Re: D-Day was Shermans

----- Original Message -----
From: <bbrush@unlnotes.unl.edu>
> >> A further advantage that the Allies had,  was their command
structure
> >> and training.
> >> The Allied forces trained their units to show initiative and to get
the
> >> job done
> >
> >This is where I must disagree. From all what I've read, the tradition
for
> >German low-level unit commanders that they were trained to be very
> > flexible
> >What was a mess was the German/Nazi high-level command structure and
the
> >overall political and economic organization.
> >
>
> I was more referring to the Higher command echelons,

You should have made that clearer. You wrote:
"The Allied forces trained their units to show initiative ..."
Granted, "unit" can mean anything from squad to army corps, but I think
most
readers would have understood platoon to bataillon rather than divisions
and
corps.

> My point is that there wouldn't be a mass invasion against a "hot"
beach.

Any commander would prefer other optoins, certainly. But there might
situations where he has to go in over a beach.

> A debacle like Omaha wouldn't be excuted again simply because we have
the
> capability and precision to neutralize the kind of defenses that were
> present on the beaches then.

Omaha was only one of the beaches in Normandy. On the other beaches, the
Allies had done a much better job at suppressing the defences. No
guarantee
that in a large modern landing a section might not have been neutralized
due
to some foul-up.

Modern beach defences would be as improved compared to 1944 as would be
the
means of attack.
Just think of, for example, anti-tank guided missiles against assaulting
hovercraft.

As I understand recent events, so far no air campaign by itself has
_completely_ neutralized front-line forces. Even in the Gulf War and
Afghanistan, some ground fighting was still needed to destroy the
defenders.
But yes, the air campaign had taken the fight out of the defenders.

BTW. I have read press reports that in the Kosovo air campaign the
number of
fighting units (tanks, AFV, artillery) destroyed was quite low - as
opposed
to fixed installations like barracks, depots etc. Can anybody comment on
this ?

> Also there's the sheer scale of the
> operation.  I'm not sure a situation would arise where an operation on
that
> scale would be necessary.  Of course there's also the argument that
most
> modern militaries wouldn't attempt a static defense simply because a
mobile
> defense in depth has proven much more effective.

Well, the German units in France where commanded by a certain Erwin
Rommel,
who is reputed to have known a thing or two about mobile defence ;-)
When he
took over command, he not only kept existing defences manned, he
insisted on
reinforcing beach defences as much as possible. Why ?
1) Landing troops are much more vulnerable when in the water and on the
beach than when they have established a foothold. Hence it pays to get
at
them as early as possible.
2) Against the overwhelming allied air superiority, a mobile defence at
the
strategic and operational level would have suffered heavily from air
attack.

Greetings
Karl Heinz