Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "Eisenhower’s Broad Front vs Monty’s Narrow Front in 1944" video.

" semi-competent commander " I happen to believe Monty was the best W. Allied commander. I don't mind Goodwood or Market Garden much. Both seemed like a risk worth taking, and despite all the bad press, they weren't total disasters. I mean, what was the cost of Market Garden, actually? I just looked it up, and it was on the order of 15-17K, but that includes POWs and wounded, so the loss of life was much smaller. The Germans lost about half as much. It's almost worth it from the "war of attrition" point of view, considering the paras were lightly equipped troops. And it could have worked. In high stakes poker, if you don't bet favorable odds while you can afford to lose, you are a bad player.
8
@brucenorman8904 " he should have focused on clearing the Scheldt " He did. If you'd cut them off from supplies, they would falter easily. Attacking a well supplied reinforced position head on is something you do only if all other options are already exhausted. That did happen, eventually. And it was ugly, as expected. " I would certainly agree he was the best British commander in Europe. " If Patton was that good, he'd be trusted with a higher position. Bradley was chosen instead of him. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
8
@johnpeate4544 " Goodwood was a success " In all honesty, I think so too. It's just that I was willing to count that one on the side of failures. (Only because if they knew what's gonna happen, they'd totally demolish the Germans there. Hindsight, like always.) " similar distance, taking 3 months and 3x casualties " There's the rub, really. If you slow down to catch a breath, you let the enemy prepare too. Even if you do nothing and simply sit there, your troops will still melt from under you. War is hell, so the saying goes: "If you find yourself going through hell, keep on going !". Simplistic, but kinda accurate. " He received a ‘Secret’ cable " That's another area where hindsight works best, meaning the intelligence reports. First of all, your intelligence is always fragmentary and conflicting, even if the enemy is incompetent in this regard. I mean, your own troops often end up confused about what they are supposed to do, so why would you expect that intercepting all this info would give the other side military omniscience? It simply doesn't. However, the enemy isn't always incompetent and they do interfere. I wrote this in the context of "there were reports of Panzer divisions in the area" before Arnhem. Gavin also had such reports, he believed them, and that's what doomed the whole operation in the end. (With that said, he still effed up. There was no reason for him not to capture the bridge first and dig in later. It's always easier to defend a town.)
5
@seanmac1793 " the object of the narrow front [is to go] through there and into Germany " Yes, eventually . The immediate object was to cut off the ports and clear them. The irony of the whole situation was, that regardless if you like the narrow or the broad front strategy, you still need the ports. So you must attack in the North first , no matter what. The obvious advantage of the narrow front approach was that they could do it immediately, when the enemy was weak. " You don't put an army group commander over another army group commander " Of course, those petty little narcissts would totally flip out if you'd do that... I'm so bitter, because I'm from Poland, and that was the last chance for us to become independent. The W. Allies could have taken Berlin. For two reasons: 1. They'd be faster if they took the ports half a year earlier. 2. What was the alternative for the losing Germans? Soviet occupation, and they really didn't want that. With the W. Allies right around the corner, we'd be able to keep Poland free. There would be a nation wide uprising if necessary. It already almost happened. The armed resistance against the commies went on for the next 20 years, and there was practically no chance for a successful resolution. If there was a chance, we'd go for broke. All of that at stake, much different shape of the Cold War, because the West is much stronger while the Soviets are weaker. But you can't make one narcisst bend the knee to another narcisst. Well, of course you can't. If they weren't narcissts, they wouldn't be able to do this job at all. Normal person would end up broken when every mistake and every success results in people getting killed. It is what it is.
3
@sugarnads " germans moved a resting ss panzer div into the area " Still could have worked, which proves it all was worth the risk. " Messed itup proper. " I respectfully disagree.
2
@jakublulek3261 " Thrust on Berlin was politically unsound (Soviets wanted that honour) " What would they do, if they didn't get it, though? A whole lot of nothing.
2
@lyndoncmp5751 " Montgomery even said to Eisenhower that he should call on Patton to get there from the south ' Is that "confirmed" to be true? Because that's big and it puts Monty in seriously favorable light. I'm quite convinced that neither Bradley, nor especially Patton would do that, and I still think it's a bit "too good to be true" even in case of Monty, but who knows? He might have been like that?
2
@seanmac1793 " [Bradley] was already managing 2 armies. What was he supposed to do with another 2. " Delegate. " I don't know why you disagreeing with me so vehemently. I think Monty's plan was the better of the 2 " If so, we do not disagree. Most likely a misunderstanding. It happens, sorry if it was my fault. " but I think it needs to be modified " This diversionary action? It'd be great, if it was possible to scrap enough supplies to make it affordable. I'm not sure it was a practical solution, though. It might have been. But what happens, when Patton is done doing his diversion, and the Germans really stay down south to combat that, then figure out it was just a whole lot of chest beating? They might attack themselves and create a real problem...
2
@seanmac1793 " The reality I think is that it was likely that the Germans would have been able to reform " It seems easy on the surface, until you start counting. How many units needed to be moved by how many miles, all that. It's much easier to direct the supplies from Cherbourg North and simply go there, than it is to counteract this idea. " Patton needs to have enough supplies to punish the Germans " So you guys get all those warm and fuzzy feelings? " you need to be able to push along the coast and seize ports " Especially if you want to supply Patton. Do you get it? It's not "either or" kind of a deal. If you want Patton to push forward, he needs the ports!
1
@seanmac1793 " Patton [...] needs to be able to force the Germans to not abandon his front. " Must, resist, smartass, comments (so hard though, no joke). Forcing Germans to move is great. Imagine they had a well supplied division, and they move. What happens? They expend their resources and arrive at the front partially depleted. Lots of fuel used up, some of the tanks left, because they couldn't fix them on time, other broken down, lots of trucks used up, lots of them shot from the air. How about artillery? It's not easy to transport, is it? It's all good. And once they finally GTFO, Patton can take all this ground with reduced opposition. You think I'm joking. During the Bulge Patton wanted to draw them in as far as they were willing to go, only then counterattack. Whatever people might want to say about this "nice gentleman", he was not stupid!
1
@seanmac1793 " giving Monty charge " He as willing to step down in favor of Bradley.
1