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

Man, Buckeye on Buckeye violence this morning.

I'd call D-Day a "qualified success" that could have turned rather bad.  Monty of course did not take Caen, the key communications hub, and didn't for a month or more.

Omaha Beach was, well, rough.  Utah Beach went pretty well though the paratroopers were badly scattered.

It's notable how slowly the Germans reacted, but without air power, they would have a hard time moving armored divisions anyway.  Once ashore, the game was basically up.

Once ashore, the game was basically up.

This is the story of D-Day.  Given the vast material superiority of the Western Allies, the only chance that the Germans had was to stop them from getting a toe-hold on the continent.  

Like you said, Caen wasn't taken on schedule and obviously the goals beyond Omaha weren't reached for quite some time but the overriding point is that the Brits and Americans were NOT tossed back into the sea.  They got ashore and once that happened it was simply a matter of time until that aforementioned vast material superiority would provide sufficient resources such that even the perennially over-cautious Monty would be ready to advance.  

at the Bulge, the Germans used phone lines for communications. the Allies weren't able to know the plans because the Germans weren't using their "code" which had been broken years earlier.

When the Allies didn't know what was coming the Germans were not at a huge disadvantage and a worthy adversary 

81 years ago this morning the British and Americans landed at Normandy. 

If you believe @MrNubbz you would assume that the operation was a massive failure since the clownishly buffoonish British Army was responsible for three of the five beaches. 

Contra his ignorance the landings were successful and with the Western Allies now on the Continent to his West along with the Soviets pressing in from the East, Hitler's days were numbered.  Less than a year later he would crawl into his underground bunker beneath the ruins of Berlin and never return to the surface alive. 

I enjoy reading history so your comments are a nice change of pace. When did Mr Nubbz state any such drivel - dig that one up I'll wait. Churchill declared Addressing a joint session of Congress, he warned that the real danger at present was the “dragging-out of the war at enormous expense” because of the risk that the Allies would become “tired or bored or split”—and play into the hands of Germany and Japan. He pushed for an early and massive attack on the “underbelly of the Axis.”

That Italian campaign began on September 3rd 1943 and soon degenerated into what historian David Reynolds has perceptively called “a slogan not a strategy.” As Stalin pointedly put it, the Germans would keep “as many allied Divisions as possible in Italy where no decision could be reached….” Whatever the benefits or pitfalls of the Italian campaign, Churchill stuck with it through thick and thin.(David Reynolds, “Churchill and Allied Grand Strategy in Europe”)

Yet it was Churchill himself that stated to FDR right after Pearl Harbor - Germany 1st. Then sends his boys out into the desert ,that's sticking to the game plan isn't it?

And so, to “speed” things up, the British prime minister and President Roosevelt set a date for a cross-Channel invasion of Normandy, in northern France, for May 1, 1944, regardless of the problems presented by the invasion of Italy, which was underway. It would be carried out by 29 divisions, including a Free French division, if possible.

Churchill and Brooke both tried putting D-Day off again and himself tried to woo Stalin at Tehran Conference. Stalin landed firmly on the side of FDR they both told Churchill Operation Overlord was going forward,if you read as much as you blather you'd know that. The Mediteranean Campaign was using up too many resources(fuel,landing craft,air cover, - American mostly on Winston's "soft under belly" chardade. As one German general stated after the war -  next time you invade Italy you might want to start at the top.That whole campaign was a slog, there was like 1200 nautical miles to sail from Southampton to Salerno around France/Spain/Portugal thru the straights of Gibralter and 1/3 of the way of the mediterranean. It was 30 miles across the channel 21 from Dover to the Pas de Calais. Look or have it looked up for you - David Reynolds a British Historian on YT he'll explain it.

When Stalin questioned whether or not “the Prime Minister and the British staffs really believe in Overlord,” Churchill’s bombastic reply was: “It will be our stern duty to hurl across the Channel against the Germans every sinew of our strength,” ignoring his desire to deploy some of that strength in Italy, the Aegean, and other assorted locales. He wanted to lead the GIs around by the nose

Winston kept insisting on a Mediterannean campaign to secure British Imperial interests instead of Allied strategic objectives.Winston yelled and screamed at IKE right up until OVERLORD was launched. Stalin was tired of Churchill/Brooke wanting to henpeck around the periphery while the Red Army was paying the Butcher's bill from the Wehrmacht onslaught. But Winston was all on board by the afternoon of the 6th all giddy casualties had been turning out much less than either he or Brooke had imagined.

Britain did have some sharp naval officers specially Adml Ramsay who led the planning of Neptune the Amphibeous landings. Along with many US officers brought over from the Pacific where the GIs were Island hoping and landing everyday. Don't confuse him with Montgomery who had 6 months to plan the CAEN operation that he ran into the sand immediately but he was Alan brooke's pet project and therfore protected but not much longer

Here's a hot take for you: the concept of this soldier is inherently better than that soldier is ridiculous. Some soldiers have better equipment than others; some soldiers have better leaders than others; often one group of soldiers is much better trained or supplied than others; nearly all soldiers will fight like hell to defend themselves, their friends, and their homeland, as long as they believe they have a chance.

There is a theory that low-intensity conflict is a great training ground for soldiers. That argument is often used in support of the British in both WWI and WWII. There are epic examples of their failures--which can largely be blamed on poor leadership--and there are epic examples of their success. Notwithstanding the good and evil comparison in the war, the Germans were well-trained and generally well led (at a tactical, but not strategic level; Hitler's vanity projects did not help them), but their supplies got worse and worse (as was inevitable in a long conflict). The same can be said of the Japanese. The Russians were generally poorly trained and poorly led (particularly at the outset of the war), but there were lots of them, and they were defending terrain (and weather) that made Germany's attack very difficult. Their leadership got better and better as the war wore on because there is no training like the real thing (and no better way to separate the wheat from the chaff among your leadership). The Americans were poorly trained at the outset and underequipped, but were always destined to be the best supplied of the combatants. Curiously, the French were relatively well supplied, but were poorly led. Fundamentally, France's failure was a leadership failure, not a soldier failure.

A good example of the dichotomy of training and leadership is the difference between how the 8th Army and 2nd Infantry (U.S. Army) performed north of the 38th Parallelel, vs. the USMC at Chosin during the Korean War. Yes, the Marine Corps chooses from a slightly more select group of recruits, but the fundamental difference between the two at that time was training and tactical leadership (which was largely a training issue amongst the leadership). The Marines were better trained, and thus performed heroically (at a force as well as individual level). The 8th Army was cobbled together after the Army had been deconstructed following WWII, and its leadership was hollowed out. This was more evident with the initial forces that landed in Korea (Task Force Smith), but was still a problem when the Chinese entered the war. It's not a question of whether Americans make good soldiers, it's a question of training and leadership (which includes a lot of leadership training).

The U.S. model continues to focus (as did the Marines before--and after--Chosin) on small unit leadership, such that experienced enlisted soldiers are given true leadership positions. The goal is to ensure that even at the small unit level, there is discipline and purpose. That has generally been successful. Other militaries often complement the U.S. non-commissioned officer as a force multiplier. That and the ability to deliver ordinance on target--which is a supply, organization, and training issue more than a tactics issue. It turns out it is difficult to coordinate infantry, artillery, and air support--but the U.S. trains on that. It's expensive, but effective (conversely, see the Russian attempts at combined arms going into Ukraine two years ago).

Terrain and surprise should also not be discounted. The western allied leadership beleived they had Germany on the run in December 1944. But they were also grinding to a halt trying to get through the terrain that separated western Europe from Germany itself. The Hurtigen (sp?) forest campaign was a disaster the for the U.S. Army, and the rivers blocking entry into Germany were very real obstacles (yes, the Channel, more than anything else, saved England from Germany in 1940-41). The Germans took advantage of the allied struggle to regroup their forces and swing for the fences, trying to knock out critical supply lines through Belgium. It was never going to win the war, but it would have prolonged it. Was the 101st soldier better than the 28th Infantry Division soldier that they replaced? Yes, but not because of their nationality--they were both American. The 101st was better trained and likely had better leadership (again, because of their training).

But even after the Bulge, the western allies had to cross the rivers into Germany, still not an easy task. And in the east, grizzled veterans continued to punch it out, but the Russians were better supplied (with both equipment and people). It was never a question of which nation produced the best individual soldier; it was always a question of which nations fielded the strongest militaries, and that is built on a lot more than is this or that guy tough.

What a fascinating stroll thru "The Land of Make Believe", break your prozac in half. You don’t get to revise history just because you don’t like it. Left to your fauntleroys OVERLORD wouldn't have been launched until '46

Unresponsive once again.