Reading in Max Hastings "Armageddon", he makes mention of the lack of airsupport that assisted the German cause because Allied airpower did not stop reinforcements from reaching Nijmegen. Now I remember in some other reading I did made mention that not only did the Airborne units communication suck but Forward Air Controlers with XXX Corps had a hard time. Was this the reason for poor air support or was protecting the waves of gliders and Dakotas the priority?
cHeers
AIR SUPPORT FOR ARNHEM
Moderator: sniper1shot
-
2311Marine
- Supporter
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:35 am
- Location: USA
AIR SUPPORT FOR ARNHEM
"Devildogs and Leathernecks, Thank God for Ammo Techs!"
2311Marine
Air support at Arnhem was a major cluster from jump street. XXX Corps had intermittent support - 1 a/b had next to nothing. The Germans themselves were amazed considering how badly hammered they'd been just recently in Normandy. The Luftwaffe was in some cases more effective than the RAF.
"It Never Snows in September" is good for that battle (German side) and Alex Mckee's "Race for the Rhine Bridges" has some good info as well. "Bridge too far" discusses that issue too. Not only did the radios fail but the whole close air support "plan" was a farce.
I get so frustrated studying this battle - its almost as if the Brits wanted to lose.... Admittedly, they thought the war was about over. But after five days of vicious fighting you'd think they'd get the picture. How XXX Corps could let 1 a/b go down is beyond me. Wouldn't have happened (in my opinion) if Ridgeway had been in command in stead of that silly "Boy" Browning. (for one thing - 1 a/b would have landed ON ARNHEM!)
But Horrocks? I thought he was a switched on guy! Usually was too. But not at Arnhem. Of course some credit must go to the Germans who made a magnificent fight with next to nothing - but realistically, they should not have been allowed to win. 2nd Para bn at the bridge could probably have held if they'd had air support.
I'm a big supporter of Monty - a long story for another thread. But in this case he distanced himself too far from the battle and let it go down the tubes. But as the author points out in "The blitzkrieg Myth," the whole plan was farcial given that Antwerp had not been taken and that merely poking a finger into Germany did not ensure anything except a broken finger!
My plan is to keep studying this one until a reason presents itself. If it ever does...
cheers
Reb[/i]
Air support at Arnhem was a major cluster from jump street. XXX Corps had intermittent support - 1 a/b had next to nothing. The Germans themselves were amazed considering how badly hammered they'd been just recently in Normandy. The Luftwaffe was in some cases more effective than the RAF.
"It Never Snows in September" is good for that battle (German side) and Alex Mckee's "Race for the Rhine Bridges" has some good info as well. "Bridge too far" discusses that issue too. Not only did the radios fail but the whole close air support "plan" was a farce.
I get so frustrated studying this battle - its almost as if the Brits wanted to lose.... Admittedly, they thought the war was about over. But after five days of vicious fighting you'd think they'd get the picture. How XXX Corps could let 1 a/b go down is beyond me. Wouldn't have happened (in my opinion) if Ridgeway had been in command in stead of that silly "Boy" Browning. (for one thing - 1 a/b would have landed ON ARNHEM!)
But Horrocks? I thought he was a switched on guy! Usually was too. But not at Arnhem. Of course some credit must go to the Germans who made a magnificent fight with next to nothing - but realistically, they should not have been allowed to win. 2nd Para bn at the bridge could probably have held if they'd had air support.
I'm a big supporter of Monty - a long story for another thread. But in this case he distanced himself too far from the battle and let it go down the tubes. But as the author points out in "The blitzkrieg Myth," the whole plan was farcial given that Antwerp had not been taken and that merely poking a finger into Germany did not ensure anything except a broken finger!
My plan is to keep studying this one until a reason presents itself. If it ever does...
cheers
Reb[/i]
-
2311Marine
- Supporter
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:35 am
- Location: USA
Reb,
Good points, honestly amazed Eisenhower singed off on this one? Was he not at first not in favor but presure from Churchill and the President made him go with it. Now I do agree that Bradley and Patton in particular could have been served better with those forces and supplies attached to Arnhem but would that Southern thrust come closer to what Market Garden was to achieve? That is a debate that Max Hastings seems to think would not have ended the war.
Yes, the Germans did a great job recovering not only from the intial shock of Market Garden but just from the debacle of Normandy itself and stop a major offensive. Market Garden planners seemed to presume a lot and relied on a lot of WHAT IFs.
Cheers
Good points, honestly amazed Eisenhower singed off on this one? Was he not at first not in favor but presure from Churchill and the President made him go with it. Now I do agree that Bradley and Patton in particular could have been served better with those forces and supplies attached to Arnhem but would that Southern thrust come closer to what Market Garden was to achieve? That is a debate that Max Hastings seems to think would not have ended the war.
Yes, the Germans did a great job recovering not only from the intial shock of Market Garden but just from the debacle of Normandy itself and stop a major offensive. Market Garden planners seemed to presume a lot and relied on a lot of WHAT IFs.
Cheers
"Devildogs and Leathernecks, Thank God for Ammo Techs!"
2311marine
I have to agree with Hastings on the issue of broad front - Ike gets a lot of flak for that but I reckon it was the best way to go. Monty didn't have the hustle for that sort of thing - Patton did but what would it have bought us?
To have gone with a big punch North or South would have given the Germans a place to focus their efforts and their reserves.
There is a fascinating book called "The Blitzkrieg Myth" that while badly flawed in some ways, makes some good points and addresses that issue in depth.
To me - it was kind of like the War of Northern Aggression in the US - everyone was always looking for a decisive, Napoleonic battle of annihaltion - but that almost never happens. Once armies begin operating in corps that got to be a very difficult endeavor. Plus our biggest advantage - complete mechanization - would have diminished in value as the Germans would have been able to react quickly from interior lines and with all their panzer reserves (such as they were).
And sadly, the one chance we had for that battle of annihaltion, Falaise we managed to bungle it.
cheers
Reb
I have to agree with Hastings on the issue of broad front - Ike gets a lot of flak for that but I reckon it was the best way to go. Monty didn't have the hustle for that sort of thing - Patton did but what would it have bought us?
To have gone with a big punch North or South would have given the Germans a place to focus their efforts and their reserves.
There is a fascinating book called "The Blitzkrieg Myth" that while badly flawed in some ways, makes some good points and addresses that issue in depth.
To me - it was kind of like the War of Northern Aggression in the US - everyone was always looking for a decisive, Napoleonic battle of annihaltion - but that almost never happens. Once armies begin operating in corps that got to be a very difficult endeavor. Plus our biggest advantage - complete mechanization - would have diminished in value as the Germans would have been able to react quickly from interior lines and with all their panzer reserves (such as they were).
And sadly, the one chance we had for that battle of annihaltion, Falaise we managed to bungle it.
cheers
Reb
-
derGespenst
- Associate
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 5:12 am
- Location: New York City
derGespenst
I'd like to read "myth of the great war." Just been reading one called "The Pity of War" on the same topic (by Niall Ferguson) and it is certainly revisionist. And interesting.
The Blitzkrieg Myth raised enough interesting ideas to get my attention so I'm sure his WWI book will do at least as much.
cheers
Reb
I'd like to read "myth of the great war." Just been reading one called "The Pity of War" on the same topic (by Niall Ferguson) and it is certainly revisionist. And interesting.
The Blitzkrieg Myth raised enough interesting ideas to get my attention so I'm sure his WWI book will do at least as much.
cheers
Reb
-
phylo_roadking
- Patron
- Posts: 8459
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm
As a person who enjoys pulling the legs off spiders, and throwing bricks into still ponds lol lol i'm gonna enjoy this.......
Anyone here familiar with the magazine Nexus??? They recently ran an article the cut and thrust of being that the Germans were given WARNING of the attack, hence Bittrich's panzers being moved into the area. There was a lot more in the article as to who why when and where, but I'll leave you with a question...who was the British Guards' tank officer who refused to move any further after the Americans had taken the Nimegen bridge? And what did he become in later life? And why can noone find out who gave him the order not to proceed further, and why did he never say who? THAT is what truly lost the battle. And when you find out won;t you be VERY suprised who he is....talk about friends in high places for a young officer....
Phylo
Anyone here familiar with the magazine Nexus??? They recently ran an article the cut and thrust of being that the Germans were given WARNING of the attack, hence Bittrich's panzers being moved into the area. There was a lot more in the article as to who why when and where, but I'll leave you with a question...who was the British Guards' tank officer who refused to move any further after the Americans had taken the Nimegen bridge? And what did he become in later life? And why can noone find out who gave him the order not to proceed further, and why did he never say who? THAT is what truly lost the battle. And when you find out won;t you be VERY suprised who he is....talk about friends in high places for a young officer....
Phylo
Phylo
If II SS Pz K were sent there deliberately to forestall the Allied attack - how do you explain the fact that 9th SS pz was told to hand over its equip and head for Germany for a refit?
I eagerly await the answers to the other questions you posed. I'd always thought the Gds Armd column that frittered away the time was the Irish Gds Tank Group but I know they were replaced at some point - without acess to my books (they're in boxes) I can't look it up...
cheers
Reb
If II SS Pz K were sent there deliberately to forestall the Allied attack - how do you explain the fact that 9th SS pz was told to hand over its equip and head for Germany for a refit?
I eagerly await the answers to the other questions you posed. I'd always thought the Gds Armd column that frittered away the time was the Irish Gds Tank Group but I know they were replaced at some point - without acess to my books (they're in boxes) I can't look it up...
cheers
Reb