• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Battle of the Bulge

Matthew Ellard said:
It is a very strange battle to read about. Half the French didn't seem to fight. My understanding was the French predicated their lure, on the Vietminh not being able to bring up heavy artillery, which they actually did.
Click to expand...
and used with much effect. From the description at the wiki page, I don't understand why Giap took the trouble of assaulting the French positions east of the river ("Dominique" and "Eliane"), and didn't just besiege them until they ran out of food and water.
 
Matthew Ellard said:
It is a very strange battle to read about. Half the French didn't seem to fight. My understanding was the French predicated their lure, on the Vietminh not being able to bring up heavy artillery, which they actually did.
Click to expand...

Don't build your vital base that is intended to be supplied by air in a place where it can be overlooked by antiaircraft guns unless they are yours.
 
jimbob said:
Don't build your vital base that is intended to be supplied by air in a place where it can be overlooked by antiaircraft guns unless they are yours.
Click to expand...

I was going to go with, "Always assume that the enemy can do what will hurt you the most."
 
ddt said:
and used with much effect. From the description at the wiki page, I don't understand why Giap took the trouble of assaulting the French positions east of the river ("Dominique" and "Eliane"), and didn't just besiege them until they ran out of food and water.
Click to expand...


Likely 2 reasons -

1. Sieges can be broken, and the longer they go on, the greater the likelihood that it can happen;
2. A military defeat sends the very clear message - "We are not a bunch of primitive colonials that you can push around when you feel like it."
 
ddt said:
and used with much effect. From the description at the wiki page, I don't understand why Giap took the trouble of assaulting the French positions east of the river ("Dominique" and "Eliane"), and didn't just besiege them until they ran out of food and water.
Click to expand...
I believe he intended to remove them as obstacles to the attack on the main French HQ, though it's been a long time since I studied DBP.
 
Border Reiver said:
Likely 2 reasons -

1. Sieges can be broken, and the longer they go on, the greater the likelihood that it can happen;
2. A military defeat sends the very clear message - "We are not a bunch of primitive colonials that you can push around when you feel like it."
Click to expand...
Why did Stalin expend so many resources on storming the Germans and their allies besieged in the Stalingrad "kettle"?

He could have left them to starve while simply preventing attempts at relief, as he did quite easily. The campaign to resupply from the air was destroying the German air transport fleet at an accelerating rate, and providing the besieged troops with almost nothing.
 
Craig B said:
Why did Stalin expend so many resources on storming the Germans and their allies besieged in the Stalingrad "kettle"?

He could have left them to starve while simply preventing attempts at relief, as he did quite easily. The campaign to resupply from the air was destroying the German air transport fleet at an accelerating rate, and providing the besieged troops with almost nothing.
Click to expand...

Because Stalin was both Insane and Incompetent and cared nothing for the lives of his troops?
 
Craig B said:
Why did Stalin expend so many resources on storming the Germans and their allies besieged in the Stalingrad "kettle"?

He could have left them to starve while simply preventing attempts at relief, as he did quite easily. The campaign to resupply from the air was destroying the German air transport fleet at an accelerating rate, and providing the besieged troops with almost nothing.
Click to expand...

The first reason was political - the city has his name on it and it was a matter of prestige.

Second, surrounding the Axis forces with a strong enough force to contain them would have diverted about as many troops from offensive operations and would have been detrimental to Soviet morale - essentially the Soviet soldiers could have drawn the lesson that, even when starving and underequipped, your high command doesn't think you can take out the Germans. It also means that the Germans can't take it as a way to show that, even when starving and out of ammo, the untermenschen still fear us.
 
Rare Footage A real E-100 hull & a converted "Sturer Emil"

I came across this interesting archive footage. For rare panzer lovers,

The first link is to British archive footage of a captured E-100 hull. The E-100 was the alternative ridiculously heavy tank, to the Maus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ZlzHHt_Zc

The second is the British testing, what appears to be, a German trench digging tank in Germany, just after the war. If you look at its running gear it appears to be a very rare, one off, 12.8 cm Selbstfahrlafette auf VK30.01(H)! ("Sturer Emil). It then has the soldiers firing a 17pounder (?) at a poor old Tiger E, to observe the damage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIfzfEJ0WCg

The third in the series starts off with a King Tiger being tested, (which appears to be quite fast), it repeats the earlier above films, but concludes with a Jagdtiger being tested at 7.00min. This includes it turning on the spot, to aim its fixed gun. Which is also interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGAYdq6eakc
 
dudalb said:
Anthony Beevor has a book on the Bulge coming out next week:

http://www.amazon.com/Ardennes-1944-Battle-Antony-Beevor/dp/0670025313/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

There is no shortage of books on the Ardennes offensive...right up there with D-Day,Stalingrad,Waterloo and Gettyburg as one of the most written about battles...but a Beevor book is always worth reading.
Click to expand...
Saw it at a local bookstore earlier today, I think it's safe to say the English language version is going on my Christmas wish list :D
 
The only reason it succeeded as far as it did, was because of inclement weather.
The Allied air power was so superior, that as soon as the weather cleared, the columns would have been decimated. Even if the offensive had made it to Antwerp.

Supplies to the offensive would have been cut off by ground attack fighters, stalling the offensive and cutting off the troops.
 
Drewbot said:
The only reason it succeeded as far as it did, was because of inclement weather.
The Allied air power was so superior, that as soon as the weather cleared, the columns would have been decimated. Even if the offensive had made it to Antwerp.

Supplies to the offensive would have been cut off by ground attack fighters, stalling the offensive and cutting off the troops.
Click to expand...

The whole timing of the offensive was for a period when the weather was very likely to be terrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom