Could the yanks have done any better at Arnhem?

ooo, how fun.

I have been mulling it over in my mind and, to answer the question straight - operational plan I am unsure, but I do not think they would have been more likely to succeed.

My whys are that I view the failure of Market Garden (and I am actually a M.G. 'fan') as a failure of logistics. I don't think that having the 82nd in Arnhem would have noticeably mitigated this and so the result would be substantially similar.

I know I get scowled at by Military historians (especially British ones...) but I have never found weapon variance (beyond the extremes of machine gun vs knife) to be of great significance. Institutions of implementation and training are, but I don't see that much of a difference between US and British paratroopers in this regard. Logistics and Military institution are my general answer to all these.

On the /other hand... How much extra equipment, AT, Mortars Bazookies etc, would a US airborne division have compared to the British division? A substantial variance there might sway my tedious logistic obsessed mind.

On the comms issues; IIRC, even today the Dutch army have problems with radio in that area due to the geology.

A while ago, on a newsgroup I think, a Yank started off on one about how poorly the British did at Arnhem. He was adamant that the yanks would have done better, and even held out long enough for XXX Corps to relieve them. After several rounds of rebuttals, the guy came back and apologised. He'd apparently looked into it properly, and after looking at the whole situation, come to the conclusion that the end result would have been the same.

WRT firepower of M1 over Lee-Enfield:
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/m1-gar ... -test.html
Seems to indicate not much in it...

Really? One bloke in west africa says he can do 24-30 aimed shots in 1 minute and your conclusion is that there is not much difference between the two systems?????
That's good science that is.
Sorry, no it isnt. Anecdote is not reliable. I can claim to be able to juggle 14 fish and a kebab shop but without some supporting evidence, more than my hands smelling of fish and chilli sauce, it is worthless. So are the claims in that thread.
The poor bloke who started it, you can sense he wants some data but all he gets is waffle, moans and fanfaronade.

Please, let's not turn this into a pissing contest gents. Keep your posts on topic.

OK.
Question, would the Yanks get to plan the whole mission from the ground up or are we just substituting US forces for Brit?
One of the largest flaws in the plan as far as I can see was the drop zones being so far away, if you get to change those then you are off to a better start. Recce wouldn't have got shot up so the routes to the bridge would have had more chance of being open.

* Looks up fanfaronade - my word of the day *

Yes, I go along with that. Much less to do with the quality of troops and kit they had (of whatever faction), more to do with flawed planning in the first place.

Put it as simply as that yeah, agreed, lots of hasty planning errors.

But on the ground if you had to simply substitute the divisions would they have faired any better.

I cant recall the numbers right now but I think on average the US fielded a bazooka or more per platoon whereas the UK had about 1 or 2 per company. Now given that the presence of masses of enemy armour was a major issue you'd have thought that having superior man portable AT with twice the range and greater stopping power might have made a difference even if the rifle firepower didnt.

I doubt it.
Swap Brit for German and then that's another story.

Contentious

Out of interest why do you say that considering the SS at Arnhem were simply astounded by the British resistance and didnt understand how they coudl keep going and were doubly amazed when they discovered the majority of the troops were in there first real battle and had been holding off eastern front vets for nine days.

I know you probably have anyway, but have you read 'it never snows in september', the german account of the battle?

(oh and could however has my copy please get it back to me... its not a cheap book!)

I doubt it.
Swap Brit for German and then that's another story.

many comparisons can be drawn between the british airborne at arnhem and the germans at the battle of the bulge...or without the weather element the germans at stalingrad. like wladek said, it isnt realy a question of who are the better troops its a question of planning, logistics, and supply.

could the yanks or the germans have done better at arnhem on the ground on the day(s) ?

no, i dont think they could, but i think they could have done worse and still got the same result. it was a massive gamble, huge. and it didnt work.

like the bulge and stalingrad.

I'm not sure it is contentious, it is often claimed that man for man the Germans were the best fighters, the best soldiers of the period. I would agree with that in general and the type of fighting in Arnhem would permit that alleged superiority to shine through.
I dont see that the Americans were better than the British man for man, I dont see them doing any better with the same basic plan.
Eastern front vets the 9th and 10th SS may have been but they were decimated and exhausted eastern front vets who were down to half strength in men and much less in equipment after the retreat from France.
Replace the fresh British Paras with fresh German troops....be interesting, when surrounded and cut off the Germans had a pretty good record.
'It Never Snows' is always by my bedside.

OK, the sixth time I have typed after deleting. now I going to only state that the 'man for a man' equation is, I think, overrated, unverifyable, and generally irrelevant (small unit tactics maybe).

Unless a German Para division (because it has to be parachutists surely) comes with more men and big guns then I would put them in exactly the same position as the British/American para divisions.

There are too many variables to consider. I think that blind luck, or lack of it, is also an important factor that's often overlooked. The stray bullet that kills a CO in the first 5 minutes can change the whole course of an action.

(says he who's only experience of combat is CoD and CiA )

now I going to only state that the 'man for a man' equation is, I think, overrated, unverifyable, and generally irrelevant.

I dont agree, whilst we will never be able to do a test on the various troops, we can conduct a meta analysis of the available reports of combat and actions. That will point, I am certain, to the fact that constantly out numbered in men and machines the German soldier performed very well, almost always accounting for more of his enemy that his own loses. Yes, you can find examples where they got royally stuffed but that's cherry picking, the majority shows they fought well, usually better than their enemy.
It may well be irrelevant in history, they lost in the end but it isnt irrelevant to a discussion such as this. An assessment of the value of the troops you have to hand is vital to be able to even consider the question be it the original American troops or my addition of the Germans.

However, while i'm inclined to agree with you poacher I'd argue that by 1944 (the point we're debating) British troops were far superior to Germans.

Mainly they'd had *years* of training rather than weeks and were very well equipped (the lee enfield is far superior to the k98 and the bren and the vickers both regarded as among the finest weapons in their class and age). Add to this a 'desire to fight', contemporary after action reports tell of german forces reluctant to conduct offensive patrolling to dominate ground and a particular reluctance to patrol at night.

As with all armies the quality fluctuates over the course of the war.

I'd say for sake of arument that the British Army starts off small and highly skilled, until dunkirk (but hamstrung by poor tactics and leadership) morphing into a large green and unwieldy force for the mid war years and by june 44 was experienced highly skilled again and well equipped.

In comparison I'd rate the german army of the time as progressively getting larger but less professional and suffering from chronic training and materiel shortages.

Just of the top of my head that, not really thought about it to much so I wont be offended if anyone shoots that argument down

But my point would be, you can say subsitute a german para formation for the brit one but the FJ who landed at Crete were a breed apart from those rushed to reinforce the german defence of market garden (most of which had never been in an aeroplane let alone jumped...)

But my point would be, you can say subsitute a german para formation for the brit one but the FJ who landed at Crete were a breed apart from those rushed to reinforce the german defence of market garden (most of which had never been in an aeroplane let alone jumped...)

an extremely valid point !

My opinion:

Would the US Airborne have faired any better? No, I don't think so as they would have been up against the the same German units with roughly the same equipment as the Brits. They may have lasted a day longer and inflicted a few more casualties but Arnhem was simply one bridge too man when the ground assault failed.

As for the ground assault, it should also be considered for this scenario what would have happened if the Yanks had led this part of the operation. Put Patton in charge rather than 30 Corps and yes, things may have changed. He would not have waited for more infantry but pressed on. However, I also believe that he would have run into the exact German AT that 30 Corps waited for their infantry to clear. Patton - and he's the only US general I'd be prepared to give a shot at this - would have had heavy casualties but may have battered through a little farther... But I don't think he would have made it to Arnhem. The casualties would have been too great.

You'd aso have to bring into play two facts - the Yanks hated Monty and were happy to be the ones to pull hom from the fire but not to the extent of re-deploying airborne troops to Anrhem. They could have done this and it might have swayed the battle but did not want to commit men to what they saw as a Brit operation / lost cause. Secondly, you have to consider fighting spirit. In late '44, the Brits were still keen to get stuck in - after all, we'd taken the brunt of the casualties and seen our country bombed. Post D-Day, isolated actions and small battles notwithstanding, the Yanks were happy to stoll across Europe and let others do the fighting. Their snr officers complained bitterly about this and Ike went so far as to say that he wouldn't lose one man more than he thought absolutely necessary. Although The Bulge means that I wouldn't include US Airborne, a reliance on US infantry and tankers for the ground assualt means that I do not think they would get as far as 30 Corps.

What sh*gged it all up was sloppy intelligence / poor planning and I really can't believe that the Yanks would have done any better as they would still have had to rely on info thar the Brits supplied them which would be same as that used in planning Market Garden. We ran the underground across Europe so I don't think that they Yanks would have been able to plan for the Waffen SS units etc. that the Brits may (not) have known about.

So, my closing and much paraphrased thoughts are as follows:

US Airborne replace Brits for the Arnhem drop: Allies find out about the crack Axis units sooner, fight a little longer but are still overwhelmed. It's possible that the bridgehead could have held out and I'd concede that more would escape but I'd still back an Axis win.

Patton replaces Brit tankers: they plough on, straight into the Axis armoured units deployed near Nijmegen and Arnhem. It's close but I'm still thinking that the Axis stop the advance. Add US infantry and I think that the US 82nd would have faced a worse fight, more casualties and they would not have pushed harder or faster than the Brits.

Not Yank or Brit bashing but Market Garden was FUBAR from the start. I'd put US Airborne in front of the Paras on equipment alone, Brit and US tankers on par and Brit infantry ahead of US but ultimately, it wasn't a winnable battle unless with hindsight, we can revisit the planning / intelligence.

Some interesting thoughts there, i'd not considered the idea of Pattons army leading the push across the Rhine!

Personally, I think if Patton had been in charge, it would have been a bigger cockup than it was! The casualties would have been much higher and, instead of an airborne division cutoff and destroyed in Arnhem, there would have been armoured units as well! Nothing to do with the quality of the troops, more the naked ambition of the commander.