Operation Market Garden 1944 - a different outcome?

I think Eisenhower never knew very good what he wanted himself. Or a one-front attack are to attack on the whole front.

If the British and the Polish para's would have been dropped on better places, then it might have worked.

But still the good Waffen-SS divisions would have been very difficult to overcome.

 

Erwin--Ike bent to Montys wish. Patton should have been given those resources for an attack as his attack had a better chance at succeeding but, Ike was playing the "Political game" and gave in to Montys wishes--so Patton did without certain supplies while Monty had all he needed--except for clear weather and good luck and more roads and more transports and gliders.

I agree with you, if the British and Polish Paras had been dropped in a much better place--the outcome might have been drastically different. Monty wanted them dropped on or as near to Arnhem as possible. Now Monty cannot be blamed for the fact that TWO SS Panzer Divisions happened to be resting there.

Monty CAN be blamed for not having better planning. For instance--the British Paras problem with not having the correct Chrystals for their radios. Also, choosing that route with only one road was more or less suicidal and not so brilliant. Monty pretty much bet everything being a success he had on that one road--and he didnt have a plan "B" "C" etc--just in case things didnt go their way.

What Ike can be blamed for--is the fact that he OK'ed the operation to begin with--mostly though because he was trying to appease Monty.

The Germans can also be blamed because they had the two SS Panzer Divisions in Arnhem to begin with.

[ 22. April 2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: C.Evans ]

 

Absolutely agree

 

Many thanks my friend, we can both help him to learn what really happened.

Erwin--im meaning no disrespect for you.

 

Leo, I do agree with your posts. I mean, generals Blumenttrit and Speidel say so. Then it's pretty much right. Blumenttrit was a very good general and writer. He destroys old myths like 'Barbarossa' COULD NOT have been launched before the second week of June 1941...

Well, those two Panzer divisions were resting and refitting, they were a third strenghtened. They were transferred there because there was a sector where there'd be no action...

No, Monty is just guilty of one thing: commnanding the operation himself! The Allied intelligence failed, the Allied logistics, failed and there was bad weather. Then it doesn't matter how good the plan is. If you look at it, is a very good one, on paper. But such a risky plan needs an intrepid commander, let's say: Patton. Monty, as a strategist was a good one. He designed a good plan. As a field commander he was too cautious. So, his intrepid plan doesn't fit with his cautious way of commanding. There you go! That's why it failed!

 

A small point in the overall context of this thread, but another myth is appearing with those 'wrong radio crystals' - a myth largely created by the film, ' A Bridge Too Far'.

The high-command planners paid insufficient attention to the radio capabilities of Airborne Forces in 1944.Airborne carried smaller radios than those of normal Army Divisions for reasons of mobility and lightness.

As Tony Deane-Drummond wrote in 'Return Ticket' :

'..we were repeatedly assured that the Airborne Division would never be employed on a wide front, but would be landed and would fight within a small perimeter, perhaps as much as three miles in diameter'.

The problem was exacerbated by the sandy soil around Arnhem, wooded terrain and buildings. These problems could only be overcome by high-powered radios which in 1944 were large, heavy, difficult to power, and needed to be vehicle-mounted.

To quote from the definitive book about signals at Arnhem, 'Echoes From Arnhem' by Lewis Golden OBE, :

'..it cannot be validly argued that that the effect of any remaining signals failures on the outcome of the battle was all-important.'

 

I'm not convinced that Patton would have cleared the job. Maybe he could have done it, but I'm not sure.

As for Monty, I still think he was a good commander. Especially at D-Day where he plaaned everything very good.

 

Martin--I stand corrected but, I only meant the chrystals bit as an example to use.

Erwin--Patton had a much better chance of success than Monty did. Reasons being--he had more roads in which to rely on, he had shorter supply lines, and he had no need to rely on air-dropped supplies. Monty on the otherhand, had those problems of one road--and not a great road at that, and having to have all supplies airdropped and with fewer and fewer planes due to combat and losses and other attritions--plus having the weather as a major factor. Patton on the otherhand--didnt have any of that to worry about--all he wanted to do was to move forward and to kill Germans.

 

'Market Garden' was an excellent plan, in strategic level. Point for Monty. But an intrepid commander, such as Patton was needed to make it work in the tactical level.

 

No-one seems to have mentioned Brereton's role in all this ?

Don't forget that Urquhart and Hollinghurst were both united in asking for two lifts on the first day and were opposed by Brereton.

 

You're maybe right, Leo. As I said, there were other problems there such as bad weather, bad intelligence informs and an over-extended supply lines. Not even whoever SUPER general could deal with that.

 

Monty came close but no cigar.

Too many what ifs involved here. A few examples.

What if the weather had been clearer?

What if the Polish Paras had jumped days earlier?

What if the Brit Paras had been able to keep control of the fields used for their resupply?

What if the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divs and Colonel Joe Vandeleurs Armor--had pushed on past Nijmegen?
_______________________________________________

Here is my simple theory on what might had happened IF Patton had been in command.

Very simple--Patton would have never gone for such a plan because of the uncertainties involved and lack of resources needed to make this successful. I.e. the one road keeps coming to mind.

ALso the concept of taking a few villages and cities but none of the countryside to him would mean that each and every village and city taken would be encircled and would have to have enough soldiers to permanently hold these places thus leaving him fewer and fewer men left to carry on the attack and main goal--the capture of Arnhem.

Now if Patton had actually had the job of commanding this operation--(to which I can see never happening even in a what if?)

Patton would have had the brains enough to keep all the men under his command moving and gaining ground, instead of not letting them become stationary for long periods of time.

Patton would also not have put up with not having his supplies dropped even if his men had lost control of the dropping zones--he would have made sure that these were changed and had the cannisters dropped in the cities.

Instead of it all stopping at Nijmegen, why not all try to push on to Arnhem? If that had happened soon enough in Montys plan--it would have successful-- or more successful. They had an Armored Brigade, and two Airborne Divisions in that area to use.

Now with these forces at hand--I also think it plausible that they would also rush in reinforcements in the name of other Armored Divisions, Infantry Divisions and more Air cover.

In the least, I think they would have also had a Feint attack launched to keep the Germans guessing and busy. This attack could have been like operation Little Saturn on the Eastern Front. Not too bold and ambitious but yet--you would keep attacking to keep the enemy off balance.

But then again--that too becomes a what if? If they had had enough supplies.

No matter which way I look at it, nor from which point of view--this Operation was doomed to failure.

Even more optimistically--trying to give Monty his due justice as a commander, I flat out cannot see this as being a winning situation for the allies--unless all those other units had managed to keep moving as I believe they could have and, IF they had all the necessary supplies and replacements continously fed into the battle, and also a possible large-scale attack by other allied forces on a narrowed broad front, which could be used as a Feint to draw away some of the attention from Arnhem.

What do you think on these possibilities?

 

wonder if the Luftwaffe would have been in control of the air ?
wonder if the 9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions would have had a full compliment of armor ?
wonder if the SS Schwere Panzer Abteilung 102 would of been on hand ?

on it goes.....

~E

 

And another what if in the old what if section..

Brereton, I'll mention him...What if the capacity used to carry in his hq would have been used instead with ist airborne. Maybe not a winning force, but maybe enough to help with push for bridge.

I'll agree with Friedrich...the plan was bold, I'll agree with Carl, needed someone to motivate and move on...

I'll agree with Martin..comms...A look at first airbornes comms at coy level, to battalion, to brigade to div, to 30 corps etc...they were considered adequate for the plan and would have been if the advance of the troops to their positions had gone according to plan and on time..There were risks taken sure, but the plan envisiaged everyone being where they should be, then the radios ranges etc would have no critisism...then though what always happens when plan meets action??

And what of the Jedbergh teams etc with their enviable comms equipment.

The movie Bridge too far as Martin would suggest..good movie, but every word uttered shouldnt be taken as fact.

Breretton..Sorry...At end of day he was the commander litterelly on the ground...Nice polished belt though.

 

Originally posted by General der Infanterie Friedrich H:
You're maybe right, Leo. As I said, there were other problems there such as bad weather, bad intelligence informs and an over-extended supply lines. Not even whoever SUPER general could deal with that.

That's exactly my point. Any commander who managed to make a success of Market Garden with all its internal and external shortcomings would have to be a cross between Alexander the Great, Napoleon and U.S. Grant all rolled into one!
Montgomery made a fair stab at it, no more and no less.

 

See--thats what I mean? too many variables even in real life.

Also--just in case--no im not making fun of Monty in any way, shape or form by saying what I did.

Not because I am an American--do I feel that Patton was a better General but, Monty did prove he was capable but, I just dont feel he was capable enough to pull this job off--unless everything went according to plan and he had had all the necessary supplies.

Also--to be fair--I think Patton would have had a rough time at this too. Seeing that Patton and Monty never really saw anything eye-to-eye, I think even Patton would have called this off earlier than Monty--or changed the plans earlier in the fighting when the Brit Paras still had a good chance to breakout with most of their men and make it back to Nijmegen. As much as Patton would have hated to call off any attack--I think he would have done so on this one sooner than it really was called off--unless those other what ifs? came to play--such as a major feint attack--things like that.

like I said--meaning no disrespect for Monty.

 

Totally agree with Carl and Leo.

But I'd bet that ALEXANDER (and I don't mean sir Harold Alexander) would have achieved it for sure! If he beated hundreds of elephants in the Indo river... he surely could have taken a couple bridges...

 

Just to show how complex market-Garden can become ; urqh, I think you're confusing Browning with Brereton.

You're right, Browning's decision to use 38 gliders to transport his HQ was foolish and ill-considered. But Brereton had the final 'say' in the use of US transport aircraft.

 

No Martin think I was confusing Whiskey with Beer..never mix em especially at early hours of morning...Yep I was talking of old Daphne De Mauriers hubby...

But now while we are on old Breretton and Im sober....Did anyone actually even show him the plans...

No faith in either of em.

Who could have commanded such an operation? Sorry Friederich....the elephants when hit by 88s would have blocked the road...ever seen how long an elephant bulldozer takes to clear a one land highway of dead elephants??

No, I go for Catcheweyo...sp...Zulu chief....