# "Impassible" terrain and military history **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 13, 2006, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impassible-terrain-and-military-history/384038 "2006-12-13T23:43:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impassible-terrain-and-military-history/384038/41 "2006-12-19T03:12:07Z")
[QUOTE=Aquila Be] I think Alam Halfa was the first defeat of German army forces in WWII. [/QUOTE] [Narvik](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narvik#Narvik_in_World_War_II): > [@](#): > > Coordinated by General Carl Gustav Fleischer, Norwegian, French, Polish and British forces recaptured Narvik on May 28, 1940. This is also considered the first allied infantry victory in WW2. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impassible-terrain-and-military-history/384038/42 "2006-12-19T06:31:03Z")
[QUOTE=msmith537] How would paratrooper have won the Battle of Britain? Ze Germans would need to first maintain air superiority over the Channel other wise the RAF would cut down any airborne or water borne assault. Any paratroopers that did get through, while a nuisance, would be cut off without resupply and eventually captured or destroyed. [/QUOTE] Well, after the Dunkirk evacuation, the RAF was in pretty sorry shape compared to the Luftwaffe, with only a handful of planes, and most of them older ones. The Luftwaffe could have pushed the RAF out of the way, and the paratroopers could sieze centers of power in England. Ressuply then would be by air until they could secure a beachhead or a harbor. That said, it probably would have been a difficult and bloody battle (the Brits are renown for being downright stubborn and unpleasant folks if denied their tea 😃 ), and Hitler decided he’d rather negotiate to get an intact England on his side rather than fight a bloody battle to win a broken England. While he was doing that, the RAF was able to regroup and recover their losses and was able to fight back by the time the Germans decided they DID need to invade. ---
**Author:** ![Aquila\_Be](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a698b9/32.png) [@Aquila\_Be](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquila_Be)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impassible-terrain-and-military-history/384038/43 "2006-12-19T09:16:04Z")
[QUOTE=Askance] [Narvik](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narvik#Narvik_in_World_War_II): [/QUOTE] I’d forgotten all about that 🙂 . Possibly because the allied campaign in Norway quickly went totally pear shaped and allied forces had to be withdrawn in a hurry shortly after. This triggered Neville Chamberlain’s resignation as PM and resulted in the highly erratic Winston Churchill taking his PM. [bbc.co.uk](http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/norway_campaign_06.shtml) > [@](#): > > Even before the campaign was over, it was perceived to have gone so badly that there was a vote of no confidence in the British Parliament. The government suffered a reduced majority, and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain resigned. Going back to the topic itself, I think that a lot of the “ïmpassable terrain” talk has been conjured up from the imagination of historians, a class of person I have very little time for. That’s my opinion based on my readings, so I can’t provide a specific cite. I don’t doubt that there might have been one or two military leaders who made a poor judgement based on rumours and bad map reading, but no military leader who took the elementary precaution of conducting a basic reconnaisance would declare anything as impassable based on limited or untrustworthy data. In the final analysis, whether an objective is attainable or not depends on the resources available to the general at any given time. To state the obvious, a steep mountain range is not impassable to paratroopers. ---
**Author:** ![Aquila\_Be](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a698b9/32.png) [@Aquila\_Be](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquila_Be)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impassible-terrain-and-military-history/384038/44 "2006-12-19T10:16:21Z")
[QUOTE=griffin1977] They were allowed to retreat and hence the campaign continued. [/quote] The battle of Alamein lasted 12 days and ended on 3 November 1942. The remnants of Rommel’s army, retreated along the one existing road and were under attack by air, land and naval forces all the way to Tobruk over 300 miles west of Alamein. Tobruk was taken on 13 November and provided a port where supplies could be offloaded to replenish three weeks of very high use of supplies by the Eighth Army. Only American writers of history tales go out of their way to belittle this achievement and try to make out that the Eighth Army just sat on their hands and did not pursue Rommel’s forces. What their motives are I can only guess at, although every single one of them has declined the opportunity to extol Rommel’s brilliance in mobile warfare in this instance. > [@](#): > > The point I was making that those extra months (between El Alamein and the Rommel’s final defeat in Tunisia) were NOT a bad thing for the allies. Slight clarification. Rommel’s final defeat in Tunisia was the battle of Medenine on 6 March 1943, leaving him and his Afrika Korps 0-3 against Montgomery and the Eighth Army. Two days later he flew back to Germany to beg his Fuhrer to withdraw all forces from North Africa. This was rejected and he was not allowed to return so he missed out on the battle of Mareth on 20 March 1943. (Lucky man). Generals Von Arnhim and Messe surrendered in Tunisia on 12 May 1943. 250,000 men and equipment. “Tunisgrad” as the German High Command referred to it. ---
**Author:** ![muttrox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a8b319/32.png) [@muttrox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muttrox)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impassible-terrain-and-military-history/384038/45 "2006-12-19T13:22:47Z")
[QUOTE=Lumpy] Well obviously. The point of my OP was that either the defending general was overly confident/ hidebound, or else the attacking general was a logistics genius who rewrote the book. For an example of the latter, the Union army managed to march from Savannah to Charleston through some of the swampiest terrain any army has ever passed through. They did it army-ant style, by literally building their own roads and bridges as they went. [/QUOTE] It’s not “Well, obviously”, or you wouldn’t have asked it. You asked why generals keep making the same mistake, and the answer is that it usually isn’t a mistake. ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2006, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impassible-terrain-and-military-history/384038/46 "2006-12-19T13:56:58Z")
[QUOTE=ralph124c] ZOAN (Zone Air Operations du Nord) had planty of obsolete morane-Saulnier fighters, which would have made admirable ground attach aircraft. [/QUOTE] I think you have answered your own question. Throwing a bunch of obsolete fighters into a ground-attack blitz wouldn’t have achived much other than giving the Luftwaffe a lot more aces. The M.S.406’s seemed to have gotten totally spanked by their german counterparts in air-to-air, so trundling around a at hundred feet or less while there were Bf109s roaming around unrestricted at higher altitudes would be nearly suicidal. Take a look at [the RAF history](http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/diary_france.html) for an idea of what was going on. > [@](#): > > 11 May - In France, members of No 114 Squadron are kitting up prior to taking off on a dawn mission to attack enemy troops in the Ardennes when 9 German Dornier bombers attack their airfield at Vraux, virtually wiping out the entire squadron in one go. In the afternoon, 8 Battles of Nos 88 and 218 Squadrons are despatched to attack German troops in Luxembourg. None make it to the intended target area as German fighters account for 7 aircraft en-route and the eighth returns early. Following a desperate plea from the Belgians (who had lost 6 out of 9 Battles attacking bridges over Albert Canal near Maastricht), 23 Blenheims are ordered to attack the same targets. Four aircraft are lost and none of the bombs hit the intended target. A follow up attack by LeO 451 bombers of the French Air Force failed to destroy the bridges, but did start several fires in a motorised column. Planned reconnaissance by 6 Blenheims cancelled due to poor weather. 2 aircraft lost. > [@](#): > > 12 May -11 Blenheims lost out of a force of 42 ordered to attack Bridges near Maastricht, Hasselt and Tongres to stop advancing enemy troops. AASF aircraft continue to suffer alarming losses. Six Battles from No 12 Squadron are detailed to attack the vital bridges in the Maastricht area still standing after the previous day’s failed attempts to destroy them. One of the aircraft went unserviceable prior to take-off, leaving the remaining five to attack bridges at Veldwezelt and Vroenhoven. Ahead of the bombers were eight Hurricanes from No 1 Squadron. Suddenly, the fighter pilots saw the sky fill with German Bf109s - 120 in all. Despite the fearful odds, the Hurricanes fought as best they could, accounting for 3 Germans but losing six of their own. > [@](#): > > 14 May - The afternoon saw Air Vice-Marshal Playfair, the Commander of the AASF, gamble everything with all available aircraft being ordered into the air to bomb the Germans at Sedan. It was a massacre; No 12 Squadron lost 4 out of 5 aircraft; No 142 Squadron 4 out of 8; No 226 Squadron 3 out of 6; No 105 Squadron 6 out of 11; No 150 Squadron 4 out of 4; No 88 Squadron 1 out of 10; No 103 Squadron 3 out of 8 and No 218 Squadron 10 out of 11 aircraft. Total Battle losses were 35 out of 63 aircraft. Eight Blenheims were also involved (all flown by No 114 Squadron) and only three returned. A total of 102 crew members either lost their lives or were taken prisoner - a terrible price to pay as the pontoon bridges remained intact. In one last raid on the bridges, 6 Blenheims of No 2 Group were lost during an attack by 28 aircraft. Granted, the Battle was a lumbering old piece of junk, but when attack missions are running loss rates of anything up to 100% for very little effect, it’s hardly surprising that they held off throwing more meat into the grinder. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/impassible-terrain-and-military-history/384038.md?page=2)