BATTLE FOR BRITTANY AN ANALYSIS OF PATTON’S POST D-DAY DIVERSION
Today largely
overlooked, the Brittany campaign was planned as a vital adjunct
to the invasion of Normandy.
Its objective was to seize the
region’s ports in order to provide logistical support to the
overall Allied war effort in Northwest Europe and, though the
Americans were able to clear most of the area, and take the
once-vital port of Brest, Brittany never functioned as a supply
source as intended.
Based on this, the campaign
might be viewed as a failure, and indeed a counterproductive
diversion of troops and resources.
While part of George S.
Patton’s Third Army was fighting in Brittany, the majority was
engaged in the envelopment of the main German strength around
Falaise, followed by the pursuit to the Seine and beyond.
Troy Middleton’s VIII Corps
could have been much better employed in this, the main Allied
effort, instead of being sent on a futile offensive far to the
west.
Yet the fact that Patton
changed his plans quickly in reaction to changing circumstances
and fresh opportunities demonstrates a high level of strategic
agility.
The Brittany campaign could
have been much worse, had Patton and his superiors stubbornly
adhered to a plan that, once considered central to Operation
Overlord, was overtaken by events just as it was being
implemented. Despite extensive and
careful planning, the initial drive into Brittany took on the improvised
character of a few, ill-suited units trying to do the work of an entire
army.
Yet despite their disadvantages those
units carried out their work very well, and their commanders showed that
they could adjust plans to changing strategic conditions.
It can be argued that retaining all of
the Third Army’s power, instead of just one corps, might have given the
Americans a greater probability of success in Brittany, albeit at the
expense of actions against the Argentan-Falaise pocket.
As it was, the Allies failed to close
the jaws fully on the Germans there; despite frightful casualties,
divisions were able to escape with enough of their cadres to be rebuilt.
All the while in Brittany, the
Americans were able to liberate great expanses of territory, but were
ineffective in capturing useful ports. BACKGROUNDBrittany had
figured in Allied plans and hopes for years before 6 June 1944.
During the dark days of June
1940, there was a plan to establish an Allied redoubt in the
peninsula, as a last ditch foothold in France, behind a kind of
“Torres Viedras Line” reminiscent of Wellington’s fortifications
before Lisbon.
Even if this was breached, an
inevitability in Churchill’s view, it could still hold for a few
weeks, it would enable France to maintain contact with Britain,
and facilitate the evacuation of French units to fight on, in
Africa.[1]
This was coupled with the
Prime Minister’s wish, under French influence, to dispatch new
divisions to France as soon as they could be raised.
British Chief of Staff General
Lord Hastings Ismay took a dim view of this, calling it a
“castle in the air” that was “bound to be suicidal.”[2] One consequence of France’s fall was that France’s ports, including those in Brittany, came under German control. Soon after, Admiral Karl Dönitz established U-boat bases there, outflanking Britain’s defenses and shortening sailing distances to the North Atlantic.[3] In turn Germany’s development of Breton submarine bases, and the stationing of capital ships at Brest, drew the attention of British, and then American, bombers. The Eighth Air Force was assigned the task of bombing the hardened U-boat pens at Brest, La Pallice, St. Nazaire and Lorient, launching its first raid on 21 October 1942 against the last. The main American bombing focus would remain the ports until June 1943. Air warfare historian Richard G. Davis writes that the raids accomplished little, as the Eighth had no bombs capable of penetrating the concrete roofs of the pens. Thus the raids accomplished little except to flatten the cities around the U-boats, “depriving the Germans in the pens the opportunity to dine out while causing ill will among the French populace.”[4] British attacks were
similarly destructive.
In February 1943 for example, Bomber
Command launched five raids against Lorient, four of them employing more
than one hundred planes.
Not much was left besides the U-boat
pens and, while these were intact, the bases lost some of their
efficiency amidst the damage elsewhere in the city.[5] Brittany then figured
heavily in the Allied plans for Operation Overlord.
At the 1943 Quadrant conference in
Quebec, the United States and Britain approved a draft of the invasion
plan that put the capture of Brittany, and its ports, as the next
objective after securing Cherbourg.
The plan gave the Allied commander, in
this event Dwight Eisenhower, discretion about whether to seize Brittany
or the Seine ports first, depending on the situation on the ground.
Yet it read: “It will therefore be
most probably be necessary to seize the Brittany ports first, in order
to build up sufficient forces with which we can eventually force passage
of the Seine.”[6] This plan emphasized
the seizure of Nantes and St. Nazaire, followed by “subsidiary
operations” against Brest and “the various small ports of the Brittany
peninsula,” with the expectation that this would enable the supply of
thirty Allied divisions.
Then, if opportunity arose, there
could be another “subsidiary action” to liberate the ports on the Biscay
coast of Brittany, in order to support more divisions, and also assist
the feeding of the French civilian population.”[7] The task of executing
this part of the Allied plan went to George Patton.
Despite the persistent controversy due
to his slapping of psychiatric casualties, notes Steven Zaloga, he was
the “bold cavalryman” required for operations in Brittany, and
subsequently he was transferred to Britain from command of the Seventh
Army in January 1944.
In the initial phases of Overlord,
Patton would remain in England while his former subordinate, Omar
Bradley, commanded the United States First Army in France.
Then, once a lodgment was attained,
the American forces would be expanded into the 12th Army Group, to which
Bradley was to be promoted, with Courtney Hodges taking charge of the
First Army.
Patton would then take over the new
Third Army for the next phase, of breakout and maneuver beyond Normandy.[8] Until then, his expected role, and that of the Third Army, was a closely guarded secret. Patton’s official function was as commander of the First United States Army Group [FUSAG], a purely fictional entity concocted solely to deceive German intelligence into thinking that Overlord would fall on the Pas de Calais.[9] Then a month to day after D-Day, Patton went to Normandy in preparation for his new, actual command. Bradley launched Operation Cobra, the American effort to break out of Normandy on the western end of the Allied line, on 24 July. With its success Third Army was activated and initiated its breakout on 1 August.[10] Just as anticipated, Bradley achieved the breakthrough, and Patton assumed the mission of exploitation. From that point though, the direction and objectives of his advance changed dramatically. OPERATIONS IN BRITTANY The liberation of
Brittany actually began much earlier, with the insertion of British
Special Operations Executive [SOE] teams into France, where they worked
with the Resistance.
Then Britain dropped 2,420 Special Air
Service [SAS] operators into France, tasked with acts of free-lance
sabotage against German targets of opportunity.
It did not sound especially promising,
as the report on their activities summed them up as “little bits of
killing here and there in addition to such things as putting water into
gas tanks, letting air out of tires and generally playing around.”
The SAS
unit assigned to Brittany was the
2ème
Régiment de Chasseurs Parachutistes
[2nd Light Infantry Parachute Regiment], the first French unit to return
to its country as part of Operation Overlord, arriving on the night of 5
June 1944.
By the end of July, these French SAS
operators were working with over 30,000 Breton Resistance fighters.
Though Bradley’s commanders especially
were skeptical of the value of unconventional forces who they derisively
termed “parasaboteurs,” the SAS troops were a highly useful asset in
during the fighting in Brittany.[11] The conventional
campaign began at noon on 1 August, with the activation of the United
States Third Army.[12]
It consisted of four corps: VIII
Corps, which was rapidly approaching Brittany, along with XV and XX
Corps.
A fourth headquarters, for XX Corps,
had the administrative task of processing Third Army units from England
to the Normandy beaches.
Supporting Third Army was the XIX
Tactical Air Command.[13] The day that Third
Army became operational, Avranches fell to the advancing Americans.
Two days later, the BBC gave the
signal for the Resistance to initiate guerrilla warfare in Brittany, and
all groups there were put under command of the Third Army.
Quickly,
some 6,000 members of the French Forces of the Interior [FFI, or
Forces
Français de l’Intérior] occupied
the area
north of Vannes, seizing the railway
line.
Then on the night of 4 August, 150
French SAS troopers dropped behind German lines to secure the railways
east of Brest.[14] Meanwhile, the
conventional exploitation commenced, spearheaded by the 4th and 6th
Armored Divisions.[15]
John Wood, one of Patton’s most
skilled and aggressive commanders, circled
Rennes
with the former division on 3 August and, with the 8th Infantry
Division, made a daring attack the next day, forcing the Germans out.
The garrison retreated to St. Nazaire,
reaching it five days later.[16] The exploitation into
Brittany was confused, even chaotic.
The distances travelled outpaced the
capacities of units’ radios, cutting off communications.
Plus, while Patton was a cavalryman
who embraced the headlong dash, his corps commander on the spot,
Middleton, was cut of a different cloth.
Though an excellent officer, he was an
infantryman, much more comfortable with a methodical approach.[17]
In short, the initial, mobile phase of
the Brittany campaign was not his kind of war.
However, it would be hard to find an
example through which this had a major, negative impact upon his
performance; Middleton might not have had the training or the heart of a
cavalryman, but he adapted. The distances between
the corps and army headquarters further contributed to a near-complete
breakdown in communications.
Middleton wanted to displace his
headquarters further forward, in order to maintain better contact with
his divisions, but Patton’s staff urged him to stay within the limited
range of their own field telephones; Middleton complied.
Yet as the armored spearheads raced
forward, they outstripped the range of Middleton’s signals assets.
As early as the second day of the
campaign, VIII Corps’ communications with its forward divisions were
“practically nil.”
Then on the night of 3 August, German
aircraft bombed out the few corps communication lines, and those to the
Third Army headquarters.
Thus for about eight hours, VIII Corps
existed in a virtual vacuum, with little influence on operations by its
subordinate units.[18] With communications
restored, Middleton was able to impart his sense of caution, in this
case well-founded.
As Wood’s Combat Command A closed on
Lorient, the corps commander told him to hold the 4th Armored Divisions’
armor away from the fortress.
Reluctant to engage in urban, static
warfare, Wood readily agreed, as the FFI reported that the Germans there
were well-stocked with supplies, the position appeared extremely well
fortified, and anti-aircraft fire was so heavy that American artillery
planes could not observe fire.
However, from the German point of
view, Lorient was not nearly as defensible as it seemed to the
Americans.
The defenses were not yet organized,
much of the perimeter was completely unoccupied, and what German troops
there were, happened to largely untrained.
Further, the defenders’ logistics were
taxed by about 10,000 French civilians in addition to 25,000 German
soldiers.
As a result, the German commander
believed that had Wood attacked between 6 and 9 August, he could have
taken Lorient.
But by 10 August, the defense was
adequate to secure the fortress in the event of an American assault.[19] Ultimately, this was
probably the most important missed American opportunity of the entire
Brittany campaign.
This is apparent only in historical
hindsight though, and based on the intelligence available, Wood’s
decision is entirely understandable.
A headlong charge into Lorient would
have been foolhardy without more accurate and detailed intelligence of
German vulnerabilities. The 6th Armored
Division, under Major General Robert Grow, hurried up the peninsula
toward Brest, closing on the big port on 7 August.[20]
His division suffered from the same
problems that affected VIII as a whole; there were no well-established
supply or communications lines, and German planes over Avranches
threatened to interdict its own divisional trains.
The 79th Infantry Division had been
assigned to follow Grow’s armor, but had been diverted to the larger
battle in the east, with no other division available to take its place.
The 83rd Infantry Division might be
sent into Britanny, but it would take several days to catch up with the
6th Armored.[21]
Thus, during the early, decisive
period of the campaign, Grow and his troops were essentially unsupported
by the infantry required to follow up upon their drive. Grow gave the German
commander, Colonel Hans von der Mosel,[22]
an ultimatum to surrender Brest.
Von der Mosel refused, and Grow
planned for an attack to begin on 8 August, with heavy air support.
However, he had to cancel the assault
as the German 266th Division appeared in his rear area.
It was a static division, perhaps of
regimental strength after dropping off troops with the garrisons at
Dinan and St. Malo, and was on its way to reinforce the Brest garrison.
Though weak, it was able to disrupt
the Americans enough to force Grow to cancel his attack.[23] Grow tried to clear
terrain near the city on 11 and 12
August, but failed.
It was apparent that the 6th Armored
Division needed additional artillery to neutralize the guns in Brest,
along with engineers to help clear the city, and air support, especially
fighters and medium bombers.
Enemy artillery was too strong to
allow the Americans to do more than to develop his outpost positions.
However, the corps-level heavy
artillery that Grow particularly needed was engaged in the reduction of
St. Malo, and was unavailable until it fell.
Further, Middleton advised Grow to
simply “watch the situation” until the arrival of an infantry division.
Finally, on the evening of 12 August,
Middleton ordered Grow to contain Brest with one combat command, while
sending the other two to relieve the 4th Armored Division at Lorient and
Vannes.[24]
With that, the hope of a quick seizure
of Brest, if one had really existed at all, vanished. St. Malo too might
have been taken in an accelerated assault, but when it was initially
bypassed, this gave numerous German small units the opportunity to take
refuge within its perimeter.
Then, there was an absence of Allied
naval patrols, enabling more reinforcements and supplies to be moved
from the Channel Islands
Ultimately the US Army’s official
historian, Martin Blumenson, concludes that “The growth of the garrison,
which could not have occurred had the Americans thrust rapidly to the
port upon entering Brittany, made reduction of the town a major task.”[25] Nonetheless, it was
one that the 83rd Infantry Division accomplished well, despite a
skillful German defense, assisted by artillery on the nearby island of
Cézembre..
VIII Corps’ own 8-inch guns were
instrumental in the eventual outcome, engaging in direct fire, sometimes
at pointblank range.
After almost two weeks, the St. Malo
citadel fell on August 17; with light losses, the 83rd Division took the
city and over 10,000 prisoners.[26] Brest would be the
next to fall, with the attack led by the newly-arrived 2nd and 8th
Infantry Divisions.
At least as important to having fresh
infantry divisions was the issue of logistics, especially artillery
ammunition.
Based on American experiences at St.
Malo, Middleton requested an initial stockpile of 8,700 tons, with a
replenishment allowance of 11,600 tons for the first three days.
However, the Third Army thought that
he overestimated both the strength of the German defenses and his
artillery requirements, and allocated just 5,000 tons for the whole
operation.
Furthermore, the staff set a target
date of 1 September for the fall of the city.[27]
As it turned out, that was a grossly
optimistic goal. Bradley and Patton
visited Middleton’s headquarters on 23 August to address the supply
situation. They
agreed to send an additional 8,000 tons of artillery ammunition to VIII
Corps, which they judged would be enough for a six-day operation.
Transporting any artillery ammunition
was difficult though, due to the distances from Normandy to the tip of
the Brittany peninsula, as well as competition with units fighting to
the east.
Further, what Middleton considered
minimum requirements his army and army group commanders considered
wholly adequate; he learned this only on August 28, three days after he
started his assault.[28] Brest did not fall by
1 September as planned.
Instead, it held out until 19
September, with the last isolated pocket capitulating the next day.[29]
Not only was the victory appreciably
beyond schedule but, in the words of Blumenson, “The capture of Brest
gave the Allies a thoroughly destroyed city and a thoroughly demolished
port.”[30]
Of about 16,000 homes in Brest, about
7,000 were destroyed, and 5,000 damaged so badly that they had to be
demolished.[31]
Much of the destruction was the work
of the German paratroop general Hermann Ramcke, a devoted Nazi who was
both thorough and enthusiastic in his campaign of urban demolition.[32]
In addition, the defenses were heavily
bombed by Allied airpower, though inadequate communications and a lack
of technical expert input resulted in poor coordination.
Much damage was done to older masonry
fortifications, but some German positions were invulnerable to air
strikes.
Considering that Brest was intensively
bombed, having a high and sometimes the highest priority for strikes,[33]
one must conclude that an abundance of imprecisely directed Allied
ordnance contributed to its destruction. DIFFUSION OF EFFORT It is worth noting
that even while VIII Corps was starting its drive through Brittany,
Patton and Wood questioned the objectives of the campaign.
The ports were further from the front
than those in Normandy, thus adding to the overhead of transporting
supplies from them.
Further, the German destruction at
Cherbourg before its surrender indicated that the defenders were willing
and able to wrecking those elsewhere, reducing or eliminating their
usefulness to the Allies.
Further, Patton saw the real
opportunity in surrounding the German 7th Army to the east, rather than
in Brittany, and thus directed his attention toward the Seine.
Patton accordingly presented his case
to Eisenhower, Bradley and Montgomery on 3 August, and with their
approval, began reorienting his army eastward. Accordingly he committed
his other three corps, including the recently-arrived XV Corps, toward
the south and east.[34]
Brittany was relegated to the status
of a sideshow of doubtful value, while the liberation of France was
determined around Argentan and Falaise. Consequently,
Patton’s heart was not in the campaign, and it enjoyed a low level of
support.
It was a logical decision as, the
potential logistical importance of the Brittany ports aside, this was
always an ancillary effort to the main one of destroying the German
army.
In fact, Patton had some temptation to
call off the whole Brittany operation, including the battle for Brest.
One reason why he and Bradley
persisted in the bombardment and assault was out of pride, and
furtherance of the United States Army’s reputation.
Bradley confessed to Patton,
privately, that Brest had to be attacked and taken “in order to maintain
the illusion that the US Army cannot be beaten.”
To that Patton answered that “Any time
that we put our hand to a job we must finish it.”[35]
This was a far cry from a belief that
taking the objective would materially contribute to ultimate victory. Thus the Third Army’s
operations in August 1944 were divided in two ways, both working to the
detriment of the Brittany campaign.
There was the physical division of
VIII Corps from its mates, complicating logistics and communications.
Because of the distance between the
two wings of the Third Army, Patton’s forces were fighting two entirely
separate wars, with no hope of coordination between them.
The second axis of separation was psychological. Patton, along with Eisenhower and Bradley, considered operations around the Falaise pocket to be much more important, and thus deprived Brittany of attention. It was a backwater almost from the start, while the eyes of higher command looked east and south. In at least one instance, the preparations for the assault on Brest, these came together to deprive the 2nd and 8th Infantry Divisions of needed artillery ammunition. MATCHING UNITS FOR THE MISSION When the Brittany
campaign started, VIII Corps included two armored divisions, the 4th and
the 6th, along with a brigade-sized mechanized Task Force A.[36]
The sole infantry division was the
83rd, which entered Brittany several days behind the armor, and this was
in place of the 79th, which was diverted to east.
Thus when the campaign started, the
corps was armor-heavy, with no standard, non-mechanized infantry
divisions available.[37]
This was a corps configured for a
mobile pursuit and explanation up the peninsula, and it accomplished
this mission extremely well.
However, the ultimate objective was to
seize the Brittany ports, a task that called for the greater staying
power of the infantry divisions; if the Americans could not take the
ports, and acquire them in functioning shape, then the campaign would be
little more than punching in air.
In the end this is what happened, and
much of that was due to the American commitment of forces that were not
just inadequate in numbers, but were organizationally and doctrinally
unsuited to seal the victory. The Army placed great emphasis on fast-paced armored mobile operations in 1942, with the publication of FM 17-10 Armored Force Field Manual. The work begins with tongue-twisting verbiage: The role of the
Armored Force and its components is the conduct of highly mobile ground
warfare, primarily offensive in character, by self-sustaining units of
great power and mobility, composed of specially equipped troops of the
required arms and services.
Combat elements of the Armored Force
operate in close cooperation with combat aviation and with large units
of ground troops in the accomplishment of a mission.[38]
By 1944,
FM 17-100 Armored Division Manual
was simplified to read: “The Armored Division is organized primarily to
perform missions that require great mobility and firepower.”[39]
In any case, armor was intended for
deep penetrations, especially along roads, and toward important
objectives; it was not to be frittered away against secondary ones.[40] American armored
divisions were not extraordinarily large, and in fact were about 85% the
size of their German counterparts’ paper strength, but had one key
advantage; whereas early in the war the British, French and Germans
tended to overload their armored divisions with too many tanks and too
little infantry, by 1944 most American divisions had a near-perfect
balance of armor, infantry and artillery.[41]
Yet they were not intended to fight
sustained battles so much as engage in deep penetration and
exploitation, especially around enemy flanks and through wholes torn in
the line by other units.[42]
Finally, American doctrine encouraged
decentralization, giving subordinate commanders wide latitude, “guided
only by the broad general plan of the higher headquarters.”[43]
It was an
approach that, in superficial theory at least, paralleled the German
concept of mission-oriented command, termed
auftragstaktik. Unit organization
reflected this.
On 5 September 1943, all but the 2nd
and 3rd Armored Divisions were reorganized into a “light” structure of
combat commands: CCA, CCB, and a reserve CCR.[44]
Ideally, the intention was that these
would be temporary, mission-based task forces, but in operation combat
commands ended up as permanent combined arms teams, comprised of
battalions used to working with each other.[45] In Brittany, American
armored doctrine succeeded brilliantly, as long as the 4th and 6th
Armored Divisions could operate under ideal circumstances.
Bursting out from Normandy, they
quickly overran the interior of the peninsula.
In addition, one might even see the
chaos of the campaign’s early days as an advantage, in which the
confusion experienced by VIII Corps and Third Army headquarters was
reflective of the disruption suffered by the Germans.
Given their heads, Wood and Grow, and
their combat command commanders, took full advantage of the freedom of
action incorporated into armored doctrine to execute the general plan.
Therefore losing their communications
with VIII Corps was not as damaging as it could have been, since these
were generals and divisions trained to operate independently. What they could not
do though was engage in extended combat in cities.
Full-strength “light” armored
divisions such as theirs had just 10,937 men, with 263 tanks (186 medium
and 77 light),[46]
hardly enough to assault fortresses or engage in extended urban combat.
The only real chance that the American
armored formations had to take a Breton city was at Lorient, where the
defenders were much weaker and disorganized than the Americans knew.
Considering both doctrine and the
overall small size of American armored divisions, the decision not to
plunge into the city was undoubtedly a sound one. It was unfortunate
that the only American division present when the defenders were at their
most vulnerable happened to be an armored one.
Possibly, if an infantry force, such
as the 79th or 83rd Divisions, been present, then Lorient might have
been taken on the fly, as the German commander feared.
But even at that early stage of the
campaign, VIII Corps had to compete with the others in the Third Army
not just for troops, but also the supporting resources such as trucks,
that could have accelerated the movement of an infantry division into
the area. In Brittany, one sees
two kinds of war, each one demanding a different type of unit and
doctrine.
In the beginning, the campaign
demanded a highly mobile, disruptive, exploitation and pursuit.
Both American armored divisions, and
their commanders, provided this admirably.
Then the campaign required something
very different; infantry, backed by heavy artillery, to besiege the
fortified ports and then fight within the cities.
The mobility of the armored divisions
would be wasted in this kind of fighting, while the additional size and
staying power of the infantry would be paramount.
It is a kind of paradox; it was a much
more accustomed pattern for infantry to achieve a breakthrough, which
would be made worthwhile by exploiting armor.
Indeed, this was how the Americans
broke out of the Cotentin peninsula and into Brittany in the first
place. It was also a pattern
established long before World War II, in which light cavalry performed
the function of pursuing a defeated enemy.
In the American scheme of armored
warfare in France, armor performed much the same function of light
cavalry in conflicts past, especially the Napoleonic Wars.
In Brittany though, the sequence
reversed itself, in that the pursuit came first.
Then it would take infantry, fighting
in set-piece battles, to finish off what the mechanized forces started.
Instead of pursuit completing the task
of battle and making victory worthwhile, battle had to be the capstone
of pursuit.
Unfortunately in this campaign, the
units required to do that were too late in arriving.
Thus the culmination of all of the
American efforts was a wasteful battle for Brest, destroying an Allied
city more to prove a point than anything else.
If there was one totally poor decision
in the campaign, it was this one. Zaloga is entirely
correct in approving the choice of Patton to command the Brittany
campaign, as he was indeed the quintessential bold cavalryman required
for a rapid drive into the peninsulsa.
Yet the campaign was not one in which
this sort of commander, or armor acting like the cavalry of old, was the
optimal choice from start to finish.
At the end, it required the solid
infantryman, supported by copious artillery.
In this way Troy Middleton was closer
to the ideal than Patton.
In addition, his decisions not to send
his armor into the cities aggressively, and his estimation of the role
of artillery and its need for ammunition, were wise. Middleton was in fact the most important American commander in Brittany, and with Patton’s attention largely elsewhere, it was with him that unity of command rested. His performance was excellent, and he was ably supported by Grow and Wood. This triad deserves the lion’s share of the credit for whatever success the Americans achieved in Brittany. Patton’s contribution was surprisingly minimal, but then he was engaged in more important battles elsewhere. In the end his contributions were to victory in France overall much more than to local victory in Brittany. CONCLUSIONS The outcome of the
Brittany campaign was not that anticipated during the planning for
Overlord.
Brest’s port facilities were
completely destroyed by the Germans, frustrating the Allies’
pre-invasion plans.[47]
Even before the battle there,
Eisenhower’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force [SHAEF]
planners recommended the abandonment of plans to use Lorient, St.
Nazaire, Nantes and Quiberon Bay, which the SHAEF staff accepted on 7
September.
The same decision might have been made
as well for Brest if the Americans had not been fighting for it; as it
was, they elected not to use it on 14 September, even before capturing
the city and discovering the scope of the destruction there.[48] As it was, the
Brittany ports were not as essential as expected.
Their destruction or retention by the
Germans was more than compensated for by the Allies’ capture of Antwerp,
Rotterdam and finally Amsterdam intact.
Antwerp alone could support up to
fifty divisions, from a distance only one third as far from the front as
Brittany.
At least equally important, the Allies
were able to take Marseilles on the French Riviera, a port capable of
supporting another fifty divisions.[49]
That port fell to French troops,
recently landed in the south of France, on 28 August.[50]
With the capture of Marseilles and the
other French Mediterranean ports, Brest and Brittany became far less
important to the Allied cause. At this time though,
Churchill injected his own strategic vision, and in this case came very
close to giving up all the success of southern France to reinforce all
the failures of Brittany.
He never stopped trying to divert the
troops and resources of the invasion of the Riviera elsewhere, including
one proposal as late as 4 August, to redirect Operation Dragoon to
Brittany from the Mediterranean coast.
It was a stunning notion, not just in
hindsight, but at the time too, due to the lack of operational ports in
the peninsula.
Additionally, the Prime Minister
disregarded that the Allied logistical situation there was strained to
the limit.
Therefore his proposal was to abandon
an operation that yielded a logistical windfall for one that ended up no
discernible logistical returns whatsoever, all the while burdening an
overloaded system with still more units to sustain.
It is no wonder that the strategic
discussions between Churchill on one hand, and the American commanders,
especially Eisenhower on the other, became quite heated.[51]
In
Crusade
in Europe, Eisenhower himself
terms it “one of the longest-sustained arguments that I had with Prime
Minister Churchill throughout the period of the war,” going on to state
that one exchange lasted several hours.[52]
In his own memoirs published,
Churchill conspicuously ignores the logistical benefits of Operation
Dragoon, and instead mourns that a “heavy price” was paid for it, in
diverting support from the Allied armies in Italy at the moment of their
possible victory.[53]
In this way, Churchill bemoans the
reallocation of forces from a sideshow theater to the main one.
On the other hand, Eisenhower remained
fixed on the theater of decision, France, while Patton had an early
appreciation that Brittany would be a secondary element of it. If there was any
noteworthy benefit of the Brittany campaign, it had nothing to do with
Allied supply plans.
The ports had been major bases for the
Kriegsmarine, harboring both capital ships and, especially drawing the
attention of Bomber Command and the Eighth Air Force, U-boats.
The Bay of Biscay and the English
Channel were already dangerous places for the U-boats before 6 June
1944, and prior to the breakout into Brittany, Dönitz was already
transferring U-boats from Brest and Lorient south, to La Pallice and
Bordeaux.
By the end of August, these bases too
were abandoned, and the surviving boats transferred to Norway.[54]
Some did return to the remaining
bypassed fortresses of Lorient and St. Nazaire in November, and then
February and March of 1945, but these were supply runs, for which their
torpedoes were removed.[55]
Thus while the Brittany campaign did
not win the Battle of the Atlantic, it certainly helped finish it by
depriving the Germans of their most important submarine ports.
At the same time, this was something
of an anti-climax, and not worth the commitment of ground units or
supplies. Outside of this
indirect and perhaps questionable benefit, the campaign accomplished
strikingly little.
Even the neutralization of the U-boat
bases could have been attained by other means, such as by a combination
of air strikes and natural logistical isolation as the front passed them
by ― both of which occurred in any case.
For the Allies, Brittany provided
negligible logistical support and, if anything, consumed more supplies
than the offensive there was ever worth.
Then, since the Germans remained in
two of the ports, there was an ironic resemblance to the Breton Redoubt
proposed by Churchill and denigrated by Ismay.
One can see some German success in
this, as they only surrendered with the capitulation of Nazi Germany ―
Lorient on 10 May 1945, and St. Nazaire the next day.[56]
However, the initial American dive
also demonstrated the fatuousness of Churchill’s “Torres Viedras Line”
concept across the base of the peninsula, and the vulnerability of the
Breton interior should an enemy attain a breakthrough.
The defenders might take refuge within
their fortresses, but would take themselves out of the war in the
process. There were some
strategic alternatives to the historically-executed plan that might have
provided greater benefits to the Allies, or at least reduced the costs
in blood and resources expended in Brittany.
First, the campaign could have been
abandoned as soon as it began, or perhaps sooner.
The real area of decision was to the
east, toward the Argentan-Falaise area, and the addition of VIII Corps
would have increased the chances of an even more decisive victory, at
the very least providing a potent reserve for the Third Army.
One also sees the benefits of the 4th
and 6th Armored Divisions replicating their drives not toward Brest, but
perhaps for a deep solution east of Falaise.
Moreover, commitment to the main Third
Army thrust would have reduced the logistical and command and control
problems experienced by both the corps and army headquarters, as all
command attention and supplies would have gone in one direction ― east. The second was a
fast, limited drive into Brittany, with the aim of destroying German
units in the open, and compelling the rest to withdraw into the
fortresses and strategic irrelevance.
This would have taken advantage of the
armored divisions’ capacity for exploitation and pursuit, without
committing them to extended battle in unsuitable terrain.
Whatever Germans survived in the ports
would have been cut off from the supplies that could have sustained a
dangerous breakout, and even if they tried, containing them could have
been performed by the FFI.
Such an approach would constitute a
large-scale raid by the Americans, assisted by the French, who would
have the task of holding ground.
With the American divisions freed for
operations elsewhere, they could have sustained operations closer to
Paris, or hastened the Third Army’s advance into Lorraine. The FFI surely would
have been adequate for their role in the option.
The
coastal cities were garrisoned by relatively weak German units, isolated
from the Reich, and without ready resupply, including with fuel.
Therefore their mobility was limited,
and even if they were able to venture beyond their perimeters, German
ability to go far or fast would have been extremely limited.
The FFI, on the other hand, was
buttressed by Anglo-French SAS and SOE teams to provide guidance and
leadership.
Not to be disregarded either, they
provided communications links to Britain, enabling the Resistance to
make requests for their own logistical needs.
Then, in the unlikely event of a
serious attempt at a breakout on the part of the Germans, they could
have called upon American reserves to come to the scene. The Resistance was
very effective in assisting the Americans in Brittany.
The British
historian Antony Beevor is especially lavish in his praise, stating that
they and their Communist counterparts, the
Franc
Tireurs et Partisans [FTP], “did
much more than Bradley asked of them.”[57]
Blumenson’s official history is also
replete with examples of assistance given to the VIII Corps throughout
the campaign.
The last major option
would have been to stick with the original plan, and devote all of the
Third Army’s strength to Brittany.
Instead of having one armored-heavy
corps attack two ports, St. Malo and Brest, sequentially, three corps
with more infantry would have been capable of attacking three, probably
St. Malo, Brest and Lorient, simultaneously, and with their own heavy
artillery. The downside would have been eliminating any chance of a
decisive envelopment at Falaise, and probably delaying the advance into
Lorraine and Germany.
Considering that the seizure of
Marseilles especially made the Brittany ports redundant, this option is
probably the least desirable, and adopting it would have exchanged a
truly decisive victory for an overabundance of port capacity.
Finally, it is hard to imagine
Eisenhower, Bradley, and especially Patton, committing to concentration
against a peripheral objective instead of a central one.
Therefore of all the possible
alternate scenarios, this is the only one whose value should be
discounted.
Patton and Bradley were correct in
abandoning it in early August in favor of a more promising focus toward
Falaise and Argentan.
Ironically, it was also the option
most at the center of Allied plans before the invasion of Normandy. Though incomplete,
victory in Brittany demonstrates a strength of the Western Allied
command.
Prior to D-Day, these ports were
essential to Allied planning.
But when presented with an opportunity
to attempt the annihilation of the German army, the Allies eagerly
adjusted to new circumstances, and abandoned this element of their plan
with no reservation.
As Eisenhower wrote of the immediate
aftermath of the American breakout in late July: With a clean and
decisive breakout achieved, Bradley’s immediate concern became that of
inflicting on the enemy the greatest possible destruction.
All else could wait upon his
exploitation of this golden opportunity, in the certainty that with the
enemy destroyed everything else could be set right.[59] Though many Germans
escaped the Falaise pocket fought again, the decision to reduce the
Brittany campaign to a secondary effort was the correct one.
Ultimately, it offered secondary
benefits, and therefore was worthy of only secondary commitment.
It is fortunate that Patton, Bradley
and Eisenhower had the insight to perceive that, and the flexibility to
act upon it.
[1]
Sir Winston Churchill, The
Gathering Storm (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948), 192.
[2]
Lord Hastings Ismay, The Memoirs of General Lord Ismay (New York: Viking, 1960), 141-144.
[3]
Peter Padfield, War
Beneath the Sea: Submarine Warfare During World War II (New
York: Wiley, 1995), 85.
[4]
Richard G. Davis, Bombing
the European Axis Powers: A Historical Digest of the Combined
Bomber Offensive, 1939-1945 (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air
University Press, 2006), 78-79.
[5]
Ibid.,
94.
[6]
“Digest of Operation ‘Overlord,”
World War II Inter-Allied
Conferences [CD-ROM] (Washington: Joint History Office,
2003), 98.
[7]
Ibid.,
104.
[8]
Steven Zaloga, George S.
Patton: Leadership, Strategy, Conflict [Amazon Kindle
Edition] (Botley, UK: Osprey, 2010), loc. 392.
[9]
Gerhard Weinberg, A World
at Arms: A Global History of World War II (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005), 680.
[10]
Zaloga, loc. 398-410.
[11]
Antony Beevor, D-Day: The
Battle for Normandy (New York: Penguin, 2009), 47-48.
[12]
Martin Blumenson, Breakout
and Pursuit (Washington: Center of Military History, 1989),
345.
[13]
Ibid.,
345.
[14]
Beevor, 380-381.
[15]
Ibid.,
381-382.
[16]
Blumenson, 361.
[17]
Beevor, 381.
[18]
Blumenson, 351.
[19]
Ibid.,
364.
[20]
Shelby L. Stanton, World
War II Order of Battle (New York: Galahad Books, 1991),
56.
[21]
Blumenson, 373.
[22]
Ibid.,
387.
[23]
Ibid.,
384.
[24]
Ibid.,
385.
[25]
Ibid.,
396.
[26]
Ibid.,
408-410.
[27]
Ibid.,
634-635.
[28]
Ibid.,
636.
[29]
Ibid.,
652.
[30]
Ibid.,
655.
[31]
Richard Doody, “Brittany from the Great War to Liberation,” The
World at War, http://worldatwar.net/article/brittany/index.html.
accessed 16 January 2013.
[32]
Beevor, 385.
[33]
Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate
(eds.), The Army
Air Forces in World War II, Volume III: Europe: Argument to V-E
Day, January 1944 to May 1945 (Washington: Office of Air
Force History, 1983), 263.
[34]
Zaloga, loc. 425-446.
[35]
Beevor, 386.
[36]
“Third US Army Operations: Campaign of France August-September
1944, A Brief Summary,” Patton and His Third Army Living
Historians, http://pattonthirdarmy.com/3rdarmysummaries2.html.
accessed 18 January 2013.
[37]
Blumenson, 373.
[38]
FM 17-10 Armored Force Field Manual
(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1942), 1.
[39]
George Forty, US Army
Handbook 1939-1945 (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1995),
71.
[40]
FM 17-10,
3.
[41]
Guy Ferrailo, “The Organization of the U.S. Army: Europe,
1944-1945,” Strategy &
Tactics Number 30 (January 1972), 13
[42]
FM 17-10,
3.
[43]
Ibid.,
3.
[44]
Stanton, 18.
[45]
Ferrailo, 13.
[46]
Stanton, 19.
[47]
Davis, 423.
[48]
Blumenson, 655.
[49]
Davis, 423.
[50]
Jeffrey J. Clarke and Robert Ross Smith,
Riviera to the Rhine
(Washington: Center of Military History), 1993), 142.
[51]
Beevor, 445.
[52]
Dwight D. Eisenhower,
Crusade in Europe (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1948),
281.
[53]
Sir Winston S. Churchill,
Triumph and Tragedy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1953), 100.
[54]
Padfield, 431.
[55]
Doody.
[56]
Ibid.
[57]
Beevor, 381.
[58]
Blumenson, 392-393.
[59]
Eisenhower, 274. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beevor, Antony.
D-Day: The Battle for
Normandy.
New York: Penguin,
2009.
Blumenson, Martin.
Breakout
and Pursuit.
Washington: Center of
Military History, 1989.
Churchill, Sir Winston.
The Gathering
Storm.
Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1948. _____.
Triumph
and Tragedy.
Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1953. Clarke,
Jeffrey J. and Smith, Robert Ross.
Riviera
to the Rhine.
Washington: Center of
Military History, 1993. Craven,
Wesley Frank and Cate,
James Lea (eds.).
The
Army Air Forces in World War II, Volume III: Europe:
Argument to V-E Day, January 1944 to May 1945.
Washington: Office of
Air Force History, 1983. Davis,
Richard G.
Bombing the
European Axis Powers: A Historical Digest of the
Combined Bomber Offensive, 1939-1945.
Maxwell Air Force
Base, AL: Air University Press, 2006. Doody, Richard. “Brittany from the Great War to Liberation.” The World at War, http://worldatwar.net/article/brittany/index.html. (accessed 16 January 2013).
Eisenhower, Dwight D.
Crusade in Europe.
Garden City, NY: 1948.
Ferrailo, Guy.
“The Organization of the U.S.
Army: Europe, 1944-1945.”
Strategy & Tactics
Number 30 (January 1972), 3-17.
FM 17-10 Armored
Force Field Manual.
Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1942. Forty,
George.
US Army Handbook 1939-1945.
New York: Barnes &
Noble Books, 1995. Ismay,
Lord Hastings.
The Memoirs of
General Lord Ismay.
New York: Viking,
1960.
Padfield, Peter.
War Beneath the Sea:
Submarine Warfare During World War II.
New York: Wiley,
1995. Stanton,
Shelby L.
World
War II Order of Battle.
New York: Galahad
Books, 1991. “Third
US Army Operations: Campaign of France August-September
1944, A Brief Summary.” Patton and His Third Army Living
Historians,
http://pattonthirdarmy.com/3rdarmysummaries2.html.
(accessed 18 January
2013).
Weinberg, Gerhard.
A World at Arms: A Global
History of World War II.
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
World War II Inter-Allied
Conferences
[CD-ROM].
Washington: Joint
History Office, 2003. Zaloga,
Steven.
George
S. Patton: Leadership, Strategy, Conflict.
[Amazon Kindle
Edition].
Botley, UK: Osprey,
2010
|