Snipers in WWII

I've seen Enemy at the Gates, and I loved it. I've heard everything about Vasily, but I often wonder where German, or other nation snipers were in the whole war. So I did a little research and here is what I've found.

First off, it seems the German soldiers thought sniping to be less honorable (which to an extent I agree). They did have some, but not many were in the SS, most were in the Wehrmacht.

Quote:

---

The SS had very few snipers as they viewed this role as a dishonorable way to fight, this was left for the Wehrmacht.

---

Also, I did some more research and not only in Wikipedia. Wikipedia shows that Vasily had around 930 verified kills, but that number seemed way to high. I took looks at other sites and found them to be actually much lower. Still a very good sniper, but there were many other snipers, especially Soviet one's that were better.

Quote:

---

Soviet propaganda was rife with fictitious stories to boost morale during a time when the war was so uncertain.

---

(on the topic of Vasily kill count)

Quote:

---

Vasili Zaitsev W.W. II U.S.S.R. 400

---

(list of kill counts from an other source)

Quote:

---

All of his 242 verified kills were all made in the period of a few months, from October of 1942, soon after he arrived in Stalingrad, up until the time he was wounded by shrapnel in January of 1943

---

(an other source)

Okay, now that I've done some research, it seems as though, for one, Vasily did not have as many kills as he is claimed to have had, and two, it was made up (in a good strategy) by the Soviet propaganda minister. He has the 14th highest kill ranking in the war, and by no means the best. Many Soviet snipers are ahead of him, but yet they are not mentioned.

Alright, we've cleared that up, so let's move on to the other nations snipers and why they are not mentioned so much.

Simo Häyhä is was a Finnish sniper that ranked 1st in the list of snipers.

Quote:

---

was a Finnish soldier, and is widely considered to be the most successful sniper in history.

---

Quote:

---

All of Häyhä's kills were accomplished within three months prior to injuries caused by an enemy bullet. Before his injury, the Russians tried several plans to get rid of him, including counter snipers and artillery strikes. Their best result was tearing the back of his coat away with shrapnel, but leaving Häyhä himself unscratched.

---

Quote:

---

Finnish frontline figure from the battle field of Kollaa places the number of Häyhä's sniper kills at 542.

---

Quote:

---

and it was in the Kollaa area were the famous battle of "Killer Hill" took place with 32 Finns battling 4,000 Soviet soldiers. These were the hunting grounds of Simo Häyhä and it should be noted that even against massive odds the Kollaa positions were still in Finnish hands at the end of the war

---

Also, there was an other Finnish sniper that ranked ahead of Vasily. His name was Sulo Kolkka.

Quote:

---

During 105 days of combat Kolkka was credited with more than 400 enemy kills as a sniper in the Winter War.

---

Now, for the German snipers in the war. As I stated earlier, the Germans did not always find it honorable to be a sniper. In fact, they almost detested it. There were however many great snipers. One is the famous Erwin Konig. He was the major that Vasily "killed" and took his sights, but the funny thing is. There is absolutly no records in the German archives of this man.

Quote:

---

Major Erwin König was named by the Soviets as the best German sniper during World War II, with more than 400 kills. While Soviet sources pitted him against Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev in their propaganda of the time

---

Quote:

---

...been found in any German records, and historians are sure he never actually existed

---

It also says Vasily claims that the Konig was a sniper of the SS, but there were no SS divisions in Stalingrad, as well as the fact that snipers were looked down upon especially in the SS. Also, he is called a Major, but the German military believed snipers were not fit to lead, but instead just fight. This again leads me to believe, there is no such thing as a "great duel" Vasily won.

Now I looked for Soviet snipers (there were many) that were better than Vasily.

I found the name Ivan Mihailovich Sidorenko stand out a lot, but I can't find ANY information on the man himself? I search and find his numbers, but no info on the man himself, which seems strange to me. Possibly an other Soviet propaganda attempt? Alright, maybe he's just not easy to find, especially on Wikipedia, so I search for the second ranked on. His name is Nikolay Yakovlevich Ilyin. Again! I can't find anything on that man either! I don't know what to say here folks.

Anyway, I have to take a shower now, but I'll leave you with this bit of information. Hopefully it'll be educational to you all, and hopefully wont ruin Enemy at the Gates for you!

Sniping is not dishonourable, where you get that idea is beyong me, it's just the art of marksmanship at it's highest form.

Konig was an invention of Soviet propaganda.

Enemy at the Gates was middling at best.

True, but you are hiding behind the real fighting trying not to be seen so that you may kill others. Not the highest honor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

True, but you are hiding behind the real fighting trying not to be seen so that you may kill others. Not the highest honor.

---

Its not about "Honor" its about winning the war and not dying so you can see your friends and family again. Whos cares if you have to shoot someone in the back to achieve that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andronikos Kypriakos

Its not about "Honor" its about winning the war and not dying so you can see your friends and family again. Whos cares if you have to shoot someone in the back to achieve that.

---

The SS.

Read some commentaries on snipers/by snipers.

Most line soldiers respect their ability immensely, but most line soldiers did not like them and made very little effort to take them prisoner.

The thoughts were that other soldiers might shoot at you and kill you, but the sniper was hunting -- and the difference turned off quite a few folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Simo Häyhä is was a Finnish sniper that ranked 1st in the list of snipers.

---

Not to mention that he apparently used iron sights, as opposed to telescopic. To those not familiar with rifles, at the ranges I estimate him to have shot from, that would be extremely difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

The SS.

---

Ha yeah the SS obviously had high moral standards :no:

In Russia many women were snipers.
Some of them had records about 200 - 300.

The trouble with all this numbers lies in a simple question: What is a confirmed kill?

All the finnish, german and soviet snipers usually operated alone, so very often a likely kill could not be confirmed. On the other hand propaganda often inflated the actual numbers, the soviets being famous for that.

Given the enviroment the finnish snipers operated in, shooting with iron sights was probably often a good choice - they often killed from close distances.

A scope captures the light and enabled them to kill also in poor light conditions...

Iron sights also keep from reflections of sun allowing enemies to know where snipers are. Also, makes it easier to keep your head down with Iron sights instead of telescopic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Iron sights also keep from reflections of sun allowing enemies to know where snipers are. Also, makes it easier to keep your head down with Iron sights instead of telescopic.

---

The second is the main reason he used them. Though an iron sight can also reflect sunlight, depending on how polished it is and on the angles...much less obvious though, I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

True, but you are hiding behind the real fighting trying not to be seen so that you may kill others. Not the highest honor.

---

If that was true all 'normal' soldiers would still be wearing bright uniforms and fight standing up rather then camoflage and general keeping their heads down. Also it would be unhonourable to see a position, duck down and then call in artillary on that point.

To paraphrase a quote attributed to the real or at least fictional version of Patton "War is not about dying for your country, it is about making your enemy die for his."

Yeah, Patton and Einsenhower can burn in hell for all I care. I like Montgomery alright, but those two US ones I want to punch in the stomach.

Ah, Montgomery was meticulus, but slow as hell (symptomatic of many British leaders, meticulus, slow, thoughtful, cautious. Result of Trenchicus Warfaricus)

Patton managed to gasp the whole blitz thing...

Snipers are like expert archers. Some societies valued their skills, others thought it dishonorable.
I think, sometimes, there are confirmed kills when a spotter tallies a death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gealai

The trouble with all this numbers lies in a simple question: What is a confirmed kill?

---

The standard tactic for snipers, developed by the British and Germans in WW1, was to use 2 man teams. 1 shooting, 1 recording the shots (killed, wounded, missed). They all carried a kill book. Where these were recorded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grey_Fox

Konig was an invention of Soviet propaganda.

---

From what historians can tell yes Konig was made up. But the Wehrmarcht did send some of it better marksmen to try and kill him. And a version of the last act of the movie was sort of played out in real life. Where Vassily and his partner had to trick a German sniper into revealing himself. His partner put his helmet on his rifle and poked it up. The German shot at it and his partner screamed as if hit. The German stood up to check and Vassily plugge him.

I have read that last one as the partner jumping up and pointing "There he is" and promptly got one in the face...

Neither instance seems very likely.
The first because a good sniper would not fall for such a trick, he would know it. And if he knew Vasily was out there, possibly hunting him, then he would not do that.
The second seems even less likely as the spotter, even if he wasn't a trained spotter (as that story seems it indicate he was not), would damn well know that popping your head up is pretty stupid when you know a good sniper is out there.

While the Germans didn't really love sniping, they were among the few that actually had a sniperschool in the interwar years (and during the war of course). Both the US and UK didn't, and had to 'reinvent' sniping once more. Obviously losing both talent and techniques that could have been honed in the interwar years.

I have heard plenty mention of the Germans employing snipers in the Bocage. That would be a perfect landscape (along with cities) due to the hedges and plenty trees to sit in. Thus the hedges would give the sniper protection, and the targets a feeling of relative security. His position in the tree would however give him a nice view of the landscape (and a good opportunity to hit the enemy in the rear areas), looking down over the hedges. And the fair number of trees would offer him the protection of the targets not knowing where he is, while still not interfering with his vision.
The poor grunts ended up hating this so much that the Germans only needed to put up a rifle, a helmet and a smock to halt advances, while the other side tried to gun down the sniper (who could obviously not be shot down).

And German sniping in WWI is legendary.
So the Germans are interesting in this. Clearly not liking it one bit, but pragmatic and systematical as always about it.
Kind of like that determined kid that eats his vegetables, despite hating them, so he can get strong (belief).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

The standard tactic for snipers, developed by the British and Germans in WW1, was to use 2 man teams. 1 shooting, 1 recording the shots (killed, wounded, missed). They all carried a kill book. Where these were recorded.




From what historians can tell yes Konig was made up. But the Wehrmarcht did send some of it better marksmen to try and kill him. And a version of the last act of the movie was sort of played out in real life. Where Vassily and his partner had to trick a German sniper into revealing himself. His partner put his helmet on his rifle and poked it up. The German shot at it and his partner screamed as if hit. The German stood up to check and Vassily plugge him.

---

In the movie, there was no helmet. The other man just wanted to die so he put his head out there and was shot. It's a stupid movie in that part, because no sniper would take that bait. Oh well...

I'm slightly angered that there is no mention of Japanese-Marine snipers.
Dense jungles, sandy beaches, snipers sitting in the branches. Anything on Japanese snipers?

Its intresting subject how different countries/ coultures have different wiew on snipers / marksmen. I have to point out,that for example Simo Häyhä wasnt trained to be a sniper and there wasnt sniper schools in Finland. I think becouse the majority of Finns owned hunting weapons and markmanship was always appreciated there was no disrespect against snipers in here during WWII. These men were just the best shooters among their units. I think that sniping was associated on hunting in Finnish mindset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

I'm slightly angered that there is no mention of Japanese-Marine snipers.
Dense jungles, sandy beaches, snipers sitting in the branches. Anything on Japanese snipers?

---

Depends... The Arisaka was a lousy combatrifle, too long, too slow (in reloading) and too small calibre. But it was accurate and easy to use for sniping. Hence it was rather more a common practive among the regular infantry to sit in trees, palms and other places and try to snipe rather than fight regularly where they knew their weapon was inferior. That is part of the reason why Marines tended to 'kill' all trees on the small islands.

A real sniper would never tie (Literally as well a figuratively) himself to the position from where he would use his weapon, that would limit a valuable man to a single shot. However a regular infantryman of the IJA would do what he could to hurt the attackers without compromising his honour by retreating without orders. He would be expendable... One for one plus a lot of unneeded attention would very much be worth it for the infantryman, but not for the trained sniper.

The funny thing is, I haven't heard of real snipers for the IJA or IJN (the Special Landing Forces, there were no Imperial Japanese Marines).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I have read that last one as the partner jumping up and pointing "There he is" and promptly got one in the face...

Neither instance seems very likely.
The first because a good sniper would not fall for such a trick, he would know it. And if he knew Vasily was out there, possibly hunting him, then he would not do that.
The second seems even less likely as the spotter, even if he wasn't a trained spotter (as that story seems it indicate he was not), would damn well know that popping your head up is pretty stupid when you know a good sniper is out there.

While the Germans didn't really love sniping, they were among the few that actually had a sniperschool in the interwar years (and during the war of course). Both the US and UK didn't, and had to 'reinvent' sniping once more. Obviously losing both talent and techniques that could have been honed in the interwar years.

I have heard plenty mention of the Germans employing snipers in the Bocage. That would be a perfect landscape (along with cities) due to the hedges and plenty trees to sit in. Thus the hedges would give the sniper protection, and the targets a feeling of relative security. His position in the tree would however give him a nice view of the landscape (and a good opportunity to hit the enemy in the rear areas), looking down over the hedges. And the fair number of trees would offer him the protection of the targets not knowing where he is, while still not interfering with his vision.
The poor grunts ended up hating this so much that the Germans only needed to put up a rifle, a helmet and a smock to halt advances, while the other side tried to gun down the sniper (who could obviously not be shot down).

And German sniping in WWI is legendary.
So the Germans are interesting in this. Clearly not liking it one bit, but pragmatic and systematical as always about it.
Kind of like that determined kid that eats his vegetables, despite hating them, so he can get strong (belief).

---

Given History TV's track record. If they said it on air it was true, in so far as they could tell. They made a big deal out of putting on enemy at the gates when they first got the rights to it. Center piece of a "Fact and film" run. They also always go out of their way to say what happens in a film is made up totally or based on real events.

Well, when it comes to such propagandized persons with many different stories of similar events it is rather hard to determine the truth.
History TV might be good at their jobs, but one has to remember that they have a very limited timeframe to do the research in. There isn't that much money in what they do, and one single movie isn't going to generate enough to have a proper research done.

So, as you might guess, I'm not going to trust TV in general. However, I haven't seen any historian come running into the faculty yelling "Heureka, I now know the truth of Zaitzev!"... So I will let it hang in the air.

Speaking of snipers; here is a funny picture, an excessively camoflagued Turkish sniper taken prisoner in WWI.

https://img403.imageshack.us/img403/...ipermd2.th.png

Not WWII, but I just thought I'd share this...

Nice pic there Randarkmaan!:thumbsup: And here is the world´s deadliest sniper Simo Häyhä.Picture taken during Winter War.He is wearing the basic Winter camouflage of the Finish soldiers and in the picture is also his tool M28 basic Finnish military rifle that was based on Mosin Nagant:

https://img484.imageshack.us/img484/...mohayhafb4.jpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...iraq+IED&hl=en

Good video it's 68 minutes though so be patient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

the Special Landing Forces, there were no Imperial Japanese Marines.

---

Aren't you splinting hairs over name rather then function?

The SNLF were after the 1920s a dedicated Navy force for amphibious and parachute assaults...there morale and training and most importantly their role was parallel to that of western marines.

While the Japanese army had Sea Landing Brigades whose role was more like regular infantry trained up for amphibious assault like Normandy.

Actually not.
Since the notion Marine tends to infer in people a sense of a whole branch of the armed forces. You know the famed 4th branch. Then it would be faulty to consider the naval personell trained in infantrywarfare to me marines.
The SNLF were not enrolled as that. They started out as sailors, but were picked, volounteered ect, for the force. A very different way of making up the force.
Instead of drawing on the traditional infantry pool, they were drawn from the Navy.

Also, in general the officers were naval officers, not some type of 'special' officer trained for the special warfare. This is part of the reason for the rather dismal performance compared to the expected strength.
Generally their only tactic was not budging and the Banzai charge.

If I had been a Japanese commander I would rather have had troops from several other formations than the SNLF.
They were good for overwhelming defenders of islands, but inferior to most of the experienced Army formations when it came to defence and protracted combat. This was due to their rather selfdestructive way of fighting. Their losses rose so hard that after a few days their forces were spent completely.

Tarawa nearly failed because of the commander and the lack of armour on the landingcrafts. Too bad for the Japanese he was killed on the first day by a barrage of artillery.
And where Army formations had inititative, the SNLF became paralyzed. They didn't move or act, at best they reacted. Until the horrible mistake of the Banzai charge.

Initiative is very important in marines as they will often fight isolated and in small groups. That the SNLF lacked this almost completely marks them as something different from marines.

Nicely researched starter Alexanderofmacedon. I wish I had something to contribute other than praise for a good thread.

Has anyone else here seen the Wehrmacht Sniper Training film? It is quite elaborate and it is an hour long. It makes you realise just how much more there is to sniping than just shooting. And didn't the German snipers usually travel in pairs? Observer and Sniper?

As far as I know that is true for most snipers...

No I think the Germans were the only ones who didn't have an observer. Russians did for sure though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I have read that last one as the partner jumping up and pointing "There he is" and promptly got one in the face...

Neither instance seems very likely.
The first because a good sniper would not fall for such a trick, he would know it. And if he knew Vasily was out there, possibly hunting him, then he would not do that.
The second seems even less likely as the spotter, even if he wasn't a trained spotter (as that story seems it indicate he was not), would damn well know that popping your head up is pretty stupid when you know a good sniper is out there.

While the Germans didn't really love sniping, they were among the few that actually had a sniperschool in the interwar years (and during the war of course). Both the US and UK didn't, and had to 'reinvent' sniping once more. Obviously losing both talent and techniques that could have been honed in the interwar years.

I have heard plenty mention of the Germans employing snipers in the Bocage. That would be a perfect landscape (along with cities) due to the hedges and plenty trees to sit in. Thus the hedges would give the sniper protection, and the targets a feeling of relative security. His position in the tree would however give him a nice view of the landscape (and a good opportunity to hit the enemy in the rear areas), looking down over the hedges. And the fair number of trees would offer him the protection of the targets not knowing where he is, while still not interfering with his vision.
The poor grunts ended up hating this so much that the Germans only needed to put up a rifle, a helmet and a smock to halt advances, while the other side tried to gun down the sniper (who could obviously not be shot down).

And German sniping in WWI is legendary.
So the Germans are interesting in this. Clearly not liking it one bit, but pragmatic and systematical as always about it.
Kind of like that determined kid that eats his vegetables, despite hating them, so he can get strong (belief).

---

Kraxis this is the version of the story i read in an article too. Zaitsev Had a commisar as observer-bservers were very usefull cause its extremely tiring to focus looking through a scope all the time. So observers scanned the field and snipers got to work only when needed-
The film is not very far from the ''actual'' story. Offcourse there were no romances and idiotic things like that. Zaitsev had some info about were the german was generally. he set up his helmet as bait and waited. The german took the bait and shot the helmet. Comissar then was so enthousiastic when he discovered his position that he blew his cover. the german spread his brains and Zaitsev shot him from distance.

I find this version if this dual ever happened believable. Why? Because its so stupid as only in real life it can get. Propably the comissar was untrained for this job and while he sure wasnt THAT stupid he goofed in the most mortal way. Everybody from time to time does stupid things that makes him wonder ''how the hell did i manage to do this stupidity?''. I think this is one of those cases. If they really wanted to make a dramatic story they would have the german miss or just hit the helmet and Zaitsev killing him with a clear shot. What i think that it may be fiction although its not impossible as it is recorded again is the fact that the killing blow came through the german's scope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Actually not.
Since the notion Marine tends to infer in people a sense of a whole branch of the armed forces. You know the famed 4th branch. Then it would be faulty to consider the naval personell trained in infantrywarfare to me marines.
The SNLF were not enrolled as that. They started out as sailors, but were picked, volounteered ect, for the force. A very different way of making up the force.
Instead of drawing on the traditional infantry pool, they were drawn from the Navy.

Also, in general the officers were naval officers, not some type of 'special' officer trained for the special warfare. This is part of the reason for the rather dismal performance compared to the expected strength.
Generally their only tactic was not budging and the Banzai charge.

Initiative is very important in marines as they will often fight isolated and in small groups. That the SNLF lacked this almost completely marks them as something different from marines.

---

Marines are a component of the Navy not the Army in a lot of forces. Larger militaries have them as a more independent force, but they generally still do fit within a Navy department.

Also the lack of tactics wasn't just the SNLF, the Banzai charge while feeling for the flanks and enveloping was a general tactic employed by the Japanese military. Works very well against poor troops, it is a meat grinder against better trained and equiped ones. Still it served well all the way from China, Phillipines, Burma all the way to PNG.

Lack of initiative may be more of the culture in the armed forces absolute obediance dulls the self.

Also if initiative is the sole thing that makes a marine... all ANZACs would be classified as marines too.

I think the SNLF showed a change from ad hoc to a more permanent setup in the 20's. A few more decades and they would have formed the kernal to a more western marine setup.

Of course initiative isn't the sole defining factor for marines. That is just not very logical.
But initiative is highly important.

What the point is, is that teh Japanese preferred to use Army units in the initial landings if there was supposed to be a defended beach. SNLF were sealanding shock troops, which Marines aren't. Marines are in fact classified as light infantry (though that can be argued).

The SNLF was made for one reason alone. That the Navy would have their own totally loyal troops, so they wouldn't have to depend on the Army. The rivalry between the IJA and IJN is legendary.

And I know that Marines are technically attached to the Navy, but where the SNLF was different was that it didn't have its own recruitment. Suitable men were picked from sailors and led by line officers from the Navy. Marines get their own men and officers.
The fact is that the SNLF troops considered themselves as sailors, not soldiers.

If you want a parallell it would be the Corpsmen of the US Marines. They are also drawn from the Navy rather than a seperate recruitmentpool.
Another parallell would be the SS. The SS was an army within the army (and created due to rivalry), the SNLF was just an army within the Navy (also created due to rivalry).
Both were created (as combattroops, I know the SS started out as bodyguards) to give a strong loyal component for a specific organization. In case of the SS it was the party/Hitler, and in the case of the SNLF it was the Navy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Ah, Montgomery was meticulus, but slow as hell (symptomatic of many British leaders, meticulus, slow, thoughtful, cautious. Result of Trenchicus Warfaricus)

Patton managed to gasp the whole blitz thing...

---

By then the Brits had learned to be careful. They had to wage war all over the place, from Far East to the Med to (eventually) northern France, with rather limited manpower reserves. They also noticed the tide had turned. It's only natural they preferred to proceed with caution and make all the possible preparations to hopefully gain every edge over the other guy they could - they had a dire need to minimize their casualties as far as possible, as well as good reasons to believe they were already winning so there was no point in being too hasty and making stupid mistakes that way.

Sceptical as I generally am, I can actually believe those crazy head counts attributed to Finnish snipers in the Winter War. Red Army tactics, training and leadership were so obscenely defective particularly in the early phase they resulted in some rather mind-boggling casualty figures, and greatly helped the overstretched and hard-pressed Finns hold the line. Crack marksmen skilled in woodcraft no doubt had a field day there, although they weren't necessarily all that happy about it; an old relative by marriage of mine was a sniper in the war, and has never ever talked about it to anyone...

I guess watching people die through a scope can start getting at you.

The Germans had just about the single most sophisticated sniper institution in Wolr War One. While I can see why there could be some antipathies against the profession it would strike me as strange indeed if they made any move to abandon it in the Second - romantic notions of how modern war was waged having been quite thoroughly buried in the cratered no-man's land of the Great War, thankyouverymuch.

The British slowly grasped the blitzkrieg concept. In the Far East, they had to change their tactics. Overall, however, the British waited until they had overwhelming favorable odds before attacking.
Not that that is bad. But at Arnhem, closing the pocket on the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge. Overall, many British commanders were conservative.

Another is that the Finns targeted field-kitchens. There are reports from the Winter War, where Finns would attack field kitchens, starving Red Army soldiers. During the Winter War, the Russians attacked in thick columns of men, through forests and tundra. Effective against Western Europe, it was a death-trap in Finland (Suoasallasami)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

although they weren't necessarily all that happy about it; an old relative by marriage of mine was a sniper in the war, and has never ever talked about it to anyone...

I guess watching people die through a scope can start getting at you.

---

Are you really surprised?
I have heard interviews with such men, and two destinct groups pop up. The "so what" people and the "never again" people. The "never again" people can also be divided up into two broad groups.
The ones who are similar to the "so what", but feel bad about not feeling anything. Which I suppose is the worst.
And the ones who suppressed their inherent revulsion at each shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

The British slowly grasped the blitzkrieg concept. In the Far East, they had to change their tactics. Overall, however, the British waited until they had overwhelming favorable odds before attacking.
Not that that is bad. But at Arnhem, closing the pocket on the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge. Overall, many British commanders were conservative.

---

This is true of the Western Allies in general, not just the British. The Americans allowed the Germans to escape from the Falaise Gap for instance, even though they were surrounded on three sides and could easily have been cut off and totally destroyed with a bit more effort.

Perhaps they could, but the fact remains that the US forces that went round had been driving hard and had a very long supplyline (going all around the Germans to the Mulberries). They were not up to strength.
And teh Canadians learned a hard lesson in determined defense when they ran into the German flankprotection. Undoubtedly the other side would have fought as hard. The result could have been that the gap was not closed at all (if the US forces had expended their remaining strength while the German defenders were still up to the task of defending).

Now a lot must be risked in war, but I can understand if the Allied commanders thought it was better to wait until the US forces were a bit more ready. It was to them a case of 'all-or-nothing' or 'a good deal'. And given how Germany already looked to be finished, then it seems very attractive to go for the sure thing rather than risk the Germans getting away.

slow and tedious planning doesn't always make for the best end result. Monty did good in North Africa and to some extent Italy because he was facing wide pockets of German resistance and knew how to disassemble them piecemeal. However, Market Garden was a different story, this was the first time he had to focus on heavily concentrated forces, but he approached the theater like he Approached N. Africa and Italy. The Pegasus Bridge incident was just a disaster, as well as allowing his very well trained Polish AB units to become isolated and slaughtered, and thinking that XXX Corp. could reach Eindhoven and Arnhem unimpeded within a day or two from Antwerp was fool hardy at best. In Theory the plan should have worked, but he wasn't counting on the most important element in the whole scenario, and that was the German's will to fight.

Not that I don't think Monty was a fine general, and really saved the Allies from disaster in North Africa, but I think it would have been best to let Gen. Eisenhower and Bradley (both who were experienced in that kind of operation) do the major planning, but Pride got in his way, I mean who wants to listen to a 'Yank' ?

Okay I've derailed this thread. :focus:

Yes please, back to topic :2thumbsup:

Nah... Obviously not many have chosen to go back to eh snipers, so why not.

The trouble with Market Garden was that it lay in the British zone and Monty was the best there was there. There was no choice. The Americans didn't go planning offensives in the British zone, and the British didn't in the American zone. When Monty took over during the Ardennes, it was an unpresedented action (but very much called for).

So you can say the operation was doomed to fail. Personally I believe it was doomed to fail in any case because of the two resting SS Panzer divisions and the impossible landingconditions at Arnhem. Arnhem would simply not fall.
But all the other troubles just added to this and made it worse.