# Pursuit to the German Border. September 1944.



## davebender (Sep 14, 2012)

Aachen is only about 35 km from the Ruhr.
Aachen is located on a main rail line for easy supply.
Dive bombers and even long range artillery located in the vicinity of Aachen could systemically reduce the most important German industrial region to rubble.

Why wasn't the capture of Aachen and the surrounding region given top priority during September 1944 rather then piddling around in the Netherlands?


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 14, 2012)

Because Ike wanted a broad front strategy. It kept the Germans busy everywhere, but at the cost of the allies never having the required strength to punch through any given point in the German lines.

There was also severe logistical issues that needed to be addressed. The allies had out run their logistics tail. Ikes minimizing the importance of grabbing Antwerp ASAP was an omission that came back to haunt him.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 14, 2012)

Aachen is not enough near for artillery (70km from Dusseldorf 125 km from Dortmund) (the allied longest range gun the 8 inch M1 around 32 km were deployed only in 36 examplares in 5 us btl and 3 british btries).
Fighter bomber non need a so near base


----------



## davebender (Sep 14, 2012)

Krupp K5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Range = 64 km.
15 rounds per hour. 255 kg shell.
This weapon was not particularly high tech. Essentially just a 12" battleship gun mounted on a high angle railroad gun carriage. I think the U.S. Army could build something similiar if we wanted to. It's ideal for shelling the SW Ruhr region from the rail line which runs from Paris to Aachen. That same main rail line means an offensive to seize Aachen and beyond should have no logistical problems.

Rouen is the main seaport for Paris. Le Havre guards the Seine River mouth. Kicking the Germans out of Le Havre should be part of the offensive plan.


----------



## davebender (Sep 14, 2012)

This map shows the rail line running from Paris to Aachen and then onward into the Ruhr. By 1890 it was the main rail line in that region and still is today. 

WWI era forts at Liege, Namur, Lille and Maubeuge were built to guard this obvious invasion route. Germany had to seize the forts during August to September 1914 when projecting 1st and 2nd Army across Belgium into Northern France.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 14, 2012)

davebender said:


> This weapon was not particularly high tech. Essentially just a 12" battleship gun mounted on a high angle railroad gun carriage. I think the U.S. Army could build something similiar if we wanted to. It's ideal for shelling the SW Ruhr region from the rail line which runs from Paris to Aachen. That same main rail line means an offensive to seize Aachen and beyond should have no logistical problems.



The US and British both had similar guns left over from WW I. And a few built of bits and pieces later. The Problem, as has been said is logistics. AFTER you come up with this brilliant plan, you have to get the guns and carriages on ships, get them to France, get them unloaded, British 18in guns used to shoot across the English channel 

BL 18 inch railway howitzer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

weighed 85.7 tons so you need a rather large dockyard crane to unload these things even in pieces. You have to reassemble the thing and then move it forward. These are specialized gun mountings and not a bunch of boiler plate knocked together at a local railroad yard out of old bits and pieces. You might get *A* gun in place several weeks after you get your bright idea. If you are lucky and if the logistics demands don't decide that something else might be more useful to the war effort than 200-300tons of railroad gun, not including ammo. 

AS for that railroad from Paris to Aachen through Belgium, I suppose for this scenario that the American and British air forces just managed to miss it with all the thousands of tons of bombs they dropped on the French and German rail system? and you logistic supply is assured along this pristine railway by the dozens of locomotives not needed elsewhere on the system out of all the ones left after 2 years of american and British planes shooting at every locomotive they could find? Likewise there are a few hundred rail wagons not being used for anything else either? 

See Red Ball Express - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## davebender (Sep 14, 2012)

*Port of Rouen.*
History of the port of Rouen, valley of the Seine, France


> During the First World War, traffic increased considerably. This was sustained especially by the development of coal imports from Britain, going from 5 Mt in 1913 to 9 Mt in 1916. The Port of Rouen then leapt forward to become the biggest French port, which rank it occupied until the 1930s



If Ike is short sighted enough to destroy the Port of Rouen with aerial bombardment then I agree. If he has enough sense to lunge for Aachen then perhaps he also has enough sense to leave the largest French seaport intact for Allied use.

The Port of Rouen plus the twin track rail line from Paris to Aachen would solve most Anglo-American logistical problems in Northern France and Belgium. The Netherlands could and probably should be bypassed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 14, 2012)

Huuummm, let me see if I have this right, if Ike was smart he would leave a twin track railroad line from the heart of German industry to Paris and beyond so he could use it a number of weeks after the invasion?

Of course the Germans would be kind enough _NOT TO USE IT_ in the meantime to bring reinforcements and supplies to their troops, right?


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 14, 2012)

Railway guns so other all the logistic trouble show from SR6 they need also build up a new railwaygun (The US 14 inch gun has around 40 km of range)


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Huuummm, let me see if I have this right, if Ike was smart he would leave a twin track railroad line from the heart of German industry to Paris and beyond so he could use it a number of weeks after the invasion?
> 
> Of course the Germans would be kind enough _NOT TO USE IT_ in the meantime to bring reinforcements and supplies to their troops, right?



Exactly,you beat me to it 
That's why even Bomber Command was diverted (kicking and screaming) to destroy French infrastructure before the invasion. It then went back to flattening the Ruhr. What would a piddling artillery bombardment from a few railway guns achieve that 1000s of bombers could not? What would a few hundred fighter bombers,flying into the densest anti aircraft defences in Germany,achieve that all those heavy bombers could not?

Steve


----------



## vinnye (Sep 15, 2012)

There was also the fact that the Netherlands was an ally and their population was starving. So the broad front advancing towards Germany was relieving allies and defeating Germany at the same time. There was an attempt at a narrow front break through - but that did not go as well as hoped for many reasons.
The Russians were far less concerned about casualties - so could throw divisions at well defended areas and still make progress. On the Western Front - that would not have been acceptable.


----------



## davebender (Sep 15, 2012)

Then destroying Ruhr industries makes even more sense. No need to phyically over run Europe if Germany loses her munitions industry.


----------



## vinnye (Sep 15, 2012)

Casualties were not the only issue.
There were also very large egos at stake - Monty and Patton to name the more obvious ones.
The Ruhr was a target for both daylight and nightime bombing - so I dont think even large calibre railway guns would have made much difference. Remeber that Germany had become quite adept at dispesing manufacturing and also hiding factories deep underground.


----------



## davebender (Sep 15, 2012)

Unfortunately (for the Allies) only a tiny minority of bombs hit factory complexes. Most cratered the countryside and inflicted misery on civilians but contributed little to the defeat of Germany.

Which brings up an ugly political issue. The U.S. and Britain would need to admit their heavy bomber campaigns are a failure. Otherwise there is no need to bring the Ruhr within artillery range.


----------



## stona (Sep 15, 2012)

davebender said:


> Unfortunately (for the Allies) only a tiny minority of bombs hit factory complexes. Most cratered the countryside and inflicted misery on civilians but contributed little to the defeat of Germany.
> 
> Which brings up an ugly political issue. The U.S. and Britain would need to admit their heavy bomber campaigns are a failure. Otherwise there is no need to bring the Ruhr within artillery range.



How many of your artillery shells are going to do anything different to the bombs? How accurate were these pieces at such extreme ranges? 
The bombing destroyed plenty of industrial infrastucture,as has been said,the Germans became very adept at dispersing and protecting their facilities. A quick read of the SBS would show that the bombing campaigns,whilst not the unmitigated success that the airmen had hoped for in the early years,were not a failiure.There was no need to bring the Ruhr within artillery range which is one of several reasons why it wasn't done.
Bombers have the logistical advantage of being supplied from Britain without the need to deliver their fuel and ordnance via the shattered infra structure of liberated Europe. They take care of that themselves.
The well documented and oft quoted woes of the Luftwaffe were brought about not just by the loss of territory but well targeted strategic bombing.
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 15, 2012)

For artillery to be accurate it needs forward observers. Not too common on the ground in the Ruhr at that time I believe. Next alternative is air observation or spotting. Germans are going let a few observation planes cruise around at 100-200mph and a few thousand feet for hours if not days while this bombardment goes on? 
A British 13.5in 1400lb HE shell had a 176.5lb bursting charge. A 500lb GP bomb had about a 250lb busting charge. 500lb bombs were too small to really wreck factories. 
What size guns does Mr Bender propose be used for this escapade? 

BTW the bursting charge of the German Naval 28cm guns was under 50lbs for an HE shell.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 18, 2012)

There was a train of railway artillery kept in reserve if needed. However if the Allies struggled to get a 10 ton railway wagon moved across the French railway network even in Jan 45 how do you think they are going to shift an overweight, out of gauge and very long railway gun. 

The Railway guns were only to be used if the front line became a WW One style affair as the specially reinforced track took a while to build. You could fire from a normal railway line but a branch line trackbed wouldnt stand up to many firings before collapsing and obviously you wouldnt want to block the main line with a railway gun. 

The only time I could see a railway gun being anything other than a huge useless pain in the behind would be if the Allies decided to besiege one of the coastal towns that were bypassed during the push to the Belgian border. Even then moor a 15" monitor off shore and bang away at least a 12 knot monitor could move quicker than a 12 miles a day if your lucky railway gun.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 18, 2012)

The Allies needed a port. Everything I've read about this time states that the Allies had overstretched their supply lines. I believe that was the first priority at the time - supply.


----------



## davebender (Sep 18, 2012)

I agree and Rouen is that port. Largest in France. Adjacent to the Paris rail hub. Much nearer the German border then seaports further south.

But you cannot bomb Rouen to dust and then expect to use the seaport. Rail lines extending from Rouen towards Germany should be cut closer to the German border.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 18, 2012)

Rouen was far too close to Normandy, going easy on it with the bombing would have been a good indication to the Gemans we intended to land at Normandy.
It didn't really matter how much we bombed any of the ports anyway, did the Germans move out of any without doing their utmost to destroy them first?


----------



## davebender (Sep 18, 2012)

> It didn't really matter how much we bombed any of the ports anyway, did the Germans move out of any without doing their utmost to destroy them first?


I don't buy that excuse.

Withdrawing German military units typically blocked the port itself but they did not destroy the surrounding city. If the city remains intact it's a lot easier to repair the port.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 18, 2012)

Rouen was also a major rail terminus very close to Normandy, it certainly wouldn't be smart to leave that operational during the invasion.

Will you buy that excuse? That's the whole problem with leaving any ports or major rail lines intact, already pointed out by a previous poster, they can be used both ways.
And they will be used first by the Germans to counter the invasion.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 18, 2012)

"Cutting" rail lines doesn't work very well. Even a 1000lb bomb hitting directly on a rail line can be repaired ( probably not to 100%) in just a few days. Fill in the hole, tamp, put down the gravel road bed, replace ties and rails. Rip up ties and rails from a little used siding if you have too. It takes labor but but requires little in raw materials or tooling. This is why they went after marshaling yards. The chances of hitting _something_ were much better. A whole bunch of parallel tracks and the switches (points) required more labor to make and install than straight track. 
The Allies had over two years of bombing railroads and assessing damage (including spies on the ground) to figure out what they needed to do. 
If you become predictable in the locations you bomb it becomes that much easier for the enemy to set up Flak traps.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 18, 2012)

And at Rouen there would no doubt be a major marshalling yard.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 18, 2012)

Njaco said:


> The Allies needed a port. Everything I've read about this time states that the Allies had overstretched their supply lines. I believe that was the first priority at the time - supply.



Which why Antwerp and the estuary was so important.

Shortround6 ; The allies found that bombing marshaling yards in order to damage them was largely ineffective. The Germans could get the primary lines back in operation in a matter of hours. However, the allies did note that marshaling yards are usually full of rail cars and engines. Of which wrecking them is often a better deal. What good is a railroad if you have no rolling stock.


----------



## davebender (Sep 19, 2012)

I agree. You need to destroy bridges the rail lines pass over.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 19, 2012)

Any one railway is only going to have so many people availible to repair cut rail lines. Cutting several rail lines in multiple areas can overtax the manpower on hand. And that was all that was required just before and right after D-Day. They didn't want to complelty destroy the rail lines, just temporaily disable them.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 19, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Any one railway is only going to have so many people availible to repair cut rail lines. Cutting several rail lines in multiple areas can overtax the manpower on hand. And that was all that was required just before and right after D-Day. They didn't want to complelty destroy the rail lines, just temporaily disable them.



The germans never had a problem in finding enough people to repair the railroads. Forced conscription at the point of a gun solved that issue.

As for allied intention for destroying the lines in France and the Netherlands? The allies wanted them wrecked to the point they were useless, many times over. It was imperative that the Germans could not use them in any capacity to move reinforcements to Normandy.


----------



## tyrodtom (Sep 19, 2012)

Then the only way I can think of to disable a rail system long term is to take out major bridges, or tunnels. Neither is easy to do, because it takes fair amout of precision with big bombs. How many bridges and tunnels did the allies destroy in France?
True the Germans had a pretty large potential labor pool, but every civilian dragooned into repairing railways, is one less to dig anti-tank ditches and build fortifications.


----------



## stona (Sep 19, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> True the Germans had a pretty large potential labor pool, but every civilian dragooned into repairing railways, is one less to dig anti-tank ditches and build fortifications.



A shortage of labour was a real problem by 1944. So much so that the concentration camp administration sought to induce camp commandants to take measures to prolong the lives of their forced labourers, who in 1944 were becoming a more precious commodity. It only worked to a statistically minor extent.

Steve


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Sep 22, 2012)

I'm with syscom and Njaco on this one. By September, the Allies were running low on supplies. There was just enough supplies left for one more major push 
at this time. If were thinking of Market-Garden, it did offer a way into the Ruhr Valley in a quick manner-provided that everything went according to plan. We all 
know how that ended. Again, the biggest thing that armies like this need are supplies. BT has a quote that I respect, about how great generals think of logistics 
instead of tactics. Unless supplies could have been delivered quickly enough to the front in great quantity, the Allies are going nowhere. Even if they took Aachen,
then what? Would have even have enough gas, ammo, etc. to exploit that? Probably not. In regards to Ike's Broad Front strategy, I think the rationale behind was 
that one major push could end up being surrounded by the Germans. With the Broad Front idea, the German's would have to defend several points of attack at 
once, using up their manpower and resources. Anyway, I'm starting to ramble.


----------

