Re: RE 17th Airborne at market Garden

In article <dh172e$p6h$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Drazen Kramaric <draxNEVOLIMSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>What do we know about the desicion process that led to the activation
>of 13th division as airborne one? Was this division activated as
>airborne just because general McNair or Marshall thought it might be a
>good idea or because there were some studies that indicated a need for
>four airborne divisions?

It seems to me that there are two points of view on this, which I
will call "Why?" and "Why not?".

Some people seem to think that airborne divisions should have been
raised unless there was a good reason not to, and some think that
they should not have been raised unless there was a good reason to
raise them. I think there's been a certain amount of talking past
each other because of this.

I am firmly in the "Why?" camp. Airborne divisions used high-quality
manpower, and used personnel that could have been used for infantry or
armored divisions. If the US Army had had 300 divisions, as some
planners were thinking early on, there'd be plenty of room for
experimental divisions. As it was, the US had (IIRC) 94 divisions,
counting both Army and Marines.

This turned out to be enough, but it wasn't ideal. Eisenhower was
constantly asking for more divisions, and got some that had been
earmarked for the Pacific. The US Army wasn't raising more (and
late in the war had lost the extensive training capability), and
the British were disbanding.

Therefore, in any discussion of raising divisions, I start with
the idea that the US Army needed infantry and armored divisions
primarily, and everything else secondarily. Any plan that reduced
the number of divisions available for the front was bad, unless
there was a good reason for it.

--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
david@xxxxxxxxxxxx | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
--

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some observations about raising of US airborne divisions
    ... >The US formed an airborne division, using high-quality manpower, ... Just as about the army worth of troops that were deployed so lately ... 71st (entered combat on March 10th) ... But German and Soviet divisions were significantly smaller. ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Some observations about raising of US airborne divisions
    ... >> the Army to what divisions it had already formed. ... >> there were 5 airborne divisions formed or forming, ... 77th Indian Parachute Brigade and ... >> as the ability to use the vehicles of a heavy artillery battalion as ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Public Support for Gun Control
    ... you sure think the US army are a pack of complete idiots who ... who taught RE Lee how to fight? ... marines from getting within artillery range of Phoenix? ... WE have airborne forces. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Were Western Allies airborne divisions worthwhile?
    ... Would the Western Allies have been better off without airborne ... mainly because the U.S. Army has had at least one since WWII. ... but pitting them against German ground units placed them at a huge ... Allied paratroopers were often used no ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Some observations about raising of US airborne divisions
    ... >>> the Army to what divisions it had already formed. ... >>> there were 5 airborne divisions formed or forming, ... 77th Indian Parachute Brigade and ... >>> should form heavy artillery battalions. ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)