Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Market Garden: Alterations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by dgfred View Post
    Although overrated, he was quite a good motivational leader in that his men
    would jump through hoops for him don't ya think?
    No. One could say the same thing about Adolf Hitler (not that I think Patton can be equated to Hitler).
    Signing out.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
      No. One could say the same thing about Adolf Hitler (not that I think Patton can be equated to Hitler).

      Really. From what I have read it seemed his men loved him (and hated)
      and would go to extreme measures to please him. I don't think the same
      of the common soldier for Adolf... of course it is my opinion .
      SPORTS FREAK/ PANZERBLITZ COMMANDER/ CC2 COMMANDER

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
        Had Patton gone charging up Hell's Highway he probably would have reached Arnhem given his disregard for his flanks and willingness to ignore logistics. Once there whatever corps he had accompanying him would have been cut off and destroyed. That would have been a good thing, at least in terms of the mythology that now surrounds that overrated boor.
        But had Patton gotten to Arnhem with the 4th Armored, 35th Infantry, 80th Infantry, etc... division in time... I'm not so sure he would have been cut off. He would have had the objective secured, a strong force that could keep open his LOC, and Monty's 21st group could take its time catching up.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
          Had Patton gone charging up Hell's Highway he probably would have reached Arnhem given his disregard for his flanks and willingness to ignore logistics. Once there whatever corps he had accompanying him would have been cut off and destroyed. That would have been a good thing, at least in terms of the mythology that now surrounds that overrated boor.
          Indeed.

          It would have turned into a meat grinder. Maybe another commander, with a more cooperative and methodical mindset, but Patton would act like cavalry to the rescue, and more men would get torn up. He probably would've taken and held the last bridge, but with extreme costs incurred, more so than Market-Garden cost as it was...

          Hell's Highway needed the tireless sort of command you got from Joe Collins... If he had been in Monty's place...
          Last edited by Paul Mann III; 14 Nov 08, 12:07.
          "This life..., you know, "the life." Youíre not gonna get any medals, kid. This is not a hero business; you donít shoot people from a mile a way. You gotta stand right next to them... blow their heads off."

          BoRG

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
            Had Patton gone charging up Hell's Highway he probably would have reached Arnhem given his disregard for his flanks and willingness to ignore logistics. Once there whatever corps he had accompanying him would have been cut off and destroyed. That would have been a good thing, at least in terms of the mythology that now surrounds that overrated boor.
            Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I believe that the 3rd Army would have broken through to whomever it was that was dug in at Arnhem and not halted their spearheads a few miles short of the objective. The only major German units facing him were the half strength 9 and 10th SS Panzer Divisions and a number of kamphgruppes. There would have undoubtedly been some savage fighting, but the 3rd Army would have broken through in the same fashion that they relieved the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne, during the Battle of the Bulge. Patton only needed one road to advance-on at Bastogne too and with Germans on three of his flanks. To make matters worse, there was ice on the roads, three feet of snow on the ground and he had no aircover.

            I'd prefer to go along with what a British General who was actually on the scene had to say, rather than those of us who prefer to play the role of "Monday Morning Quarterback" (Hindsight always being 20-20.) Generals are almost always "boors", but you cannot argue with Patton's WWII track record. It speaks for itself. "Overated" is not a word that I would ever associate with Patton. The man was admittedly no saint, but he was certainly no worse than some of the other Allied Generals in the ETO.
            "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Naffenea View Post
              But had Patton gotten to Arnhem with the 4th Armored, 35th Infantry, 80th Infantry, etc... division in time... I'm not so sure he would have been cut off. He would have had the objective secured, a strong force that could keep open his LOC, and Monty's 21st group could take its time catching up.
              It wouldn't have been 21st AG would it.
              Signing out.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
                Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I believe that the 3rd Army would have broken through to whomever it was that was dug in at Arnhem and not halted their spearheads a few miles short of the objective. The only major German units facing him were the half strength 9 and 10th SS Panzer Divisions and a number of kamphgruppes. There would have undoubtedly been some savage fighting, but the 3rd Army would have broken through in the same fashion that they relieved the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne, during the Battle of the Bulge. Patton only needed one road to advance-on at Bastogne too and with Germans on three of his flanks. To make matters worse, there was ice on the roads, three feet of snow on the ground and he had no aircover.
                But he had enough supplies for the entire army and he faced 7th Army Volksgrenadiers and then assorted units from Manteuffel's Panzer Army who had already gone through the meatgrinder trying to batter their way into and around Bastogne. Bittrich's force may have been equally understrength but they were relatively fresh.

                I'd prefer to go along with what a British General who was actually on the scene had to say, rather than those of us who prefer to play the role of "Monday Morning Quarterback" (Hindsight always being 20-20.)
                So which British General are you going to quote then? Horrocks? Browning? Dempsey? One of the divisional commanders? Don't hold out on us if you have a pointed opinion you trust.
                Generals are almost always "boors", but you cannot argue with Patton's WWII track record.
                I certainly can.

                It speaks for itself. "Overated" is not a word that I would ever associate with Patton. The man was admittedly no saint, but he was certainly no worse than some of the other Allied Generals in the ETO.
                Maybe I'd put him alongside Clark and Hodges.
                Signing out.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Paul Mann III View Post

                  Hell's Highway needed the tireless sort of command you got from Joe Collins... If he had been in Monty's place...
                  Not Montgomery, he wasn't in command of the actual operation. Maybe in place of the sick Horrocks?
                  Signing out.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
                    . "Overated" is not a word that I would ever associate with Patton.
                    You should read what Ellis has to say about him. "World's best military traffic policemen" with most of the credit going to his staff officers.

                    I really don't see how a different general/different army would change the achilles heel of the Market Garden plan. The problem was a single road was the logistical lifeline for the entire operation. That single road was subject to interdiction.

                    Patton's staff's ability to coordinate military maneuvers might have gotten more relieving troops forward faster but they would still get their supply line cut. They would still arrive too late at Arnhem.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                      But he had enough supplies for the entire army and he faced 7th Army Volksgrenadiers and then assorted units from Manteuffel's Panzer Army who had already gone through the meatgrinder trying to batter their way into and around Bastogne. Bittrich's force may have been equally understrength but they were relatively fresh.
                      Thanks, but I'll stick with the words of General John Frost. He was actually in the thick of the fighting at Arnhem and rode with Patton after being repatriated. None of the other Generals that you mentioned did so.

                      Patton's 3rd Army's actions during the Battle of the Bulge were something that I would find hard to duplicate anywhere else during WWII. Patton disengaged his forces from active fighting on one front, swung his entire army around and attacked in a northerly direction all in an extremely short few day's time period. This was nothing short of a logistical and tactical miracle, unheard-of elsewhere in the ETO.

                      The Volksgrenadiers that the 3rd Army faced may have been the scrapings from the bottom of Germany's manpower barrel, but there was nothing wrong with Bittrich's Panzer Corps people. They were first rate Heer and SS troops.

                      Lastly, I've got nothing against Courtney Hodges, but Mark Clark was an unmittigated disaster of a General and should have been sent back stateside to train troops like Fredenhall was. I still wouldn't compare Patton with either of them. He was a much better, more effective, combat general.
                      "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                      Comment


                      • Patton was not going to get across the canal with the bridge missing at Zon any faster. Considering his lack of respect for logistics there would have been no bridge up front in the column (anymore than the British had one). Likewise, Patton would have faced the same problems that Horrocks did on reaching Nijmegen,.... no bridge. There would have been the same need for a series of set piece attacks on the defenders of the city to clear the approached to the bridge, then the crossing.

                        The problem with pushing up the road from Nijmegen was the nature of the terrain. The elvated highway leading to Elst would have skylined the US Shermans as well as the British and a US division would have had no more answer to the Tigers and AGs of KG Knaust than did Guards Armoured. AT least the British had the Firefly and Achilles,...a US AD did not even have these advantages.

                        This is such a useless debate that I am surprised it is even still argued.
                        The Purist

                        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                          Patton was not going to get across the canal with the bridge missing at Zon any faster. Considering his lack of respect for logistics there would have been no bridge up front in the column (anymore than the British had one). Likewise, Patton would have faced the same problems that Horrocks did on reaching Nijmegen,.... no bridge. There would have been the same need for a series of set piece attacks on the defenders of the city to clear the approached to the bridge, then the crossing.

                          The problem with pushing up the road from Nijmegen was the nature of the terrain. The elvated highway leading to Elst would have skylined the US Shermans as well as the British and a US division would have had no more answer to the Tigers and AGs of KG Knaust than did Guards Armoured. AT least the British had the Firefly and Achilles,...a US AD did not even have these advantages.

                          This is such a useless debate that I am surprised it is even still argued.
                          Except that Horrocks halted the Guards Armored Division at Nijmegen for 18 hours rather than continuing with the attack. That gave the Germans an 18 hour grace period to bring in considerable numbers of reinforcements and additional equipment to prop up their battered defenses.
                          "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
                            Thanks, but I'll stick with the words of General John Frost. He was actually in the thick of the fighting at Arnhem and rode with Patton after being repatriated. None of the other Generals that you mentioned did so.


                            You walked straight into that didn't you. Frost was a Colonel, he commanded a battalion (2nd Battalion, 1st Parachute Brigade). I'd rather take an actual General's opinion, namely Gavin (who had experience with various formations and commanders) who described Guards Armoured Division as 'The finest troops he had ever seen'.
                            Signing out.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
                              Except that Horrocks halted the Guards Armored Division at Nijmegen for 18 hours rather than continuing with the attack. That gave the Germans an 18 hour grace period to bring in considerable numbers of reinforcements and additional equipment to prop up their battered defenses.
                              They were halted because the armour was across but no infantry. Attacking at night with no knowledge of what was ahead of them would have been foolhardy ... except in hindsight of course but then you don't use hindsight do you .... or do you?
                              Signing out.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                                They were halted because the armour was across but no infantry. Attacking at night with no knowledge of what was ahead of them would have been foolhardy ... except in hindsight of course but then you don't use hindsight do you .... or do you?
                                Except that 82nd Airborne CO. Jim Gavin said that had Matt Ridgeway been running the operation, he would have gotten the tanks moving immediately. Perhaps maintaining crucial contact with a battered enemy would have routed them and thereby saved the Paras at Arnhem. Even British Historian Max Hastings questions Horrock's standing down the Guards for 18 hours, saying that it reflected poorly on the British Military.
                                "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X