Favourite campaign/battle in the 'West' WW2

[drgondog]

In the absence of the Hurtgen Forest campaign, I chose Battle of the Bulge. Yeah, alot of green troops broke and ran, which history tends to focus on. But there were a TON of other, smaller heroic "last stands" similar to the 101st in Bastogne. If the 10th Infantry hadn't delayed the Germans on the road to Bastogne, the 101st would've arrived to an occupied city. If the 82nd hadn't made its stand on the Elsenborne Ridge, pounding away at the passing columns, there might've been enough fodder to overrun Bastogne, and push all the way to Antwerp. Countless stories of sheer heroism in the face of overwhelming odds by the Allies....and the ability of the Axis to scrape that many forces together, and assemble them, without the Allies knowing what they were up to, ya just gotta respect that, too!

The Bulge is truly an orchestra of squad to company strength heroics in a very fluid battle... before the Divisions were fully engaged

The 82nd 504PIR battle at Stavelot is a much overlooked, and crucial contribution - but the Puking Buzzards deserved the all aclaim they received, along with the 10th Armored tank destroyer teams, for Bastogne.

The 28th ID at St Vith was as important as Bastogne. Without their stand there would have not been a 'Bastogne'.

and the Engineers - what a job they did

 

[parsifal]

guys the ardennes battle was a courageous fight, make no mistake, and an important one, and there is nothing wrong with making it your favourite battle to study in WWII. However, some sembalance of reality is needed IMO, given that Rundstedt called it "the battle without hope", which it was from the german POV. He also said that the germans should get down on their knees and thank God, if they ade it to the Meuse, let alone make the hook to Antwerp.

So too was Monty's gamble at Arnhem....courageous battles against the odds, but the issue was never in doubt (this time the other way around, however)

 

[Amsel]

The hopelessness of it is an interesting aspect to the battle. It was one of the last great blunders of the third reich as far as saving themselves from the fire and sword that was to come. It was a waste of valuable assets that were much needed at the Oder. It is also an interesting look into the endurance and morale of men in constant combat for months on end. The armor battles are especially interesting in seeing the superiority of German armor and at the same time see it fall aprt due to supply and quality comtrol issues.

 

[drgondog]

guys the ardennes battle was a courageous fight, make no mistake, and an important one, and there is nothing wrong with making it your favourite battle to study in WWII. However, some sembalance of reality is needed IMO, given that Rundstedt called it "the battle without hope", which it was from the german POV. He also said that the germans should get down on their knees and thank God, if they ade it to the Meuse, let alone make the hook to Antwerp.

So too was Monty's gamble at Arnhem....courageous battles against the odds, but the issue was never in doubt (this time the other way around, however)

Parsifal - I agree the distinctions.

I have always felt it was an extremely interesting battle to study for many reasons but do not place it in top three (or whatever), other than a demonstrated US capacity for tenacious and flexible defense.

I might have to disagree on Market Garden that the gamble had a foregone conclusion. If armor had had been led by Patton and armor had quickly exploited the 101st and 82nd bridgeheads? We'll never know but interesting to speculate if the outcame could have been different.

My biggest issue with Monty is the piecemeal destruction of so many 101 and 82 troopers in Holland after Arnhem went under, as conventional infantry for two months. Wasted - and would have represented even more formidable resistence at the Bulge

 

[parsifal]

ther is a boardgame called "Market Garden" (I think). It was put out by SPI about twenty years agao, using the award winning "Wacht Am Rhein" combat system. Though called a wargame, it was really in the serious military simulation genre. It was viewed as accurate enough to be used for many years as a training tool at Sandhurst.

I was lucky enough to be given a spot in a simulation at our military college here one year at Duntroon, playing the roll of Horrocks Corps. IIt was an exceptionally difficult task getting that armour to the last bridge in time. There was just one road, the surrounding countryside was waterlogged, ther were German ambushes at every turn, and getting the armour through the intervening villages a nightmare.

It was a very intersting and informative "game". In real life peraps a more aggressive commander might have done better, but my experience with the thing suggests otherwise....

but a very intersting battle nevertheless....

 

[steelDUST]

I think the italian and sicilian campaigns are worth studying.
And the ardennes offensive is also to be noted with joachim pieper at the tip of the thrust.

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

I think the italian and sicilian campaigns are worth studying.
And the ardennes offensive is also to be noted with joachim pieper at the tip of the thrust.

Oh yeah, Battlegroup Peiper. Did they have to abandon most of their vehicles at the end?

 

[luiz camacho]

guys !

you have to see on you tube "malta battles " !

 

[B-17engineer]

For me, It HAS to be the Bulge, the Germans almost broke through allied lines but a few group of men help them off in Bastonge and what not, it just seems amazing that such a feat could be pulled off by very few men....

 

[B-17engineer]

Oh yes also, I wonder if Hitler had let commanders plan more than he himself if the Bulge could've actually worked....

 

[Aaron Brooks Wolters]

Can I vote for them all

 

[Marcel]

For me (no surprise here) it should be the battle of Holland 1940 (not there). I live in this country and I can see the traces of it everywhere. Further more it is lesser known that for instance Market Garden. It's a source of many myths here while facts are still unclear very often.

 

[Mercatorman]

I see I have posted the only vote for the Battle of the Atlantic so far, so I will briefly explain why

IMHO, without this battle, none of the others would have been possible. Even before the large-scale advent of Lend-Lease and eventual staging of US forces through the UK, the Atlantic trade was vital to keep money and materials flowing into the UK. The Admiralty learned a hard lesson in 1917, when Britain was literally weeks away from starvation due to U-boats, and tragically this lesson was forgotten over the next 25 years. Churchill admitted that nothing scared him more than the U-boat threat.

Over the next 3 years, the Allies re-learned all that had been forgotten and then some. Huge resources poured into the theatre resulted in huge advances in radar, sonar, weaponry and ship design - the Atlantic bred the Flower class corvettes, escort carriers, Type XXI U-boats and Liberty, Victory and Standard class transports to name a few.

And most importantly, it demanded huge sacrifice on the part of the civilian, non-combatant crews of the merchantmen, who never volunteered to fight on this particular front line, and were sometimes unwilling warriors. These men never wore a uniform, and did not receive much of the glory or reward of the servicemen who performed equally heroic service beside them. I believe their sacrifice to be one too often overlooked

A good general thinks about tactics. A great general thinks about logistics.

 

[Marcogrifo]

Speaking about WW2 airwar over all, I think the battle for Malta (like the more famous and iper-celebrated Battle of Britain) was one of the most intense and tragic event in the struggle for supremacy in the MTO.
No ground troops nor artillery or tanks faced-off: only air and sea battles.
And some british veteran pilot said it was way worse than BOB.

Cheers

 

[Thorlifter]

I agree with Lucky. No clear choice for me. But choosing just one, I'd go with D-Day.