![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anyone else bugged by the lack of it on Order of Battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.5.20.44 ( talk) 01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, not at all :p -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 02:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Am just looking at a map supplied by Wilmot in The Struggle For Europe, Pg 512.
15th Army
He shows the 15th Army facing the First Canadian Army and therefore not in the axis of advance the allies took.
On top of that he shows the following divisions being under there control:
64
70
245
346
711
712
Two questions:
One: Did they actually take part in opposing Operation Market Garden? Two: If the map Wilmot has provided is correct why are there suposidly First Parachute Army units on there order of battle?
First Parachute Army
Wilmots map shows there being additional divisions assigned to this army:
7th
84th
85th
406th
Is there a reason they are not shown?
XII SS Corps
These guys dont even show up on the map, where were they based, did they take part in this operation?
And who was the 363rd Volkgrenadier Division assigned to?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The only times this 12th AG is mentioned in the parent article is during the background sections, from what i read when i quickly scanned through they appear to have not played an active part in "Garden".
If this is the case i do not see why it should be on this article. Just in case ive made a terrible balls up, here is the removed information:
12th Army Group
Lieutenant General Omar N. Bradley
US First Army - Lieutenant General Courtney H. Hodges
- XIX Corps - Major General Charles H. Corlett
- 2nd Armored Division - Major-General Ernest N. Harmon
- 7th Armored Division (from 27 September) - Major-General Lindsay McDonald Silvester
- 29th Infantry Division (from 27 September) - Major General Charles H. Gerhardt
- 30th Infantry Division - Major-General Leland S. Hobbs
- 113th Cavalry Group
-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies Enigmamcmxc, didn't realise there was a format for British units. I did believe though, that whilst the convention nowadays is for units to name themselves so (eg. 3 Para, short for 3rd Parachute Regiment), in WWII they were more proud of Battalion designations, and units were written to include their unit size (eg. 7th Btn K.O.S.B.). That wasn't why I did it though - my reason was to distinguish between British and American Regiments to the casual reader. With the US Airborne Regiments listed below the 1st Airborne, it may appear that they are similarly sized units, when in fact the American regiments are equivelant to Brigades. I'm happy to stick to an agreed format, but for clarity might it be an idea to at least explain/link to what sized unit the various groups were? Regards Psychostevouk ( talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Bomber600.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason that the OOB here is kept incomplete? Is there any reason it has not been taken to platoon level? Given the main article, and the actions of some platoons, it seems to me warranted to extend the OOB to that level -- 124.184.17.106 ( talk) 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Not withstanding the above acrimonious exchange, the german OOB certainly falls short in many ways. I realise this is due to the complexity involved in giving a proper OOB when a large part of the units involved were ad-hoc formations of varying strength and origin, the training units were mingled with frontline combat units and even the main regiments involved had strengths and composition greatly at variance with their hypothetical make-up. Having said that - II SS Panzer corps had other battalions than the ones listed including some that played a notable role in the action like 9th SS Pioneer (Engineers in english) batallion. On the other hand the panzer or artillery battalions that are mentioned in almost all cases had neither tanks nor guns nor artillery trains and similar issues exist with mentioning the recon battallions. The OOB therefore gives a wrong impression about the actual strength facing the allies. When you hear that the British face the 9th and 10th Panzer divisions you think of rows of Mark IV tanks - which they had almost none of in reality. The tanks that turned up were Mark III 1940 vintage tanks from the Bochult training school. Surely that is relevant for an OOB? The next problem with the German OOB is the reference to Kampfgruppes - yes they were of paramount importance so they should be mentioned - at least half a dozen of them are missing in the OOB if not more. The way they are listed now is as if they were on par with SS 9th and 10th - certainly they were not except for Von Tettau's group which was very large. Thirdly the listing shows Von Zangens 15th army and then either erroneously lists units not in that army or gives zero detail about the 80,000 (!) men which came on from the west. Fourthly many of the units listed such as 107th Panzer Brigade and 711th static division (I didnt check all of them) either did not (and could not) be at Market Garden or their Wiki entries make no mention of their presence at Market Garden in fact not infrequently it seems rather unlikely they would be near Market Garden geographically or timewise according to those wiki entries. Finally - and I do appreciate the volunteer work - I have to side with some of the comments above and below that a lot of the meaningful action was fought a lower levels. This is true both for the British OOB as well as the Germans - this battle was pretty messy. Horrocks XXX remained a coherent fighting force but its advance was halted by a few Panzers pincing off the supply lines at some point, two tigers turned up at Arnhem and certainly tilted the balance same as for the British the arrival of small groups of 2nd wave troops was a welcome reinforcement. The OOB fails to give you any feeling for the complexity of the situation both on the allied and German side. The Dutch brigade mentioned in the allied OOB for example was important historically but played a tiny tiny role in market garden being assigned Tilburg as a target which they also failed to take. My contention would therefore be that as described the OOB does not meet what an OOB should namely: 'what an Army unit might be expected to encounter while deployed in the field' from Wiki OOB entry. Sources are not as hard to find as is averred in the text above, Market Garden is one of the most researched battles in history and gradually a lot of the detail of the Germans involved has come out The allied side was always clearer although quite a bit of it arrived piecemeal or not at all and this relevant for the OOB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrustyJules ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
This seems more like a "roster" of units, rather than an " order of battle" which should include dispostion. Student7 ( talk) 17:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anyone else bugged by the lack of it on Order of Battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.5.20.44 ( talk) 01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, not at all :p -- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 02:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Am just looking at a map supplied by Wilmot in The Struggle For Europe, Pg 512.
15th Army
He shows the 15th Army facing the First Canadian Army and therefore not in the axis of advance the allies took.
On top of that he shows the following divisions being under there control:
64
70
245
346
711
712
Two questions:
One: Did they actually take part in opposing Operation Market Garden? Two: If the map Wilmot has provided is correct why are there suposidly First Parachute Army units on there order of battle?
First Parachute Army
Wilmots map shows there being additional divisions assigned to this army:
7th
84th
85th
406th
Is there a reason they are not shown?
XII SS Corps
These guys dont even show up on the map, where were they based, did they take part in this operation?
And who was the 363rd Volkgrenadier Division assigned to?-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The only times this 12th AG is mentioned in the parent article is during the background sections, from what i read when i quickly scanned through they appear to have not played an active part in "Garden".
If this is the case i do not see why it should be on this article. Just in case ive made a terrible balls up, here is the removed information:
12th Army Group
Lieutenant General Omar N. Bradley
US First Army - Lieutenant General Courtney H. Hodges
- XIX Corps - Major General Charles H. Corlett
- 2nd Armored Division - Major-General Ernest N. Harmon
- 7th Armored Division (from 27 September) - Major-General Lindsay McDonald Silvester
- 29th Infantry Division (from 27 September) - Major General Charles H. Gerhardt
- 30th Infantry Division - Major-General Leland S. Hobbs
- 113th Cavalry Group
-- EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies Enigmamcmxc, didn't realise there was a format for British units. I did believe though, that whilst the convention nowadays is for units to name themselves so (eg. 3 Para, short for 3rd Parachute Regiment), in WWII they were more proud of Battalion designations, and units were written to include their unit size (eg. 7th Btn K.O.S.B.). That wasn't why I did it though - my reason was to distinguish between British and American Regiments to the casual reader. With the US Airborne Regiments listed below the 1st Airborne, it may appear that they are similarly sized units, when in fact the American regiments are equivelant to Brigades. I'm happy to stick to an agreed format, but for clarity might it be an idea to at least explain/link to what sized unit the various groups were? Regards Psychostevouk ( talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Bomber600.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason that the OOB here is kept incomplete? Is there any reason it has not been taken to platoon level? Given the main article, and the actions of some platoons, it seems to me warranted to extend the OOB to that level -- 124.184.17.106 ( talk) 01:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Not withstanding the above acrimonious exchange, the german OOB certainly falls short in many ways. I realise this is due to the complexity involved in giving a proper OOB when a large part of the units involved were ad-hoc formations of varying strength and origin, the training units were mingled with frontline combat units and even the main regiments involved had strengths and composition greatly at variance with their hypothetical make-up. Having said that - II SS Panzer corps had other battalions than the ones listed including some that played a notable role in the action like 9th SS Pioneer (Engineers in english) batallion. On the other hand the panzer or artillery battalions that are mentioned in almost all cases had neither tanks nor guns nor artillery trains and similar issues exist with mentioning the recon battallions. The OOB therefore gives a wrong impression about the actual strength facing the allies. When you hear that the British face the 9th and 10th Panzer divisions you think of rows of Mark IV tanks - which they had almost none of in reality. The tanks that turned up were Mark III 1940 vintage tanks from the Bochult training school. Surely that is relevant for an OOB? The next problem with the German OOB is the reference to Kampfgruppes - yes they were of paramount importance so they should be mentioned - at least half a dozen of them are missing in the OOB if not more. The way they are listed now is as if they were on par with SS 9th and 10th - certainly they were not except for Von Tettau's group which was very large. Thirdly the listing shows Von Zangens 15th army and then either erroneously lists units not in that army or gives zero detail about the 80,000 (!) men which came on from the west. Fourthly many of the units listed such as 107th Panzer Brigade and 711th static division (I didnt check all of them) either did not (and could not) be at Market Garden or their Wiki entries make no mention of their presence at Market Garden in fact not infrequently it seems rather unlikely they would be near Market Garden geographically or timewise according to those wiki entries. Finally - and I do appreciate the volunteer work - I have to side with some of the comments above and below that a lot of the meaningful action was fought a lower levels. This is true both for the British OOB as well as the Germans - this battle was pretty messy. Horrocks XXX remained a coherent fighting force but its advance was halted by a few Panzers pincing off the supply lines at some point, two tigers turned up at Arnhem and certainly tilted the balance same as for the British the arrival of small groups of 2nd wave troops was a welcome reinforcement. The OOB fails to give you any feeling for the complexity of the situation both on the allied and German side. The Dutch brigade mentioned in the allied OOB for example was important historically but played a tiny tiny role in market garden being assigned Tilburg as a target which they also failed to take. My contention would therefore be that as described the OOB does not meet what an OOB should namely: 'what an Army unit might be expected to encounter while deployed in the field' from Wiki OOB entry. Sources are not as hard to find as is averred in the text above, Market Garden is one of the most researched battles in history and gradually a lot of the detail of the Germans involved has come out The allied side was always clearer although quite a bit of it arrived piecemeal or not at all and this relevant for the OOB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrustyJules ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
This seems more like a "roster" of units, rather than an " order of battle" which should include dispostion. Student7 ( talk) 17:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)