Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Alternatives to Market Garden
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Was watching Band of Brothers last night, the episode about Opeation Market Garden when Easy Company are dropped into the Netherlands as part of Operation Market Garden, and this got me wondering:
What other options were available to the Allies in getting across the Rhine and into Germany? Could Market Garden have been conducted differently with a different outcome? Could a major offensive have been conducted in a different part of the front line? What were the alternatives? Were there other plans discussed at the time before Monty got the go-ahead with his plans?
And what would YOU have done...? -
Message 2
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
The rest of SHAEF was approaching the Rhine, each field army with its plans to cross the river.
But the whole thing's rather moot. The point of M-G was to turn the German right flank and open a road straight to Berlin before the Soviets. Highly unlikely given 1) the narrowness of such a front with the likely German reaction, and 2) SHAEF supply lines stretched to the maximum from Normandy. Monty would have been better off clearing the Germans out of the Scheldt estuary and thus shortening his supply line. -
Message 3
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
The Allied command looked at several options. Using the Airborne Army was favoured because it was available, and would not, at least in the assault phase, put an additional burden on the land lines of communication, which were very stretched.
Patton's 3rd Army had gone too far west to be supported by an airborne landing from the UK (airfields in France were not yet available). In any case, the 3rd Army front did not offer a quick way to Berlin (the German High Command had initially worried most about Patton's breakout, but by the beginning of September had discounted it as the main threat).
This left the main alternative to MARKET GARDEN as an assault on US First Army's front, in the direction of Aachen. This was considered, and Brereton and Ridgeway were actually reconnoitering it at the time MARKET GARDEN was launched as a possible follow-up. But Aachen did not offer the prospect of relatively open country to Berlin in the same way.
So MARKET GARDEN was the best on offer, and given the need to end the war as quickly as possible, and stop the V-weapon attacks by denying launching sites, I would have gone with the same plan. -
Message 4
Posted by shiftyakacampo (U13757098) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
i agree with lostweekend, same plan but maybe organised differently. XXX corps had to many schedules and timeslots to meet. making the operation rather risky.
-
Message 5
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
What abour Whitecamry's suggestion about concentrating on Antwerpen and the Scheldt, just getting access to shorter lines of communication?
-
Message 6
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
That was not an alternative to MARKET GARDEN. To have concentrated solely on clearing the Scheldt would have been to decide not to attempt a Rhine crossing, and therefore abandon any chance to end the war sooner than the Spring of 1945.
Although Montgomery regretted not sending stronger forces to Antwerp in the Great Swan, clearing the Scheldt was something that could be done as a winter campaign (as it was). Similarly, if crossings over the Rhine were seized, the advance on the German heartland could continue during the winter months, even if strong German resistance was encountered.
Conversely, if crossings over the Rhine in strategic locations were not gained before the winter floods, an assault crossing would not be possible until the early Spring - end of March 1945 at the earliest (hence the timing of the eventual assault).
So an attempt to "bounce" the Rhine was the best option, even at long odds, because the potential gain justified the risk. -
Message 7
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
On the "what would I have done?" front, it is a pity that Bradley did not stick to the original plan agreed with Montgomery and Eisenhower at the beginning of September.
Under that plan, 1st US Army was to send one Corps to attack north on the flank of 21st Army Group, which would have drawn off the German forces that were able to counter-attack XXX Corps' right flank, then a second Corps to extend the front on the Aachen axis, then, finally, its thrid Corps to support Patton's 3rd Army advance.
In the event, as Bradley admits in his memoirs, he decided to reverse the order of his priorities, in order to maintain his own independence (he was worried Eisenhower would hand control of 1st Army to Montgomery) with the result that German forces were not drawn off from XXX Corps (and the bridgehead became overcrowded as Dempsey tried to put VIII Corps in as a flank guard at short notice
LW -
Message 8
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Friday, 13th February 2009
Depending on what one wants to believe, the Americans agreed to take the two bridges if the British Army were ready to advance to Arnhem to relieve the British Force there thus assure success, Baker promised faithfully to be ready to advance as soon as the Americans captured the two bridges. As it turned out he lied, the tanks were there but it took two days for the Infantry to arrive as tanks were a failure without Infantry support. American Paratroopers who had captured the bridge shouted to the British that their countrymen were needing them and they were letting their own countrymen down. The Americans lost many good men taking those two bridges and it turned out in vain. Two commands is useless should have been a united Army, petty squabbles among generals men dying for some clown's ego.
-
Message 9
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 13th February 2009
Baker? Who is this Baker character?
If Nimegeen Bridge had been captured by the 82nd on the first day, as the plan called for, the Guards could have gone straight on, instead of having to mount combined attacks to take the bridges (for the record, the paratroopers took the railway bridge and the Grenadier Guards took the road bridge, but in both cases with the support of their Allies).
This is the problem with discussions about MARKET GARDEN. They always deteriorate into nationalistic chauvinism over who did what; and that exrcise in name-calling really only kicked off with that wretched film "A Luvvie Too Many".
It obscures the military realities of the situation at the time.
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 Β to 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
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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.