Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Finest Army of the 20th Century
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
Poll Question: Japanese Army 1905
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
5 [1.89%]
15 [5.66%]
78 [29.43%]
61 [23.02%]
82 [30.94%]
21 [7.92%]
3 [1.13%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Domen View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Apr-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170 		  Quote Domen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Finest Army of the 20th Century
    Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 10:08
As you see, I respect what the Poles did. So don't read to much into it. The Poles fought valiantly I have tremendous respect for them.
 
 
Let's check German ammunition consumption data (only ground forces - without Luftwaffe):

1) Westfeldzug May - June 1940 (Fall Gelb + Fall Rot):

"Der Gesamtverbrauch an Munition betrug in Westfeldzug 88 460 t."

2) Polenfeldzug September - October 1939 and the "Phoney War" 1939:

"Bis zum 10. Oktober hatte man 87 694 t. Munition verbraucht. An der Front im Westen waren es in dem gleichen Zeitraum 2008 t., weitere 2730 t. wurden vom Heer dann bis zum Ende des Jahres verbraucht."

3) Norwegen and all other fronts (including the German-French border) January - April 1940:

"Lediglich der Munitionsverbrauch des Heeres fuer die ersten vier Monate des Jahres 1940 wurde mit 8499 t. ermittelt."

Source: Fritz Hahn, pages 197, 200 and 204.

As you can sea defeating Poland (and large part of the Polish army was annihilated by the USSR) cost the German Heer as much ammunition as defeating much stronger and much more numerous Western Allies, and all of that despite the fact that German army in Westfeldzug was much more numerous than German army used in Polenfedzug.

This shows that Poland was a swift but intense and difficult for the Germans campaign. Enemy was fighting fiercely even in hopeless situations (caused by poor high level leadership) and had to be annihilated with use of superior firepower.


Edited by Domen - 26-Jun-2010 at 10:09
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus I View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2010
Location: US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85 		  Quote Maximus Germanicus I Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 09:16
When we talk the German army are we talking the Wehrmacht or the SS and other named units. Becuase they were not the same thing and not under a unified command. If we are talking SS by themselves it is whole diff thing. The non named German divs were not that good as atested by Sayer in the forgotten soldier.
 
The Waffen-SS (German pronunciation: [ˈvafən.ɛs.ɛs], Armed SS) was a military force of the Third Reich.[1] It constituted the armed wing of the Schutzstaffel ("Protective Squadron") or SS, an organ of the Nazi Party. The Waffen-SS saw action throughout World War II and grew from three regiments to over 38 divisions, and served alongside the Wehrmacht Heer regular army, but was never formally part of it. It was Adolf Hitler's will that the Waffen-SS never be integrated into the army, it was to remain the armed wing of the Party and to become an elite police force once the war was won
 
The Brandenburgers
Regiment Brandenburg evolved out of the Abwehr's 2nd Department, and was used as a commando unit during the first years of the war. Initially the unit consisted mainly of former German expatriates fluent in other languages. Until 1944 it was an OKH unit rather than a unit of the regular army (Heer). The unit steadily expanded until it was reallocated to the Großdeutschland Panzer Korps to be used as a frontline combat unit.
 
A lot of the best German units were not part of the Heer, it was only towards the end of the war that they were integrated.
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus I View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2010
Location: US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85 		  Quote Maximus Germanicus I Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 08:35
I like the British reg system. The only drawback is that it sometimes holds back talent-it doesn't spread talent around. But the huge advantage is cohesive units, a brotherhood, and a ton of institutional knowledge.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962 		  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 08:03
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus I

but by the end of the war they were the best Army in the war or at least the most powerful.
I would agree with the most powerful part. I am definelty not saying that average U.S. units were noticably inferior or poor performing when compared to British or German equivelents. 
 
But the German experience and advance preperations and the British Regimental system gave them some pretty good intangible advantages when applied to average units.  By 1945, the gap had narrowed, but I dont think it had closed.
 
 
Actually.....
 
The British may of had a hidden advantage.  My theory is that after WWI, their leadership had a social contract of "no more Sommes".  That meant that say... a 35 year old British clerk, married with three kids was not conscripted into a combat position, even if meant having fewer divisions. 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 26-Jun-2010 at 08:15
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus I View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2010
Location: US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85 		  Quote Maximus Germanicus I Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 07:29
The repl depot was horrible--Instead of putting soldiers back into the old units, they were put in a first come first serve type thing. But that effected all units.
 
The Brits and the Germans were also at war longer, had more battle exp troops. By the End of the war US armys were better on average then thier counterparts.
 
ps--I have been in the Big Red one (along with the 101 and the 82nd) Great history--But my favorite unit I have served with is  the 1st CAV.
 
The 101 were getting the same conscripts in 44 that everyone else was getting. They were no better or no worse. I agree that up to 42 early 43 the US was the weaker of the 3 in terms of training but by the end of the war they were the best Army in the war or at least the most powerful.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962 		  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 07:09
Originally posted by Domen

Stalingrad and Sevastopol were urban combats (Okinawa on the other hand is not a city) and in both battles their enemy was numerically superior - unlike Japanese on Okinawa. Near Sevastopol Russians had got several defensive lines of concrete fortifications and they could be supplied via sea - Okinawa could not be supplied via sea (they were encircled from all sides) and did not have concrete fortifications (only some underground shelters).
 
On Iwo Jima especially, the marines were facing a well trained and incredibly fortified enemy (which they completely reduced in one month).  The Germans were held up for weeks or months by Soviet militia units fighting from hasty fortifications at Stalingrad's grain elvator, Pavolv's house, and tractor factory. While the Soviets could be reinforced, the Germans at Stalingrad simply did not have the ability of the U.S. Marine Corps.
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus I

Another comment was made about the performance of US conscript troops and only the elite division doing well. Once again that shows a lack of knowledge of the American Army during WW2-Pretty much everybody was a conscript to include the 101st they were stood up in 42.

I did not mean to impy bad performance, only that the Germans and British got better performance from ordinary units. Though all were conscript based, airborne divisions had volunteers, other "big name" divisions (Big Red One, Ivy etc) probably had access to more hand picked conscripts  
 
The Germans and the British got better performance from their "average" units than the U.S. did. This is due to may reasons:
-German combat experience and advanced preperation to WWII
-British regimental system** (built in sociological and psychological advantages)
-Bad U.S. practices ("repl depot"*  replacement system was terrible, practice of keeping divisions continous combat with out re building periods etc) 
 
*"big name" division personnel officers and NCOS probably  combed the repl depots for quality conscripts.  Also, more motivated conscripts may have volunteered for assignments in famous divisions
 
**US later copied portions of the regiemntal system. Some successful U.S. conscript units "Thunderbird Division" already had elements of it (localized recruiting, common cultural roots (Native Americans), distinct badge etc.


Edited by Cryptic - 26-Jun-2010 at 07:33
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus I View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2010
Location: US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85 		  Quote Maximus Germanicus I Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 07:05
The tiger is a good looking tank
 
 
But the The Comet is a sexy freaking Tank (But I still like the Tiger Becuase I dig the 88KWK gun)
 
Comet tank 1.jpg
Back to Top
DreamWeaver View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel

Suspended

Joined: 02-May-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 555 		  Quote DreamWeaver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 05:12
The German Tiger you say...................Im gonna throw in the British Comet into the mix.
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus I View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2010
Location: US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85 		  Quote Maximus Germanicus I Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 01:10
Originally posted by opuslola

Not wanting to interfere with a very good discussion, I would suggest that bunkers dug into rock, which was a good portion of the Nipponese defensive line at Okinawa, provides or probvided every bit as good a defensive position as concrete!
 

Are sure Domen isn't really SoD. These are some silly and un researched  statements. Okinawa most certainly did have concrete. Further you are right the caves were better emplacements. On top of that it was an amphibious landing!!!! Much harder than the Germans faced on the east.

 

Amphib

Vs dug in enemy

with dug in ARTY

Mixed urban/mountainous and wooded terrain

 

Eastern front

Some Urban mostly open warfare on an open plain

 

HMM I wonder which is harder.

[260]

Photo: SOUTHERN COAST LINE
SOUTHERN COAST LINE of Okinawa is marked by jumbled masses of rock and vegetation, fronted by wide reefs. Cliff in picture is over 50 feet high.
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus I View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2010
Location: US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85 		  Quote Maximus Germanicus I Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 01:03
Originally posted by opuslola

Not wanting to interfere with a very good discussion, I would suggest that bunkers dug into rock, which was a good portion of the Nipponese defensive line at Okinawa, provides or probvided every bit as good a defensive position as concrete!
 

You are correct sir!!!!

 

The 1st, 2nd, and 6th Marine Divisions wheeled south across the narrow waist of Okinawa. The 1st and 6th Infantry Divisions encountered fierce resistance from Japanese troops holding fortified positions on high ground and engaged in desperate hand to hand combat in west-central Okinawa along Cactus Ridge, about five miles (8 km) northwest of Shuri.  for it was now realized they were merely outposts guarding the Shuri Line.

The next American objective was Kakazu Ridge, two hills with a connecting saddle that formed part of Shuri's outer defenses. The Japanese had prepared their positions well and fought tenaciously. Fighting was fierce. Japanese soldiers hid in fortified caves armed with hidden machine guns and explosives; American forces often lost many men before clearing the Japanese out from each cave or other hiding place.

Elements of Japanese Power  http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/okinawa/chapter10.htm
As the Americans came up against the Shuri line veteran fighters in the Pacific noted many familiar tactics and techniques in the Japanese defense. Intricate and elaborate underground positions, expert handling of light mortars and machine guns, fierce local attacks, willingness of Japanese soldiers to destroy themselves when cornered, aggressive defense of reverse slopes, full exploitation of cover and concealment, ceaseless efforts to infiltrate the lines-all these were reminiscent of previous battles with the Japanese from Guadalcanal to Leyte.
 
The enemy had shown all his old ingenuity in preparing his positions underground. Many of the underground fortifications had numerous entrances connected by an intricate system of tunnels. In some of the larger hill masses his tunneling had given him great maneuverability where the heaviest bombs and shells could not reach him. Such underground mobility often enabled him to convert an apparent defensive operation into an offensive one by moving his troops through tunnels into different caves or pillboxes and sometimes into the rear of attacking forces. Most remarkable was the care he had lavished on positions housing only one or two weapons. In one place a 47-mm. antitank gun
JAPANESE FORTIFICATIONS

 

 
Photo: 12-cm. British gun in concrete emplacement

12-cm. British gun in concrete emplacement

Photo: Concrete pillbox in hillside

Concrete pillbox in hillside

Photo: Double pillbox, earth and bamboo

Double pillbox, earth and bamboo

Photo: Tank trap across a road

Tank trap across a road

Photo: Reverse-slope caves, two levels

Reverse-slope caves, two levels

 
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus I View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2010
Location: US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85 		  Quote Maximus Germanicus I Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 00:54

I will give you the MG42 was the finest machine gun in the war. As the Tiger was the finest Tank of the war-as a former cav guy it makes my mouth water.

 

Now as who has the best Army of the 20th Century--US circa 1990. They were farther ahead of any Army in the world. They held a technological training and doctrinal advantage over their next closet rival far superior than any other Army in the 2oth century. Germany was good, but Britain was close, Russia was close, The US was not at the start of the war, but by 45 was the most powerful Army in the world.

 

I get it-I like the Wehrmacht also- I had ancestors on both the German and the American side. I respect the German Army, The soldiers. I don't think highly of the general staff. They were to fixated, punished initiative, and were really more just Hitler’s sycophants. You put competent Generals in charge (Hell if Patton was a German) they would have won the war.

 

The German army was not designed to slug it out the were designed to hit quick break the enemy and exploit the confusion (due to speed, precision and technological advantages). When the German Army had to slug it out they suffered.
Back to Top
Maximus Germanicus I View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar
Suspended

Joined: 26-Jun-2010
Location: US
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85 		  Quote Maximus Germanicus I Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 00:39

Domen-

 

It is time to educate you on military principles.

 

In the offensive-What is the troop ratio normally required? 3 to 1

 

In the offensive vs a defense in depth with a dug in opponent 5 to 1

 

So to compare the US army vs a dug in German army with considerable advantages in terrain the US actually doctrinally outperformed the German army.

 

By comparing the US and German Army on equal footing in Europe shows a lack of knowledge of Military principles.

Another comment was made about the performance of US conscript troops and only the elite division doing well. Once again that shows a lack of knowledge of the American Army during WW2-Pretty much everybody was a conscript to include the 101st they were stood up in 42.

The US Army of World War II was created from a tiny antebellum army in the space of three years. On 30 June 1939 the Regular Army numbered 187,893 men, including 22,387 in the Army Air Corps. On the same date the National Guard totaled 199,491 men. The major combat units included nine infantry divisions, two cavalry divisions, a mechanized cavalry (armor) brigade in the Regular Army and eighteen infantry divisions in the National Guard

 

On 7 December 1941 the Army consisted of 1,685,403 men (including 275,889 in the Air Corps) in 29 infantry, five armor, and two cavalry divisions. While this 435 percent increase was a magnificent achievement .Over the following three and a half years the Army expanded a further 492 percent, to 8,291,336 men in 89 divisions: sixty-six infantry, five airborne, sixteen armored, one cavalry, and one mountain infantry. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/introduction.aspx

 
So in a time if two years the Army increased by about 1.2 million soldiers (all of whom were conscripts. Then by 44 by another 8 Mill --where do you think they came from?

 

Just remember the 101st at Bastogne surrounded and out numbered then remember "Nuts"

 

 



Edited by Maximus Germanicus I - 26-Jun-2010 at 00:41
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620 		  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 14:25
Not wanting to interfere with a very good discussion, I would suggest that bunkers dug into rock, which was a good portion of the Nipponese defensive line at Okinawa, provides or probvided every bit as good a defensive position as concrete!
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Domen View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Apr-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170 		  Quote Domen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 10:30
The BAR in particular, had no German equivelant.
 
The equivalent of BAR in German army was MG 42 (used as light machine gun) because just like each American infantry team had got one BAR, each German infantry team had got one MG 42 used as light machine gun. MG 42 was so universal that it could be used both as light machine gun and as heavy machine gun - there were some difference in additional stuff between them (for example MG 42 when used as HMG had got heavier basis, bigger ammo store, etc.).
 
Creatively counting wounded means everybody from serious wounds to lightly wounded. 
 
This category includes only wounded which required hospitalization, so they were casualties because they had to leave their units for a long time. Slightly wounded which did not require hospitalization were usually counted as "contused" or "injured" and as such they were not casualties.
 
But in the end, an enemy KIA via suicide is still an enemy KIA.
 
Suicide is not killed in action because they were not commiting suicides while in action.
 
I'm not talking about Banzai charges but about self-inflicted deaths (seppuku for example).
 
 The very efficient and very lethal U.S. Marines reduced their opponents at Iwo Jima far more quickly than the Wermacht did facing similar situations at Sebastpol and Stalingrad.  
 
Stalingrad and Sevastopol were urban combats (Okinawa on the other hand is not a city) and in both battles their enemy was numerically superior - unlike Japanese on Okinawa. Near Sevastopol Russians had got several defensive lines of concrete fortifications and they could be supplied via sea - Okinawa could not be supplied via sea (they were encircled from all sides) and did not have concrete fortifications (only some underground shelters).
 


Edited by Domen - 25-Jun-2010 at 11:12
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962 		  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 07:58
Originally posted by Domen

Sorry but American machine guns could not compete with MG 42, which was the basic weapon of every German infantry team.
Granted, the MG 42 was by ar the best weapon in its class. Though not as sexy as the  MG-42, the American Garand rifle and the Browning Automatic Rifle were far superior to their German equivelants. The BAR in particular, had no German equivelant.
 
Likewise, the .45 calibre Thompson submachine gun was easily equivelant to German weapons (if not superior due to the .45 calibre round). Then factor in the legendary Browning .50 Calibre Machine Gun (often used by infantry units). There was no German equivelant to this weapon either.
 
In the end, the U.S. had a love affair with small arms leading to good indigenous designs and was also not shy about importing the best foreign designs.  This made a very lethal combination. Even the U.S. .30 calibre machine gun was not a bad weapon per se.
Originally posted by Domen

In other battles mentioned above casualty ratio was also favorable for the Japanese under the circumstances...
 
And as you can see I countr only bloody losses (most of Japanese PoW were wounded), I don't count "combat fatigue", which would even increase US casualties. Another thing is that large part of Japanese deaths resulted from suicide or occured during the last "mopping up" stages of these battles.
 
I think you have a pretty creative interpertation of statistics. America forces had up to a 8-1 kill ratio in their favor.  That is the key statistic and this alone demonstrates American efficiency. Creatively counting wounded means everybody from serious wounds to lightly wounded.  Your points about Japanese suicides increasing artifially increasing the high U.S. kill ratio are valid. But in the end, an enemy KIA via suicide is still an enemy KIA.
Originally posted by Domen

It took less than one month to secure the island
The fact that the U.S. won is not surprising.  The very efficient and very lethal U.S. Marines reduced their opponents at Iwo Jima far more quickly than the Wermacht did facing similar situations at Sebastpol and Stalingrad.  
Originally posted by Domen

Counterattacks are indispensible parts of every defense (and very costly for the defender) + position of an attacker is much more favourable than position of a defender in many aspects. Also enemy firepower (especially artillery and air attacks) hurts while being on the defensive.
I understand your point. I do not dispute that the German's had the best performance in WWII on a unit by unit average.  What I dispute is the degree which you insinuate that the American military was inferior.


Edited by Cryptic - 25-Jun-2010 at 09:53
Back to Top
Domen View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Apr-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170 		  Quote Domen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 04:42
It took less than one month to secure the island
 
Which is not impressive at all considering the size of the island and US forces involved in capturing it.
 
U.S. small arms equal o or perhaps better than all but the most elite German units.
 
Sorry but American machine guns could not compete with MG 42, which was the basic weapon of every German infantry team.
 
Being on the defensive did not hurt either.
 

Counterattacks are indispensible parts of every defense (and very costly for the defender) + position of an attacker is much more favourable than position of a defender in many aspects. Also enemy firepower (especially artillery and air attacks) hurts while being on the defensive.
 
Someone even wrote:
 
There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, the defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.
 
Iwo Jima is not a good example. U.S. marines killed 21, 000 Japanese defenders while suffering only 7,000 KIA. 
 
 
Americans had got huge numerical, technological, material and firepower superiority on Iwo-Jima + they had got extremely powerful naval support and extremely powerful air support as well as some armoured vehicles. In spite of this fact losses of both sides were:
 
Japan - 4,845 dead, 13,000 missing (and never found), 216 PoW (most WIA) = 18,061
Americans - 6,188 KIA and MIA (including few hundreds MIA), 18,059 WIA = 24,247
 
In other battles mentioned above casualty ratio was also favorable for the Japanese under the circumstances:
 
Tarawa:
 
Japan - 2,483 dead (I don't count unarmed Korean labourers), 17 PoW = 2,500 casualties
Americans - 1,115 KIA, 2,355 WIA = 3,470 casualties 
 
Angaur:
 
Japanese - 1,338 dead, 50 PoW = 1,388 casualties
Americans - 260 KIA, 1,354 WIA = 1,614 casualties

Peleliu:
Japanese - 10,500 dead, 200 PoW = 10,700 casualties
Americans - 1,800 KIA, 8,000 WIA = 9,800 casualties
 
And as you can see I countr only bloody losses (most of Japanese PoW were wounded), I don't count "combat fatigue", which would even increase US casualties. Another thing is that large part of Japanese deaths resulted from suicide or occured during the last "mopping up" stages of these battles.


Edited by Domen - 25-Jun-2010 at 05:00
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962 		  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2010 at 13:24

Originally posted by Domen

If it comes to Europe also German qualitative superiority (both in terms of equipment - e.g. tanks, small arms - and average training of their soldiers) largely, to a considerable extent, overcame the American numerical & firepower superiority in terms of casualty ratios of both sides at least.

Your analysis is not entirely correct.  U.S. small arms equal o or perhaps better than all but the most elite German units.  German tanks were superior, but that was not what made the Germans so lethal per se.  What really made the Germans lethal was highly skilled batallion, regimental and divisional commanders who could get the absolute most out of their units.  Being on the defensive did not hurt either.
 
Originally posted by Domen

Against unconventional warfare (Vietnam, Apghanistan) Americans also perform poorly because they are not able to just "roll" their enemies with simple firepower, communication and technological superiority (like in the Persian Gulf)
Really?  Counter Insurgency warfare is difficult for everyone.  Yugoslav partisans fought against the mighty Wermacht for years and were never beaten.  In fact, the U.S. has beaten the Iraqi insurgents.
 
 
Originally posted by Domen

Actually in areas where the US Army was not able to fully take advantage of their firepower (like for example initial phase of the Normandy campaign with it's bocage terrain, Hurtgen forest, Iwo-Jima, Westwall, some areas in Italy), they were performing rather poorly despite numerical superiority.
Iwo Jima is not a good example. U.S. marines killed 21, 000 Japanese defenders while suffering only 7,000 KIA.  The Mount Suriabachi was captured in days despite the Japanese having months to prepare. It took less than one month to secure the island in the face of very dedicated resistance by trained troops.  Defeating dedicated defenders in close terrain is difficult for everyone. The Wermacht found that out at Stalingrad.
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 24-Jun-2010 at 13:52
Back to Top
Domen View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 13-Apr-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170 		  Quote Domen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2010 at 11:59
Well, it's quite true that nothing was enough against American offensive firepower:
 
 
Napalm and other lethal inventions were already in use during WW2. Napalm was used for example on Okinawa.
 
But does it make US Army the "finest" army of late WW2 (1944 - 1945) or "just" the strongest?
 
Actually in areas where the US Army was not able to fully take advantage of their firepower (like for example initial phase of the Normandy campaign with it's bocage terrain, Hurtgen forest, Iwo-Jima, Westwall, some areas in Italy), they were performing rather poorly despite numerical superiority.
 
If it comes to Europe also German qualitative superiority (both in terms of equipment - e.g. tanks, small arms - and average training of their soldiers) largely, to a considerable extent, overcame the American numerical & firepower superiority in terms of casualty ratios of both sides at least.
 
Against unconventional warfare (Vietnam, Apghanistan) Americans also perform poorly because they are not able to just "roll" their enemies with simple firepower, communication and technological superiority (like in the Persian Gulf) because enemies are avoiding face-to-face combat. Yet the Japanese realized that their army was too poorly equipped compared to Americans to confront them in the open field as equals - and on Tarawa, Angaur, Peleliu and Iwo-Jima the new Japan tactics worked well and resulted in heavy American casualties (heavier than Japanese when counting KIA and WIA).


Edited by Domen - 24-Jun-2010 at 12:21
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962 		  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jun-2010 at 09:42
Originally posted by opuslola

Perhaps American troops, whilst invading foreign nations, thought better about being "cannon fodder" than their grand-fathers? And, perhaps, when Aamerica held the air theatre as a spider holds its prey, they were well thought to stay within their own lairs,and wait untill overpowering air cover, could clear the way with little loss of life!

Smart, very smart!
 
I agree, the U.S. approach to World War II was to maximize fire power and minimize U.S. casualties.  This was very smart and worked well (over all).
 
At the same time, other Generals, including Eisehower (known for being very fair and non glory seeking) also voiced concerns about the performance of many U.S. "ordinary conscript" divisions in late 1944.  This led to a few elite U.S. divisions (101, 82, 4th, 1st, 9th etc) to do more than their fair share and also may have led to U.S. casualties as it gave the Germans time to recover and launch the Ardennes counter offensive.
 
 
 


Edited by Cryptic - 23-Jun-2010 at 19:13
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620 		  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 17:23
Perhaps American troops, whilst invading foreign nations, thought better about being "cannon fodder" than their grand-fathers? And, perhaps, when Aamerica held the air theatre as a spider holds its prey, they were well thought to stay within their own lairs,and wait untill overpowering air cover, could clear the way with little loss of life!

Smart, very smart!

Edited by opuslola - 22-Jun-2010 at 17:24
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.