German Wündertanks vs Shermans

Indeed. I remember seeing a pic of a Japanese bloke lifted. He'd be captured by the Russkis in the late 30's drafted into their mob, captured during Barbarossa & then ended up with one of the static Divs on the Atlantic wall. Poor wee twat.
Finished up in the US as a citizen? Wasn't there a film about him?
 
The RAF and lesser extent the Navy were fabulously overmanned..
Hence the RN laying up ships as the war progressed, for want of men to man them...
 
Wasn't he the guy who built a great army, and then hadn't the bottle to use it?

No comparison with Monty. He never flinched from a fight.

But he made sure - albeit with some notable exceptions - that the fight was on his terms
Because McClellan convinced himself, he was outnumbered.
Monty had better intelligence and knew the exact strength of Rommel at Alamein. I wonder how Monty would have done, if he had took over immediately after Gazala.
 
Because McClellan convinced himself, he was outnumbered.
Monty had better intelligence and knew the exact strength of Rommel at Alamein. I wonder how Monty would have done, if he had took over immediately after Gazala.
Montgomery, for all his faults (and he had many) was a successful General who won battles. Thanks in great part to his faults, there has been an ongoing inclination to denigrate his considerable achievements. To suggest that he was incompetent is to fundamentally misunderstand the man; as @Stonker said earlier, one of his major limitations was the nature of the wartime British Army. He did his level best to ensure that whenever a British soldier was attacking he was doing so with overwhelming superiority of firepower, something that I would prize highly in any General unfortunate enough to command me.

Barring Slim (pbuh), who else could have done as well as Monty, let alone surpassed him?
 
A part of that was that the Emperor was 'deconstructed', in that he was 'demoted' (I can think of no better term) from being a divine being.

I'd suggest that unconditional/conditional be replaced with the notion that an accommodation was reached. There was a degree of face-saving but read between the lines: the Japanese were obliged to take their medicine.
except that there was no face saving For the Germans.
 
And the problem with that is?
Nothing in that sense, that's war but the Japs were not treated the same way, perhaps because the Americans had primacy in the Pacific. Frankly I have always considered the concept of Unconditional surrender stupid in the extreme as it gives the enemy no opportunities to prevent pointless fighting. The enemy has nothing to lose in costing you assets.
 
FWIW, Stug would give us a clue in terms of their tank destroyer role. It is after all called a SturmGeschutz ( storming gun) not Panzerzerstoerer (PZst) and I presume their original intent to find a way of motorising their artillery capability. ISTR that there were versions with a Moerser (Mortar) for obstacle clearance.
 
Nothing in that sense, that's war but the Japs were not treated the same way, perhaps because the Americans had primacy in the Pacific. Frankly I have always considered the concept of Unconditional surrender stupid in the extreme as it gives the enemy no opportunities to prevent pointless fighting. The enemy has nothing to lose in costing you assets.
No I think you have it wrong, the Japanese surrender saved many lives on all sides and the country was no better off than the US zone in Germany. The same effect would have been if the Germans had surrendered in Jan 1945.
The surrender f Germany was on better terms than the Morgenthau plan had surmised, a total reduction of Germany to an agrarian economy. Lets face it, it couldn't have worked, the best outcome was possibly what happened, I suspect that if the July 1944 plot had succeeded then a new German war leadership would have fought on just as long. The western allies weren't in any mood to let the Germans fight on against the Bolsheviks. It would have been a betrayal worthy of the Germans or Russians at that time but not of us!
 
Nothing in that sense, that's war but the Japs were not treated the same way, perhaps because the Americans had primacy in the Pacific. Frankly I have always considered the concept of Unconditional surrender stupid in the extreme as it gives the enemy no opportunities to prevent pointless fighting. The enemy has nothing to lose in costing you assets.
Disagree, I'm afraid. Anything less than an unconditional surrender by the Nazi rulers of the Fatherland would have legitimised a criminal regime at the heart of Europe, and risked a downstream resurrection of long harboured territorial ambitions pre-dating the 14-18 chapter of our history.

It's a crying shame that the Allies lacked the moral, the manpower and the materiel resources to do in 1918 what had instead to wait until 1945, allowing Round One to reach a Clausewitzian Culminating Point, and peter out indecisively.
 
FWIW, Stug would give us a clue in terms of their tank destroyer role. It is after all called a SturmGeschutz ( storming gun) not Panzerzerstoerer (PZst) and I presume their original intent to find a way of motorising their artillery capability. ISTR that there were versions with a Moerser (Mortar) for obstacle clearance.
Stug Crew belonged initially to the Artillery branch not Panzerwaffe
 
Stug Crew belonged initially to the Artillery branch not Panzerwaffe
Er yes in theory (in the StuG-Brigades), but in reality a heck of a lot of StuGs were 'stand-in' panzers, filling panzer companies. E.g. two 'Pz IV' companies each in the 9th SS and 10th SS Panzer Regiments in Normandy were filled with StuGs. Anti-Tank companies also frequently included a StuG company and these belonged to the anti-tank arm of the Panzerwaffe.
 
Barring Slim (pbuh), who else could have done as well as Monty, let alone surpassed him?
I do find it interesting that many assessments of Monty seem to start with him appearing out of thin air in North Africa. I do think, however, that his achievements in the BEF are highly underrated, and, personally, strongly suspect that he is responsible second only to Gort on the ground side for the survival of so many troops. Props to the chap a page or two back for mentioning 1940.

However, something I've always wondered. It's commonly accepted that Slim was the best/most successful of the UK's generals, but he was also fighting an entirely different kind of war in the far East. What reason do we have to believe that he would have performed better than Monty in a mechanised war in Africa and Western Europe?
 
An interesting thought. Slim would have been more tactful and got on better with the yanks imho. He might not have done Market garden but gone for the broad front approach and worked better with the likes of Patton and Bradley.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top