Would it have made any difference in the outcome? Would he have reached the trapped 1st Para at Arnhem. Would the war have been over before the Battle of the Bulge?
IF Patton had been allowed to do what he wanted the war would have been over long before the Bulge and I don’t even know if there would have been a Market Garden. 3rd Army had a real hard time taking prisoners because there were usually more Germans behind then in front of them. The German tanks were far superior to ours so Patton punched his army through the lines and wiped out the interior. German tanks may have been better but when you are out of gas and food they will surrender. Monty had 1.5 million troops during the Bulge. The Germans attacked with 1 million and pushed the 1st army out of the way, full retreat. A 3rd army division (the 101) went forward and took Bastogne and told the 1st Army that they were going the wrong direction. Patton then pushed his army of 330,000 into the left flank of the attacking Germans and went 30 miles a day to rescue the 101. Patton was a true leader and his men worked hard for him. I think had he been given the rations they deserved and the 1.5 million the war would have easily been done by Christmas.
Um, what did Patton want to do again?
And as far as a more aggressive example of an American commander pressing the attack, British historian Keenan picks the commander of the 82D Airborne, Matthew Ridgeway…
Whether he’d of done any better is highly debatable. But the decision of the Guards to halt is unforgivable though…
It wasn’t Monty’s decision, but an advance by armour on a narrow road with no infantry support would have been an act of total stupidity.
ps,It took Patton (III corps) six days to go 30 miles (with some snow) to rescue some isolated paratroopers. The British 30 corps in Market Garden went three times as far (90 miles) connecting with several paratrooper positions in the same amount of time. 30 Corps was operating deep behind enemy lines, with threats on the flanks of the long line of advance. III corps was operating mostly in territory in US hands on both sides of the advance. Both had to fight their way in. Yet Patton is considered to have gone fast and the British slow…go figure
I know. In fact, I thought Monty had wanted to replace the division commander who did make the decision before the operation. Did he not?
And I agree it wouldn’t have been prudent, it would have been very risky. But: they did in fact have infantry support of the 82d Airborne troops who had secured the bridgehead. And sometimes in war, one has to take risks and accept losses. Had they broken through, they may well have saved the operation…
Yes well, both operations are not directly comparable as one was an unintended diversion that was forced to wheel around 90 degrees while still engaged with the enemy. The other was part of a planned offensive. While I am also not the typical Patton-fanboi, I do think his accomplishment is remarkable in that respect. He was a very good field commander within limited circumstances, but he would never make a theater commander…
BTW, I don’t think Patton would have done any better if he were in overall command…
and Patton relieved Bastogne in 0 degree weather with summer uniforms. A friend of mine told me that they were so cold that you could watch the bolts on their M1 carbines go slowly back each time it was fired. Patton may have been a jerk but I think he was an interesting person. Ike wanted him to behave and fight with Monty’s army but staying in a line with the 1st would have been murder against those German tanks. Ike told Patton to stop and he wouldn’t. He kept cutting the German supplies and Ike cut Pattons supplies to try to get him to stop. My friend told me that his unit ate more German rations then American because Ike stopped sending food to the troops. Had Patton been supplied with what he needed (including troops) he could have gotten a lot further.
Completely bogus! Ike never cut off Patton’s Third Army and his operation was sanctioned and approved by the Allied command. They may well have ate German rations, but not because anyone intended to deny them American ones…
Stop listening to your friends and read something on it…
hmmm what am I going to do, listen to someone who was there and knows what he is talking about or read what some self proclaimed scholar has written 60 years after it happened…
Ignore my last reply it was rude and uncalled for. I tend to talk to veterans because I like to hear history straight from those who were there but I know truth is in the eye of the beholder. There are certainly reasons why the 3rd army was not always properly equipped just like any other army. A large war machine constantly in motion is a headache for the best quartermasters. I trusted his judgement on the matter and perhaps it was wrong and I apologize for my sarcasm and rudeness.
LOL I’m not scholer. Just a hack…
It’s alright man. I considered your point even as I wrote it. I think one must considered the amount of “RUMINT” (rumor intelligence) that passed around from GI to GI as facts were twisted.
Patton’s army would have been difficult to supply, as it was in the best of circumstances. But perhaps some rifleman (who as I’ve heard many didn’t like Patton either) were venting their frustration. Nevertheless, it was still a difficult and brilliant combat maneuver that only an aggressive, risk-taker like Patton could have pulled off. But his plan was approved…
I recall reading that he suggested the attack to Ike, and was told to begin planning ASAP, and Patton then sent an overview of his plan. 
Carlo De’Este, in his book on Patton, described what happened…
At a hastily convened conference with American and British commanders, Ike asked Patton when could he attack, Patton replied instantly, Dec.21 with 3 divisions, that was just 24 hours, Ike and the others thought it impossible, and that Patton was just boasting, but Ike was dead wrong, while others had come with only vague ideas, and without specific plans, Patton had devised THREE plans, each tailored to meet any contingency that his Superior’s might direct.
And true to his word, 24 hours later he attacked.
Ah, thank you! It’s been about 20 years since I read of Patton’s attack in the Bulge…
It’s become something of a vogue to bash Patton as widely overrated in recent years --in some quarters. Probably based on the fact that he is somewhat overrated only to the extent that he’s been adopted as an icon of super “kick-ass” militarism and has a lot of fanbois largely based on the film. Personally, I would take Omar Bradley over Patton any day of the week, maybe even Lucian Truscott. But Patton still had an edge to him that even the Germans admired, and he was the right general at the right time. Just don’t ask him to run an occupation, like in Sicily, where he caused untold miseries on the local populace due to his ignorance day-to-day logistical necessities…
He was a very good field commander, but never would be successful at a higher command position nor am I sure he would have wanted a job like Ike’s.
The units Patton used in his attack north were not in combat with the enemy, they were his reserve, III Corps had been in reserve since early December.
Lucky for the guys at Bastogne.
And unlucky for the men at Arnhem.
i think patton was far more aggressive than monty, market garden probably still would have failed but Patton would have at least broken through to the the men at arhem and hold long enough to ensure their evacuation. Also i have heard that the British tankers themselves weren’t as well trained and i have heard numerous accounts from the American soldiers at least about their laid back demeanor. I think that Patton would have made a significant difference in market garden but think that it was simply a plan without much chance of success to begin with.
It does not really matter who would command the Market Garden, the operation was doomed as long as there were significant german armor and mechanized units in the area.
As for Patton, he was neither a good tactician nor a particulary skilled commander, his two primary pros was his bravado mixed with luck, it did not and would not always work.
Its worth to mention that the organisation of units was taken long beforehand by his chief of staff so it was not a stroke of military brilliance, Patton was just lucky enough to have units ready to go and knew it.
Its worth to mention that the organisation of units was taken long beforehand by his chief of staff so it was not a stroke of military brilliance, Patton was just lucky enough to have units ready to go and knew it.
Where did you get this information? Can you show me a cite for that? Patton was embroiled in the battle for Metz, three of his 6 Divisions were refitting after the Hurtgen Forest debacle. How did his Chief of Staff figger out that they would have to disengage from battle and turn 90 degrees to attack in a totally different direction before the Battle of the Bulge started?