Operation Market Garden?
- Thread starter Patine
- Start date
techumseh
Deity
Thank you Erika!
techumseh
Deity
@Konig
Sticking to Market Garden itself & not the implications of what would have come after an allied victory, other than to say that it would likely have led to a collapse of Nazi Germany in 1944, I have a couple of observations:
- Had the Germans successfully blown any of the major bridges (something that is event scripted into this scenario if certain criteria are not met) then the entire operation would have been stopped in its tracks.
- Had two SS Panzer Divisions not been refitting in the area after their mauling in France then there would have been a better chance that the British airborne forces could have held onto the Arnhem bridge until XXX Corps arrived. That said, the bulk of German armour was rushed in from elsewhere. The Germans were masters of the counter-attack & this battle was no different. Interestingly, Allied intelligence seems to have been aware of the presence of these units via aerial recon & Dutch resistance reports but was largely ignored by the planners who were desperate to get into the war before it was over!
- It is possible that a more risky drop closer to the bridges would have allowed more of 6th Airborne's troops to reach the battle, instead of being strung out between the bridge & their drop zones at Oosterbeek to the west. If I remember correctly, the scenario allows the player to pick between several alternative plans on the first turn. This allows you to try & fight the battle your way.
- The Allies choice of the Guards Armoured Division to spearhead the advance is seen as an odd choice given the character & ethos of Guards units. I have heard an argument that 11th Armoured Division would have been a far more logical pick. This is not an option in the scenario & probably wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to gameplay. Just an interesting observation that may well illustrate the extremely truncated planning time for the operation & quite possibly 'political' decisions.
This scenario really does a great job of highlighting the difficulty of rapidly moving a Corps down a single highway with little scope for flanking manoeuvres.
Sticking to Market Garden itself & not the implications of what would have come after an allied victory, other than to say that it would likely have led to a collapse of Nazi Germany in 1944, I have a couple of observations:
- Had the Germans successfully blown any of the major bridges (something that is event scripted into this scenario if certain criteria are not met) then the entire operation would have been stopped in its tracks.
- Had two SS Panzer Divisions not been refitting in the area after their mauling in France then there would have been a better chance that the British airborne forces could have held onto the Arnhem bridge until XXX Corps arrived. That said, the bulk of German armour was rushed in from elsewhere. The Germans were masters of the counter-attack & this battle was no different. Interestingly, Allied intelligence seems to have been aware of the presence of these units via aerial recon & Dutch resistance reports but was largely ignored by the planners who were desperate to get into the war before it was over!
- It is possible that a more risky drop closer to the bridges would have allowed more of 6th Airborne's troops to reach the battle, instead of being strung out between the bridge & their drop zones at Oosterbeek to the west. If I remember correctly, the scenario allows the player to pick between several alternative plans on the first turn. This allows you to try & fight the battle your way.
- The Allies choice of the Guards Armoured Division to spearhead the advance is seen as an odd choice given the character & ethos of Guards units. I have heard an argument that 11th Armoured Division would have been a far more logical pick. This is not an option in the scenario & probably wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to gameplay. Just an interesting observation that may well illustrate the extremely truncated planning time for the operation & quite possibly 'political' decisions.
This scenario really does a great job of highlighting the difficulty of rapidly moving a Corps down a single highway with little scope for flanking manoeuvres.
I'm more active than you might think. I'm trying to find maps of the locations of the world's major oil fields for my Worldwar 44, think logically about wonders, I've been very very sick for the last month, but finally feeling a bit better. Worldwar 44 thread is below. No one has commented on it thus far. And frankly, that's gonna be easy compared to the reason I came back to Civ 2, which is to make a Fallout scenario, where roleplaying a big part of the adventure (in a Majesty way). If you'd like to talk shop, not so much about scripting but conceptually what could be done, I'd be very happy to engage.
Broken_Erika: did not know that forum existed here. I will take advantage of that, thank you!
Tech, what are your conclusions on OMG? Would only luck have made success possible? Or was there a failure of leadership or intelligence gathering that could have been corrected for?
Curt,
Actually, I've been very sick for a month and just reread the Civ II Test of Time manual, not that it helped much except for a few event triggers I wasn't aware of. Still, if you want to see what I WANT to do, here's this thread:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/worldwar-44-scenario-discussion.653356/
It's a fairly decent overview of what I want to do. although I'm not sure how much of it CAN be done. But as of yet, no one has responded If someone wants to talk shop with me about what I want to do and how to do it in a conceptual sense, I'd really really love it.
techumseh
Deity
The strongest argument of the armchair critics is the disposition of the British 1st Airborne Division at Arnhem. Only one battalion was able to get into the town and secure the north end of the bridge. The rest of the division landed about 3 miles west of the bridge, and were cut off from reaching it by German SS troops. The critics argue that the plan for the 1st AB was too cautious, and contrast it with the aggressive use of German Falshirmjagers in 1940, particularly in the capture of the Belgian fortress of Eban Emael, where gliders landed directly on top of the fort.
The second argument is that British 30 Corps was also too cautious, and therefore too slow, in its drive north to relieve the airborne divisions holding the bridges. It's generally accepted that the Brits were more casualty averse than the Americans, as they were experiencing a serious manpower shortage by this time in the war. The argument is that the Americans under someone like Patton, or the Germans under just about any general, would have been more aggressive and might have got to the south end of the Arnhem bridge a day or so sooner. But that is speculative, as German counter-attacks against the narrow corridor caused extensive delays as 30 Corps repeatedly had to concentrate in order to clear the single road north.
In the end, it was an overly ambitious plan, executed too cautiously and without adequate reconnaissance. None of this diminishes the heroism of the British, American and Polish troops who fought the battle. In fact the bridge at Arnhem, later bombed by the American Air Force, has been rebuilt and is named the 'John Frost' bridge, in honor of Major Frost, who commanded the battalion that held it for four days against overwhelming odds.
BTW, the scenario has an option in which the entire 1st AB lands adjacent to Arnhem, instead of 3 miles west. It is considerably more likely to produce a successful outcome.
Ps. If you're interested, you might want to watch the 1977 Richard Attenborough movie, "A Bridge Too Far". It's three hours long, stars just about everyone at the time, and is one of the best war movies ever made.
Last edited:
Oh! Yeah, thank you for that thoughtful response. And I've heard of that movie, I will check it out once my library issues are sorted out (long story, nothing malicious, just an audiobook I can't find ATM). Wish, and this is not your fault, the term not enough reconnaissance was a little less vague, but only because I feel there's a life lesson and a scenario design lesson in that statement. Do you have a resource I could check out recon in OMG or the war, in general, to try and understand what military intelligence, down to the division level was capable of and how? For instance is the lack of proper recon a misallocation of resources, a genuine shortage, or fear (which seems not unfounded) that the prospect of an early winter made OMG a use it or lose it proposition?
I don't need an in-depth answer here, only a source if you have one.
techumseh
Deity
The best source and my advice: watch the movie.
I'd second that as a great starting point. The film faithfully recreates Cornelius Ryan's book 'A Bridge Too Far', which in turn does a great job of explaining the battle. Of course, his is just one interpretation but it's a great starting point. Star-studded cast too!
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
Not seen it in years, but I recall the bit when some Germans try to surrender, but the British officer basically says "Sorry, chaps. I'm not taking prisoners today!"
techumseh
Deity
Are you sure that's the same movie? I don't recall that, and I've seen it a number of times.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
techumseh
Deity
Ah yes. Now I remember. Too funny.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
The non-plussed confusion on the German's face is great.
Similar threads
