A Bridge Too Far: 66 Years Ago

**Hooahguy** · 10-06-2010, 00:05

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Absolutely. Patton would have doubled the casualties on both sides while achieving the same result.

Not enough airlift capacity. Too many points of failure (infrastructure restrictions especially). Logistical problems on a macro level. etc.

Ehh..... Considering Patton cut huge swaths in France while Monty hobbled along, I think Patton would have found a way around the obstacles that held Monty up, or bashed his way through it. Either way, I dont think it would have been as much of a disaster as it was.

**PanzerJaeger** · 10-06-2010, 04:59

Market Garden was Monty's baby - a wholly uneccesary and ego driven endevor. Patton would not have concieved of such a delicate operation. He understood that the Allied forces had vast numerical advantages and was content to grind his way to Berlin.

**Vladimir** · 10-07-2010, 18:44

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Market Garden was Monty's baby - a wholly uneccesary and ego driven endevor. Patton would not have concieved of such a delicate operation. He understood that the Allied forces had vast numerical advantages and was content to grind his way to Berlin.

So: Patton=U.S. Grant?

Not a great general but one who exploits a manpower advantage?

**ReluctantSamurai** · 10-08-2010, 03:18

Patton would not have concieved of such a delicate operation. He understood that the Allied forces had vast numerical advantages and was content to grind his way to Berlin.

I'm not sure what PJ meant with this statement, but anyone who has studied Patton's campaign's in NA, Sicily, and France surely could not characterize his tactics as 'indelicate' grind. The end-around to Palermo....the Lorraine Campaign......the relief of Bastogne........

**Brenus** · 10-09-2010, 11:10

“I'm not sure what PJ meant with this statement, but anyone who has studied Patton's campaign's in NA, Sicily, and France surely could not characterize his tactics as 'indelicate' grind. The end-around to Palermo....the Lorraine Campaign......the relief of Bastogne........” The Crossing of the Rhine that is fact was a complete strategic mistake.
If Market Garden had succeeded it would have opened the road to Berlin to the Western Allies.
Patton move just distract material and men to a useless front where the Allies were stacked.

**ReluctantSamurai** · 10-09-2010, 15:56

I'm a little puzzled how the 'broad front' vs the 'narrow front' strategy relates to how Patton conducted 3d Army tactics

**PanzerJaeger** · 10-10-2010, 04:10

Originally Posted by Vladimir

So: Patton=U.S. Grant?

Not a great general but one who exploits a manpower advantage?

Hardly. You would have to look to the Japanese or possibly early Barbarossa Russian leadership to find the level of wonton disregard for the lives of the frontline troops in WW2 that Grant demonstrated in the ACW. Patton actually instituted many unpopular safety measures for the troops under his command, such as mandatory use of steel helmets even for support troops and medical staff.

What I meant was that Patton would not have planned such a high risk operation at this stage in the war, as his numerical advantages were so large. He was far more pragmatic than Monty, who was trying to regain his reputation after Normandy.

Originally Posted by Reluctant Samurai

I'm not sure what PJ meant with this statement, but anyone who has studied Patton's campaign's in NA, Sicily, and France surely could not characterize his tactics as 'indelicate' grind. The end-around to Palermo....the Lorraine Campaign......the relief of Bastogne........

I meant that at this stage in the war Patton was content to push his way through the Siegfried Line using brute force and numerical superiority as opposed to undertaking a risky flanking effort, which he did after the failure of Market Garden and then the closing of the Ardennes bulge.

As for Patton's campaigns, I have studied them extensively in an unsuccessful effort to understand the legend behind the man. He deserves much credit for being able to motivate and drive his men to perform consistently better than comparable Allied formations. He also had an understanding of armored warfare and close air support that went beyond most of his Allied contemporaries, who were still operating under pre-war attritional doctrines. However, his actual battlefield performance usually consisted of blunt frontal assaults using massive numerical advantage.* Off the top of my head I can think of a dozen German generals and half a dozen Russian ones who were more innovative tacticians.

His performance in North Africa was competent (especially in comparison to the man he replaced), but nothing that any competent general with those advantages couldn't accomplish. In Sicily, he repeatedly failed to pin down the 29th Panzergrenadier Division and the rather amateurish Allied effort, of which he was a part, allowed the vast majority of the Germans and a great number of Italians to escape. The Lorraine campaign was essentially an unopposed drive through France until Metz, which consisted of bloody frontal assault after bloody frontal assault. His actions during the Battle of the Bulge were certainly his finest hour, but the laudation he receives borders on the absurd. Rapid disengagement and re-engagement of armies was standard fare on the Eastern Front.

*I do not mean this as a criticism of Patton. I have a lot of respect for his him, 'take no prisoners' rhetoric and all. After being pushed out of Europe, the Allies had the luxury of picking and choosing when and where to fight. They wisely chose times and places where they enjoyed massive advantages, as any good strategy dictates. Patton simply did not need to utilize elaborate operations to accomplish his goals.

**Brenus** · 10-10-2010, 21:16

“unsuccessful effort to understand the legend behind the man”: I have the same problem. I see nothing in his plans or battles worth of this aura.
He had a good sense for sentences and PR but his personal problem with Montgomery (or Alexander) always went against the Allies plans, in Africa, Sicily or later.
As his campaign in North Africa, he succeeded to rally the US army badly mauled by Kasserine, but his own attacks were not so much successful…

**ReluctantSamurai** · 10-11-2010, 01:20

I see nothing in his plans or battles worth of this aura.

A cursory study of his campaigns would tell a different story, IMHO.....but that would be a topic for a separate thread, I'm sure.

but his own attacks were not so much successful…

Patton's exploitation of the Cobra breakout, and the subsequent Lorraine campaign is what unhinged the German Army's position in the West and allowed for the remainder of the Allied forces to finally be free of the initial Overlord lodgement positions. But that discussion would be hijacking this one.............

@ PJ

Probably a reasonable assessment. Not so sure about finding a dozen German generals and a half dozen Soviet generals who were better tacticians, but that discussion also belongs in another thread................

**Sarmatian** · 10-11-2010, 08:32

Well, I`d raise PJ two dozen/two dozen. I think the case with Patton legend is something akin to the old saying: In the land of blind, one-eyed man is a king. He had a different personality and different tactics compared to his fellow commanders, it is only natural for him to stand out...