Raz History Question: Were the airborne landings in Normandy worth the cost?

[Razgovory]

Needed wood.

[grumbler]

I thought airborne casualties were not particularly heavy.

They were about 10%, which is pretty heavy for a day's action, and about the equal of what the forces assaulting Omaha beach put up with (though the initial waves at Omaha were more closely equivalent to the paratroops, and they suffered at probably double this rate).  Those at Utah beach were less than 1% that day.

[grumbler]

Why did they attack Hürtgen Forest anyway? Couldn't they just leave it at the flank and go for Cologne straight?

They thought they were assaulting Natalie Wood.

[Valmy]

Why did they attack Hürtgen Forest anyway? Couldn't they just leave it at the flank and go for Cologne straight?

I believe it was because of our strategy of grinding forward along the entire front instead of trying for a breakthrough.  The only time we deviated from this strategy was Marketgarden and well...

[Razgovory]

They were worried about some dams.  They thought the quickest way to the dams was though the forest.  Turns out, that was true for airplanes, but not tanks.

[Eddie Teach]

Why did they attack Hürtgen Forest anyway? Couldn't they just leave it at the flank and go for Cologne straight?

They thought they were assaulting Natalie Wood.

So they were pedos?

[sbr]

I thought airborne casualties were not particularly heavy.

They were about 10%, which is pretty heavy for a day's action, and about the equal of what the forces assaulting Omaha beach put up with (though the initial waves at Omaha were more closely equivalent to the paratroops, and they suffered at probably double this rate).  Those at Utah beach were less than 1% that day.

They were less, maybe considerably less, than expected though.  Didn't someone project a horrendous number like 60% before the landings?

[Ideologue]

Probably the same type who thought untrained, unmotivated, unfed quasi-civilians pointing sharp sticks at Allied troops from caves on Kyushu after we dropped white phosphorous and phosgene on them would result in a million casualties.

[dps]

Don't know that Stalingrad fits, given that the Germans never actually captured all of it.

Sure it does.

Rostov in '41 might make the point better--the Germans took it, but weren't able to hold it.

How does that concern the cost or importance?

The cost of the effort is as important. i.e. Arnhem, resulted in at least one destroyed British Airborne Division and Polish Brigade. 2nd battle of Kharkov, several destroyed Russian field Armies...etc

I don't disagree.  CdM suggested that the fact the airborne landings seized their objectives made them worth the cost.  Raz countered with, "Capturing objectives does not make an operation cost effective", to which CdM replied, "Yes, it does.  Except maybe Stalingrad".  My point was that even if you agree with Seedy, Stalingrad isn't a good example, because the Germans never actually completely captured the city.

[CountDeMoney]

I don't disagree.  CdM suggested that the fact the airborne landings seized their objectives made them worth the cost.  Raz countered with, "Capturing objectives does not make an operation cost effective", to which CdM replied, "Yes, it does.  Except maybe Stalingrad".  My point was that even if you agree with Seedy, Stalingrad isn't a good example, because the Germans never actually completely captured the city.

That's why I said "maybe".