A Bridge Too Far: 66 Years Ago

[ReluctantSamurai]

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

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]

“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]

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]

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...

[Hooahguy]

There is a reason I have a whole page of his quotes on my wall.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On Market-Garden:

Any number of factors led to this attempt that fell short including: victory disease on the part of the allies, the airborne's fears that they would be held out of combat with no chance to show their mettle again, weakened logistics (port capacity/re-opening had not caught up yet), and Monty's rivalry with Patton.

Patton's tactics were pretty simple. Go hard and fast, pin strongpoints with infantry and artillery fire, flow around and keep moving with everyone else. Not particulary novel -- that was stosstroopen 101 from the 1918 effort by the 2R -- but they were effective.

Grant gets a lot of grief for his tactics, but a closer look at his campaigns and writings do not show him endlessly repeating Marye's Heights until the Rebs ran out of bullets. He did make a few mistakes -- Cold Harbor for example -- but was not as much of a butcher as some would make him out to be. He WAS a lot more willing to accept casualties than was Little Mac, and the Army of the Potomac never really grew to like him as it did their founder McClellan. Greatest U.S. general? Nope. He wasn't a Burnside or a Fredendall either though.

[PanzerJaeger]

Grant gets a lot of grief for his tactics, but a closer look at his campaigns and writings do not show him endlessly repeating Marye's Heights until the Rebs ran out of bullets. He did make a few mistakes -- Cold Harbor for example -- but was not as much of a butcher as some would make him out to be. He WAS a lot more willing to accept casualties than was Little Mac, and the Army of the Potomac never really grew to like him as it did their founder McClellan. Greatest U.S. general? Nope. He wasn't a Burnside or a Fredendall either though.

Very interesting. I will have to take a closer look at his tactics. Thanks for the correction.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There is a reason I have a whole page of his quotes on my wall.

...because your family can't afford wallpaper?

[Husar]

Starting from Caesar, then Attila,, Englishmen, Russians, Prussians/Germans to whole Africa. Yep my Lord - you are end of all the roads.

I think Krook got you there.

I have no idea about the tactics used by all those generals as here in Germany we don't discuss such evil things anymore, but it's always interesting to see this discussed, but it still seems somewhat predictable going by the persons' Backroom positions.
I'm of the opinion though that just because everybody quotes you, you aren't great and just because a quote sounds nice, it isn't necessarily true. I could plaster my walls with quotes of myself but I doubt that would make me a great general.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Market Garden was a gross waste of resources and good soldiers. It's sole purpose was to restore Monty's damaged reputation. Even had it succeeded, the Allied logistical problems were so severe that they would not have been able to exploit the success.

[Brenus]

“I think Krook got you there.”
Cheap and inexact:

Attila failed in Le Mans, the English were expelled, last time they fought against the French it took them a 23 years alliance with all the others European Powers to finally succeed to defeat an army half of their size at Waterloo, Prussians and Germans were defeated more often than victorious (even if having some initial successes) and the last time the Arabs tried some invasion it was ended in 752 at Poitiers.
According History, the French invaded Arabs in the last centuries, and some others countries in others continents.
So, yes, Caesar is in fact the last successful invaders, and that if you considered that the Gaul are the French Ancestors and not the Franks, which due to the name, gives you a hint of what the answer is.

However, as the European Continent start or end, depending from where you start, at the French Atlantic Coast, we are at the end of all. And the start of all.
France is at the end of all roads, the Ultimate Gate, the light that attracted and attracts the Souls drunken of liberty from the Dark European Countries.
France is the Alpha and the Omega, the Unity of all the sums.
At the beginning it was France.

[Conradus]

Well Attila basically annihilated the Western Roman Army and it's allies while only losing his own allies.
And the Arabs didn't really invade France in the 8th century, that campaign was more an extensive scouting trip, they just turned back before the battle was decided.

[Hooahguy]

...because your family can't afford wallpaper?

Har. Har. Har.

[Brenus]

"Well Attila basically annihilated the Western Roman Army and it's allies while only losing his own allies.
And the Arabs didn't really invade France in the 8th century, that campaign was more an extensive scouting trip, they just turned back before the battle was decided. " Could be, but they both never come back....

[Conradus]

Could be, but they both never come back....

So? That's not really the point is it?
Attila went after the jackpot of Italy the next year and the Arabs held on to southern French cities for quite some time.
It's like the Mongols who attacked Hungary, only to return because Ghengis died. Nobody can claim to've beaten them.

[Brenus]

“Attila went after the jackpot of Italy the next year and the Arabs held on to southern French cities for quite some time.”
So it can be said that Attila never dare to come back and went for softer targets.
Then what towns do you have in mind exactly? In 721, the Arabs failed to take Toulouse. Narbonne was retaken in 759. So, what is the quite of time?
In 752 they were pushed back to the south of the Aube River (20 years after Poitiers) and in 778, Charlemagne started an expedition in Spain and even took Gerona. They will still conduct some razzia, but Poitiers (732) was the highest point they Arabs did reach. And it is quite deep in the Frank Kingdom.

[Louis VI the Fat]

'No true Scotsman'.

'France always loses to invaders'
'The Hun and the Arabs were repelled, defeated and driven out by the 'French''
'Ah, then Atilla and the Arabs were thus not really trying to invade France'

[Conradus]

“Attila went after the jackpot of Italy the next year and the Arabs held on to southern French cities for quite some time.”
So it can be said that Attila never dare to come back and went for softer targets.
Then what towns do you have in mind exactly? In 721, the Arabs failed to take Toulouse. Narbonne was retaken in 759. So, what is the quite of time?
In 752 they were pushed back to the south of the Aube River (20 years after Poitiers) and in 778, Charlemagne started an expedition in Spain and even took Gerona. They will still conduct some razzia, but Poitiers (732) was the highest point they Arabs did reach. And it is quite deep in the Frank Kingdom.

Let's just say that Italy was still a richer target than Gaul in the 5th century AD :p.
And 38 years is quite long, not? An entire generation.

[Brenus]

“And 38 years is quite long, not? An entire generation.” Yeap, but they were still expelled.

[KrooK]

All in all Market Garden was bad option in my opinion. Montgomery simply lost respect to German commanders.
In the end elite division was destroyed, polish brigade lost hundreds of soldiers (as I wrote) without any reason
and Germans were given some weeks to prepare battle of bulge.

[Conradus]

“And 38 years is quite long, not? An entire generation.” Yeap, but they were still expelled.

Of course, there's no arguing that.Though they're coming back now :)

[Brenus]

One town. Same for the English. Succeeded to keep one town then out.
And they as well are coming back. Arabs for work, English for nice life after a hard life of work and bad weather…
Just a proof the French are indeed resilient but always succeed and France is THE final destination where even old enemies want to live….
:-D

[Conradus]

One town. Same for the English. Succeeded to keep one town then out.
And they as well are coming back. Arabs for work, English for nice life after a hard life of work and bad weather…
Just a proof the French are indeed resilient but always succeed and France is THE final destination where even old enemies want to live….
:-D

Still, you let French soil be spoiled for an entire generation. Not that great ;)

[Pannonian]

One town. Same for the English. Succeeded to keep one town then out.
And they as well are coming back. Arabs for work, English for nice life after a hard life of work and bad weather…
Just a proof the French are indeed resilient but always succeed and France is THE final destination where even old enemies want to live….
:-D

Says the Frenchman living in Croydon.

[Brenus]

Says the Frenchman living in Croydon. Because married with a Englishwoman who doesn't speak French. :-D

[Skullheadhq]

Yep - definitely.
Starting from Caesar, then Attila,, Englishmen, Russians, Prussians/Germans to whole Africa. Yep my Lord - you are end of all the roads.
And your cooking is something unique in the world.
I think living in France is interesting experience for typical European.

Says someone from Poland...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well I suppose I should close the thread at this point. It is past bedtime for the kids, they are getting restless.