Board Thread:Timeline Discussions/@comment-7559950-20130911012534/@comment-32656-20150326211245

...Quit quoting people when responding. You're cluttering up the page.

I have told you several times, GB, by now what "gaps" meant, among other things. You're not bloody reading what others are writing, and it is obvious.

Gaps - as in openings and/or weak spots between armies, units, or soldiers. You know, the ones left when they pulled the two armies west for the Battle of the Bulge? Sheesh.

As noted: the US was the only one with their divisions at even optimal strength by the end. By the end of the war, the US only had a single division of recruits/draftees left to send out. That's it. Anything past that would be green troops filling in spots, or from divisions disbanded to fill out the others. There is a reason why their planners only aimed for an army of a certain number of divisions. War lasted any longer, they'd have had to start doing it too.

Soviets never bothered reinforcing their divisions all that much until later on, preferring to make new ones instead. Many divisions, imo, were never at full strength either. That is why they had so many divisions that were disturbingly understrength - not manpower issues, but continually making new ones rather than reinforcing what they had.

Sources supporting you? None of those do, lol. First two just say that their divisions were understrength - common knowledge, and not reflective of manpower levels - and the third is misleading at best. As noted, they were never at full strength, and you kind of have to use draconian measures to get recruits in areas where you are hated.

Those "sources" confirm the opposite of your argument.

Wrong - the passes, imo, have plains leading to them. Allies did get into Austria from Italy, eventually (west got the resources, Italian front did not). Interesting how you ignore that there is two directions to go from Northern Italy, too. Next to the sea = naval support. Very helpful.

Anzio, as the others noted, was not a bloodbath at all. In fact, it was the result of moving too slowly, and needing another division. Whole thing as a surprise - was just not treated like it should have been by those in charge, and the Germans forted up.

"Hills" in southern France had nothing to do with it, as any research would have told you. The problem, imo, was one of landing craft. They had to land the troops in Overlord, and then transfer said craft (while making replacements) to the Med. Needless to say, that does not happen fast. Has they had the craft, both would have been done at the same time, or nearly so.

Not bizarre, lol. The hedgerows - not small, either - were a major problem, and a better defensive scheme than any hilly areas. "Hills" also do not mean defensible, not even close.

Newer things...

Without the Kursk salient - and your pullback to that river - the Soviets aren't going to attack there. Every reason to have done so otl, from a strategic perspective, is gone. They aren't going to attack there. Rather, the blows will fall at the north and south areas of the eastern front, and it will work well.

You vastly overstate the losses such a move would give them, and give the Germans too much credit - Soviets would have pushed them back, though, as noted, they would not have even tried at that point. That you actually buy that armistice and peace part is disturbing as well. Husky cannot be reinforced - question of location, if nothing else.

Yeah, armor on the Zeros would basically negate every single advantage they had.