Author
Topic: OT - D-Day, what if?
(Read 10083 times)

Cincydawg · « **Reply #140 on:** June 10, 2019, 09:41:39 AM »

The German attempt to get Mexico to attack the US was a mess for them, and perhaps led to our declaration of war as much as the sub thing.

Had neither happened and Germany prevailed in the war, history would be vastly different.

The AEF was fairly small in numbers relatively speaking, but provided some critical "backbone" when the French army was seeming to give up.

The French already had issues with mutinies in earlier years. The Germans were limited in their 1918 advance by logistics, and their hungry troops often would sit down in a town and just eat for a period of time.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #141 on:** June 10, 2019, 09:50:06 AM »

Quote from: CWSooner on June 09, 2019, 12:43:58 PM

A dry Martini, with a 15:1 ratio of gin to vermouth, is called a Montgomery, because those were the odds he required before he would attack.

Sometimes being a great general, like being a great coach, is a matter of being in the right place at the right time for your natural temperament. Monty's hesitance to attack, I think, was helpful early on in N. Africa. He allowed the Germans to extend their lines to the breaking point and only then did he attack. It worked well. The problem was that the British made a hero out of him for that win and he could never be replaced after that even when that temperament became a liability rather than the asset it had been earlier in the War.

The same is true of Halsey in the Pacific in reverse. His aggressive temperament was a great asset at times but at other times (see Bull's Run / Battle off Samar) it was a MAJOR liability. Halsey's charging off North to sink the Japanese carriers left the invasion fleet totally unprotected and resulted in a lopsided battle that was a near-catastrophe for the US.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #142 on:** June 10, 2019, 09:53:55 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on June 10, 2019, 09:41:39 AM

The German attempt to get Mexico to attack the US was a mess for them, and perhaps led to our declaration of war as much as the sub thing.

Had neither happened and Germany prevailed in the war, history would be vastly different.

The AEF was fairly small in numbers relatively speaking, but provided some critical "backbone" when the French army was seeming to give up.

The French already had issues with mutinies in earlier years. The Germans were limited in their 1918 advance by logistics, and their hungry troops often would sit down in a town and just eat for a period of time.

By 1918 the powers that had been fighting for four years were all facing mutiny issues. Germany ultimately collapsed when their Navy refused to follow orders to go attack the British. The French issues are more well known. Russia wasn't "defeated" so much as their people simply refused to fight any more, etc.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #143 on:** June 10, 2019, 10:13:37 AM »

Everyone was worn out, for obvious reasons. Civilians were starving. Casualties were appalling. I think the average person wanted it to be over no matter what.

The Americans were chipper and naive, well fed and supported, and plunged into battle at times as if it were a game.

CWSooner · « **Reply #144 on:** June 10, 2019, 10:17:58 AM »

The arrival of Americans in France in large numbers in the summer of 1918 was the war-winning event. The American Doughboys were enthusiastic, optimistic, and BIG! It was a huge boost to the Allies and a morale-killer to the Germans.

The Germans couldn't believe how big the Americans were when they started capturing some as POWs. Here's a photo of some American POWs and their German captors.

FearlessF · « **Reply #145 on:** June 10, 2019, 10:22:49 AM »

they look big, but not enthusiastic, optimistic

Cincydawg · « **Reply #146 on:** June 10, 2019, 10:33:10 AM »

It took a while to train the Americans to this new style of warfare. The French badly wanted to feed them into French divisions to give them experience, Pershing insisted they fight as American divisions. Tactically, it can be said the Americans made mistakes especially early in their efforts in 1918.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #147 on:** June 10, 2019, 03:44:44 PM »

Quote from: CWSooner on June 10, 2019, 10:17:58 AM

The arrival of Americans in France in large numbers in the summer of 1918 was the war-winning event. The American Doughboys were enthusiastic, optimistic, and BIG! It was a huge boost to the Allies and a morale-killer to the Germans.

The Germans couldn't believe how big the Americans were when they started capturing some as POWs. Here's a photo of some American POWs and their German captors.

When I was at Ohio State I took an Economic History class taught by a professor whose special area of expertise was researching the relative wealth of historic societies based on the height of their people. Basically, height is determined by nature (genes) and nurture (food). More well fed people are generally taller than less well fed people. Nearly all of his research was based on male height because armys typically kept good records about their recruits including height.

Based just on that and the picture above I would surmise that the Americans of 1900-1918 ate a whole lot better than the Germans of the same period. The nature part (genes) should be about the same and unless that picture is an anomaly, something caused the difference.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #148 on:** June 10, 2019, 03:46:06 PM »

Quote from: FearlessF on June 10, 2019, 10:22:49 AM

they look big, but not enthusiastic, optimistic

One would not expect captives to be terribly enthusiastic or optimistic. I think he meant that they were enthusiastic and optimistic when they arrived, not after they became POW's.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #149 on:** June 10, 2019, 03:48:41 PM »

It is possible the US soldiers were for some reason preselected for height and are not representative.

But during that period, Americans generally ate a lot better than most Europeans, especially as children. I notice even today when I'm in France I'm nearly always the tallest person in any crowd of people, it's rare to see someone as tall or taller, while here in the US it's fairly common. I'm around the 95th percentile for height.

FearlessF · « **Reply #150 on:** June 10, 2019, 05:11:37 PM »

supposedly, MacArthur, when planning for the Japanese surrender selected all men to be present as well over 6 feet tall, don't remember if it was 6'2" or 6'4" or what.

MrNubbz · « **Reply #151 on:** June 10, 2019, 09:06:53 PM »

For the Formal surrender,Nimitz sent a yacht to pick up Dugout Doug - he wanted a battleship or sumsuch,read a lot of crap about him like that.Evidently he had a great many PR people

MrNubbz · « **Reply #152 on:** June 10, 2019, 09:35:46 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on June 10, 2019, 09:50:06 AM

Sometimes being a great general, like being a great coach, is a matter of being in the right place at the right time for your natural temperament. Monty's hesitance to attack, I think, was helpful early on in N. Africa. He allowed the Germans to extend their lines to the breaking point and only then did he attack. It worked well. The problem was that the British made a hero out of him for that win and he could never be replaced after that even when that temperament became a liability rather than the asset it had been earlier in the War.

Exactly MB I've got in some very heated debates on Youtube comment sections regarding the rancid runt Monty.Literally he was a henious liar,many,most of the British Officers hated his guts.Churchill fired good general before sticking the allies with this ebola chimp.He'd take credit that was never his and deflected blame with his fingerprints all over it.A case study in F-UP,Move UP.I like the Tommies but their offspring are revisionist rubes - save some of their historians.Read Ike and Monty: Generals at War and EISENHOWER & MONTGOMERY At the Falaise Gap.Honestly I'm surprised no one shot him.Talked to Eisenhower like he was in charge of Latrine duty.However twice Monty had to issue formal apologies to IKE.Toward the end IKE started to really give it to him

Cincydawg · « **Reply #153 on:** June 11, 2019, 04:09:57 AM »

A lot of the basis for keeping a general around was PR, as was the basis for letting some go.

PR in wartime is important, and the generals who are bad can at times be managed to be less bad.

Firing Monty would not have gone over well with the British people, and Ike was sensitive to that, as was Monty.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: OT - D-Day, what if?

Cincydawg

Re: OT - D-Day, what if?

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT - D-Day, what if?

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT - D-Day, what if?

Cincydawg

Re: OT - D-Day, what if?

CWSooner

Re: OT - D-Day, what if?

FearlessF

Re: OT - D-Day, what if?

Cincydawg

Re: OT - D-Day, what if?

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT - D-Day, what if?

medinabuckeye1

Re: OT - D-Day, what if?

Cincydawg

Re: OT - D-Day, what if?

FearlessF

Re: OT - D-Day, what if?

MrNubbz

Re: OT - D-Day, what if?

MrNubbz

Re: OT - D-Day, what if?

Cincydawg

Re: OT - D-Day, what if?