In his book Armageddon, Max Hastings suggests that the capture of the Arnhem bridge may have worked if one of the US Divisions had performed that task rather than the UK one.
National pride etc aside, does anyone think things would have been diffrent if the UK had taken the 1st bridge and the US the next ones?
If so, why?
Rubbish, US or UK it doesn’t matter. As the film says, it was a bridge too far. 30 Corps couldn’t reach them in time. They were met by an Armoured unit. They were paras, with few heavy weapons, the US Div would have similarly been lightly equiped.
So US or UK forces the outcome would have been the same.
Unless there are any great differences between US and UK Airbourne Divisions at the time.
Even the arguement that American radios could have meant that the resup was dropped in places where they could be used is a minor detail.
Paras versus Panzers just wasn’t going to work. Add into that the casualties sustained (which were high) and the nationality of the soldiers would have no bearing.
As it was the Div was highly respected by the Germans for being such tenacious fighters.
I am sure that the US Div would have met with a similar fate with similar standing.
Well i hit no but what i actually meant was that I dont think it would have mattered who was there. I hope Monty got a smack upside the head for this one. Looked great on paper but wasnt really thought thur IMO.
Unless the US had a way of paradropping tanks that could take King Tigers on, the same thing would have happened, IMO.
As 1000ydstare stated, it was a bridge too far.
I agree. It was a bridge to far and the fact that the German army was just too strong there to fight at that time.
Monty should have thought of it more carefully.
Henk
Not sure - if the weather had been good enought then the combination of the Polish reinforcements and the revived close air support might well have been enough. Given how well they did on their own, this might be enough to tip the balance.
I can’t see US forces making any difference however - without checking I seem to vaguely remember that one of the two US drops didn’t go terribly well either but eventually succeeded.
Would it have made a difference if it had been US Armoured Divisions moving to Arnhen not XXX Corps? It has been said that the Corps was a little too experienced and therefore a bit stodgy.
Even if Cornelius Ryan (author of “A bridge too far”) wrote that a liaison American officer was astonished by the British tea break, I doubt that it would make a difference the using of several American armoured divisions.
Remember the conditions: http://www.arnhemarchive.org/depth_xxxcorps1.htm
Even if Cornelius Ryan (author of “A bridge too far”) wrote that a liaison American officer was astonished by the British tea break, I doubt that it would make a difference the using of several American armoured divisions.
Remember the conditions: http://www.arnhemarchive.org/depth_xxxcorps1.htm[/quote]
NAAFI/Brew breaks are an essential morale/energy booster - they rehydrate better than coffee but if an oke prefers java I’d never begrudge him that.
Obviously only carried out during a lull in the battle !
No difference…
I dont think it would have made a difference in the outcome of the division. However, if Monty and planned it a little better, than Arhnem may not have been a bridge too far.
20/20 hindsight.
It was planned as well as could be.
The only let down was that the Panzer division wasn’t believed to be there, contray to all Int available at the time.
Either way, the bridges were taken, and even the one that wasn’t tied up German armour and dented their morale and supplies. And the allies advanced a longer distance in a short space of time, that would perhaps have not been possible with out hte drops.
I am sorry but they knew there was armour in the area, they just did not budge that there own would not make it.
Henk
It took Allied planners to plan D-Day like 4 months or something. Monty planned Market Garden in like 2 weeks. How can you say that it was planned as well as it could be?
So then it was poor planning that also costed a lot of lives.
Henk
I was led to believe that Monty was wrongly led to believe that the main German panzer division was understrength and had yet to reequip after they were ejected from Normandy. Unfortunately, they all had just received new panzers…
Well if more careful planning was conducted and more recon was collected wouldnt we have forseen that?
The Panzer units at Arnhem (according to Max Hasting’s book Armaggedon) were understrength. The two ‘divisions’ were actually brigade size although both recconaissance regiments (and these were key) were up to full strength. However, they had been re-armed and re-equipped. When the invaision force dropped the German units were able using their fast mechanized recce elements get around the Brit paras and cut them off. Then it was a matter of deploying armour aginst lightly armed infantry. It wouldn’t really matter what nationality tried to take Arnhem it still would have failed. The terrain made 30th Corps advance torturously slow and as good as American divisons are i don’t think they would have got down those roads any quicker. Furthermore, the Brits were cut off and therefore proved to be ineffectively supplied and as this got worse would eventually become combat ineffective. It would have been same for any American division. However, i wonder could a German unit have lasted so long?