Jump to content
tanknet.org

1943 Invasion Of France? (Locked)


Recommended Posts

Well, if you're having fun doing this then by all means keep doing it, and I've learned a lot from your posts. But if you really want him to shut up and go away (I would like it if he would, but my issues with him are more about his strawman bullshit towards me on current-military topics), this is the exact opposite of the way to do that. I mean, just Google the guy, this is his M.O.

 

Yeah, while irritated at the strawmen and the typical "I can channel people's thoughts, dead or alive" bullshit, I'm also having fun exposing his blatant ignorance on a subject he is so happily pontificating on. I'm simply uninterested in the "play nice" bullshit either, so if I garner some more warning points then so be it. These critters stink up the Internet and it is long past time this Grate Sight gets fumigated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 442
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is also incredibly ludicrous to believe that the entire USN CV force, deployed to European waters, would immediately devastate the German and Vichy defenses, followed by the unerring domination of the coasts by its equivalent naval gunfire.

 

Clue in USN aviation training in close air support, or just any air support of ground units before 1944, ditto for USN shore fire skills.

 

ETA: Egad, I forgot his estimation of IJN shore fire skills in 1942 which would topple the defenses of the Hawaiian Islands, perforce. Anything can be done, once imagined?

Edited by Ken Estes
Link to post
Share on other sites

bewhilst this is going on, I would like to ask about a referance to the actual Operation Dragoon. I need a very detailed account, not about the landings and first week, but later actions up to early September.

 

I would of course buy an expensive book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vichy troops fought not bad during Torch but there the risk of German retaliation was soon to be seen as unlikely. Vichy troops in France would have to consider that surrendering to the Allies could be a very bad idea if the Germans counter attack and then capture Vichy forces that surrendered. Apart from that the Vichy regime would have much more control over the troops in France than it did over the troops in Africa. And to be honest US carriers entering the Med would probably alert all Axis forces and I see no way they could enter the Med undetected.

 

The Spanish would probably be quite concerned about such a force passing the straight of Gibraltar, especially as Torch would not have happened, and Spain would not know that the Allies respected Spanish territories and left them alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bewhilst this is going on, I would like to ask about a referance to the actual Operation Dragoon. I need a very detailed account, not about the landings and first week, but later actions up to early September.

 

I would of course buy an expensive book.

 

This? https://history.army.mil/brochures/sfrance/sfrance.htm

 

https://history.army.mil/html/books/007/7-10-1/CMH_Pub_7-10-1.pdf

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a151685.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vichy troops fought not bad during Torch but there the risk of German retaliation was soon to be seen as unlikely. Vichy troops in France would have to consider that surrendering to the Allies could be a very bad idea if the Germans counter attack and then capture Vichy forces that surrendered. Apart from that the Vichy regime would have much more control over the troops in France than it did over the troops in Africa. And to be honest US carriers entering the Med would probably alert all Axis forces and I see no way they could enter the Med undetected.

 

The Spanish would probably be quite concerned about such a force passing the straight of Gibraltar, especially as Torch would not have happened, and Spain would not know that the Allies respected Spanish territories and left them alone.

 

Rich has already demolished all of Glenn's non-sense.

 

For obvious reasons, Spain will sit on the fence through 1943 and try to develop realtions with the allies while not angering the Germans, so the convoys will be detected but the information may or may not be passed to Berlin/Rome, not that they lacked their own sources though...

 

Since the actual allied commanders weren't as idiotic as to think this could be put off (despite Glenn's channeling King with his ouija board) we will never know, but once such an stupid scheme had failed, it would give a boost to the Axis to compensate Stalingrad, since the losses would delay further any action both in Europe and the Pacific, would allow the shifting of reserves to the Eastern Front and will allow the Japanese to isolate Australia.

 

Next up, the Kriegsmarine joins the IJN, Glenn:

 

pic74663.jpg

Edited by RETAC21
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Vichy troops fought not bad during Torch but there the risk of German retaliation was soon to be seen as unlikely. Vichy troops in France would have to consider that surrendering to the Allies could be a very bad idea if the Germans counter attack and then capture Vichy forces that surrendered. Apart from that the Vichy regime would have much more control over the troops in France than it did over the troops in Africa. And to be honest US carriers entering the Med would probably alert all Axis forces and I see no way they could enter the Med undetected.

 

The Spanish would probably be quite concerned about such a force passing the straight of Gibraltar, especially as Torch would not have happened, and Spain would not know that the Allies respected Spanish territories and left them alone.

 

Rich has already demolished all of Glenn's non-sense.

 

For obvious reasons, Spain will sit on the fence through 1943 and try to develop realtions with the allies while not angering the Germans, so the convoys will be detected but the information may or may not be passed to Berlin/Rome, not that they lacked their own sources though...

 

Since the actual allied commanders weren't as idiotic as to think this could be put off (despite Glenn's channeling King with his ouija board) we will never know, but once such an stupid scheme had failed, it would give a boost to the Axis to compensate Stalingrad, since the losses would delay further any action both in Europe and the Pacific, would allow the shifting of reserves to the Eastern Front and will allow the Japanese to isolate Australia.

 

Next up, the Kriegsmarine joins the IJN, Glenn:

 

pic74663.jpg

 

 

Only after Germany had captured the Suez....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, point me to actual RoE violations on this thread (the post numbers please) and I will take appropriate action. I've been through a few pages and haven't seen anything particularly offensive - just a little name calling. Holding a different view to someone else, presenting an illogical argument or being factually wrong, are not RoE violations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And Jersey, dont forget Jersey. :)

 

Allied invasions in Europe in WW2 generally aimed for one of three requirements. First, to establish land based airpower in a region where more or new bases were required, (example, Tunisia). Second, to capture valuable ports esp. in Europe, (example, Cherbourg). Third, to capture a piece of territory needed as a stepping stone to a more distant objective, (example, Sicily).

 

Jersey fails on all three. The UK itself provided all the LBA required in this region. It was not a deep water port and not connected directly to the mainland. It was not required as a stepping stone to anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Chris, at the risk of being called a barracks lawyer, Rich sums it up pretty well:

 

 

1. Trolls love to tell other posters what they "must think".

2. Trolls love to massage history to their desired end state.

3. Trolls love to insert their spurious opinions into the supposed "thoughts" of actual participants by misquoting them and then inserting the misquote into the argument out of context.

 

 

This is something that Glenn does time and again, never acknowledging that he get nearly all wrong (see the "Vichy French won't fight" line when they did just that!). If you note, his posts to me ask repeatedly what would I do to make his fantasy work, which is typically trollish behavious to move posts as required.

 

Don't know what he gets out of this pointless posting other than having knowledgeable posters provide him with information he would have gotten anyway if he asked nicely or bothered to look a bit around, so, to me, it seems obvious all he wants is to give other posters high blood pressure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vichy troops fought not bad during Torch but there the risk of German retaliation was soon to be seen as unlikely. Vichy troops in France would have to consider that surrendering to the Allies could be a very bad idea if the Germans counter attack and then capture Vichy forces that surrendered. Apart from that the Vichy regime would have much more control over the troops in France than it did over the troops in Africa. And to be honest US carriers entering the Med would probably alert all Axis forces and I see no way they could enter the Med undetected.

 

The Spanish would probably be quite concerned about such a force passing the straight of Gibraltar, especially as Torch would not have happened, and Spain would not know that the Allies respected Spanish territories and left them alone.

 

 

That is a very good paraphrase of what the Allied assessment was when GYMNAST/SUPERGYMNAST/TORCH were contemplated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich I love when stupid gets doubled down on.

 

 

This is my last post on this thread for some time because I’m off on vacation.

 

The fundamental problem with Torch was that (1) it was too conservative for the opportunity and (2) getting bogged down in the African/Italian side show extended the war by as much as a year. Ending the war a year sooner was worth some risks.

 

Of course, the problem is we don't actually need to guess what the "planning factor might be", we know what it was from the pre-GYMNAST/SUPERGYMNAST/TORCH planning documents. It says nothing about five Frenchmen equalling one German or anything else as asinine as that. Instead, with regards to the quality of the troops:

 

 

Supergymnast, winky , “Supertorch”.

 

The German operations launched against Vichy France and Tunisia were shoestring, so they must have had the planning assumptions that Vichy resistance would not be severe. That assumption proved correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich Fall ANTON took two days of planning and was executed in a single day when French resistance in North Africa collapsed. German forces reached the Mediterranean coast of France and the Italian 4th Army occupied the Riviera, by nightfall on 11 November. 4th Army began its movement at 2155 10 November.

The landing in Southern France has to be simultaneous to the others, not after them. The Allies landed in Africa on the 8th, so both historical reactions – the Italian 4th Army and Anton - would have been too little, too late. The Italians are not sweeping aside a US Marine Corps in a meeting engagement. By the time the Germans have even got past Lyon without an ‘s’, the Allies are already in possession of Toulon and Marsailles intact. Game over.

Then look. The three corps and nine division of the Italian 4th Army were mostly disposed along the demilitarized zone from the coast to the Swiss border. I CA with 104 Auto.Div.”Mantova” and 105 Auto.Div.”Rovigo”,\ was furthest north and led with the 20 Alpini Sciatori (Alpine skiers), occupying Savoy to the Hautes-Alpes, mainly through the valleys of the Modane and Bourg St-Maurice. XXII CA with 2 Celere Div.”E.F.T.d’Ferro”, 103 Auto.Div.”Piacenza”, 48 (Ital) Inf.Div.”Taro”, and 5 Alp.Div.”Pusteria” was in the center and occupied the Basses-Alpes and upper Alpes-Maritimes. XII CA with 10 Auto.Div.”Piave”, 7 Inf.Div.”Lupi di Tosccana”, and 58 Inf.Div.”Legnano” occupied the coast.

Fantastic information! Thank you. So, given the known poor quality of Italian troop formations, my first blush at that list is the OOB is planning requirement for the invasion of Southern France should be not less than something around 6 divisions ashore in the first 24 hours including all Marine divisions. But that’s just first blush.

More magical thinking.

Bullshit. Energetic and wide spectrum activities to mislead the enemy were a core principle of amphibious warfare doctrine because they often succeeded. You know that. You went all in against Supertorch instantly, reflexively. And now that you’ve planted your flag on that hill, you have to resort to nonsense claims such as that diversionary methods fundamental to amphibious warfare technique are “magic”.

In other words, you don't know and are too lazy to find out, since this is yet another one of your trolling exercises.

The specific reason why I haven’t researched German army dispositions in France in 1943 is that my research library,

https://library.mcmaster.ca/spaces/mills

Is closed on weekends during the summer. I work full time. Won’t be until September unless I take some days off, but when I do that, I got on vacation. Once September comes I can dig in.

. 15. AOK was NOT IN Normandy. Try getting simple facts straight before you begin bloviating.

Sorry, 7th Army in Normandy. When I post quickly I can sometimes do things like say east for west, or 7th for 15th. Or Lyons with an ‘s’.

You have zero idea what Axis forces actually deployed to occupy Southern France, so you have zero idea what the condition of beach defenses or local reserves would be. Try getting simple facts straight before you begin bloviating.

I know that the German army had no beach defenses in Southern France at the point Torch landed and I can’t think of one major amphibious landing in WW2 that was defeated by an army approaching the landing zone on the march.

Axis forces did not occupy Vichy France by rail and German forces did not initially occupy Toulon.

The Germans occupied Toulon without significant fighting. Therefor, so too could have the Allies. If the Allies get these ports largely undamaged, and hold them, the Battle of France is already decided. The idea that the Germans could retake these ports in a prepared counterattack later without rail communications to nearby is completely infeasible.

British 8th Army was subject to the same real-world logistical limitations as Rommel.

The British 8th Army in late 1942 had far better means in every category imaginable than Rommel. More airpower. More trucks and mechanization. More sea logistics. Better ports. More engineering and construction support. Rommel’s supplies in contrast were drying up. The Axis had enough shipping to intervene in Tunisia, but once that happened, they had little to spare for Libya.

That would certainly help, given you have demonstrated zero knowledge of the actual force structure and have instead substituted magical thinking as your panacea.

Hey speaking of the bloviating thing, I noticed you didn’t state that you think Anton could have thrown a major Allied landing in Southern France into the sea straight off a road march. While remaining silent on Anton, you did, however, list in detail the OOB for the Italian 4th Army. Do you think Anton can throw a major invasion into the sea off the march? Yes or no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK guys. I personally couldn't find evidence of what I would consider trolling by Glenn in a review of six pages of this thread, but it is good enough for me that enough people I consider well-behaved stalwarts of this Grate Sight (RETAC21, JasonJ, Rich, Brian Kennedy, Ken Estes, Stuart Galbraith etc.) agree that they have been persistently trolled. I think there is a lot of good info and argument on the thread, but it has clearly become an annoyance and distraction. I am not going to delete it, but I am going to lock it, indefinitely. When I get some free time, I'll go back and take out some of the discussions around trolling and instances of name calling etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...