Operation Market Garden:What if Patton were in Command?
- Karl_Timmerman
- Vcoggle
- easy_green
- PzKpfw
- HerrPaulus
- easy_green
- HerrPaulus
- AnchoritSybarite
- MaxPower39
- Sevdog
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 1 2 Next »
» Karl_Timmerman - Patton would have lost the battle too.
Montgomery, Patton or Bradley. No matter how you sliced it , it would have been the same: Defeat.The Allies were looking for too many ways to cross the Rhine. Eisenhower would let Monty take the reins for a while, then he would Bradley take the reins for a while (Patton was under his command). it was a teter totting event. Whio would have thought a small group trained in New Jersey would cross the Rhine at Remagen!
Market Garden was a British fiasco, given to any American Commander it woul dhav ebeen the same. The only difference between Monty and Ol'Blood and Guts was the small flourishes that made them unique. That is all.
-- posted by Karl_Timmerman
» Vcoggle - Market Garden
Assuming that Patton was in charge of MG, (Not very likely though)I think he would have stood a much greater chance then Monty. He was much greater at explotation type warfare than Monty.Don't forget after the taking of the Nijmegen bridge the Brits stopped for TEA! If they would have charged straight forward without stopping they would have made it to Frost before he surrendered. I believe at this critical junture Patton would have seen to it that they did not stop.
-- posted by Vcoggle
» easy_green - Patton at Arnhem?
Well, not long after the XXX Corp failed to reinforce the British 1st Airborne Division at Arnhem, Patton's 3rd Army was driving hard to reach a group of Allied paratroopers encircled by no less than 9 German divisions. These, of course, were the 101 Screaming Eagles at Bastogne.Patton got there.
-- posted by easy_green
» HerrPaulus - Patton at Market Garden
My gut reaction says that Patton would not have used paratroopers in such a manner; he believed in the American Army's ability to go toe-to-toe through superior firepower. I read one of his books (forgot title) wherein he laments the habit of US troops "hitting the dirt" under artillery fire. In this vein, he would likely reject such an offensive, not as being too risky, but as unmanly.This is not to say good ol' George was flawless. He had his own fiasco when sending a battle-group to rescue US POWs in Germany. His son-in-law was at this one particular camp, so there is conjecture that nepotism was a factor in the destruction of this force. I believe that Col.. Baum was the commander and the losses where in the range of 400 dead and captured.
Regardless of his performance before and after Bastogne, Patton was trying his best under certain political realities. He was nearly dismissed after Sicily; his breakout from the Normandy salient through St. Lo wheeled too far Westward, and constant bickering over unit and supply allocations earned him few friends.
Bastogne's relief fit into his own agenda for a reborn hero.
Clearly, Patton best understood how to get the most out of the American soldier, but his coordination and use of allied troops shows little genius. As such, operations in the north, being highly political in scope (Polish, English, Belgium, V-weapon sites, Army boundaries) would have revealed the weaknesses of this iconoclastic warrior.
Regardless, I think Patton would have succeeded at MG, or any late 1944 operation which enjoyed the full support of Ike and the supply zone. He was the man for that moment in history; his units displayed the esprit de corp required for success, his commanders (the ones not sent home) were aggressive and creative, his enemies feared him and his rock soup tactics. Sadly, the US high command feared his actions almost as much as the Germans.
On an aside, after VE day, Patton had the good sense to use ex-nazi party officials for occupation administration. His agitation for a more aggressive stance toward the Russians and the odd circumstances of his death leave much room for discussion. The US secret service took a page from OSS intrigue, placating the Russians for participation against Japan. Much has yet to be said about this abhorrent decision.
-- posted by HerrPaulus
» easy_green - Patton assassinated?
The reason the Patton assassination theory never caught on is because there's zero evidence to support it. Moreover, the sequence of events leading up to his death makes it highly improbable.If Patton had dropped dead of sudden heart failure - then maybe, just maybe, we'd have some cause for concern.
-- posted by easy_green
» HerrPaulus - Patton, Market Garden and beyond...
Although a discussion of such a "conspiracy" might be long and fruitful, I suspect few people could contribute factually, myself included.The ability to take this step WAS in the direction of our global strategy. Keep in mind that the West's desire to focus Stalin against Japan resulted in a divided Korea, several major islands relegated to Soviet control and Asia opened to communist infiltration until the present day.
England has historically sold out other peoples to protect the home islands and her empire; encouraging the Russians to the east after VE-day was no exception to this practice. American conflicts in Korea and Vietnam grew out of the war weariness in 1945. I contend that the poor performance of English armies at Caen in 1944 and MG later that year could be attributed more to the desire to reduce casualties than force/tactic comparisons. Montgomery was the ideal British general, not because he was brilliant; his unwillingness to attack before having a massive advantage (i.e. El Alamein) was symbiotic with English politics of casualty reduction.
Patton was diametrically opposed to Monty's dilly-dallying. Old blood and guts believed that higher casualties NOW prevented even more dead Americans over the long run. In this light, he wanted to confront Soviet political pressure in 1945 while they still recovered from the Battle of Berlin.
I imagine certain shady deals being made at the highest levels. One life probably did not amount to much near the end of a war that killed millions already...
-- posted by HerrPaulus
» AnchoritSybarite - Given the fact that...
Monty almost succeeded, how could Patton not have? There is not one instance of Monty being able to conduct any operation which required rapid movement successfully doing so. Not after El Alamein, not in Sicily, not in Normandy, not in closing the Falaise Gap and finally not in MG.Conversely there is no instance of Patton failing to exhibit rapid advances against the enemy.
-- posted by AnchoritSybarite
» MaxPower39 - Monty or Patton?
Marked Garden, devised as it was, would have been a near sure losing for anyone. As a game was saying, Arnhem bridge was "a bridge too far". A good leader would have tried to cut losses, and avoid sending the Polish brigade into an ambush, and ordered the withdrawal much earlier. But Patton was always a staunch supporter of the offensive doctrine, so I do not think he will have ordered the withdrawal earlier. But he would have seen the plan for what it was. Foolishness.A single road on which carry on the advance, with no alternative road, no chance for outmanouver the enemy... The sure outcome was to not allow the extensive airdropping of units to help the Allied advance, and the destruction of the Polish Brigade and the near destruction of the 1st Airborne.
-- posted by MaxPower39
» Sevdog - Re: Monty or Patton?
I don't think that Patton would have conducted MG in the manner of Montgomery. Throwing an armoured column up a single road would have sat well with his manner of armoured exploitation. if he was ordered to execute this plan, i think he would have sent far more units around southern Holland to seize more bridges and not wasted time waiting for the Son bridge to be repaired. Also, the units of not only the II SS Panzer Corps, but the units of the 15th army that were active in cutting the highway would have been more dispersed to counter Pattons flying columns.Theses forces did more to delay XXX corps than is generally acknowledged.
-- posted by Sevdog
« Previous 1 2 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.