American paras at Arnhem

[Von Schadewald]

If the troops landed at Arnhem had been American instead of British, with their better radios, AT and automatic weapons, would the result of Market Garden have been any different?

[D. von Staberg]

It would make no diffence if the US troops try to implement the same flawed plan. The drop zones were simply too far from the objectives to allow for a swift capture of the bridges. The DZ's were also almost indefensible if you have to try and hold both them and the bridges at the same time. A US division might have had a bit easier to do so since it was larger but more troops migh just as well equal just more lost troopers in the end.

US AT weapons were not better than those used by the Brittish paras. Also the the Brittish had more 6-pounders and 17-pounders than the US troops had 57mm guns. The Bazzoka and Piat are just as good (or just as bad) agianst the kind of armour the Germans used at Arnhem.

The US divisions has more and heavier artillery than the UK divsions with gives it some advantage.

Better automatic weapons? A diffrent mix of them but I'm not sure that the US mix would have made a diffence at Arnhem. It's the man behidn the guns whos important, not the gun itself in a built up area and with a shortage of munitions. A Bren gun is better than a .30 cal belt fed machinegun if you don't have the ammo for sustained firing. Same goes for Lee-Enfield vs M1 Garand.

Regards
Daniel

[Andy H]

As Daniel has stated the nationality of the men on the ground will make no difference to the outcome.

Andy H

[richardrli]

This thread is stupid, American 82nd Airborne did participate in Market Garden. BTW, Americans were not better or worser than British paras.

[Von Schadewald]

Would having 20-40 Tetrarchs or Locusts in Hamilcars have helped the paras at Arnhem? Why weren't they sent?

[Jon G.]

For Market Garden to succeed, you should look at ways to improve the historical performance of the XXX Corps, rather than the performance of the paras.

[Polynikes]

True, Horrock's command of XXX corps was at best overly-cautious.

Of course it would've helped had the paras actually parachuted direct into Arnhem.

[Andy H]

Of course it would've helped had the paras actually parachuted direct into Arnhem.

Was that possible?

I thought that the DZ's that they chose were the only ones large enough to accomodate the division.Were ther others closer that could have fulfilled that role?

Andy H

[Christian W.]

No, it wasnt possible. Much of the land was too soft for gliders to land, and one landing area would have been too close to German airfield.

The operation went pretty badly because the XXX Corps didnt stay up with the schedule, but there were also many other reasons.

[red devil]

Much too soft for armour too.

[Trackhead M2]

It would make no diffence if the US troops try to implement the same flawed plan. The drop zones were simply too far from the objectives to allow for a swift capture of the bridges. The DZ's were also almost indefensible if you have to try and hold both them and the bridges at the same time. A US division might have had a bit easier to do so since it was larger but more troops migh just as well equal just more lost troopers in the end.

The Drop zone issue would be hard to beat. But the communications and general greater adaptabilty of US Forces would allow quicker changes in the field.

US AT weapons were not better than those used by the Brittish paras. Also the the Brittish had more 6-pounders and 17-pounders than the US troops had 57mm guns. The Bazzoka and Piat are just as good (or just as bad) agianst the kind of armour the Germans used at Arnhem.

The 76mm Rocket Launcher had more range than the PIAT. Also, what about the use of US 75 mm pack howitzers which could also use AP ammunition? The US 57mm gun is the same weapon as a British 6 pounder.

The US divisions has more and heavier artillery than the UK divsions with gives it some advantage.

Better automatic weapons? A diffrent mix of them but I'm not sure that the US mix would have made a diffence at Arnhem. It's the man behidn the guns whos important, not the gun itself in a built up area and with a shortage of munitions. A Bren gun is better than a .30 cal belt fed machinegun if you don't have the ammo for sustained firing. Same goes for Lee-Enfield vs M1 Garand.

The US Airborne forces had M-1 Rifles, M-1 Carbines, Thompson and M-3 submachine guns, BARs, and the various Browning MGs. The amount of firepower is greater per se. Again the ability to communicate would alleviate some of the supply problem.

This is not intended to in any diminish the heroism of the British 1st Airborne Division and the 1st Polish Parachute Brigade at Arnhem. Had they been able to communicate and shift drop zones for re-supplies and re-enforcements the story might have been more like Omaha Beach; a costly victory.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

Regards
Daniel

[red devil]

If the troops landed at Arnhem had been American instead of British, with their better radios, AT and automatic weapons, would the result of Market Garden have been any different?

No.

[Trackhead M2]

Would having 20-40 Tetrarchs or Locusts in Hamilcars have helped the paras at Arnhem? Why weren't they sent?

Dear VS,
Because while the Tetrarchs and M-22s were good light tanks, the Hamilcar glider to bring them to the battlefield was about as easy to fly as a brick.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

[Trackhead M2]

Would having 20-40 Tetrarchs or Locusts in Hamilcars have helped the paras at Arnhem? Why weren't they sent?

Dear VS,
Because while the Tetrarchs and M-22s were good light tanks, the Hamilcar glider to bring them to the battlefield was about as easy to fly as a brick.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

[red devil]

This thread is stupid, American 82nd Airborne did participate in Market Garden. BTW, Americans were not better or worser than British paras.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:82nd_Grave.jpg