Cornelius Ryan

[Seedorf81]

It seems that last october people wondered about the long silence that fell on Market Garden news. Since then there seems to be a rerun of this silence (not even one tiny little bit of screenshot so far) and so I have to let everyone know that I'm still desperately yearning for Market Garden.

As some form of compensation I picked up Cornelius Ryan's "A bridge too far". and there (page 333, Dutch version) I read something I hadn't realised before:

"The cramped up vehicles on the highway formed an easy target for the german artillery. BULLDOZERS AND TANKS were driving ON AND OFF to shove wrecks from the convoys, in order to keep the columns going." (Translation from Dutch is from me).

In an earlier thread I wrote:

"Well, I now must plead guilty to becoming a stubborn little f#*k myself. Because I continue to believe that tanks were shoving other tanks, trucks and so on right out of their paths on Hells Highway. Whether they were under fire or not. One of the reasons, besides the obvious need for speed to get to Arnhem, was that it sometimes was their only option. (..) I agree that this wasn't common practise, but the circumstances on this peticular stretch of Dutch highway made it a necessity. And I persist in stating that for MARKET GARDEN we as players should be able to push stuff off Hell's Highway."

It ain't gonna happen, but I do like the knowledge that (for once?) I was right.

[Pak40]

For my preparation of the Market Garden module, I bought and am currently reading September Hope: The American Side of a Bridge Too Far. There are some very good details of the 82nd and 101st, a lot of stuff I did not know before. It's not entirely comprehensive though. For example, the actions in and around St. Oedenrode are barely mentioned(Cornelius Ryan was just a guilty). But Overall, this is a must have for anyone looking for details of particular battles that the American participated in.

[JonS]

Seedorf, two things:

1) that doesn't indicate they were doing it in combat. CM is the "in combat" bit.

2) even if you do manage to find something (or, really, somethings ... a lot of somethings. Anecdote/data and all that) you probably still won't get what you want because of all the technical reasons for not doing it.

[ASL Veteran]

Wrecks could also be anything. I don't think anyone would doubt that a tank could shove a burning truck or a jeep off the highway. Shoving another tank would be another matter and several orders of magnitude heavier and less 'movable' if there is anything wrong with the tracks.

[JonS]

Cornelius Ryan's "A bridge too far". and there (page 333, Dutch version) ...

"The cramped up vehicles on the highway formed an easy target for the german artillery. BULLDOZERS AND TANKS were driving ON AND OFF to shove wrecks from the convoys, in order to keep the columns going."

By the by, I don't have the Dutch version, so would you please be able to give the chapter name/number (I assume it's from Part Four: The Siege?), sub-chapter ([9], [10], etc), roughly how far through the sub-chapter, the date of that event, and a brief synopsis of what else is described on your p.333 (in particular, are there any names or places that show up in the index)? I'm trying to find that event in my English edition (Hamish Hamilton, 1974) but failing. It'd be interesting to compare the two.

Thanks

Jon

[Seedorf81]

I do not have a real problem with Battlefront not providing the possibility for shoving wrecks aside with tanks/dozers. They're the boss and they decide.

But what I felt, still feel, and seemed to be corroborated by Cornelius Ryan, is the fact that pushing wrecks aside could not be left out of a Market Gardenscenario that wants to depict the fight on/for Hell's Highway with the high standards of reality that BF usually employs.

And as for the shoving of wrecks not being "common practise" in combat; I dare to state that it was much more common for GI's to see a tank shoving a wreck off the road while bullets were flying around than, for instance, for GI's ever seeing - let alone fighting - an Elefant/Ferdinand. So one might say that shoving wrecks in Market Garden has much more to do with reality than the appearance of the Elefant/Ferdinand in The Gustav Line.

But I realise I'm a little childish in being so stubborn about it.

Now for JonS his question:

Part Four - The Siege ("Het Beleg" in Dutch)

Chapter 8

Section 1 - Describing Sosabowski's and his men's frustrations,

Section 2 - The airlift on the third day and David Lord's Victoria Cross.

Section 3 starts with describing "Maxwell Taylors 101st fighting like lions to keep the corridor open". Just after the sequence in which Cornelius Ryan describes that it was the "Screaming Eagles" that named this sector "Hell's Highway", is the piece of text that you are looking for.

Hope you can find it and if my translation was very bad, please inform me.

[Redwolf]

If you are looking to prepare for the MG module, nothing beats the "Then and Now" double feature:

http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Market-Garden-Then-Now-v/dp/1870067479/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1362923799&sr=8-2&keywords=then+and+now+market+garden

"It never snows in September" is interesting, too. By far now as good but interesting because it's all from the German side.

[JonS]

Thanks Seed, that was perfect.

From my English edition:

The jammed columns of vehicles massing the highway were easy targets for artillery fire. Bulldozers and tanks roamed constantly up and down the road, pushing wreckage out of the convoys to keep the columns rolling.

Sorry, but I stick by what I wrote before. To me that clearly isn't being done in combat (not in CM combat, anyway). They used heavy, tracked vehicles to push wrecked trucks out of the way, rather than proper recovery vehicles towing them back to base workshops? Yeah, no kidding. The road was 'up only' and they couldn't afford the space for any backloading. But there doesn't seem to be anything there indicating they did it in the middle of a swirling battle.

[Michael Emrys]

If you are looking to prepare for the MG module, nothing beats the "Then and Now" double feature:

http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Market-Garden-Then-Now-v/dp/1870067479/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1362923799&sr=8-2&keywords=then+and+now+market+garden

I don't have the book, but I still have the magazine issue that spawned it and I will vouch that that is excellent. The book is probably a fuller description of the battle. Anyway, it should be at that price! :eek:

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

But there doesn't seem to be anything there indicating they did it in the middle of a swirling battle.

You don't regard artillery fire (I recall reading that it was pretty heavy) as in the middle of a battle? Or does your definition require direct fire? Just checking.

Michael

[Pak40]

If you are looking to prepare for the MG module, nothing beats the "Then and Now" double feature:

http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Market-Garden-Then-Now-v/dp/1870067479/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1362923799&sr=8-2&keywords=then+and+now+market+garden

"It never snows in September" is interesting, too. By far now as good but interesting because it's all from the German side.

The "Then and Now" books look great but the price is a little steep. I have "It never snows in September" and it is very good just for the fact that it is from the German perspective. However, since it is largely 1st person accounts, it is not quite a complete coverage of the whole MG operation. It is an absolute must for any Scenario/Campaign designer since it does have detailed OOB for just about all German units that fought against allies during MG.

[JonS]

Emrys,

Note the relevant bit:

To me that clearly isn't being done in combat (not in CM combat, anyway).

CM aside; no. Being under artillery fire - by itself - isn't "the middle of a battle", to me. It's "being under artillery fire". In the quoted passage, neither side is maneuvering, nor trying to secure a local advantage. It's basically just artillery based attrition. Calling that "battle" would be like calling wearing a green t-shirt "being in the army". As a condition, it's neither necessary nor sufficient.

[JasonC]

If being under direct fire is required, soft transport is pretty much out the window. It was never intended to be in any place under direct fire from the enemy, and if it was, it was an ambush or a foul up.

There are lots of places on my CM maps that are not under enemy direct fire. Including pretty much every place any of my units actually move. If the location is in direct view of the enemy, forces there are not moving - they are shooting.

Basically I think the restriction is far too tight to be meaningful. And I think tanks pushing wrecks out of the way on any narrow route was such a standard procedure it is nuts to think it couldn't be done "in combat". It could and it probably was.

Speaking of things people routinely did in combat that we can't in CM...

I've been rereading Rommel's WWI infantry book, and they sneak around cutting wire all the time. In fact the usual way any force crosses wire is to cut through it. And yeah they are doing it during combat, in any meaningful sense of the term (while MG direct fire is suppressing defenders, distraction fights are in progress on either side, etc). Under direct fire personally, no, but in combat, definitely yes.

If we get wire in CM we need to be able to cut it...

[sburke]

If we get wire in CM we need to be able to cut it...

+1 Would definitely be nice to have and use a similar procedure to marking mines.

[Seedorf81]

Speaking of things people routinely did in combat that we can't in CM... this is a quote from JASONC, something went wrong.

To extend the "was it done in real combat or not" discussion into the next level I would like to state that taking a leak or dump was inevitably and frequently done during combat, but I haven't seen that portrayed in any wargame so far.

I agree with JasonC, a strict definition of "real combat" is hardly possible and I bet a lot of them dozerboys (and other GI's for that matter) from WW2 would say that they have seen combat, though probably not one of them ever got the CIB (Combat Infantry Badge).

[JonS]

a strict definition of "real combat" is hardly possible

I agree too, and even if it were possible it'd be largely pointless anyway.

On the otherhand, we can come up with a pretty useful definition of what CM is intended to cover, and "everything that ever happened in WWII" is NOT it

[Seedorf81]

If I was not as wise a man as I am now, I would immediately react with the reply that CM should have had the intention to cover shoving wrecks from roads.

Thank God I don't do that no more .

[Michael Emrys]

Yeah, we can all heave a big sigh of relief on that, can't we?

Michael

[Nidan1]

Could we at least have purple colored smoke?

[Splinty]

Speaking of things people routinely did in combat that we can't in CM... this is a quote from JASONC, something went wrong.

To extend the "was it done in real combat or not" discussion into the next level I would like to state that taking a leak or dump was inevitably and frequently done during combat, but I haven't seen that portrayed in any wargame so far.

I agree with JasonC, a strict definition of "real combat" is hardly possible and I bet a lot of them dozerboys (and other GI's for that matter) from WW2 would say that they have seen combat, though probably not one of them ever got the CIB (Combat Infantry Badge).

That would be because only infantry can qualify for the CIB.

[Redwolf]

The "Then and Now" books look great but the price is a little steep. I have "It never snows in September" and it is very good just for the fact that it is from the German perspective. However, since it is largely 1st person accounts, it is not quite a complete coverage of the whole MG operation. It is an absolute must for any Scenario/Campaign designer since it does have detailed OOB for just about all German units that fought against allies during MG.

I got mine for $66 just recently. I think it's worth skipping 4 or whatever normal books (and it's two volumes).

It doesn't just have all the info everybody else has, there is original new research in there, such as on the intelligence failures, or lack thereof.

[Wodin]

I didn't get on with It never snows in September..enjoyed his No Garlands book about Barbarossa

[Michael Emrys]

I didn't get on with It never snows in September..enjoyed his No Garlands book about Barbarossa

Somewhat the same here. Absolutely loved War Without Garlands; started It Never Snows in September months ago but so far not yet halfway through. I haven't given up on it, but I find it a bit hard to see why everybody raves about it. Pretty dry for a book with so many personal stories.

Michael