Here's a fairly challenging question: Part One - From June to August 1944, the Americans had two armies and covered one hundred and twenty miles from their landing spots at Omaha and Utah to Angers, at the edge of Normandy. The British and Canadians together had two armies, covering forty miles from their landing points at Juno, Sword and Gold to Argentan, near the middle of Normandy. Meanwhile, the Germans covered the entire front with three armies. Who was the most effective and by how much? Part Two - In May 1940, the Germans had ten armies on the Western Front, covering four hundred miles of front. Together, the Allies had about nine. Who was the most effective and by how much?
Part 1 - The Allies, as they won the offensive, in terrain advantagious to the defender, without the traditional 3:1 advantage Part 2 - The Germans, thanks to their highly developed mobile war doctrines (Blitzkrieg)
Just comparing the amount of armies doesn't really mean anything. The composition of these armies differed hugely over time and by nation. It is much more useful to look at the amount of divisions in action at a certain stretch of front, but even then you must consider the general standard of a division of a certain nationality at a certain time. It is inaccurate by the way to state that the Americans had two armies in Normandy in June-July 1944, since 3rd Army was first created after the start of Cobra (late July 1944).
Now that I think of it, Roel is right. The German troops were more effective in 1940, the Americans had not yet entered the war, and the British armed forces were even crappier than in 1944. And Russia had not been invaded, which sapped troops from the German front and also caused the German morale to plummet, because of Stalingrad and Kursk.
i would say the germans were also more crappier in 1940....the war and its conduct had changed so much by that stage...so the 2 timeframes arnt comparible. anyway the britsh and the canadians were faced by the bulk of the german forces in normandy..as planned, thus allowing the americans to break out into more open country..and swing round behind the germans, thus the reason for the greater milage advanced by the americans.
Cheeky monkey wrote: Define what you mean by the "bulk of the German forces"? Naming units involved would be nice too
'Effective' depends on how you define it. For Fall Gelb, the Allies fielded more thanks than Germany, and they were generally technically superior. Still, because the Germans concentrated their armour (unlike the British and French armies, except for the assaults on von Mansteins thrust by Weygand and de Gaulle), their efficiency was greater (which is a mathematically provable fact). This wasn't 'Blitzkrieg', though - 'Blitzkrieg' is a term invented by a US reporter, just like 'Meteorskrieg'. The proper term would be Bewegungskrieg, however this wasn't something new, and can be traced back to von Moltke. Christian
It is true that the bulk of the German's armored forces were concentrated around Caen however there was a very good reason for it; the Bocage country where the US forces landed is poor terrain for armor. Panzer units would be wasted in the hedgerows. Infantry units with some armor support is the ideal defense in the hedegrows. The implication that the US forces had it easy because the armor was farther north is false. The US forces took considerable casualties in the hedgerows before breaking out. The idea (advanced by Monty post hoc ) that the plan was to draw off the German armor and atrit it so that the US forces could breakout is not supported by the evidence. Many historians believe that it was just Monty making excuses for the failure of his forces to take Caen and move on and for the failure of multiple operations;( Spring, Epsom, Goodwood etc.)
The plans I've seen for D-Day do imply that the British and Canadians were to make gradual headway around Caen while the Americans took most of Normandy. This is probably based on reason, however; the Americans had more men and equipment and more replacements, so they would logically be able to cover more ground. The plans do not show that the Americans were meant to swing around the back of German troops pinned against the British and Canadians; the three nationalities were supposed to advance together, all along the front. This did actually happen eventually. An inconsistency in the theory that the British held German armour allowing the Americans to break out into open terrain is the fact that the only stretch of open terrain that is truly close to the landing beaches is south of Caen. If anything it should have been the British who were the first to break through into open terrain and this was in fact what they were supposed to do; take Caen on D-Day and push on into the open country. The American landing beaches were in fact "backed" by Bocage country several dozens of kilometers deep.
Yes. D-Day represented the peak strength of our armed forces. After that our losses could not be fully replaced - units often had to be merged to get one full-strength unit.
