was Operation market garden 90% successful like Montgomery claimed or?

Question

was it like the book and the film title " a bridge to far"?

Answer 1

Market Garden was an unmitigated disaster.

The intel showed German Armored Elements in the area and so did the Dutch resistance but both were ignored.

Subsequently, lightly armed troops (paratroops) were defending against elements of an SS Panzer Division.

Also, the 'Hell's Hiway' element which had the 82nd and 101st along with the (10th?) Armored Division racing up a 2 lane hiway that had 3 major river crossings and was easily defended was pure folly.

The allies would have been much better served by diverting those troops to the Sheldt Estuary and clearing the approaches to Antwerp and make it a usable port. This would have much shortened the supply lines and made 'The Battle of the Bulge' impossible for Germans to achieve. It would have also allowed for a fast push to cross the Rhine (more petrol available).

Answer 2

I have been to the Museum for Operation Market Garden which is built on the very same spot where the first paratrooper landed. The museum building is built in the shape of a huge parachute. Inside they have a scale working model of how the battle was fought. They even have some of the original parachutes from the landing. There were 3 main things that prevented this operation being a success. The first was the lack of communicatios between the commmanders. the second was the Armoured xxx corps was advancing on single track roads and if an armoured vehicle broke down it held the whole column up until it was removed. This was not easy to do because the sides of the single track road was too boggy for tanks to pull off the road. the road was also flooded with refugees which again caused hold ups. In one day, the armoured brigade were as much as 3 hours delayed. Thirdly, the fog over briain stopped the Polish Brigade from being able to reinforce the paras . If none of these difficulties had occured, this operation would have been a success. I also visited the war cemetery there. A lot of men who died there were buried on a farmyard and were only moved to the cemetry after the end of the war. Every year in Holland all the school children visit these war cemeteries to put flowers on these graves. I asked one dutchman why they still do this after all these years. His answer was "because we were occupied by the germans, and that is something you never forget."

Answer 3

The plan was predicated on capturing all the bridges in Holland which would allow hte allies to advance into the Rhur and on to Berlin. Since the Allies did not break through the Rhine it was a failure as the caputred bridges were largely useless and the Germans held Holland until the end of the war.
Saying it was 90% successful is like running a race and quitting 3/4's of the way and saying it was 90% a win.

Answer 4

The fog of conflict is continually clearer after the shape. certain it ought to have worked formidable plans continually carry tremendous negative aspects and at the same time as they fail they appear like a marvelous waste. D-Day grow to be even more beneficial formidable and that succeeded and so the large lack of existence on the day will grow to be 'ideal'. Had it worked that is counseled it would have shortened the conflict and so kept lives. i imagine besides the undeniable fact that the actual reason some previous due intelligence grow to be ignored grow to be because through then the 'race grow to be on' to conquer the Russians to Berlin. that decision meant many paratroops (including a brigade of Polish paratroopers) were despatched into an area the position a German mechanised branch were printed to 'relax' without caution. also the land forces had to make headway rapidly with the aspect of wonder and they meet stiffer resistance which ended in a chain of delays compounded through some undesirable judgements (with hind sight) the outcome grow to be too many German forces were waiting to mass on the most suitable bridges. besides the undeniable fact that it is not a lot convenience I look to keep in suggestions the Allies did seize 5 of the seven aims (I shall ought to bypass and examine now!) solid question.

Answer 5

It was a success for the Parachute Regiment...It proved just how good airborne troops could drop in and capture there objective, just a shame Intel was ignored and the odds were seriously in the enemies favour, but every Paratrooper fought like a hero even though chance of survival was minimal...

A fact that the Parachute Regiment still prides it self on today..

Answer 6

http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geumWFZ9NFKxwBHbRLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE4MWRiZnZlBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANVSzAwNjNfNjM-/SIG=1282spf25/EXP=1171568901/**http%3A//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden

A comprehensive rundown of the entire operation with details of units including XXXCorps...the armoured elements involved in the battle. I can't find details of the 10th ARMORED DIV? which unless i am very much mistaken is an American unit.
Fortunately the British made the film and is mostly accurate unlike some the garbage Hollywood comes up with.

To do what those Paratroopers..British and American..was attempting the impossible and they came damned close!!

Answer 7

A complete and utter **** up,the only shining example to come from it was the bravery and fighting skill of the British paras at Arnhem,hats off to these brave soldiers.

Answer 8

They paid a terrible price to get only 90% of the way to their objectives.
That last 10% meant total failure

Answer 9

I think he said it with the same brass neck type way as Blair always sais"thing`s ARE getting better in Iraq"

Answer 10

It was a failure.What Montgomery said was just propaganda to keep up morale