Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Why did opretion Market garden fail?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
Help me to solve this question
-
Message 2
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
Bad spelling perhaps?? No.......titter ye not.
There are many reasons/excuses/scapegoats as to why Market Garden failed. Bad planning, faulty equipment, dropping too far from the target, incorrect intelligence or intelligence that was ignored, units unable to communicate being in the wrong places at the wrong time, resupply problems,......it's a very complicated and quite wide ranging topic which seems to crop up on the messageboard from time to time. You should take a look at some of the previous threads about 'Montgomery' and 'Sosabowski'. You'll find answers to some of your questions in there. -
Message 3
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
I do interst about the story so please tell what is behind this operaion
-
Message 4
Posted by WarFanatic (U2676733) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
Try this link:
-
Message 5
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
Oh, if you watch the film, A Bridge to far. Don't take it as gospel. The scene were the guards refused to move because it was tea time was wrong. (I am not a guards fan) Their instructions were to fight their way across the bridge, THEN, pull off and let the next tank unit push on. This happened, only the next tank unit got shot up. The guards did what all soldiers do while waiting, they brewed up. They were not told of the problem down the road until it was to late. But having an american officer telling them to move and being told, "Sorry old chap, Tea time." Made a better film.
Fred -
Message 6
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
Quite right GrumpyFred. By far the best is "Theirs is the Glory". Made in 1945, it's more of a re-enactment using people who were actually there rather than actors. The town is in ruins before the battle even starts, and shots of the bridge are rather obvious paintings as the real bridge was bombed by the US shortly after the battle. It doesn't compare with anything that comes out of Hollywood nowadays, but for historical accuracy it has to be number one. XXX Corps or the Poles don't get much of a look in, but it's a must for anyone who wants an idea of what the battle at Arnhem and surrounds was actually like. DAMN....forget to mention it on the 'Best War movie' thread........
-
Message 7
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Thursday, 15th December 2005
"A bridge too far" is a great film. It isn't an accurate account of what happened, nor even an accurate depiction of the book. It's a film. Films are partly for entertainment, but mostly for profit.
-
Message 8
Posted by Mad Bollie (U2306897) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Market Garden was an intelligence failure.
The type of German forces present and how hard the Germans would defend was not anticipated in the plan. Also, the plan for Market Garden didn't really have any contingency. Once the operation had been put into motion it was not going to be stopped, so ...
Subsequently, any mistakes in the plan or deviations from the plan that happened merely compounded one simple fact. Lightly armed Infantry with a very limited anti-tank capability were made to fight a battle hardened Panzer division. -
Message 9
Posted by dmatt74 (U1690430) on Tuesday, 20th December 2005
Over-confidence following the D-Day operation, there was to be a radio message to the Dutch nation about the success without looking at any possible failure. The story of the operations of the Special Operations Executive in The Netherlands (with the lost of virtually all of the agents)had an effect and not knowing who could be trusted and therefore intelligence was not straightforward.
-
Message 10
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 20th December 2005
Oh, if you watch the film, A Bridge to far. Don't take it as gospel. Ìý
It's also confusing - most of the time you can't tell how the battle is going or who's winning. -
Message 11
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Tuesday, 20th December 2005
A answer is that during the drop many of the special jeeps were destroyed in the glider landings in arnhem. also there was a panzer core
placed there to rest by rommel.
also there was a bridge that was dfestroyed on the way from eindoven to arnhem, whose name I forget, but took 23 hours toi replace halting the tank armour push (part GARDEN) -
Message 12
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Tuesday, 20th December 2005
oh and sorry I forgot that the british troops were given the wrong set of crystals to use in their radios, rendering them cut off and unable to tell HQ their drop zones had been overrun after a german corperal found vital plans in a glider that should have been left in britain.
-
Message 13
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
and the fact that thee yanks didnt launch their infantry into any kind of diversion to let some of the heat of the pole, czechs(?) and brits
-
Message 14
Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Friday, 23rd December 2005
Actually one of the main reasons they failed, I think was due to contingency in drop time, each wave landed at a completly different time, some morethan a day apart, elimanating the element of suprise, the first drop was fineish, but the others, the Germans knew it was going to happen and so dug in with plenty of anti aircraft, and heavy machine guns. I could be completely wrong as im recalling this from memory, but i believe its correct.
-
Message 15
Posted by Leonard J Smith (U523155) on Thursday, 9th February 2006
IF "Market Garden" was such a failure, why am i still here
-
Message 16
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 9th February 2006
I don't agree that it was a failure. Two bridges were captured. Just because it didn't succeed in all its objectives, didn't make it a failure. It's a very Brit-ocentric viewpoint that Market Garden failed.
-
Message 17
Posted by Coloradoskibum (U3192803) on Thursday, 9th February 2006
Hope you don't mind a "Yank" getting involved in these discussions
The reason I would say Market Garden was indeed a failure is because the objective of the operation was not achieved and the true objective was to end the war within months.
The plan was also reliant on every aspect within to go smoothly and unfortunately it was on too grand a scale for this to be possible.
The wrong chrystals were installed in the British radios, a bridge was blown up causing a major delay and the overall plans were discovered (although at first glance the Germans could not believe that the allies would try something on such a grand scale and thought the plans may have been planted in order to capture Model, or I think it was Model). -
Message 18
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Friday, 10th February 2006
All: In this "Yanks" opinion it was because of Monty's desire to make the British look better than the Yanks.
If you read history, Montgormery's plan for the breakout at Normandy was from the north. Eventually it was the Yanks in the south that brokeout first. Then Monty said, well that was his plan all along. This was his chance to get England back into the fight.
Because of the British desire to rush north, Model and two German field armies were able to hide. After the British passed, they were able to move behind the British lines and eventually return to the German lines. Those forces were then available for the Battle of the Bulge. -
Message 19
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Friday, 10th February 2006
All: In this "Yanks" opinion it was because of Monty's desire to make the British look better than the Yanks.
Ìý
If you substitute "himself" for "the British" then I might be tempted to agree.
In my opinion Market Garden failed because of the lack of air support. Yes lightly armed paratroops faced by Panzers were going to come off worst, but with sufficient ground attack aircraft the tanks would have been either anihilated in the open, or forced to hide.
I know weather was a problem for them, but don't know if there were other reasons why there weren't more sorties.
Please feel free to tear my opinion apart! -
Message 20
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Friday, 10th February 2006
In this "Yanks" opinion it was because of Monty's desire to make the British look better than the Yanks.Ìý
I think that it’s a bit simplistic to imagine that a professional soldier like Montgomery would launch a major operation simply to ‘make the British look better than the Yanks’ or that Eisenhower would have willingly gone along with such a scheme! The Airborne Corps was the only strategic reserve available to the allies at that time. Because it had to be transported by air, the only place it could practically be used was on the Allied western flank, in the area where the Anglo-Canadian armies were operating.
Despite everything, I think the operation could have been a success if the whole Arnhem component could have been landed in one day. The forces that the Germans had in the Arnhem area couldn’t possibly have prevented the 1st Airborne division from breaking through to the bridge in strength on 17 September. Given that a single battalion held the bridge for four days before being overwhelmed, one can only assume that a whole division could have held on until they were relieved (see for example, the 101st division at Bastogne). Basically, I think it failed for the rather mundane reason of lack of transport.
Happy to argue! -
Message 21
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 10th February 2006
If you read history, Montgormery's plan for the breakout at Normandy was from the north. Eventually it was the Yanks in the south that brokeout first. Then Monty said, well that was his plan all along. This was his chance to get England back into the fight.
Ìý
jesw1962,
I have to pick you up on this as it's not what one American thought at the time and later. His opinion was "the British and Canadian armies were to decoy the enemy reserves on to their front on the extreme eastern edge of the Allied beachhead. Thus while Monty taunted the enemy at Caen, we were to make our break on the long roundabout road towards Paris." As this opinion is that of General Omar Bradley Commander US First Army (A Soldier's Story) it should carry some weight.
Although not an admirer of Monty I feel I must at least defend him against this absurdity concerning Normandy. Are you seriously suggesting his strategic plan was to have the British / Canadian armies break out heading east (towards Germany) with the larger US army trailing at their heels? (The Americans were to the west of the British / Canadian beachheads).
The strategic plan was always for the British / Canadian armies at the eastern edge of the Allied armies to be the pivot point of the breakout battle.
Cheers AA. -
Message 22
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Monday, 13th February 2006
Arnald Almaric: With respect I must sat that the more I study WWI the more I realize how difficutl it must have been keeping the alliance together and firing at the Nazies and not each other.
In the 1960s I was taught what I stated. Most of the trainers were veterans of WWII. They had absolutely no respect of Montgomery. They all said that Montgomery was a gay pedofile.
What is interesting is that I had an uncle who fought with "Merrel's Maureders." He had the highest respect for Field Marshall slim. -
Message 23
Posted by LittleHill (U3038272) on Monday, 13th February 2006
Faran1
Try this web
Hope it helps u.
Cheers doc50 -
Message 24
Posted by clive01 (U3229600) on Monday, 13th February 2006
Market Garden failed because their is NO way you can pass an entire army corps down a single road defended by a german army - no matter how shattered that army is - the dutch army would fail u at staff college if u even suggested it !! - typical British ethos - get smashed and its a victory - land 5 miles away and we can SUPRISE everyone - aagghh
-
Message 25
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 13th February 2006
Arnald Almaric: With respect I must sat that the more I study WWI the more I realize how difficutl it must have been keeping the alliance together and firing at the Nazies and not each other.
In the 1960s I was taught what I stated. Most of the trainers were veterans of WWII. They had absolutely no respect of Montgomery. They all said that Montgomery was a gay pedofile.
What is interesting is that I had an uncle who fought with "Merrel's Maureders." He had the highest respect for Field Marshall slim.
Ìý
jesw1962, I can certainly agree with your first paragraph. As I think I've stated I'm no admirer of Monty. He seems to have gone out of his way at times to create difficulties within the command, at times being what seems to be deliberately obtuse. As I've also said elsewhere it is to the credit of Bradley that he managed (somehow) to keep from throttling Monty and / or Patton. (I'm not a fan of Patton either).
Fair enough, you are taught what you're taught. Monty never helped himself with some of his more extravagant pronouncements and then more extravagant retractions and spin. I hope my point about the breakout from Normandy does make some stratgic sense and the quote from Bradley (who was a USA WW2 veteran) helps to back it up. I can't see that Bradley had any reason to back Monty, so it must be his honest opinion of the plan. (Bradley, like most (all?) Americans didn't have a high opinion of Monty as a person, but did at least respect his military abilities). There is no evidence that Monty was a gay paedophile that I have seen, just accusations, so throw enough mud and some of it will stick.
As you know any positive mention of Slim is bound to get my approval, so I'll just leave you with one more opinion of Bradleys after he met Slim. "Thank God, at least here is an Englishman we can do business with". (That may not be an entirely accurate quote as I'm quoting from memory, I believe Bradley said it after the first conference regarding Korea when Slim was CIGS).
Cheers AA. -
Message 26
Posted by pop-picker (U1244478) on Tuesday, 14th February 2006
Interesting point made in the Max Hastings book about the Western Front that if the radio's hadn't worked in the German or esp. in the Russian army a number of people would have been shot for sabotage. Was a monumental c*ck up not to have working communications.
-
Message 27
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Tuesday, 14th February 2006
-
Message 28
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Tuesday, 14th February 2006
Apologies for the blank message. Wrong crystals perhaps. I was going to say this is the guy you need to talk to for a first hand account.
IF "Market Garden" was such a failure, why am i still hereÌý
Len Smith. Doesn't seem to be here very often though. I'm sure he could put you right on a few points. -
Message 29
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 14th February 2006
Surely
1. Market Garden DID fail
2. Overall it didnt matter in the grand scheme a the Russians had already won the war and nothing would stop them at that point
3.The overwhelming allied air power of the allies meant that there was no way the germans could hold out
4, market garden - even if successful shortened the war by ?? -
Message 30
Posted by Big Nose Kate (U2898677) on Tuesday, 14th February 2006
Market Garden was 80% succesful. I went to the battlefield in 1997 was fortunate to meet some of the veterans ( I went during the anniversary period).
Talking to them, there were various reason on why the op was not 100% succesful.
1) poor intelligence ( crack panzer units in the area or Arnhem)
2) bad weather during the operation delaying reinforcements and supplies
3) wrong crystals in the British radios
4) a single track road that was heavily defended and every yard had to be fought for.
Did Market Garden shorten the war? I think it did but by how much we will never know -
Message 31
Posted by clive01 (U3229600) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
do you not think that one of the real weaknesses of market garden was the fact that the main drop zones were miles away from the objective and there was no attempt at a "coup de main" (sp) such as at pegasus ??
even without the elements of the Panzer divisions a detachment of voksturm could have delayed the progress to the bridge ?? -
Message 32
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
famous quote ends all
'I went into Arnhem with 10,000 men, I've come out with less than 2,000'
'Its a great sacrifice,thats what you must think'
'And what do you think?'
'Everybody knows I think we always tryied to go A Bridge Too Far.'
( convo between british para commander and his general) -
Message 33
Posted by clive01 (U3229600) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
nice one
and even if the bridge had been taken, wasnt the tenous one road advance too frail to be held after the remarkable resurgence of the "defeated" wehrmacht to be of use for a "surge" into germany ?? -
Message 34
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Yeah I think so.
If I remember correctly it was said it was only one tank wide most of the way over the border - giving the germans a turkey shoot down onto the road with Allied tanks stopping every half mile after on got picked off by a panzerfaust/88mm. -
Message 35
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
i read somewhere- (think it was cornelious ryan - bridge too far) that it was a question at the dutch staff college and if u went that way u failed
- it seems now that it was all "Gung ho" to get the airborne into the action - not sure - opinion please -
Message 36
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
Ermmm good point. never considered it like that but why sacrifice an entire division of airborne on a gamble - which it was a big gamble to end the war by christmas.
-
Message 37
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
With the Russians storming in from the east, the success of the Normandy breakout, and the collapse/defeat of the Reich just a matter of time, 'Market Garden' was a justifiable risk.
My guess is Monty wanted to put enough pressure on to try and force a surrender, or at least make sure the Allies beat the Russians to Berlin. It's very easy to criticize with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time, it was the right thing to attempt (imo).
One of the points which seems to get overlooked is that the although 'M.Garden' was a partial success, it overstretched the allied resources and gave the opportunity for the German counter attack in the Ardennes. That was a very dodgy moment in Dec '44. -
Message 38
Posted by clive01 (U3229600) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
because if u were in charge of the airborne - there was lotsa ops that never happened - u then needed justification for ur existence in the regular army and something to do - even a risky op was ok - how many ops were up and then canx ??
-
Message 39
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
The airborne units played a very important and decisive role in establishing the foothold in Normandy. They took out many of the main defensive positions just behind the beaches, captured vital bridges and strategic points ready for an advance inland. In some places, the defending Germans found themselves under attack from two sides and unable to judge the strength and numbers of the attackers, causing huge confusion.
If you apply that logic to M.Garden and Arnhem, it makes perfect sense....had things gone as planned. -
Message 40
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Thursday, 16th February 2006
I think that evryone who has contributed so far has answered the question as to why the operation largely failed: a complicated plan relying on far too many factors which could and largely did go wrong. However, Ryans original book makes the point that this sort of operation was not typical of Monty, whose deliberate planning and extreme caution was well-known. Perhaps its real failure came from Montys ego (which vied with Patton to be the most extreme of the allied generals) and the desire of everyone to just get on with an operation (since so many had been cancelled in the wake of the german retreat. Thus everyone (certainly the British), were willing to overlook the many flaws in the plan. Add to this intelligence failures and the communication and transport problems, and the plan simply became too ambitious. The interesting question is, what if Eisenhower had let Patton have his planned operation instead?
-
Message 41
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Thursday, 16th February 2006
maybe 10,000 less caulties of the op?
-
Message 42
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Friday, 17th February 2006
ALL: IMO respectfully, but England (Churchill, Montgomery, The King, Parliment, the other military leaders) was getting tired of all the "Glory" the Yanks were getting. After all, they had been fighting two years longer than the Yanks. But all the newsreels showed were the Yanks. Ever since Normandy is was all Yanks, whether in the Air, at sea, the Pacific Theatre, China/Burma/India, everywhere.
So this was their chance to get some recognition for the British fighting man.
Additionally, while it was a risky plan, it would take the spotlight away from Patton; and if it worked, would be considered a brilliant stratigic move. -
Message 43
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Friday, 17th February 2006
Hi jesw1962,
Where have you been?? I've missed our light hearted little exchanges (i.e Mick Jagger, exploding pigeons etc)
You may have a point. It's quite difficult to argue against, but give me a little time....I'll think of something.
-
Message 44
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Monday, 20th February 2006
I'm not sure what you think of Max Hastings on here but I've just read Armageddon and he suggested that far from being elite troops the German forces around and about Arnham were no more than four or five Kampfgruppes led by a small group of semi-wounded veterans.
But when I have read other studies of the battle it was suggested that if the execution of the plan had been as bold as the plan to hit the bridges then it would have been a success.
I think it has already been mentioned on here but I can't see why we couldn't have landed just about on top of the town with gliders.
Also can I ask why people think we didn't land some troops actually behind the German lines effectivly forcing them to look behind themselves in the town itself e.g. across the Rhine fighting towards British soldiers maybe the Polish Brigade or maybe the secong wave of Para's.
Your thoughts are most welcome.
NewcFalcon. -
Message 45
Posted by pegasuseddie (U518215) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
Help me to solve this questionÌý
Look up www:ornebridgehead that gives a link to the Arnhem op. -
Message 46
Posted by BritishDom (U3285524) on Tuesday, 21st February 2006
The British were better. But to say Monty would risk some many British lives on this plan to make the Brits seem better than the Yanks is not right. Monty was shot in the first world war he saw the horror of that war and through his campaigns he tried to keep casualties to a minim. How ever I do agree when u say the British division should have been sent in as a whole instead in stages.
-
Message 47
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
All: Please forgive my spelling. von Claswitz's classic statement "War is just foreign policy waged in a different form." Churchill and Montgomery were both looking to the future. The U.S. was definately on the rise while Europe was waisting its strenght fighting itself. A brilliant military stroke by the British would definately enhance her standing after the war. The risk was worth it.
Who knows, if Germany hadn't transferred those divisions it might have worked. Don't for even one second think that the general staff gave one tinker's damn about the lives of 10,000 men. -
Message 48
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
Totally right in my humble opinion - I refer you to one of my earlier posts - do you think landing in effect behing the German lines on the other side of the bridge might have helped.
In support of the US airborne forces I know Max Hastings said in his book that they made a sterling effort at Nimijegen and Eindhoven. -
Message 49
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Wednesday, 22nd February 2006
NEWCFALCON: I don't know. The allies were streached pretty thin at that moment. By splitting more it might have been a bigger disastor that it was. IMO it was the victory the Germans needed at that moment. It restored morale in the army and gave them a reason to fight for another seven months. Otherwise the war might have been over by Christmas.
I reall think most of you are forgetting that there was no love lost between the British and the Amreicans. I have said this before, but I was taught in the 1950s that one of the main British solgans during WWII was "We will fight to the last American." But the Americans were less than cordule to their English hosts. Most American officers took mistresses. However, there was a protocol to be followed when doing so.
Fist: While you both could attend a party. You never arrived or left together. The Americans openly were seen with their women.
Second: You never were seen in public together. The Americans said "Rubish" to that.
Third: We never allowed the British to forget that most of your armour was American. There were more American aircraft in England than there were British. We had three times the fleet you had. And that we were just all-in-all better. -
Message 50
Posted by Lt_Henson (U2436367) on Friday, 24th February 2006
and yet we suffered 4 years of isolation and attacks such as U-boats and the blitz while you sat there decideing whether or not to help us? Only shifting when you where attacked?
no offence made but yeah the american army is great - when it can be arsed!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.