US considering Preemptive Strike against North Korea.

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There will be no talk of unification. Don and Kim likely will be only talking about denuclearization and the security of North Korea. Kim has not signalled his stepping down from power

There will be no denuclearisation unless china allows it ,
Kim is just a puppet unfortunately ,
The south and the us would be better dealing with Beijing directly

Gatling

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

but they could have been sitting ducks for allied bombers and fighter jets if spotted by them from the air. Germans were not prepared for a two-front war and lack of air cover it was over for them.

Them pesky jets during the Normandy landings

Jimbob1977

The approach might fizzle out, but it has to be worth a try.

Maybe North Korea need cash and food to stave off another famine.

Bob24

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

The approach might fizzle out, but it has to be worth a try.

Maybe North Korea need cash and food to stave off another famine.

I think the problem is that Kim’s word (or signature on a treaty) is absolutely worthless. We all know NK will follow conditions as long as it suits its interest and one day start ignoring then as if they never existed.

Based on this I don’t really see what kind of deal can be struck (of the end result is that NK suspends it’s nuclear program for 10 months in exchange for food and resumes it afterwards, I really don’t see the point)

monty_python

https://www.facebook.com/AltviewIreland2/posts/268180203719971

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Still, Hitler could not call upon his entire army to defend France. A lot of fit and able-bodied German troops are still fighting in the east, that would have been used, to stop the advancing allies. France was relatively peaceful up till D-Day. The French Coastline was guarded by German Garrison troops, maybe not experienced enough to stop a fully-fledged allied assault?

Yup, the coastline was guarded by conscripts, garrison troops and a mismatch collection of support personnel including Luftwaffe or naval forces without the appropriate equipment.

Behind the lines though there were a number of established divisions, including a full SS panzer division recuperating after their time on the Eastern front. There were also a number of regiments being trained up from foreign volunteers under the SS banner, Mostly being used as the German AA crews but those AA's could tear Allied armor to pieces.

The biggest problem on D-Day is the German Luftwaffe could not operate at will anymore. The RAF and the American airforce dominated the air. German panzer tanks could have driven towards Normandy but they could have been sitting ducks for allied bombers and fighter jets if spotted by them from the air. Germans were not prepared for a two-front war and lack of air cover it was over for them.

True. The lack of air superiority was a major hindrance, but it wasn't the same as the movies make out. Allied capacity to find targets was sketchy until they could capture airbases and bring out their ground-support aircraft, like their tank-busters.

The point though is that until Normandy was established and the Allies starting expanding outwards, the Germans could have counter-attacked with Panzer and infantry elements. They had the experienced troops to do it. It was the confusion within the leadership that messed it all up for them, with Hitler changing his mind a few times where to send troops, and not believing the reports of his commanders when they saw the allied forces coming in.

And even then, with the allies landing and Hitler screwing with command operations, the German forces in the region slowed Allied expansion to a standstill on more than one occasion. They really wouldn't have needed their whole army to stop the allies. Just Hitler to keep his nose out of it, fuel for the tanks/APCs, and the right leadership (they lost a number of key officers at the beginning of the invasion)

It's an interesting period of the war.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

I think the problem is that Kim’s word (or signature on a treaty) is absolutely worthless. We all know NK will follow conditions as long as it suits its interest and one day start ignoring then as if they never existed.

Based on this I don’t really see what kind of deal can be struck (of the end result is that NK suspends it’s nuclear program for 10 months in exchange for food and resumes it afterwards, I really don’t see the point)

TBF, I suspect Kim feels the same way about US assurances not to invade. All it takes is for a new president in the Whitehouse and all bets are off.

Infini

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

What if Kim is just luring him in for the kill. Russian are doing it all the time, killing off people who they don't want around. The security will be huge, Trump will be told not eat drink or touch anything that is not from his own team.

In fairness Kim isn't an idiot. Assassinating Trump (while a relief for some) would be really counterproductive since if he kicks the bucket during a meeting its fairly quick who the rest of the US government will nail to the wall.

TLDR: that plan aint gonna have a happy ending for kimmy.

DEFTLEFTHAND

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

What if Kim is just luring him in for the kill. Russian are doing it all the time, killing off people who they don't want around. The security will be huge, Trump will be told not eat drink or touch anything that is not from his own team.

They're not stupid.

The know they would be wiped off the face of the planet if any harm were to befall the POTUS on this trip.

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

They're not stupid.

The know they would be wiped off the face of the planet if any harm were to befall the POTUS on this trip.

Lets be honest... They probably recognise that Trump is more of an asset than a liability for them. Could Trump force a war? sure. He's also likely to alienate the US from his Asian allies, fracture his own government, and reduce the actual support for any invasion.

Bob24

[Deleted User] wrote: »

TBF, I suspect Kim feels the same way about US assurances not to invade. All it takes is for a new president in the Whitehouse and all bets are off.

Agreed to some extend yes, and he’d probably be right.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Deleted User wrote: »

Lets be honest... They probably recognise that Trump is more of an asset than a liability for them. Could Trump force a war? sure. He's also likely to alienate the US from his Asian allies, fracture his own government, and reduce the actual support for any invasion.

But what does Trump stand to gain from starting a war with the Korean fatman?

Revolution in Korea will have to come from within, no western power can risk starting a conflict with them when they're nuked to the teeth.

Bob24

monty_python wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/AltviewIreland2/posts/268180203719971

He was actually talking a lot of sense there.

If we are were we are it is because previous US administrations kicked the can down the road over and over again. And now that they actually might have usable bombs and their Chinese protector is much stronger than it was back then ... the situation is becoming unmanageable (and the whole world is at risk as the temptation for them to sell bombs/technology to other states for cash will be quite high given the country’s situation ... which eventually could lead to faster nuclear proliferation and increase the risk for terrorist groups to get hold of a nuke).

DEFTLEFTHAND

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

But what does Trump stand to gain from starting a war with the Korean fatman?

I honestly have no idea. But then I don't think the US has gained from any of the wars they've been involved in since WW2. Didn't stop them find justifications to start or join them.

Revolution in Korea will have to come from within, no western power can risk starting a conflict with them when they're nuked to the teeth.

Oh, we know that... many Americans tend to believe that democracy can be exported and shoved down other peoples throats and they'll eventually be grateful for the experience. :rolleyes:

I've actually heard this being discussed by American expats in Asia when talking about Afghanistan and Iraq.

Cheerful Spring

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup, the coastline was guarded by conscripts, garrison troops and a mismatch collection of support personnel including Luftwaffe or naval forces without the appropriate equipment.

Behind the lines though there were a number of established divisions, including a full SS panzer division recuperating after their time on the Eastern front. There were also a number of regiments being trained up from foreign volunteers under the SS banner, Mostly being used as the German AA crews but those AA's could tear Allied armor to pieces.



True. The lack of air superiority was a major hindrance, but it wasn't the same as the movies make out. Allied capacity to find targets was sketchy until they could capture airbases and bring out their ground-support aircraft, like their tank-busters.

The point though is that until Normandy was established and the Allies starting expanding outwards, the Germans could have counter-attacked with Panzer and infantry elements. They had the experienced troops to do it. It was the confusion within the leadership that messed it all up for them, with Hitler changing his mind a few times where to send troops, and not believing the reports of his commanders when they saw the allied forces coming in.

And even then, with the allies landing and Hitler screwing with command operations, the German forces in the region slowed Allied expansion to a standstill on more than one occasion. They really wouldn't have needed their whole army to stop the allies. Just Hitler to keep his nose out of it, fuel for the tanks/APCs, and the right leadership (they lost a number of key officers at the beginning of the invasion)

It's an interesting period of the war.

The Germans thought the invasion at Normandy was a diversion so they weren't too sure what was going on and by the time they figured out Normandy was the real invasion point, the allies had stormed the coastlines of Normandy and nothing could stop the advance inland. I not sure Hitler and his generals could have stopped the allied invasion with tanks? The allies had complete dominance of the air and the German generals would need accurate information to know where to place the tanks to successfully repel the allies. The allies did not land troops at the same beach on D Day. And allied troops parachuted behind enemy lines cutting communications and capturing roads and towns this likely would have slowed down the advance of the German tanks to the coastline. It's what if question' there is no easy answer, as to what the outcome would have been if Hitler and his generals had been able to counterattack with Panzer Divisions?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Deleted User wrote: »

I honestly have no idea. But then I don't think the US has gained from any of the wars they've been involved in since WW2. Didn't stop them find justifications to start or join them.



Oh, we know that... many Americans tend to believe that democracy can be exported and shoved down other peoples throats and they'll eventually be grateful for the experience. :rolleyes:

I've actually heard this being discussed by American expats in Asia when talking about Afghanistan and Iraq.

I agree, they don't understand the culture.

Dictatorships are whats best for the the Middle East. The likes of Saddam should have been left where he was. Removing him destabilised the entire region.

Look at Libya also, another disaster. A once vibrant nation gone to pot.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The Germans thought the invasion at Normandy was a diversion so they weren't too sure what was going on and by the time they figured out Normandy was the real invasion point, the allies had stormed the coastlines of Normandy and nothing could stop the advance inland.

Sorry, can't agree here. The first part, spot on. The last, not so much. The allies landed at those narrow points, and could have easily been bottled up and blocked from expanding the beachheads. They needed a port to land their heavy equipment and didn't have the capacity to land enough supplies to maintain a expansion without it.

I not sure Hitler and his generals could have stopped the allied invasion with tanks?

A tank division is made up of tanks, AT guns, AA guns, APCs, Artillery and generally, has a motorized infantry regiment along with support personnel. All of which are combat proficient and experienced from fighting previously. That's a lot of offensive and defensive power. Especially when the Allies were limited to landing infantry, and the lighter scout style tanks on to the beaches. Tanks will generally overrun Infantry without much effort, especially when backed up with their own infantry.

The allies had complete dominance of the air

They suffered the same issues that they had at Dunkirk. No airbases nearby to land, refuel, rearm etc. Their planes still had to fly there from British bases, and extended fuel drums increased the weight, which decreased their armaments. They had near dominance of the air... if you check the history books, the Luftwaffe shot down quite a number of allied planes at the beginning of the invasion before they seized airbases and were able to bring larger numbers of aircraft to bear.

and the German generals would need accurate information to know where to place the tanks to successfully repel the allies. The allies did not land troops at the same beach on D Day. And allied troops parachuted behind enemy lines cutting communications and capturing roads and towns this likely would have slowed down the advance of the German tanks to the coastline.

Paratroops land with light weapons. handheld weapons. Their use of gliders resulted in massive mistakes and losses of equipment. Market Garden shows the massive limitations of such a delivery system for equipment. Such troops are not going to stand up to a heavy armored division... unless they could blow up bridges, which they weren't allowed to do.

But yes, the confusion with landings and the sabatoge of commuications did have an effect. however, the generals knew within a few hours where the allies had landed. Hitler delayed them from deploying in time to halt the beachheads from becoming established and delayed them again before they could halt the expansions.

It's what if question' there is no easy answer, as to what the outcome would have been if Hitler and his generals had been able to counterattack with Panzer Divisions?

Likely a withdrawal of Allied forces from France and the complete attention of Italy as the entry point. Which was the original plan anyway.

2 Scoops

Where did Kermit disappear to? Last I checked he was explaining how WW3 was upon us

Cheerful Spring

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

But what does Trump stand to gain from starting a war with the Korean fatman?

.

American political establishment in Washington views North Korea as being far worse and more dangerous than the Soviet Union. North Korea is their only enemy in the world directly threatening them with the nuclear fallout! All signs are the Americans are not willing to accept North Korea having the same nuclear capability as them to destroy cities and especially American cities. North Korea has not reached that stage yet, the reason the war was a real possibility, it was to stop the North Korean advance to the last stage of nuclear development. North has never tested atomic or hydrogen bomb above ground, this would be the final proof the North Korean can detonate a nuclear missile.

Cheerful Spring

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, can't agree here. The first part, spot on. The last, not so much. The allies landed at those narrow points, and could have easily been bottled up and blocked from expanding the beachheads. They needed a port to land their heavy equipment and didn't have the capacity to land enough supplies to maintain a expansion without it.



A tank division is made up of tanks, AT guns, AA guns, APCs, Artillery and generally, has a motorized infantry regiment along with support personnel. All of which are combat proficient and experienced from fighting previously. That's a lot of offensive and defensive power. Especially when the Allies were limited to landing infantry, and the lighter scout style tanks on to the beaches. Tanks will generally overrun Infantry without much effort, especially when backed up with their own infantry.


They suffered the same issues that they had at Dunkirk. No airbases nearby to land, refuel, rearm etc. Their planes still had to fly there from British bases, and extended fuel drums increased the weight, which decreased their armaments. They had near dominance of the air... if you check the history books, the Luftwaffe shot down quite a number of allied planes at the beginning of the invasion before they seized airbases and were able to bring larger numbers of aircraft to bear.



Paratroops land with light weapons. handheld weapons. Their use of gliders resulted in massive mistakes and losses of equipment. Market Garden shows the massive limitations of such a delivery system for equipment. Such troops are not going to stand up to a heavy armored division... unless they could blow up bridges, which they weren't allowed to do.

But yes, the confusion with landings and the sabatoge of commuications did have an effect. however, the generals knew within a few hours where the allies had landed. Hitler delayed them from deploying in time to halt the beachheads from becoming established and delayed them again before they could halt the expansions

Likely a withdrawal of Allied forces from France and the complete attention of Italy as the entry point. Which was the original plan anyway.

Would the tanks have able to drive right up against the coastline shortline though and fire on the men below coming off the boats? That area along the Normandy coastline was heavily trenched with fortifications and barbwire it might not be an ideal place to bring in heavy tanks for assaults. I see your point about artillery, but how many artillery pieces would the Germans have had near the location of Normandy? The Invasion of Normandy was successful in no more than six hours, the clock was against them.

Hitler was in bed asleep when the Invasion started and German high command did not wake him. There lot of confusion in the early hours of the invasion and Hitler generals thought it was a diversion so they did not wake him up. A deployment of tanks would have met the allies flooding inland and halted the allied assault for awhile but not indefinitely. Air power would have been called in and those Panzer tanks would likely have had to move back afterwards.

ricero

Fair play to Trump he seems to of played a blinder here. Great to see a USA president meeting with N Korea and hopefully bringing some stability and peace to the world

Manic Moran

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems an odd statement for any German commander to make.

Doesn't mean that they didn't make it. It may have been an appeal to desperation, but there was a twisted logic to it nevertheless.

I hand you to Dr Weinberg, this should be time-stamped to 37:45. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79KU997m9o4&feature=youtu.be&t=2265

Would the tanks have able to drive right up against the coastline shortline though and fire on the men below coming off the boats?

That was tried during the landing at Sicily, and to a lesser extent at Salerno. They came very close for a while to throwing the Americans back into the sea. However, it was then discovered that now matter how awesome the tanks were, they would lose against cruisers and destroyers rapidly firing 5", 6" and 8" shells directly at them from a couple of miles away. The Allies did not fail to learn from their earlier invasions, and the amount of naval gunfire support aiming at the beaches was ridiculous. Tanks are much easier to kill than the bunkers which caused trouble, especially when the gunfire includes battleships shells of at least 14".

Cheerful Spring

Manic Moran wrote: »

That was tried during the landing at Sicily, and to a lesser extent at Salerno. They came very close for a while to throwing the Americans back into the sea. However, it was then discovered that now matter how awesome the tanks were, they would lose against cruisers and destroyers rapidly firing 5", 6" and 8" shells directly at them from a couple of miles away. The Allies did not fail to learn from their earlier invasions, and the amount of naval gunfire support aiming at the beaches was ridiculous. Tanks are much easier to kill than the bunkers which caused trouble, especially when the gunfire includes battleships shells of at least 14".

Good point. This would be during the first phase of the invasion softening them up for the ground assault. I think at Normandy German tanks would not stop the invasion, but maybe have slowed down the advance for awhile a few miles in from the coast, but lacking adequate air support the German army likely would not be able to hold the position for long. Bombers in the air can drop ordnance on those tanks they not last long.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Would the tanks have able to drive right up against the coastline shortline though and fire on the men below coming off the boats?

They wouldn't have done so even if they could. Tanks would be vulnerable to navy shells and other direct fire ordinance. But they could have prevented any breakouts, keeping the allies to the beaches without any real methods of delivering adequate supplies. it would have been a stalemate that would ultimately have forced the allies to withdraw.

This is actually part of the allied contingency plans for the invasion. That they wouldn't be able to break out and be forced to evacuate the forces already committed.

That area along the Normandy coastline was heavily trenched with fortifications and barbwire it might not be an ideal place to bring in heavy tanks for assaults.

Don't believe the movies or the computer games about the landings. The 'wall' wasn't close to being finished, the minefields hadn't been placed, even the pillboxes in many areas weren't fully completed.

The area behind the sand dunes was perfect for tanks to take shelter and provide supporting fire to entrenched infantry.

I see your point about artillery, but how many artillery pieces would the Germans have had near the location of Normandy? The Invasion of Normandy was successful in no more than six hours, the clock was against them.

6 hours? that's pure propaganda. The invasion wasn't a success until they took one of the ports and managed to bring in heavier forces, and more importantly secure their logistical supply line.

And Artillery is used for suppression of an area. To prevent the movement of enemy forces, and to wear away morale (although on an open beach it would have been very effective). German Artillery was integrated into their armored and infantry divisions providing direct fire support. The Modern day US army is based on the same system.

Hitler was in bed asleep when the Invasion started and German high command did not wake him. There lot of confusion in the early hours of the invasion and Hitler generals thought it was a diversion so they did not wake him up.

And when Hitler was woken, he dithered wasting valuable time. And even without his direct command, a number of German generals/commanders sent forces to resist the invasion and Hitler called them back convinced that only he could see through the allies deception.

A deployment of tanks would have met the allies flooding inland and halted the allied assault for awhile but not indefinitely. Air power would have been called in and those Panzer tanks would likely have had to move back afterwards.

Flooding? Um. You might want to check the numbers of troops that were sent outwards from the beaches for the first few days. There wasn't a flood. Fact is, the German forces had plenty of time to withdraw and regroup before the allies moved forward in strength. And when the allies did encounter the German forces they were badly mauled. Allied tanks were inferior to German tanks, AA guns, and handheld AT. Allied infantry was very aware that the war was ending and wasn't too gung-ho to get killed before the war ended.

The Germans, on the other hand, still believed that they could hold the Allies. It was the Russians that the Germans feared. And if you want to see how the allies really performed after Normandy, take a look Patton's memoirs, which constantly refer to the lack of drive which could have shortened the war by months... and only actually moved quicker when they believed that the Germans wouldn't stop the Russian advance.

And you're missing the point about Airpower. Fuel. The allied forces didn't have the airtime over France to be effective except around the beaches themselves, and that time was extremely limited. Have you seen the "Battle for Britain"? It's the same for the German fighters who escort the bombers but can only stay a short time or would be forced to bail due to lack of fuel, leaving the bombers vulnerable over Britain. The allies had the same problems with their own bombers, which is why the US invested so heavily in machine guns (and armor) on their bombers.

Until the allies took airbases in France, Allied air cover was very patchy. Then they got the airbases and were able to fly in their ground support aircraft, along with the numbers of air superiority fighters to take control of the air. But it took them quite some time to gain that dominance.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Good point. This would be during the first phase of the invasion softening them up for the ground assault. I think at Normandy German tanks would not stop the invasion, but maybe have slowed down the advance for awhile a few miles in from the coast, but lacking adequate air support the German army likely would not be able to hold the position for long. Bombers in the air can drop ordnance on those tanks they not last long.

Bombers, for the most part, at that time were higher altitudes and weren't designed to go after units. They were designed to go after large stationary targets like a bridge (which were notoriously difficult to hit), or factories. They also had serious problems finding their targets often passing them by and hitting the wrong area by mistake. It's the reason that "carpet" bombing was brought into use. Logistal bombing was the traditional usage of bombers, and then strategic bombing, but they were rarely used intentionally against military units themselves.

Aircraft designed to go after troops and vehicles tended to be similar to the fighter model or slightly larger. The US deployed fighters with missile racks under their wings in the hope that they would prove effective tank hunters and they had some success. Bombing through the use of dive bombers was by far the most effective (like the German Stuka although the Germans used it more as a terror weapon). Later by the end of the war, AP rounds were making their way to the front, and tank buster fighters were in action using AP ammo to damage tanks, but more often used against their support vehicles. A tank without fuel is easily flanked and destroyed.

However to repeat the main point. Until the Allies gained control over airbases and could bring in their ground support aircraft, their options were very limited.

Atlantic Dawn

Ireland should offer to host the meeting of Trump and Jong-un, it would be great for tourism and every time the meeting is mentioned our country would get free advertising. Ashford Castle might suit, bit of golf for the lads afterwards.

Cheerful Spring

Deleted User wrote: »

They wouldn't have done so even if they could. Tanks would be vulnerable to navy shells and other direct fire ordinance. But they could have prevented any breakouts, keeping the allies to the beaches without any real methods of delivering adequate supplies. it would have been a stalemate that would ultimately have forced the allies to withdraw.

This is actually part of the allied contingency plans for the invasion. That they wouldn't be able to break out and be forced to evacuate the forces already committed.



Don't believe the movies or the computer games about the landings. The 'wall' wasn't close to being finished, the minefields hadn't been placed, even the pillboxes in many areas weren't fully completed.

The area behind the sand dunes was perfect for tanks to take shelter and provide supporting fire to entrenched infantry.


6 hours? that's pure propaganda. The invasion wasn't a success until they took one of the ports and managed to bring in heavier forces, and more importantly secure their logistical supply line.

The reason I doubt they could have stopped the Allied breakout is the Germans only had one of the eleven German Panzer divisions near Normandy. Ten other German Panzer divisions are far away in Paris, Seine and South of France.

Clear open road all the way to Normandy was not possible either as the French resistance and allied paratroopers were blowing up French bridges and securing French roads to stop the German counterattack. Even after Hitler had released the Panzer divisions in the afternoon took about a week for the tanks to arrive near the Normandy frontline.

Hitler probably would have stopped the landings at D- Day if he had placed all the German Panzer Divisions near the beaches of Normandy. He was tricked into believing the real attack would be at Pas de Calais in Northern France.

Then there is the problem of where do you place the one German Panzer division available during the first day of D-Day. Men are coming ashore, different beaches, securing those positions behind the German defensive line. The German Panzer unit dug in could be very vulnerable to rear guard attack.

I think the landings were successful after the first day. About six hours after the bombardment from the sea and air stopped, the Normandy beaches were secured only light to medium resistance left. When the allies secured the beaches British and American tanks and artillery equipment came ashore to be used in battle.The Germans could only contain and slow down the progress inland, and allies having control of the skies in France (Germany) was not going to win. Allied air attacks stopped the German counterattack at Caen, so air power was a deciding factor.

Cheerful Spring

Deleted User wrote: »

Bombers, for the most part, at that time were higher altitudes and weren't designed to go after units. They were designed to go after large stationary targets like a bridge (which were notoriously difficult to hit), or factories. They also had serious problems finding their targets often passing them by and hitting the wrong area by mistake. It's the reason that "carpet" bombing was brought into use. Logistal bombing was the traditional usage of bombers, and then strategic bombing, but they were rarely used intentionally against military units themselves.

Aircraft designed to go after troops and vehicles tended to be similar to the fighter model or slightly larger. The US deployed fighters with missile racks under their wings in the hope that they would prove effective tank hunters and they had some success. Bombing through the use of dive bombers was by far the most effective (like the German Stuka although the Germans used it more as a terror weapon). Later by the end of the war, AP rounds were making their way to the front, and tank buster fighters were in action using AP ammo to damage tanks, but more often used against their support vehicles. A tank without fuel is easily flanked and destroyed.

However to repeat the main point. Until the Allies gained control over airbases and could bring in their ground support aircraft, their options were very limited.

Point is though as I said before Allied bombers can still carpet bomb positions. And columns of tanks is easy prey for fighters and bombers. I not sure a column of tanks can position in the open near the coastline when ships are firing on a position close to the coast and allied aircraft flying overhead. The allies did not need to do this as the German Panzers were not there.

Cheerful Spring

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Point is though as I said before Allied bombers can still carpet bomb positions. And columns of tanks is easy prey for fighters and bombers. I not sure a column of tanks can position in the open near the coastline when ships are firing on a position close to the coast and allied aircraft flying overhead. The allies did not need to do this as the German Panzers were not there.

There is an excellent paper on the whole subject at:
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/papers/096KraetschRommelNormandy.htm

Well worth the read. It does reinforce many of your opinions.

However, I've read a number of other books on the subject which offered alternative viewpoints. In any case, it really doesn't matter at this stage. Good discussion though. I love to chat about military history and strategy.

On a side note, have you played the "hearts of iron" series?

Cheerful Spring

Deleted User wrote: »

There is an excellent paper on the whole subject at:
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/papers/096KraetschRommelNormandy.htm

On a side note, have you played the "hearts of iron" series?

It all good everyone has a different opinion about D-Day.

I have not got the time to play many games nowadays, I played Total War the Creative assembly series when I have time.