Regardless of the obvious political bias of the reporter in question and of his editor, we mustn't forget this is a serious issue which, fortunately, the military procurement system is attempting to fix. Not as serious, of course, as the Democrat administration's gaff in 1944 when it dropped/landed FOUR DIVISIONS of US troops in Normandy without having a clue there were these things called "hedgerows" there. Fortunately, the GI's themselves came up with a field-mod for Sherman tanks which solved the problem --- much as the Guard/Reserve people are coming up with "local solutions"..
I recollect that we knew about the hedgerows. The intent was for the BRITISH to breakout on the left where there were no hedgerows. The US was supposed to secure the logistics. German destruction of the port at Cherbourg and the amazing performance of the Mulberry artificial harbors changed things.
Thanks to the German concentration of Armor on their right, the British were stopped. The break out at day 60 or so took place from a line that was supposed to be occupied at Day 6. Rommel's patchwork defense had been effective in stopping the allies. As Rommel had predicted, Allied air had been effective in slowing Runstadt's concentration of armor that was supposed to destroy the beachhead. The tactical stalemate Rommel achieved was a strategic victory for the Allies.
The break out occured as the US soldiers, unencumbered by doctrine, learned to fight effectively, and modified equipment to fit the terrain. US commanders drove tank formations through cities, contrary to doctrine. Heavy bombers were, contrary to doctrine, used as close air support and battlefield interdiction aircraft. US leadership paid a heavy price, (General McNair died from a errant bomb).
The Third Army was unleashed. 'nuff said.