Market Garden

Discussion in 'NW Europe' started by JeremyScott, Nov 2, 2005.

  1. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (sapper @ Dec 8 2005, 04:32 PM) [post=42869]There seems little purpose in posting more on this subject, This man has a view that is not going to be chsnged. I readily admit that being in a theatre of war does not allow a overall view of what was going on elswhere, But we were surprisingly kept up to date, (reports pinned up somewhere or other) with regular reports on how the war was going from different theatres of the war.

    I dont know about the USA army, but we did know what and where we were going, (not all the times) for sometimes we would be hauled off quickly

    That we had our defeats goes without saying , every army has them, But this idea that the USA army never did? is pushing the bounds of the imagination somewhat. If that is what is thought? I can put the matter right very quickly.
    Sapper
    [/b]
    Where do you get this stuff Sapper? You make a straw man argument and then proceed to tear him down. This statement that I believe that the US Army didn't suffer any defeat? That's an absurd accusation.

    Sapper you were brothers in arms with the US Army. Why was it always "Us" and "Them"? And why is it still today when you veterans speak in retrospect?

    Anyway, why is it that you need to change my mind? Isn't the implication there a bit on the dogmatic side itself? What if you are wrong and changed my mind? You made a claim that Market Garden was all-in-all successful but offered no substantive reasons why. Exactly what should I use as a basis to change my mind?

    Sapper I often say I appreciate your service and sacrifice but that does not make you right about everything you believed about the war, even in areas you were not? Part of what we have as "fact" that is both controversial and contradictory also came from people that were there too. WWII was too big for one person to have all the answers.
     
  2. mattgibbs

    mattgibbs Senior Member

    As an incidental point, historians accuracy, when concerned with planning and such things, very much depends on the available documentation out there for study. That can be a lot or pecious little.

    Market - Garden seems to occupy a mythical point in the war, but I'd say its not necassarily more important to research and debate than other areas, such as the Anzio landings and the problems of Monte Cassino for example.

    I prefer to read a historical text and balance it with others, I don't believe every historian can be 100% right, to me it's far better to look at 20 books on something like Market - Garden from which you will learn different points as well as the same broad picture. Of course, that would be if I had a massive interest in just that operation, which I don't.

    Some historians who spend years looking into one thing, to spend countless hours and money on precious pictures and interviews, get very little coverage whilst so so called "famous" historians don't have to quite struggle so. I know who I am more interested in.

    Regards
    MG
     
  3. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    (jimbotosome @ Dec 8 2005, 07:01 PM) [post=42862] That would be like the "Basra Highway of Death" in Iraq in 1991 and the Allied forces would have understood what Rommel was so distraught about and why he resigned the war in 1943. I get the impression that ground forces play a more significant role than they really do. Jump in anytime!
    [/b]

    An interesting diversion this.

    Whether you belong to the "Rommel was a genius" school, or the "Rommel is overrated" school, one thing which stands out in his writings is his understanding of the role of airpower in North Africa. Few German generals had anything approaching this experience by late 1942 and early 1943 and I think it had a very strong influence on his forward area deployment argument late rin 1944.

    Perhaps insufficiently appreciated.
     
  4. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    My final word on this subject. I am no Hisitorian, nor have I any ambition to be one, The events that I write and post are descriptions of what actually happened at the time, as far as I experienced.

    Never have I run my Yank comrades in arms down, it is not in my nature to do so, I fought alongside them and they treated us like Lords. The were great friends, What I do take exception to? is the running down of the British, it does, I am afraid, anger me, for I have seen the greatest bravery, and the ultimate sacrifices made.

    Tnere has been far too much written about the British mistakes, and in a tone that is dismissive of the British, The most courageous of yeomen fighters.
    Sapper
     
  5. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    I think that sometimes in these discussions we can all get a bit emotive and in fairness its hard not to. However it is not unfair to be be critical of decisions made by commanders and armies when having a discussion about these affairs, not just Market Garden but about all the conflicts in WWII. Its a fine line between discussing tactics of various armies and those comments being turned into "nation bashing". We should all make a conscious effort to try and remember this when posting. In case anyone thinks I am trying to take the moral higher ground, well I am as guilty of this as anyone else. But unless we can all remember to be cogniscant of the different sensitivities of everyone here then its going to be difficult to have reasoned arguments on this forum.

    There is a flip side to this as well though. Just as sensitivities have to be watched, we should also be mindful of the fact that history allows us to be critical of people and decisions made by the various armies, it doesnt mean we're bashing anyone.

    For example should anyone feel the need to discuss Irelands neutrality during the war and if someone posts that it was inexcusable well I have no problem with that, it is a judgement on the actions and is not personally ripping a nation. If however the verdict of cowardice was laid at the door well then I would have a major problem with that because it gets personal.

    I am giving that example because I feel that when people decide to defend their own army they can lash out at others in order to defend themselves. And some people cant tell the difference between justified critiquing and insulting remarks.

    So lets try and remember that if we can hmmmm??? I know I need to.
     
  6. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (angie999 @ Dec 9 2005, 06:04 AM) [post=42886]Whether you belong to the "Rommel was a genius" school, or the "Rommel is overrated" school, one thing which stands out in his writings is his understanding of the role of airpower in North Africa. Few German generals had anything approaching this experience by late 1942 and early 1943 and I think it had a very strong influence on his forward area deployment argument late rin 1944.

    Perhaps insufficiently appreciated.
    [/b]
    Well said Angie. You hit that one right on the head. I don't think any general in WWII knew that as well, but then again, experience is a fantastic teacher if you live to see the lesson. He had first hand experience with his supply line being decimated by bombing and watching his tanks and men be destroyed without mercy from two different air forces. An experienced general always looks like a genius whether he is or not.

    Patton understood the effectiveness of air power too but was less inclined to give it its proper credit. He never says so, but I think he was bothered by a fear that air forces would disenfranchise tanks and infantry. So, this had led to my belief that the tank generals themselves have created, in posterity, a historical conspiracy of ignorance of the effectiveness of aircraft to land battles. In reading the air force’s retrospective of air warfare in WWII, it basically showed the roll of tactical air to be one where it is expected to greatly reduce the enemy to the point they can no longer put up a successful campaign against the ground forces and for the attacking army to have a “mop up” roll and get the things that are impossible or impractical for air strikes to get.



    (sapper @ Dec 9 2005, 06:07 AM) [post=42887]My final word on this subject. I am no Hisitorian, nor have I any ambition to be one, The events that I write and post are descriptions of what actually happened at the time, as far as I experienced.

    Never have I run my Yank comrades in arms down, it is not in my nature to do so, I fought alongside them and they treated us like Lords. The were great friends, What I do take exception to? is the running down of the British, it does, I am afraid, anger me, for I have seen the greatest bravery, and the ultimate sacrifices made.

    Tnere has been far too much written about the British mistakes, and in a tone that is dismissive of the British, The most courageous of yeomen fighters.
    Sapper
    [/b]
    Well you have never heard that from me. I have always advocated that none of the Allies were of second rate stock. Officers, well, that's a differnt story. Some good, some not so good.
     
  7. mattgibbs

    mattgibbs Senior Member

    As to General Officers who had a broader understanding of tactics beyond the men in the field, how about General Slim, his activity in Burma and the Far Eastern campaign and the strategy of great co-operation with the Air Force and the attachment of Air Liason officers to his troops, plus the long range ability to be supplied by the air and not rely on extended supply columns was very inivotive for its time, and he seems to be overshadowed by many of him contemporaries.
    Regards
    MG
     
  8. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    (Colonel Gubbins @ Dec 9 2005, 11:54 AM) [post=42913]As to General Officers who had a broader understanding of tactics beyond the men in the field, how about General Slim, his activity in Burma and the Far Eastern campaign and the strategy of great co-operation with the Air Force and the attachment of Air Liason officers to his troops, plus the long range ability to be supplied by the air and not rely on extended supply columns was very inivotive for its time, and he seems to be overshadowed by many of him contemporaries.
    Regards
    MG
    [/b]
    In WWII, they were just developing the tactics of coordinating with air. Because of the fact that ground soldiers were wasting ordinance by calling for the wrong kinds and having trouble describing strike points, they started putting pilots in the tanks to call in the tactical strikes since they could tell the best way to coordinate the tanks. You could think of this as the predecessor to the ground FACs (Forward Air Controllers). I think that ground commanders appreciated the capability of strategic bombers over the enemy lines but really had no idea what they had in tactical air. In the 9th TAC retrospective I mentioned earlier, it describes the evolution of this process and by the end of the war there were very few reasons to face a tank with an enemy tank. It's not a panacea because tactical air has some limitations. There are weather limitations (though pretty much overcome these days) and there were some objects tactical air can’t reach since it is a precision strike so then artillery finds it value or even moving armor groups at the target after any visible target has been removed. This was the same practice of the coalition in the Gulf War. The could have easily have won the ground war even against the Republican Guard but the idea was to minimize the exposure of forces by decimating it by air. They of course had the advantage of infra-red, guided missiles and tactical helos. But the theory is the same as it was in WWII.

    When you think about ground commanders and the desire to get credit and fame both for themselves and their men, you could definitely see the propensity to not really “talk up” the role of TAC in the destruction of the enemy. They would never talk it down but the battle descriptions they leave for history to report might “omit” certain details about how the “great battles” were won in order to not disturb the flow of fame that comes from it. Compare the roles in the Gulf War. The ground really didn’t get near as much fame as the air force. Not that they didn’t do a stellar job but I think with the coverage and flight videos, it was pretty obvious what “got it done”. I find that the source of “real” history of most battles is found, not by the traditional descriptions of the battles but by reading between the lines of the Allied generals and also looking at the enemy ground commander’s description of how he lost. In that he has no reason to describe the effectiveness of his enemy’s success in favor of ground forces because then that would have made him look like a poor commander, not properly using his ground forces.

    Angie made a very profound point that I wonder if others caught it. What was a real “genius” in WWII? Genius to me typically is associated with IQ but the fact is that tactical advantages tend to make any commander look like a genius. So is it simply experience that is the main thing in a great general rather than some intrinsic characteristic of the individual himself? I bet that if you could compare graphically the perception of genius of a general and the experience of a general side by side that the lines would track pretty true.
     
  9. Kitty

    Kitty Very Senior Member

    I don't know about genius, but as far as I am concerned Rommel was a good soldier. He wasn't political (when he played with that fire he got burnt), but he knew how to use his men and artillery and when to withdraw because he could not do any more.
    As to air support, it is very useful if it is accurate. In the war the British/Allies developed Oboe and Gee to guide their bombers, and after D-day the Oboe stations moved forwards with the lines to give the bombers greater accuracy deeper into Germany. However, accurate bombing close to the lines was bloody difficult. An unforseen wind could easily blow the bombs off course and onto our own lines, as happened too many times.
    The most accurate bombing was with Wallis's Tallboy and Grandslam bombs, but these were reserved for special targets such as the Tirpitz, V1 and V2 rocket sites, and U-boat pens. And even then only 617 were really capable of hitting the nail on the head with them.
    Air suppost is a tricky animal to coordinate. In Africa is was very usueful due to the open spaces and terrain in which it was used. But in Europe, where they were fighting in woods, fields and towns, it was almost impossible to use accurately. Sometimes it worked, but more often than not a bombload would be way out of the marker and hit something crucuial. Such as the Allied artillery. I think that is why the battle reports play down the role of the Airforces, because it just wasn't accurate enough. When it worked it was bloody fantastic, when it wasn't perfect it could be a nightmare. At times it was like the British shelling prior to the Somme. A good idea, but it didn't work. At other times it was like the Gulf War when it was accurate and wiped out any real resistance. It was all a game of potluck which you got.
    In WW2 the cooperation between the ground and air forces was, as Jimbo syas, just being developed, therefore it could go arse uppards at any time.
    And Jimbo, to answer your question about our respect for the Vets? In Britain we took the full flak of the war. Our men and women lived and worked through it, never knowing if they were going to die. I have been involved in an large display for VE/VJ Day this year, and I have heard somen real horror stories of civilians and sericemen and women. But they all shrug it off and still say it was the best time of their lives. I think they would be what we now call Edgeworkers.
    And we who have learnt a little of what happened have the greatest of respect for them for carrying on. I know in America our stiff upper lips are joked about, but trust me, they help in difficult circumstances.
    And if I had the choice between listening to an historian who has researched somethign for the last twenty years, or a vet who was there, I would always opt for the vet. Maybe they don't know every little detail, but they experienced it and can put life and words into the people they were with, something even the best historian could never do.
    Sorry Jimbo, when you consider us in Britain and wonder at our reverance for the men and women of the war, just remember, we can still see the scars of that war all around us. In 60 years time America will feel the same way about those who ran into the Twin towers.
    o_O
     
  10. jimbotosome

    jimbotosome Discharged

    mosquito,

    You seem to have a very distorted view of what it means to honor veterans. We do honor our veterans in the US but we do not deify them. We honor their service and sacrifice but we do not “dishonor” them by accepting every idea of theirs as gospel regardless of how unfounded it might be. Vets are not honored by fake people cow towing to their every whim. A veteran certainly could not be in very many places at the same and the places they were in, they were not always in those places at every point in the war. They still have a very limited view of what happened in most circumstances. They can tell you what it was like where they were, but they cannot tell you what the leaders on both sides were thinking or strategizing at this point or that. They were executing orders often without a clue of why they were being asked to do what they were doing, but executing it because it was an order. This is how generals look like heroes, having men that are disciplined to execute their orders without having to know all the details or reasons for the objective they are given.

    You think the US didn't put it on the line in WWII? That only Britain suffered the scars of WWII? Tell that to the men of the Navy who are required to stand at attention during honors every single time they pass the USS Arizona still at the bottom of Pearl. Tell that to the men on Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Tinian, Tarawa, Saipan, Guam, the Philippines, etc. PM “spidge” and ask him where he thinks the most brutal fighting of war took place. And of what theatre did the Americans not fight side by side with the British in virtually every battle from the start of 1942 on? What did the US not give them that they could have given being that the pacifists in our democracy precluded us from jumping in the war unprovoked?

    The people in the States don’t have a negative view of the British in the least. In fact they believe it is one of the most honorable nations on the face of the earth and are proud to still have them as an ally. No nation, or I should say nations, have a profound influence on US foreign policy than the commonwealth nations of the UK. There is nothing the US wouldn’t do to help any one of these nations that have proven to be loyal allies to democracy and freedom in the world for decades. Attacking any of these nations would be viewed as attacking the US itself. I suspect the converse is true as well.
     
  11. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    Folks, this is supposed to be a Market Garden thread.

    There is certainly a place for topics on both Rommel and how veterans are treated and regarded, so why not start new topics?

    No threadjacking please.
     
    Red Jim likes this.
  12. Kitty

    Kitty Very Senior Member

    Angie, stop being a spoil sport.
    As to what Jimbo was saying, and I am sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this, but a couple of celebrations got in the way, and now Uni exams, so here goes.
    I was not dissin the Yank vets, nor am I denying they took part in some of the most vicious battles of WW2. So did a lot of our boys. I know a lad who was in the Far East for the duration of the war, and he stil has nightmares about it. Trust me they all went through it one way or another. What i was trying to say, and forgive me for doing it badly, but in Britain we only have to look around and there are pillboxes, airfields, remains of lake wires. You name it, it's there. God, even the armaments factory my grandmother and her sister worked in is still going.
    What I am trying to say is that America was relatively untouched by the war in a physical sense. You didn't have to cover the country in defences to protect from an invasion that could have come at any time. We endured bombing day and night, something that only the East coast of America got from the U-boats, but I am probably wrong about that, so sorry if I am.
    Just step back for a moment and look at it from the British stance. We took a lot of crap. We stood there and took it on our own for nearly three years. And we held them off. When America joined after Pearl Harbour (which we did warn you was coming by the way, thanks to Station X) the fighters were up retyy quickly afte rarriving. But the bombers? Weeks before they managed to go on a sortie. I understand there is still a lot of feelings amongst Bomber Command verterans about that one. But in the end the Fortresses did prove themselves.
    In the town in which I live in Cheshire the Yanks were made very welcome after it was realised they were a bit lost and pining for home. A Brit Army Officer, when he saw the poor sods wandering around on Christams Day hit all of the local families that morning and got them all taken in for Christmas dinner, and the families then adopted their GI's. Some have returned to the town several times. We did the same for the Dutch Princes Irene Brigade. And the Irish.
    What I am sayign is that those of us who have some intelligence in this country revere our vets because not only what they had to face, but what they did as well. They still took the time to make friends even though the bombs were falling.
    I am sorry if I have caused offence, but I needed to clear up the misunderstanding. In Britain we revere our vets because they are he veterans. And as to standignto attention when the sailors pass Pearl Harbour? You just come to this country and watch the old boys and girls when they pass a war memorial. Trust me, you'll be in tears within seconds. I always am. And still we celebate their lives. And the lives of the enemies, because most of them were doing it because they had to, not because they wanted to. Everyone was someones son or daughter.
    I'm rambling now, aren't I?
    Look, I apologise if I caused offence, but stand back and look. We will always be America's friend, despite your choice of president (who I have to say is bloody amusing. He's the Yank equivilent of our House of Commons). We will always stand by you, despite Blair, and we will always be your controlling influence. Come on I couldn't leave this without a little friendly dig at our cousins over the Pond now, could I? I fully expect one back.
    So going back to Arnhem. What was the discussion about again?
    o_O
     
  13. Glider

    Glider Senior Member

    (Colonel Gubbins @ Dec 9 2005, 04:54 PM) [post=42913]As to General Officers who had a broader understanding of tactics beyond the men in the field, how about General Slim, his activity in Burma and the Far Eastern campaign and the strategy of great co-operation with the Air Force and the attachment of Air Liason officers to his troops, plus the long range ability to be supplied by the air and not rely on extended supply columns was very inivotive for its time, and he seems to be overshadowed by many of him contemporaries.
    Regards
    MG
    [/b]

    I totally agree with what was said here. Slim and his troops used air support in a way that was never matched let alone beaten in WW2 and yet as Gubbins states is almost always overlooked.

    It should also be noted that artillery and air support were handled differently by the US and British Army in Europe and in particular, the level of authority given to the FCO's. I am not saying one was better than another because as already stated we were still learning but there were differences.
     
  14. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    (Colonel Gubbins @ Dec 10 2005, 03:54 AM) [post=42913]As to General Officers who had a broader understanding of tactics beyond the men in the field, how about General Slim, his activity in Burma and the Far Eastern campaign and the strategy of great co-operation with the Air Force and the attachment of Air Liason officers to his troops, plus the long range ability to be supplied by the air and not rely on extended supply columns was very inivotive for its time, and he seems to be overshadowed by many of him contemporaries.
    Regards
    MG
    [/b]

    Slim did very well also when forum members were asked the question - "Best General". Possibly a difficult question to ask and as many other similar questions comes down to personal preference.

    You will find it here.

    http://www.ww2talk.com/index.php?showtopic=2266&st=0
     
  15. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    I think you'll find that Slim and indeed the Burma Campaign is the most overlooked campaign of the war. And it is one that is extremely interesting.

    Now back to arnhem :)

    I'm reading "It never Snows in September" and it is a riveting read. The Author, Ian Kershaw, gives an excellent description of the retreat across France, especially concerning the 9th and 10th SS Panzer divisions. Although I'm only just starting it I can already see that it will be a useful read.
     
  16. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    (Gotthard Heinrici @ Jan 12 2006, 09:45 AM) [post=44313]I'm reading "It never Snows in September" and it is a riveting read. The Author, Ian Kershaw, gives an excellent description of the retreat across France, especially concerning the 9th and 10th SS Panzer divisions. Although I'm only just starting it I can already see that it will be a useful read.
    [/b]

    Just a little correction here: the author is Robert Kershaw :).

    And seems indeed a very interesting book so Im gonna order it for sure soon.

    Thnx for the info Gotthard !
     
  17. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    Quite Right Exx and apologies for that. :)
     
  18. Exxley

    Exxley Senior Member

    lol no worries Gott. Besides, I have to confess I didnt spot the difference at first, eventhough I have most of Ian Kershaw's books lol.
     
  19. Roberts

    Roberts Junior Member

    The Guards armoured division should have pushed ahead much faster than they did. speed was issential nd many para lives would have been saved and Arnham Bridge taken which again might have saved countless lives later
     
  20. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    Danny, welcome to the forum.

    Earlier in this discussion, I commented that XXX Corps was roughly on timetable to be at Arnhem within the planned three days before Nijmegen, where the real problems started.
     

Share This Page