The last airborne assault of the war was "Operation Varsity", the leap across the Rhine River. My next door neighbor when I was growing up had been a 17th Airborne Division Glider Troop in that fight. Some military historians question whether it was necessary considering that the Allies already were across the Rhine elsewhere.
Walker Allen Zak wrote:
On Oct 25, 2007, at 1:19 AM, Marc James Small wrote:(Certainly off-topic, but it is worthy to note that Marshall was always trying to spur Eisenhower to be more daring and to use parachute and glider troops to hit enemy rear areas. He tried with Rome, he tried with Paris, he tried with Berlin, but the rather stolid and unimaginate and inept Eisehower frustrated him every time, though Eisenhower rather stupidly approved MARKET GARDEN, one of the two most tragic failures in the history of airborne ops.)MarcOn Oct 25, 2007, at 1:19 AM, Marc James Small wrote:(Certainly off-topic, but it is worthy to note that Marshall was always trying to spur Eisenhower to be more daring and to use parachute and glider troops to hit enemy rear areas. He tried with Rome, he tried with Paris, he tried with Berlin, but the rather stolid and unimaginate and inept Eisehower frustrated him every time, though Eisenhower rather stupidly approved MARKET GARDEN, one of the two most tragic failures in the history of airborne ops.)MarcUntil now, my view has accorded with yours, but lately I have been entertaining the notion that maybe there was some wisdom in Eisenhower's leadership. The generals he had to work with ranged in aptitude from brilliant to much less, and he was not always in a position to dispense with some of the problematic ones (Montgomery) for reasons of inter alliance harmony. Market Garden is a good illustration of what can happen when daring has its way if its planner isn't good at it. Even when applied successfully, in re the German airborne assault on Crete, casualties were so heavy that their general staff abandoned the tactic as not worth the cost.Daring and imagination are necessary when an armed force is at a numerical, materiel or operational disadvantage, but seldom when at overwhelming superiority (for all his brilliance, Robert E. Lee had to surrender his army to a general who never approached his abilities). Eisenhower had at his command resources enough to crush German resistance, no matter what they did. Recently I saw a video interview of a WW2 Panzer commander who said he believed his tankers could hold their own outnumbered 2 to 1 against allied tanks, even 4 to 1, but it was more like 8 to 1 they faced. In a situation like that, quantity becomes a quality, and there is no need to risk setbacks with fancy maneuvers when "stolid and unimaginative" will surely succeed. Eisenhower, by opting for less intricacy, effectively finessed the need for inspired generalship in exchange for fewer costly failures.Not convinced, still thinking on it. Allen Zak --- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org- Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
--- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
