I read Panzer Commander as well. I like the part with the "friendly relations" they had with the British Recon unit opposing them
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Market Garden
Collapse
X
-
redco Reply
"if you can find an another army in WW2 that advanced as fast as that for a similar distance, please tell;)"
First, I'd have to agree with you before searching for a comparable army. Tripoli wasn't captured until mid-January. El Alamein was finished for all intents and purposes NLT 5 November 1942. The below map indicates El Agheila on 17 December. Isn't that about 42 days following El Alamein? That's only about six hundred miles from the border, btw.
When were the TORCH landings again?
On the whole, I'm unimpressed. Seems Montgomery PUSHED Rommel westward and never flanked him.Attached FilesLast edited by S2; 02 Apr 10,, 21:50."This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
Comment
-
Deuce
Thanks
That was want I meant to alluide to rather than the Mareth.
If you were to compare that to the 12th Army Group's breakout in Northern France 1 - 13 AUG 44 I believe you could see that was as great a an accomplishment, if not greater. And I think OPERATION COMPASS was a much greater accomplishment by the British. Monty basically leaned on Rommel, he didn't pursue him.“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Comment
-
Originally posted by bigross86 View PostI read Panzer Commander as well. I like the part with the "friendly relations" they had with the British Recon unit opposing them
It would be good to be able to read “everybody's” account of WW2, from all sides, from civvies to resistance fighters, factory workers to housewives, farmers to hookers supplying “goods” to both sides.
Any suggestions on a really good account from a civilians point of view?
Steve
Comment
-
Originally posted by S-2 View Post"if you can find an another army in WW2 that advanced as fast as that for a similar distance, please tell;)"
First, I'd have to agree with you before searching for a comparable army. Tripoli wasn't captured until mid-January. El Alamein was finished for all intents and purposes NLT 5 November 1942. The below map indicates El Agheila on 17 December. Isn't that about 42 days following El Alamein? That's only about six hundred miles from the border, btw.
According to Stephen Bungay in his book Alamein the 8th army reached Agedabia a distance of 780 miles on the 23th Nov
On the whole, I'm unimpressed. Seems Montgomery PUSHED Rommel westward and never flanked him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Albany Rifles View PostIf you were to compare that to the 12th Army Group's breakout in Northern France 1 - 13 AUG 44 I believe you could see that was as great a an accomplishment, if not greater.
ps; The British and Canadian 21st Army group managed an advance of 250 miles in five days during the breakout from Normandy
And I think OPERATION COMPASS was a much greater accomplishment by the British.
Comment
-
redco Reply
You're correct about the distance between El Alamein and the Libyan border. It matters. Montgomery effected a superb administrative roadmarch across N. Africa in the face of non-existent resistance until mid-December. THEN he faced very modest Kampfgruppes in blocking positions where the land facilitated some semblance of defense by channelizing his forces until reaching the Mareth line where he sat for the best part of two months.
The enemy he faced, of course, was negligible in strength, absent most of its wheeled transportation, supplies while facing a second threat to its west. In some respects, the PAA retreat was far more remarkable given the difficulties they faced. As to Rommel's inability to flank a superior army on terrain unsuited for deep manuever, this is true enough. However, his ability to repeatedly effect successful operational attacks against British flanks is well-documented.
With respect to N. Europe, neither the breakout by British forces towards Falaise nor his handling of XXX Corps at Arnhem win him my admiration. While U.S. forces are effected river crossings of the Seine below Paris having swept AROUND the full length of German defenses in order to be able to do so, Montgomery was policing the battlefield, holding boxing tournaments and conducting parades. No doubt 21st Army Group had faced some fine German divisions before Argentan-Falaise but they were shadows of their former selves and ripe for the taking.
I'm glad you find him a flexible and quick commander. Many of his own troops did not. Certainly, those in the Arnhem bridgehead later would rue his sense of speed. Some argue that Arnhem as a plan was flawed. There are certainly valid reasons to consider such. I'd also argue that the commanders on the allied side with the greatest potential to influence the battle weren't equal to an imaginative plan for which their troops suffered grievously.
The arguments against Montgomery's alacrity have been long stated, to include at this board. You're certainly welcome to your views. I doubt I'd change them and am in no hurry to do so. You surely shall not change mine.
I'd summarize my thoughts by stating I simply can't imagine a commander who did less with more during the war.
Thanks."This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
Comment
-
Yes it was impressive, though it should be noted that Monty as the Allied Ground Commander is entitled to a share of the credit
Nope, Ike took command of all ground forces on 1 AUG 44 with Montgomery commanding 21st AG and Bradley the 12th AG.“Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
Mark Twain
Comment
-
Originally posted by S-2 View PostYou're correct about the distance between El Alamein and the Libyan border. It matters.
Montgomery effected a superb administrative roadmarch across N. Africa in the face of non-existent resistance until mid-December. THEN he faced very modest Kampfgruppes in blocking positions where the land facilitated some semblance of defense by channelizing his forces until reaching the Mareth line where he sat for the best part of two months.
The enemy he faced, of course, was negligible in strength, absent most of its wheeled transportation,
In some respects, the PAA retreat was far more remarkable given the difficulties they faced.As to Rommel's inability to flank a superior army on terrain unsuited for deep manuever, this is true enough. However, his ability to repeatedly effect successful operational attacks against British flanks is well-documented.
With respect to N. Europe, neither the breakout by British forces towards Falaise nor his handling of XXX Corps at Arnhem win him my admiration.While U.S. forces are effected river crossings of the Seine below Paris having swept AROUND the full length of German defenses in order to be able to do so, Montgomery was policing the battlefield, holding boxing tournaments and conducting parades.
No doubt 21st Army Group had faced some fine German divisions before Argentan-Falaise but they were shadows of their former selves and ripe for the taking.
It should be noted that Bradley refused to let his forces advance further than Argentan because in his own words " I preferred a strong shoulder at Argentan rather than a broken neck at Falaise".
I'm glad you find him a flexible and quick commander. Many of his own troops did not. Certainly, those in the Arnhem bridgehead later would rue his sense of speed.
Some argue that Arnhem as a plan was flawed. There are certainly valid reasons to consider such. I'd also argue that the commanders on the allied side with the greatest potential to influence the battle weren't equal to an imaginative plan for which their troops suffered grievously.
The arguments against Montgomery's alacrity have been long stated, to include at this board. You're certainly welcome to your views. I doubt I'd change them and am in no hurry to do so. You surely shall not change mine.
Comment
-
Afraid it was the Canadians who dropped the ball at Falaise--even our own official historian says as much. The troops we employed there were pretty raw, they suffered rough handling, and they were unable to close the pocket.
Most WWII offensives encountered serious logistical problems after about 500 km, regardless of opposition or lack thereof. If the defeated side had strategic depth in which to retreat, and the political will to keep fighting, then they would rally.
The Russians rallied in '41 and '42, the Germans rallied repeatedly in '43/'44, all after being beaten about as badly as it is possible for armies to get beat. In every case, the discourse on the winning side goes "we were only stopped by weather/lack of fuel/high command stupidity" (select your preference according to your mood). But really, there's only so far the mechanized elements of a 1940's-style army could advance before reaching the end of their tether.
As long as the defeated side could run away far enough, and as long as they still wanted to fight, then they could rally and there's not all that much the pursuing side could do about it, except gnash their teeth, replace their tank treads, and look for scapegoats.
Comment
-
redco Reply
"Well, when you have advanced around 1400 miles you do need time to sort out your logistics:)"
Perhaps. The Germans certainly found his sense of tidiness advantageous.
"Any formation that didn't have wheeled transport was part of the 60% of Rommels army left behind at El Alamein."
Not necessarily. German formations suffered that difficulty to a great extent in any case. I thought you'd know that. I might have been wrong.
"Indeed, though leaving around 95% of your heavy equipment behind at El Alamein does help you go faster;)"
95%? You're prepared to document that?
"The only time he tried it against Monty was at the Battle of Alam Halfa, it was such a failure, his own troops mockingly referred to the battle as the 'Six Day Race' as they spend this amount of time racing around the desert achieving nothing, and getting bombed and shelled for their troubles."
Rommel's choices at Alam Halfa were limited. Of course you'd know that too. His supply lines long, time waning with additional British convoys enroute, and the advantage of ULTRA. That said, Montgomery's "victory" against inferior forces would typlify his conquests. As I recall, Michael Carver and others would note this battle as being the first of many incomplete victories by Montgomery whom failed to press his advantage and afforded the PAA to retire.
He had his reasons, I'll give him that. Montgomery was a careful man. That isn't the accusation he faces however.
"So you are going to ignore his role in the planning and execution of the Normandy campaign then..."
Only if you'd contend that it was Montgomery's intent to "write down" the German armor opposing 21st Army Group without achieving victory with each of his defeated offensives. That falls under "execution". Was Caen seized on the first day of his plan? EPSOM? Or the litany of subsequent offensives that eventually pushed back the German defenses without effecting any sundering of that wing as was Montgomery's intent.
Repeatedly.
Perhaps you're satisfied with the results. Many weren't and still aren't.:)
"Rather flippant remark, he was the most senior officer in Normandy, Ike and his staff stayed in England."
Actually he wasn't. A.R. has noted the date command transitioned. You read his comments, didn't you? The senior command had already passed. Montgomery was responsible for 21st Army Group only. Thus no flippancy on my part.
BLUECOAT wasn't aggressively handled from 21st Army Group's end. Units did not stay in continuous close contact with retreating German forces. Pressure was lightly applied from the north even as 3rd Army forces raced for the Seine. Haislips XV Corps seized Seine crossings on the 19th of August. Where was 21st Army Group on that day?
"His sense of speed ????, don't you think that the German's had something to do with it."
For some in northern Europe more so than for others.:)
"It was flawed, but at least it was worth attempting unlike Hurtgen Forest."
Is this what's commonly known as a "red herring"?;)
In any case, I've a great deal of admiration for the intent of Market-Garden. I think it was achievable with a more dynamic command leadership. That was Eisenhower's fault for not identifying the most capable men to execute such a plan, wouldn't you agree?
"I'm just giving the other posters the counter argument :)"
Why I suspect that you imagine introducing something new here.:)"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
Comment
-
I'm confused. I'm following everything, but are you guys talking about Rommel and Montgomery in general, R&M in El Alamein, R&M in Normandy, or Operation Market Garden? And where does Ike fit into all of this, aside from being Monty's superior?Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
Comment
-
bigross86 Reply
It's wandered into a discussion (again) of Montgomery's perrenial case of the "slows"."This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
Comment
-
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs
Comment
Comment