Patton .................

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Post Reply
Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3236
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: Patton .................

#181

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 27 Jun 2018, 20:09

To add a snippet more (AKA stir the pot!) on 12th US Army Group/COMZ tonnage allocations at the beginning of September 44, I found the following comments in Steve Waddell's United States Army Logistics [pp.142 - 143:

End of Aug 44, FUSA requests 5,752 tons daily, TUSA requests 6,699 tons.
"On September 6, COMZ informed FUSA and TUSA that since the supply system could only deliver 7,000 tons to the front, until further notice, both armies would receive 3,500 tons of supplies a day." [p.142]
I guess this was the decision made on 2 Sep 44 making it's way into the logistics command chain - otherwise it seems strange not to mention 12 US Army Group.

and:
Table 7-2 p.143
FUSA Supply 6-12 Sep 44 - daily allocations 3,500 - daily receipts 3,189
and:
"...the decision not to give FUSA supply priority, according to Charles MacDonald effectively ended any hope of concluding the war by Christmas because FUSA, rather than 21 Army Group or TUSA, was in the best position to bring a quick end to the war with a single thrust into Germany."
I must confess that I am one of the few people who is having his opinion changed by this and the previous "monster" thread.

I'm beginning to lean towards the "it didn't matter what Bradley, Patton, Hodges and Ike decided on 2 Sep 44 as the supply system of 12 US Army Group was effectively collapsing" - that's not to say that they didn't make the wrong decision - just that it wouldn't have made that much difference.

And I guess I'm beginning to feel the same about Eisenhower's decision to back Market Garden before ordering 21 Army Group to concentrate on clearing the approaches to Antwerp. Either way, it wouldn't have made a great difference.

That kind of loose, defeatist talk wouldn't sell too many books though would it! :D

Regards

Tom

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6399
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Patton .................

#182

Post by Richard Anderson » 27 Jun 2018, 20:49

Tom, I could not agree more.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell


Harry Yeide
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: 12 Jun 2004, 13:48
Location: Hyattsville, MD USA

Re: Patton .................

#183

Post by Harry Yeide » 06 Aug 2018, 02:46

Hey, Rich! It's always about logistics.

Regarding the OP, here is the Reader's Digest version of Fighting Patton in World War II magazine: http://www.historynet.com/patton-the-german-view.htm.

In the past week, I have taken a stroll through the Kriegstagebuch des OKW for the period under discussion in this thread working on another book. German perceptions of the main danger point shifted, in part because of Allied actions but also German ones to address the problems. On 1 September, OB West reported that the hole between Luneville and Belfort could not be plugged and requested deployment of three infantry divisions to the area. This occurred, and TUSA would have run into organized and well supplied divisions within 48 hours had the fuel decision gone its way. On 2 September, OKW decided to solidify the right wing and center and form a mobile force at Dijon to attack the Allied flank. Fifth Panzer Army was given responsibility for the counter attack on 3 September. On 6 September, Hitler and the operations staff discussed when Germany could launch a major counteroffensive in the West, and agreed that the first possible date would be 1 November. This would depend on extracting as many divisions as possible from the line for rebuilding. Hitler said the front would have to hold as far west as possible.

Fifteenth Army on 6 September received a more or less free hand and decided to concentrate its defenses at Walcherin and Süd Beveland. Seventh Army abandoned the Maas front in order to get between FUSA and Lüttich. OKW judged that the Americans intended to drive to Aachen. Forces arriving near Metz improved the front and stopped an American advance that had reached Gravelotte. Army Group G faced little pressure.

OB West's situation report on 7 September (Rundstedt takes over) assessed that the Allies had 54 divisions, 25-27 British, and the Americans 15-18, with 3-4 deployed against the north wing. German forces were battered or burned out. Combat-ready panzers numbered one hundred. OB West requested five, or better ten, divisions with Sturmgeschütz battalions, anti-tank weapons, and panzer divisions. Aachen was clearly the main concern. He had set in march to Aachen what he had: the weak 9th Panzer Division, a weak SturmPanzer battalion, and a Sturmgeschütz brigade. The 12th Volksgrenadier Division was in transit. His aim was to fight for time to prepare the West Wall for battle.

By 8 September, Fifteenth Army had flooded the area in front of the Canadians and achieved the "best outcome that could have been expected." The MLR near Antwerp was strengthened. Pressure on the line Maastricht-Lüttich was weak. Operations in the Argonne and Nineteenth Army area were going well. But OB West reported that the Americans on the north wing had freedom of movement all the way to the West Wall, currently defended by 7-8 battalions spread over 120 km. If Fifteenth Army did not receive in a short time three infantry and a panzer divisions, it would shatter and a hole open to the German border. The situation for Seventh Army was make or break. First Army in Luxembourg was in better shape and conducting a mobile defense. Army Group G had to abandon Dijon to shorten the line, giving away the planned armor assembly area. In order to conduct the counterattack, Fifth Panzer Army was to concentrate two panzer divisions (11 and 21), three panzer grenadier divisions (3, 15, 17 SS), and six panzer brigades (106-108, 111-113). [As I relate in Fighting Patton, the original OKW operations order for the attack indicated its aim was to force the Allies to halt the rapid advance against the north wing and deal with the threat.] They were to be ready by 12 September, but OB West reported that some divisions were delayed and there were fuel shortages.

On 9 September, OB West told Hitler Seventh Army would have to fall back into the West Wall. Hitler told him it had to stand fast and that 20 Luftwaffe battalions would begin manning the West Wall behind Seventh Army that day. A new corps (LXIV) retreating from southwest France joined Nineteenth Army and strengthened its defenses.

On 11 September, American troops reached the West Wall at Metz, and pressure toward Aachen increased. The Americans forced the line back at Luneville. The next day, the Americans captured West Wall fortifications near Aachen, but a break-through was prevented. Nineteenth Army gave ground, and Hitler demanded that it stop and that the panzer concentration be achieved while it was possible to attack the enemy from the rear and not frontally. On 13 September, OB West informed OKW that Fifth Panzer Army would have to attack in packets just to prevent the loss of more territory before the Vosges. [That is what happened during the tank battles of Lorraine.]

On 16 September, the 12th Volksgrenadier Division arrived at Aachen, which stabilized the line there over the coming days.

Operation Market-Garden began on 17 September.

I guess the point here is that the Germans were taking effective steps to stop the Allied advance, so it wasn't just a question of Allied decisions and supply problems (which Hitler, by the way, had foreseen when he decided to abandon France. He had seen enough Soviet offensives sputter to a halt.).

Cheers.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6399
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Patton .................

#184

Post by Richard Anderson » 06 Aug 2018, 02:51

Harry Yeide wrote:
06 Aug 2018, 02:46
Hey, Rich! It's always about logistics.
Hey Harry, always good to hear from you!
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Felix C
Member
Posts: 1202
Joined: 04 Jul 2007, 17:25
Location: Miami, Fl

Re: Patton .................

#185

Post by Felix C » 13 Sep 2018, 00:16

Felix C wrote:
06 Jun 2018, 15:41
"Blumentritt's next quote about the differences between the British and Americans "

What did he say? I do not have that book
Well I found the quote in a book I am reading. Americans attacked with zest and a good sense of mobile action. Fell back prematurely when under heavy artillery fire. British were almost impossible to remove from a position if they had 24 hrs to entrench.

fwilliam
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 05 Sep 2016, 21:44
Location: ETO

Re: Patton .................

#186

Post by fwilliam » 22 Nov 2018, 19:14

Gentlemen;

I am a late contributor to this forum but on the broader question of who was the better general, Monty or Patton, comparisons are tough because they operated at different levels. Montgomery was an army group commander and Patton an army commander. Speculating, were it not for the "slapping Incidents" in Sicily, Patton would have commanded 12th U.S. Army Group, not Bradley.

Eisenhower, being no fool, realized early on that as Supreme Allied Commander he would have one headstrong egotist directly below him in Monty and he didn't want a second one so the decision was made to elevate Bradley to army group command. Thus, the obvious question is who was the better commander, Monty or Bradley?

I think Monty wins that one. As for the theoretical Monty vs. Patton argument, the vote goes to Patton for one simple reason. For geopolitical reasons, the bulk of logistical support went to 21st Army Group after the "Breakout and Pursuit" of August 1944. By the fall of 1944, Hitlers V1s and V2s were being used against London and other targets in Britain as well as Belgium and Holland. Monty was clearly tasked with seeing that the launching sites along the Belgian and Dutch coasts were eliminated and, of ultimate import, that Rotterdam's vital port was seized. Monty entrusted this to the Canadian Army which was stretched to the limit, thus allowing him to conjure up Market Garden as a way to quiet the critics in London. But I digress.

Patton's Third Army was not stopped primarily by German opposition but by lack of gasoline and other supplies, the bulk of which went to 21st Army Group. The fact that Rotterdam was NOT liberated and remained unoperational until mid-November was due to the over-extended Canadians being unable to clear the Scheldt estuary. This is clearly on Monty's shoulders as his strategic objectives in the fall of 1944 were not met while his emphasis on "bouncing the Rhine" at Arnhem received prioroty and we all know how that turned out.

Patton, of course, was not without his faults. i.e. the aforementioned slapping incidents and late the ill advised Hammelburg debacle being primary examples (the ridiculous April 1944 speech before a British ladies welcome group and the U.S. and Britain's destiny to rule the post war world supposed comment - he did NOT omit the Soviets as reported - is not worthy of any mention whatsoever), but it is clear that German commanders after the war made felt Monty and Patton were the best the Allies had. So, determining which man was the better commander is one of those debates that will never end.

Respectfully, Bill

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2513
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Patton .................

#187

Post by Delta Tank » 22 Nov 2018, 20:31

Fwilliam,

You have confused Rotterdam for Antwerp.

Mike

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3236
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: Patton .................

#188

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 22 Nov 2018, 21:08

Bill,

You write that:
For geopolitical reasons, the bulk of logistical support went to 21st Army Group after the "Breakout and Pursuit" of August 1944... Patton's Third Army was not stopped primarily by German opposition but by lack of gasoline and other supplies, the bulk of which went to 21st Army Group.
The bulk of logistical support? I'm afraid this is a myth.

If you mean that 21 Army Group supplied 21 Army Group while ComZ supplied 12 Army Group then that is correct for most of the NW Europe campaign. The British provided some limited logistical support to Third US Army during the August 1944 battles and the Americans supplied some limited logistical support to 21 Army Group (including specific US stores for the American divisions which supported 21 Army Group in September and October 1944) in the autumn of 1944.

Did the bulk of logistical support go to 21 Army Group, that depends on which period you are talking about - and it depends on whether you mean stores arriving in NW Europe or stores arriving at the front line, if the latter this was essentially because 21 Army Group had a stronger logistical set-up (ie more logistic capacity) and that was a choice the Americans made long before D-day as Rich has pointed out.

Regards

Tom

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: Patton .................

#189

Post by LineDoggie » 22 Nov 2018, 21:32

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
22 Nov 2018, 21:08
Bill,

You write that:
For geopolitical reasons, the bulk of logistical support went to 21st Army Group after the "Breakout and Pursuit" of August 1944... Patton's Third Army was not stopped primarily by German opposition but by lack of gasoline and other supplies, the bulk of which went to 21st Army Group.
The bulk of logistical support? I'm afraid this is a myth.

If you mean that 21 Army Group supplied 21 Army Group while ComZ supplied 12 Army Group then that is correct for most of the NW Europe campaign. The British provided some limited logistical support to Third US Army during the August 1944 battles and the Americans supplied some limited logistical support to 21 Army Group (including specific US stores for the American divisions which supported 21 Army Group in September and October 1944) in the autumn of 1944.

Did the bulk of logistical support go to 21 Army Group, that depends on which period you are talking about - and it depends on whether you mean stores arriving in NW Europe or stores arriving at the front line, if the latter this was essentially because 21 Army Group had a stronger logistical set-up (ie more logistic capacity) and that was a choice the Americans made long before D-day as Rich has pointed out.

Regards

Tom
Ammunition, Spares for M4 series tanks, POL were both common to 3rd Army and the BLA
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3236
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: Patton .................

#190

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 22 Nov 2018, 21:49

Hi,
Ammunition, Spares for M4 series tanks, POL were both common to 3rd Army and the BLA
That's true for M4 series tanks, but not for artillery or small arms, British tanks, uniforms, carriers, lorries/trucks, many motorcycles, food, and of course tea and coffee!

For the British providing logistic support to Patton, please have a look here:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=185343&p=2028225&h ... t#p2028225

Regards

Tom

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: Patton .................

#191

Post by LineDoggie » 23 Nov 2018, 20:29

Tom from Cornwall wrote:
22 Nov 2018, 21:49
Hi,
Ammunition, Spares for M4 series tanks, POL were both common to 3rd Army and the BLA
That's true for M4 series tanks, but not for artillery or small arms, British tanks, uniforms, carriers, lorries/trucks, many motorcycles, food, and of course tea and coffee!

For the British providing logistic support to Patton, please have a look here:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=185343&p=2028225&h ... t#p2028225

Regards

Tom
To some extent it was though

.30 Browning for Coax
.50 Browning for AAMG
.30 Carbine for Airbourne LL carbines
37mm for Stuarts and Staghounds
75mm Pack Howitzer ammo for airbourne forces
155mm
even 162K+ 25 pdr shells

War Aid Battledress
T16 Carriers (mostly for canadian units)
Diamond T transporters

But fuel, POL products and ammo, med supplies are the most needed supplies when advancing, and they were common with few exceptions. And diverting them to one army group would impede that groups offensive operations
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3236
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: Patton .................

#192

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 24 Nov 2018, 00:42

Which is why 21 Army Group provided them to Third US Armi in August 1944 I expect. Oh and I had forgotten about the British DUKWs working on Omaha Beach in September 1944.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8267
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Patton .................

#193

Post by Michael Kenny » 24 Nov 2018, 02:33

LineDoggie wrote:
23 Nov 2018, 20:29

37mm for Stuarts and Staghounds
75mm Pack Howitzer ammo for airbourne forces
155mm
even 162K+ 25 pdr shells

Would the US supply 21AG with shells given their own chronic shortage of same? The US was supplied with 25pdr guns and ammo by the Commonwealth because of their shortages.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6399
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Patton .................

#194

Post by Richard Anderson » 24 Nov 2018, 03:29

Michael Kenny wrote:
24 Nov 2018, 02:33
LineDoggie wrote:
23 Nov 2018, 20:29

even 162K+ 25 pdr shells
Would the US supply 21AG with shells given their own chronic shortage of same? The US was supplied with 25pdr guns and ammo by the Commonwealth because of their shortages.
It's complicated. :D The U.S. did not directly produce 25pdr ammunition, but U.S. contracts paid for the production of 260,000 HE and 30,000 smoke rounds in Canada...among the 14,978,000 rounds produced in Canada. :lol:

The ETOUSA was not chronically short of 25-pounder ammunition - why would they be? They were chronically short of 105mm howitzer ammunition. :D
The transfer of a small number of 25-pounder guns and ammunition to U.S. forces was a temporary measure to help make up for the massive and unexpected wastage during the Ardennes and NORDWIND. They were returned fairly quickly IIRC, unlike the 440-odd Sherman tanks transferred for the same reason.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Aber
Member
Posts: 1144
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: Patton .................

#195

Post by Aber » 24 Nov 2018, 10:32

Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Nov 2018, 03:29
The transfer of a small number of 25-pounder guns and ammunition to U.S. forces was a temporary measure to help make up for the massive and unexpected wastage during the Ardennes and NORDWIND. They were returned fairly quickly IIRC,
Ruppenthal Vol 2 p271 says loan of 100 25 pdrs was renewed for another 60 days at the end of February.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”