Thought I would create a thread where fellow history buffs can discuss the invasion of Normandie; the tactics used, forces involved, and other general topics.

I am surprised, given the allies massive superiority in equipment, supplies, and air cover, that the Germans were able to keep them bottled up in Normandie for so long.

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

Interesting topic, and timely of course.

As for being holed up in Normandy, was this a result of the Nazis getting thier act together quickly enough to bog the Allies down in the Hedgerows? As I understand it, this area allowed the Germans to offset the Allied advantages of equipemnt and especially airpower, forcing close-in conflict and an acre by acre fight?

Yeah, all things considered, the Germans reacted quite quickly had large formations of troops moving towards the landing beaches by the end of June 6th.

It also wasn't just the hedgerows that slowed the allies up, though that was certainly a major factor in the American sectors. The Germans simply knew how to fight, and much of the officer and NCO corps had years of combat experience, while the allied forces were generally pretty green.

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

Well the hedgerows did produce a convenient choke point along with caen. The fact that the panzers had to brave allied air power to move up to engage etc. also added later to there lack of ability to maneuver when the allies used op. goodwood to pin a majority of the up front german armored strength in the brit sector, and then blasting through with op- Cobra on the American front. Panzer Lehr was savaged from the air, moving up to the front around st.lo and proved feeble in attempting to stem the advance.

The 21 st. panzers early engagement was not tactically adept either. In any case, Hitler is a wild card as well. His belief that another invasion was yet to come, prevented the Wehrmacht from creating a defense in depth behind static lines early on and cost them dearly when the allies did attempt and successfully complete their breakout due to lack of defense in depth.

Rommel was right. They had to be stopped at the beaches. That was a close run thing - at least at Omaha. But after the failure to throw the Allies back into the sea, it's hard to resist over a million men and over 5000 ships of supplies landing in 24 hours. The hedgerows were a nuisance. The Germans knew how to fight. It was over when Ike said, "OK, we go." Or whatever that quote was from The Longest Day.
BoomerTimes

I don't think enough people understand that amphibious warfare was not even attempted prior to WWII. It was just a theory. Troops and supplies were put ashore uncontested or they were not put ashore at all. No country has really projected a fighting force of any real size except for the United States. I know the Germans parachuted a force into the Island of Crete, but that was a disaster and they never tried an operation like that again. Before WWII even river crossings were highly problematicle.

This portion of my comment may be a bit off topic, but I'd like to make it anyway. Critics of our invasion of Iraq say it was like attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor. Actually, the first thing we did after Pearl Harbor was to send an army to attack the French in North Africa.

Remember, they tried a raid on Dieppe and it was a complete disaster. So the efforts in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy were practice runs for the big show at Normandy. However, getting the men ashore reasonably intact was just the first step. They had to be supplied and reinforced to attack later. And that is where the allies went from the brilliance of the invasion to the mediocrity of ground warfare in Europe. It took Monty weeks to take Caen. Bradly allowed himself to get bogged down in the hedgerows. And it took a brazen tank genius to get the allies out of their rut.

RJ

Good point. As I pointed out in another thread, this was because the division was committed piece by piece, and not as a single formation. A company here, a company there.

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

Same was true for the Allies, Squads got separated, Platoons were lost in minutes after an attack where the Germans were familiar in hedgerow mazes. Hours could go by before adjacent platoons from the same company would discover they had been nearby the whole time.

__________________

I wouldn't be so quick to write off Gallipoli.

__________________
Election 2008 – Addicted to Placebos

Don't forget Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, and the Philipines landed all before D-Day. Iwo Jima and Okinawa after.

__________________

On the Subject - I really liked Ambrose's book D-Day. Anybody have any other recommendations

__________________

True, but one of the objects of all of the pre-D-day landings - even in the Pacific - was to evaluate and train on this form of warfare for the big landing on the European continent.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

The main significance of the landing in Normandy was not that it helped beat the Germans. It was already clear in the summer of 1944 that Germany would lose the war, it was only a matter of time. They were already losing big on the East front and somewhat in Italy, their war industry was bombed more and more to pieces by the Brits and Americans. I believe the main significance of the landing was that the western part of the European continent was saved from Soviet occupation. It would not have been fun to have an iron curtain along the Channel.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.