Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Eisnehower's Broad Front

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by david_sproul (U14412595) on Wednesday, 7th April 2010

  Hello everyone, really long time reader, but first time poster. My query is about Eisenhower's broad front strategy for advancing through Europe in 1944-45. After years of being schooled by the Germans and Russians that mobile warfare and battles of encirclement were winning moves he seems to have opted for the bloodiest and least inefficient method of pushing the lines forward. I am aware of the political battles surrounding supplies and who got the 'prestige' to carry out an offensive. Were the only considerations political ones? Or did Eisenhower truly believe in a broad front as the best way of prosecuting the war?

  Link to this forum: Eisnehower's Broad Front

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 7th April 2010

  David,
  
  Welcome to the boards.
  
  This one has been discussed before, so you will probably get some well worked out answers. I am no military specialist, but here is my opinion.
  
  The broad front allows the larger of the beligerents to use their weight of numbers. The Germans were stretched by operating on several fronts, most notably against the USSR. The allies had superiority of numbers. A narrow front would have allowed the Germans to concentrate their forces.
  
  On a man to man basis the Germans were better than their enemies, so allowing them to concentrate their forces would be an adavantage to them.
  
  A war of maneuvre would also play to the German's natural strenght in the use of tanks.
  
  Allied logistics operations were superior to the German ones. Allowing the enemy to use a tactic which risked outflanking by the Germans, and cutting off front line troops from supply, would, in my opinion, be a mistake.
  
  The broad front is only bloodier than the narrow front if you assume that the narrow front keeps moving. There was no such guarantee.
  
  How narrow is narrow, in this context, and how do you stop the Germans attacking in to the flanks, potentially cutting the allies in two, creating all sorts of problems. This was the tactic they attempted in the Battle Of The Bulge. If a better opportunity to do this early had presented itself, it may have been more effective.

  Link to this forum: Eisnehower's Broad Front

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 7th April 2010

  There was some clamoring for a "narrow front" thrust from each of Ike's army group commanders.
  
  There was some maneuver warfare during the Normandy breakout and the Bulge, both featuring Patton. But after these phases subsided Ike insisted on resuming his broad front strategy.

  Link to this forum: Eisnehower's Broad Front

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 7th April 2010

  Montgomery's argument for a strike through the Ruhr directly to Berlin was undermined by the failure of Operation Market Garden in September 1944 and the failure to seize the Rhine bridges and his failure to clear the port of Antwerp until the end of 1944 which was essential to massively shortening the supply route of the Allied armies.

  Link to this forum: Eisnehower's Broad Front

  Report message4

Back to top