Vandeleur wrote a memoir, but I've never seen a copy. He seems like a fascinating character. His memorial stone speaks volumes in a just a few short words:
Never mind that it is a myth about the jeeps and an overstatement about the communications. One of the main reasons MARKET failed is because of the historical character portrayed here leaning on the hood of the jeep.
And the historical character portrayed on the right was another reason for the failure of MARKET-GARDEN. Now if we could only include a still with Dirk Bogarde we'd have the trifecta.
I think there were a couple of Panzer divisions involved in the debacle, too. I just picked up Beevor's book "The Battle of Arnhem". Worth reading?
Mrs Jack just did her magic--she's a wizard at finding discount books--and ordered me up a copy. I was reading a review of Buckingham by Robert M. Citino: "Throughout the book, Buckingham strips Market Garden of virtually every aspect of its mythology. His is the first account to analyze what we might call the long-term origins of the operation." "While Buckingham deals quite well with all these systemic factors, his account also features a villain: “Boy” Browning. This so-called “father of the British airborne” is painted here as anything but." "An increasingly desperate Browning came to see the Arnhem drop as his last chance, which accounts for the incredibly cavalier way in which he planned it. Drop zones too far from their objectives? Intelligence reports that SS panzer formations had been spotted in the Arnhem area? Not enough transport aircraft to drop the entire 1st Airborne in one wave? None of these things mattered to Browning or, if they did, he simply buried them. The British intelligence officer who reported on the tanks in Arnhem, in fact, wound up being sent home on psychological sick leave, Soviet-style. Browning’s treatment of the 1st Polish Independent Parachute Brigade, and his shameless attempt to lay the blame for the failure of Market Garden at the feet of the Polish commander, Brig. Gen. Stanislaw Sosabowski, were cut from the same dubious cloth." Again, thanks for the recommendation; looks interesting!
He wasn't the only one. Having created the 1st Airborne Army, senior commanders all the way up to Marshall and Arnold back in Washington were looking for an opportunity to use it in some decisive operation. Some seventeen operations had been considered or planned to various degrees, only to be rendered moot by the rapid advance of the ground forces, which was soon to be outside the range of transports and glider tugs flying from English bases (the logistic situation made in infeasible to establish the airborne divisions, aircraft, supplies, and infrastructure on the Continent). Range also dictated that an airborne operation would almost have to be in 21st Army Group's sector. So when an apparent opportunity arose, there was a lot of pressure to take advantage of it. "How can we use the airborne army?" was getting to be almost as important as "What is the best way to prosecute the war?"
....A Bridge Too Far was done well--considering so many top name actors were in it and they tried to cover a lot of the battle.... ..Ryan O'Neal was not impressive at all--I thought James Caan did a better job..Ed Fox hammed it a little too much ..it's not easy to put epic battles on the movie screen
And why is Michael Cane in the passenger seat? Because like me he doesn't drive...theres a scene in the Battle of Britain where he gets into his little sports car and drives off...in reality there are four blokes off shot pushing the car!
IIRC, the fellow playing Horrocks was actually good friends with him! Naturally, he probably played him well.
From everything I have read on Horrocks, Ed Fox's performance was very close to the mark, and was a good representation of the general.