On Sat, 06 May 2006 09:09:05 -0400, Vince wrote:
Follow-up to set to sci.military.naval

Paul J. Adam wrote:

once we had landed in Normandy (an incredible feat to be sure) we had
overwhelming strength at any point.

Okay, so the Western Allies launch an opposed amphibious assault into
prepared positions, then attack through excellent defensive terrain
against a determined defense, deal with several massed panzer attacks
without giving ground, and eventually break out of the lodgment and
liberate most of France. Mostly with divisions that had never been in
combat before, against a number of experienced German divisions (and some
understrength, weaker divisions, to be sure). All of this in just about
three months, and at just about equal cost (ignoring the 200,000 or so
German POW's, just looking at killed/missing/wounded the numbers are
roughly even).

This somehow supports the argument that the Germans fought better?

And when the Germans were faced with
assaulting an extensively-prepared defence - such as First Alamein or
even more dramatically Kursk, they failed too.

Not just extensively-prepared defenses. Even a cursory examination of the
experiences of Sixth SS Panzer Army at the Bulge would suggest that, at
least in that case, the Germans were unable to perform even with massive
material superiority. I mean, when a Panzer army is attacking just a bit
more than one tired infantry division and is held up for the better part
of two days, you can't say that the Army outfought the division.

Chris Manteuffel
--
"...the war situation has developed not necessarily
to Japan's advantage..." -Emperor Hirohito, August 14, 1945
Email spamtrapped. Try chris@(my last name).name