If Market-Garden Never Happened

[bwing55543]

What do you think would have happened had Ike gone ahead with his broad-front strategy instead of Montgomery's Market-Garden? I know Market-Garden was an embarrassing defeat for the Allies. The Brits lost 80% of its troops at Arnhem.

[Gen. Sandworm]

What do you think would have happened had Ike gone ahead with his broad-front strategy instead of Montgomery's Market-Garden? I know Market-Garden was an embarrassing defeat for the Allies. The Brits lost 80% of its troops at Arnhem.

I think it proves that Ike was right in his approach! However every military commander makes a mistake a some point. Be it small or large.

In someways I think it was good that Market Garden happened. If it had succeeded the winter offensive launched by the Germans might had been more successful. Of course its all what if.

I think Market Garden shows the ego of the Allies...........the Germans werent finished just yet.

[bwing55543]

I think it proves that Ike was right in his approach! However every military commander makes a mistake a some point. Be it small or large.

In someways I think it was good that Market Garden happened. If it had succeeded the winter offensive launched by the Germans might had been more successful. Of course its all what if.

I think Market Garden shows the ego of the Allies...........the Germans werent finished just yet.

Market Garden actually showed the ego of Montgomery more than anyone else. One reason he was so against Ike's broad-front was because he was jealous that Ike was the Supreme Commander and not him. Also, Gen. Marshall was the one who told Ike to approve Monty's strategy.

Episode 4 of Band of Brothers illustrated why Market Garden was a failure. The Allies were supposed to just capture the roads leading to Arnhem. That was all good and dandy, but the Germans had surrounded the Allies on their flanks. The Germans had tanks off the roads, whereas the Allied tanks were still on them. Since the roads were cut off, the British troops who parachuted into Arnhem were pretty much left to fend for themselves.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Episode 4 of Band of Brothers illustrated why Market Garden was a failure.

You should watch a bridge too far .............. great movie about the event!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075784/

[bwing55543]

You should watch a bridge too far .............. great movie about the event!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075784/

I'm actually currently reading the book on which that movie is based. ;)

[overlord644]

i think the main reason market-garden failed was because the british armour, i'm not sure if it was inexpierience or the superiority of german tanks but they simply didn't move fast enough twards arnhem

[Gen. Sandworm]

Ive heard numerous complaints about Brits refusing orders from American commanders. Smaller level. Naturally they were used to orders from British soldiers.

[overlord644]

i've heard alot about that too, i heard one story where dick winters instructed two firefly tanks to work there way around a road in order to attack a tiger from the rear, instead the firefly's pulled rightout into the open field right in front of the tiger's main cannon, needless to say both tanks were destroyed

[bwing55543]

i've heard alot about that too, i heard one story where dick winters instructed two firefly tanks to work there way around a road in order to attack a tiger from the rear, instead the firefly's pulled rightout into the open field right in front of the tiger's main cannon, needless to say both tanks were destroyed

That's kinda what happened in Band of Brothers, except not exactly. There, one of grunts in Easy spotted a German Tiger hidden next to house. He tried to tell a firefly commander to shoot the Tiger through the house, but the commander said he has been instructed to "avoid unneccassary property damage". One of the firefly got into the open and the Tiger destroyed it.

[pdf27]

Episode 4 of Band of Brothers illustrated why Market Garden was a failure. The Allies were supposed to just capture the roads leading to Arnhem. That was all good and dandy, but the Germans had surrounded the Allies on their flanks. The Germans had tanks off the roads, whereas the Allied tanks were still on them. Since the roads were cut off, the British troops who parachuted into Arnhem were pretty much left to fend for themselves.
Yet another example of TV becoming historical fact? Ultimately as always it was logistics that cut the allies off - that single road they were advancing down had to carry their entire log chain given that there simply were no other roads in the area that weren't underwater. The narrow front concept (the only way the allies had to penetrate deeply - like it or not, there wasn't sufficient Petrol available to support a broad front offensive until Antwerp had been cleared in December 1944 at the cost of nearly 13,000 casualties) also meant that the whole supply route was vulnerable to German interdiction.

Incidentally, it is at least as easy to blame the 82nd Airbourne for failing to take Nijmegen bridge for 3 days as it is to blame Guards Armoured for not moving quickly enough. Having to assist the 82nd to take Nijmegen bridge cost them 36 hours compared to the position they would have been in had it been taken in the initial assault (at the time of the drop and for some hours afterwards there were only a dozen Germans holding the bridge). Had it been taken in time, it is probable that the tanks would have reached Arnhem in time.

[Digger]

The failure of the Market Garden operation is a lot more complex and the blame, if there is to be any blame can be spread far and wide. Firstly Allied intelligence knew the 9th SS and 10th SS Panzer Divisions were refitting in the area and yet the operation went ahead.

This was partly due to the belief in some quarters(SHAEF) that the airborne forces were now sitting on their arses and should be better utilized.

Another factor to consider is that already the Allied supply lines were stretched and thus the advance was slowing, allowing the German defenders much needed breathing space. Simpson's 9th Army and Hodges 1st Army were also having a hard time of it around Aachen and any thought or suggestion of Patton funneling his forces through the Ardennes was discounted.

Yes Market Garden was a balls up for a variety of reasons other than Montgomery or any failings of the troops involved in the operation.

Regards digger

[Gen. Sandworm]

Yet another example of TV becoming historical fact?

No it is historical fact! Maybe this preticular example is false but there are many examples ive heard, seen written, TV and alot from first person thru the history channel...etc. Now its not like this is the reason for the failure (as you have explained) however it goes to show that it was a poorly planned and hastily thrown together operation. The problem im pointing out is a breakdown at the most basic level. Dont get me wrong the failure was all allied. I curse Monty for drawing up the plan and Ike for approving it.

[Gen. Sandworm]

The failure of the Market Garden operation is a lot more complex and the blame, if there is to be any blame can be spread far and wide. Firstly Allied intelligence knew the 9th SS and 10th SS Panzer Divisions were refitting in the area and yet the operation went ahead.

This was partly due to the belief in some quarters(SHAEF) that the airborne forces were now sitting on their arses and should be better utilized.

Another factor to consider is that already the Allied supply lines were stretched and thus the advance was slowing, allowing the German defenders much needed breathing space. Simpson's 9th Army and Hodges 1st Army were also having a hard time of it around Aachen and any thought or suggestion of Patton funneling his forces through the Ardennes was discounted.

Yes Market Garden was a balls up for a variety of reasons other than Montgomery or any failings of the troops involved in the operation.

Regards digger

Also agreed!

[1000ydstare]

I wouldn't put too much stock in Band og Broterhs or A bridge too far.

WRT the road, 30 XXX were trying to get up the road, but were not road bound.

They could have left the road and moved up cross country, but this would slow them down.

What did happen was that whilst the spear head of the advance moved up the road, units would peel off to protect it's flanks. Moving up the road at speed and then slowing down when off.

The Mil Police did an awesome job of traffic control.

The whole op was based on speed. Several of the Bridges to be taken early on by the Americans, for various reasons were not taken as quickly as invisages which held up the 30 XXX advance.

The Op (I think) was planned around the tanks moving up the road and fighting at night. Unforutuantly after Op Totalise (shortly before) it was realised that tanks could not do this. THus they HAD to stop at night.

The infamous "stopping for Tea" is complete blx. It is either completely made up, or was a euphamism for the pattern the tanks parked up in at night (a T with a span of tanks across facing the enemy with a reserve to the rear). or that the men in the tanks would only eat hot food (Tea) when the vehs had stopped. The cooked this on the engine blocks (and we still do :D )

Other problems?

The Americans had problems gaining the Bridges. Whilst some American commanders have indicated that 30 XXX were not as aggressive as they should have been. The same charge could be laid against some of the American Paras, the Bridge at Son had to be Bailey Bridged (which took time) and the 82nd needed support from 30 XXX to capture it's bridges. The Son bridge was blown before the Americans could capture it.

This all slowed 30 XXX down.

The terrain in the area did not suit tanks at all. Off the road it would have been very slow going. Fine if (like the Germans) you are just sitting still firing. Not so fine if (like 30 XXX) you are trying to reach Arnham.

In truth the best description of the attack was "a bridge to far". The Paras at Arnham, could have helped by attacking the bridges closer in, alongside the Americans. The comms, supply, weather etc don't really affect the operations final outcome as the fact that the distance required for 30 XXX to move up, was too far.

[Nickdfresh]

The failure of the Market Garden operation is a lot more complex and the blame, if there is to be any blame can be spread far and wide. Firstly Allied intelligence knew the 9th SS and 10th SS Panzer Divisions were refitting in the area and yet the operation went ahead.

....
Regards digger


I do believe that Allied intelligence also vastly underestimated how far these German units had been reconstituted and reequipped --after their near destruction in Normandy...


And as for the operation on a whole: I enjoy pointing out what an occasional arrogant dolt Gen. Montgomery could be. However, Operation Market Garden was tantalizing as a "coup de main" operation that could have shortened the War considerably had it worked. But in the end, the odds were too long and static airborne troops are simply too vulnerable when facing mobile armored infantry. But I probably would have signed off on this operation if I were Ike, but nevertheless, the operation was poorly planned and severally underestimated the Germans' ability to continue to send fresh men and equipment to the front despite strategic bombing. This arrogance would ultimately result in the Battle of the Bulge...

But I think there is a saying: If you never fail, then you are not trying hard enough...

[Nickdfresh]

Yet another example of TV becoming historical fact? Ultimately as always it was logistics that cut the allies off - that single road they were advancing down had to carry their entire log chain given that there simply were no other roads in the area that weren't underwater....

And that road had German units concealed in the wood line in textbook ambush position...

[1000ydstare]

Yes, but unfortunatly (as pointed out) it was the ONLY road available.

It is nice to be able to say, we can't go this way as it is likely to be ambushed, but we can go this way instead. But all to often you have to fight through the route you know is likely to be ambushed.

Be wary of watching TV/Films or computer games and believing them to be fact. They are often wide of the mark, purely for entertainment or for other reasons.

Examples include.

Gallipoli (with Mel Gibson) utter rubbish in making you think that the British threw the Ausy lives away, and that that Gallipoli was the largest slaughter of Austrailian men. In reality more were lost in Europe, and the attack was commanded by an Austrailian. More British were killed in Gallipoli than Ausies.

U-571 - The British captured the first, and second, U-Boat Enigma. End of.

300 - A lot of histotical fact in here believe it or not. The quotes of fighting under the shade of arrows is the Greek Army Corps motto, as is the quote of "come and get them" in response to requesting for the surrender of the Greek Army, now a motto of another greek formation.

Likewise they were betrayed by one of their own greeks, admittedly not a mutant.

Saving Private Ryan - good film, several flaws (and I will let the mortar bang and throw technique/sticky bomb socks slide) for example, there were more British involved than shown, in particular the landing craft drivers were Brits.

ZULU - Pte Hook was portrayed as a bounder, thief and malinger. In fact he was a very professional and loyal soldier. CSjt Bourne was portrayed as a wizened old pro, in fact he was the youngest Colour in the British Army ever (at the time) but still a pro I hasten to add.

The commisariat was shown as slightly effeminate and not a fighting man, in fact, it is highly likely that the survival of the station was down to this man, a soldier of 22 years, who moved to South Africa and rejoined the Commisariats dept to serve during the Zulu war. He had tons of knowledge about the zulus and the land, which was apparently given by ardendorf (a man who in all likely hood scarpered).

Micheal Caine couldn't have been further from the true Coy Commander, a deaf and shortsighted officer, who was put at Rourkes Drift (most likely) to keep him out of the way.

See what we mean about films?

[Rising Sun*]

Gallipoli (with Mel Gibson) utter rubbish in making you think that the British threw the Ausy lives away, and that that Gallipoli was the largest slaughter of Austrailian men. In reality more were lost in Europe, and the attack was commanded by an Austrailian. More British were killed in Gallipoli than Ausies.


Terrible to relate for Australians convinced that Gallipoli was a purely Australian exercise, but even France lost more men than Australia.


Casualties at Gallipoli

Turkey 86,692

Britain 21,255
France 9,798
Australia 8,709
New Zealand 2,701

India 1,358
Newfoundland 49
http://www.dva.gov.au/commem/commac/studies/anzacsk/aday4.htm#cas

But on national population levels, there are some surprising results in WWI, both on enlistment and casualty figures. As there are in WWII.

Yet the dominance of some nations at Versailles was out of all proportion to their contribution to the war and their enlistment rates and the casualties they suffered. And the reverse is true.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Be wary of watching TV/Films or computer games and believing them to be fact. They are often wide of the mark, purely for entertainment or for other reasons.

Examples include.


Might want to include Enemy at the Gates, Heroes of Telemark and Bridge over the River Kwai.

And for f**ks sake come off the U571 thing already. There is a booming movie industry in Britain make your own version. Yes the Brits get all props for their efforts surrounding the Enigma. Make your own movie and if it flops at least you can say its accurate. :roll:

[AllHailCesar]

Like I've said, if it's not a doucumentry it has some "Hollywood" in it........................but that's another thread.

[1000ydstare]

Could have included those, but I thought the list I gave was enough and covered the spectrum I wanted to.

WRT U-571, I am totally not over it, mainly because I never got excited about it. The reason why a film hasn't been made about in Britain is probably because it WOULD flop.

The truth is not nearly as exciting as a bit of make beleive. Likewise, the film would have flopped in America had it been more in line with historical events. After all the Yanks aren't going to watch a film about Brits taking Enigma all cool and calm, when in the next screan there is something about Aliens or something more exciting involving copious quantities of bullets.

Not a dig, just fact. Brits wouldn't watch it either, but plum for the Aliens and bullets.

I doubt Hollywood/Bollywood/Britain or any other film making country will be able to turn out entertainment films for the masses that are accurate.

If it helps Dambusters was also a bit wrong, as have been all manner of "great" films about British successes and defeats, some have (ie ZULU) been penned and put on screan by Brits.

[1000ydstare]

Hollywood (and others) even manage to completely disregard "facts" in fictional books.

The following films/series bear no relation to the book that they were based on.

Starship Troopers - book of same name.
Blade Runner - Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheap.
Bourne Trilogy (I know only two films have been made) - books of same name.
Pretty much all of the Bonds - Books of same name.
Tom Clancy "Clear and Present Danger" - Book of same name.
We were soldiers - we were soldiers once, and young.
Jar head - book of same name
Black Hawk down - book of same name

Starship troopers in particular was quite a radical departure from the book, as was Clear and Present Danger.

Hunt for Red October wasn't that parrelel either.

Very few films have been made just like the real events or the books.

(in the case of star wars the books don't match the films!!!!)

By far one of the most historical accurate (as they can get) series Rome, is still inaccurate in some instances. The soldiers have been built up from the only soldiers names mentioned in Julius Ceasers memoirs on his campaign in Germany/France (as is now). But many of the characters are slightly changed.

His Cousin for one, was not as devious as made out and Cato was a lot more martial than made out in the series. Also Cato didn't kill himself with a single knife thrust to the abdomen, he tried this as depicted but failed, he later (whilst lying in his sick bed) pulled his stitches out of the original wound and pulled his own intestines out. Nice.

Different media requires different stimulation and slight differences in order to bring the story to life I suppose.

[bwing55543]

Hollywood (and others) even manage to completely disregard "facts" in fictional books.

The following films/series bear no relation to the book that they were based on.

Starship Troopers - book of same name.
Blade Runner - Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheap.
Bourne Trilogy (I know only two films have been made) - books of same name.
Pretty much all of the Bonds - Books of same name.
Tom Clancy "Clear and Present Danger" - Book of same name.
We were soldiers - we were soldiers once, and young.
Jar head - book of same name
Black Hawk down - book of same name

Starship troopers in particular was quite a radical departure from the book, as was Clear and Present Danger.

Hunt for Red October wasn't that parrelel either.

Very few films have been made just like the real events or the books.

(in the case of star wars the books don't match the films!!!!)

By far one of the most historical accurate (as they can get) series Rome, is still inaccurate in some instances. The soldiers have been built up from the only soldiers names mentioned in Julius Ceasers memoirs on his campaign in Germany/France (as is now). But many of the characters are slightly changed.

His Cousin for one, was not as devious as made out and Cato was a lot more martial than made out in the series. Also Cato didn't kill himself with a single knife thrust to the abdomen, he tried this as depicted but failed, he later (whilst lying in his sick bed) pulled his stitches out of the original wound and pulled his own intestines out. Nice.

Different media requires different stimulation and slight differences in order to bring the story to life I suppose.


As far as the Bond books were concerned, I was surprised how faithful From Russia with Love was to the book of the same name. The only major difference is that in the movie, the antagonist group was SPECTRE, but in the book it was the real-life organization SMERSH.

However, You Only Live Twice was about as different as possible. Bond did not fake his death in the book. In the book, Blofeld created a place to assist in suicide; he did not abduct US or Soviet spacecraft. Finally, in the book, Kissy was the main heroine and Aki did not appear at all.

[1000ydstare]

Excpet that in the books Bond is a much darker charachter. Then there is the Bond Girl thing.

[AFARaider]

You should watch a bridge too far .............. great movie about the event!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075784/

Awsome movie ! ! ! !

[Cavalry Gunner]

Well Good old Monty did it again this Field Marshal coulden't find his ass with both hands. Not only did he convince Ike that this was a good plan he did the #1 no no he didn't listen to his intel reports. Several reports about German movements by the Dutch Resistance had reached allied Command by September 10th 7 days before the planned operation They even Identified the German armour units Bedell Smith flew to his headquarters to suggest several changes to the operation which Monty was unwilling to institute.A reconnaissance flight returned with photos of deployed tanks just 8 miles from the British drop zones he dismissed the photos by saying that the tanks were broke down. All this just one month after his failure to close the Falaise pocket and allowing 150,000 German troops escape capture some of which were now going to meet his Airborne troops at arnem and destroy them under Gerd von Rundstedt and Walter Model, Model proclaimed as allied planes flew overhead that "If I only had such a force I could win the war"

Cavalry Gunner

[Gen. Sandworm]

Well Good old Monty did it again this Field Marshal coulden't find his ass with both hands. Not only did he convince Ike that this was a good plan he did the #1 no no he didn't listen to his intel reports.

Dont know if i would go that far. Just watched a history channel special on this. Their are reports the recon photos exist but none have ever been found. Forget where all these photos are....but they were basically just thrown together after the war and the catalog system forgotten. People have been going thru the photos and re identifying them. Maybe in the future. Most nations preferred their own intell vs others sources. Especially involving operations of this size.

The blame is not Monty's alone. He devised the plan but Ike approved it. And that just at the top. Alot happened on the ground that further caused problems. IMO even if 30 corps would have gotten there in decent time the Germans would have stopped them cold at Arnhem. Every military commander botches a situation at some point.

[bwing55543]

Dont know if i would go that far. Just watched a history channel special on this. Their are reports the recon photos exist but none have ever been found. Forget where all these photos are....but they were basically just thrown together after the war and the catalog system forgotten. People have been going thru the photos and re identifying them. Maybe in the future. Most nations preferred their own intell vs others sources. Especially involving operations of this size.

The blame is not Monty's alone. He devised the plan but Ike approved it. And that just at the top. Alot happened on the ground that further caused problems. IMO even if 30 corps would have gotten there in decent time the Germans would have stopped them cold at Arnhem. Every military commander botches a situation at some point.

The reason Ike approved it was because Gen. Marshall ordered him to. As it is the relationship between the English and American leaders was kinda shaky, so Gen. Marshall ordered Ike to do whatever it takes to keep the Brits happy.

[Gen. Sandworm]

The reason Ike approved it was because Gen. Marshall ordered him to. As it is the relationship between the English and American leaders was kinda shaky, so Gen. Marshall ordered Ike to do whatever it takes to keep the Brits happy.

And so it wasnt totally Monty's fault..........who happened claim it had been 90% successful. Monty was a good general but IMO just as loony as Patton if not worse!

[1000ydstare]

Hind sight is always 20/20.

If I were some of the people commenting on this point, I would remember the above saying.

It is quite easy to point out the German strength in this area now. We know they were there.

At the time, the Allied offensive was stalling and a break out was needed. Ahead of the assembled war machine lay a large amount of close fighting. Market Garden offered a chance to get around the Germans and in to Industrial Germany.

Yes, that the troops were there was not in doubt. What was in doubt was the numbers and there state. Unmentioned are the large numbers of troops in the German side that were indeed recouping their losses from battle. The fully ready units were, unfortunatly, mixed in with these.

Likewise air recce rarely tells a General everything, nor does SigInt (that also indicated the presense of a SS Panzer Div) and the locals gave conflicting reports also. None got so close as the little boy depicted in the film.

Was Market Garden a success? I would say not entirely. Although it succeded in capturing a number of bridges, establishing a break out and tieing up a large number of German forces.

On the other hand can anyone here think of a better plan?

As for whose fault it was. It may make you feel better to blame anyone person, maybe even that that person is a different nationality, or perhaps you merely follow fashion (or comments in films) and pin on a person that way.

In truth? There are probably many who share varying degrees of blame for Market Garden. Monty Planned it, but it was authorised by others. If it were only agreed to "to keep the Brits happy" then it showed remarkable lack of moral courage on behalf of those who chose to pursue that goal.

On the ground Airbourne forces often point the finger at 30 XXX, yet both American Divs failed to achieve some of their objectives and slowed 30 down. The British Airbourne deployed with all manner of technical faults, such as radios.

It is hard, whilst sifting through the facts, to find one man responsible, or one act as the pivotal point.

If Market Garden had not happened, then I would suggest the Paras would have been used else where. Possibly in a different flanking move or as reinforcement to a massive armoured push. These moves also would have cost many men their lives, and would have taken time to prepare and pursue.

The Airbourne Divs wouldn't have been left kicking their heels in Britainfor long.

The war could have been drawn out for longer, and the Russians may even have got further in to Germany, causeing greater tension during the Cold War.

This is the problem with these make believe threads, you can't know for sure what would or wouldn't happen.

Especially if you base your extrapolations on films that are loosely based on events.

[Walther]

Well Good old Monty did it again this Field Marshal coulden't find his ass with both hands. Not only did he convince Ike that this was a good plan he did the #1 no no he didn't listen to his intel reports. Several reports about German movements by the Dutch Resistance had reached allied Command by September 10th 7 days before the planned operation They even Identified the German armour units Bedell Smith flew to his headquarters to suggest several changes to the operation which Monty was unwilling to institute.A reconnaissance flight returned with photos of deployed tanks just 8 miles from the British drop zones he dismissed the photos by saying that the tanks were broke down. All this just one month after his failure to close the Falaise pocket and allowing 150,000 German troops escape capture some of which were now going to meet his Airborne troops at arnem and destroy them under Gerd von Rundstedt and Walter Model, Model proclaimed as allied planes flew overhead that "If I only had such a force I could win the war"

Cavalry Gunner

Ever heard of the "Englandspiel" (Operation Nordpol)? From August 1941 until August 1943, the German Abwehr (Counterespionage) managed to infiltrate the Dutch resistance to a degree, where agents airdropped into the Netherlands by the SOE were captured right on landing. SOE radio operators were forced to continue sending messages back to the UK under German control in a huge disinformation campaign. Only long after two SOE agents escaped from a German prison in the Netherlands and managed to return to the UK via Switzerland did the British intelligence community discover that they had been had. The last faked messages sent by German controlled radio operators were sent in April 1944.
Thus it is little surprising that at this time British intelligence took any information coming from Dutch resistance with extreme suspicion. Who could know if the information about SS Panzerdivisions resting around Arnhem might not have been a ruse set up by the Germans to discourage an Allied operation in this area?

More information about the Englandspiel:
Leo Marks: "Between Silk and Cyanide" Marks was the chief cryptographer of the SOE and one of the first to suspect German interference in the radio traffic.

M.R.D. Foot "The SOE in the low Countries", a rather scholarly book about the operation of the SOE in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg.

Jan

[Firefly]

i've heard alot about that too, i heard one story where dick winters instructed two firefly tanks to work there way around a road in order to attack a tiger from the rear, instead the firefly's pulled rightout into the open field right in front of the tiger's main cannon, needless to say both tanks were destroyed

Cromwells I think.

[pdf27]

On the ground Airbourne forces often point the finger at 30 XXX, yet both American Divs failed to achieve some of their objectives and slowed 30 down. The British Airbourne deployed with all manner of technical faults, such as radios.
The planning for all of the Airbourne divisions - particularly those dropped on Arnhem and Nijmegen was really quite bad, and failed to take into account all the lessons which had been applied when seizing Pegasus Bridge on D-Day. Trying to set up an airhead 5 miles from a defended point target simply isn't going to work well, and this was well known long before the drops on Arnhem and Nijmegen.
The other major fault was in failing to clear the approaches to Antwerp a great deal earlier. Had this been done a huge number of German troops from the channel coast would have been captured (IIRC in similar numbers to Falaise, or even Tunisia and Stalingrad) and the US/UK supply problems would have disappeared practically overnight. IMHO responsibility with that one lies with Eisenhower - it was a theatre level decision to make, so was properly the province of the theatre commander.

[Nickdfresh]

The planning for all of the Airbourne divisions - particularly those dropped on Arnhem and Nijmegen was really quite bad, and failed to take into account all the lessons which had been applied when seizing Pegasus Bridge on D-Day. Trying to set up an airhead 5 miles from a defended point target simply isn't going to work well, and this was well known long before the drops on Arnhem and Nijmegen.


True. The British were more focused on the German airborne's (Pyrrhic) victory on Crete than they were on the coup de main on D-Day...

[Firefly]

Market Garden is a strange one. Monty was known for his caution and yethere he seems to throw caution to the wind. Monty cant win, if he is methodical and cautious (Normandy Campaign) he is blasted for being too slow. If he throws caution out and just goes on the chance, then he should have been more methodical.

The man himself may have been a pain in the Arse, but then so was Patton. He did get the job done and after all it was him who had won Normandy.... Some people seem to gloss over the fact that Normandy was his battle and simply see the faults.

[Nickdfresh]

...

The man himself may have been a pain in the Arse, but then so was Patton...


And both were capable, but overrated...

[pdf27]

True. The British were more focused on the German airborne's (Pyrrhic) victory on Crete than they were on the coup de main on D-Day...
It wasn't just the UK - the US Airbourne forces made exactly the same mistake at Nijmegen, and it cost the Guards Armoured division a couple of days trying to get through. Had either of them understood the lessons of the earlier Airbourne drops, Market Garden might not have been the disaster it was. Had they both, the chances are it would have succeeded even despite the Panzers around Arnhem.

[Dallas]

1000yardstare has made some excellent points. An interesting point you might not know, under the original plan Operation Market was to be the British 1st Airbourne Div., U.S. 82nd Airborne Div and the 101st Airborne Div from south to north. However a change was made inverting the 1st A/B Div and the 101st. The plan was also switched for the 82nd and 101st as well. There is no official written explanation for the switch of the British and U.S. Div's however many historians feel that Monty wanted a British unit to be the first over the Rhine and therefore win the "prize".

[Dallas]

Here is the link to the documents about changing the divisions' area of responnsibility.

http://p198.ezboard.com/ftriggertimeforumfrm1.showMessage?topicID=9418.top ic

[Firefly]

Dallas, thanks for your positive input on the boards and hello from me.

[kallinikosdrama1992]

well from my part if market garden operation never happened i think there should be another operation which might be more successful . but i also think that the reason that this operation wasn't a success it was that there were only 7 days for the airborne units to prepare

[1000ydstare]

What would this operation be though? There is every chance that a different op would have floundered even worse than Op Market Green.

The time frame of the lead time is pretty much irrelevant. These units were on standby anyway. It wasn't a matter of if they were to be called forward by when. Admittedly the plan for calling them forward didn't actually involve calling them all forward in a oner.

[Carl Schwamberger]

What would this operation be though? There is every chance that a different op would have floundered even worse than Op Market Green.


My alternate would have bee focusing on the capture of Antwerp and clearing the ground covering the estuarys/channels to the port. As the one premier port of NW Europe in reach of the Allies (Rotterdam was out of reach in September and probablly for the winter) it was badly needed to resolve the supply problem. Even if Monty has tactical sucess in Holland, or Patton crosses the Rhine between the Ruhr & Strassburg it does not mean much in stratigic terms because there was neither fuel or artillery ammunition to exploit a bridgehead.

While the Mulberry port and Cherborg in Normandy were suffucient for the fighting there neither they or the other lesser ports like Brest combined provide for the Allied armys. Their location was to far from the Rhine for automotive transport to properly supply three army groups. Even Marsailles with its huge capacity was to far away. The Allied logisitcs planners had counted of restoring the French/Belgian railroads long before Patton or Monty reached the Rhine. As it was the distance from the beachhead to the Rhineland was covered in five or six weeks (the estimates had assumed twelve or ten minimum).

The supply shortages, particularly in ammunition were not resolved completely until November, after Antwerp was operating at a partial capacity, and the Franco/Belgian railroads were starting to haul significant cargo quantity.

[overlord644]

well from my part if market garden operation never happened i think there should be another operation which might be more successful . but i also think that the reason that this operation wasn't a success it was that there were only 7 days for the airborne units to prepare

well airborne units werent informed of the overlord plan until shortly before the invasion (at least not past a regimental scale), besides the reason that the british were given the Arnhem objective is because they had already planned a jump for that area that was scrubbed (the 101st was originally slated to go to Arnhem)

[snake64]

check historical facts before you make an opinion,rather than relying on a movie or a tv show.

[kenoshi]

If Market Garden never happened, and priority given to clearing Scheldt estuary, then Ike would have been able to focus on his broad front strategy with better logistics, and maybe even put us in a better position to defend the Ardennes.

The operation was doomed to begin with, there were just too many variables, obstacles, and bottlenecks (with the potential to stall the entire operation) to overcome in too little time, and the lack of contingency plans, not to mention preparation, (for example, 1st Airborne was basically fighting blind with the complete failure of their comm net due to faulty equipment) basically killed the op from the get go.

Of course, Monty the optimist will have you believe that its a success.

[Moreheaddriller]

In my opinion if mg didnt happend i see germany possibly staying in it into 46 maybe into 47.