Could Operation Market-garden Have Succeeded?

(jimbotosome @ Feb 2 2006, 01:16 AM) [post=45170]First of all, I have never have waged a single assault at sapper. [/b]

Excuse me ?

You called Brian a hypocrite, your tone has been disgusting and all round you are one little ball of arrogance. You have also put words in his mouth.

 

Cheers Max.Thanks for your support, but I am afraid this one is looking for trouble, No matter what you do or say, he will continue in the same way. Leave it mate. I only brought up the subject of the frailty of American forces after a great deal of reading this fellows constant running down of all things British. Then I only posted it to show that contrary to the American popular beleife, they were not the greatest on earth. Far too many of them believe in their Hollywood versions...And we all know about that.
Sapper

 

Absolutely agree, Brian. I also respect your wisdom, which goes without saying is greater than mine or anyone else's here. Full respect to you as ever.

 

Oberst

Whilst you are trying to bait Exxley about the fact that the French have supposedly had no victories since Napoleon, allow me to state that in the Great War, the French Poilu performed with great pride and honour and helped to win the war. This can be defined in one word : VERDUN. The French showed great heroism and determination and managed to successfully fight off the Germans over a period of 3 or 4 months. They died in their thousands to preserve their homeland from being overwhelmed by the Kaiser's Troops.

Indeed whilst the French have been chastised supposedly for their record in Military campaigns remember that the French also had the foresight to know when a fight was up and after a defeat made peace knowing that if they didnt they would get sucked into a long and drawn out conflict which would not have the support of their people and which ultimately would lead to an EMBARRASING withdrawal. The people they made peace with? Why it was with the Vietnamese. Now who didnt take note of that particular conflict and who thought they knew better?????? And which country suffered because of that arrogance? Answers on a post card please!!!!




Now back to the topic:

did the Red Devils have any 17 Pounders or were they only equipped with 6 pounders?

 

(jimbotosome @ Feb 1 2006, 08:26 PM) [post=45160] I really don’t know what you mean by caliber (or calibre as you guys spell it). To me, caliber means bore size which is also what is meant by 75mm and 76mm. The rounds themselves may change but a 75mm gun would not have a caliber of .5 it would have a caliber of 3 (three inches).
[/b]

Ignoring the difference in spelling, the point concernin the length of barrels is as follows:

The calibre is basically the diameter of the bore, although you have to be careful with this. For example, a .357" magnum handgun actualy has a .38" barrel. Do not rely on the nomenclature for the true dimensions. Bur, leaving that aside, the convention is to express the length of a barrel as a multiple of the calibre. So, if the calibre is 75mm, a barrel 1.5m long is 20 calibres, normally expressed as L/20.

(jimbotosome @ Feb 1 2006, 08:26 PM) [post=45160]But the Sherman-Firefly (UK) and the Sherman-Jumbos (US) did indeed have longer barrels. Agreed that’s how they can achieve higher muzzle velocities. This allows the round to achieve maximum velocity while in the barrel and use more charge to boot. This is why the 88 was so deadly. But this wouldn’t explain the anti-tank guns.
[/b]

Well, the point is that the anti-tank guns were much higher velocity than the M3 75mm gun.

(jimbotosome @ Feb 1 2006, 08:26 PM) [post=45160] I agree whole-heartedly on the physics you listed. But the question I have is when did the British have long barrel anti-tank guns? They would have to be towed. They would be too heavy to push. [/b]

The British and Canadians had the 17pr towed anti-tank gun at divisional level from the Normandy campaign onwards, but never in sufficient numbers. The same basic gun was also fitted to a number of Shermans and the variant was called the Firefly.

 

There are no circumstances whatsoever when there is any justification for engaging in personal insults and abuse, or posting with the intention of annoying other members.

If you disagree with a post, express your differences in the proper way without personal attacks.

 

Go Angie!
As to Jimbo's response, i think he knows what i make of him and Sapper's little 'contretemps' from the other Arnhem thread. Just one thing Jimbo, who told you that Pearl Harbour was coming, and yet you ignored it? I believe that was why America finally had to get it's backside into gear and enter the war. Just my personal opinion.
Watcha Sapper, alright out there?
Now, i've come over from the other Arnhem thread, and i must admit I'm a bit lost. Can someone explain, in Beano language please, what the different tank guns and stuff are? What are 'pr' and 'ADNS' (is that right?) What precisely is the topic as I am now right royally confused after reading the posts. Angie, could you simplify it down please? I trust you.
Final note for Jimbo. Relax. Take a deep breath, and now... Here in Britain we have a unique view of life. We laugh at everything! Including ourselves. We love america (most of the time) and because we do we take the mick out of you. If we hated you we'd ignore you. We do not mean any disprespect, but i think that is what you are reading into some of the comments because you just don't understand what some of us Islanders are saying. Don't take what we say at face value, is what i mean. Everything a Brit says has so many undertones and overtones that the words don't mean what they say.
Some of Sappers comments may irritate and enrage you, but to those of us in this country, we unconsciously understand what he is really getting at. If he did not respect the Yanks he woudl not criticse. he only does so because he knows that you are capable of taking the criticism and consideirng it. So calm down and look at it through British eyes before going off at half cock.
And Sapper: please take all i have said into consideration and stop using oh-so-British ways of saying things to Jimbo. We all know the yanks don't understand us. Personally, i think it's about time they admitted this independance malarky hasn't worked and come back to the fold.

 

(mosquito617 @ Feb 2 2006, 08:09 AM) [post=45182]Go Angie!
As to Jimbo's response, i think he knows what i make of him and Sapper's little 'contretemps' from the other Arnhem thread. [/b]
Let me get a few things clear here, please. I think imaginations and confusion are running amok here.

1) I am not angry. E-mail is two-dimensional. It does not communicate emotion UNLESS YOU WRITE IN UPPER CASE or use emoticons to indicate it. Despite what you folks seem to think, I am an extremely laid back person and very “matter of fact” about virtually anything posted here, even my beloved Jugs. I am simply direct in my responses and some of you mistake that for a diatribe. Direct is what I am. It’s not an act, not a show, not a result of being angry. It’s simply my personality, my way of speaking. When I am posting, I am concentrating on the issue (sometimes intently) not the poster I am responding too. As far as I am concerned I have no enemy here. Several of you I admire the sox off of as I have often stated.

2) I am one of few Americans on this forum so when you throw an American rock into the pack of dogs, I am usually the dog that you hit. That’s when I yelp. Americans and Brits have one thing in common. We can both sometimes come across like a**h***s when we never intended too. So, if there were anyplace I would think I should be understood, it would be here.

3) My posts are in the archive to see. I have NEVER (uppercase for emphasis not anger) assaulted anyone directly unless possibly in defense of blatantly ad hominem attacks on myself (though I doubt that too, I just don’t remember and realize I too am human).

4) If you search my posts you will also find I have also openly and abundantly honored and thanked sapper for his service (almost to the point of platitudes). British or not, angst or not, he is still a hero of mine. But, don’t mistake it for an attack to call someone out on the carpet that attacks other veterans of course even the US ones. I am not a provoker. But I don’t simply roll over and let people walk all over me, regardless of their stature. I can roll with the punches and you can even check my posts where I have been personally tagged by him where I simply ignore it. I figure he’s earned that consideration. But regardless of what you have done in your life, the rules of human decency should still apply, even if you are an 80 year old man. Sapper is not senile (thank God) and he would garner tons more respect from me if he would simply tell his experiences and opinions of matter and tolerate those of others even if he wishes to disagree.

5) Yes, I know you love sapper and really appreciate him and give him a lot more line than you would say me or someone else. I also know you have a desire to protect him. Perfectly understandable, he is one of the Crown’s very own. But we in the states love our servicemen as well and have the same impulses to protect the honor of our injured and fallen. When those lines cross is the only time I would or have engage sapper. Disagreeing with sapper and stating a contrary opinion is not disrespect. In fact, quite the opposite, after all, who really finds honor in being patronized?

Now, can we put that issue to bed please?

(mosquito617 @ Feb 2 2006, 08:09 AM) [post=45182]Just one thing Jimbo, who told you that Pearl Harbour was coming, and yet you ignored it? I believe that was why America finally had to get it's backside into gear and enter the war. Just my personal opinion. [/b]
Not really following what you are asking or stating here. I think we agree that Pearl was what got America to declare itself into WWII, at least against Japan, but Japan was simply a means to an end. The leadership of the US, in particular the Executive Branch were realists more so than the Legislature (who were simply too political to be useful) or the American people (who were ignorant).

The Executive Branch (the president and friends) cannot declare war. He does not have the constitutional power. The Legislature (Congress and the Senate) does that. The Legislature is highly sensitive to what the people "feel" and at the time 88% of Americans thought we should stay out of “Europe’s War” as they called it then. For the sake of argument you have to take for granted my insistence that if Britain fell that the US would be “royally screwed” (pun intended). FDR believed this, Churchill believed this, and Jimbo believes this. Since there is less than a snowball's chance in hell of ever persuading the US public that we need to be in the war to get them to push congress that way, you have to have something "profound" like this or your nation would never be persuaded. If Pearl had been at ready, they Japanese would have gotten a new one torn out of their attack forces and possibly their carriers sunk and that would have been "justice served" in the eyes of the passive US citizen.

That the US induced Japan into war is not an issue as it is fairly well a given based on the 8-points memo. Whether they knew the Japanese would probably strike Pearl was not the issue, that too was a given and discussed much even by Admiral Kimmel. Whether they knew the exact time (within say a few hours) of the attack is the only thing that is debatable and that hinges on whether or not the US was able to crack the JN-25 code before Dec 7 or afterwards. I have not really commented on the morality of it as to whether or whether or not FDR would be justified by the act to allow it. But, this is a tad off topic. If you have a question on it or wish to debate its points, you should do so either on the existing threads or start a new one as that is a rabbit hole of its own.

The US, like Britain, has been and still is, slow to anger. But when they are crossed they are quick to retaliate and tenacious in that retaliation. But, sometimes being slow to anger can be taken too far. I think 1940-1941 was one of those times.

(mosquito617 @ Feb 2 2006, 08:09 AM) [post=45182]Final note for Jimbo. Relax. Take a deep breath, and now... [/b]
I am relaxed, chillin’ away. It’s all good!
(mosquito617 @ Feb 2 2006, 08:09 AM) [post=45182]We all know the yanks don't understand us. Personally, i think it's about time they admitted this independance malarky hasn't worked and come back to the fold.
[/b]
Oh my!



(Max (UK) @ Feb 2 2006, 02:46 AM) [post=45173](jimbotosome @ Feb 2 2006, 01:16 AM) [post=45170]First of all, I have never have waged a single assault at sapper. [/b]

Excuse me ?

You called Brian a hypocrite, your tone has been disgusting and all round you are one little ball of arrogance. You have also put words in his mouth.
[/b] Chill Max. Pointing out hypocracy is not an "assault". Anyway, assaults are unprovoked. But, anyhow, lets just say that you and I have a different interpretation of what it means to honor someone and leave it at that ok?

 

(angie999 @ Feb 2 2006, 06:28 AM) [post=45179]Ignoring the difference in spelling, the point concernin the length of barrels is as follows:

The calibre is basically the diameter of the bore, although you have to be careful with this. For example, a .357" magnum handgun actualy has a .38" barrel. Do not rely on the nomenclature for the true dimensions. Bur, leaving that aside, the convention is to express the length of a barrel as a multiple of the calibre. So, if the calibre is 75mm, a barrel 1.5m long is 20 calibres, normally expressed as L/20. [/b]
Ok, so you are saying that caliber can be used to express barrel length as well? I have never heard this but I understand why you stated them that way. For those of you who think I thought I knew it all, this proves you "were" wrong. But, since I NOW know this one last missing fact...

(angie999 @ Feb 2 2006, 06:28 AM) [post=45179]Well, the point is that the anti-tank guns were much higher velocity than the M3 75mm gun. [/b]
Ok, but this would mean they had long barrels like the German guns correct? And as so would need to be towed into position especially on uneven terrain?

(angie999 @ Feb 2 2006, 06:28 AM) [post=45179]The British and Canadians had the 17pr towed anti-tank gun at divisional level from the Normandy campaign onwards, but never in sufficient numbers. The same basic gun was also fitted to a number of Shermans and the variant was called the Firefly.
[/b]
Same thing with the Sherman Jumbos. Heavier armor and used that 76mm long barrel. It was analogous to the Firefly. I know the British 17 pdr was a great adaptation and desired for tanks but since the Brits couldn’t supply them in sufficient quantity the US simply developed a 76mm equivalent. But these were not very useful as a tank because the US tank doctrine was almost entirely in using the tanks in infantry support where HE rounds were preferred. So, going back to my original point, the US primarily left the German armor up to air and artillery. But, what you seem to be saying (or others in the original statement) is that the British didn’t adopt this, but rather used the armor to attack armor more than did the US forces.

The US generals believed towed anti-tank weapons were pretty much useless. Be it because of their fit into the US doctrine or for some other reason, but they were simply too difficult to deploy other than defense.

But, I have a question: What was the British practice on tank destroyers? What did the use or did they have them and how effective where they?

 

(Gotthard Heinrici @ Feb 2 2006, 12:06 PM) [post=45178]Oberst

Whilst you are trying to bait Exxley about the fact that the French have supposedly had no victories since Napoleon, allow me to state that in the Great War, the French Poilu performed with great pride and honour and helped to win the war. This can be defined in one word : VERDUN. The French showed great heroism and determination and managed to successfully fight off the Germans over a period of 3 or 4 months. They died in their thousands to preserve their homeland from being overwhelmed by the Kaiser's Troops.
[/b]

Thnx Gott. I think the poor bloke forgot that war isnt exactly your Sunday game, and that joking about something that cost thousands, tens of thousands, millions lives is a moronic attitude to say the least.

 

Jimbo:

As a moderator to this very forum, I warn you that, no matter if Sapper says the Earth is flat, he's a veteran, and by that simple fact, he has privileges in here, whether you agree with what he says or not. Personal remarks will not be tolerated in any case, even less when concerning a war veteran.

 

</div><div class='quotemain'>If you disagree with a post, express your differences in the proper way without personal attacks.[/b]

I will attempt to do this at your request without humor.

To address Gotthard

</div><div class='quotemain'>French Poilu performed with great honour and helped to win the war. This can be defined in one word : VERDUN. The French showed great heroism and managed to successfully fight off the Germans over a period of 3 or 4 months. They died to preserve their homeland from being overwhelmed.[/b]

The French held the line for that Battle. The Fact is without the Russians being defeated(internally/externally), the BEF and the American Expeditionary forces. Germany and France in the First World War would have experienced the same outcome as the Franco-Prussian War.

Many historians blame World War II on the Versaille Treaty.

To Exxley

</div><div class='quotemain'>I think the poor bloke forgot that war isnt exactly your Sunday game[/b]

Well dear lad it certainly isn't yours...starting that Vietnam mess.

</div><div class='quotemain'>The people they made peace with? Why it was with the Vietnamese. Now who didnt take note of that particular conflict and who thought they knew better?????? And which country suffered because of that arrogance? Answers on a post card please[/b]
I did take note.

The US could have easily defeated the North Vietnamese the same way we defeated Japan, except Japan didn't have Nuclear powers Russian and China on their side. So If we did that...Gott...Neither You nor I nor the post would be here.

America has not fought a total war since 1945. We fight politically correct wars that Democrats blunder us into.

</div><div class='quotemain'>and that joking about something that cost thousands, tens of thousands, millions lives is a moronic attitude to say the least. [/b]


I never joke about war...Dresden, Tokyo and Oradour-sur-Glane are nothing to laugh about.

For the good of the rest of the folks I'll end this...And in typical Monty Python Style

And now for something completely different...the Larch...oops I mean Arnhem.

Mosquito Armour-Piercing, Discarding Sabot pr meaning pounder as in 6pr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_6_pounder

Why Arnhem failed was the lack of adequate defense against SS Panzer troops by the Airborne Forces
and a difficult road, highway 69 known as Hell's Highway.

 

Hmmmm.......I've read every word on every page of this topic, and.......I'm quite lost in the side tracks of this thread!!!

Soooo....getting back to the Question, "Could Operation Market-Garden have succeeded?"

Ah.....Yes! It Could have!!!! Did it?? No, not really!! What are all the things that went wrong?? I really don't know, I wasn't there!! I think I'll ask someone who was!!

Now isn't that much less stressful??

Cheers
Bob

 

(Reverend Bob @ Feb 3 2006, 03:42 PM) [post=45209]Hmmmm.......I've read every word on every page of this topic, and.......I'm quite lost in the side tracks of this thread!!!

Soooo....getting back to the Question, "Could Operation Market-Garden have succeeded?"

Ah.....Yes! It Could have!!!! Did it?? No, not really!! What are all the things that went wrong?? I really don't know, I wasn't there!! I think I'll ask someone who was!!

Now isn't that much less stressful??

Cheers
Bob
[/b]

Bob, Bob, Bob,

The first word in the dictionary that has all the vowels in order describes you perfectly.

 

Oberst: thanks for the heads-up. I shall try and remember the lesson. Nice post Bob; but where is the fun in that? Spidge did you have to say that? I am now going in search of a dictionary in the Uni library!
As to could market Garden have suceeded? I think it could if they had stuck to two towns and left Arnhem out of it until they had a footing elsewhere. As far as i can see the main problem was the lack of aircraft to tow in the gliders, leading to the three waves. Three towns was just too much to take in this fashion. Then add the plonker of a Rupert who wrote down the battle orders, with DZ's and times, so the Germans could find this info in his pocket after he was killed on landing... I rest my case. Market Garden was a success, but Arnhem was a cock-up. However, i say all of this with the luxury of hindsight, and at the time, Arnhem had to be tried.
I say this as the great-niece of a para in the second wave.
Talking of which, was it normal for injured para's to be repatriated back to Allied lines from Arnhem? This has always confused me.
Jimbo: ready to come back to the fold yet mate?


PS. Prince Charles and the Royal Horse are officially opening the new Uni campus next Friday. Anyone got any ideas how to get flour bombs and eggs past the police searches?

 

(Friedrich H @ Feb 2 2006, 10:48 PM) [post=45206]Jimbo:

As a moderator to this very forum, I warn you that, no matter if Sapper says the Earth is flat, he's a veteran, and by that simple fact, he has privileges in here, whether you agree with what he says or not. Personal remarks will not be tolerated in any case, even less when concerning a war veteran.
[/b]

I have made NO personal remarks. I have defended veterans of the US against his viscous attacks, which is what should not be tolerated. YOU HAVE THE POSTS ATTACHED TO THIS THREAD! READ THEM BEFORE JUDGING!

Maybe you are a staunch opponent of free speech, but here in the States we (and our veterans) do revere free speech above even service to the country because that is what veterans in the US fought and died for in the first place. Please withdraw your vendetta against me. Please start reading the posts before you rebuke me so you will understand who to throw your rock at. You will find out it was indeed sapper that railed me not the other way around.

BTW: As was pointed out to me by a member that speaks both languages (American and British) the word “hypocrite” means something completely different in American culture than British. In American culture, a hypocrite is someone that accuses someone else of something they themselves do. This is why I called sapper a hypocrite because he denigrated US veterans by sickly mocking their deaths by friendly fire, inferred them to be deserters, cowards, and said they were poor soldiers and then accused me of denigrating his fellow men merely because I disagreed that MG was a good plan or should have been staged. I understand it means something different to an Englishman.

Lastly, don’t threaten me unjustly. I really do resent that. If you want to shut down my account, then do so. But, I will not kiss anyone’s a**e to please you, whether that a**e be at the end of veteran or anyone else. I simply don’t need that.

 

(jimbotosome)</div><div class='quotemain'>
I have made NO personal remarks.

I called sapper a hypocrite[/b]


Right there - can you see it? In the same post you say you made NO personal remarks. Then a few lines down you admit you called Brian a hypocrite.

And you wonder why people react badly to you?

 

(Max (UK) @ Feb 3 2006, 07:13 AM) [post=45227](jimbotosome)</div><div class='quotemain'>
I have made NO personal remarks.

I called sapper a hypocrite[/b]


Right there - can you see it? In the same post you say you made NO personal remarks. Then a few lines down you admit you called Brian a hypocrite.

And you wonder why people react badly to you?
[/b]Calling Brian a hypocrite was a statement of fact not of opinion. I pointed out the fact that is in the post for all to see. He simply called accused me of something he did himself instead. That's what it means in American English. But who asked you Max. Why don't you try minding your own business? You all people should not accuse people of personal attacks. At least I was speaking in defense rather than sticking my nose into someone else's affairs.

 

Lads, Please calm down. This argument is getting nowhere and both of you should recognise as such. Just walk away from it before something is posted that would be really regretful.

C'mon now and sing : ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE!!!!

 

(Herr Oberst @ Feb 3 2006, 05:34 AM) [post=45208]
To Exxley

</div><div class='quotemain'>I think the poor bloke forgot that war isnt exactly your Sunday game[/b]

Well dear lad it certainly isn't yours...starting that Vietnam mess.[/b]
Being born in 1975, I cant remember myself being involved in the Vietnam mess. So I wonder what was our friend point here.

(Herr Oberst @ Feb 3 2006, 05:34 AM) [post=45208]</div><div class='quotemain'>and that joking about something that cost thousands, tens of thousands, millions lives is a moronic attitude to say the least. [/b]
I never joke about war...Dresden, Tokyo and Oradour-sur-Glane are nothing to laugh about.

For the good of the rest of the folks I'll end this...And in typical Monty Python Style
[/b]
And as strange as it might appear to uneducated folks, the military record of a country is nothing to laugh about as well.