The European Theater Of Operations in WWII

[WhiteKnight77]

The more I read about WWII, and the ETO, I am beginning to believe that the the British were lazy fighters. Montgomery's forces could not reach Messina from a shorter distance than Patton's 7th Army did in Sicily fighting north from his landing zones then east to take Messina in mere days.

After D-Day, in which Monty stated he could take Caen in 1 day was there a month later, while Patton's 3rd Army first struck south to Avranches, then sent a couple divisions west to take the Brittany ports, while his other divisions struck east.

Patton would have closed the Falaise Gap if Bradley had let him, thus cutting off a large part of the German army from returning to Germany which would most likely have kept the Battle of the Bulge from happening. Patton still raced across the breadth of France only to get held up due to the need for the British to secure the port in Antwerp. Yet, they failed to clear the Germans from the Scheldt River estuary and Walcheren Island so the port could be used, in a timely manner.

Patton had troops cross the Rhine, even though they were supposed to while Monty and his bold plan to get troops over the Rhine in The Netherlands resulted in not taking the bridge in Arnhem and the loss of many of the 1st Airborne troops there, especially when XXX Corps stopping for tea on the way instead of racing as fast as possible to Arnhem the way they were supposed to. Patton had to make smaller attacks due to most of the supplies going to Monty during Market Garden.

Patton and his armies were able to cover more ground, faster, than any other commander whether in Africa, Sicily or France and took fewer casualties doing so. His methods were sound and should have been used in the northern areas of the continent.

[Capt Spack Jarrow]

I am a lazy fighter too, I just type on here.

[Incarnate]

You could have just typed Market Garden said everything that needed to be said.

Even after it failed and cost thousands of lives and lost equipment, he just shrugged, and said it mostly succeeded. He could never take the blame and blamed everyone else for everything. Evidently, he was such a smug ass he almost got Eisenhower to resign, and was forced to apologize.

[Fake]

You can't blame the British. Their supply of Yorkshire tea was cut off.

[Schindler's Lifts]

Oh boy, I love this topic. Just a heads up, it's not just the European theatre.

I'm from Singapore, and our country is a former British colony. In secondary school, we were taught extensively about how the reason our country fell to the Japanese during WWII was partly because of the serious tactical errors made by the British.

The British installed large mounted guns and pillboxes on the southern part of the island (some of which which are still there), as they had anticipated the Japanese to invade from the south. They instead invaded from the north, from Thailand, and the guns were not feasible to defend the island.

The British had Spitfires and Hurricanes, which while still inferior to the Japanese Zero, could at least hold their own. The British chose to keep those for their fight back home, and left us with the vastly inferior Brewster Buffalo. The Brewster Buffaloes were cannon fodder for the Zeroes, and this led to the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse being sunk early on in the war.

The British, in their infinite wisdom, elected not to use tanks to defend Malaya. They felt that, given the dense jungles and difficult terrain, "there was no way the Japanese would use tanks to invade the region". The Japanese did exactly that. And the British could do ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ to take them down.

As part of the British retreat from Johor to Singapore, the British blew up the causeway that linked Singapore to the rest of Malaya to cover their retreat. The British unfortunately didn't blow it up deeply enough, and the Japanese were able to use captured POWs to easily repair the causeway.

In a lot of newspaper clips from the time, the phrase "impregnable fortress" gets used a lot, as the British felt that the island was extremely well fortified and near impossible for the Japanese to invade. The British surrendered the island in a week.

[Morkonan]

WhiteKnight77 a écrit :

...(Patton vs Montgomery)<sic>

IMO:

Patton was a good general, but was pretty well hyped up and may have been a bit more enthusiastic about being a noteworthy General than being a soldier. And, Montgomery... Well, he faced some tough opposition at one point, but... I just don't see what there is to be overly impressed about. He was the face of English forces, so the hype was deserved and even necessary. I guess I just don't know enough about him to be as impressed as everyone thinks I should be. :) (His action in Africa was good... finally. But, Rommel et al were already slated to lose. His subterfuge was kind of nice at one point, but the whole Afrika Corps thing was going down the tubes fast, anyway. Defeating a last-ditch effort by an enemy already implies a certain advantage)

The US did not perform well when we first showed up... We got better.

Patton was seen as an attack-dog. And, he'd spend whatever it took to keep that title. I think he had the easier inland route in Sicily than Montgomery did. Patton's push during The Battle of the Bulge was the biggest, fastest, offensive conducted up until The Gulf War and Schwarzkopf's "Left Hook." (IIRC) His units did an excellent job, AFAIK, sweeping through France, too. Not exactly easy, but not exactly a wall of opposition by the time they broke out.

Hyping up any General's credentials and capabilities is good psy-ops. It can force the enemy to respond, to fix them in place or move them to one's advantage. The Allies used Patton's reputation famously to do just that. That sort of reputation lasts as long as the one's who did it actually win and get to write the history books. (I did get to read an English translation of Rommel's "Book" mentioned in the movie "Patton." Pretty cool, with drawings too. :))

Market Garden... was a crap-show. I think Montgomery wanted it as a feather in his cap, so to speak. But, I just don't understand "why" it was conducted like it was. It seems like every tremendously critical action in that effort required more precision and more general good-will from the Almighty than anyone should have ever desired to rely on in wartime. And, then, there's the fact that there were actually a lot of well-armed and ticked off Germans there that nobody bothered to plan for. Seems kind of important to plan on encountering lots of angry guys with guns if you're in a war an' all...

Hey, armchair generals have opinions too, I guess, so mine's just as valid based on that, alone. :)

[76561198913362891]

If I fought in the war, it would've been over in a week

[nullpo]

Schindler's Lifts a écrit :

snip

well when you're the king of the world for centuries, you'll get complacent eventually.

Schindler's Lifts a écrit :

The British, in their infinite wisdom, elected not to use tanks to defend Malaya. They felt that, given the dense jungles and difficult terrain, "there was no way the Japanese would use tanks to invade the region". The Japanese did exactly that. And the British could do ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ to take them down.

The only part I want to critic is this. It is a fair assessment, considering that British tank are larger so in theory they could worry that the tank will be just walking big target. Japanese tank meanwhile are specifically designed for jungle and island combat, which is why when US still decide to bring Sherman tank on jungle combat anyways, their tank are no match on direct combat. They are small 1-2 person tank that is fast and nimble, more akin to western training tank.

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

Who cares? The Allies won. Not a big deal really.

[☎need4naiim☎]

General Patton should have been allowed to go through Soviets and reach Central Asian Turks who were being used as slaves by Stalin's Soviet power.

[Incarnate]

Schindler's Lifts a écrit :

The British, in their infinite wisdom, elected not to use tanks to defend Malaya. They felt that, given the dense jungles and difficult terrain, "there was no way the Japanese would use tanks to invade the region". The Japanese did exactly that. And the British could do ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ to take them down.

In a lot of newspaper clips from the time, the phrase "impregnable fortress" gets used a lot, as the British felt that the island was extremely well fortified and near impossible for the Japanese to invade. The British surrendered the island in a week.

The hilarious part is that the Japanese invaded Singapore on bicycles.

The British lost to guys on one-speed street bikes, not even guys on advanced mountain bikes.

[Pocahawtness]

WhiteKnight77 a écrit :

The more I read about WWII, and the ETO, I am beginning to believe that the the British were lazy fighters. Montgomery's forces could not reach Messina from a shorter distance than Patton's 7th Army did in Sicily fighting north from his landing zones then east to take Messina in mere days.

After D-Day, in which Monty stated he could take Caen in 1 day was there a month later, while Patton's 3rd Army first struck south to Avranches, then sent a couple divisions west to take the Brittany ports, while his other divisions struck east.

Patton would have closed the Falaise Gap if Bradley had let him, thus cutting off a large part of the German army from returning to Germany which would most likely have kept the Battle of the Bulge from happening. Patton still raced across the breadth of France only to get held up due to the need for the British to secure the port in Antwerp. Yet, they failed to clear the Germans from the Scheldt River estuary and Walcheren Island so the port could be used, in a timely manner.

Patton had troops cross the Rhine, even though they were supposed to while Monty and his bold plan to get troops over the Rhine in The Netherlands resulted in not taking the bridge in Arnhem and the loss of many of the 1st Airborne troops there, especially when XXX Corps stopping for tea on the way instead of racing as fast as possible to Arnhem the way they were supposed to. Patton had to make smaller attacks due to most of the supplies going to Monty during Market Garden.

Patton and his armies were able to cover more ground, faster, than any other commander whether in Africa, Sicily or France and took fewer casualties doing so. His methods were sound and should have been used in the northern areas of the continent.

You need to read better books.

They were both idiots.

The truth is that the rivalry did neither side any good. Both chased glory ahead of each other and sacrificed strategy, tactics and the lives of men to that aim.

They should have both been replaced with commanders who weren't so childish.

[steven1mac]

Maurice Gamelin, his tactical genius allowed France to sit out most of the war saving thousands of French lives.

[Pieshaman]

I think you are a lazy reader, if that is your conclusion.

[Pieshaman]

Schindler's Lifts a écrit :

Oh boy, I love this topic. Just a heads up, it's not just the European theatre.

I'm from Singapore, and our country is a former British colony. In secondary school, we were taught extensively about how the reason our country fell to the Japanese during WWII was partly because of the serious tactical errors made by the British.

The British installed large mounted guns and pillboxes on the southern part of the island (some of which which are still there), as they had anticipated the Japanese to invade from the south. They instead invaded from the north, from Thailand, and the guns were not feasible to defend the island.

The British had Spitfires and Hurricanes, which while still inferior to the Japanese Zero, could at least hold their own. The British chose to keep those for their fight back home, and left us with the vastly inferior Brewster Buffalo. The Brewster Buffaloes were cannon fodder for the Zeroes, and this led to the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse being sunk early on in the war.

The British, in their infinite wisdom, elected not to use tanks to defend Malaya. They felt that, given the dense jungles and difficult terrain, "there was no way the Japanese would use tanks to invade the region". The Japanese did exactly that. And the British could do ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ to take them down.

As part of the British retreat from Johor to Singapore, the British blew up the causeway that linked Singapore to the rest of Malaya to cover their retreat. The British unfortunately didn't blow it up deeply enough, and the Japanese were able to use captured POWs to easily repair the causeway.

In a lot of newspaper clips from the time, the phrase "impregnable fortress" gets used a lot, as the British felt that the island was extremely well fortified and near impossible for the Japanese to invade. The British surrendered the island in a week.

you forgot the main reason of it all.
the japanese not came on foot, they came on bicycles through the jungle, something the british totally not imagined that could happen.

[Hobbit XIII]

Maybe re read WW2 and see how many countries held their ground against the Nazis and its rebuilt armed forces.

Britain made a lot of errors that is what happens in wars.

Maybe the Brit bashing is a good thing now, but I highly recommend doing the following :

Read about the WW1 and WW2 properly.
Read about the economics of the era.
Do some basic training, fight in a war, have national blackouts, have food and clothes rationing, build and supply everything with limited supplies, be grateful some people managed to hold off the Nazis and acted as another ally against the Soviet Union afterwards.
Then you can start insulting people and throwing around your ideas of 'lazy fighters'.