Okay Gentlemen, I would ask you to tone down the personal remarks, most of the stuff is very interesting but abuse is not part of a civilised discussion.
I'd say sorry but im not Brian's big enough, and he would say ugly enough to look after himself, but I think he is treated terribly on here. Its not the first time ive seen it either, what other vets have you on this forum apart from Gerry Chester and Brian? I dont notice many posts from Gerry. Ive read that this forum has a British bias!! what nonsense, an American is allowed to post aload of nonsense about What the British did or didnt do in Normandy and then accuse a Normandy vet of saying stuff he did not. No mod intervention there. I also dont think I made any personal attacks, oh gosh Jimbo old boy your a tad wrong on that matter. If your going to put down a war vet over what he says surely you should have your facts right. Then he gets The warning was a general one, if You want to take it personally so be it. Nice, perhaps we were not making the discussion serious enough. Or perhaps im missing the Scottish humour or 'lack' of it. I dont care two hoots if im banned, but I think its very sad that a REAL WW2 veteran is treated that way, when he has said bugger all wrong. One last thing, Jimbo if you want to get a balanced and accurate view of what happened dont just read American books, by people who have grudges and agenda's try a few books by the people your knocking. Andy courtmashialed - Guilty as charged SARR
Originally posted by sapper+Sep 6 2005, 07:07 AM-->(sapper @ Sep 6 2005, 07:07 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Tact Jimbo? Not one of my strongpoints, I do not try to upset anyone. Sincerely! [/b] Mine either, at times! Originally posted by sapper@Sep 6 2005, 07:07 AM But what does annoy me, and my veteran friends, is the garbled stuff that is trotted out as truth...I have been fighting a war against it, with help from folks like Andy for some time. Let me assure you...it may sound odd to you? but we were aware of what was going on. Truth has a way of mutating even by those that participated in it. There are various reasons for this. Things get exaggerated by being retold over and over from source to source. Also, as seems to be apparent, there are certain biases of those that “witnessed it”. Originally posted by sapper@Sep 6 2005, 07:07 AM When I stated no American plane took part in the bombing of Caen, that is absolutely true. And I did acknowledge the fact I had mistaken Bomber Command for the Eighth. They did all take their orders from Ike. My point about Ike become resistant to any type of bombing was factual. Approval of the Caen mission would have gone through SHAEF. Even if Monty had requested it, Ike had to approve it along with the head of Bomber Command? Originally posted by sapper@Sep 6 2005, 07:07 AM When I stated there was no SS Panzer div waiting to pounce from the city, that is absolutely true. I believe you believe this sincerely, but I question if that was factual. Monty was stalemated until this bombing. If there was no armor around Caen, what the “heck” was he doing bogged in around Caen? You telling me that infantry held Monty at bay and kept Bradley from moving until Caen was under control? That doesn't jive man. Originally posted by sapper@Sep 6 2005, 07:07 AM We had seven a and a half Panzersa divs around us, while the USA had half a Panzer div. (Bradley) We took on the Panzers might, to allow the Yanks to get going from the Chrebourg peninsula. I believe that. But no way you are going to undermine the difficulty of taking Cherbourg. That dog won't hunt, sapper. Also, you can't belittle the breakout in the Bocages. I am sure you guys had it tough, but you are not giving the US soldiers their "props". That's most unfortunate. Originally posted by sapper@Sep 6 2005, 07:07 AM The Panzer divs around the British sector? we ground them down! Again, if you had taken out the armor, what were you folks waiting for? Bradley was freaking out thinking Monty was going to get driven back and him then get cut off by Von Kluge. It was a very tense moment. There was a belief that the US would have detach divisions to go reinforce Monty if he couldn't get going. Originally posted by sapper@Sep 6 2005, 07:07 AM Patton? He of the pearl handled revolvers? He was off capturing empty French Countryside, instead of getting stuck in, despite calls for him to help out to close the pocket.... from his superiors...Then he ran out of petrol and was stranded. Sapper, I don’t believe you ought to go there. The reason Patton ran out of fuel in the first place is because Monty’s Market Garden plan caused a month delay in the taking of Antwerp which was Monty’s original objective when he talked Ike into it. This forced the supply lines to remain stretched all the way across France and even with the efficiency of the “Red Ball Express”, the limited fuel destined for Patton was given to Monty to go after V1 and V2 sites. It was the Cannucks that managed to take Antwerp, not the Brits. The fact is that the failure of Monty's Market Garden caused Patton to run out of fuel during October, allowed time for the Germans to fall back to the Siegfried line and fight out of their defensive fortifications. A lot more men died because of Market Garden than those who participated in the actual assault. This is why Patton hated to allow the enemy time to regroup. So your contempt for Patton is a bit brash. BTW: His revolvers were ivory, not pearl. Originally posted by sapper@Sep 6 2005, 07:07 AM Books? they are anything but factual, the worst offenders are American. Where the Dollar is eveything, and it seems to me, that books and films are not written or made to bring out the truth....... far from it, they are entertainment and a way to make money.... and nothing else I don’t doubt books and movies made in the US favor the US troops, I am sure the films and books made in the UK favor the British forces as well. Humans are humans no matter what continent they were on. Originally posted by sapper@Sep 6 2005, 07:07 AM IF you look back, we had the Americans capturing Burma, we had the Americans capturing the encoding machine. You name it, the Americans did it. On film! and in books. I don’t think it is as bad as you say. The movies I have seen said the Brits got the first enigma. Even U-571, a fictional movie, acknowledged the Brits for being first. But, true to form the Brits don’t want to give the Americans credit for capturing a couple of them as well. History documentaries are very complementary to other nation’s forces. But, sapper, doesn't "we were first" campaigning infer an "ego the size of a double decker bus" as you accused Patton of having? Isn't all that matters, at the bottom line is you folks did what you did and the US folks did what they did, and we are both free because of it? But, I must say sapper, a little humility would be a good thing here. Your contempt for Patton and high praise for Monty is a little exposing. At least the film makers and book publishers have an excuse, they want to sell copies. What was Monty’s excuse? Of all people?! What am I talking about? Well, Monty was always trying to commandeer divisions from Bradley. He even insisted Bradley report to him which would make him a duplication of Ike. He wanted to be across the Rhine first, to get into Berlin first, to get into Palermo first, he wanted to nudge Patton out of the victory at Tobruk. If he got bogged down he would ask for more divisions to be attached to his command. Bradley would occasionally loan Monty divisions to accomplish a task but had trouble getting them back. Then, there is the Ardennes Offensive incident, which would not have taken place in the first place if Monty had taken Antwerp instead of insisting on the dagger thrust of "Market Garden", because Patton would have been across the Rhine, the offensive could have never have been staged through a weak point in the front were reserves from Huregen Forest were sent to recoup. In this incidnet, the dGerman's rive toward Antwerp threatened to cut off communications to the US 9th Division (Gen. Simpson) that held the left side of the bulge. The decision was made to temporarily put these under Monty just incase their communications were cut off. This was done even though the offensive had already ground to a halt, though it was not certain that it was dead at the time. Monty in an interview with the British “press” talked about he and the British Army saved the “bulge” that the American’s had "gotten themselves into". This absolutely sent Bradley and Patton through the roof as it was the hardest hitting blow Monty ever attempted against any general and it was an Ally! Bradley was so angry he told Ike he would resign if something wasn’t done. It was an insult of the highest caliber, he was always angry at Ike for molly-coddling Monty. Ike was in a bind because he was afraid the alliance was about to break down. Ike tried to clear it up in the press but they weren't interested. The greatest man of WWII, Sir Winston himself saw there was about to be a collapse in the relationship of the US toward the British forces by this fire Monty started and stepped in to sooth the trouble waters with his quips, always so timely and so apropos which after clarifying that the "bulge" was an American battle and how he credit should not have been given to the British. Basically, the offensive was over before the British had a chance to come to the aid of the US (Bradley said Monty took too long again having to have everything perfect before he would move and never got into the bulge battles except in the British press): "This is undoubtedly the greatest battle of the War and will, I believe, be regarded as an ever famous American Victory." This managed to put out the forest fire that Monty had lit. So, if you want to talk about Patton and his idiosyncrasies, you have to (in fairness) bring out Monty’s as well. <!--QuoteBegin-sapper@Sep 6 2005, 07:07 AM This is not an anti American posting, I saw action with them.. great mates. But when it comes to what actually happened then, Oh Lord! What a complete load of fantasy.......I believe there is plenty of “selective memories” going around on both sides. Such is the nature of men. Something you might think about, I have never heard American soldiers speak with disdain toward the British soldiers. I have heard the opposite quite a bit. I don’t claim to know why there is so much “mealy-mouthing” going on like that. It does not bring honor the British soldier, whose efforts were worthy of honor. If you think Brits are slighted, just think about the poor Canadian, New Zealander, Aussie, Pole, etc that have fallen into relative obscurity. They fought every bit as hard as the Brits and the Amis. At least people in the US know you Brits were in WWII. Those guys can't say that.
Originally posted by sapper@Sep 6 2005, 10:29 AM Tell me Jimbo, where do you come from? A PM would do. I live in Tennessee currently. Is that relevant to this discussion or are you simply curious?
Approval of the Caen mission would have gone through SHAEF. Even if Monty had requested it, Ike had to approve it along with the head of Bomber Command? According to proberts biography of Harris, monty asked for it directly. harris would not have needed to ask for approval, since all he was there fore was providing the aircraft for the raid.
Wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong about something. Probably won’t be the last. So by this, am I to assume that SHAEF and Monty were aware that the Germans were not in Caen and bombed it for the heck of it? I’m not trying to bait you, I am simply trying to figure out what you mean here. The part about the panzer movements I got from a documentary. Monty was under Ike. Ike was the Supreme Allied Commander. Monty insisted Bradley be under him. It was agreed upon to appease Monty but just for the invasion. Monty was always under Ike. Had Caen been reinforced with more armor, then the British and Canadians could not have withstood. Surely you don't think you could have fought your way off the beaches and through Caen facing the entire German armor in France which was up the coast do you? At the time SHAEF was not aware that the Calias invasion ruse was as effective as it was. It was two weeks before Hitler finally accepted that Overlord was not a feign. Bradley said that all the Germans would have to do is count the divisions and see that there could be no additional invasion. If they had figured this out, then all the armor guarding Calias and points up the channel would can come down on Caen. This is what I mean by the strategy of something not being visible to people on the ground. You are partially correct. In Bradley’s book states that he was forced to stop Patton. The reason is so that he didn’t overrun the British lines. Monty had boasted that he would close the gap. He didn’t do it in time. Patton could have by sending Haislip and XV into the gap and was chomping at the bit to do it. Bradley and Patton both wanted to close the gap. That’s the way Bradley describes it in “A Soldier’s Story”. I take Bradley as a very sincere and humble person. I don't take him as someone that would seek a scapegoat for his failings. In "War As I Knew It" Patton said the same thing. Why should I doubt these men? You know, I saw a reference the other day to Monty’s bragging that he could close the gap. If I assume he was sincere, then he failed. If I assume he as not sincere then he deceived Bradley that he could. Either way, it didn’t get done. Patton was not the only one angry. So was Brad. If you don't believe Monty bragged he could close the gap, I am sure I can find his words quoted by another source. I have never heard anyone question Monty saying that. That probably sounds as astonishing to me as when I said "Eighth bombed Caen" did to you. Again, if you have a reason why you believe Caen was bombed, then let’s hear it. The only explanation I have heard was the one I quoted. It came from a documentary. Brian (I guess that’s sapper’s real name?) stated that the Eighth was not even in the ETO. I believe he meant no in the post D-Day ground support operations, which was also incorrect as well. It’s not that that matters, I really am not anal, my illustration was simply that that’s what it feels like for someone to hawk on precisely what you say and state that not one word was true. I know Brian understood that Eighth did bomb Germany. But, pouncing on a detail and dismissing every part of it because a fact is wrong is exactly was I was doing to illustrate his doing it to me. I wasn't offended, just being creatively poignant. They might not have been in this operation (of which I was hammer for and fairly so) but that at least was more accurate than saying the Eighth was not in the “entire theatre” (ETO). Yes, Brian did. But my point, which was the point of this subject of this thread was that Eisenhower had developed a disliking to strategic bombing because he couldn't stomach the thought of friendly losses. He had to be talked into “Totalize” because of the bad experiences with “Cobra”. The good experiences in “goodwood” had left Monty and Bomber Command believing that they could bomb without the casualties of “Cobra”. Totalize indicated otherwise. That's how it ties in together. The boasts about Monty being having to “detoothed” the Panzers was a little suspect. It was Hitler’s obstinacy that kept the Panzers up the channel coast at bay (thank God!). Either, you are trivializing the capability German armor, or you are exaggerating the capabilities of Monty. If Caen was but a little hole in the German lines (having stout flanks as you infer), then A) why bomb it, bomb the flanks instead? and B) why say the Panzers were out of action? You guys might be right but you make a poor case for it. Breaking out of Carentan? The bocages? Cherbourg? What specifically are you referring to? Monty says it by the fact he requested Caen be bombed. Again, you fellows realize that you are essentially inferring that Caen was bombed, “just for the heck of it”. That’s a pretty egregious charge against Monty, Ike and Harris.
Originally posted by morse1001@Sep 7 2005, 12:35 AM According to proberts biography of Harris, monty asked for it directly. harris would not have needed to ask for approval, since all he was there fore was providing the aircraft for the raid. Hi Morse, You may very well be right, but I would think an operation with the import of demolishing a whole city would have to go through SHAEF. To me that transcends merely a tactic. I haven't read that anywhere, it's simply a rationalization. (I think I better start qualifying my statements! ) Jim
Originally posted by morse1001@Sep 6 2005, 03:30 PM Okay Gentlemen, I would ask you to tone down the personal remarks, most of the stuff is very interesting but abuse is not part of a civilised discussion. [post=38660]Quoted post[/post] I was not online yesterday, so I obviously missed some of the posts which have been removed. I would just like to say that Morse's post has my backing and I am sure it has the support of the moderator team as a whole. The moderators have an obligation to ensure that the board guidelines (see top left of the screen) are followed and that acceptable standards of debate are followed. We will all take appropriate action when necessary. So just cool it folks, please. We do not need this.
I would just like to come back one point: Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 7 2005, 06:41 AM Monty was under Ike. Ike was the Supreme Allied Commander. Monty insisted Bradley be under him. It was agreed upon to appease Monty but just for the invasion. Monty was always under Ike. [post=38685]Quoted post[/post] As far back as December 1943, it was agreed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Montgpomery would be the ground force commander for Overlord and up to the point where, approximately, the line of the Seine was reached. The whole Overlord ground plan was devised under Montgomery's direction, based on the work done previously by COSSAC. Eisenhower was nominally in overall command as theatre commander, but in fact played an insignificant role operationally during Overlord. He did not even have a headquarters in France until after the breakout. Initially, the US 1st Army was directly under Montgomery and was part of 21st Army Group. Later, after the breakout, when 3rd US Army became operational, 12th Army Group was activated under Bradley, but Montgomery continued to have a co-ordinating role. He relinquished this role in September 1944, but no other overall ground force commander was appointed and Eisenhower certainly did not carry out this role himself, apart from setting out strategic guidelines which, as it happens, Montgomery profoundly disagreed with.
Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 7 2005, 05:11 AM The reason Patton ran out of fuel in the first place is because Monty’s Market Garden plan caused a month delay in the taking of Antwerp which was Monty’s original objective when he talked Ike into it. This forced the supply lines to remain stretched all the way across France and even with the efficiency of the “Red Ball Express”, the limited fuel destined for Patton was given to Monty to go after V1 and V2 sites. It was the Cannucks that managed to take Antwerp, not the Brits. The fact is that the failure of Monty's Market Garden caused Patton to run out of fuel during October, allowed time for the Germans to fall back to the Siegfried line and fight out of their defensive fortifications. A lot more men died because of Market Garden than those who participated in the actual assault. This is why Patton hated to allow the enemy time to regroup. So your contempt for Patton is a bit brash. BTW: His revolvers were ivory, not pearl. [post=38682]Quoted post[/post] I would like to make a few corrections here, but first just say that I am not at all sure that Canadians regard "Cannucks" as a polite term. As a matter of record, the city of Antwerp was taken on 4 September 1944 by the British 11th Armoured Division and this included the docks, which were captured undamaged. Their orders had not included the seizure of the bridges over the Albert Canal in the northern suburbs of Antwerp, which were blown by the time a crossing was attempted two days later. And by then, the German front, under Student, who had just been appointed commander had begun to harden. The failure to take these bridges was clearly a mistake which meant that there was no prospect of trapping the German mobile forces, which had withdrawn into the Beveland Peninsula and they were able to escape and reform. This included the remnants of the German 7th and 15th Armies. However, the Beveland Peninsula and the German pocket to the south of the Scheldt had been declared a "fortress" area by Hitler, specific forces were allocated to defend it and the Scheldt never was going to be opened to shipping without a battle. That role did fall to Canadian 2nd Army, as the left flank army of 21st Army Group. It remains a matter of debate whether this should have been given higher priority, but if 11th Armoured Division had been able to seal off the peninsula, it would not have opened the port any earlier - it would have led to a larger battle to eliminate the remnants of the two German armies. The reason 11th Armoured Division paused for two days in Antwerp was - they had outrun their supplies, including fuel, plus they were badly in need of maintenance after the advance from Normandy. As for Patton, his halt due to lack of fuel during his advance towards Metz was on 4 September 1944, the day 11th Armoured Division took Antwerp. One reason for this is that Eisenhower restricted 3rd Army to 2,000 tons of supplies a day, while allowing 1st Army, coming up towards Aachen on the left of the British, 5,000 tons. Eisenhower had clearly decided that at that point the northern drive had priority. Even in September, when the supply crisis started to ease, Patton was only allowed 2,500 tons a day, but by then he had become bogged down in the Metz defences, which the Germans were not about to give up easily. Whatever his accomplishments in mobile warfare, there is nothing to suggest that Patton's talents extended to cracking open static defences and he did not do well at Metz. By the way, the "Red Ball Express" operation sent supplies through to 1st Army, not 3rd Army. The supply crisis of the allied armies was in early September and it occurred for one reason which had nothing to do with Antwerp as a potential supply base. Quite simply, the speed of advance outran the lines of supply from Normandy at a time when the allies lacked the capacity to supply four mobile armies simultaneously. Market-Garden began on 17 September 1944 and was in some respects tyhe result of and not the cause of the allied supply crisis, which had occurred roughly two weeks before.
As regards the question of the use of Strategic Bombers I would say that, as Monty was in Operational Command of Overlord, that he wouldnt need to have the Bomber's use approved by Ike. as Commander he would have those forces placed at his disposal. Jimbo, I agree with you emphasising about it being a joint effort. However I dont think that this line of thought is followed when you make reference to "Monty and His Gang". Given that Bradley was under his command at the time, are you referring to him also or only British and Commonwealth Commanders. What is irrefutable is that the majority of the German Armor was located in the British Sector, but that is NOT to denigrate in any way the US contribution to the effort. Make no mistake, this was an Allied Effort and one part of the Alliance did not do more than the other to make victory possible. Without the British and Commonwealth forces the US would never have been able to cross the Channel. And without the Americans support the British would never have dared cross it. So lets stop the "We were better than you" posts. This discussion got off on the wrong foot and if Ham and Jam & Sapper are leaving I am sorry to see them go. But thats their decision. I think that they are being hasty and leaving because of one personal disagreement, which in fairness could have, and should have been sorted privately is something I believe they will regret. Both sides should either agree to disagree or make up. But then it has been said that they wont be around to see this post so ok. anyway onwards and upwards!
Hi Angie, I have read several of your posts since I joined and I must say, I don't know of many gals that have a indepth knowledge of WWII. That may be common in the UK but here in the states...don't know of a one. (hope that's complementary) Originally posted by angie999+Sep 7 2005, 04:34 AM-->(angie999 @ Sep 7 2005, 04:34 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I would just like to come back one point: As far back as December 1943, it was agreed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Montgpomery would be the ground force commander for Overlord and up to the point where, approximately, the line of the Seine was reached. The whole Overlord ground plan was devised under Montgomery's direction, based on the work done previously by COSSAC. [/b] Well, there seems to be a source issue here. Anyone from the UK thinks Monty walked on water and Patton was an anchor. Here in the states, the opposite is true. There is very little respect for Monty (though I think he had to have done a lot of good to endear his troops). So, I find “facts” are first processed through that filter. The Churchill book I have read chronicled the war that seems to converge with Ike, Bradley and Patton’s books. Books are pretty much all I have. I wasn’t there like some on this board. But then again actually being there is also a double-edged sword. The obvious edge is that you have seen things and know some details that others not there would not, but then again there is the other edge that you may have some gross personal biases and have a tendency to lack objectivity because of those biases. People on that served in WWII are not immune from biases and opinions. Most strategic details don’t come out until after the war so there are no inherent advantages to having “been there” unless you worked in SHAEF or Brad’s or Monty’s headquarters. The US Generals didn’t trust Monty but knew they had to work with him because the coalition was more important than personal prides. Churchill acknowledges these idiosyncrasies of Monty. It was Churchill that chose Ike. Ike didn’t want the Supreme Commander job because he knew it would be like herding cats to the keep the alliance together. Ike suggested to Churchill that he use Monty which would please Monty without question. Churchill stated that he couldn’t allow the job to go to Monty because of Monty’s complete lack of diplomatic skills. Monty like Patton were tactical or “field” commanders. They were not force commanders. Ike accepted the job under the stipulation that he be Supreme commander and have complete say over any actions until it was done. He specifically wanted Churchill’s assurance that he would not try to usurp authority along the way trying to please Monty. Monty was high maintenance. To Brits he seems he was a god. To them (Churchill included) he was a problem. Monty didn’t believe in the invasion of Normandy. He wanted to go through Italy. He was very conservative about his approaches. This was a great problem since the US wanted to “get it on” right away. It was the US that forced OVERLORD. They wanted to invade France and that as soon as possible. Monty talked them into invading Sicily first. His reasons were that it would shorten some supply routes and give air bases for the MTO. The US gave into this under the agreement that Overlord would be next, not more debating. COSSAC’s plan was an abstract plan that was formulated by mixtures of US and British staff that were not involved in Africa and Sicily. “In short, invade Normandy”. If you get “A Soldiers Story” (Bradley’s memoirs) and read it, you see that each group planned out the details of their own attacks. Bradley planned the American invasion. Bradley was under Patton in Sicily and they were NEVER under Monty in Sicily. Patton would have been the leader of the US ground forces had he not slapped the soldiers in Sicily. Bradley was given the position. Patton was used as part of the ruse over the Calais invasion. He was to be placed (eventually) under Bradley. Bradley had reservations about his old boss becoming his subordinate. Bradley said his concerns were unfound as he never had any authority problems from Patton. At first, the D-Day invasion was planed with the British staff over the British and Canadian groups, and the US over the US troops. Monty as Churchill and Ike predicted “had a cow” over not being Supreme Allied Commander. Monty, partially accepting his fate, started campaigning for control of all the forces for the invasion. It was believed that Monty’s ideas were that after the invasion, a few victories might cause a “status quo” and it stay that way. He even built that up in his mind. But the agreement that once on SHAEF could be moved to Normandy, then Monty would simply take over the 21st as he did. Bradley would take over 12th Army which controlled 1st Army, 3rd Army, 9th Army, and 15th Army and report directly to SHAEF again (I get the feeling you thought 12th army was some kind of conciliatory army. It was the largest US army and grew to over 900,000 men. The only army it didn’t control was 6th). Monty and Patton were both power-drunk. The difference was that the US was able to discipline their “loose cannon” generals. They didn’t believe that generals were irreplaceable as illustrated by the Bradley/Patton switch. Ike’s fear was that putting US forces under a British general would cause great consternation. He was afraid that if something happened to a US group that might appear (factual or not) to be an error in Monty’s judgment, a perception would arise that Monty was using “US forces” for experimentation, cannon fodder or outright neglect that would and create a tremendous backlash. The converse would also have been true if Ike had put the British troops under Bradley. It was a potential disaster. The position Monty was shooting for was effectively “Supreme Allied Commander”. Monty’s role was a duplication of Ike’s responsibilities. This was a pointless hierarchy to the US staff. But, Churchill talked them into making the compromise (why is Churchill not the one you Brits admire?). Churchill was a master at persuasion. <!--QuoteBegin-angie999@Sep 7 2005, 04:34 AM Eisenhower was nominally in overall command as theatre commander, but in fact played an insignificant role operationally during Overlord. He did not even have a headquarters in France until after the breakout. Initially, the US 1st Army was directly under Montgomery and was part of 21st Army Group. Later, after the breakout, when 3rd US Army became operational, 12th Army Group was activated under Bradley, but Montgomery continued to have a co-ordinating role. He relinquished this role in September 1944, but no other overall ground force commander was appointed and Eisenhower certainly did not carry out this role himself, apart from setting out strategic guidelines which, as it happens, Montgomery profoundly disagreed with. Where the heck do you get all this? That has British spin all over it. Monty relinquished command when SHAEF was relocated and that was August 15, 1944 per the agreement (compromise of Brad). Again, the army’s you don’t realize were under Bradley were all controlled by 12th. These armies were attached to the 12th. Only 6th army (Lt Gen Devers) was not controlled by Bradley. Keep in mind that the complaint for the transfer taking so long was that Monty’s lack of aggression at Caen delaying it. The US didn’t want their forces under Montgomery. They viewed it as a liability. It was Monty’s strong and persistent personality that created this senseless layer of bureaucracy. It reminds me of a car seat you have for kids that has a steering wheel. The child thinks he is driving and it makes him happy. Surely you are aware that Monty was still under SHAEF. This was a “car seat” with Monty at the wheel.
Originally posted by angie999+Sep 7 2005, 05:24 AM-->(angie999 @ Sep 7 2005, 05:24 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I would like to make a few corrections here, but first just say that I am not at all sure that Canadians regard "Cannucks" as a polite term.[/b] I believe the “Cannucks” are a term of endearment to the Canadians since they have pro hockey teams named that way. It’s the equivalent of calling and American a “Yank” (we have a baseball team called the Yankees). If someone from Canada does take that offensively, my apologies. I didn’t mean it that way, especially since it was used in a complimentary context. Originally posted by angie999@Sep 7 2005, 05:24 AM As a matter of record, the city of Antwerp was taken on 4 September 1944 by the British 11th Armoured Division and this included the docks, which were captured undamaged. Their orders had not included the seizure of the bridges over the Albert Canal in the northern suburbs of Antwerp, which were blown by the time a crossing was attempted two days later. And by then, the German front, under Student, who had just been appointed commander had begun to harden. The failure to take these bridges was clearly a mistake which meant that there was no prospect of trapping the German mobile forces, which had withdrawn into the Beveland Peninsula and they were able to escape and reform. This included the remnants of the German 7th and 15th Armies. Actually it was not until November 26th before the first light boats could sail up the Scheldt. The docks were not secure until then and no supplies could come in. This was the supply problem. Patton’s supplies were diverted to Monty. Market Garden took up too much time. The thinking was if Market Garden were successful, Antwerp would not be immediately necessary. The British did attack Antwerp, but it was the Canadians that got the waterways open. There was nothing wrong with the British assault on Antwerp. The point was that it should have gone down two months earlier and the time difference had to be assigned to the British efforts in Market Garden. If Market Garden had not been attempted, it would not have taken until late November to capture Antwerp and get a fast supply line going. With supplies, Patton would have been over the Rhine and the Ardennes could have never manifested. The thing that enabled the Ardennes offensive was weather in December (hiding the assemblies from air, recon and bombing) and the weak spot at Bastone would not have been there because of Patton’s advance. In addition, the Germans would not have had time to occupy the Siegfried Line. Market Garden cost many, many more lives than just the 10,000 casualties of the operation. The Ardennes cost the Americans more than any other battle (19,000). I am not blaming Monty for the failure at Market Garden, but he is to blame for forcing the issue that delayed Patton’s success. This illustrates the difference between Patton and Monty. Patton believed that the Germans were easier to defeat if you didn’t let them dig in. Monty’s operations always seemed to take an “inordinate” amount of time as he was accused of being an over-cautious general. Time is of the essence in a battle. I am sure Monty believed he was protecting his troops being “extra careful” but, Patton contended that’s what gets them killed because you then have to send them up against reinforced and dug in defenses and you have to dislodge them all over again and it cost you more men in the long run. The point was that one of the posters mocked Patton from running out of gas. Patton ran out of gas because it was diverted to Monty. It was certainly not Patton’s fault and would not have even happen if Monty hadn’t pushed for Market Garden. Originally posted by angie999@Sep 7 2005, 05:24 AM However, the Beveland Peninsula and the German pocket to the south of the Scheldt had been declared a "fortress" area by Hitler, specific forces were allocated to defend it and the Scheldt never was going to be opened to shipping without a battle. That role did fall to Canadian 2nd Army, as the left flank army of 21st Army Group. It remains a matter of debate whether this should have been given higher priority, but if 11th Armoured Division had been able to seal off the peninsula, it would not have opened the port any earlier - it would have led to a larger battle to eliminate the remnants of the two German armies. I never implied that Antwerp was child’s play. Germany knew how important it was and fought desperately to keep it out of Allied hands because it meant their doom. Originally posted by angie999@Sep 7 2005, 05:24 AM The reason 11th Armoured Division paused for two days in Antwerp was - they had outrun their supplies, including fuel, plus they were badly in need of maintenance after the advance from Normandy. Running out of supplies two months earlier would have prevented Patton from being halted and prevented the Ardennes offensive. It must be clear that the problem was not the fighting of the Brits but Monty’s delays. Originally posted by angie999@Sep 7 2005, 05:24 AM As for Patton, his halt due to lack of fuel during his advance towards Metz was on 4 September 1944, the day 11th Armoured Division took Antwerp. One reason for this is that Eisenhower restricted 3rd Army to 2,000 tons of supplies a day, while allowing 1st Army, coming up towards Aachen on the left of the British, 5,000 tons. Eisenhower had clearly decided that at that point the northern drive had priority. Even in September, when the supply crisis started to ease, Patton was only allowed 2,500 tons a day, but by then he had become bogged down in the Metz defences, which the Germans were not about to give up easily. Whatever his accomplishments in mobile warfare, there is nothing to suggest that Patton's talents extended to cracking open static defences and he did not do well at Metz. Well, the Metz was not your run of the mill “static defense”. It had all approaches defended and its strong points could not be bypassed. Granted, not Patton at his best, but then again, if you look at Anzio, you have proof that nothing is a gimme. We threw everything from ships to planes to artillery to bodies on Anzio. The Metz was hardly a wimpy fortress. It was one of the most formidable redoubts ever built. Originally posted by angie999@Sep 7 2005, 05:24 AM By the way, the "Red Ball Express" operation sent supplies through to 1st Army, not 3rd Army. You are correct. Make that COMZ. <!--QuoteBegin-angie999@Sep 7 2005, 05:24 AM The supply crisis of the allied armies was in early September and it occurred for one reason which had nothing to do with Antwerp as a potential supply base. Quite simply, the speed of advance outran the lines of supply from Normandy at a time when the allies lacked the capacity to supply four mobile armies simultaneously. Bradley would disagree with you. Here is a comment on just one the “costs” of Market Garden: The most notable example of General Bradley's antipathy to an airborne operation occurred at Tournai. Though this city lay outside his 12th Army Group sector and inside the British zone, Bradley ensured its capture before an airdrop could be staged by ordering the First Army to rush ahead and take it. The ground troops arrived in good time to make an airborne operation there unnecessary. But Bradley had nevertheless lost a measure of air supply because the troop carrier planes had been withdrawn from supply missions to prepare for the drop. "Although we had made good on our boast and Ike's air drop was washed out," General Bradley later wrote, "even our smugness could not compensate for the critical loss we had suffered in tonnage.... During the six-day stoppage that had resulted from SHAEF's planned drop at Tournai, we lost an average of 823 tons per day. In gasoline, this loss would have equaled one and a half million gallons...." Ultimately Market Garden has to lie on the shoulders of Ike. He was the one who approved it. But, it was Monty that dreamed it up and pressed it in his most persistent way. Patton was not “scheduled’ to overrun his supply line. You can say he did, but that wasn’t the plan. That was the indirect decision made Ike by approving Market Garden. Ike was aware of this. But it makes no sense to mock Patton for “running out of fuel”. I found that ridiculous.
jimbotosome, if you think I am an unqualified "Monty" fan, it will come as a surprise to some of the British posters, but at the same time he was far better than you are giving him credit for. I also think your posts contain a series of basic errors of fact, which frankly I do not have the time and inclination to argue through in detail. I think that you totally fail to understand the command and control structure of and planning for Overlord and I suggest that you read Carlo D'Este's Decision in Normandy. I trust that the work of this American historian will not upset your national sensibilities. He is not uncritical of Montgomery, but he also gives credit where due. As for Patton, he was a subordinate army commander throughout the campaign in North West Europe and contributed little to allied strategic direction. Frankly, if you want to use this forum to have a discussion on national lines about what was wrong with the Brits, then the discussion between you and me is concluded. On the other hand, if you want to do more basic reading and come back with a more blanced and considered view, it is a different matter. Now, do you have anything more to say about the use of strategic bombers in Normandy?
Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 8 2005, 02:47 AM Well, the Metz was not your run of the mill “static defense”. It had all approaches defended and its strong points could not be bypassed. Granted, not Patton at his best, but then again, if you look at Anzio, you have proof that nothing is a gimme. We threw everything from ships to planes to artillery to bodies on Anzio. The Metz was hardly a wimpy fortress. It was one of the most formidable redoubts ever built. Well Metz was a formidable obstacle built around the time of the Franco-Prussian War. It certainly was not easy to take but as Max Hastings states in his book Armageddon it was not Pattons finest hour. He committed forces to a frontal assault causing large numbers of casualties. It would have been far easier to encircle it and move on, but as Hastings points out, Allied Commanders did not fight battles as were fought on the Eastern Front. They had fears that whilst encirling the enemy they could themsellves be cut off. Apart from the Ruhr Pocket they never encircled large German Forces, preferring to use a broad frontal approach. So it was in Metz. And as for Anzio, yes the Americans threw everyhting they had at that beachhead but they didnt need to. The delays by the AMERICAN general Lucas ensured that instead of a quick drive to Rome (which was a distinct possibility upon landing) they became embroiled in a long and Bloody Battle. Indeed had the Americans managed to break out of Anzio sooner, which they should have done, battles like Monte Cassino could have been avoided. I am no fan of Montgomery, no more so than of Patton. Both had strengths and weaknesses, but were vain, arrogant, egotistical and incidentally glorified by their home countries. If you dont believe me watch PATTON. great film but nope he didnt beat the Germans on his own.
Originally posted by Gotthard Heinrici@Sep 8 2005, 06:03 AM I am no fan of Montgomery, no more so than of Patton. Both had strengths and weaknesses, but were vain, arrogant, egotistical and incidentally glorified by their home countries. If you dont believe me watch PATTON. great film but nope he didnt beat the Germans on his own. No, I believe you buddy. I think that being a high ranking general usually comes from a life of intense ambition. I believe most generals were arrogant and egotistical, at least the aggressive field commanders were. Bradley was the only general on their level that head his head on straight. He was quite humble. In all I have read by him and of him, he does not seem like one prone to exaggeration. I can't say that about Patton or Monty. But, despite the competition between them, the Allies were better off having both of them than only one or neither. I would like to say Ike was humble too. But, my impression from reading about him and things by him indicate that he was normally pretty humble but had a "streak" about him were he could "step out of character". To Monty and Patton's credits. They both instilled confidence in those who served underthem and were appreciated by their men, despite words to the contrary. Victory covers a lot of "sin".
