Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 12:51:08 AM   
DrewMatrix


Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline 		The winnning plan for the Allies, as I see it, is to push through the Japanese defense in places, going for the weak points so they can a) get airbases where they can pound the Home Islands with B-29s and b) isolate/starve/pummel from the air the cut off Japanese in the strong points they avoided.

Playing my first game now as the Japanese I am horridly aware of all the places I am not, throuigh which the Allied juggernaut came come pouring. (If I build up Kwajalein, they will take Einewetok or viceversa. If I take reinforce Lae they will build go to someplace else on the north coast of New Guinea).

For the Japanese to spread themselves thinner seems to worsen, not to improve their chances of winning.

_____________________________


Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 31
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 1:00:43 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		and now the delimma is apparant.. just not enough troops supplies.. as the war winds down what your supplies as a cunning allied player will hit your resources and industry.. reducing those you need to feed your troops

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 32
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 1:04:11 AM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		ok, back to Oz, it is not 1942 that is the problem its 1943 and an an advancing US sub and naval presence.. really, does anyone actually think the US would not quickly move assetts to OZ?

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 33
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 1:07:56 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		They might not even have to. Just let the Silent Service kill off the ships transporting the supplies to Oz.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 34
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 3:19:07 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3613
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline 		First Australia in WW2 was very different from today.

Melbourne was the biggest city, and the main industrial centre where ships, aircraft, explosives and arms were made.

Also the "white Australia" policy meant there were very few Asians, mostly Chinese from the gold rushes of the 19th century.


The plan for the defence was based on the Brisbane line, where evrything north of there was effectively abandoned (nothing of any use).

But the Brisbane line was not really expected to hold, the vulnerability being the long east coast of Australia.

The main line of resistence was the Murray line, basically the river that seperates Victoria from the rest of Australia. All the key agricultural and industrial areas lay south of that line. Airfields and logistics dumps were built, but no fixed defences that I know about (the Brisbane line and sheer distance was going to provide time to build them).

Even in Victoria the strategic industry's were relocated out of Japanese carrier range, for example the mapping agency and some munitions industries were moved to Bendigo (who just built an armoured vehicle , Bushranger). Even toady one of our key logistics bases is Albury Wodonga (where both Tanks and APC's are maintained and overhauled), on the rail line east and west but on the Murray and outside of carrier aircraft range.


Canberra was still just a "big building in a sheep paddock" but even there the road from the coast was prepared for demolition and guarded.

The Japanese weren't expected to land in the north and march south, but size key locations under their carrier based air. Such as Newcastle (iron works).

Resource wise at the time Australia produced almost no oil, and exported wool and iron. The ore was mainly mined in Whyalla north of Adelaide and shipped by sea to Newcastle, which was near the coal fields.

So could the Japanese had taken these places? Yes as long as the had carriers.
Could them have taken all of Australia? Very unlikely.
Would have Australia kept fighting? As long as they were supported by the US then yes.

Key key was Coral Sea and Midway, once the carriers have gone Australia is safe, and by the end of 1943 Australia can produce sufficient munitions itself (quantity and quality) to defeat the Japenes Army.

Cheers

Rob

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 35
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 3:57:16 AM   
1275psi

 

Posts: 7979
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline 		OK, Im a PBEM player who took all of north aust in january 42
Why -
so that java cannot recieve any reinforcements
so that the stinking hole called timor doesnt become a future front line
darwin is no problem to supply- in fact it appears to produce it
no stinking B17s smashing valuable oil at ambonia
when he comes up the road, I have air, he does not, and if he comes with force, i have plenty of time to get out of dodge, or reinforce
the 2 divisions that took the place were disrupted to hell - no malaria and now they are 100%

if my opponent decides to use cairns as a springboard to port moresby (also mine) , he has to watch his flank
Finally, i know I cannot hold after 43- thats a given, but its one more roadblock he has to overcome before threatening the oil - and read the AARs, see how many jap players are being hit in the DEI by B17s, or have met problems in Java. In my game I know - I know no reinforcemnets for him there - nor any units are getting away to fight another day.

Im an Aussie.
Shameful to say, when darwin was bombed, we did poorly.
But - at kokoda - when the troops knew Australia was on the line - we stand on our record, and I know we would never ever have stopped fighting.
Australia is so big you could have hidden divisions of resistance fighters in its countryside.


(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 36
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 6:01:32 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

I have not been to Australia but in 41 I imagine control of the big cities will give you control over the infastructure and communications , no internet , no telephone - newspaper , no population movement . Big hot spaces , perfect for information / population control .

The Japs did a good job in controlling Malaysia / Singapore / Hong Kong all bigger and more populated than Australia though I admit smaller . The population of 41 Australia is not large so in fact the garrison need not be too big , I guess we would see a kind of Partisan Army appear and control the interior .

Interesting comment on the industry, is it the industry that also produces replacements are they fixed or do they reduce with occupation / reduction of industry ??

Regards
Michael


Japan may have been able to capture the major Australian metropolitan areas but she couldn't have held them for more than a few months. She would have also had to invade New Zealand and New Caledonia to prevent them from being used as a springboard for any Allied counterattack. Being such a large country, the Allies would have been able to choose any place in Australia to invade and the Japs would have been hard pressed to counter it.

In addition, the number of troops required, along with air and naval forces, would have put a severe strain on the japanese military and would have left them extremely vulnerable everywhere else.

Not to mention that the Australians weren't about to roll over and play dead. They would have brought guerilla warfare to a very high level because nobody, but nobody, takes away their Foster's!

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to ROSLEY)
Post #: 37
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 6:22:09 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Taking Australia what's the point, with US forces comming from one end and British comming from the other.

The best you can due as Japan is to the take the key re-enforcement ports in India knocking the British out of the Pacific war.



In one of my games ... I launched what will probably wind up being a "major raid" and occupied Perth, Broome, Derby and Wyndam ( I thought I was going to occupy Darwin as well - but it did not happen ). Given other assets in the area I have been able to suppress Darwin to the extent that it is unusable. The "occupation" thus far has lasted from early June 42 .. through early Oct 42 ...

Why ?

Because I wanted to delay the Allied ability to counterattack out of this area into Timor and thence to Kendari and or toward Java. The stock game provides 300 resources at Darwin - which is a major threat to the DEI ( BTW CHS fixes this by reducing the Darwin area to 10 resources ).

But it cannot be a permanent occupation. Australia plus USA can bring enough divisions to recapture the area- period. It is a delaying operation. And the trick will be when and what to pull out when the recapture can no longer be prevented. But thus far, the operation has served its purpose ... to delay the threat to the DEI to allow time to build up DEI defenses farther to the rear to enable further delaying once Northern Oz becomes Allied once again.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 38
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 6:29:21 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Very simple.

Would never happen.

As much as I enjoy this game, please don't link the fantasy that can be WitP, to "a potential historical possability".

There are so many reasons, that Oz would -never- have fallen, that are not remotely represented in WitP.

It's like saying that the auto-victory in 1943 "reprsents the US suing for peace." Would never happen. You can give the Japanese player a chance at early victory, and call it, "an ability to accumulate VPs to outnumber the Allied total by 4-1." But the Allies just deciding, "Um. No. Japan is just kicking our butts. Lets roll over and hand them the Pacific (or Oz, or India, or China, or any other fantasy victory of WitP)."

Nope.

(* shrug *)

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 39
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 8:43:59 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline 		I have to agree. The allies won the war in the pacific to moment the first bomb dropped. The Japanese intention was to get what they want and sue for peace afterwards. That they actually thought it would work is a remarkable case of self-delusionment. The only way the Japanese could have won was if the Americans had given in and accepted peace after Japan had got everything she wanted. That simply was not going to happen.

Invading Australia? Too much area for them to control.

As far as surrendering.........I can't believe it would happen. Much like if the Japanese had invaded America. What were they going to do....occupy Washington? If they had, what would it have mattered?

In 1812, the Parliment of England sent a letter to General Arthur Wellesley {the future Duke of Wellington and England's leading expert on land warfare} informing him of the war with the United States and asking the best way to win the war.

Wellesley replied that you don't win a war with the United States. During the Revolutionary War, England occupied every major city and STILL the americans never surrendered. I can't see the Aussies being any different in 1942.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 40
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 11:39:26 AM   
Culiacan Mexico

 

Posts: 8348
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Bad Windsheim Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

If you have the Aussie government surrender and want to make the game somewhat realistic, you would have to put in some sort of garrison requirement as in China. Lest those Aussies start dry gulching the local Japanese admistration.

How many Japanese troops do you think it would take to garrison Australia? 6 Japanese per Aussie (so the Aussie had 2 Japanese following him around on each of he 3 eight hour shifts in the day)? More?

Anyhow, I can't imagine the Australian Government signing a peace treaty even if run out of town (Belgium was occupied for all of WW I and never surrendered officially) and I can't imagine Japan having the resources to conquer or garrison a country of that size. Were they so foolish to grab a chunk of Nortern Australia (Darwin and environs maybe) all they would get is one more sump to suck resources they desperately need elsewhere.


The Japanese Navy had a number of scenarios regarding the invasion of Australia, but lacked the troops to do it on their own. The Japanese Army believed it would take at least ten divisions to garrison the country, and neither had the troops to spare nor were they interested in this project.

In WitP, a ten division garrison sounds about right.


_____________________________

"If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lig

(in reply to DrewMatrix)
Post #: 41
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 1:37:07 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Mog i've seen you type "Mandark laugh" before. Hope i'm not not being tres tres stupid here but what on earth is a Mandark?

Steven

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 42
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 2:02:47 PM   
captskillet


Posts: 2493
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: Louisiana & the 2007 Nat Champ LSU Fightin' Tigers
Status: offline
quote:

Thats why it took so long to break out of Normandy. We put the best allied divisions with more air power than could be dreamed of into an area largely defended by low quality Germans(initially)


I wouldn't call the 12th SS, Panzer Lehr, 21st Panzer, 17th SS low quality units and they were all there within a few days if not hours (21st PZ and 12th SS)

quote:

What other Westernised Democracy has anyone seen fight to the death


I'd say UK's fight early on in WWII before we entered and France had fallen was pretty close to "to the death"!

_____________________________

"Git thar fust with the most men" - Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest


(in reply to ROSLEY)
Post #: 43
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 2:10:08 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Mog i've seen you type "Mandark laugh" before. Hope i'm not not being tres tres stupid here but what on earth is a Mandark?

Steven




the one on the left

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 44
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 3:48:54 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

This is exactly what happened. That Montgomery expended SO many lives doing it, and a lot of blunders were committed in lower command echelons (because the overall quality of British GOC's in Normandy was abysmal), doesn't detract from the fact that Montgomery's forces executed their part in the Battle of Normandy exactly as they were meant to.


Only if you define "exactly as they were meant to" in terms of drawing the bulk of panzers. Monty kept announcing objective after objective which failed - i don't think that normally one would say the "excecuted their plan exactly as they were meant to" in terms of his stated objectives (Caen on D-Day, Caen by D+1, Caen by D+3, etc., etc.)

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 6/7/2005 3:53:52 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 45
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 3:57:36 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: String


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Mog i've seen you type "Mandark laugh" before. Hope i'm not not being tres tres stupid here but what on earth is a Mandark?

Steven




the one on the left


Thanks for that String but still clueless. Is this an American cartoon?

(in reply to String)
Post #: 46
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 4:02:09 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: captskillet

quote:

Thats why it took so long to break out of Normandy. We put the best allied divisions with more air power than could be dreamed of into an area largely defended by low quality Germans(initially)


I wouldn't call the 12th SS, Panzer Lehr, 21st Panzer, 17th SS low quality units and they were all there within a few days if not hours (21st PZ and 12th SS)


Have to agree that there were some, what would be classed as, high quality units there - 1SS, 9SS, 10SS, 12SS, Panzer Lehr, 2SS, FJ's etc. were also lots of very 'average' troops in infantry divisions and some poor quality troops in 'static divisions'. I'd say the typical hode podge of German OOB. Top notch with poor elements too. Also even though some of these took weeks to get to the area the forces that were in the area managed to contain the Allies. IMHO almost entirely down to the terrain they were fighting over.

Steven

(in reply to captskillet)
Post #: 47
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 4:08:03 PM   
Griswel

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 5/23/2005
Status: offline
quote:

As for the idea that Democracies will not fight to the bitter end I would like to bring up the American civil war, where the Confederacy did exactly that and the Union fought in a way that Hastings says is impossible for a Democracy to sustain.


Yes, but wer were fighting ourselves, internicine fights are always much nastier than fighting strangers.

_____________________________

When will the citizens of free countries learn to stop supporting dictators?

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 48
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 4:37:05 PM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Monty was stupid enough not to realize that you had to clear the Schedlt estuary to open Antwerp.


He probably knew that very well, but it would have taken troops away from his glorious, and all-British charge across the Rhine and onto the North German plain. Montgomery had a monstrous ego, just like Patton, McArthur and other generals.

The Allied needed a big port to advance and Antwerp was it. It amazes that Monty was so stupid about it.


"As early as September 8th, 1944, Winston Churchill had written to his chiefs-of-staff about the importance of the Walcheren area and the port of Antwerp. September was also the month that the British started to suffer from supply problems – what was referred to as a “supply famine”. Ironically, it was the sheer success of the Allies that had brought about this problem. The Germans had put up stiff resistance around Normandy – but it had also led to the loss of the German VII Army. Once the break out from Normandy occurred, the Allies sped forward far faster than they had planned for. Paris was freed 55 days ahead of schedule and by mid-September, the Americans were approaching Aachen, which they had expected to do by mid-May 1945. Such an advance put a huge strain on the supplies that were still primarily coming in via Cherbourg. Some supplies were flown in, but only if they could be carried by plane – and this greatly limited what was carried. The American ‘Red Ball Express’ (heavy lorries converted to carry stores) started in late August. But the Germans still held out at Calais, Boulogne, Dunkirk and Le Harve, ports that could have been used

The capture of Antwerp would have solved all supply problems. The port could handle 1,000 ships at a time weighing up to 19,000 tons each. Antwerp had 10 square miles of docks, 20 miles of water front, and 600 cranes. Senior Allied commanders counted on Antwerp handing 40,000 tons of supplies a day – when it was captured. Antwerp was about 80 miles from the open sea on the River Scheldt. Between the port and the sea were the islands of Walcheren and North Beveland and South Beveland that was attached to mainland Holland by a small isthmus – all held by the Germans who could do a great deal to disrupt the flow of shipping into the port.

On September 3rd, Montgomery ordered General Dempsey, head of the British 2nd Army, to occupy Antwerp. The 11th Armoured Division did just this on September 4th. There was some resistance but, with the help of the Belgium Resistance, this was crushed with some ease. However, holding Antwerp was not enough. The Allies needed to control the West and East Scheldt – areas of sea to the north-west of Antwerp.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/antwerp_and_world_war_two.htm


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 49
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 4:54:34 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Like I said earlier, Montgomery was fixated on Market-Garden at this time, which swallowed up ALL of British 2nd Army. It was HIS BIG MOMENT (tm), the time to vindicate his "One Thrust" strategy, and a piffling port on the Belgian coast wasn't going to take that away from him.

Montgomery wasn't stupid, but, like Churchill, Patton, McArthur, Rommel and MANY others, was desperate to look good in history.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 50
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 5:09:32 PM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Like I said earlier, Montgomery was fixated on Market-Garden at this time, which swallowed up ALL of British 2nd Army. It was HIS BIG MOMENT (tm), the time to vindicate his "One Thrust" strategy, and a piffling port on the Belgian coast wasn't going to take that away from him.

Montgomery wasn't stupid, but, like Churchill, Patton, McArthur, Rommel and MANY others, was desperate to look good in history.

The order to capture antwerp was September 3 this was before Operation market garden was planned.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 51
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 5:14:45 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Like I said earlier, Montgomery was fixated on Market-Garden at this time, which swallowed up ALL of British 2nd Army. It was HIS BIG MOMENT (tm), the time to vindicate his "One Thrust" strategy, and a piffling port on the Belgian coast wasn't going to take that away from him.

Montgomery wasn't stupid, but, like Churchill, Patton, McArthur, Rommel and MANY others, was desperate to look good in history.

The order to capture antwerp was September 3 this was before Operation market garden was planned.


This may be true, but if you have troops earmarked for your big operation that is going to secure your place in history, why would you want to use them for something as "useless" as securing the Scheldt estuary...


_____________________________


(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 52
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 5:55:46 PM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso



This may be true, but if you have troops earmarked for your big operation that is going to secure your place in history, why would you want to use them for something as "useless" as securing the Scheldt estuary...


Capturing the estuary should have been easy in early September.
"September 4, 1944

Belgium
The British 11th Armored Division races into Antwerp. And the prize is doubled: Members of the Belgian resistance, employed as engineers at the port, stop the Germans from destroying the port facilities. Still, the port can’t be used until the banks of the Scheldt Estuary (54 miles long and 3 miles wide at its mouth) are cleared of German forces.

To clear the estuary’s banks, all the British need to do is cross the Albert Canal east of Antwerp, drive a few miles north to the base of the South Beveland Peninsula, and then continue along the north bank of the Scheldt Estuary. Standing in the 11th Armored’s way is a single German division (the 719th) “composed entirely of elderly gentlemen who hitherto had been guarding the north coast of Holland and had never heard a shot fired in anger.” But Montgomery orders the 11th Armored to halt in order to rest and refit; the field marshal wants all XXX Corps units for another operation - a drive around the West Wall (Siegfried Line), over the Rhine, and on into the heart of Germany.

Eisenhower has been clear with Montgomery; making Antwerp a working port is the paramount objective of the 21st Army Group. Any other operations must be subsidiary. Montgomery assures the supreme commander that the 21st Army Group can handle both clearing the Scheldt Estuary and his proposed drive around the West Wall. But in one of the greatest missed opportunities of World War II, Montgomery does not commit the forces necessary to clear the Scheldt Estuary?"
The failure to capture the north bank of the estuary is compounded; it leaves an escape route open for the German Fifteenth Army. Over the next 20 days, more than 85,000 men, 6,000 vehicles, and 600 guns are ferried to the north bank of the Scheldt Estuary, moved down the Beveland Peninsula, and on into defensive positions from Antwerp to Arnhem."

http://home.wanadoo.nl/cclinks/abtf/septem~1.html



< Message edited by madmickey -- 6/7/2005 5:58:54 PM >

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 53
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 6:17:21 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: madmickey

But Montgomery orders the 11th Armored to halt in order to rest and refit; the field marshal wants all XXX Corps units for another operation - a drive around the West Wall (Siegfried Line), over the Rhine, and on into the heart of Germany.

Eisenhower has been clear with Montgomery; making Antwerp a working port is the paramount objective of the 21st Army Group.



I don't see where the argument is: I'm not disputing that Montgomery did the tactically unsound thing, I'm saying that he didn't do it because he was stupid.

It was all an ego thing: Montgomery was convinced that he was a better general than all the US generals in theatre, and thought he should be in overall command of land forces as he'd been during D-Day.

Montgomery got a very rude awakening in late December 1944, when he sent a letter to this effect to Eisenhower, who promptly sent a signal to the Combined Chiefs of Staff, saying "it's either him or me". It came as a brutal shock to Montgomery when he realised that he was going to be out of a job shortly, and only the mediation of his Chief of Staff, de Guingand, allowed time to apologize and soothe some very ruffled US feathers.


_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to madmickey)
Post #: 54
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/7/2005 6:32:32 PM   
madmickey

 

Posts: 1336
Joined: 2/11/2004
From: Calgary, Alberta
Status: offline 		As in my previous post it would have been easy to capture the estuary in early September. That was stupid by Monty. Ignoring the importance of supply and Antwerp was stupid. The Market Garden Plan with no allowance for enemy was stupid. Even if they captured the Arhnem Bridges the idea that a single narrow thrust that could have been easily cutoff by the Germans was stupid. The British never used Arnhem area in Holland as a way to attack Germany later in the war.

< Message edited by madmickey -- 6/7/2005 6:35:15 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 55
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/8/2005 7:52:52 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

This may be true, but if you have troops earmarked for your big operation that is going to secure your place in history, why would you want to use them for something as "useless" as securing the Scheldt estuary...



"Useless"? Having the largest port in Europe in functioning condition within a few miles of your front lines, and solving all your supply difficulties in a single stroke? "Useless"?

_____________________________


(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 56
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/8/2005 8:51:51 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Mike, I think that rtpasso's "roll eyes" was based on his assumption that Monty felt that clearing the Scheldt was a useless waste of resources. In other words, he feels that Monty was unaware of the threat that having the Germans in the Scheldt was to the use of Antwerp as a major supply base.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 57
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/8/2005 3:11:02 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Anything on this Mandark laugh thing? Us cartoon? Its bugging me now

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 58
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/8/2005 4:01:37 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Mike, I think that rtpasso's "roll eyes" was based on his assumption that Monty felt that clearing the Scheldt was a useless waste of resources. In other words, he feels that Monty was unaware of the threat that having the Germans in the Scheldt was to the use of Antwerp as a major supply base.


Yup - that (the eye rolls), and putting "useless" in quotes. Alas, even with smileys, things don't come across well sometimes. And, if you read fast sometimes (as i have been guilty of) - well, at least i have made the mistake of coming out 180 degrees off in what was said. Mea culpa!

_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 59
RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP - 6/8/2005 4:05:38 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Anything on this Mandark laugh thing? Us cartoon? Its bugging me now



It is an American cartoon, "Dexter's Laboratory", I think it's called. Mandark is probably the hero (Dexter's) archnemesisisisisis...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Surrender of Australia in WITP Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.891