stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869 
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jul 13, 2022 15:06:59 GMT
On today's WWII post I'm rather dubious about this bit.
Given the level of German losses and the sheer size of the Soviet forces and defences I suspect this is most elements in the army exaggerating their possibilities for success and also seeking to blame Hitler for the battle's failure.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,117
Likes: 49,506
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 13, 2022 15:14:41 GMT
On today's WWII post I'm rather dubious about this bit.
Given the level of German losses and the sheer size of the Soviet forces and defences I suspect this is most elements in the army exaggerating their possibilities for success and also seeking to blame Hitler for the battle's failure.
Here is it also in this article: BATTLE OF KURSK: GERMANY’S LOST VICTORY IN WORLD WAR IIAfter receiving the news of the Allied invasion of Sicily, as well as reports of impending Soviet attacks on the Mius River and at Izyum, Hitler decided to cancel Operation Citadel. Manstein argued that he should be allowed to finish off the two Soviet tank armies. He had unused reserves, consisting of three experienced panzer divisions of XXIV Panzer Corps, in position for quick commitment. That corps could have been used to attack the Fifth Guards Tank Army in its flank, to break out from the Psel bridgehead or to cross the Psel east of Prochorovka. All of the available Soviet armor in the south was committed and could not be withdrawn without causing a collapse of the Soviet defenses. Manstein correctly realized that he had the opportunity to destroy the Soviet operational and strategic armor in the Prochorovka area. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,117
Likes: 49,506
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 13, 2022 16:50:55 GMT
Added to July 13th 1943:
YouTube (Prokhorovka: An Avalanche of Armor)
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jul 13, 2022 18:03:43 GMT
Added to July 13th 1943: YouTube (Prokhorovka: An Avalanche of Armor)
Interesting as this argues that Manstein disobeyed Hitler's orders and launched his attack anyway but after further fighting the following day continued Soviet reinforcements prompted the defeat of the attack - Operation Roland - and the withdrawal of the German forces from their exposed position.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,117
Likes: 49,506
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 13, 2022 18:15:24 GMT
Added to July 13th 1943: YouTube (Prokhorovka: An Avalanche of Armor) Interesting as this argues that Manstein disobeyed Hitler's orders and launched his attack anyway but after further fighting the following day continued Soviet reinforcements prompted the defeat of the attack - Operation Roland - and the withdrawal of the German forces from their exposed position.
And the rest is history. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,117
Likes: 49,506
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 16, 2022 17:23:47 GMT
Added to July 16th 1943:
YouTube (Who Let the Dogs Out?! - The Invasion of Sicily)
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jul 17, 2022 8:35:33 GMT
On today's WWI post I think you have a bit missing. Where your talking about the royal family changing its name to Windsor.
Assuming there should be some reference to his joke?
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,117
Likes: 49,506
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 17, 2022 8:36:18 GMT
On today's WWI post I think you have a bit missing. Where your talking about the royal family changing its name to Windsor.
Assuming there should be some reference to his joke?
Steve
Seems the trolls missed the joke, will edit it in. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jul 18, 2022 8:28:06 GMT
Noticed a small typo in today's WWI post.
Not quite sure what you meant here. Possibly detested? Know DLG and Haig were at loggerheads but unfortunately Haig had too much support from the Tories who he depended on and the royal family for him to be sacked.
Thanks
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,117
Likes: 49,506
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 19, 2022 3:00:10 GMT
Noticed a small typo in today's WWI post.
Not quite sure what you meant here. Possibly detested? Know DLG and Haig were at loggerheads but unfortunately Haig had too much support from the Tories who he depended on and the royal family for him to be sacked.
Thanks Steve
Well then, seems i need to edit it then, thanks for the spotting as always. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jul 26, 2022 14:11:14 GMT
On today's WWI thread with the run up to the disastrously organised Passchendaele campaign it would have been far better if Lloyd George had had the power to get his way. Or failing that Haig had listened to some of his more intelligent subordinates rather than insisting on going for a big break through that he was so obsessed with. That was always going to be a disaster, especially on that ground.  A number of limited bite and hold operations like those at Arras and Vimy Ridge would have been much better, possibly even gaining more ground than the OTL operation as the Germans were worn down.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,117
Likes: 49,506
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 26, 2022 14:12:51 GMT
A number of limited bite and hold operations like those at Arras and Vimy Ridge would have been much better, possibly even gaining more ground than the OTL operation as the Germans were worn down. Steve
What would you describe as limited bite and hold operations in terms of numbers. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jul 26, 2022 14:33:48 GMT
A number of limited bite and hold operations like those at Arras and Vimy Ridge would have been much better, possibly even gaining more ground than the OTL operation as the Germans were worn down. Steve
What would you describe as limited bite and hold operations in terms of numbers.
The key thing was a well planned operation with a limited aim, which kept within the capacities of the time. Most importantly don't seek to advance beyond the supporting range of your own artillery. With proper organisation it was fairly common to take the 1st set of enemy defences with a decently organised attack. However seeking to go beyond that meant you were beyond the practical support of your own artillery, either because of range or simply problems of communications. Ditto with contact between the front line units and the commanders, even army level ones who might be quite close. Wires were frequently cut by artillery and messengers suffered high casualty rates while radio was still very cumbersome and unreliable. As such possibilities of detecting a weakness and exploiting it quickly failed because it could take hours for details to reach the commander and then more for reserves to be brought up. The big break-through's that you saw in 1918 were impractical in 1917 because the technology was still only partially developed and also the opponents were still too strong [on both sides] to enable a sustained offensive success.
Similarly by 1917 Britain was developing a far more sophisticated artillery system with adequate numbers, trained personnel, reliable shells in enough numbers and the capacity for accurate and quick counter battery fire, which is something that could well have been decisively given the importance of artillery in WWI. It wouldn't have clearly won the war in say 3-4 months of such clashes but it could have inflicted crippling losses on a vital component of the German army - probably especially in terms of trained men.
There is an example I once read with Marshal Foch, I think of a small offensive he launched in 1916 I think it was. One of his fellow generals remarked on the small territorial gains and that it would take about 2,000+ such operations to liberate all of German occupied France. He responded by pointing out the proportionally heavy German casualties and that something like 80 such operations would consume the entire German army.
I'm thinking of thinks such as the Battle of Arras - but without any idea of a big breakthrough. Just wear the Germans down with firepower in favourable positions rather than throwing men at them in unfavourable ones. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,117
Likes: 49,506
|
Post by lordroel on Jul 26, 2022 14:35:26 GMT
What would you describe as limited bite and hold operations in terms of numbers. The key thing was a well planned operation with a limited aim, which kept within the capacities of the time. Most importantly don't seek to advance beyond the supporting range of your own artillery. With proper organisation it was fairly common to take the 1st set of enemy defences with a decently organised attack. However seeking to go beyond that meant you were beyond the practical support of your own artillery, either because of range or simply problems of communications. Ditto with contact between the front line units and the commanders, even army level ones who might be quite close. Wires were frequently cut by artillery and messengers suffered high casualty rates while radio was still very cumbersome and unreliable. As such possibilities of detecting a weakness and exploiting it quickly failed because it could take hours for details to reach the commander and then more for reserves to be brought up. The big break-through's that you saw in 1918 were impractical in 1917 because the technology was still only partially developed and also the opponents were still too strong [on both sides] to enable a sustained offensive success.
Similarly by 1917 Britain was developing a far more sophisticated artillery system with adequate numbers, trained personnel, reliable shells in enough numbers and the capacity for accurate and quick counter battery fire, which is something that could well have been decisively given the importance of artillery in WWI. It wouldn't have clearly won the war in say 3-4 months of such clashes but it could have inflicted crippling losses on a vital component of the German army - probably especially in terms of trained men.
There is an example I once read with Marshal Foch, I think of a small offensive he launched in 1916 I think it was. One of his fellow generals remarked on the small territorial gains and that it would take about 2,000+ such operations to liberate all of German occupied France. He responded by pointing out the proportionally heavy German casualties and that something like 80 such operations would consume the entire German army. I'm thinking of thinks such as the Battle of Arras - but without any idea of a big breakthrough. Just wear the Germans down with firepower in favourable positions rather than throwing men at them in unfavourable ones. So for you 150K + is a small limited bite and hold operation. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,869
Likes: 13,253
|
Post by stevep on Jul 26, 2022 18:22:15 GMT
The key thing was a well planned operation with a limited aim, which kept within the capacities of the time. Most importantly don't seek to advance beyond the supporting range of your own artillery. With proper organisation it was fairly common to take the 1st set of enemy defences with a decently organised attack. However seeking to go beyond that meant you were beyond the practical support of your own artillery, either because of range or simply problems of communications. Ditto with contact between the front line units and the commanders, even army level ones who might be quite close. Wires were frequently cut by artillery and messengers suffered high casualty rates while radio was still very cumbersome and unreliable. As such possibilities of detecting a weakness and exploiting it quickly failed because it could take hours for details to reach the commander and then more for reserves to be brought up. The big break-through's that you saw in 1918 were impractical in 1917 because the technology was still only partially developed and also the opponents were still too strong [on both sides] to enable a sustained offensive success.
Similarly by 1917 Britain was developing a far more sophisticated artillery system with adequate numbers, trained personnel, reliable shells in enough numbers and the capacity for accurate and quick counter battery fire, which is something that could well have been decisively given the importance of artillery in WWI. It wouldn't have clearly won the war in say 3-4 months of such clashes but it could have inflicted crippling losses on a vital component of the German army - probably especially in terms of trained men.
There is an example I once read with Marshal Foch, I think of a small offensive he launched in 1916 I think it was. One of his fellow generals remarked on the small territorial gains and that it would take about 2,000+ such operations to liberate all of German occupied France. He responded by pointing out the proportionally heavy German casualties and that something like 80 such operations would consume the entire German army. I'm thinking of thinks such as the Battle of Arras - but without any idea of a big breakthrough. Just wear the Germans down with firepower in favourable positions rather than throwing men at them in unfavourable ones. So for you 150K + is a small limited bite and hold operation.
Well more like stopping say after the 1st couple of days and switching the focus elsewhere. Or at least after the 16th April when as it reported:
True things like the mining of Vimy ridge isn't something that can easily be repeated, nor quickly but picking key targets near the front that can be gained in the 1st couple of days and then securing them. The Germans generally counter attacked to try and regain lost territory and this could be costly for them. See
|
|
A number of limited bite and hold operations like those at Arras and Vimy Ridge would have been much better, possibly even gaining more ground than the OTL operation as the Germans were worn down.