The failure of the French to create a Second Front in the Second week of September 1939.

Quoted Text

---

The failure of the French to create a Second Front in the Second week of September 1939.

---

I agree. But then you're always smarter afterwards... Who would have known at the time that the west front was so weakly defended?

Being Canadian, it's my patriotic duty to say, "Dieppe." Which is true, in some ways.

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

The failure of the French to create a Second Front in the Second week of September 1939.

---

I agree. But then you're always smarter afterwards... Who would have known at the time that the west front was so weakly defended?

---

The French ......

One blunders that comes to mind:

1. The tendency among the Americans to completely ignore warnings/advise/experience from their fellow Allies who had much more experience fighting the Germans. This cost many American soldiers on the ground their lives. Examples of this

- Kasserine pass.
- D-Day (refusing the British offer of specialized engineering vehicles (the so-called funnies) which were a great help on the non-American beaches.
- Just 'forgetting' about non-American naval ships that could support American troops moving inland after D-Day.
- Ignoring the Free French troops (mostly North Africans) which were assigned to the American sector, when stuck before Anzio. Ironically they were the ones who finally broke deadlock by disobeying the orders of Clark. And this after repeated American failures to do the same (and this latter is not meant as an insult to the troops themselves who tried, died and failed to do the same).

Other blunders:

For the Germans: Invading Russia in the first place.

Repeatedly (on many sides):

Complete breakdowns in communication to notify of withdrawals of troops or absence of commanders and clarify the new chain of command (Guadalcanal is an extreme example, but of course the Germans on the eve of D-Day is another).

I must dissagree with you!
* in after war interviews with the German Generals they one thing they had to say about Russian and U.S. strikes against them was pure speed. They often were overrun brfore they really got moving. Where as fighting against Montgomery was different. Things tended to stay in place for a hard long fought battle. Add to this the well known idea that sometime around 3 or 4 in the afternoon the the boys were stopping for tea

* Perhaps the other beach heads, but the American troops were nearly out of gun range, and if you really dig deep you will find a lot trouble with the Naval gunnery. They accomplished very little in their bombardment, and the aircraft did all the serious damage ( "China" Lee, and Bull Halsey both said their battalships couldn't hit anything)

* I'm about three chapters into Albert Kesselring's book. Add to this the comentary put out by the U.S. Army War College concerning events in Italy, and the Balkans; one might have another opinion (the reader is given the opinion that they had little use for Clark, and pretty much the entire Allied General Staff)

** Guadalcanal really was a learning experience along with stopping the Japanese from getting things setup for an invasion of Australia. It had to happen even though the Allies were not completely prepaired. Taking this in to fact, plus hints of what a close order naval engagement might be like; it turned into a meat grinder. Had the Japanese successfully landed troops on Guadalcanal, it would have only prolonged the eventual victory there. What they never anticipated was the quality of the Japanese Naval Staff, and their ability to conduct a major naval engagement without radar and at night. The Allies in the PTO were hardly ready for a major engagment, and really were not till very late 1942 or early 1943

For myself, I think the two greatest blunders were at Peleu (sp) and Okwinawa (PTO). The first was probably as bad as it got for no bigger a place than it was. The latter was taken too lightly, and ended up being a bloodbath. The entire island was used as an artillary training school, and they had every inch of the island pre-registered for artillary. The Marines and Army paid dearly for this lack of known knowledge (the Marine General Staff knew this and failed to pass it down to the ground troops).

another interesting item that's mostly overlooked was that the original FW190 design was with the inline V12 engine instead of the radial. Similar in ways to the FW190D9 series. Had this been put in production the Allies might never have had much success with their bombing raids. Then to add further to this the TA152 first flew in 1943, but never went into production till late in the war. It's almost always regarded as the finest fighter of WWII. German politics saved the bacon!

Gudalcanal was a bloody mess, but a necessary learning field. It was where our pre-war doctrine was tested and modifed to be effective against the Japanese.

My vote for a blunder was that the US didn't use the specalized armord vehicles developed for the Pacific at Normandy. Picture Army troops in LVT(A)s driving right up onto the beach supported by AMTANKS instead of that bloody slog through the killing zone at Omaha.

Quoted Text

---

Gudalcanal was a bloody mess, but a necessary learning field. It was where our pre-war doctrine was tested and modifed to be effective against the Japanese.

My vote for a blunder was that the US didn't use the specalized armord vehicles developed for the Pacific at Normandy. Picture Army troops in LVT(A)s driving right up onto the beach supported by AMTANKS instead of that bloody slog through the killing zone at Omaha.

---

Post is an interesting thought. The German heavy artillary was suspect all thru the war, and their best stuff was 128mm and smaller. Not at all sure the 105 would have the range needed to knock out an Amtrac, but if it did; it would have been hell for them. As well as taking into fact that the sea swells were much heavier on the northern French coast line. In the end one has to credit Rommel for a beautifully prepaired defensive position that was really only about 70% of what he wanted to build. Had he had his way (100%), things would have been much tougher, but in the end the results would still have been the same. The Allied air armada is what made the invasion a success along with Hitler helping them.

Another interesting thought here is another "what if." What if Albert Kessellring had been the chosen one to setup the defensive network for the French coastline? Kessellring was clearly a better qualified general, and was on good terms with Heinrici (a well known defensive genius). With these two acting together, an established beach head would have been even harder.
gary

Another one was not supplying the Africa Corps. Rommel could have taken Egypt had he been supplied.

Also not pushing forward the the ME-262 when it was first brought forward.

Japan not pushing the advantage and invading Hawaii, or attacking again.

Not giving Patton the gas instead of Monty.

The list goes on and on.

Armchair Gemeral is an easy rank to have considering we all know where the mistakes were made. I am a big what if person.

Quoted Text

---

Another one was not supplying the Africa Corps. Rommel could have taken Egypt had he been supplied.

Also not pushing forward the the ME-262 when it was first brought forward.

Japan not pushing the advantage and invading Hawaii, or attacking again.

Not giving Patton the gas instead of Monty.

The list goes on and on.

Armchair Gemeral is an easy rank to have considering we all know where the mistakes were made. I am a big what if person.

---

There are a few interesting ones here...

- Not supplying Rommel: Blame has been put on the Italians here (by and large), but the biggest problem, it seems, was not getting rid of the Royal Navy presence in the Mediterranean, and the first step in that respect should have been invading Malta. And Arguably a second step eliminating Gibraltar.

- Japan not attacking Hawaii again: This one is obvious, especially if they had been able to hunt down the US carriers that had escaped.

-Not giving Patton the gass: Highly doubtful, since it is already a massive what-if based on somebody who was one of the best self-advertisers among the Allies, and whose greatest success came against forces that already had been bled white (admittedly he did exploit this very well)... Patton's style could even have led to a new Market Garden, with the American armoured forces being trapped rather than the airborne units. Mind you that one of the pillars of German defensice doctrine was based on cutting off the armoured spearheads leading enemy attacks, and destroying them in a Kesselschlacht. And they had proven very good at it.
Not to mention the political fallout and the logistical problem, since another further advance would make extending the allied supply base on the continent all but impossible,


And indeed, armchair generalling is a lot of fun.