Do you remember the "heavily defended" flak position in the second episode? The German defence was almost nonexistent and resistance was tame as well. A bit more Paul Carell would have done great here, don't you think?
It wasn't a 'heavily defended flak' Flak position...it was an artillery position. Name me an army where gunners, taken by surprise, would be able to withstand an assault by well trained (I hate using such trite terms as elite and crack) infantrymen. There isn't one.
Do you remember the German paratropers in episode three? The fighting for Carentan was a laugh if you watch the series. I know quite a few FJR6 men who were there and they actually laughed at the episode, although it was bad enough to make one puke.
So much for the historical accuracy, I would say.
If I'm not wrong your FJR6 people lost Carentan did they not? Surely if they were 'crack' they would not have done so?
One thing is undisputed if you are objective: the quality of the average German infantryman was much better than the quality of the average American infantryman. The Germans had a healthy respect for the British, ANZACs and Canadians, but not for the Americans. Sorry to say that, but tactically the Germans were almost always superior. What gave the Allies the decisive edge was the massive support by armour, artillery and aircraft which the German industry simply could not match. They, too, had another advantage by being able to vastly outnumber the Germans.
How the can you say the Germans were always tactically superior? There was such a wide range of quality of German units to say this is naive to say the least. Of course German victories earlier in the war had nothing to do with attacking unprepared countries with massive support by armour and aircraft. The Allies can't be held responsible for the inability of the Germans to get their act together. Slagging off American troops doesn't bother me...I'm British. In fact after serving along side American troops I tend to agree with you - All The Gear, No ****ing Idea. Getting back to WW2 the difference in quality between the armies (I'm talking infantry here) is far closer than you believe...depends what unit, what force multipliers in effect, tactical situation etc, etc
Every German soldier who fought the Americans will tell you that the Americans would recon and when meeting resistance would withdraw and call upon artillery and airstrikes. Even small pockets of resistance were bombed out that way.
The Germans didn't do this...because they didn't have the capablities to do so. Firepower wins wars and fire fights - not some romantic nonsense about military skill, honour, tactical ability. You can have all the tactical ability in the world but it's of no use when your enemy blows half your superbly well trained force away in the first engagement. You tactical ability may well win you the day...what you going to do the day after and the day after that. Firepower...that's the key to winning modern war. Like it or not.
I do not agree that defending is much easier than attacking. As King Frederick the Great of Prussia already knew: he who defends everything, defends nothing at all. Defence requires a great effort of coordination, logistics and manpower, even more than the attack. Great tacticians always preferred to attack, because they felt it is the easier thing to do, just check your history book.
Now we're being silly...I was of of course talking tactically and you are quoting strategic theories. To say that defending is more difficuklt than attacking is an absolute joke. As long as morale is high even half trained conscripts can put up a decent fight from static positions. Put those same troops into an attack and watch it fall to pieces shortly after it starts. Assaults are far, far harder to control and co-ordinate even with well trained troops. Given that 95% of modern assaults are conducted at night this is more true to day than ever. Anyone who says otherwise has obviously never experienced it.
Having read enough crap from the Allied point of view in books, I'm fed up with it already and don't need more of it, thank you.
I agree with books like Band of Brothers...read the book I mentioned, "Battalion".
