Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SunkenCiv

The losses in Italy would be a more logical reason why Normandy was invaded; the Germans could have traded 10:1 losses will the allies all the way until the end (as it was, northern Italy was still held by the Axis at war’s end). Normandy by comparison was a much softer target; it was impossible to defend the vast stretches of the French coast in any numbers. Normandy is a much larger battle in folklore than the numbers involved would indicate.


36 posted on 08/10/2014 2:40:00 PM PDT by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic warfare against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: kearnyirish2

The US wanted a cross channel invasion and said so continuously. The UK fought the idea halfway up the Italian peninsula. The Normandy battle was supposed to not be a big battle, it was supposed to be as easy as possible — establish the beachhead and keep pushing out in all directions. LSTs landed troops and tanks with or without the artificial harbors, and Operation Double Cross kept most German reinforcements from being sent until it was too late. There was no cakewalk in France, but as it turned out the narrow gauge of the Sherman (which was built on auto assembly lines) was ideally suited for those lanes between the hedgerows and the narrow streets of many a French village. Much better than fighting in Italy, and it served an actual purpose.


46 posted on 08/11/2014 11:32:38 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson