I don't even think that was the problem, was it? Wasn't it more like the bridges couldn't hold up the tanks and they just had to waddle back when they realized they'd never make it to their main objectives?
I was more referring to the whole Bulge (OwO) starting badly. Hell, a single American platoon held up the spearhead for two days, losing only one man (I think).
Again, wasn't it a terrain issue? I'm not trying to dismiss anything, but it feels like both the Battle of the Bulge and Market Garden were kind of decided before the battle even starts just based on pre-existing factors.
I always heard that Market Garden was more an issue of Bong leadership being unwilling to allow necessary destruction.
11 months ago
Anonymous
It was Bong leadeship for sure, but not in necessary destruction. The cycle of disaster went like this: >Montgomery is watching the Americans with green eyed envy. The British are competent fighters, but lack manpower and are basically relegated to "Americans do most of the fighting, then the British show up and 'win' for PR purposes". Pretty humiliating. >comes up with plan that will PROVE that British Empire still #1, don't need no Americans. >British land at most important objective, British armored rolls through to connect dropzones, rule Britannia! >But manpower shortages still an issue, also the British have obsolete weapons by this point. M1 Garand > Lee Enfield, Bazooka > Piat, BAR > Bren (debatable, but still), M2 Browning > Vickers. None of these are bad weapons, they're just fricking old by 1944. >Americans have more numerous and better paratroop forces >General plan is stupid. "Let's create a massive salient where getting cut off or bogged down at any point will result in failure. Nothing will go wrong" >don't listen to Dutch Resistance who tell them Panzer SS in area >expect Germans to be basically defeated >general arrogance all round >the only possible outcome is the British getting defeated at Arnhem and the rest of the campaign being a waste of time
And this isn't British hate. I think there was a serious organization issue in general, and mixed units to supplement everyone's strengths and weaknesses would have been the better option. It's not like the British and Americans spoke a different language or something.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Monty is fascinating. When his 'tism was aligned with Venus or whatever, he could pull off some incredible things like North Africa.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Like Patton, he was born too late in the war he deserved to fight in.
11 months ago
Anonymous
*too late to be around for
11 months ago
Anonymous
>relegated to "Americans do most of the fighting, then the British show up and 'win' for PR purposes". Pretty humiliating.
Battle of Caen?
11 months ago
Anonymous
> BAR > Bren
How exactly do you figure this one out? > M2 browning > Vickers
Not really comparable, better choice would have been the M1919 Vs Vickers with main difference being that one is water cooled.
Everything else you said is pretty dead on, along with some poor and lethargic decision making on the ground. Also trying to blame the Poles was pretty shitty.
11 months ago
Anonymous
82nd Airborne wanked each other in the woods instead of actually going for the bridges on Day 0 at Nijmegen
11 months ago
Anonymous
Spotted the butthurt Brit. Paradrops are frequently disorganized.
11 months ago
Anonymous
There is no excuse for the delay when 90% of the men landed in the dropzone and they assembled by 3pm and it took 3 hours later for them to begin moving to Nijmegen bridge. The delay meant that instead of a few guards, an SS Recon Battalion had reached the Bridge
11 months ago
Anonymous
You forgot: >blame everything on Sosabowski when the operation ended in failure.
>Also, the atrocities only enraged us.
I mean hell, did it placate the Soviets? The atrocity side of Kampfgruppe Peiper was so utterly self-defeating that it should have been obvious the repercussions by that point.
Ostruppen may have been sharp but they were practically ruined for any AO that didn't require inhuman barbarity as a matter of course. Their concept of norm was just so out of whack that it literally made themselves a liability to other German units that happened to be in their same operating area.
tl;dr Waffen SS were fricking moronic.
>Eastern Front thinking ain't gonna work on Anglo-Americans.
The Germans couldn't conduct a single successful offensive against the Western allies after Kasserine pass. After that every single attempt failed utterly. The Germans couldn't smash the allied beachheads in Sicily, were powerless to stop the landings at Salerno and Taranto, failed again at Anzio and then hurled whatever armor they had into the battle of Normandy only to lose again.
Really I don't get why they're held in such high esteem by some people. Their shtick might have worked against France in 1940 and the Soviets but that was it. Maybe if they hadn't spent the rest of the war huffing their own farts they would have figured out how to not run out of diesel on the way to Taranto lmao
>Be war criminal >Lose war >Get convicted of war crimes >Be released >Have absolutely no regrets about the war crimes you committed >Move to one of the countries where you perpetrated your war crimes >Be interviewed by the press and instead of publicly repenting call the country you moved to a nation of cowards >Be murdered >The police don’t even bother investigating your death because you were an unrepentant war criminal
Was he actually moronic? Jesus Christ
What a clusterfrick Watch on Rhine was, from the very start.
Eastern Front thinking ain't gonna work on Anglo-Americans. Also, the atrocities only enraged us.
I don't even think that was the problem, was it? Wasn't it more like the bridges couldn't hold up the tanks and they just had to waddle back when they realized they'd never make it to their main objectives?
I was more referring to the whole Bulge (OwO) starting badly. Hell, a single American platoon held up the spearhead for two days, losing only one man (I think).
Again, wasn't it a terrain issue? I'm not trying to dismiss anything, but it feels like both the Battle of the Bulge and Market Garden were kind of decided before the battle even starts just based on pre-existing factors.
I always heard that Market Garden was more an issue of Bong leadership being unwilling to allow necessary destruction.
It was Bong leadeship for sure, but not in necessary destruction. The cycle of disaster went like this:
>Montgomery is watching the Americans with green eyed envy. The British are competent fighters, but lack manpower and are basically relegated to "Americans do most of the fighting, then the British show up and 'win' for PR purposes". Pretty humiliating.
>comes up with plan that will PROVE that British Empire still #1, don't need no Americans.
>British land at most important objective, British armored rolls through to connect dropzones, rule Britannia!
>But manpower shortages still an issue, also the British have obsolete weapons by this point. M1 Garand > Lee Enfield, Bazooka > Piat, BAR > Bren (debatable, but still), M2 Browning > Vickers. None of these are bad weapons, they're just fricking old by 1944.
>Americans have more numerous and better paratroop forces
>General plan is stupid. "Let's create a massive salient where getting cut off or bogged down at any point will result in failure. Nothing will go wrong"
>don't listen to Dutch Resistance who tell them Panzer SS in area
>expect Germans to be basically defeated
>general arrogance all round
>the only possible outcome is the British getting defeated at Arnhem and the rest of the campaign being a waste of time
And this isn't British hate. I think there was a serious organization issue in general, and mixed units to supplement everyone's strengths and weaknesses would have been the better option. It's not like the British and Americans spoke a different language or something.
Monty is fascinating. When his 'tism was aligned with Venus or whatever, he could pull off some incredible things like North Africa.
Like Patton, he was born too late in the war he deserved to fight in.
*too late to be around for
>relegated to "Americans do most of the fighting, then the British show up and 'win' for PR purposes". Pretty humiliating.
Battle of Caen?
> BAR > Bren
How exactly do you figure this one out?
> M2 browning > Vickers
Not really comparable, better choice would have been the M1919 Vs Vickers with main difference being that one is water cooled.
Everything else you said is pretty dead on, along with some poor and lethargic decision making on the ground. Also trying to blame the Poles was pretty shitty.
82nd Airborne wanked each other in the woods instead of actually going for the bridges on Day 0 at Nijmegen
Spotted the butthurt Brit. Paradrops are frequently disorganized.
There is no excuse for the delay when 90% of the men landed in the dropzone and they assembled by 3pm and it took 3 hours later for them to begin moving to Nijmegen bridge. The delay meant that instead of a few guards, an SS Recon Battalion had reached the Bridge
You forgot:
>blame everything on Sosabowski when the operation ended in failure.
American detected.
>Also, the atrocities only enraged us.
I mean hell, did it placate the Soviets? The atrocity side of Kampfgruppe Peiper was so utterly self-defeating that it should have been obvious the repercussions by that point.
Ostruppen may have been sharp but they were practically ruined for any AO that didn't require inhuman barbarity as a matter of course. Their concept of norm was just so out of whack that it literally made themselves a liability to other German units that happened to be in their same operating area.
tl;dr Waffen SS were fricking moronic.
>Eastern Front thinking ain't gonna work on Anglo-Americans.
The Germans couldn't conduct a single successful offensive against the Western allies after Kasserine pass. After that every single attempt failed utterly. The Germans couldn't smash the allied beachheads in Sicily, were powerless to stop the landings at Salerno and Taranto, failed again at Anzio and then hurled whatever armor they had into the battle of Normandy only to lose again.
Really I don't get why they're held in such high esteem by some people. Their shtick might have worked against France in 1940 and the Soviets but that was it. Maybe if they hadn't spent the rest of the war huffing their own farts they would have figured out how to not run out of diesel on the way to Taranto lmao
Can't even keep the bridge that they own at Stavelot. Imagine having to swim that river in December.
>Joachim Peiper
It's interesting that he went to live in France of all places after the war. It's like if Dirlewanger survived the war and moved to Belarus.
I bet he wore Groucho glasses every day.
>Be war criminal
>Lose war
>Get convicted of war crimes
>Be released
>Have absolutely no regrets about the war crimes you committed
>Move to one of the countries where you perpetrated your war crimes
>Be interviewed by the press and instead of publicly repenting call the country you moved to a nation of cowards
>Be murdered
>The police don’t even bother investigating your death because you were an unrepentant war criminal
Was he actually moronic? Jesus Christ
That's just how germans are.
Real chad shit. Best suicide I've ever heard of.
they knew the risks. probably.