Patton at Arnhem !

Valid points, Friedrich.

Although we're risking moving away from the 'Patton' thread, there remains a 'grey area' over Market Garden air support.

In his book 'The Devil's Birthday', Geoffrey Powell touches on this twice. He says -
'..the air support for the operation could have been greater still.( The planning meetings held on 12 and 15 September ) should have been attended by representatives from all the many air forces involved, but the officer from 2nd Tactical Airforce missed the second conference, albeit through no fault of his own. The days to come would demonstrate...ineadequate liaison on air support.' And later, ' Air support...was a dismal story.. there was a restriction placed on 2nd TAF by First Allied Airborne Army. This stultifying restriction might have been eased if a closer relationship had existed between the two headquarters concerned.. .Given more time to plan , better arrangements might perhaps have been made.'

Powell also mentions adverse weather and short daylight hours. Although tactical air support was used ( as seen in 'Bridge Too Far' ) it seems to be the case that it was not employed with such devastating consequences as in the Normandy campaign.

So it's again hasty planning, which would surely have affected Patton equally. . . .?

 

Something else I've just thought of.

I'll say one thing for Patton - for sure he'd have been up at, or very close to, the front.

Where the hell WAS Montgomery ?

I've never seen it explained anywhere why Monty seemed to 'disappear' from the scene while M-G was 'happening'. Not sure about Dempsey, either.

Poor old Horrocks! It seems to me that he had to 'carry the can' and wasn't in the best of health !

 

I would have to agree with Pzjgr and Friedrich on this. Patton never was one to keep his tanks on the road. Also, with Patton commanding he would have demanded and recieved total air support. In the end the single road would not have made much of a difference with Patton leading. Montgomery was to precise and never left room for his field commanders to act on thier own, alot of whom would have pushed harder to reach Arnhem.

 

I hate to say this, but it's true.
This is Holland . I mean, it's like 90 percent water ! Run a tank, or even a jeep, down the embankment from that road and you'd need until Christmas to dig it out again.

 

G'day

Your talking Holland in 1944. The roads weren't build for tank's but for horse and cart. There weren't that many roads and did you see the bridges in the film BTF. The size of a Baily bridge isn't that wide either. You can't make the sand in a hourglass go any faster.

Popski

 

Given the single road, physical ground conditions around it, the weather affecting the Jabos, and with Patton pushing hard in command - what level of casualties do you think would have been suffered, and what would have been acceptable?

Personally, I think they would have been high - and how would that now affect our view of Patton as a commander?

 

Hallo!

I think Patton, as I have posted in the topic "A bridge too far" was the perfect man for that intrepid, excellent but risky operation called "Market Garden". Monty was an intrepid and good tactician while sitting behind a desk, moving troops in a map. He disigned a too intrepid and risky operation which must have been lead by an impetuous and intrepid commander: Patton was the one. Monty was too cautious. That is the ironny: a man designs an intrepid plan and performs it cautiosly...
But certainly Patton would have pushed his troops to the limit and I think that they could have suceed thanks to Patton's will and effort. Because he would have been always at the front, pushing. His incredible leadership would have been more important than the lack of addecuate roads and lack of supplies and air support.

 

Certainly the "Garden" element to the plan needed a "thruster" but Horrocks was one. I think that Patton would not have made the slightest difference at Arnhem. He was hopeless at planning a coherent operation and that road, as our Dutch colleagues have said, would be as hard for anybody. Son and Nijmegen would still have been choke points no matter who was in charge, and with old Blood and Gut's knowledge of logistics and engineering I doubt he would have overcome these problems any faster than Horrocks.

I'm one of those minority believers who believes the fault lay with Thomas and his handling of the 51st. Guards Armoured needed infantry support quickly and Thomas shilly-shallied. His slowness held up the tanks who needed iunfantry to clear out German anti-tank positions.

Jumbo

 

Have a look under the 'Worst Generals..' thread for my comments about Thomas !

Back to Patton/XXX Corps. Agree with everything you've mentioned about 'the road', bottlenecks, blown bridges, etc.

But what do you think about that last bit from Nijmegen to Arnhem ? I just don't think that it was the Guards Armoured Division's finest hour... especially after the US river crossing effort. However 'sensible' the wait-and-see option was, I honestly feel that that's the point where a 'Patton' would have thrust on regardless.

 

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,sorry but don´t remember the place but Patton it was. Could be the Falaise pocket. Of course the ground is different to France but talking of a few bridges here and how to handle it!

It could be that Ike would not want Patton too big and that´s why he wasn´t chosen. Still I wonder how Monty made Ike accept the whole plan.

Anyway, talking about where Patton would stop? Hell, he would have marched past Berlin to Moscow, you know! Maybe that´s another reason why Ike didn´t choose Patton!

Even though Patton won it all, he never got his life´s fulfilment really. he wanted to fight rommel, and never got it. Too bad! he even claimed that the war should be decided by him and Rommel fighting in tanks and the winner would have it all!

 

Why didn't Ike choose Patton? Because he was too impetuous and "crazy"...

Why did Ike choose Monty's plan? Because it is a very good plan. In paper...

 

Post-Nijmegen.

I think after the past 3 days spent on that road, acting as ducks in a shooting gallery with German at guns pointing at them it was probably the right decision. It's easy to say Patton would have done this or that, but more brewed up tanks on a one-lane highway would have helped nobody. Unless Patton was going to stop those 88mm shells with his head. Until you walk the terrain it's hard to comprehend. I'm lucky I live close enough to pop over and look at this stuff.

I spoke to a tanker from XXX Corps who claims he survived due to the perspicacity of his tank commander "breaking down" whenever they found that they were lead tank. The US 3rd Army never went through anything like this to give a credible comparison, not even in Normandy. It would also depend on which famous historical General Patton was channeling at the time.

As for where he would stop, remember that Ike was still wedded to his "Broad Front", and Market Garden was a plan which went counter to his strategy. I'm always baffled why Ike took up with this plan, was he seduced like many others by the awesome gamble?

Jumbo

 

Yes, probably Ike wanted to end the war quickly, and men were tired of the war. You see all the films and read in every book that everybody´s saying " to germany for christmas" or " home for christmas" at that time. After Caen the allied really drove fast through France to the Rhine and I guess the situation seemed like "kick the door in and the house collapses" something that Hitler used to say...Does anybody recall if the allied had any other plans to crush the german defence?

 

For the official post-war US view of why Ike OK'd the plan, have a look at the 'Market Garden' thread under 'Battle for Europe' heading.

[ 01 August 2002, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Martin Bull ]

 

Hi Everyone,

I think whether it had been XXX Corps or Patton's III it would have not made any difference.

One of the things that I have learnt about the German soldier's ability in WWII was to ambush.

From the very outset back in Normandy they had the ability to just put simple AT teams in position and hold up the allied advance.

Not only did you have the dreaded 88s, but also the Panzerfaust/Schrek teams. By putting those teams into the equation I feel that they would have held up whoever was on that single road, which they did to XXX Corps anyway.

Everyone slags off Monty for his misgivings, and I am in that corner for many of his mistakes, but bottom line it's the troops on the ground. Even though the German war machine was close to the end they always had the ability to give us lot, US or Brit, a very bloody nose.

 

It still comes back to a load of tanks driving up a single road... no matter who is in command their are gonna be severe delays. Patton or Horrocks, it would not have made any difference.

 

Well, sometimes the commanders make a difference. But I think that in this case, with many adverse things it would have made just a little difference: to avoid so many casualties.

 

Hi everybody, this is my first post on this forum.

Let's not forget that Pattons 3rd army corps was developped more south, so there was no way that he could have led his army to Arnhem!

And even if Patton would have got the job, would he got all the support he would ask to do the job (like Monty did, but he didn't get it form Eisenhower).

Why do some people think that Patton could have done it, although he would have had the same resistance like Monty?

BTW can you tell me why Patton was a much better general than Monty. Did Patton won at El Alamein? Did he had a good plan to reach Berlin before the Russians?

 

Who was better?





The latter one, for sure! Monty was a very cautious, egotistical and not quite good officer. He was too overrated by the propaganda. At El Alamein he won because of his caution of only attacking when he had 8 tanks to 1 or so... He "won" at El Alamein (actually hesitated and let the DAK escape...) with an VIII Army created by Auchinleck and Wavell... He was a man who had learnt tactics in books, not in battles... He came up with the Italian campaign in a very stupid way... And could not deal quite good with the Germans at Caën... But "Market Garden" was at least, his best plan, I think. Because it is innovative, impetous and interesting... (Hitler would have loved it! )

Patton was the other side of the coin. He was a natural tactician who knew how to lead, to inspire and to take advantages of the situations, taking many risks...

 

So in contrast Patton was rash, egotistical and not a good officer boosted by propaganda! Montgomery clearly was not inspirational;, was a poor tactician and did not know how to take advantage of a situation?

I think, Friedrich, it is you who are the victim of propaganda!