men, material or ground.

The Germans were well positioned and the British just barged into those positions, with the AT guns in them that weren't knocked out by Monty's beloved opening bombardment. The British spearhead got nowhere near its objectives, and as a result the two armoured divisions that were supposed to follow it up were crammed hopelessly behind the line because the path to their objectives hadn't been cleared. The Allies gained nothing. If the Germans gained nothing in the end, because of the quick replacement of losses on the British side, then that's fine, but this was not in any way a British victory.

 

Quote:

" at the loss of, as you said, over 300 tanks. "


No I said forr the loss of 140 British tanks. Again if you want to quote the whole 314 'tanks hit' number then you will have to give the number of German tanks destroyed PLUS all those hit and damaged. Then the figures are comparable.
With over 500 replacement tanks sitting on the beaches tank losses in themselves meant very little to the British. The USA and Germany did not prepare as well as the UK in this respect and the US had to 'borrow' some of the British pool to make up their numbers.
Monty's performance is viewed many ways but after all is said and done he pounded away at the Germans and forced them back with EVERY offensive. Taking ground is secondary to destoying your enemies materiel and this Monty acomplished handsomely. The only valid complaint you might have is he did not do as well as he expected but hey, thats war for you.
Goodwood made significant advances into German held territory and how it can be described as I defeat escapes me.

 

Significant advances? I believe from the top of my head that the most succesful part of the operation got ten kilometers past the front line.

Few German tanks were destroyed as few were engaged. By the way, I never mentioned any number of German tanks destroyed so you can't accuse me of using the wrong amount. If I were to use that I would have used the total knocked out, of which I know it is not the same as the total destroyed, because the amount of tanks knocked out is what matters on the operational scale. Those are the tanks not available for the battle that day, no matter if they are available again tomorrow.

 

quote:

"Significant advances? I believe from the top of my head that the most succesful part of the operation got ten kilometers past the front line."

Well compare it to the start of Cobra. It took Bradley 4 days to take the same ground as Monty took in 2 days. Once the front line was breached in Cobra there was no depth to the German defences so the advance was spectacular. Monty had much more to contend with.

 

Goodwood

Its been described countless times since as 'the death ride of the armoured divisions' so it could fall into the same category as that other Montgomery 'victory' - Market Garden.

 

Quote:

"Its been described countless times since as 'the death ride of the armoured divisions' "

Well it may have been described as such but it plainly was no such thing.
Perhaps it is not too clear but there was a massive supply of replacement tanks so the tank losses in themselves meant little. Tanks were replaced within a few days. Total losses only came to 140 and not the '400' that is often quoted.

 

Re: Goodwood

yeap , like monty said market garden is 90 % victory, :lol:

 

Operation Goodwood

To me Goodwood seems depressingly like a return to the 'Grand Plan' - throw yourselves at prepared defences until something breaks.

 

Hello, I'm back for just one reply to this battle. The Battle for Caen, the Anvil of Victory.

The best and simplest way of looking at the entire plan was two parts, for the ground that is. The Allied High Command knew very well the importance of the Caen infrastructure: logistics and communication for the entire Normandy coast. During the first month of that battle for Normandy the Alies were to attack towards Caen and have the Germans funnel the cream of their resources, men and equipment to stopping the British, Canadian and other Allied troops. During this time the Americans, whose armour was best suited for open country/plains warfare, was to land as much men, equipment, supplies and fully organize to attack the Germans in the south; to swing out wide and surround the entire German army in France. With the German forces exhausted at Caen, and the new German replacements being sent to try and halt the Americans the Germans had two choices, stand and die or retreat due to the costs of attrition; in terms of geography, supplies and casualties.

The Falaise Gap is a perfect example of what happens to an army that has lost the initiative on the filed of battle, for the reasons I have mentioned above. A really simple and effective method to see what happend in the battle is to get a piece of string and place one end on the city of Caen, the other end down to the bottom of the American beach-head and swing the string along its anchor/hinge in Caen.

Or think of a door on its hinges; now open that door and swing it wide open and you will see a pretty good example of the manifestation of the entire plan.

Sure this is a simplified method, but that is is what I wanted to use to show everyone how the plan worked.

I am sure that if the Allies could have taken Caen on D-Day +1 they would have, but the fact that the Brtitish Commonwealth disaster at Dunkirk was still fresh in their minds; this must have played some influence in regards to over extending your army in the face of some pretty good and well equipped troops.


Cheers!