DENNIS'S THOUGHTS OF THE BATTLES OF NORMANDY AND THE BULGE

Combined with the knowledge accumulated over many years and what I saw during this trip I will attempt to reach certain conclusions and opinions on various aspects of the battles between the protagonists in Normandy and the Bulge. Remember that these are my opinions only with which one may agree or disagree. I have tried to analyze the subject clinically and without bias.

I believe that the allied choice of General Eisenhower as Commander of Chief of the combined forces was excellent. He was a responsible, intelligent and professional soldier and was extremely concerned about the wellbeing of his men. He also had the political “smarts” to handle the disputes between his various subordinates from different countries.
General Omar Bradley, commander of the American forces, was a level headed leader and “the soldier’s general”. He was at times somewhat over cautious in his planning because of his concern for his troops.
General George Patton (Old Blood and Guts), commander of the American 3rd Army, was a complex and fascinating character. He was a tank man throughout his army career and a professional soldier extraordinary. He could inspire his troops to give their all and led from the front always urging his men forward. He was a charismatic and direct character, always immaculately turned out and well versed in history – in fact he thought he had been reincarnated several times, having been a warrior in battles past. Above all he could read the battlefield better than any of his colleagues and was always ready to grab opportunities against the enemy. His greatest failings were in the political and media arenas which were eventually to lead to his downfall. In my opinion – the best allied commander in WWII

Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery (Monty) commanded the British and Commonwealth forces. An egoist who thought himself as being a prima donna he would not engage in an offensive without having overwhelming superiority in men and materiel. For some reason he perceived Patton as being his completion and was always scheming to upstage him. Although the Brits like to make a hero out of him he was responsible for several blunders such as his failure to capture Caen and then bombing it to smithereens, the debacle at Arnheim and his transparent attempt to claim the Ardennes victory for himself. I believe he was the weakest point in the link.

As for the German commanders……..

Field Marshall Erwin Rommel was in my opinion the greatest of the German commanders. A career soldier having fought in WWI he was a specialist in infantry and tanks. He, like Patton, could read a battle and was adept at using whatever resources he had available to their maximum efficiency. He was the man in charged with the building of the Atlantic Wall and maintained that the allies needed to be beaten on the beaches. His main problem was his relationship with Hitler who countermanded him on many crucial decisions and later had him commit suicide for being involved in the July 1944 assassination attempt.

Generals von Rundstedt, von Kluge and von Mantheufel were extremely able and excellent career officers but they too suffered from Hitler’s interference. General Jodl was a lackey to Hitler and absolutely ineffectual.

The German field officers, non- commissioned officers and troops were in a class of their own. They were highly trained and motivated and were generally brave men. To their advantage they were also cross-trained which meant that a signalman was able to double in as a mortar man, a machine gunner a to operate all German infantry equipment. The Waffen SS were the elite of the ground forces and were ruthless and efficient fighters.

The American soldiers were not as well trained as the German but were extremely brave and tenacious. Their Airborne units were outstanding and proved themselves to be tenacious and excellent soldiers with lots of initiative.

The British forces were well disciplined and generally good but I think they lacked initiative. I believe that their biggest problem was a lack of good field leadership but there were of course exceptions.

There is no doubt of the superiority of the German weapons and equipment . Their MG42 machine gun outclassed the British Bren and its American counterpart having twice the rate of fire and being more reliable. The Schmeiser sub machine gun was also far more effective than the British Sten or the American Tommy gun. The Panzer tanks were excellently engineered and the King Tiger was mounted with the dreaded 88mm canon completely outclassing the Shermans and Churchills having an effective firing range of 2,000 meters compared to the 700 meters of the allied tanks – it usually took 4 to 6 Shermans to take out a Tiger.

Where the Germans really fell short was in the air – Allied airpower completely dominated the skies constantly attacking the German ground forces and we all know that he who controls the sky controls the ground. The Germans were also heavily outnumbered and couldn’t replace men and materiel at the rate the Allies could.

We can also be thankful that Hitler thought himself to be a great military tactician and disregarded the advice of his military commanders. Had he listened to them things would have been much tougher for the Allies. He also extended himself by opening a second front in the east and by allying himself to Japan, thus by default adding America to his list of enemies after Pearl Harbour.

The 2nd World War was total war – there was no such a thing as human rights. Cities were mercilessly bombed by both sides killing and maiming many thousands of civilians and turning their lives into a living hell. We must hope and pray that we or our descendants never experience misery like that again. But as I said previously, the one thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history.