|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 21, 2015 15:55:18 GMT
Dave when my site is up and running you will have an excellent place to read up on all the AFVs used between the period of 1920 to 1950.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 21, 2015 16:45:06 GMT
Dave: There is a formula for reading any book on the Bulge. Follow it step by step.
1) You must read it in the last half of December.
2) Take a trip to Vermont or better yet Maine.
3) When there, find a patch of piney woods, and move briskly to the geographic center of those woods.
4) Dig a hole six by two, four feet deep, construct a berm, or fill sand bags with the dirt spoil and surround the whole, paying particular attention to the side you expect the enemy to appear from.
5) Get in the hole, cover it with blanket and poncho, so light won't escape, get out your flashlight and enjoy your reading experience, with the exact flavor of that time. You're much to young to have driven an M-8 anyway.
Merry Christmas to all, and don't forget the "Nuts" Dave.
PS: Did I mention that the ground is completely frozen and your entrenching tool not worth a bucket of spit, for digging in it.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 21, 2015 19:47:07 GMT
Yan I look forward to your site being up and running. I tire of Wikipedia and hate not knowing how accurate or inaccurate the info is. QC I am doing step 1 and step 2 I have done two times and loved it. Sue and I went in the fall both times to see the foliage and look at all the covered bridges we could find. She loves the bridges. Woodstock, Vt is my favorite town and all of New England is gorgeous in October. Step 3 we have plenty of pine trees and can't imagine digging in as those brave soldiers did and live in the cold wet fox holes they dug. It is so difficult to understand the deprivations they endured and then be able to fight as they did. The Band of Brothers episode on Bastogne gave me a small inkling of the conditions they endured in the Battle of the Bulge. I thank them for their service. A member of my Masonic Lodge was at Bastogne and was called "Bazooka Boy" by his comrades because he was an artist with the tube. Bill Appleton was his name and he was embarrassed when an article appeared in our local paper back in the 1980's when an article about his exploits was printed. One of the great things about growing up in a small town of less than 10k was you knew everyone and what they did in the war. In our little town we had 4 aviators from WW II. 3 bomber pilots and 1 Marine fighter pilot. Just about every adult male in Oxford served in the war. Amazing, simply amazing. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Dec 21, 2015 20:19:17 GMT
Dave if Sue loves covered bridges, you will have to take her to Madison County Iowa sometime.
When I was about 12 my best friend's father had been with Patton and at the Battle of the Bulge. I wish I had the knowledge at the time to have asked him about his experiences or at least understand more of what he was saying. He did talk about it but my memories are more about his emotions as he related the stories than the stories themselves-it was such a confusing juxtaposition of emotions on how he could love and hate Patton in practically the same sentence with humor and horror mixed in.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 21, 2015 22:52:16 GMT
QC/Yan A couple of more questions for you. 1) Did the Red Ball Express deliver the 101st Airborne to Bastogne on December 18, 1944? 2) How did the M 10 compare with the M 18? Was one better armed than another? I read they both had 76 mm weapons but different models, did that matter? 3) Could Bastogne been defended by any infantry division or did it require a highly trained unit like the 101st Airborne. Was moral that bad in the other units or was the lack of combat units and veterans the cause? 4) How much did the rift between Bradley and Montgomery contribute to the cause if any of the Bulge? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Dec 21, 2015 23:02:30 GMT
Dave, I will take 4 Monty did everything right and Patton's folks did as well, no ego's impacted this action, itself. After who knows!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 21, 2015 23:34:45 GMT
I will let Ian do the M10 - M18 thing. He is the expert in that arena.
Your other questions:
People forget that the 101st had a combat command each of the 9th and 10th Armored Divisions, and parts of two field artillery groups attached to them That was the game changer in my opinion as to how the 101st held the town.
I would say that any decent Infantry Division, with their normal attachments could have held Bastogne. Decent is in the eye of the beholder. I would suggest that any of the 1st, 2nd, 9th, and 30th could have done the same job, and better. The tables of organization for an Infantry division of the period was much heavier, in both strength and equipment.
One advantage the 101st had though was their glider regiment the 327 had been beefed up with a 3rd battalion, a battalion of the also glider 401st. Their two regular airborne regiments (502 and 506) were close to full strength, and they had a fourth maneuver regiment the 501st that had been attached to them since D Day. That gives you six maneuver regiments when you count in the combat commands. None were nearly as big as a regular line Infantry regiment, but having six gave you more options for maneuver and allowed you to keep a fairly good reserve.
Every truck company was called the Red Ball Express in those days. The 101 went to Bastogne in open bed trailer tractor trailers. Same thing we rode around Benning in, back in the day. We called them cattle cars when I was at the basic course. Each of them could handle about 40 people fairly easy. I was at the basic course in the late winter and early spring. About five of them would roll up to Olsen Hall early in the morning, we would all climb aboard, and bitch all the way to the training areas, that we were damned well freezing. The indignity of officerdom. Our discomfort was nothing compared to the ride to Bastogne.
The rift between Monty and Bradley came later in the Bulge when Ike split the front. Monty already had Simpson's 9th Army. What pissed Bradley off was Ike giving Monty the 1st Army, taking it away from Bradley. Bradley never forgave Ike for that. Eisenhower made the correct decision. Bradley was in no shape to command the 1st Army after the Bulge really got going. His communications were broken, and he was well out of position to exert the control and effect the coordination that was needed to clean up the mess he himself created.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 22, 2015 14:00:52 GMT
Hi Dave, yes Chuck is the man to answer the rest, but I will have a go at the AFV question.
The M10 was a decent gun platform, its gun was developed from the old 3in M1918 anti-aircraft gun. The whole thing was mounted on a Sherman tank chassis. The British also used them and re-named them “Wolverines” we even replaced the 3in gun with our own 17 pdr, which was a better weapon that could knock out a German Tiger tank at ranges over 1000 yards and we called these “Achilles” The M18 was specially designed tank destroyer which relied on its speed and manoeuvrability to utilise hit and run attacks, this was down to the chassis which was developed from scratch. But really gun performance wise there was little between the 3in on the M10 and the 76mm on the M18.
M10 GMC Year: September 1942 Chassis: M4A2 Medium Tank (Sherman) Gun: 3in M7 Gun (76mm L/53) Amount: 4.993 Variants: M10A1 (Same vehicle but used the M4A3 Tank Chassis)
M18 GMC (Hellcat) Year: July 1943 Chassis: Specially Designed for the M18 Gun: 76mm L/55 M1A1 or M3 Gun Amount: 2.507
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 22, 2015 14:09:18 GMT
The trouble with Monty was that he could be a pain in the ass, and he didn't really mix well, having said that he was no where near as bad as De Gaul, as he was a complete arse hole.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 22, 2015 14:43:11 GMT
There was nothing wrong with Montgomery that not having served in World War I would not cure. He was a great general who could and should have been greater.
He was very much a prima donna, but who in the hell in that top echelon was not, save a very few.
What Americans could not understand was why Monty insisted upon straight lines, set piece battles, and a, his words not mine, "a tidy battlefield". All of this was an outgrowth of WWI experience. He was also burdened with trying to keep casualties down. Britain had lost one generation in WWI, and did not wish to lose a second.
The real difference though is in the personalities of Montgomery and Eisenhower. Both would have won the war in Western Europe. Eisenhower would have won it quicker.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 22, 2015 14:53:25 GMT
There was a TV program shown a while ago which stated that Churchill wanted to win the war by concentrating on the meditation theatre. linkHere is a US Doc; link
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 22, 2015 16:04:08 GMT
The Old King George ought to have sent Winston to fight in Italy.
Italy was tough up to and including the very last days of the war.
The Champaign Campaign, the invasion of Southern France, was relatively easy BECAUSE of Normandy, and the cross channel invasion. Imagine what it would have been like had we not invaded Normandy. Sixth Army Group, never gets any credit. They are largely forgotten, but Anvil-Dragoon working in combination with those forces in Northern France shortened the war by at least a year.
Of course Hitler shortened the war considerably by sticking his nose in the Bulge.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 22, 2015 16:51:36 GMT
QC Thank you for the information as I am having a bit of trouble reading and comprehending Barron's "No Silent Night" since there are so many units, squads, platoons, batteries and towns and villages around Bastogne. Unlike Gettysburg, Shiloh or Antietam I am not familiar with the military organizations, American and German, and armament. Do you know of a good map that covers Bastogne and the movements of units on line? The Wikipedia map is what I have tried using but not sure it is the best and accurate.
I am attempting to understand the impact of the actions 99th Division provided to the 101st during the Battle of Elsenborn Ridge. I am having difficulty finding a map that covers the battle area. I know the 99th performed admirable and held back the German assault. I knew there 2 units of field artillery and 1 or 2 tank destroyer units as well.
Lots of details and needed study of the players involved to better understand this tumultuous event so I am rereading the chapters of Barron's book, so rich and full of details. Slow going but I am a slow learner. Regards Dave
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Dec 22, 2015 17:14:21 GMT
Yan Since you have graciously offered to assist me in increasing my knowledge and understanding of the vehicles used by both sides as well the ballistics of the various weapons. Some questions I would like to ask: 1) I believe the American's were outclassed by the German armor since, they only had a few tank destroyers and Shermans but were their out gunned as well? The US had 75 mm, 76 mm, 3" and 37 mm but did the Germans have better? 2) I have read and heard so much about the German's 88 mm being so good, if so why? 3) The Americans had a hodgepodge of artillery pieces as I have read. 37 mm, short 75 mm, 75 mm, 105 mm and 155mm. If that is correct did the US have good tubes or were they lacking? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 22, 2015 18:36:38 GMT
Dave: Bastogne was a very small part of a huge campaign. The Bulge itself is the largest battle ever for the U S Army.
The best maps are in the rear envelope of Cole's The Ardennes Campaign, part of the official history or Green Book series published by the Center of Military History. Charles MacDonald's "Time For Trumpets" is probably the most reader friendly narrative, followed closely by a fairly new book "Snow and Steel" by a Brit named Caddick-Adams. John Eisenhower did one that I did not care for at all, and can't remember the name. Another Brit has one on the way. Can't recall his name, but he did one on Normandy that was quite good. All of these deal with the whole battle. Maps in all are quire good.
Books like Barron's, and there are so many out there you could never keep count generally deal with only one phase of the battle. That being said taking No Silent Night as a first read does not put you in the picture at all. The first book you should read should give you that overall picture then proceed to books like Barron's.
Bastogne was overplayed at the time, and still is. Had we lost Bastogne, we still would have prevailed in the campaign. The decisive points were St Vith and the Northern Shoulder (Twin Villages and Elsenborn Ridge). Consider the northern shoulder that area north of the Losheim Gap.
The biggest thing to understand is the routes the Rollbahns followed. This was not a Pickett's charge affair. The various armies focused on routes deep into American lines heading for the Meuse. One of them ran through Bastogne, but their would have been no Bastogne if there had not been a defense of Wiltz and the Skyline Drive by the 28th, who were pretty much destroyed in the process.
I would put the two overall books "Trumpets" and "Snow and Steel" on your must read list. Go for the maps in Cole, but reading Cole is like dissecting a Gregorian Chant. All the Green Books are dull as dishwater, even those that MacDonald wrote. He wrote Trumpets after he retired from CMH, and told a friend there, that relayed it to me that he did not want to do a Bulge book in the style CMH demanded, which is a style that cures insomnia.
|
|