Patton was right

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Comparing the end of Hitler with the end of Saddam is absolutely pathetic from a serious source like Time.

Likening TIME magazine to a "serious source" is a mistake.

TIME's founder once said it is not important to present the truth - merely what the truth should be.

Even more interesting, he was applying it to his coverage of China. (TIME lionized Chiang Kai Shek whilst reviling Mao and even moderate premier Zhou En Lai.)

If they've both got moustaches and were dictators of countries that the US doesn't like, then it's good enough for TIME.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sikander
While planes were not nearly as capable, neither was AA fire. The differences of course are that the capability to attack from the air has grown at a much greater rate than the capability to exact a price from aircraft.

This is far from certain. After WWII, there wasn't one war fought between two technologically similar countries. Sure, the US warplanes could pound the hell out of Iraq, but that doesn't mean anything. A lot of Russian AA equipment is very sophisticated. In fact, both the S-300 and S-400 surpasses anything the West has.

[CerberusIV]

The differences between western europe in 1944 and iraq in 2003 are terrain and weather. Western europe has numerous minor and major rivers which european armies are trained to use as defensive barriers. The road system was much less developed than now and areas of forest and hills made life much more difficult for attackers.

Southern and central Iraq is relatively flat desert with few major watercourses and the Iraqis failed to destroy the bridges.

It may be getting hot now but Iraq doesn't have rain every day or fog and snow - all of which could ground airpower in 1944.

Patton's idea may have been good in theory but the means to carry it out and the circumstances in 1944 leave it as a beguiling theory, nothing more.

[Ned]

Certainly, the Germans used the Blizkrieg to their advantage when they had the airpower. I believe the Russians employed it repeatedly and continuously against the Germans on the Eastern front. We used it in the initial breakout from Normandy, but not thereafter. It is a wonder than any would seriously doubt that it would work.

If you have the airpower to punch holes in the defensive front, your armored forces can exploit without serious resistance. I still do not see any real problem in France in the summer of '44. To say that the Germans could put up a stiff resistance here and there is probably true, but beside the point. The blitzkrieg attacks at a point of weakness and bypasses strong points to be surrounded and reduced by follow-on forces. Once the bliz is moving, it cannot be stopped until they outrun their fuel and ammo supplies, outrun their air support or reach their objective.

[Vanguard]

Market-Garden was a sound plan, destroyed by faulty intelligence and bad luck. If the Brits had been able to get reliable intel about the 2 panzer divisions in the area they would not have launched the attack. As it was, it was a complete failure for that reason IMO.

I can't agree with this.

Market-Garden was a terrible plan. In order to succeed, the British had to capture three bridges, including one deep behind enemy lines by airborne assault. Failure to capture any one of the bridges doomed the whole mission to failure and ensured the destruction of a parachute division.

And it isn't as if the British had any particular reason to think that they were highly likely to capture all three bridges intact. They were fighting the Germans, after all, not a minor power of dubious competence. Did Monty really think that the Germans were going to let him waltz into Northern Germany without putting up a fight? This seems more like wishful thinking than strategic planning.

And even more doubtful was the question of what we could have done even if the attack had succeeded completely. The Allied supply situation in October was very difficult to start with. Trying to supply an army over the Rhine by means of one road and three bridges hardly seems feasible.

[Ned]

No one since WWII has conducted an operation like Market Garden. However, there been many examples of Blitzkrieg type warfare. The Israelis have employed at at least three times in the Sinai. We use it in Desert Storm and now in Iraqi Freedom.

But also like to point out that they German offensive called the Battle of the Bulge failed for at least two reasons: 1) they did not have air superiority and could not protect the bulge against counterattacks on their flanks and could not obliterate dug-in opposition at the point of the spear; and 2) they did not have enough fuel to keep the spearhead moving forward.

However, I do admit that if Berlin failed to fall immediately, it may have turned into another Stalingrad. I believe this may have been why Ike chose a more conservative approach.