What would the other option for an offensive been had this not happened, as there would have been more manpower and materiel in the North. Could a thrust from the South into the Saar region while 21st Army Group pushed North without the need for parachute landings and a waste of resources?
....which front had the best terrain for attack? ... reinforce whichever unit is making the best progress--with maybe Airborne standing by for operations in that area? ...maybe use another Operation Cobra style pre-attack bombing, if necessary?
In a way I agree with Patton. Driving through the southern Germany and taking Ruhr area would have mattered possibly more than attacking in the north. I know the Germans concentrated heavy armor in the southern Germany to protect the industry in the Ruhr section but still, pressing to conquer the Ruhr would have been in autumn 1944 more valuable than March-April 1945. My view. The US losses were huge in the northern Germany so could it be the end result would be easier if the German factory main area would have been taken instead with even the same losses?? And perhaps Hitler would have been forced to protect the Ruhr instead of the Bulge attack, as he could not leave the factories unprotected?!! Spring 945
A Southern thrust with a Northern action to protect the thrust, with tactical air support from both areas as fighter-bombers could have wreaked havoc behind enemy lines, though it may have led to more civilian deaths.
Concur with Kai-Petri. Narrow northern single thrust by Monty failed. The drive through the Huertgen Forest also failed. Vosges is no cakewalk nor is Italy. Patton had the best chance.
Patton was advancing at an amazing rate. Had the Germans on the run then market garden and his supplies were diverted for the operation. Patton was furious. I feel sorry for the British paratroopers over ten thousand in only twenty six hundred out. A huge disaster for the British paratrooper Corp. they never mounted another major offensive with paratroops for the rest of the war, the U.K. There was so many holes in it I can't believe they went with it. Really the thought they could get that far with low resistance. The Germans fought hard I wonder if jumbos at the front would have helped make any difference. I think the worse was when the British paratroopers were running low on ammo food medical supplies and watched their supply drops going to the Germans. The command knew what was happening that they surrounded the Germans held the drop zones why didn't they do something. Like send a drop to where they knew they were. Was that just too logical. Also they knew something was wrong with radio communication drop some new eauiptment. The whole thing was just snafu after snafu and so on.
Monty claims he never lost a battle (cough cough in Tunisia, Sicily w/slow advance, Caen on D-Day, Goodwood). More like WW I speed. However, Monty was charasmatic and very likeable unlike Patton. Put a tie on soldier!
They say his high losses in North Africa was because British tanks were inferior to Germans. The two pounder was almost useless unless you got close unfortunately the Germans didn't like the British trying to get close and would shoot them, rather uncivil of them. You have to give British tankers credit they would get a order and attack even if they knew they didn't have much of a chance they charged out and did their best. They were estatic when they gotthe grants and Sherman's. Finally a gun with range and hitting power to take out tanks and especially the anti tank guns. The 75 had the range and he round to effectively put out the atgs. I still don't see why we did so bad. I know our guys were inexperienced but hell didn't we train them enough if the Germans talking about the battle said they couldn't believe they would battle they would knock out everything and the US tankers would be zero. Must be why Rommel got over confidence and attacked the British again only to get his assed kicked and forced to retreat and Brits were fielding our Sherman's and grants. But they had years of combat. We did learn the forth battle and first with Patton American forces held and finally beat the Africa Corp running the out of fuel and ammo. To me it would seem the training wasn't as good as it could have been not hitting anything also the field command was not on the ball most historians agree the tactics were WWI and out of date for wwii warfare. As modern warfare today with night vision thermal sights and sat gps. Next thinking robot tanks planes etc
There are eighty three threads on this forum with the words "Market Garden" in the title. My favourite title is http://ww2f.com/threads/youve-probably-beaten-market-garden-to-death-here.54518/ But no we have a new thread. Is this new information or a chance to recycle old myths? Well we see all the myths. Patton was grounded for lack of fuel which was sent to the Brits... . Patton could defeat the Germans and reach Berlin with nine divisions... Patton's Lorraine campaign was a stunning success.. There would have been no consequences if the 21st Army group was grounded instead of Patton. This whole premise of this debate is utter nonsense. At the time when Patton was grounded for lack of fuel, 1-5 September there were far more important objectives in the north. There was nothing strategic in the south apart from Patton's ego and reputation. Let me quote from a 1985 US Army study into Patton in Lorraine. The Lorraine Campaign: An Overview, September–December 1944, by Dr. Christopher R. Gabel ., In September 1944 the 30+ allied divisions ashore were just the advanced guard of the 100 division force that the Allied planners thought would be needed to defeat Germany in the West.(It took about 90 by the end.) The aim of Op Overlord was to establish a lodgment area into which a further 50 US divisions could be deployed direst from the US, and other allied formations. However the battle for Normandy was far more successful than had been hoped and resulted in the utter defeat of the German army in France. Unless German morale collapsed there was never a chance that the allies could win the war in 1944 with the forces they had in theatre in September 1944. Op Market Garden was a calculated risk to see if the Germans might collapse (and liberate the Netherlands freeing London from risk from SSBMs) 1. German Recovery and Reinforcement. The Germans were in disarray in the first week of September. By the end of the second week, they had recovered and by and large established a line along the Westwall which was being filled with troops withdrawn from France and reinforcements from Germany and Italy. There were enough armoured reinforcements for the Germans to strike back at Patton on 18th September. In the event these were defeated around Nancy - but suppose Patton managed to stretch his army upt and even across the across the Rhine all he would have created was a long narrow corridor - and Creighton Abrams could not be everywhere.... 2. Logistics. As the Gabel report notes, there was plenty of gasoline in Normandy. The problem was getting it to the front line 450 miles away. The further Patton advanced the worse the logistics problem would become. Even if Patton reached the Rhine there were not the resources to support an advance to the Ruhr. All of the armies in WW2 found that blitzkriegs eventually ran out of gasoline. 3. What would have happened if 21st Army Group and First US Army and not had been Patton grounded for lack of fuel from 1st to 5th September? On 31st August the 21st Army Group had reached, and crossed the river Somme. Historically they would make a .very rapid advance to liberate Belgium and capture Antwerp. The First US Army was encircling the Germans 7th Army in the Mons Pocket, which would result in 25,000 Germans PW. and follow this up with an advance to the German border west of Aachen. Suppose the Northern Army halted for five days allowing the Germans to consolidate a position along the Somme? No liberation of Boulogne or Calais opening the Straits of Dover. No capture of Antwerp. No end to the V1 campaign bombarding London. No Mons pocket 30,000 extra men for the Westwall.
When you look at managing at tight situations I believe it should have been Patton to take care of the attack to release Arnhem. Nobody else could have done it, maybe even he would have lost the race, but I would choose him. Even before Ardennes and bastogne he showed (if I remember right) how to squeeze his tanks through a single bridge in one day in Normandy ( Cobra ).. Of course the ground is different to France but talking of a few bridges there and a massive attack and how to handle it! If I understood correctly, the German 15th Army from the Scheldt escaping was one of the important forces that stopped the Allied advance in the Market Garden (??). I have this info but unfortunately the book is now missing.... In one book I read that the coastline cities were left to the Candians to take care of, but it seems that this did not take place early enough as: 1. The Canadians arrived in Dieppe on 1 September. The Division had been badly mauled and needed to reorganize. Montgomery directed General Crerar, commanding the Canadians, not to stop. Crerar explained that the Division was due to absorb 1000 replacements, and that there was no point in pressing forward until the Somme crossings had been secured. 2.On 3 September, the Second Division marched through the streets of Dieppe . General Crerar, ordered by Montgomery to attend a conference at the Tactical Headquarters of Second British Army, had instead chosen to attend the ceremony in Dieppe, and took the salute as the Division marched past.---So General Crerar was not aware why he should attack the coastline fast and not let any Germans escape. If he had been aware of the Market Garden then the idea of pushing forward faster might have been accepted by him??
