Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Operation Moniker - The Frisian Option

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by David Greenwich
    How do you think the supplies from the Normandy breakout were landed before Cherbourg became operational in mid August - more than TWO MONTHS after the initial landing? The allies needed 50,000 tonnes a day. The one Mulberry could only land 12,000 tonnes per day. I am flabbergasted you don't know the basic story of how supplies were landed.
    Beach supply didn't work out so well once away from the beaches did it? It was one thing for two armies to fight within 20 miles of the coast but they began running out of supplies once they moved out across France.

    Originally posted by David Greenwich
    I am flabbergasted you ignore the judgemnet of an experienced officer like Admiral Hall who had actually undertaken coastal assaults....
    Europe is not a Pacific island that can be walked across in a day or so. You need ports for 8 armies. Ports.

    Originally posted by David Greenwich
    I am flabbergasted you don't understand the reason the allied advance stalled was because of overland supply routes being stretched, not the supplies coming via sea. And that was a direct consequence of Normandy being some 600 kms away from the heart of German power....
    Don't be flabbergasted. Beach supply won't work for 8 armies,... it was just enough for two, provided both were not attacking at the same time. Ports, you need ports.

    Originally posted by David Greenwich
    Why on earth do you think you have "Intermittent" air cover when you can have air bases on the islands, aircraft carriers and long range fighters in operation? Please - don't make unwarranted assertions.
    No you will not have air bases on any islands, the Germans will blow them up because you do not have enough a/c to protect them around the clock from England (400 odd km away). Not all Allied fighters have the legs of a P-51. German bombers at night (they still had plenty) and artillery will keep the airfields suppressed. Light German naval craft at night will also have a load of fun tearing up the allied shipping in the shallows where Allied naval superiority is nullified.

    No admiral is going to take his a/c carriers into the North Sea. Besides, they are in the Pacific. Why bring carriers to the ETO when England is the perfect all-weather carrier and the French coast is "just over there"

    Originally posted by David Greenwich
    ...I am not claiming I know better than allied planners but I am claiming that no one has yet brought forward any evidence to show the allied planners ever considered the Frisian option....
    Of course you are. I suspect you played a computer game or perhaps a wargame where you pulled this off. Invade southern France and drive north, then land on the beaches of northern Germany and drive south.

    I did the same thing in Advanced Third Reich using the initiative 'flip', cut off the entire German army in France before they could do anything. Ended the game in one more turn with the capture of Berlin.

    Anyway.... No Allied commander proposed such a scheme because he would have been sacked and taken away for electric shock therapy. Or perhaps shot as a traitor. But I suspect a straight jacket and medication would be the likely remedy.

    Originally posted by David Greenwich
    ... In the absence of any written views from allied planners, you need to show how exactly the Germans would have defeated the Frisian option....
    Rope it off. Slaughter the shipping in the shallows. Bring up the German troops, politely ask the Allied soldiers, unarmed, hungry and out of gas to "step this way" to the various stalags

    Originally posted by David Greenwich
    ...You say this would deliver allied soldiers into German hands. The islands were defended by naval batallions of about 400 per island. The allies would have captured them with ease. But how would the Germans have recaptured them? They had little amphibious capability. What would the German reaction be exactly?
    You need ports to supply 8 armies. Antwerp, Le Havre, Cherbourg, Marseilles at a minimum, bring the Channel and Brittany port on line as and when they can be captured. make sure you repair the French rail system to do the real supply moving.

    Take a toodle down the road to Sandhurst and ask the military professionals there to have a go over your plan. Once they pick up their lower jaws they may politely explain the needs for ports, then depth to organise the logistics and set up new air bases (while covered from England), repair the rail net to carry the supplies.

    They may call for an ambulance, medic and a syringe though, so be prepared to run like hell.

    Africa was a prime example of why trucks and supplies stacked up at the coast does not work without rail lines. The Axis had two ports but no rail lines of any worth. The trucks would run up and back again carrying supplies. When the front was near the ports, the rather small German and Italian army could manage to move and fight. The further they moved from those stacks of supply in the ports, the less the trucks could deliver. In fact, it soon reached a point that the trucks were burning more fuel than they were delivering and attrition (plus air attacks) was killing the transport fleet.

    The British had bigger ports, many, many, many more trucks and a rail line capable of delivering 10s of thousands of tons of supplies to the forward depots where the trucks then made the short journey to the front. Even so,... when the 8th Army moved away from its ports and the rail lines the supplies grew very thin and most of the army had to stay behind until depots further along the coast were stocked. This meant capturing the Axis ports (Benghazi and Tripoli). Then they could move forward. All the while they were extending their rail line across the African mediterranean coast.

    See? Ports. And rail lines. No ports, no rail lines,... no supply.

    Eight armies need ports. Mechanised armies need ports. 5 million troops with 18,000 tanks and other combat AFVs need ports. More than 500,000 motor vehicles need ports. The more than 15,000 guns and other artillery need ports. The eventual 10,000 aircraft, their pilots and ground crews need ports. All the boxes of food, spares, ammunition, medicine, fuel, heavy engineering equipment need ports. The rail cars and engines, the rails and equipment to rebuild the rail system need ports. The ships needed to deliver all of this all need ports.

    The ports have rail lines and the trains are the things that deliver the supplies that keep 8 armies moving and fighting and permit them to defeat the German armies.

    Ports. Ports. Ports.

    And trains,... lots and lots of trains.
    Last edited by The Purist; 29 Sep 11, 00:19.
    The Purist

    Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by The Purist View Post
      ......

      See? Ports. And rail lines. No ports, no rail lines,... no supply.

      Eight armies need ports. Mechanised armies need ports. 5 million troops with 18,000 tanks and other combat AFVs need ports. More than 500,000 motor vehicles need ports. The more than 15,000 guns and other artillery need ports. The eventual 10,000 aircraft, their pilots and ground crews need ports. All the boxes of food, spares, ammunition, medicine, fuel, heavy engineering equipment need ports. The rail cars and engines, the rails and equipment to rebuild the rail system need ports. The ships needed to deliver all of this all need ports.
      Using the logistics planning standard for Overlord of 900 tons per day per division "slice" (Div slice = all battalions in a army divided by number of Div HQ) and a average of eight divisions per armies that is 576,000 tons per day. That is for sustained offensive operations. Against very light defenses five hundred to six hundred tons per DS per day might be ok. For static situations with little combat & movement 150 to 200 tons per day will keep men fed & equipment ready. This does not account for any air force units based ashore inside the supply network, or requirements for the local population.

      I strongly suspect there is a misunderstanding of cross beach supply in the PTO examples and in Normandy. Despite carefull selection interuptions to discharge were frequent from weather. If there was a consideration of surf conditions and number of days of storm weather I missed it. Beyond surf conditions on the beach there is the problem of open water vs sheltered anchorage. I've witnessed how a simple five foot swell can slow down discharge into landing craft, what the sea conditions would be off the Fresian coast may be underestimated here.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
        Using the logistics planning standard for Overlord of 900 tons per day per division "slice" (Div slice = all battalions in a army divided by number of Div HQ) and a average of eight divisions per armies that is 576,000 tons per day. That is for sustained offensive operations. Against very light defenses five hundred to six hundred tons per DS per day might be ok. For static situations with little combat & movement 150 to 200 tons per day will keep men fed & equipment ready. This does not account for any air force units based ashore inside the supply network, or requirements for the local population.

        I strongly suspect there is a misunderstanding of cross beach supply in the PTO examples and in Normandy. Despite carefull selection interuptions to discharge were frequent from weather. If there was a consideration of surf conditions and number of days of storm weather I missed it. Beyond surf conditions on the beach there is the problem of open water vs sheltered anchorage. I've witnessed how a simple five foot swell can slow down discharge into landing craft, what the sea conditions would be off the Fresian coast may be underestimated here.
        I've no idea where you are getting those absurdly high figures from:

        Wikipedia has the following:

        "The total troops, vehicles and supplies landed over the period of the invasion were:

        By the end of 11 June (D + 5), 326,547 troops, 54,186 vehicles and 104,428 tons of supplies.[16]
        By June 30 (D+24) over 850,000 men, 148,000 vehicles, and 570,000 tons of supplies.[15]
        By July 4 one million men had been landed.[17]"


        Even if I give you 200,000 tonnes for those vehicles and a 100,000 tonnes for the men and packs (remembering how many of the vehicles were amphibious and landing themselves), you're still well under 40,000 tonnes a day. So you are out by a factor of about 10 I would say.

        Well, you are saying you know a lot more about these matters than Admiral Hall who organised landings in both PTO and Normandy! I am backing Hall.
        Of course bad weather slows things up - but that can apply to Mulberries and Ports as well.


        If you are talking about later on in the campaign, well why is Emden not as good a port as those in N. France? Why not Bremerhaven or Cuxhaven?

        And remember there were ports in the Wadden Sea (With the islands acting like a natural Mulberry) - small admittedly but not so small as to be useless.

        And remember becuase the allies' line of advance is about one quarter that in Normandy, they need far fewer supplies. I would estimate probably a third less - though that is just a guess.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by The Purist View Post
          Beach supply didn't work out so well once away from the beaches did it? It was one thing for two armies to fight within 20 miles of the coast but they began running out of supplies once they moved out across France.



          Europe is not a Pacific island that can be walked across in a day or so. You need ports for 8 armies. Ports.



          Don't be flabbergasted. Beach supply won't work for 8 armies,... it was just enough for two, provided both were not attacking at the same time. Ports, you need ports.



          No you will not have air bases on any islands, the Germans will blow them up because you do not have enough a/c to protect them around the clock from England (400 odd km away). Not all Allied fighters have the legs of a P-51. German bombers at night (they still had plenty) and artillery will keep the airfields suppressed. Light German naval craft at night will also have a load of fun tearing up the allied shipping in the shallows where Allied naval superiority is nullified.

          No admiral is going to take his a/c carriers into the North Sea. Besides, they are in the Pacific. Why bring carriers to the ETO when England is the perfect all-weather carrier and the French coast is "just over there"



          Of course you are. I suspect you played a computer game or perhaps a wargame where you pulled this off. Invade southern France and drive north, then land on the beaches of northern Germany and drive south.

          I did the same thing in Advanced Third Reich using the initiative 'flip', cut off the entire German army in France before they could do anything. Ended the game in one more turn with the capture of Berlin.

          Anyway.... No Allied commander proposed such a scheme because he would have been sacked and taken away for electric shock therapy. Or perhaps shot as a traitor. But I suspect a straight jacket and medication would be the likely remedy.



          Rope it off. Slaughter the shipping in the shallows. Bring up the German troops, politely ask the Allied soldiers, unarmed, hungry and out of gas to "step this way" to the various stalags



          You need ports to supply 8 armies. Antwerp, Le Havre, Cherbourg, Marseilles at a minimum, bring the Channel and Brittany port on line as and when they can be captured. make sure you repair the French rail system to do the real supply moving.

          Take a toodle down the road to Sandhurst and ask the military professionals there to have a go over your plan. Once they pick up their lower jaws they may politely explain the needs for ports, then depth to organise the logistics and set up new air bases (while covered from England), repair the rail net to carry the supplies.

          They may call for an ambulance, medic and a syringe though, so be prepared to run like hell.

          Africa was a prime example of why trucks and supplies stacked up at the coast does not work without rail lines. The Axis had two ports but no rail lines of any worth. The trucks would run up and back again carrying supplies. When the front was near the ports, the rather small German and Italian army could manage to move and fight. The further they moved from those stacks of supply in the ports, the less the trucks could deliver. In fact, it soon reached a point that the trucks were burning more fuel than they were delivering and attrition (plus air attacks) was killing the transport fleet.

          The British had bigger ports, many, many, many more trucks and a rail line capable of delivering 10s of thousands of tons of supplies to the forward depots where the trucks then made the short journey to the front. Even so,... when the 8th Army moved away from its ports and the rail lines the supplies grew very thin and most of the army had to stay behind until depots further along the coast were stocked. This meant capturing the Axis ports (Benghazi and Tripoli). Then they could move forward. All the while they were extending their rail line across the African mediterranean coast.

          See? Ports. And rail lines. No ports, no rail lines,... no supply.

          Eight armies need ports. Mechanised armies need ports. 5 million troops with 18,000 tanks and other combat AFVs need ports. More than 500,000 motor vehicles need ports. The more than 15,000 guns and other artillery need ports. The eventual 10,000 aircraft, their pilots and ground crews need ports. All the boxes of food, spares, ammunition, medicine, fuel, heavy engineering equipment need ports. The rail cars and engines, the rails and equipment to rebuild the rail system need ports. The ships needed to deliver all of this all need ports.

          The ports have rail lines and the trains are the things that deliver the supplies that keep 8 armies moving and fighting and permit them to defeat the German armies.

          Ports. Ports. Ports.

          And trains,... lots and lots of trains.
          Repetition, eye-rolling and accusations of lunacy are not valid forms of argument.

          Please give your citation for stating that failure to get supplies to the French coast was the cause of supplies difficulties at the front. I have never come across that before. What I have come across is that the supplies difficulties of the allies were caused by the over-extended lines supply. This was resolved primarily by the opening up of Antwerp which again shortened the supply lines.

          The problem you have with arguing against the Frisian option is that the supply lines are MUCH SHORTER! If you are not prepared to ackowledge that advantage, there's hardly any point in discussing it further.

          I am not saying ports are not more efficient than beach landings. They are, all else being equal. If ports can be captured they will be. But you have to understand that the allies had very sophisticated methods of landing supplies in the Pacific including sand piers and pontoon piers. At Okinawa they were landing 37,000 tonnes a day. Across the Pacific they must have been landing more than a 100,000 tonnes a day.

          You haven't made the case for it being impossible to land those amounts or larger across hundreds of kms of beaches.

          Do you actually know how many P 51 fighters were produced in WW2? 15,000. That's the OTL.Clearly even more would be produced with the Frisian option. But you would have some 500 planes available on the island and some 300 on aircraft carriers.

          Teh Americans diverted Pacific divisions to Europe. There is no reason to suppose they couldn't do the same with Pacific aircraft carriers. With money and resources saved on buidling the Mulberries (they cost about a billion pounds in current prices) we could build an additional a/c in the UK.

          The advantage of the aircraft carriers is they can get up close, and the Germans will have difficulty tracking them. They can target Luftwaffe air bases.

          Do you think the allies won't bring their own MT boats with them to fend off E boat attacks? MOst of the E boats were in the channel in any case and made little impression there.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by David Greenwich View Post
            I've no idea where you are getting those absurdly high figures from:
            From: 'US Army in World War II..European theatre of Operations. Logisitcal Support of the Armies Volume I: may 1941-September 1944'

            Author: Ronald G Ruppenthal

            Publisher: Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army

            Date 1953

            Ruppenthal was working directly from SHAEF, 21st Army Group & 12th Army Group logisitcs documents & his research recived contributions from and was reviewed by leaders within the logisitcs commands for Overlord/Neptune. This was one of the US Army Green Books prepared post 1945.

            In this volume there are slightly over one hundred pages analyzing the flow of supply into France and to the combat forces. The quantites crossing the US Army controlled beaches & ports, and deliveries vs requirements to the combat units are followed from June through September 1944, along with brief summaries of the supply volume through December 1944.

            I also had a career in the Marines & from that experience I dont see the numbers given by Rupperthal as excessive.

            Wiki is a nice place to start research, or to cite as a interm point in a discussion but basing a position on a Wiki article is 'weak'. I'd recommend you obtain the sources cited in the Wiki article, find a copy of Rupperthals Green Book and throughly do a bit of comparitive reading.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by The Purist View Post
              I did the same thing in Advanced Third Reich using the initiative 'flip', cut off the entire German army in France before they could do anything. Ended the game in one more turn with the capture of Berlin.
              Love those flip flops. Did anyone figure out a way to make them less devastating without losing their uncertanity factor? I used to invade France in 1942 just to watch the Axis player whine as he panicked over the tiny beachhead

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                From: 'US Army in World War II..European theatre of Operations. Logisitcal Support of the Armies Volume I: may 1941-September 1944'

                Author: Ronald G Ruppenthal

                Publisher: Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army

                Date 1953

                Ruppenthal was working directly from SHAEF, 21st Army Group & 12th Army Group logisitcs documents & his research recived contributions from and was reviewed by leaders within the logisitcs commands for Overlord/Neptune. This was one of the US Army Green Books prepared post 1945.

                In this volume there are slightly over one hundred pages analyzing the flow of supply into France and to the combat forces. The quantites crossing the US Army controlled beaches & ports, and deliveries vs requirements to the combat units are followed from June through September 1944, along with brief summaries of the supply volume through December 1944.

                I also had a career in the Marines & from that experience I dont see the numbers given by Rupperthal as excessive.

                Wiki is a nice place to start research, or to cite as a interm point in a discussion but basing a position on a Wiki article is 'weak'. I'd recommend you obtain the sources cited in the Wiki article, find a copy of Rupperthals Green Book and throughly do a bit of comparitive reading.

                Let's be clear.

                What are you claiming was the average tonnage per day of allied war supplies received on the NW European coast between June 1944 and May 1945? Please state the figure.

                Anything else is just frippery.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                  Love those flip flops. Did anyone figure out a way to make them less devastating without losing their uncertanity factor? I used to invade France in 1942 just to watch the Axis player whine as he panicked over the tiny beachhead
                  I've never played a war game on computer.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by David Greenwich View Post
                    How do you think the supplies from the Normandy breakout were landed before Cherbourg became operational in mid August - more than TWO MONTHS after the initial landing? The allies needed 50,000 tonnes a day. The one Mulberry could only land 12,000 tonnes per day. I am flabbergasted you don't know the basic story of how supplies were landed.

                    I am flabbergasted you ignore the judgemnet of an experienced officer like Admiral Hall who had actually undertaken coastal assaults.

                    I am flabbergasted you don't understand the reason the allied advance stalled was because of overland supply routes being stretched, not the supplies coming via sea. And that was a direct consequence of Normandy being some 600 kms away from the heart of German power.

                    Why on earth do you think you have "Intermittent" air cover when you can have air bases on the islands, aircraft carriers and long range fighters in operation? Please - don't make unwarranted assertions.

                    I am not claiming I know better than allied planners but I am claiming that no one has yet brought forward any evidence to show the allied planners ever considered the Frisian option. In the absence of any written views from allied planners, you need to show how exactly the Germans would have defeated the Frisian option. You say this would deliver allied soldiers into German hands. The islands were defended by naval batallions of about 400 per island. The allies would have captured them with ease. But how would the Germans have recaptured them? They had little amphibious capability. What would the German reaction be exactly?
                    What would the outcome be, the Allies would overrun the German garrisons with ease. Although the Germans had experience in seabourne landings such as Norway and the Channel Islands and experience in River Crossings, the Germans unlike the Western Allies never ever developed either before the war nor during the war a dedicated Marine Corps.

                    The Germans did not have the capacity to recapture them.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by David Greenwich View Post
                      I've never played a war game on computer.
                      We were not refering to a computer game. Your remark here fairly well sums up the value of your posts. Bye

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Roddoss72 View Post
                        What would the outcome be, the Allies would overrun the German garrisons with ease. Although the Germans had experience in seabourne landings such as Norway and the Channel Islands and experience in River Crossings, the Germans unlike the Western Allies never ever developed either before the war nor during the war a dedicated Marine Corps.

                        The Germans did not have the capacity to recapture them.
                        Hallelujah! That's the first positive comment I've ever received on this option. I don't mean you've signed up to it, but at least you recognise the German weakness in that regard. And the whole point of this option is to play to allied strengths while exploiting German weaknesses.

                        What do you think about the next stage: could the allies suppress the German artillery on the Frisian coast - drive it back out of range of the islands? Because the threat from artillery seems the greatest to me.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          over the bottom of the sea

                          David,
                          Love your creativity as such WI shows what Allied planners had to take into account that we now take for granted.

                          Not to bash you but try to constructively study problems your scenario poses.
                          The problem I'd like to give a bit more attention to is geographical.

                          I live about 100 KM away from the Frisian coast where you intend to land and know it well. You describe it as 'mudflats' and indeed at times (ebb tide) one can walk (but not drive) these 10 to 15 km that seperate the string of Frisian islands to the mainland. A guide is absolutely necessary to cross. During flood tide the mudflats are covered by one to two meters of North Sea water.
                          Ferries maintain connections between mainland and island ports through deeper channels but only can sail during high tide.
                          These facts will put an enormous strain both on the 2nd landing from the islands on the mainland
                          and on the ensuing logisitic supply.

                          A landing during ebb tide can only be performed by light infantry with guides 1. LMGs and light mortars are the heaviest they can pack and even that will cause some of them to get stuck in the mud.
                          2. Guides who know the gullies likely will be the critical factor and likely they are German.
                          3. The infantry has to cross 10 to 15 km 'bottom of the sea' where even during night hours i May/June there is good visiblity of what is moving on the 'Wad' .

                          During flood tide, the ride in over a broader front can only happen for six hours by very shallow vessels like LCIs. I expect not even tanks can be brought ashore.
                          During those same six hours only the few deeper channels leading to points ashore can be used by anything with a keel.
                          There will be not a lot of space for manouvre and even less for error.

                          I like your scenario, but have to think hard how to overcome this.
                          BoRG

                          You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in You - Leon Trotski, June 1919.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Major Sennef View Post
                            David,
                            Love your creativity as such WI shows what Allied planners had to take into account that we now take for granted.

                            Not to bash you but try to constructively study problems your scenario poses.
                            The problem I'd like to give a bit more attention to is geographical.

                            I live about 100 KM away from the Frisian coast where you intend to land and know it well. You describe it as 'mudflats' and indeed at times (ebb tide) one can walk (but not drive) these 10 to 15 km that seperate the string of Frisian islands to the mainland. A guide is absolutely necessary to cross. During flood tide the mudflats are covered by one to two meters of North Sea water.
                            Ferries maintain connections between mainland and island ports through deeper channels but only can sail during high tide.
                            These facts will put an enormous strain both on the 2nd landing from the islands on the mainland
                            and on the ensuing logisitic supply.

                            A landing during ebb tide can only be performed by light infantry with guides 1. LMGs and light mortars are the heaviest they can pack and even that will cause some of them to get stuck in the mud.
                            2. Guides who know the gullies likely will be the critical factor and likely they are German.
                            3. The infantry has to cross 10 to 15 km 'bottom of the sea' where even during night hours i May/June there is good visiblity of what is moving on the 'Wad' .

                            During flood tide, the ride in over a broader front can only happen for six hours by very shallow vessels like LCIs. I expect not even tanks can be brought ashore.
                            During those same six hours only the few deeper channels leading to points ashore can be used by anything with a keel.
                            There will be not a lot of space for manouvre and even less for error.

                            I like your scenario, but have to think hard how to overcome this.
                            I did write a reply but it got swallowed up somewhere...I will try again.

                            Thanks for your constructive criticism which is v. much appreciated.

                            Some points,

                            1. The allies will be able to build pontoon piers at either end to facilitate loading and unloading.

                            2. DUKWs will be v. useful - they will be able to make maybe 2-3 round trips during the high tide period.

                            3. Cancelling the Mulberries releases 60,000 tonnes of steel - out of which you can make a lot of DUKWs.

                            4. I think the draught of the DUKWs was something like 1.2 metres. DD Shermans I think 1.8 metres. I need to check. But they CAN operate in the Wadden Sea.

                            5. I try to avoid use of the term "mudflats" now - tidal flats is better as tehy consist of mud, sand and mud/sand combinations.

                            6. The UK would have had lots of guides from areas like Morecambe Bay who would soon suss out the Wadden Sea during the 70 day build up.

                            7. I am not proposing that use of low tide crossing would form part of the initial invasion wave.

                            8. There are causeways/piers that extend from the ports on the islands and also from the Frisian coast that effectively reduce the gap between islands and coast.

                            9. I can give you evidence that heavy vehicles use the tidal flats at Morecambe Bay and elsewhere. They have caterpillar tracks. They can weigh over a tonne. Morecambe Bay is equally treacherous - lots of people have died stuck in the mud.

                            10. The allies were resourceful and ingenious. Might they not use things like brushwood paths over the flats?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by David Greenwich View Post
                              Hallelujah! That's the first positive comment I've ever received on this option. I don't mean you've signed up to it, but at least you recognise the German weakness in that regard. And the whole point of this option is to play to allied strengths while exploiting German weaknesses.

                              What do you think about the next stage: could the allies suppress the German artillery on the Frisian coast - drive it back out of range of the islands? Because the threat from artillery seems the greatest to me.
                              Capturing those Islands are one thing, but as Major Sennef has pointed out that launching a major invasion under those condition would be very hard to maintain, logistics would be almost impossible.

                              No i think the allies got it absolutely right in picking the Normandy area.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by David Greenwich View Post
                                I did write a reply but it got swallowed up somewhere...I will try again.

                                Thanks for your constructive criticism which is v. much appreciated.

                                Some points,

                                1. The allies will be able to build pontoon piers at either end to facilitate loading and unloading.

                                2. DUKWs will be v. useful - they will be able to make maybe 2-3 round trips during the high tide period.

                                3. Cancelling the Mulberries releases 60,000 tonnes of steel - out of which you can make a lot of DUKWs.

                                4. I think the draught of the DUKWs was something like 1.2 metres. DD Shermans I think 1.8 metres. I need to check. But they CAN operate in the Wadden Sea.

                                5. I try to avoid use of the term "mudflats" now - tidal flats is better as tehy consist of mud, sand and mud/sand combinations.

                                6. The UK would have had lots of guides from areas like Morecambe Bay who would soon suss out the Wadden Sea during the 70 day build up.

                                7. I am not proposing that use of low tide crossing would form part of the initial invasion wave.

                                8. There are causeways/piers that extend from the ports on the islands and also from the Frisian coast that effectively reduce the gap between islands and coast.

                                9. I can give you evidence that heavy vehicles use the tidal flats at Morecambe Bay and elsewhere. They have caterpillar tracks. They can weigh over a tonne. Morecambe Bay is equally treacherous - lots of people have died stuck in the mud.

                                10. The allies were resourceful and ingenious. Might they not use things like brushwood paths over the flats?
                                I have gotta say all this is possible but can you supply us a timeline to actually put in place all these conditions. The way i see it it would take months to affect building adequate marshalling and disembarking facilities, thus giving the Germans plenty of time to place heavy defences.

                                Also one thing, i would never ever place Aircraft Carriers within a bulls roar of the North Sea, they would be very good U-Boat fodder, you then need to rely on land based aircraft in Britian. Considering Battleships and Heavy Cruisers are expendable, Aircraft Carriers aren't.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X