weapon2010 Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 In the movie the British General states that 30 Corps had 20,000 vehicles.Is that accurate?That sounds like an unbelievable amount. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Sounds about right. Three divisions each with 5 or 6 thousand, plus a whole bunch of cr@p at corps level. The British had four more corps, just like that one. And the US had a ton more. There's a reason the Germans lost, and that's a big part of it right there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 In the movie the British General states that 30 Corps had 20,000 vehicles.Is that accurate?That sounds like an unbelievable amount. http://dave-harris.hubpages.com/hub/World-War-Two-Market-Garden The article in the link says XXX Corps had 5000 vehicles for Market Garden, which according to Wiki was 1 Division and 1 Brigade of XXX Corps, so 20,000 for the whole Corps is probably a correct number. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Guards Arm XX + 50 Inf XX + 49th Inf XX + 44th RTR + 8th Arm X + 20 XXX assets sounds about right .... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 ... and one bridge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 The description in the Panzerblitz endnotes of the British Army as a "tank heavy, infantry poor" TO&E (relative to the other armies) after nearly 5 years of warfare has always stayed with me, although this doubtless varied from formation to formation. Interestingly, based on the (several hundred) videos I've been watching, the Syrian army that is presently blasting one rebellious city after another appears to have some of those same characteristics -- piles of BMPs and T72s with a very light infantry screen augmented by shabiha militiamen. This is a pretty major disadvantage in MOUT, especially CQB. I suspect in this case though the issue is that the regime has had to leave many of its Sunni conscripts in barracks, leaving the remaining units understrength. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 The description in the Panzerblitz endnotes of the British Army as a "tank heavy, infantry poor" TO&E (relative to the other armies) after nearly 5 years of warfare has always stayed with me It's pithy, but I'm not sure it's relevant. Well, maybe it is. Compared to the japanese? Yep (although the 14th Army in Burma wasn't all that rich in armour) Copared to the Italians? Yep. Compared to the Russians? Maybe. Compared to the Germans? Sort of, although 'motorisation rich' is probably more appropriate there. Also, specifically compared to the Germans forces opposite them in Normandy, the British were armour-poor. Compared to the US? No. not really. They both had about the same ratio of armour to infantry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krilly Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Euh. How Does your comment relate to the original question? Edit: jons Beat me to it :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wokelly Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 The description in the Panzerblitz endnotes of the British Army as a "tank heavy, infantry poor" TO&E (relative to the other armies) after nearly 5 years of warfare has always stayed with me, although this doubtless varied from formation to formation. Interestingly, based on the (several hundred) videos I've been watching, the Syrian army that is presently blasting one rebellious city after another appears to have some of those same characteristics -- piles of BMPs and T72s with a very light infantry screen augmented by shabiha militiamen. This is a pretty major disadvantage in MOUT, especially CQB. I suspect in this case though the issue is that the regime has had to leave many of its Sunni conscripts in barracks, leaving the remaining units understrength. Brits didn't have many men left by 1944, not so much because of losses but because of commitment across the globe and their out of proportional sized airforce which employed as many men as the Army did, plus their navy. The biggest problem was not so much armour heavy, infantry poor. By 1944 the British War office designed their divisions with specific tasks in mind. The Infantry Divisions with attached Armour Brigades (literally armour divisions minus infantry/artillery) would punch a hole, the Armour Divisions would exploit. That is why the Brit Armour divisions had such little infantry, to remain mobile and flexible. An infantry division with attached Armour assests was a very well balanced formation, with adequate infantry for the number of tanks. Monty however had a universal concept, he disliked designations and inflexible units. He wanted a universal tank and a universal type of Infantry and Armour unit. He tended to treat units the same despite their inherent differences, as did the Corp commanders. This is why you see Armour Divs being used to spearhead attacks despite the fact they were not built for such, or why Monty used Churchill equipped Tank Brigades like he used Sherman equipped Armour brigades, besides the fact one was much better suited for leading the attack than the other. Monty did do a lot right as head of 21st AG, but he really did not understand what the War office had done, or he simply did not care and decided to do things how he felt they should be done. While Monty was right in theory (Universal tank concept was pretty revolutionary), in reality it was not setup like he wanted but yet he followed his theoretical views. This played a role in the uneven British performance in Normandy (though there were other reasons for the issues as well). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Great clarification, thanks. The OP had already been answered, so I thought I'd throw the "tank heavy-infantry poor" thing in to see if anyone would concur/dissent/both. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 I recall I made the mistake of reading the "A Bridge Too Far" book before seeing the movie. The dissonance between the two was so jarring I lost all respect for Richard Attenborough as a director. It seemed whenever there was a directorial choice he invariably made the *wrong* decision. That shot toward the end of a soldier crying while holding a bent flute still ranks as one of filmmaking's greatest *unintended laughs*. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Von Television Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Why so severe Mikey!? Granted you may not share the director's taste and vision on an historical representation, but taking into account the proper state of culture and common thought of the years in which this picture was produced, I liked it. I had read Ryan's book before seeing the movie too as well as a few other books eventually more accurate and detailed about the whole Market-Garden operation, both from the standpoint of the Germans and Allied; still I found the main actions and characters (except a few cases) depicted with enough accuracy. There are indeed better WWII movies than this, but many more worst, all in all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 -Just saw this again night before last. Someone (not me!) put the whole thing up in HD on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0uC2XUuaA). It's one of my favorites. I haven't read the book, so that is not an issue for me. If you haven't seen it, you really should. And for you youngsters. There is NO CGI in this. All those planes and paratroopers jumping are REAL. Effing amazing, really. I think the whole thing was what, like $28 million. That's like half of what the top names get now for one picture. You can also see loads of period Allied equipment. I don't think I've ever seen another WWII movie that does Allied gear as well (particularly the Shermans). The German AFV's are not so hot (the tanks aren't even close) and their uniforms are a bit thrown-together looking, but hey--it's still worth it for the Allied stuff! Also, I have to say, seeing the actors was like a visit from long, lost family. These guys were in their prime when I was a young kid. --So many of my favorites in here. I miss them greatly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Von Television Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Macisle, you should read Ryan's book that is quite similar to his The Longest Day as for its narrative construction and It Never Snow In September (German side). I think you will like them. The first movie where I saw believable German half-tracks and general weaponry was 'The Bridge At Remagen', an excellent movie too! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Macisle, you should read Ryan's book that is quite similar to his The Longest Day as for its narrative construction and It Never Snow In September (German side). I think you will like them. The first movie where I saw believable German half-tracks and general weaponry was 'The Bridge At Remagen', an excellent movie too! Thanks, GVT! I'll check out both the book and the movie. I may have seen TBaR long ago, but have forgotten it. -Sounds good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.