=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Spearhead wrote:
Look, I could literally write 5 or 6 pages of stuff I know about Market Garden. It was NOT a success, and the guilt should lie with the British. It was poorly planned, poorly executed, and poorly concluded.
So we should feel guilty for one lost battle when we won the war? If that's the case then do you feel guilty for the dire efforts you made in the Normandy Landings? One of your compatriots was asking if the French owed you a favour after 'liberating' them, but until losing over half your men in the first 24hrs can be described as a succes, you can't take that much credit.......
I can already tell you haven't read the book yet. You misunderstood me. By the way, losing half our men? American (and all of the other Allied countries) casualties were way, way below 50 percent during Overlord. That's not bad, considering we did't even know the invasion would be a success in the first place. Do some research, please. The Allies can take all of the credit they want to.
One lost battle is a bit if an understatement. Market Garden remains to this day the largest airborne invasion in history. I said the "guilt should lie with the British". Yes, it should. Thousands of lives were lost which didn't have to be. Montgomery came up with the plan, and Eisenhower reluctantly agreed. Not only were all the traditional "ground forces" British, but the Allied Airborne Army (consisting of both American and British units) was under the command of a British officer, too. Now, doesn't this entitle them to be responsible for the outcome of the Operation? Yes. Any person who is part of a larger group must bear the consequences of the groups leader. Montgomery was in charge, so therefore the British must either be responsible for the operation's failure or accomplishment.
In case your thinking I'm a pro American right winger, I'm not. The United States got away with lots of bad stuff in World War Two as well. You should see "The Thin Red Line" - one of my favorite movies. Outright criticism of U.S. strategy on Guadalcanal. I also agree with everything you say about Bush on other threads- I'm a liberal. Please, don't mistake me for someone like Horseman 77 or yerded or lowing.
Before the Operation Overlord, Eisenhower famously made two speeches for himself... one was of resignation, in the event that the invasion failed. The other was for success. Montgomery, on the other hand, never even accepted Market Gardens outright failure. He called it a 90 percent success, even though the primary objective for the entire operation was Arnhem, and Arnhem wasn't even captured by the Allies until 1945, by Canadian troops.
The difference between Overlord and Market Garden was the expectation of success. It was largely unknown whether Overlord would be a success, but the Allies were fairly confident that 150,000 Allied soldiers could land against much lower than half that number of Axis troops. The Allies had solid evidence that the Axis soldiers in Normandy were third class. Many weren't even German, many were using unconventional weapons which they had brought back from the Eastern Front, and 100 percent of them weren't expecting an invasion.
Market Garden, on the other hand, was made by Montgomery, and it was developed during a time when the German military stood on the edge of collapse on the Western Front. The Allies at this time were generally optimistic, but what Montgomery did was absurd. He proposed to drop tens of thousands of troops up to
60 miles behind enemy lines, and the only main road which could support proper ground units was single lane. That meant, if a Sherman was taken out, XXX Corps. had to make a complete halt and get it off the road. The paratroopers who made up the Allied Airborne Army, the American 82nd and 101st, and the British 1st, were told that it would take XXX Corps.
2 days to travel all the way up the road to Arnhem. In reality, it took them 9 days.
=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
British landings
The British 6th Airborne Division was the first full unit to go into action, at sixteen minutes past midnight, in Operation Tonga. One set of objectives was Pegasus Bridge and other bridges on the rivers at the east flank of the landing area. The bridges were very quickly captured by glider forces and held until relieved by the Commandos later on D-Day. Another objective was a large gun battery at Merville. Although this larger glider and paratroop force was widely scattered, the battery was destroyed. However, the diminished assault team suffered 50% casualties in the attack.
Nice to see you know about D-Day. Did I ever say British troops were inferior to American? The success of D-Day was up in the air. This means that the Allies prepared for, in theory, 100,000 casualties.
=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
American landings
The 82nd (Operation Detroit) and 101st Airborne (Operation Chicago) were less fortunate in quickly completing their main objectives. Partly owing to unmarked landing zones, radio silence, poor weather and difficult terrain, many units were widely scattered and unable to rally. Efforts of the early wave of pathfinder teams to mark the landing zones were largely ineffective. Some paratroopers drowned when they landed in the sea or in deliberately flooded areas. After 24 hours, only 2,500 of the 6,000 men in 101st had assembled. Many continued to roam and fight behind enemy lines for days. The 82nd occupied the town of Sainte-Mère-Église early in the morning of June 6, giving it the claim of the first town liberated in the invasion.
Casualties were expected to be high during Operation Overlord.. this shows you still haven't read the book. What you have to understand is that the Germans in Normandy were completely outnumbered and ill-equipped. There were no "front lines" in Normandy. The Germans had thousands Allied soldiers landing on the beaches, and behind them they had thousands of Allied paratroopers causing all sorts of chaos.
=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
My point being, we WON the war together. There are battles we were better in and battles you were better in but please, don't come on here saying the British should feel guilty for losing one battle. That mindset would mean you would be overpowered with guilt for Vietnam then?????
Did I ever say we didn't win the war together? Read the book. Yes, I still think the British should feel guilty. I know sure as hell American Generals didn't send in entire divisions 60 miles behind enemy lines, and weren't fully prepared with proper intelligence and equipment, and let them fend for themselves for 9 days, when they were told 2.
Montgomery was a fool. Market Garden was always meant to be an attempted invasion of Germany. Three months after the Allies liberated France. A little ambitious if you ask me.
By your response I can still tell you haven't read the book and don't really know much about Market Garden.. why don't you read it.
I was never criticizing the British for the way they fought World War Two, I was critcizing them for Market Garden and MG alone.
P.S. - Vietnam is easily the most unpopular war in American history. Yes, we did and still do feel guilty about it.
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-06-07 17:11:41)