- Thread starter mb58
- Start date
farmerwithmutt
Well-known Member
we complain about the cold and snow think how it would be with somebody shooting at you
My dad was there; he always called it "The Ardennes Breakthrough"; don't know if the Battle of the Bulge was a media term or where it (the term) came from. The 285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion, some of whom were massacred at Malmedy, was a newly arrived unit. It was activated at Camp Gruber, OK in '43 and was cadred by NCOs from my dad's unit, the 8th Field Artillery Observation Battalion. Just last week I printed (for my siblings/nieces/nephews) a large poster showing the 'track' the 8th FAOB (subordinate to the XIX Corp) took thru France, the "Low Countries" and Germany, participating in 5 major battles. Also.......just found out that all his (my dad's) letters to his mother....beginning in '42.....still exist, so have copied and put them into binder notebooks for family members. The 21-24 year old farm boy that the letters depict is not the man I knew.........
2 Old 2 care
Member
2 Uncles in 4th Armour. They got there in the late going. This was Hitlers attempt to delay the inevitable and reverse the tide of war. In the end, it probably shortened the war by using up German strategic reserves.
Bradley had little choice. Like any large force commander Bradley had to rely on his staff for advice on when and where to place units. At the time he was an Army commander. Army is defined as 2 or more Corps each made up of 2 or more divisions. One man can't possibly manage everything while engaged in combat of a force that size. Bradley didn't drop the ball, his staff did. It's still his fault, it was his staff.
The big mistake there was believing that Germany was on the verge of collapse and could not mount a major offensive. Hence the poorly defended sector. "They couldn't mount a major attack supported by armor in this area" mentality overlooked the attack on the low countries that became known as the "Blitz" that led to the fall of France.
That attack did an end around of the heavily defended border between France and Germany. That attacked worked because it forced the French and BEF to react to them.
Bill what is really amazing is the several battles that were fought that could have been avoided in the European theater so some general officer could get his name into the history books. Unlike the Bulge the Battle of the Hurtgen Forest had no significant military objective and simply could have been encircled and starved out.
Rick
Billy Shafer
Well-known Member
Once worked with a man that was there. He never did get over being cold.
Actually, you're wrong. "At the time" Bradley commanded an Army Group. 12th Army Group to be exact. +/- a million. In fact, because the germans had effectively split Bradley's command in two, two whole armies (1st and 9th) were temporarily transferred to Montgomery's 21st Army Group on the north. As far as Bradley is concerned, history will eventually view him as somewhat of a dud. It takes at least 100 years for history to catch up to events. His reputation as "The GIs General" was largely hot air pumped up by Ernie Pyle. George Marshall said: "Bradley's 'comman man' image was largely played up by Ernie Pyle. The GIs were not impressed with him. They scarcely knew him. He's not a flamboyant figure and didn't get out much with the troops. And the idea that he was idolized by the average soldier is just rot."
DaninKansas
Member
Agreed.
Bradley's actions at Hurtgen Forest should have resulted in him being sacked. The Germans couldn't believe a western allied general would throw men away like he did - it was something they expected of a Russian general. The Germans built defenses there never expecting to use them - they thought only a fool would attempt an attack in that area.
http://members.aeroinc.net/breners/buckswar/hist_text.html
You seldom hear about this battle - it costed the US more deaths and wounded than the Battle of the Bulge (battle of the Bulge had many more captured and wounded though) - I believe 5 US divisions were eventually pulled from the front line due to losses and were not "restored" to fighting condition until after the end of the war.
Bradley's actions at Hurtgen Forest should have resulted in him being sacked. The Germans couldn't believe a western allied general would throw men away like he did - it was something they expected of a Russian general. The Germans built defenses there never expecting to use them - they thought only a fool would attempt an attack in that area.
http://members.aeroinc.net/breners/buckswar/hist_text.html
You seldom hear about this battle - it costed the US more deaths and wounded than the Battle of the Bulge (battle of the Bulge had many more captured and wounded though) - I believe 5 US divisions were eventually pulled from the front line due to losses and were not "restored" to fighting condition until after the end of the war.
Bill,
You may know your history, or you may not. But maybe you should consider being a little bit more diplomatic when debating. Your deadly reply of "Your wrong" often tells more about you than the person you are debating. A little respect for differing opinions goes a long way.
We live in the same state; would enjoy visiting with you some day at a tractor show.
Hope I"m not "wrong" here.
LA in WI
You may know your history, or you may not. But maybe you should consider being a little bit more diplomatic when debating. Your deadly reply of "Your wrong" often tells more about you than the person you are debating. A little respect for differing opinions goes a long way.
We live in the same state; would enjoy visiting with you some day at a tractor show.
Hope I"m not "wrong" here.
LA in WI
Bill I didn't claim that Bradley was a great commander. I said he was a large force commander and the smallest size an army is. I also pointed out that any large force commander has to rely on his staff to know what is going on so he can make decisions. Kinda like the president. He has to rely on advisors and intel to make decisions. I agree that his main claim to fame was not to have lost a major battle. IMO the truly great large force commanders to come out of WWII were few and far between.
Rick
Rick, I still don't know if we're on the same sheet of music. You stated: "At the time he was an Army commander. Army is defined as 2 or more Corps made up of 2 or more divisions". Bradley was far more than the commander of an Army. He was an "Army Group Commander" commanding a group of Armies. 4 to be exact. As I recall they were 1st Army, 3rd Army, 9th Army and 15th Army. Each Army consisted of between 2 and 5 Corps and each Corps consisted of between 2 and 5 divisions. I have the exact "Order Of Battle" but not right here now.
Bill Radford
Member
With the presence of the media like it is today, and the ability of everyone to criticize everything immediately, it is very doubtful that several of our WW2 generals, (Bradley and MacArthur to name a couple) would have survived the war without being sacked. The people at home got only news that was screened by the leadership.
Hurtgen was unnecessary, some think the battle to retake the Phillipines was also. The japanese could have been bypassed and a very costly island to island battle would have been avoided.
They thanked us later by kicking us out of Subic Bay and other bases.(shot themselves in the foot by eliminating one of their largest employers, US military)
Hurtgen was unnecessary, some think the battle to retake the Phillipines was also. The japanese could have been bypassed and a very costly island to island battle would have been avoided.
They thanked us later by kicking us out of Subic Bay and other bases.(shot themselves in the foot by eliminating one of their largest employers, US military)
Bill, lot of people on here don't know the size of military units. That's why I didn't go into detail. I should have said that an army according to the US Army consist of at least 2 corps with each corps made up of at least 2 divisions. I know that Bradley commanded much more but it's really not that important.
The Hertgen Forest wasn't the only unnecessary battle with a high causality rate. I have a hard time grasping the why of it. I don't think anyone has come up with a satisfactory answer.
Rick
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Too bad most of the Shermans were equipped with the peashooter 75mm.
"Gen. Lesley J. McNair" who was responsible for for thousands of Allied battle deaths and extending the war. As he decided the 75mm was sufficient firepower and the issue was not to be revisited.
There was an interim 76mm main gun upgrade late in the war.The Brits went with a yet higher powered long barreled 76mm known as the 17 pounder. The British "Firefly" version of the Sherman is what that medium battle tank should have been in the first place.
"Gen. Lesley J. McNair" who was responsible for for thousands of Allied battle deaths and extending the war. As he decided the 75mm was sufficient firepower and the issue was not to be revisited.
There was an interim 76mm main gun upgrade late in the war.The Brits went with a yet higher powered long barreled 76mm known as the 17 pounder. The British "Firefly" version of the Sherman is what that medium battle tank should have been in the first place.
Ultradog MN
Well-known Member
- Location
- Twin Cities
Because the Navy and Marines did most of the fighting in the Pacific though MacArthur got most of the credit for it.
While most of what you wrote is true the US did develop and start deployment of the M26 Persian 46 ton tank with a 90MM gun. Only a very few got into combat prior to Germany's surrender. About 200 or so were in theater with somewhere around 20 actually seeing combat. Unfortunately A few short years alter much of the Army was still using Sherman's when the Korean war broke out.
Rick
Billy Shafer
Well-known Member
Read an article in an Army amour magazine. The idea for the German tanks. Was an American idea. The man that thought about it. Was brushed off as a nut. By the Army experts at the time' Said the 88MM gun could never work and that diesel would cause to many problems in the field.Also said live track was a pipe dream. Guess they were wrong.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Was it not more like 20 in theater and 6 in combat ? All in 3rd Armoured Divison ? One thing about the Sherman, there were a lot of them. Ever read Belton Coopers book Death Traps ? He was a ordinence officer in 3AD. Probably had seen more battle damaged tanks than any american ever has or will.
At the time political considerations took priority. England needed something due to the wars effect on the nation.
If he hadn't disregarded intel and had scaled back his plans to meet the changing situation he would have been OK. He was too interested in the glory and decided that the intel was unreliable.
If you really look at Monty's battle field accomplishments at the time they were really nothing to brag about. He was a really good planner but didn't really react well to the changing situations on a battle field. Both Rommel and Patton could think in the midst of battle and alter plans as needed.
Rick
showcrop
Well-known Member
What is live track? I have never heard of it.
Monty's downfall from what I have read is that for an offensive to be successful it had to be "anchored" by elements off to each side that stayed put. he likened it to taking a step forward as you walk. We all know that the result, as in the case of Market Garden, is badly exposed flanks
Billy Shafer
Well-known Member
Live track has rubber pads and special bushings. Lets the track bend a little. Makes it a little quieter. Tank can move faster.
First major victory in the Pacific (Theatre of the Southwest Pacific-MacArthur) was the fall of Buna. (2 Jan, '43. Completely finished on 22 Jan '43) Guadalcanal (in the Pacific Theatre-Nimitz) came next on 7 Feb, '43 but if you listened to Marine "Historty" you'd think that was the only battle going on in that part of the world. In fact, US Army XIV Corps forced the Japanese evacuation of Guadalcanal. But, Buna came first. From then on, US Marine casualties were very high due to the way Nimitz conducted the fighting in his Theatre. MacArthur, on the other hand used the motto "Hit 'em where they ain't" and "Starvation is my Ally". MacArthur spared thousands upon thousands of US casualties with his very skillful and effective employment of force. 400 mile thrusts which left hundreds of thousands of Japanese cut off and abandoned. Did you know that MacArthur was to be the Supreme Commander for the invasion of Japan, scheduled to begin 1 Nov, 45 with the final assault on or about 1 March, '46? That would have been some show. Luckily, it wasn't necessary.
DaninKansas
Member
Are you talking about the "Christie" tank?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_suspension
The 88 being used in a tank was not an American idea - it was the result of the Russian kicking the &^%$ out of German Panzer IVs.
The American long barrel 75MM (75 40 caliber) was a gun comparible to the German long barrel 75 (75 43 caliber). The "original" short barrel 75MM used in early Shermans was also comparible to the 75MM short barrel used in the early Panzer IVs.
The problem wasn't so much the gun but the fact that the US stuck with an obsolete design lacking armor that should have become secondary weapon by 1943. But the Sherman was easy to build and easy to ship - giving it high points from Harry Truman when he was leading the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program. Slowing production for any reason (even for a better weapon) would have put you on his &^%$ list. So instead the US kept producing the flawed Sherman instead of switching at least some production over to the much more advanced Pershing or similar tank. That's part of the reason why the P40 stayed in production until the end of the war. No one really wanted it either but the high production numbers made reports to the Senate easy to make.
The only reason the Germans had such "good" tanks was the fact the Russians had them. When Hitler invaded in 1941 the main German battle tank was the Panzer III, armed with a high velocity 37MM gun. The Panzer IV with it's short barrel low velocity 75MM was considered an infrantry tank and was hopelessly out classed by the Russian T34. They also had numerous tanks from the French inventory as well. In 1942 the Germans were removing the Panzer III from the from the front line and the Panzer IV (with its larger turrent ring) was up armored and up gunned with the longer barrel 75MM gun - giving it a chance against the T34. The Panzer IV that finished the war was no where near the same Panzer IV that started the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_suspension
The 88 being used in a tank was not an American idea - it was the result of the Russian kicking the &^%$ out of German Panzer IVs.
The American long barrel 75MM (75 40 caliber) was a gun comparible to the German long barrel 75 (75 43 caliber). The "original" short barrel 75MM used in early Shermans was also comparible to the 75MM short barrel used in the early Panzer IVs.
The problem wasn't so much the gun but the fact that the US stuck with an obsolete design lacking armor that should have become secondary weapon by 1943. But the Sherman was easy to build and easy to ship - giving it high points from Harry Truman when he was leading the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program. Slowing production for any reason (even for a better weapon) would have put you on his &^%$ list. So instead the US kept producing the flawed Sherman instead of switching at least some production over to the much more advanced Pershing or similar tank. That's part of the reason why the P40 stayed in production until the end of the war. No one really wanted it either but the high production numbers made reports to the Senate easy to make.
The only reason the Germans had such "good" tanks was the fact the Russians had them. When Hitler invaded in 1941 the main German battle tank was the Panzer III, armed with a high velocity 37MM gun. The Panzer IV with it's short barrel low velocity 75MM was considered an infrantry tank and was hopelessly out classed by the Russian T34. They also had numerous tanks from the French inventory as well. In 1942 the Germans were removing the Panzer III from the from the front line and the Panzer IV (with its larger turrent ring) was up armored and up gunned with the longer barrel 75MM gun - giving it a chance against the T34. The Panzer IV that finished the war was no where near the same Panzer IV that started the war.
DaninKansas
Member
Agreed - Market Garden was the result of Eisenhower trying to be a diplomat - for all the talk about needing to "give" the British a victory they seemed to handle the defeat pretty well.
Patton and Mongomery were both headline chasers - the difference being that Patton could actually deliver while Monty had a ready line of excuses. When Montgomery issued his "memoirs" in the 1950s basically blaming Market Garden on Eisenhower it finally dawned on Eisenhower what a waste it was to try to be diplomatic with allies in the face of national security.
Patton and Mongomery were both headline chasers - the difference being that Patton could actually deliver while Monty had a ready line of excuses. When Montgomery issued his "memoirs" in the 1950s basically blaming Market Garden on Eisenhower it finally dawned on Eisenhower what a waste it was to try to be diplomatic with allies in the face of national security.
Billy Shafer
Well-known Member
According to the article. The German tanks were planed by an American. But he was dismissed as a nut with ideas that would never work.So the Germans took a look at his plans.
Along with Heady Lamar. That invented a system. That would make torpedoes work. But the Navy experts blew her off as a nut.
Along with Heady Lamar. That invented a system. That would make torpedoes work. But the Navy experts blew her off as a nut.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy