You've probably beaten Market Garden to death here

It would have complicated the German defensive position at a time when it was already strained. You still had Bradley poised in the south if Monty got bogged down in the north. In effect, it would open a new front in the far north of Germany forcing the Germans to divide their defenses for both fronts. It positioned the allies for a broad pincer movement, which is one of the arguments that Monty made. It could have been the Normandy breakout all over again, on a far larger scale.

The supply issue might have delayed the blow, but dividing and stretching the German forces would have been worth it. For example, there is no way they could have marshaled enough forces for an operation like Wacht am Rhein if the British were in northern Germany.

 

As you probably know, M-G was to be a prelude for the "single-thrust" option. Had M-G succeeded then Monty would have asked (demanded actually) the lion's share of the resources in order to pursue that goal. Other Army Groups were to have distinctly subordinate roles, mainly that of trying to pin down other German units. I'm sure the German commanders could have figured that out and have put their lion's share of forces, especially armor against Monty. His threat would have guaranteed the Germans would have had to concentrate their resources against him. The farther he got into Germany the more vulnerable his flanks would be.

 

And then Ike would have shifted his resources to Bradley while Monty held the Germans in the north. This is exactly what they did in Normandy.

 

I have never understood why people think Ike would ever approve the single thrust plan. It called for about 70% of the US army in France to be idle so Monty could play the hero. Even if by some chance Ike said yes, Marshall would say no. The political fall out of not using American troops was enormous and that is why Ike refused to consider the plan. Did any one also consider that if the Germans knew that so many troops would be denied fuel and not be able to advance, wouldn't they just withdraw troops to the threatened sector???

 

it was a gamble with the odds against [ one MSR ,Ist Air dropped too far away, armor in the area, numerous bridges to be taken, if not, timetable gone, etc.. ...so not a good gamble at all....I think a lot of people didn't want to say no to Monty.....good point...

 

I agree that Ike would have probably resigned rather than put the US Army in a totally subordinate position. However, if Monty had dashed across the Rhine he would have at least temporarily have most of the fuel. That would have given the Heer more time to beef up the West Wall defences. By the time the US Army broke through the line, Monty might have gotten himself in a bit of trouble. Or maybe not: He might have resorted to that old Monty caution and built up a base across the Rhine. However, most of the stuff I've read says that he was wanting to win the war single handed and wanted control of some American forces in order to do it. I must admit I'm feeling a little guilty here. I've gotten off the subject so I'll just end this digression with apologies.

 

That is one way of putting it. Another way is an ALLIED Commander asked for more ALLIED soldiers in the hope of ending the war more swiftly.
The 'play the hero' /'wanting to win the war single handed ' snide comments = Monty bashing, plain and simple.

 

"Monty Bashing"?

If the attack had succeeded he would have gotten all the glory, and we probably would not be having this conversation. However, Market Garden fell on it's butt, so Montgomery gets all the crap that goes with leading a massive failed attack.

It's not "bashing", but standard operating procedure.

 

No it is not. You also fall into the same trap by using the emotive 'gotten all the glory' as if that reason alone was the driving factor in Montgomery's operation.
Are you seriously claiming the whole offensive was nothing more than a publicity stunt designed in order to bolster his reputation?

The problem I see is the underlying assumption that Montgomery should not, under any circumstances, be allowed command of US troops.
Why?
Was he not an Allied commander in an Allied Army?
Did he not have the right to ask for other resources?
Can anyone give me a cogent answer as to why the allocation of US resources to a UK commander (The same UK commander being under the command of a US General) is such a problem?

Let us bite the bullet and have it explained in simple terms why in an Allied Army no one but a US General should command US soldiers. Stop messing around and have it explained in plain English.

To pre-empt the obvious replies yes I do know that Monty did command US troops in 1943-1945 but am asking why in late 1944 this became a serious problem.

Perish the thought anyone could suggest it was all a 'glory grabbing' exercise by US Generals.

 

well. Monty planned a really risky operation that odds were for failure.....so, when it fails, the planner is to blame for planning a bad operation...simple....

 

Quite ironic really, when one thinks that Montgomery is usually crticised for being too cautious.

 

Yes they have him covered.
At Caen he was 'too cautious and slow' therefore he is a 'bad General'. At Arnhem he was 'too confident' and thus is again a 'bad General'.
Heads you lose, tails I win.

I note again the way any reply to the unjustified personal criticism of Montgomery's character is taken as postive 100% support for the fact he was perfect in every way and never failed at anything.

 

Someone just called one of the longest-running historiographical, tactical & strategic debates in WW2 history 'simple' !?

:evillaugh:

Can you hear them gathering?
Their cold eyes looking up from mounds of expensive limited-run books.
The, hands, fists & egos scarred from decades of vituperative debate. Sometimes even physical assault.
The shoe leather thin from walking the ground.
They begin their feared chant as they come: 'Arrrr-nummm' 'Aaaaaarrrr-numm'.
...

:stabfrenzy: :bustacap:

 

I'd like to point out that the characterization of MG as a "massive" attack is way off the mark. Certainly, the appeal of the operation to Ike is that it only involved 3 Corps of the two armies that Montgomery commanded, and the airborne troops who were merely sitting in England. This is a pretty small force to risk for such a massive (possible) gain.

If the attack had succeeded, then any follow on might rightfully be described as large since you'd shift more forces north.

And again, even though Monty (and Patton) argued for a "single thrust" that doesn't mean Ike was changing his strategy by approving MG. I don't have any Eisenhower biographies (perhaps someone else can chime in?), but he must have just thought of it as broadening his front and further dividing the German forces.

 

My guess is that Monty was trying to show that he wasn't a ponderous and slow commander and MG was just the operation to do it. Unfortunately for him, it went sour. I have to agree that it was over-ambitious in it's conception. There wasn't enough consideration of the factors that Clausewitz called "friction". Nor was there due consideration of the Germans ability to improvise which was amply demonstrated in Normandy. So I suppose MG will give the historians of many generations cause for debate whether the operation was a calculated risk that didn't pan out, or a flat-out poorly conceived gamble anchored in ego.

Monty bashing. Well, to be honest, I don't have the extraordinarily high opinion of him that some of the forum members do. He was a master at one type of operation and could train and motivate an army quite well. Beyond that, I start to get critical. However, there are other Allied generals I have a worse opinion of, such as Clark and Hodges. My jury is still out on Bradley.

 

As for why you shouldn't mix US with Brit forces, I have to think that there may be problems in that it would entail two different supply organizations for a single force. Secondly, there was al lot of politics going on here and if there was any sort of suggestion in the newspapers that American commanders were so poor that US troops needed to be under a British commander then it would have gotten really ugly and the Alliance would have suffered.

 

I hear this a lot and would like to point out that no one here (not one single person) has made any claims that he was the best/infallible/god or any other superlative you would care to invent in order to validate this straw man.
I ask you politely to post the quotes that made you say people have an ' extraordinarily high opinion of him' or admit you invented it.

Can you rise to that challenge or will you ignore it in the hope it will be forgotten?

You got that right. He figured out how to beat the Germans. He worked out a system and it worked from 1942 to 1945. He has to suffer the criticism of those who believe wars are won with wide sweeping arrows on a map and that is the only way to win a war. I could point out that for all Monty's reliance of being able to overwhelm the enemy with materiel he never at any time came close to the amount of materiel the US Generals applied to gain their victories. Look at the force ratio for COBRA before casting stones. Let us not forget WW2 was a war of attrition and trying to pretend otherwise is wilful. Patton did not destroy the Germans with manoeuvre but was gifted a broken fleeing enemy by Bradleys slow plodding destruction of the German front-Monty syle!

 

Yes that really worked badly in Italy where US forces did serve under British command. Not a valid excuse.

Where did anyone suggest that US commanders were 'poor' simply because they served under a British General? Following the logic is it not to be assumed British Generals were 'poor' because they served under a US Commander? Another absurd claim. Truth is it was ego. I leave the reader to guess which ego was being massaged.

Still no cogent reason why US troops could not serve under a British General.

 

I have kept my yap shut for now. Disappointed at first. No longer.
- This is turning into a rock solid thread. Salutes galore. Nicely done guys and gals.

Me = spitting mad.
Scratched my hard drive. Killed it. Religious about saving to back ups ad nauseam.
Not once did it occur to me to save my Firefox etc bookmarks.

Mad as a hatter. I had a whole folder full of Market Garden Maps etc etc etc... I am flat out livid right now.

Nuff said Fred.

Edit:

Not at all, IMHO. If you weed through the chaf there is some darned good stuff in here.

Again... My 2 bits worth of coming at ya soon. My NETD list.

 

mkenny,

I didn't write anything about people saying he was "best/infallible/god". I just said my view of him isn't as high as some others seem to be, judged on their remarks. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. OR do I have to clear my opinions through you?

I disagree with your assessment that wars aren't won by "wide sweeping arrows" (I assume you mean "maneuver"). The Germans and Soviets seem to have been able to use it successfully.

My remark re. army units being under another army's command is based on the idea that different army's have different supply systems, weapons, doctrine etc. and sticking them together may be in error unless potential problems are carefully thought through and eliminated. IIRC, there were some problems in Italy in Clark's command due to these type of things.

Monty was famous for taking sly slaps at the Americans. Some of which came out in British newspapers. This all came to a head at the end of the Bulge.

Yes, in the past I have ignored your posts and certainly will in the future. I don't like your style.