Thread title speaks for itself. The American soldiers in particular suffered heavy casualties in this operation. They did capture their objectives, but I wonder if the soldiers coming off the beach could have captured those objectives just as well. The feared German counterattack didn't really manifest or at least not until much later due to the Germans being unable to use the roads and rails effectively. It did cause confusion among the Germans, but they were confused most of the time anyway.
What say you?
Building transports to deliver airborne soldiers took valuable factory capacity away from bombers.
Pegasus bridge was worth it totally. Von Luck was counterattacking the British held bridge instead of driving on a beach.
Now Monty's faggotry in Holland was shitastic.
They've more than paid for themselves in epic movie and video game potential.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 09, 2012, 07:50:40 PM
Pegasus bridge was worth it totally. Von Luck was counterattacking the British held bridge instead of driving on a beach.
Now Monty's faggotry in Holland was shitastic.
The six bomber/glider combinations for the bridge assult took off from Tarrant Rushton airfield, just down the road from here.
Photo of the airfield on the afternoon of D-day:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.iwm.org.uk%2Fiwm%2FmediaLib%2F9%2Fmedia-9262%2Flarge.jpg&hash=c9715d933a20cc05b855af3821b153a7198d2556)
http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205023033 (http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205023033)
Strom Thurmond failed to get killed in the landings, so I'd say we didn't pay with enough blood. :)
yes
Quote from: Caliga on January 09, 2012, 08:14:15 PM
Strom Thurmond failed to get killed in the landings, so I'd say we didn't pay with enough blood. :)
Who would have his nigger babies?
He had his nigger baby well before WWII.
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2012, 07:58:22 PM
The six bomber/glider combinations for the bridge assult took off from Tarrant Rushton airfield, just down the road from here.
Good pic Mongers. A bit of history there. Is that airfield still operational? Civilian or military?
Quote from: KRonn on January 09, 2012, 08:50:44 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2012, 07:58:22 PM
The six bomber/glider combinations for the bridge assult took off from Tarrant Rushton airfield, just down the road from here.
Good pic Mongers. A bit of history there. Is that airfield still operational? Civilian or military?
Last time I went around it, probably half of the runways were still in place, but most of it had been turned into a large pig farm and most of the remaining hangers are light industrial units.
They've now put a suitable memorial to the operation at the main gates.
I was at the prominent tree covered hill, Badbury Rings an iron age hill fort, on Saturday; next time I'm passing I'll endeavour to check up on the airfield.
Naturally, this question depends on how it affects Montgomery taking Caen.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 09, 2012, 07:50:40 PM
Pegasus bridge was worth it totally. Von Luck was counterattacking the British held bridge instead of driving on a beach.
Now Monty's faggotry in Holland was shitastic.
The British landings were a bit more on the ball then the American ones. Though the US did show improvement. The Normandy landings weren't exactly good, but they were better then the ones during Husky. For instance, not shooting down the their own planes and gliders is a big improvement. Also paratroopers and gliders borne soldiers are much more effective if they land on the ground rather then the ocean.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2012, 07:38:41 PM
Thread title speaks for itself. The American soldiers in particular suffered heavy casualties in this operation. They did capture their objectives,
You just answered your own fucking question, Eisenhower.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 09, 2012, 07:50:40 PM
Now Monty's faggotry in Holland was shitastic.
It was rather epic.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 09, 2012, 09:22:19 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 09, 2012, 07:50:40 PM
Now Monty's faggotry in Holland was shitastic.
It was rather epic.
The Polish Airborne brigade should have stormed his HQ and assraped him.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 09, 2012, 09:22:19 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 09, 2012, 07:50:40 PM
Now Monty's faggotry in Holland was shitastic.
It was rather epic.
Not so epic as the large numbers of Brits who still defend him.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 09, 2012, 09:35:31 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on January 09, 2012, 09:22:19 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 09, 2012, 07:50:40 PM
Now Monty's faggotry in Holland was shitastic.
It was rather epic.
Not so epic as the large numbers of Brits who still defend him.
What does that got to do with the Brits and glorious epic failures?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2012, 07:38:41 PM
What say you?
That you're approaching Tim/Gingrich territory. :P
American Landings - They were in support of Utah Beach, which suffered the least casualties of all the beaches iirc - so obviously the plan was good and worked fine. They were worth it.
British Landings - They took Pegasus Bridge and covered the left flank of Sword Beach.
So, I'd say the worked fine.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2012, 09:20:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2012, 07:38:41 PM
Thread title speaks for itself. The American soldiers in particular suffered heavy casualties in this operation. They did capture their objectives,
You just answered your own fucking question, Eisenhower.
Capturing objectives does not make an operation cost effective.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2012, 12:03:14 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2012, 09:20:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2012, 07:38:41 PM
Thread title speaks for itself. The American soldiers in particular suffered heavy casualties in this operation. They did capture their objectives,
You just answered your own fucking question, Eisenhower.
Capturing objectives does not make an operation cost effective.
Yes, it does. Except maybe Stalingrad.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2012, 03:01:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2012, 12:03:14 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2012, 09:20:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 09, 2012, 07:38:41 PM
Thread title speaks for itself. The American soldiers in particular suffered heavy casualties in this operation. They did capture their objectives,
You just answered your own fucking question, Eisenhower.
Capturing objectives does not make an operation cost effective.
Yes, it does. Except maybe Stalingrad.
Don't know that Stalingrad fits, given that the Germans never actually captured all of it.
Rostov in '41 might make the point better--the Germans took it, but weren't able to hold it.
Hurtgen Forest is an excellent example of objectives that weren't worth it.
Quote
Don't know that Stalingrad fits, given that the Germans never actually captured all of it.
Sure it does.
Quote
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
Quote from: Caliga on January 09, 2012, 08:14:15 PM
Strom Thurmond failed to get killed in the landings, so I'd say we didn't pay with enough blood. :)
Wasn't he under Forrest's command?
I thought airborne casualties were not particularly heavy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 11:45:10 AM
I thought airborne casualties were not particularly heavy.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2012, 06:39:12 AM
Hurtgen Forest is an excellent example of objectives that weren't worth it.
Agreed.
Why did they attack Hürtgen Forest anyway? Couldn't they just leave it at the flank and go for Cologne straight?
Needed wood.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 11:45:10 AM
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.
Quote from: Zanza on January 10, 2012, 12:43:15 PM
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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.allposters.com%2FIMAGES%2FMMPH%2F232793.jpg&hash=1d716310d372e425e1b1e5bf7f9889c5781cb1cf)
Quote from: Zanza on January 10, 2012, 12:43:15 PM
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...
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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2012, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 10, 2012, 12:43:15 PM
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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.allposters.com%2FIMAGES%2FMMPH%2F232793.jpg&hash=1d716310d372e425e1b1e5bf7f9889c5781cb1cf)
So they were pedos?
Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2012, 02:03:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 11:45:10 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on January 10, 2012, 06:47:52 AM
Quote
Don't know that Stalingrad fits, given that the Germans never actually captured all of it.
Sure it does.
Quote
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.
Quote from: dps on January 13, 2012, 03:50:09 PM
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". :P