Hi-Res WW2 Mystery: ABTF or We Didn't Go Far Enough? P4

High Resolution Part 4 of a New Thought-Provoking Series on the Battle for Arnhem in 1944 asks the question, WHERE WERE PERCY HOBART & HIS FUNNIES when the British Army needed them to cross the Rhine river and reinforce the trapped 1st British Airborne Division? Details of this research can be found on the constantly updated web page below:

http://www.combatreform.com/sappertanks.htm

Neither Macksey or the official 79th Armoured history says much of anything about the Arnhem debacle unlike every other human on planet earth who studies WW2 in Europe history--this means they are skirting around an issue we are meeting head-on.

SO WHERE THE HELL WERE HOBART'S AMPHIBIOUS FUNNIES WHEN ALL THIS WE-CAN'T-CROSS-THE-RHINE-TO-SAVE-THE-1ST-BRITISH-AIRBORNE DRAMA WAS PLAYING OUT?

The unspoken truth 'til now is that It was not despite of the success of Hobart's "Funnies" on D-Day that British General Montgomery tried to cross several major rivers by 3D Airborne maneuver coup de mains, its was TO SPITE Percy Hobart so they could show him and others that well-equipped 2D maneuver forces with complete combining of arms was extravagant and unnecessary.

http://www.geocities.com/armorhistory/sld005.htm

We could parachute drop foot sloggers if we needed bridges. The conservative British officers wanted to win without adapting---using their much beloved linear-war, walking infantry since such simpletons during peacetime have a simplified existence of garrison lawn and building care with not much war practice other than employing hand weapons---so as to not interfere with the social life of the ranking racketeers. This "From Here to Eternity" walking infantry so-we-can-back-stab-each other racket continues today in Britain's extended family, the American Army Light infantry and their uber narcissist-incompetent marines.

The obscene criminality of the incompetent British officers has no bounds--as WW2 began they forced Hobart out--the man who created non-linear mechanized warfare--out of pure envy and spite--their country and their countrymen be damned. Hobart wanted a leadership that is immersed in the technotactics of their profession who are egalitarian with the "Tommy" Soldier enlistedman---where ALL THINK and all work, ALL get their hands dirty. The WW2 British officers like many today, want to play the French effete' work-is-dirty-for-the-underclass snob game. So Hobart had to go---even as his war theories were being employed by the enemy to kill and maim thousands of Tommies at places like Dunkirk, Crete and Tobruk. One of the sad truths of war is that even the pressures of survival in combat and as a nation-state are NOT A GUARANTEE that what's best is going to over-ride prejudice and malpractice of racketeers. The British people had to demand Winston Churchill be their leader and it was he who brought back Hobart to active-duty to save the day on D-Day. With the Germans on the run after the Normandy break-out, the British generals thought they could "pull a fast one" and not even have a PLAN B a Hobart-lead detachment of amphibious tanks to if necessary swim and fight their way across reinforce an Airborne unit if stranded on the far side of one of the rivers. This would be intolerable--for Hobart to be the hero, no way. They'd rather have Tommies and Paras die--which they did needlessly. All for general officer weak ego considerations. WW2 ended sooner by 6-8 months with us reaching Berlin before the Soviets would have saved MILLIONS of lives and prevented there being a "Berlin Wall".

The irony was to cross the Rhine belatedly in 1945, it was Hobart's Funnies that swam across to link-up with the American and competent British 6th Airborne--which brought their light tanks, too.
After the war, both Churchill and Hobart were discarded after they had unselfishly saved their countrymen. It is the reformers and the men in the arena who should be empowered not the greed and ego racketeers. Until we realize this and actively fight against racketeering, more disasters like WW2 will come our way and there's no guarantee that a champion like a Churchill or a Hobart will be among us next time to save us.

Want to know more?

Our book, "Air-Mech-Strike: Asymmetric Maneuver Warfare for the 21st Century" is ONLINE for FREE skyjacked by Google!

http://books.google.com/books?id=RCWtHnYZ0LMC&pg

Category:

Education

Tags:

• arnhem
• ww2
• wwii
• market-garden
• Gavin
• Patton
• D-Day
• Airborne
• paratroopers
• amtracks
• air-mech-strike

[dynmicpara]

A Back-Stab Too Far?

In 1944, knowing WW2 was lost, Martin Bormann and German industrialists began moving Nazi looted wealth into corporations around the world to jump-start the 4th Reich. Operation MARKET-GARDEN's Paratroopers holding bridges across the Rhine river into the German industrial heartland threatened their escape,

[dynmicpara]

so Illuminati member Peter Smith --the famous Grenadier Guards Major who refused to move his tanks past Nijmegen bridge to link-up with Frost's men at Arnhem bridge even when 82nd Airborne Para Infantry offered to clear any AT guns--deliberately sabotaged the mission for the Nazis.

[dynmicpara]

He is known today as Lord Carrington who afterwards chaired the evil Bilderbergers conspiracy group--which first met in Arnhem to mock the dead with their getaway. The brave British troops were betrayed by their officers.

[dynmicpara]

Yet another reason why Airborne units must be complete combined-arms teams with light tanks etc. to prevent political back-stabs. Fascist German/Japanese money stolen from the 62M WW2 dead still runs the world today.

w w w . d e e p b l a c k l i e s . c o . u k / p r i n c e s _ o f _ p l u n d e r . h t m

[knight6]

if the allied command supported Patton's thrust instead of implementing market garden, would that have been more successful, in your opinion?

[dynmicpara]

That's an easy answer; YES. Patton would have taken what we set out to do by combined-arms adaptability; he would have used 1st Allied Airborne for 3D maneuver--but backed it up with a "Plan B"; imagine if he had Hobart's 79th Armoured attached to him, too?

[BMFRU2]

@dynmicpara

2 schools of thought 1) I don't know how I got subscribed 2 Ur site, but I like it.. And 2) As an 82 AA myself, I get what Ur saying.

Smoke this over. quick wars DOESN'T mean new technology. Long drawn out wars do. U think the Jet could've been invented during peace time?

[BlackCountryPuddler]

0.28.... Alphonse Arsenault.

[123lard123]

This would have been possible if Montgomery had taken the initiative to seize the port of Antwerp shortly after the break from Normandy. There was a period of time when lead elements of the 1st Canadian corps could have reached Antwerp entirely unopposed. Antwerp would have solved all of the Allies supply problems and they would have been no need to make a choice between Patton and Montgomery. They could have done both.

[robert506007]

Sadly lessons are rarely learned in simulations and often only learned through death a hardship despite better ways. It's happen thousands of times before and it will continue to happen thousands of times more.

[robert506007]

I would say it's based more on the base human instinct to kill to survive or the feeling that one's survival is threatened and in turn killing to survive. Extreme greed for something your enemy has can also be a factor.

[robert506007]

well what are you too expect when they only spent three weeks planning and preparing the operation it would have taken them another month at least to prepare that and still more resources on a stretched supply line no less and they can't fly that stuff in there were no C-5's then. The Allies would have lost the initiative if they had taken any longer and the time could have been better spent opening the Scheldt so supplies could flow in giving the allies the initiative again.