Before I go into my rant I want to state that I am specifically referring to America's Army as being overrated, primarily by Americans, not the Air Force, Navy, or Marines. Ignorant Americans love to go on about how we saved Europe in WW1 and WW2. This is simply untrue and not only it is untrue, America has never achieved decisive control of a territory by means of an army without significant aid from Allies. In my opinion the greatest armies since the 19th century were France under Napoleon and the Werhmacht of the Third Reich. Soviet Russia would be notable due to the sheer massiveness of their forces, but they lacked the superior training and tactical prowess of Napoleon's forces and the Werhmacht.
Looking back at the major wars America has been in.
American Revolution - Engaged only a fraction of the English army which at the time was not arguably the best army in Europe. At the very least they certainly lacked the most prestigious units. America would have been hard pressed to win without French aid and the developments of more pressing events in Europe that required British attention.
The American Civil War - Interestingly, this war featured the largest and bloodiest battles that America has ever engaged in and, correct me if I'm wrong, the bloodiest civil war any Western nation has engaged in. From a military standpoint all the war showed was that the North won due to superior manpower and resources despite excellent Southern generals and superior riflemen.
World War I - America lost over 100,00 men to this war and did help contribute to the defeat of the Central Powers, but England, France, and even Serbia contributed much more to the Entente. The Central Powers were bloodied and near defeat by the time America entered the war and the knowledge that America could provide millions of fresh soldiers in addition to the widespread flu pandemic contributed more to Germany's surrender than any involvement by the American army.
World War II - This is the war widely thrown about to highlight the cowardice of France and the greatness of America. France did not perform exceptionally poorly during the war, they were caught off guard by a numerically superior, motivated, and highly trained force. France had to choose between surrender and slaughter. Ironically, America would experience a similar event in the early days of the Korean War when "inferior" NKPA forces drove back ROK and US armies to the Pusan perimeter and nearly seized control of South Korea.
America never faced the full might of Werhmacht which was fighting a two front war and was being severely depleted by the numerically superior Soviet forces. The American army contributed greatly to Germany's defeat, but no more than the Soviets did and in my opinion much less, seeing how Americans fought alongside British and other Allied forces whereas the Soviets were left to fend for themselves.
America also never faced the full might of the Japanese army in a major land engagement. A significant portion of the Japanese army was in Manchuria on guard against Soviet incursions. America played a massive role in defeating Japan, but success in the Pacific theater can not be solely attributed to the army. America's navy was superior, the Marine Corps performed splendidly, and the Soviet threat distracted a large part of the Japanese army significantly weakening Japanese holdings. And of course, Japan was struggling to hold onto their territories in Korea, Manchuria, China, and SE Asia which required a great deal of manpower and had already cost Japan many lives.
Germany lost Europe when they attempted to invade Russia. They lacked the resources and manpower to successfully capture and control Russia west of the Urals. America simply sped up Germany's inevitable defeat. America's victory in the Pacific was more due to naval and air superiority than it was to an impressive army.
The Korean War - At the start of the war America's army was unfathomably weak and unprepared. The war ended in a truce and the army managed to successfully defeat both the NKPA and Chinese forces, but by no means on their own. The ROK army's incredible bravery at the start of the war was critical to stalling the NKPA's advance and made the war actually winnable. American naval and air superiority was absolute and allowed the army to move unmolested. Chinese forces performed very well during the war despite lacking mechanized supply lines and any form of air support. Strictly speaking, the American army did not perform very well against what should have been an inferior opponent.
Vietnam War - It is an undeniable fact that American forces dominated the war and won nearly every major engagement. The VC and other communist forces fought bravely and fiercely, but they were little more than a ragtag group of guerrillas that could do little more than harass a proper army be it Soviet or American. I am not saying American veterans of the war did not fight bravely but nearly every physical advantage was on their side. They should have dominated and they did so for the most part. America simply lost the will to fight and simply didn't understand how to properly go about that war.
I don't consider the Gulf War or the current War on Terror to be major wars due to their relatively small scale in comparison to prior wars.
The American army has never defeated another major power by achieving control over a territory without aid of allies and extenuating circumstances in their favor. That said, since WW2, America has had by far the finest Navy and Air Force in the world which, thanks to massive technological advances, make them one of the most powerful, if not the dominant, military power on the planet despite having a relatively small army.
That's impossible to say. It is possible to look at the facts and see that America's contribution to both wars is exaggerated. At worst they shortened the war, at most they tipped the scales.
Amaya wrote:The American Civil War - Interestingly, this war featured the largest and bloodiest battles that America has ever engaged in and, correct me if I'm wrong, the bloodiest civil war any Western nation has engaged in. From a military standpoint all the war showed was that the North won due to superior manpower and resources despite excellent Southern generals and superior riflemen.
Only three Generals in the Civil War are worth calling excellent. Two of them come from the North. What the South had was a large number of capable and talented generals facing off against a number of incompetent northern generals for the first few years of the war.
World War II - This is the war widely thrown about to highlight the cowardice of France and the greatness of America.
Well come on, what jokes are funnier than French surrender jokes? Nice that you only think of the European theater btw (granted most everyone does). There was this ocean called the Pacific and there was a war there too. Against the Japanese America and China were pulling all the weight.
France did not perform exceptionally poorly during the war, they were caught off guard by a numerically superior, motivated, and highly trained force.
False. France outnumbered Germany in every catagory, had superior technical ability in most areas, and the vast majority of the German military was more poorly trained than the atrociously trained French forces.
America never faced the full might of Werhmacht which was fighting a two front war and was being severely depleted by the numerically superior Soviet forces. The American army contributed greatly to Germany's defeat, but no more than the Soviets did and in my opinion much less, seeing how Americans fought alongside British and other Allied forces whereas the Soviets were left to fend for themselves.
Frankly I don't think Germany ever had it in them to win a prolonged war with anyone. Of course, had they not invaded Russia they might not have had to fight one.
America also never faced the full might of the Japanese army in a major land engagement. A significant portion of the Japanese army was in Manchuria on guard against Soviet incursions. America played a massive role in defeating Japan, but success in the Pacific theater can not be solely attributed to the army.
Fact: There were more Army soldiers in the Pacific than Marines.
Fact: Given the nature of the Pacific Theater, Japan throwing its whole army into fighting off Island hoping is somewhat of an unrealistic goal. I doubt they could have made the boats to move that many men and keep them supplied. They were already having problems.
That aside, the Navy is really what won the Pacific War, but I'm unsure if you're using Army to refer to the US Army or just the US military in general.
Few military powers have defeated a major rival by achieving control over a territory without aid of allies and extenuating circumstances in their favor.
Fixed that for you.
Not really sure what you're arguing here. Americans think more of their military legacy than is warranted? IDK. I think that's true for just about every nation.
The whole point is that america doesn't need a large army, really, at this point. I mean... we're a continent away from the other superpowers.
If any European or Asian power wanted to attack us, it would mean moving troops across the oceans, where our superior Naval and Air forces would be able to engage them. We shouldn't be fighting wars overseas anyway, so it doesn't matter if our standing ground forces are smaller.... we will never need to use them in defense anyway.
The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.
In my opinion the greatest armies since the 19th century were France under Napoleon and the Werhmacht of the Third Reich.
So the two armies you picked as the best both lost in the same fashion, attacking Russia in the winter ....don't know if that would make the best list for me.
Horst wrote:The whole point is that america doesn't need a large army, really, at this point. I mean... we're a continent away from the other superpowers.
If any European or Asian power wanted to attack us, it would mean moving troops across the oceans, where our superior Naval and Air forces would be able to engage them. We shouldn't be fighting wars overseas anyway, so it doesn't matter if our standing ground forces are smaller.... we will never need to use them in defense anyway.
That's the exact type of thinking that almost cost South Korea its freedom and led to Vietnam's fall to Communism, and it highlights why America has never had and will never have an impressive army. It simply doesn't need to.
The only reason to have a powerful army is for invasion and occupation, two things Americans detest. Even during the Cold War Americans loathed the notion of large army spread across the globe. For whatever reason, Americans have no real imperialist designs or tolerance for them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deathshead420 wrote:
In my opinion the greatest armies since the 19th century were France under Napoleon and the Werhmacht of the Third Reich.
So the two armies you picked as the best both lost in the same fashion, attacking Russia in the winter ....don't know if that would make the best list for me.
They lost due to their leader's arrogance and strategic failings, not because they were poor or inferior armies. No one can invade Russia in the winter, it is absolute idiocy.
An army is only as good as the people leading them, it should be taken into account. So then we can take off Korea,Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan from your America list.
Amaya wrote:The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.
And almost all of them regularly used allies in their wars. Take the Romans for example. Its commonly overlooked how often the allied themselves with the enemies of their enemies in order to defeat them. Persia did the same thing, as did the Greeks. Wars often only involves one or two major powers but its rare to find a war where its just those powers. Allies are quite common in war. Ceaser had numerous Gaelic allies. William the Conqueror hired numerous mercenaries and French nobles to help him and his Normans. Alexander the Great had these Greek guys who totally had his back.
Impressive? The US military made it possible to move over a million men and all the millions of tons needed to supply and equip them across the English channel. I can count the number of times in history has a military crossed the English channel and been successful in their invasion on my hand. In the Pacific we did the same thing dozens of times. That's impressive and the Pacific makes the English channel look like a kiddy pool.
No one can invade Russia in the winter, it is absolute idiocy.
If you think its winter that really caused those invasions to fail then you need to go read more history. Also, Germany didn't invade in the winter. As an aside, both those winters (1812 and 1941) were actually quite mild. Russia's size is the problem not its winter (and German tanks kept breaking down due to Russian dust clogging the air filters in the engines that doesn't really help). EDIT: Russian winter is as much a hyped myth as France always surrendering and no where near as funny when turned into a joke.
Also my last comment on this thread. I'm pro USA but not a nutter, so I say this only as my exit strategy. If WW3 popped off you don't think our dirty sneaky government would nuke everyone preemptively. I call that a win...kinda.
Deathshead420 wrote:An army is only as good as the people leading them, it should be taken into account. So then we can take off Korea,Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan from your America list.
Perhaps you should read and comprehend my original post before replying because I specifically state the following:
1) Korea does not prove that America has a powerful army. It merely shows that America can defeat a technologically inferior force.
2) Vietnam does not prove that America has a powerful army. It merely shows that America can achieve repeated tactical victory over a inferior foe while failing to achieve any of its strategic goals.
3) I state quite clearly that Iraq and Afghanistan are wars too small to be relevant in this discussion.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:You also forgot to mention the Mexican American war.
That was not a war, it was an atrocity and a forgivable abuse of a nation that did naught to deserve it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
Amaya wrote:The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.
And almost all of them regularly used allies in their wars. Take the Romans for example. Its commonly overlooked how often the allied themselves with the enemies of their enemies in order to defeat them. Persia did the same thing, as did the Greeks. Wars often only involves one or two major powers but its rare to find a war where its just those powers. Allies are quite common in war. Ceaser had numerous Gaelic allies. William the Conqueror hired numerous mercenaries and French nobles to help him and his Normans.
Impressive? The US military made it possible to move over a million men and all the millions of tons needed to supply and equip them across the English channel. I can count the number of times in history has a military crossed the English channel and been successful in their invasion on my hand. In the Pacific we did the same thing dozens of times. That's impressive and the Pacific makes the English channel look like a kiddy pool.
No one can invade Russia in the winter, it is absolute idiocy.
If you think its winter that really caused those invasions to fail then you need to go read more history. Also, Germany didn't invade in the winter. As an aside, both those winters (1812 and 1941) were actually quite mild. Russia's size is the problem not its winter (and German tanks kept breaking down due to Russian dust clogging the air filters in the engines that doesn't really help).
You're talking about military achievements, not the achievements of the ARMY. The ARMY is only a single branch of the military. No one is denying that America has a strong military, it just has a relatively weak army.
Winter was the primary reason both those invasions failed. Perhaps you should read more history. Both forces had poor supply lines, lack of winter clothing, and German vehicles were not equipped to deal with the freezing temperatures. I don't think you understand how significant the elements are upon footslogging infantry. The combination of the harsh weather and lack of supplies spelled defeat for the Germans.
Summary of why both Napoleon and the Germans failed in their invasions
1) Poor supply lines
2) Poor road system
3) Russian scorch earth policy to prevent foraging
4) The cold (neither force had proper cold weather garb)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deathshead420 wrote:Also my last comment on this thread. I'm pro USA but not a nutter, so I say this only as my exit strategy. If WW3 popped off you don't think our dirty sneaky government would nuke everyone preemptively. I call that a win...kinda.
Nope, that's Israeli policy.
@LordofHats have you ever experienced sub zero temperatures?
Amaya wrote:The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.
How do you figure? What qualities did they have that place them over their modern contemporary in the US Army?
This reminds me of "greatest boxer of all time" threads on boxing/fighting forums.
Dude1: "Rocky Marciano is undefeated, ergo greatest ever"
Dude2: "No way, he didn't face the level of competition Ali, Sugar Ray or even Tyson faced"
Dude3: "yeah dude2, Marciano is top 5 greatest, but not best Joe Lewis is #1"
Spambot: "go to keylogger.com to make millions, I do it, so can all"
Dude1: "It wasn't Marcianos fault he dominated his era."
Dude4 : "lol mike tyson was greatest lol " post pic of holyfields partially eaten ear
Dude2: "just saying, it was a different time for the sport"
Dude1: "whatever nazi"
Topics like this are always tethered to subjective interpretations of history and can never be settled. Except on Deadliest Warrior where a fat kid with a computer, a douche with a slow speed camera and a dude in a lab coat can simulate it. With real science!
Persian conquests, Alexander's conquests, Rome's victory over Catharge and conquests, Napoleon's domination of Europe, and the Werhmacht's stunning victory over France and short lived hold over Europe are all more impressive than any land conquests America has ever achieved.
Amaya wrote:Winter was the primary reason both those invasions failed. Perhaps you should read more history.
Then explain how Germany and Napoleon invaded Russia in winter when they invaded in June and Russian winter doesn't start until mid October. Also, explain why its Russian winter that beat Napoleon when by the time temperatures started reaching freezing he'd already begun his retreat? Temperatures don't even drop bellow zero until November.
Both forces had poor supply lines,
Which was a much more critical factor in their defeat than weather.
lack of winter clothing,
This is somewhat of a myth as far as Napoleon is concerned. Napoleons army had winter clothing just not good enough winter clothing. That and their coats all used brass buttons. In freezing temperatures brass disintegrates.
and German vehicles were not equipped to deal with the freezing temperatures.
Which was the least of their mechanical problems in Russia. Especially since the Germans thought the invasion would be over by October. Even in 1941 no one really comprehended just how massive Russia is. German planners thought Moscow was 200 miles closer than it actually was, and failed to recognize that vital Russian rail lines were a different width than western European lines (meaning they couldn't use trains to transport supplies). Numerous other problems with the terrain didn't help.
I don't think you understand how significant the elements are upon footslogging infantry. The combination of the harsh weather and lack of supplies spelled defeat for the Germans.
I don't think you understand when winter starts in Russia, or that Napolean began retreating before winter hit Russia in 1812, or that the grounds for the failure of Operation Barbarosss began in August. That the Germans continued trying all the way into winter is irrelevant.
EDIT: Frankly I find your idolization of the Heer odd. The Wehrmacht I'd argue was all around worse than the Western powers bar Italy. They had an army of between 100 and 140 division. At any given time, 20 of those divisions only existed on paper. Half of them were under manned and equipped, and all but about 30 Germany divisions were pretty much photo copies to their WWI counter parts. The Germany army in WWII was not a modern army and not even a very good army. What it had were a handful of extremely well trained and equipped divisions who managed to use revolutionary tactics to break their opponents, i.e. they got one of the greatest strokes of luck in military history with a brilliant dash of genius (and some pepprica). By 1944, the Heer was finished and it was the Waffen SS pulling a lot of the weight (and getting a lot of the goodies from factories).
Compare that to the US Army, which managed to organize and execute a massive land invasion of mainland Europe and subsequently break line after German line for months and then defeat the German army in an almost picture perfect replay of the German invasion of France. All while maintaining its army across 3000 miles. That our invasion didn't really effect the outcome of the war doesn't mean the feat itself is unimpressive. I'd also point out the Wehrmacht never even managed to get an invasion across the English Channel out of the planning stages.
Ok, in WWI, the Germans new they already lost before the Americans even landed in France. The U.S Army's only major battle was in some forest near the german border and it took them weeks to take the whole thing.
Germany was beaten WAY before America even came in to WWI, the Germans were about to collapse, and there is no two ways about it. America just spread up the process by a tiny bit.
America could have just stayed out in Europe during WWII. Stay in the Pacific but not in Europe, even Romel said that Germany would lose the war several times and the first time he said that was at the start of 1943 (some time in January).
Poppabear wrote:Ok, in WWI, the Germans new they already lost before the Americans even landed in France. The U.S Army's only major battle was in some forest near the german border and it took them weeks to take the whole thing.
Are you suggesting that Operation Torch, the Battle of Cherbourg, the Falaise Pocket, or the invasion of Italy never happened? Or are we using some arbitrary definition of major battle?
Germany was beaten WAY before America even came in to WWI, the Germans were about to collapse, and there is no two ways about it. America just spread up the process by a tiny bit.
One can recognize the invasion of Normandy and the subsequent battles as being ultimately meaningless to the outcome of the war and still recognize it for the monumental feat that they represented was. No nation in history to that time had successful launched the entirety of its military power overseas and successfully won before like that. Let alone over the distances and with the numbers we're looking at in WWII. Its a huge testament to the ability of American military planners that they could execute a war across thousands of miles in two directions! And in WWII, those planners were Army.
even Romel said that Germany would lose the war several times and the first time he said that was at the start of 1943 (some time in January).
That would be during the Battle of Tunisia after Rommel was forced to leave the Afrika Korp to their fate by Hitler. Whether he actually meant it or if it was one of his rash statements is debatable ( I think he meant it).
Amaya wrote:American Revolution - Engaged only a fraction of the English army which at the time was not arguably the best army in Europe. At the very least they certainly lacked the most prestigious units. America would have been hard pressed to win without French aid and the developments of more pressing events in Europe that required British attention.
The British troops were the front line of a vast empire, and in terms of quality they were equal to just about anyone else. In fact, historians cite one of the biggest factors in their defeat was their reliance on mercenaries, particularly German troops, given a relative shortage of British redcoats.
One funny thing people forget is that the Revolutionary army lost about twice as many troops as the British, but kept itself going anyway. One of the important lessons in war is that much of what matters in winning is keeping your army together after tactical defeats, and it's in that that Washington and his army should be admired.
World War I - America lost over 100,00 men to this war and did help contribute to the defeat of the Central Powers, but England, France, and even Serbia contributed much more to the Entente. The Central Powers were bloodied and near defeat by the time America entered the war and the knowledge that America could provide millions of fresh soldiers in addition to the widespread flu pandemic contributed more to Germany's surrender than any involvement by the American army.
At this point I'm starting to wonder exactly what your method is for making your case. In the instance above the US victory can be ignored because their opponent didn't use his best troops, in this case it's because they arrived in the war too late to be a decisive factor.
World War II - This is the war widely thrown about to highlight the cowardice of France and the greatness of America. France did not perform exceptionally poorly during the war, they were caught off guard by a numerically superior, motivated, and highly trained force. France had to choose between surrender and slaughter. Ironically, America would experience a similar event in the early days of the Korean War when "inferior" NKPA forces drove back ROK and US armies to the Pusan perimeter and nearly seized control of South Korea.
France's army was numerically superior to the Germans, before you include the British Expeditionary Force. What's more, the ability of the French and British to keep their armies supplied and reinforced long term far outweighed the Germans. This led the Germans to opt for 'lightning war' out of desperation. As it happened, this led them to stumble, more or less, onto the principles of Blitzkrieg, which complimented their excellent tactical capabilities.
This is not to say the French didn't run a particularly terrible campaign. Because they really, really just didn't think through the implications of the technology they were employing, particularly what the mobility of the new weapons of war would enable armies to achieve. This was in large part to the hugely expensive and highly political nature of the Maginot line of defences, the powers that be would not have tolerated for one second any suggestion the line was a white elephant.
Once the two armies met, well unlike the open spaces of Russia, the French simply didn't have the countryside available to trade territory for time, and the Germans inflicted decisive defeat on them.
America never faced the full might of Werhmacht which was fighting a two front war and was being severely depleted by the numerically superior Soviet forces. The American army contributed greatly to Germany's defeat, but no more than the Soviets did and in my opinion much less, seeing how Americans fought alongside British and other Allied forces whereas the Soviets were left to fend for themselves.
The Soviets absolutely, without a doubt did far more. They killed 80% of all German casualties. But that's not to say the Americans didn't do well. Given the Americans were simply adapting some industry to wartime production, while the Germans and Russians were running total war economies, the Americans performed very well. And what's more, we can also consider how powerful their war machine might have been, if they had switched to a total war economy.
America also never faced the full might of the Japanese army in a major land engagement.
As modern and well performed as the Japanese navy was, their military was far less modern, and had nothing like the logistics capability of a modern military. Even with a disciplined and tactically capable officer corps, they were absolutely no match for any major power. Look at what happened when the Russians turned their interest to the Pacific theatre - they sliced through the Japanese land forces like a hot knife through butter.
There is no doubt that if the Japanese were to engage the US in land operations the result would have been nothing but absolute disaster for the Japanese.
A significant portion of the Japanese army was in Manchuria on guard against Soviet incursions.
Close but not quite. They were emboroiled in a meatgrinder insurgent war against Chinese forces, nominally the KMT but with most real resistance coming from the communists.
The Korean War - At the start of the war America's army was unfathomably weak and unprepared. The war ended in a truce and the army managed to successfully defeat both the NKPA and Chinese forces, but by no means on their own. The ROK army's incredible bravery at the start of the war was critical to stalling the NKPA's advance and made the war actually winnable. American naval and air superiority was absolute and allowed the army to move unmolested. Chinese forces performed very well during the war despite lacking mechanized supply lines and any form of air support. Strictly speaking, the American army did not perform very well against what should have been an inferior opponent.
The only reason the Chinese forces performed 'well' was because they were willing to throw so many bodies away (many troops were actually former KMT troops, sent off on basically suicide missions with the promise that an honourable death would restore the status of their families) A simple look at the casualties suffered by the Chinese relative to those they inflicted will tell you quite quickly that by any conventional view of what they lost compared to what they did, they in fact performed terribly. At the same time the American forces inflicted horrendous casualties, and avoided encirclement despite being overwhelmingly outnumbered.
Vietnam War - It is an undeniable fact that American forces dominated the war and won nearly every major engagement. The VC and other communist forces fought bravely and fiercely, but they were little more than a ragtag group of guerrillas that could do little more than harass a proper army be it Soviet or American. I am not saying American veterans of the war did not fight bravely but nearly every physical advantage was on their side. They should have dominated and they did so for the most part. America simply lost the will to fight and simply didn't understand how to properly go about that war.
Or more to the point, the way the war developed politically meant that victory was beyond it, as it would be beyond any army put into that position. How does anyone defeat an army that is resupplied from bases of operation you cannot advance on, and to whom any number of casualties simply do not matter?
I don't consider the Gulf War or the current War on Terror to be major wars due to their relatively small scale in comparison to prior wars.
Again, I really don't understand the terms your using to make your argument. The performance of the US army in both operations showed it is operating on a level that is not only beyond the Iraqi forces, but beyond any other army in the world, and by a very long way.
The American army has never defeated another major power by achieving control over a territory without aid of allies and extenuating circumstances in their favor.
That doesn't mean they couldn't. It just means they haven't had to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deathshead420 wrote: So your saying that the allied forces would have won if America wouldn't have entered WW 1&2.
I think that's pretty clear, by most people's study of the subject. In WWI, after Verdun and the Somme the Germans were just done. The Spring offensive was basically the last roll of the dice by a country who's logistic capacity had basically been ground into nothing by years of war against multiple opponents. The Americans made the inevitable end clearer to everyone, and therefore probably much sooner, but that's about it.
WWII, at least in Europe, was decided with the Russian's defeating the Germans. More than 80% of German casualties were suffered on the Eastern Front, everything else was really just a sideshow in comparison. The whole world should be greatful to the Americans for being in the war, because they were what stopped the Soviets driving on past Berlin and into Paris. The Americans saved the world from the Soviets, but not from the Germans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.
The US armed forces are the only army in the history of world for which it can be said that they can go anywhere in the world they please, and be confident of inflicting decisive defeat on whoever's army happened to be defending that place. I really don't see how you can dismiss that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:Winter was the primary reason both those invasions failed. Perhaps you should read more history. Both forces had poor supply lines, lack of winter clothing, and German vehicles were not equipped to deal with the freezing temperatures. I don't think you understand how significant the elements are upon footslogging infantry. The combination of the harsh weather and lack of supplies spelled defeat for the Germans.
Summary of why both Napoleon and the Germans failed in their invasions
1) Poor supply lines
2) Poor road system
3) Russian scorch earth policy to prevent foraging
4) The cold (neither force had proper cold weather garb)
You're leaving out the performance of the Red Army from 1942 onwards, which is a really, really weird thing to exclude.
In 1812 the French suffered defeat because after defeating the Russians they expected terms to be offered, and the Russians replied 'no, and enjoy the cold you French bastards.'
In WWII the Germans suffered defeat because after defeating the Russians with Barbarossa they were surprised to discover the Soviets had built a new army, that maintained an operational strategy vastly superior to their own.
Horst wrote:The whole point is that america doesn't need a large army, really, at this point. I mean... we're a continent away from the other superpowers.
The only reason the US keeps such a large military is because of those Canadians, just like the =][= no body expects the Canadians.
Amaya wrote:Before I go into my rant I want to state that I am specifically referring to America's Army as being overrated, primarily by Americans, not the Air Force, Navy, or Marines. Ignorant Americans love to go on about how we saved Europe in WW1 and WW2. This is simply untrue and not only it is untrue, America has never achieved decisive control of a territory by means of an army without significant aid from Allies. In my opinion the greatest armies since the 19th century were France under Napoleon and the Werhmacht of the Third Reich. Soviet Russia would be notable due to the sheer massiveness of their forces, but they lacked the superior training and tactical prowess of Napoleon's forces and the Werhmacht.
Looking back at the major wars America has been in.
American Revolution - Engaged only a fraction of the English army which at the time was not arguably the best army in Europe. At the very least they certainly lacked the most prestigious units. America would have been hard pressed to win without French aid and the developments of more pressing events in Europe that required British attention.
The American Civil War - Interestingly, this war featured the largest and bloodiest battles that America has ever engaged in and, correct me if I'm wrong, the bloodiest civil war any Western nation has engaged in. From a military standpoint all the war showed was that the North won due to superior manpower and resources despite excellent Southern generals and superior riflemen.
World War I - America lost over 100,00 men to this war and did help contribute to the defeat of the Central Powers, but England, France, and even Serbia contributed much more to the Entente. The Central Powers were bloodied and near defeat by the time America entered the war and the knowledge that America could provide millions of fresh soldiers in addition to the widespread flu pandemic contributed more to Germany's surrender than any involvement by the American army.
World War II - This is the war widely thrown about to highlight the cowardice of France and the greatness of America. France did not perform exceptionally poorly during the war, they were caught off guard by a numerically superior, motivated, and highly trained force. France had to choose between surrender and slaughter. Ironically, America would experience a similar event in the early days of the Korean War when "inferior" NKPA forces drove back ROK and US armies to the Pusan perimeter and nearly seized control of South Korea.
America never faced the full might of Werhmacht which was fighting a two front war and was being severely depleted by the numerically superior Soviet forces. The American army contributed greatly to Germany's defeat, but no more than the Soviets did and in my opinion much less, seeing how Americans fought alongside British and other Allied forces whereas the Soviets were left to fend for themselves.
America also never faced the full might of the Japanese army in a major land engagement. A significant portion of the Japanese army was in Manchuria on guard against Soviet incursions. America played a massive role in defeating Japan, but success in the Pacific theater can not be solely attributed to the army. America's navy was superior, the Marine Corps performed splendidly, and the Soviet threat distracted a large part of the Japanese army significantly weakening Japanese holdings. And of course, Japan was struggling to hold onto their territories in Korea, Manchuria, China, and SE Asia which required a great deal of manpower and had already cost Japan many lives.
Germany lost Europe when they attempted to invade Russia. They lacked the resources and manpower to successfully capture and control Russia west of the Urals. America simply sped up Germany's inevitable defeat. America's victory in the Pacific was more due to naval and air superiority than it was to an impressive army.
The Korean War - At the start of the war America's army was unfathomably weak and unprepared. The war ended in a truce and the army managed to successfully defeat both the NKPA and Chinese forces, but by no means on their own. The ROK army's incredible bravery at the start of the war was critical to stalling the NKPA's advance and made the war actually winnable. American naval and air superiority was absolute and allowed the army to move unmolested. Chinese forces performed very well during the war despite lacking mechanized supply lines and any form of air support. Strictly speaking, the American army did not perform very well against what should have been an inferior opponent.
Vietnam War - It is an undeniable fact that American forces dominated the war and won nearly every major engagement. The VC and other communist forces fought bravely and fiercely, but they were little more than a ragtag group of guerrillas that could do little more than harass a proper army be it Soviet or American. I am not saying American veterans of the war did not fight bravely but nearly every physical advantage was on their side. They should have dominated and they did so for the most part. America simply lost the will to fight and simply didn't understand how to properly go about that war.
I don't consider the Gulf War or the current War on Terror to be major wars due to their relatively small scale in comparison to prior wars.
The American army has never defeated another major power by achieving control over a territory without aid of allies and extenuating circumstances in their favor. That said, since WW2, America has had by far the finest Navy and Air Force in the world which, thanks to massive technological advances, make them one of the most powerful, if not the dominant, military power on the planet despite having a relatively small army.
Ignorance AND trolling in one post, you've outdone yourself.
American Revolution - Engaged only a fraction of the English army which at the time was not arguably the best army in Europe. At the very least they certainly lacked the most prestigious units. America would have been hard pressed to win without French aid and the developments of more pressing events in Europe that required British attention.
***You know we weren’t a country then right? That’s like taking Omaha and saying “well just because you sent troops you didn’t fight the ENTIRE WEHRMACHT so you’re really justa bunch of wussies.” Funny people don’t say that about the North Vietnamese.
Oh wait you missed a few wars and battles
1814: we won and smeared the British at New Orleans
Mexican American war. Obliterated Mexico with a minimal force.
Indian Wars.
Indians Wars II…this time it’s the Plains
Spanish American War
The American Civil War - Interestingly, this war featured the largest and bloodiest battles that America has ever engaged in and, correct me if I'm wrong, the bloodiest civil war any Western nation has engaged in. From a military standpoint all the war showed was that the North won due to superior manpower and resources despite excellent Southern generals and superior riflemen.
The South had more than its share of idiots as well. We don’t remember them as much because of Lee, and because Grant kicked the crap out of them in the Tennessee valley.
World War I - America lost over 100,00 men to this war and did help contribute to the defeat of the Central Powers, but England, France, and even Serbia contributed much more to the Entente. The Central Powers were bloodied and near defeat by the time America entered the war and the knowledge that America could provide millions of fresh soldiers in addition to the widespread flu pandemic contributed more to Germany's surrender than any involvement by the American army.
In the space of a year we committed almost 2,000,000 troops. That’s more than most countries except the Big Four. Indeed the major push by the Germans in late war that wore them out was because they needed to win before the US could bring in large numbers and tilt the balance. They failed.
World War II - This is the war widely thrown about to highlight the cowardice of France and the greatness of America. France did not perform exceptionally poorly during the war, they were caught off guard by a numerically superior, motivated, and highly trained force. France had to choose between surrender and slaughter. Ironically, America would experience a similar event in the early days of the Korean War when "inferior" NKPA forces drove back ROK and US armies to the Pusan perimeter and nearly seized control of South Korea.
America never faced the full might of Werhmacht which was fighting a two front war and was being severely depleted by the numerically superior Soviet forces. The American army contributed greatly to Germany's defeat, but no more than the Soviets did and in my opinion much less, seeing how Americans fought alongside British and other Allied forces whereas the Soviets were left to fend for themselves.
You know we didn’t show up until 1942 right? I’m sorry you’re disappointed that we didn’t gear up and somehow transport 5,000,000 troops to invade the Rhine River valley in 1937.
In the interim we supplied the allies and Soviets with material, weapons, food, and most of all trucks.
America also never faced the full might of the Japanese army in a major land engagement. A significant portion of the Japanese army was in Manchuria on guard against Soviet incursions. America played a massive role in defeating Japan, but success in the Pacific theater can not be solely attributed to the army. America's navy was superior, the Marine Corps performed splendidly, and the Soviet threat distracted a large part of the Japanese army significantly weakening Japanese holdings. And of course, Japan was struggling to hold onto their territories in Korea, Manchuria, China, and SE Asia which required a great deal of manpower and had already cost Japan many lives.
Yea we did.
Guadalcanal
Iwo Jima
The Phillipines
Okinawa
Did their entire army show up on the plains of Kansas and go mano O mano against Patton? No, much to our dismay, as it would have ended the war very quickly. Strangely enough, when fighting an island empire, most of the fighting is on…islands.
The Korean War - At the start of the war America's army was unfathomably weak and unprepared. The war ended in a truce and the army managed to successfully defeat both the NKPA and Chinese forces, but by no means on their own. The ROK army's incredible bravery at the start of the war was critical to stalling the NKPA's advance and made the war actually winnable. American naval and air superiority was absolute and allowed the army to move unmolested. Chinese forces performed very well during the war despite lacking mechanized supply lines and any form of air support. Strictly speaking, the American army did not perform very well against what should have been an inferior opponent.
Your ignorance of history is glorious. A small portion of army, marine forces, and allies effectively destroyed the entire North Korean army in the space of a few weeks. Even though heavily outnumbered they got it together after the surprise Chinese attack and stopped them cold.
Vietnam War - It is an undeniable fact that American forces dominated the war and won nearly every major engagement. The VC and other communist forces fought bravely and fiercely, but they were little more than a ragtag group of guerrillas that could do little more than harass a proper army be it Soviet or American. I am not saying American veterans of the war did not fight bravely but nearly every physical advantage was on their side. They should have dominated and they did so for the most part. America simply lost the will to fight and simply didn't understand how to properly go about that war.
Wait, I’m confused. Per your standard in the first post the Vietnamese are loser wimp wannabees because they didn’t fight the entire military of the US.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:And you forgot the Spanish / American war.
Not a major war and Spain has never possessed an impressive army.
Check your history there bud. Spain had the largest standing army in the world and dominated the 16th century. Ever wonder why everybody south of America speaks, well, Spanish?
Amaya wrote:The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.
Your point is crap and patently wrong, but then again, evne if right...so????
Persians. Yea bad boys for awhile, building on an empire building on an empire. Then they lost.
Greeks? They only defeated one opponent, like evah (unless you count Italy in early WWII). Here's a list of short list of people who beat them: Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Turks, Germans, their own currency.
Romans. Well..yea...cause you know...they're Romans.
French. Really? Really? The state of France is 1-2 against Germany. Britain beat them about the head and face until Napoleon, and then beat them some more.
They did save civilization from Islamic crusades I'll give you that. Yea Charlie the Hammer.
Germans. The state of Germany is 1-2. Earlier German states were more bad boys true dat, but did lose to Napoleon often.
Ok I'm not siding either way here but all this "we" gak is nauseating. America has a population of over 300 million. Cut the 'we did this, we did that' crap.
Horst wrote:The whole point is that america doesn't need a large army, really, at this point. I mean... we're a continent away from the other superpowers.
The only reason the US keeps such a large military is because of those Canadians, just like the =][= no body expects the Canadians.
The world underestimates the awsesome might of a Tim Hortons fuelled military at its peril.
Amaya wrote:The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.
Many of the boards historians are busy debunking your historical facts, and I'll leave them to it. I have an issue with your phrasing. Claiming that these armies were better 'throughout history' really makes this a hollow statement. That would mean that the Roman army of 1911 (remember those guys?) were a superior army to America today. The same goes for the modern day Persian army. Heck, logically the Germans or the Romans must have had worse armies when they were mixing it up during the fall of Rome.
If you'd like to advance this discussion into- well, a discussion- please set your criterion.
What constitutes a major war?
What are the qualities of a good army?
What are signs of a bad army?
How can we compare a bunch of sword and spear wielding Romans to a force that is equipped with modern assault rifles and heavy armored vehicles?
Do results make for a successful army, or is it the intent of the training and preparation?
You may have a point amaya- but you're going to have to get past your rhetoric to make it.
Deathshead420 wrote: So your saying that the allied forces would have won if America wouldn't have entered WW 1&2.
The Soviets would have won WW2 so long as the UK held enough attention elsewhere. By the winter of 1941 the reich was already doomed. I would however have taken a while longer.
WW1 was 'won' because of an internal economic collapse of the central powers, they were not defeated in battle. Arguably that would still have happened without US involvement so long as the US remained a hostile market.
On the other hand the spring offensive of 1918 nearly finished the western allies, the US certainly helped especially with the French who had been bled dry and were conscripting 15 year olds.
Horst wrote:The whole point is that america doesn't need a large army, really, at this point. I mean... we're a continent away from the other superpowers.
The only reason the US keeps such a large military is because of those Canadians, just like the =][= no body expects the Canadians.
The world underestimates the awsesome might of a Tim Hortons fuelled military at its peril.
That should be a Tim Hortons denied military! We're all happy and content when we have plentiful supplies of our double doubles + timbits. It's when they get taken away by our enemies we turn angry!
But really, why does everyone always forget Canada's roles during WWI & WWII?
And you guys have also missed out on 1812, when the Americans began their short-lived invasion of the Canadian colonies and were soundly thrashed by the British and native allies! No borders changed and nothing was really gained or lost in the end, but it was definately a failure for the US.
Horst wrote:The whole point is that america doesn't need a large army, really, at this point. I mean... we're a continent away from the other superpowers.
The only reason the US keeps such a large military is because of those Canadians, just like the =][= no body expects the Canadians.
The world underestimates the awsesome might of a Tim Hortons fuelled military at its peril.
That should be a Tim Hortons denied military! We're all happy and content when we have plentiful supplies of our double doubles + timbits. It's when they get taken away by our enemies we turn angry!
But really, why does everyone always forget Canada's roles during WWI & WWII?
And you guys have also missed out on 1812, when the Americans began their short-lived invasion of the Canadian colonies and were soundly thrashed by the British and native allies! No borders changed and nothing was really gained or lost in the end, but it was definately a failure for the US.
Count your blessings. Had my ancestors known about the greatness of maple glazed donuts, they would have tried that with beignets and launched the Cajun Canada War of 1815. Grapeshot firing gator cannon are unstoppable...
Gitzbitah wrote:How can we compare a bunch of sword and spear wielding Romans to a force that is equipped with modern assault rifles and heavy armored vehicles?
On a personal perspective, I would say the Roman Legionnaire is probably, physically, braver than the modern infantryman based on the possible wounds. By that I mean that an infantryman will probably never see the bullet that injures him, but the Legionnaire will see and anticipate a sword/axe wound.
The US, Canada, China, UK, USSR, Australia, France, Poland, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxumburg, Netherlands, Greece, Yugoslavia, Panama, Costa Rica, DR, El Salvatore, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Philippines, Guatemala, Cuba, Korea, Czechoslovakia, Mexico, Brazil, Ethiopia, Iraq, Iran, Bolivia, Columbia, Liberia, Peru, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela, Turkey, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Finland, Argentina, Chile, and Italy (that was quite the list, did I miss anyone?) all came together to defeat the Nazis. It was quite the accomplishment, and surely we can all celebrate our victory over evil as brothers.
Amaya wrote:Before I go into my rant I want to state that I am specifically referring to America's Army as being overrated, primarily by Americans, not the Air Force, Navy, or Marines. Ignorant Americans love to go on about how we saved Europe in WW1 and WW2. This is simply untrue and not only it is untrue, America has never achieved decisive control of a territory by means of an army without significant aid from Allies. In my opinion the greatest armies since the 19th century were France under Napoleon and the Werhmacht of the Third Reich. Soviet Russia would be notable due to the sheer massiveness of their forces, but they lacked the superior training and tactical prowess of Napoleon's forces and the Werhmacht.
Looking back at the major wars America has been in.
American Revolution - Engaged only a fraction of the English army which at the time was not arguably the best army in Europe. At the very least they certainly lacked the most prestigious units. America would have been hard pressed to win without French aid and the developments of more pressing events in Europe that required British attention.
The American Civil War - Interestingly, this war featured the largest and bloodiest battles that America has ever engaged in and, correct me if I'm wrong, the bloodiest civil war any Western nation has engaged in. From a military standpoint all the war showed was that the North won due to superior manpower and resources despite excellent Southern generals and superior riflemen.
World War I - America lost over 100,00 men to this war and did help contribute to the defeat of the Central Powers, but England, France, and even Serbia contributed much more to the Entente. The Central Powers were bloodied and near defeat by the time America entered the war and the knowledge that America could provide millions of fresh soldiers in addition to the widespread flu pandemic contributed more to Germany's surrender than any involvement by the American army.
World War II - This is the war widely thrown about to highlight the cowardice of France and the greatness of America. France did not perform exceptionally poorly during the war, they were caught off guard by a numerically superior, motivated, and highly trained force. France had to choose between surrender and slaughter. Ironically, America would experience a similar event in the early days of the Korean War when "inferior" NKPA forces drove back ROK and US armies to the Pusan perimeter and nearly seized control of South Korea.
America never faced the full might of Werhmacht which was fighting a two front war and was being severely depleted by the numerically superior Soviet forces. The American army contributed greatly to Germany's defeat, but no more than the Soviets did and in my opinion much less, seeing how Americans fought alongside British and other Allied forces whereas the Soviets were left to fend for themselves.
America also never faced the full might of the Japanese army in a major land engagement. A significant portion of the Japanese army was in Manchuria on guard against Soviet incursions. America played a massive role in defeating Japan, but success in the Pacific theater can not be solely attributed to the army. America's navy was superior, the Marine Corps performed splendidly, and the Soviet threat distracted a large part of the Japanese army significantly weakening Japanese holdings. And of course, Japan was struggling to hold onto their territories in Korea, Manchuria, China, and SE Asia which required a great deal of manpower and had already cost Japan many lives.
Germany lost Europe when they attempted to invade Russia. They lacked the resources and manpower to successfully capture and control Russia west of the Urals. America simply sped up Germany's inevitable defeat. America's victory in the Pacific was more due to naval and air superiority than it was to an impressive army.
The Korean War - At the start of the war America's army was unfathomably weak and unprepared. The war ended in a truce and the army managed to successfully defeat both the NKPA and Chinese forces, but by no means on their own. The ROK army's incredible bravery at the start of the war was critical to stalling the NKPA's advance and made the war actually winnable. American naval and air superiority was absolute and allowed the army to move unmolested. Chinese forces performed very well during the war despite lacking mechanized supply lines and any form of air support. Strictly speaking, the American army did not perform very well against what should have been an inferior opponent.
Vietnam War - It is an undeniable fact that American forces dominated the war and won nearly every major engagement. The VC and other communist forces fought bravely and fiercely, but they were little more than a ragtag group of guerrillas that could do little more than harass a proper army be it Soviet or American. I am not saying American veterans of the war did not fight bravely but nearly every physical advantage was on their side. They should have dominated and they did so for the most part. America simply lost the will to fight and simply didn't understand how to properly go about that war.
I don't consider the Gulf War or the current War on Terror to be major wars due to their relatively small scale in comparison to prior wars.
The American army has never defeated another major power by achieving control over a territory without aid of allies and extenuating circumstances in their favor. That said, since WW2, America has had by far the finest Navy and Air Force in the world which, thanks to massive technological advances, make them one of the most powerful, if not the dominant, military power on the planet despite having a relatively small army.
All that and yet here you sit in a free country made possible by the over rated army. I have to ask this, have you been in the military?
I have less respect for the army than I do for the other branches, but I still acknowledge them as an important part of our global projection force. Seems like the Marines are the ones who get stuff done nowadays. The Army seems like the clean-up crew, and the occupational force.
If the DOD has to cut anything, it should be the Army, and traditional infantry and armor divisions in particular. Not to mention army reserve units, which seem to be funding vacuums. Rangers, Airborne and Special Operations communities are what I personally think they should pool resources into. There's a place for 'grunts', but in a much smaller capacity.
WOW, there i alot of hate out there for my branch of choice... From the sound of it, the OP must of been denied recruitment or something, cause alot of what he has said is well... wrong. Enough people have gone into specifics why but the guy right above me, you got some issues that I would like to clarify right now.
I have less respect for the army than I do for the other branches
Really? even though they are bigger and older then all the other branches ( I consider national guard an off-branch of the army, so please don't use their "1632 founded" argument against me). And don't forget the Air force started as the Army Air Corps, so um... no army, no air force.
Seems like the Marines are the ones who get stuff done nowadays. The Army seems like the clean-up crew, and the occupational force
The Marines are a shock force but they are also shockingly small compared to the army. I will begrudgingly admit that the army is an occupational force but we have still done our fair number of invasions.
( Italy, Sicily, Normandy, Market-garden, Gulf War 1 and 2)
If the DOD has to cut anything, it should be the Army, and traditional infantry and armor divisions in particular.
Yes, let's cut the largest and most diverse military organization in america. Buddy, I was in traditional infantry and armor divisions, and if you didn't have them you couldn't get anything done. You think a bunch of cooks, supply clerks and chaplains assistants could do all the patrols and combat operations? HINT: they can't.
Rangers, Airborne and Special Operations communities are what I personally think they should pool resources into
First off, airborne is and never has been a special forces organization. 101st, 82nd and 173rd are all regular army units with nothing beyond a tab to signify any uniqueness. 10th mountain has a tab too, but they don't only get deployed to the Mountains. Rangers and SF DO get all the funding, the money that a battalion (600-700 troopers) of infantry gets is what a ranger or SF company (100 troopers) gets for gear and supplies, and believe me even those guys use grunts. We drove SF around for two days looking for an HVT one time, they need us like we need them. Also on another note, guess where they draw operators for SF and rangers from? THE GRUNT INFANTRY, they are all proud blue-chord wearing hard- es.
On a personal perspective, I would say the Roman Legionnaire is probably, physically, braver than the modern infantryman based on the possible wounds. By that I mean that an infantryman will probably never see the bullet that injures him, but the Legionnaire will see and anticipate a sword/axe wound.
While i will be the first to admit that A legionnaire could out-pace me or even the best modern infantryman, seeing the sword coming and being able to do something about it is no braver then driving down the road not knowing if the next tire on the side of the road is packing an EFP (true-story).
Compare the casualty rates for Battle of the Bulge to Battle of Kursk and American troops were head and shoulders above the Soviets. The Germans would have crushed the Soviets were it not for the Western allies, of which the USA was the major player.
America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on thier own, if anything it was the USRR that really won,
Had Hitler never attacked Russia and never started the war with Russia, USA would have proberly never gone to war against Germany.
Battles like the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk really change the outcome of the war against Germany.
And lets not forget that USSR helped the surrender of Japan to the allies, Had the the Russians not prepare for the invasion of Japan the war might have gone on longer even at the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on thier own, if anything it was the USRR that really won,
Had Hitler never attacked Russia and never started the war with Russia, USA would have proberly never gone to war against Germany.
Battles like the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk really change the outcome of the war against Germany.
And lets not forget that USSR helped the surrender of Japan to the allies, Had the the Russians not prepare for the invasion of Japan the war might have gone on longer even at the threat of nuclear annihilation.
1. The USSR didn't win WWII. They beat the Germans, Romanians, and Bulgarians with Allied help. 2. The US defeated Japan with help from the UK (including CD and Aussies etc.) 3. US and UK defeated Italy and German forces there (later).
The US went to war with Germany, not because of Russia but becasue Germany declared war on the US. The Soviets invaded Manchuria. Whether or not that did anything to end the war is up for debate. on the positive it kicked the out of the Japanese army there that was occupying Manchuria and committing war crimes so that is a good thing.
EDIT: I'm not really getting this. Germany and Japan picked on the strongest powers in history and got their heads handed to them. With the exception of very few instances it wasn't a mano O mano situation. Off the top of my head I can only think of: *Battle of Britain - air force vs. air force. *1941/1942 Soviet invasion. Although there were German armies in Africa, majority in Barborrossa. After that Allies started head banging and signifcantly drawing off land and air forces. *Pacific Naval War. Japan vs. US in the great game of Oops I sank your battle fleet.
Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on thier own, if anything it was the USRR that really won,
Had Hitler never attacked Russia and never started the war with Russia, USA would have proberly never gone to war against Germany.
Battles like the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk really change the outcome of the war against Germany.
And lets not forget that USSR helped the surrender of Japan to the allies, Had the the Russians not prepare for the invasion of Japan the war might have gone on longer even at the threat of nuclear annihilation.
The Germans would have crushed the Soviets if they didn't have to divert so many men and resources to the war in the West. Not to mention the huge damage done by strategic bombing to their industry. Not to mention the entire soviet infrastructure dependant on Lend-Lease trucks. Not to mention the huge invasion of France in 1944 by the Western Allies.
But yeah, other than that the Soviets won.
I don't have much respect for the military in general and I was in for ten years! I think its cos soldiers bs so much. Whats wrong with being a radio operator or a clerk or a chef of a driver or a storeman? All jobs are equally important, so why do men think they must always be Gods of war?
Run of the mill army and especially the Navy and the Airforce are always "attached" to someone! Whenever I meet a sailor or an airman they say "Oh yeah we do the equivalent of the SEALS!" or "Im attached to /names unit far better than the one they actually joined" or "Oh I'm an airforce, recon green beret with sniper, airborne training" as If you can bs a bloke who was ten years in. Why the feth would the military spend a small fortune sending you on every course just cos your a badge collector? Do they need chefs and signallers to be snipers?
I even had some fether in the airforce tell me that in his basic training he had to run 70 miles in 12 hours in -10 degrees with 200lbs on his back or some ridiculous gak.
And then some SF are gung-ho and walk like they have a mattress duct taped to their back, so I dont like them either.. And dont even start me on the National Guard...
I know, just hate everyone like me and take people on an individual basis. You wouldn't say "bricklayers are professional" or "Plumbers are professional" so why bother making generic statments about soldiers? Some are great pros regardless of branch, some are fething douchebags.
Fattimus_maximus wrote:
While i will be the first to admit that A legionnaire could out-pace me or even the best modern infantryman, seeing the sword coming and being able to do something about it is no braver then driving down the road not knowing if the next tire on the side of the road is packing an EFP (true-story).
By out pace do you mean in a race?!
Ill play devils advocate and say I doubt a legionnaire could out-pace me at all. I can run 3 miles in about 21 minutes. I mean, aren't we all 6 inches taller these days as well?
With sports science, greatly improved nutrition, improved training techniques, and my regular use of creatine and whey protein, I reckon I could knack a legionnaire physically, its the swordfighting stuff he would beat my taller stronger ass at!
mattyrm wrote:
I know, just hate everyone like me and take people on an individual basis. You wouldn't say "bricklayers are professional" or "Plumbers are professional" so why bother making generic statments about soldiers? Some are great pros regardless of branch, some are fething douchebags.
In The Sun newspaper soldiers are literally synonymous with Heroes(nearly always capitalised). Not venerating soldiers as living avatars of Adonis gets you labled a politically correct, probably muslim, probably gay, liberal.
That's my perception of public mood, anyway. Personally I don't much care. I mean, I must have met about 10 blokes in pubs who were all snipers in the SAS, and they all seemed like alright guys...
Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on thier own, if anything it was the USRR that really won,
Had Hitler never attacked Russia and never started the war with Russia, USA would have proberly never gone to war against Germany.
Battles like the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk really change the outcome of the war against Germany.
And lets not forget that USSR helped the surrender of Japan to the allies, Had the the Russians not prepare for the invasion of Japan the war might have gone on longer even at the threat of nuclear annihilation.
The Germans would have crushed the Soviets if they didn't have to divert so many men and resources to the war in the West. Not to mention the huge damage done by strategic bombing to their industry. Not to mention the entire soviet infrastructure dependant on Lend-Lease trucks. Not to mention the huge invasion of France in 1944 by the Western Allies.
But yeah, other than that the Soviets won.
Troops were being moved out of the western front to fight in the eastern front while D Day was happening they used POW soldiers on the beaches of normandy to compensate for lack of german troops.
Amaya wrote:
The Korean War - At the start of the war America's army was unfathomably weak and unprepared. The war ended in a truce and the army managed to successfully defeat both the NKPA and Chinese forces, but by no means on their own. The ROK army's incredible bravery at the start of the war was critical to stalling the NKPA's advance and made the war actually winnable. American naval and air superiority was absolute and allowed the army to move unmolested. Chinese forces performed very well during the war despite lacking mechanized supply lines and any form of air support. Strictly speaking, the American army did not perform very well against what should have been an inferior opponent.
Lets try at the start of the War America's Army wasn't present and work from there. The ROK is notable in the invasion for mass defection and retreat, incredible bravery indeed. I guess we'll overlook that while the 8th Army was pushing past the 38th Parallel that the Air Force and Fleet Air Arm completely lost air superiority to the MiGs for nearly a year while the Soviet and Chinese fighter ran amok. Lacking any form of air support indeed.
I think that sums up how I reacted to your entire rant of factually incorrect dribble: indeed.
LordofHats wrote:
Only three Generals in the Civil War are worth calling excellent. Two of them come from the North. What the South had was a large number of capable and talented generals facing off against a number of incompetent northern generals for the first few years of the war.
I probably disagree, but I'd love to know who you are referring to.
Samus_aran115 wrote:
If the DOD has to cut anything, it should be the Army, and traditional infantry and armor divisions in particular. Not to mention army reserve units, which seem to be funding vacuums. Rangers, Airborne and Special Operations communities are what I personally think they should pool resources into. There's a place for 'grunts', but in a much smaller capacity.
This post staggeringly full of either fail or ignorance.
All that and yet here you sit in a free country made possible by the over rated army. I have to ask this, have you been in the military?
Well if that's actually his picture I doubt hes even old enough, and most of his "facts" were probably pulled off of Google. He's probably just been talking to a Marines recruiter, they love to talk s about the Army.
mattyrm wrote: I don't have much respect for the military in general and I was in for ten years! I think its cos soldiers bs so much. Whats wrong with being a radio operator or a clerk or a chef of a driver or a storeman? All jobs are equally important, so why do men think they must always be Gods of war?
Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on thier own, if anything it was the USRR that really won,
Had Hitler never attacked Russia and never started the war with Russia, USA would have proberly never gone to war against Germany.
Battles like the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk really change the outcome of the war against Germany.
And lets not forget that USSR helped the surrender of Japan to the allies, Had the the Russians not prepare for the invasion of Japan the war might have gone on longer even at the threat of nuclear annihilation.
The Germans would have crushed the Soviets if they didn't have to divert so many men and resources to the war in the West. Not to mention the huge damage done by strategic bombing to their industry. Not to mention the entire soviet infrastructure dependant on Lend-Lease trucks. Not to mention the huge invasion of France in 1944 by the Western Allies.
But yeah, other than that the Soviets won.
Troops were being moved out of the western front to fight in the eastern front while D Day was happening they used POW soldiers on the beaches of normandy to compensate for lack of german troops.
There were over a million German soldiers fighting the allies in France. You seriously telling me the Eastern Front didn't need those men more?
Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on their own
Did someone make that claim?
No but some people believe that USA joing the war meant that it was to be won by the Allies.
And some in the UK and Russia think they could have done it single-handedly as well, but you didn't refute those unmade claims. It was a team effort by everyone involved.
Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on thier own, if anything it was the USRR that really won,
Had Hitler never attacked Russia and never started the war with Russia, USA would have proberly never gone to war against Germany.
Battles like the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk really change the outcome of the war against Germany.
And lets not forget that USSR helped the surrender of Japan to the allies, Had the the Russians not prepare for the invasion of Japan the war might have gone on longer even at the threat of nuclear annihilation.
1. The USSR didn't win WWII. They beat the Germans, Romanians, and Bulgarians with Allied help.
2. The US defeated Japan with help from the UK (including CD and Aussies etc.)
3. US and UK defeated Italy and German forces there (later).
The US went to war with Germany, not because of Russia but becasue Germany declared war on the US. The Soviets invaded Manchuria. Whether or not that did anything to end the war is up for debate. on the positive it kicked the out of the Japanese army there that was occupying Manchuria and committing war crimes so that is a good thing.
EDIT: I'm not really getting this. Germany and Japan picked on the strongest powers in history and got their heads handed to them. With the exception of very few instances it wasn't a mano O mano situation. Off the top of my head I can only think of:
*Battle of Britain - air force vs. air force.
*1941/1942 Soviet invasion. Although there were German armies in Africa, majority in Barborrossa. After that Allies started head banging and signifcantly drawing off land and air forces.
*Pacific Naval War. Japan vs. US in the great game of Oops I sank your battle fleet.
Germany had the most powerful military for a while they made large ground in russia and had almost seiced victory.
USA opening up on another front with Germany helped the war and help Britan but had Germany manage to conquer Russia they would be able to divert thier major forces in the West and would have proberly been able to repel the Allies.
Japan was also quite powerful its Army were veterans of the war in china but the Japanese military failed to work together properly.
Japan surrenderd to the Allies to insure that they would not risk thier way of life being destroyed by communsim partcially why the Allies nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war quickly before the Soviets invaded as the had agreed with Stalin that he may gain japnaese territory
(America was worried of a communsit state being so close to the US )
mattyrm wrote: I don't have much respect for the military in general and I was in for ten years! I think its cos soldiers bs so much. Whats wrong with being a radio operator or a clerk or a chef of a driver or a storeman? All jobs are equally important, so why do men think they must always be Gods of war?
Funny. What are you in anyway AT, I never thought to ask because I like you on an individual basis, so I don't much care if you fill planes with petrol.
mattyrm wrote: I don't have much respect for the military in general and I was in for ten years! I think its cos soldiers bs so much. Whats wrong with being a radio operator or a clerk or a chef of a driver or a storeman? All jobs are equally important, so why do men think they must always be Gods of war?
Funny. What are you in anyway AT, I never thought to ask because I like you on an individual basis, so I don't much care if you fill planes with petrol.
I was a drone operator, time will tell if this time next year I'm an operator again or some silly officer type.
But isn't Codex: America LSA (Land, Sea and Air) the most overpowered codex to date...opps
By the way D-day was planed by the British http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-day, it was one of her last days as a super power. They had the experience of how to do amphibious landings that the US comanders didn't.
As for all the WW1 blustering the US troops probably helped shorten the war indirectly but really the war was pretty much won. The RNs total war blockade of german ports sort to starve the german popules into submition (which it did horrifically efficiently, some thing the germans tried and all most succeded to do to the UK in WW2).
WW2 the US had the manufacting might but not the tech, that came from the UK as they had to beg for help and offerd up nigh on all of its top secert tech that even the US hadn't even thoght of. The UK could invent but it lacked the mass production and raw matirals the US had.
Korea was a UN police action that still is in opperation, so not really a war...
Veitnam...well what could be said about that fail. The US should have fought it with total comitment, and kept the media away. Like what they did in the two world wars (and if the reported did see some thing a kind word or two would shut him up and the story disapire).
Yak9UT wrote:America had an okay Army in WW2 but they certainly didn't win the war on thier own, if anything it was the USRR that really won,
Had Hitler never attacked Russia and never started the war with Russia, USA would have proberly never gone to war against Germany.
Battles like the battle for Moscow, the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Kursk really change the outcome of the war against Germany.
And lets not forget that USSR helped the surrender of Japan to the allies, Had the the Russians not prepare for the invasion of Japan the war might have gone on longer even at the threat of nuclear annihilation.
The Germans would have crushed the Soviets if they didn't have to divert so many men and resources to the war in the West. Not to mention the huge damage done by strategic bombing to their industry. Not to mention the entire soviet infrastructure dependant on Lend-Lease trucks. Not to mention the huge invasion of France in 1944 by the Western Allies.
But yeah, other than that the Soviets won.
Troops were being moved out of the western front to fight in the eastern front while D Day was happening they used POW soldiers on the beaches of normandy to compensate for lack of german troops.
There were over a million German soldiers fighting the allies in France. You seriously telling me the Eastern Front didn't need those men more?
The Germans diverted lots of men to fight on the Eastern front but to move all of them would make them defenceless to an Allied invasion.
The Allies were not as much of a threat then the Soviets, The Germans had lost millions of men on the Eastern front (they lost entire army divisions) they had to send forces form the western front to withhold thier advance
sebster wrote:
The US armed forces are the only army in the history of world for which it can be said that they can go anywhere in the world they please, and be confident of inflicting decisive defeat on whoever's army happened to be defending that place. I really don't see how you can dismiss that.
Except when the army defending it is not using conventional tactics. Guerilla warfare defeated them in Vietnam and terrorism tactics used by the Taliban has so far prevented a decisive victory in Afghanistan.
In Vietnam they were facing a force extremely well trained in their choice of fighting. The Vietminh (later called Vietcong) had had years of warfare against Japan in World War 2 and then against France when they were fighting for independence from colonialism. The US had vastly superior technology that didn't work against the tactics that were being used against them.
WW2 the US had the manufacting might but not the tech, that came from the UK as they had to beg for help and offerd up nigh on all of its top secert tech that even the US hadn't even thoght of. The UK could invent but it lacked the mass production and raw matirals the US had.
Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.
What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.
Amaya wrote:The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.
How do you figure? What qualities did they have that place them over their modern contemporary in the US Army?
This reminds me of "greatest boxer of all time" threads on boxing/fighting forums.
Dude1: "Rocky Marciano is undefeated, ergo greatest ever"
Dude2: "No way, he didn't face the level of competition Ali, Sugar Ray or even Tyson faced"
Dude3: "yeah dude2, Marciano is top 5 greatest, but not best Joe Lewis is #1"
Spambot: "go to keylogger.com to make millions, I do it, so can all"
Dude1: "It wasn't Marcianos fault he dominated his era."
Dude4 : "lol mike tyson was greatest lol " post pic of holyfields partially eaten ear
Dude2: "just saying, it was a different time for the sport"
Dude1: "whatever nazi"
Topics like this are always tethered to subjective interpretations of history and can never be settled. Except on Deadliest Warrior where a fat kid with a computer, a douche with a slow speed camera and a dude in a lab coat can simulate it. With real science!
OF COURSE!! SCIENCE!!!
But seriously I don't know about this thread.
I was in the 82nd Airborne once upon a time, and even though the Army rubbed me the wrong way, with the garrison life and doing nothing and what not, I gotta say the Army does hold up to the statement that it is well trained. I was infantry so I don't know about the other guys, but the gunner on our gun team could cut your legs off with a 240 from 800m away.
WW2 the US had the manufacting might but not the tech, that came from the UK as they had to beg for help and offerd up nigh on all of its top secert tech that even the US hadn't even thoght of. The UK could invent but it lacked the mass production and raw matirals the US had.
Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.
What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.
I wouldn't have said technology. I would have said specialist knowledge. Our spy networks and code breakers for example.
OT, but yet totally worth 30secs of you life to read.
Allegedly the German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are renowned as a short-tempered lot. They, it is alleged, not only expect one to know one's gate parking location, but how to get there without any assistance from them. So it was with some amusement that we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747, call sign Speedbird 206. Speedbird 206: "Frankfurt, Speedbird 206 clear of active runway." Ground: "Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven." The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop. Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?" Speedbird 206: "Stand by, Ground, I'm looking up our gate location now." Ground (with quite arrogant impatience): "Speedbird 206, have you not been to Frankfurt before?" Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark,...... and I didn't land."
WW2 the US had the manufacting might but not the tech, that came from the UK as they had to beg for help and offerd up nigh on all of its top secert tech that even the US hadn't even thoght of. The UK could invent but it lacked the mass production and raw matirals the US had.
Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.
What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.
WW2 the US had the manufacting might but not the tech, that came from the UK as they had to beg for help and offerd up nigh on all of its top secert tech that even the US hadn't even thoght of. The UK could invent but it lacked the mass production and raw matirals the US had.
Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.
What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.
The only real difference in all those you noted was in tanks. As far as I'm aware American tanks were superior to British ones.
The others you listed were only possible due to superior industry/resources. There was nothing the Americans could do that the British couldn't, given the same resources.
And as A Town Called Malus says, British intelligence, code breaking and computational theory was head and shoulders above anywhere else in the world, including the USA.
AustonT wrote:OT, but yet totally worth 30secs of you life to read.
Allegedly the German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are renowned as a short-tempered lot. They, it is alleged, not only expect one to know one's gate parking location, but how to get there without any assistance from them. So it was with some amusement that we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747, call sign Speedbird 206. Speedbird 206: "Frankfurt, Speedbird 206 clear of active runway." Ground: "Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven." The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop. Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?" Speedbird 206: "Stand by, Ground, I'm looking up our gate location now." Ground (with quite arrogant impatience): "Speedbird 206, have you not been to Frankfurt before?" Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark,...... and I didn't land."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
WW2 the US had the manufacting might but not the tech, that came from the UK as they had to beg for help and offerd up nigh on all of its top secert tech that even the US hadn't even thoght of. The UK could invent but it lacked the mass production and raw matirals the US had.
Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.
What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.
I wouldn't have said technology. I would have said specialist knowledge. Our spy networks and code breakers for example.
Ayah, Brit spy stuff is the bomb. Now we had similar with the Japanese but no one outspies Da Queen!
WW2 the US had the manufacting might but not the tech, that came from the UK as they had to beg for help and offerd up nigh on all of its top secert tech that even the US hadn't even thoght of. The UK could invent but it lacked the mass production and raw matirals the US had.
Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.
What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.
The only real difference in all those you noted was in tanks. As far as I'm aware American tanks were superior to British ones.
The others you listed were only possible due to superior industry/resources. There was nothing the Americans could do that the British couldn't, given the same resources.
And as A Town Called Malus says, British intelligence, code breaking and computational theory was head and shoulders above anywhere else in the world, including the USA.
1. I didn't make the claim the US was better, I'm merely defending against that outrageous claim.
Also, as noted our naval aircraft were better. Thats not disputed by anyone. You even used our Catalinas.
Tommy guns were better than anything anyone had. Sorry, but if the Terminator had a WWII submachine gun, that would be it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ribon Fox wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
WW2 the US had the manufacting might but not the tech, that came from the UK as they had to beg for help and offerd up nigh on all of its top secert tech that even the US hadn't even thoght of. The UK could invent but it lacked the mass production and raw matirals the US had.
Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.
What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.
The only thing I see is the engines and an anti tank gun at the start of the war. you're not helping your argument here. Again I'm not the one making thre claim that the "UK had the brains, the US had the brawn" here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote: Why must you lot insist on turning this into another tiresome "we are the best" thread?
Frazzled wrote:
Tommy guns were better than anything anyone had. Sorry, but if the Terminator had a WWII submachine gun, that would be it.
I personally would make the case for the Suomi as the best submachine gun of the war. With the MP 38/40 a close second. The Tommy gun is essentially WWI tech, not that that says much so is the BAR, Browning 30cal MG, etc. Worth mentioning at least.
Frazzled wrote:
The only thing I see is the engines and an anti tank gun at the start of the war. you're not helping your argument here. Again I'm not the one making thre claim that the "UK had the brains, the US had the brawn" here.
An engine they even gave to the Germans...for shame.
I probably disagree, but I'd love to know who you are referring to.
Lee, Grant, and Sherman, and you probably do disagree I just don't think that any of the other Civil War Generals are particularly noteworthy beyond "they fought in the Civil War and they fought well."
As far as I'm aware American tanks were superior to British ones.
Dennis Showalter (WWII Scholar): "British tank design in the Second World War was so atrociously bad that I'd go so far as to suggest it was treasonous."
Yeah. It took the British five years to really put out a decent tank, and the Cromwell wasn't much better than the Sherman.
WW2 the US had the manufacting might but not the tech, that came from the UK as they had to beg for help and offerd up nigh on all of its top secert tech that even the US hadn't even thoght of. The UK could invent but it lacked the mass production and raw matirals the US had.
Not hardly.
-Tanks ours were better.
-Mustang. It was actually a design you wanted from us. Combined with your engine (Rolls Royce merlin?) it seemed to do just fine.
-Our Bombers were just fine.
-Our naval aircraft and ships were better.
-Radar. We had it too.
-Plus we had the Tommie gun.
What tech besides your awesome Rolls Royce engines did you have again that we didn’t? Now once we were both on the same side both countries shared a lot.
I wouldn't have said technology. I would have said specialist knowledge. Our spy networks and code breakers for example.
Ayah, Brit spy stuff is the bomb. Now we had similar with the Japanese but no one outspies Da Queen!
Favourite spy of the war is possibly the double agent who fed the Germans information about D-Day so he could later tell them that it was a feint and the real invasion was coming at Calais. Apart from that being so insane that no-one else would think of it being a trick, there was also the fact that the double agent didn't actually exist. He was a fabrication created by a man called Ian Fleming, a man I'm sure we've all heard of
I probably disagree, but I'd love to know who you are referring to.
Lee, Grant, and Sherman, and you probably do disagree I just don't think that any of the other Civil War Generals are particularly noteworthy beyond "they fought in the Civil War and they fought well."
As far as I'm aware American tanks were superior to British ones.
Dennis Showalter (WWII Scholar): "British tank design in the Second World War was so atrociously bad that I'd go so far as to suggest it was treasonous."
Yeah. It took the British five years to really put out a decent tank, and the Cromwell wasn't much better than the Sherman.
just a few off the top of the head:
Sheridan
Reynolds
Jackson
Longstreet
Forrest
Buell
just a few off the top of the head:
Sheridan
Reynolds
Jackson
Longstreet
Forrest
Buell
SO they fought in the Civil War and they fought well?
If we were to do a survey of military strategy over the course of history, none of these men would really be worth mentioning. Lee is worth mentioning because he really was brilliant (and probably the only Southern General capable of grasping strategic warfare at a level that allowed him to successfully execute a campaign). Grant and Sherman are probably only noteworthy for incidentally stumbling into Clauswitz's trinity of war (and Grant himself was also brilliant in his own way).
There really weren't any other Civil War generals capable of operating beyond the Division or the Corp level with great success. I remember one article mentioning Hook I think it was having nearly achieved a combined arms warfare that wouldn't really be seen until WWI, but that's it. Civil War saw a huge number of capable Division and Corp leaders but as far as I can tell on 3 truly remarkable generals.
I can lay this to bed REALLY fast. since the OP is likely a teenager and has ABSOLUTELY no idea what he's talking about, and likely neither of his parents served in either of the world wars....
I work at the VA and I talk to WWII patients frequently.
there isn't anything nice about war at all. and if you think there is, go to a warzone, or where ANY soldier comes home afterwards. it is NOT a friendly gig.
so I tell you this OP, feelin froggy about calling out the US Army on a gaming thread, head to your local recruiters office and jump.
otherwise shut your fething mouth. you can discuss these topics when you've held the hand of a man who faithfully served a cause he believed in and NOT jsut our country in the last place he would ever see alive. I have.
ignorant stupid ass children.
come talk to one of our patients, lost both his legs and half his skull in Afghanistan. (not Iraq) he's FETHING 20 now.
ingrate.
ban me if its warranted, but I will not stand idle by and listen to this drivel any longer.
I commend you dear troll on envoking the spirit of rage within me.
just a few off the top of the head:
Sheridan
Reynolds
Jackson
Longstreet
Forrest
Buell
SO they fought in the Civil War and they fought well?
If we were to do a survey of military strategy over the course of history, none of these men would really be worth mentioning. Lee is worth mentioning because he really was brilliant (and probably the only Southern General capable of grasping strategic warfare at a level that allowed him to successfully execute a campaign). Grant and Sherman are probably only noteworthy for incidentally stumbling into Clauswitz's trinity of war (and Grant himself was also brilliant in his own way).
There really weren't any other Civil War generals capable of operating beyond the Division or the Corp level with great success. I remember one article mentioning Hook I think it was having nearly achieved a combined arms warfare that wouldn't really be seen until WWI, but that's it. Civil War saw a huge number of capable Division and Corp leaders but as far as I can tell on 3 truly remarkable generals.
This is all subjective of course.
Without Longstreet and Jackson there could be no Lee. Longstreet was year's ahead of his time in the understanding of the new techynology of war, that traipsing forward like Redocats at Bunker Hill would lead to a slaughter due to rifled muskets and minie balls. Jackson was aggressive and instrumental in the early victories in Virginia.
Grant was smart for understanding it was a numbers game. Sherman was brilliant for the concept of deep raid and destruction of the enemy's morale.
Reynolds was viewed by many historians as one of the best generals the Union had (til that whole Arghh I'm shot ! thing).
Sheridan was an attack dog of a cavalry officer.
Buell was good but unsung because he didn't follow Grant from the West.
Forrest wrote the book on mobile warfare and his actions were reviewed by certain German thinkers who liked armored horses...
Fattimus_maximus wrote:WOW, there i alot of hate out there for my branch of choice... From the sound of it, the OP must of been denied recruitment or something, cause alot of what he has said is well... wrong. Enough people have gone into specifics why but the guy right above me, you got some issues that I would like to clarify right now.
Really? even though they are bigger and older then all the other branches ( I consider national guard an off-branch of the army, so please don't use their "1632 founded" argument against me). And don't forget the Air force started as the Army Air Corps, so um... no army, no air force.
The Navy (and consequently the Marine Corps) has had a huge part in aviation, and it wasn't AAC planes bringing down japanese warships in WW2... If the air force didn't exist, we would manage. Plus, why should "big" have anything to do with how competent a force is?
The Marines are a shock force but they are also shockingly small compared to the army. I will begrudgingly admit that the army is an occupational force but we have still done our fair number of invasions. ( Italy, Sicily, Normandy, Market-garden, Gulf War 1 and 2)
1,000,000 (at least) to 300,000 is 'shocking'? I wouldn't call it shocking. Especially considering every Marine is a rifleman and is trained to kill. I think you're right about most of those invasions, except possibly the Gulf Wars. Marines were the first to fight in Desert Shield, IIRC.
Yes, let's cut the largest and most diverse military organization in america. Buddy, I was in traditional infantry and armor divisions, and if you didn't have them you couldn't get anything done. You think a bunch of cooks, supply clerks and chaplains assistants could do all the patrols and combat operations? HINT: they can't.
I'm not saying get rid of them entirely. They do serve a purpose, but certainly their girth could be slimmed down...
First off, airborne is and never has been a special forces organization. 101st, 82nd and 173rd are all regular army units with nothing beyond a tab to signify any uniqueness. 10th mountain has a tab too, but they don't only get deployed to the Mountains. Rangers and SF DO get all the funding, the money that a battalion (600-700 troopers) of infantry gets is what a ranger or SF company (100 troopers) gets for gear and supplies, and believe me even those guys use grunts. We drove SF around for two days looking for an HVT one time, they need us like we need them. Also on another note, guess where they draw operators for SF and rangers from? THE GRUNT INFANTRY, they are all proud blue-chord wearing hard- es.
Never said they were a SF community, but I agree that they're not necessarily unique. My point is flexibility. An airborne soldier can always perform traditional grunt duties, but a grunt can't perform airborne/ranger/SF. If I had to choose one to slim down, it would be the 'nothing special' guys, since they offer nothing over more specialized troops. Forget I said anything about Heavy Armor though. I think that's an important presence tool, and when the SHTF, Tanks are invaluable.
I think you're taking my post the wrong way, maybe. I think grunts serve a purpose, just like everything else, and as an occupational force, they seem to do alright. The Army would do a fantastic job if warfare was cut and dry, but it really hasn't been since around WW2... I have no doubt they would horrendously effective at being just that, an Army. In the modern world though, I think the army needs to adapt a little bit.
Poppabear wrote:Ok, in WWI, the Germans new they already lost before the Americans even landed in France. The U.S Army's only major battle was in some forest near the german border and it took them weeks to take the whole thing.
Are you suggesting that Operation Torch, the Battle of Cherbourg, the Falaise Pocket, or the invasion of Italy never happened? Or are we using some arbitrary definition of major battle?
Germany was beaten WAY before America even came in to WWI, the Germans were about to collapse, and there is no two ways about it. America just spread up the process by a tiny bit.
One can recognize the invasion of Normandy and the subsequent battles as being ultimately meaningless to the outcome of the war and still recognize it for the monumental feat that they represented was. No nation in history to that time had successful launched the entirety of its military power overseas and successfully won before like that. Let alone over the distances and with the numbers we're looking at in WWII. Its a huge testament to the ability of American military planners that they could execute a war across thousands of miles in two directions! And in WWII, those planners were Army.
even Romel said that Germany would lose the war several times and the first time he said that was at the start of 1943 (some time in January).
That would be during the Battle of Tunisia after Rommel was forced to leave the Afrika Korp to their fate by Hitler. Whether he actually meant it or if it was one of his rash statements is debatable ( I think he meant it).
You know I'm talking about WWI eh? Well accept for the comment about rommel and the comment about you guys not having to be in europe from 443-45 and onwards.
Poppabear wrote:Ok, in WWI, the Germans new they already lost before the Americans even landed in France. The U.S Army's only major battle was in some forest near the german border and it took them weeks to take the whole thing.
Are you suggesting that Operation Torch, the Battle of Cherbourg, the Falaise Pocket, or the invasion of Italy never happened? Or are we using some arbitrary definition of major battle?.
Pretty sure none of that happened in WW1
I agree with Popabear. The US had little significant to do with WW1. To be honest the name it is usually given in europe: 'The Great War' is more apt than world war one.
It's a free speech thing. Nobody here fought in WW2 or WW1 but if we want to talk about it all day and night, that is our right. Unless of course the mods say otherwise Anyway, with that sort of logic, nobody should talk about the past or study it because nobody here was alive during the civil war, battle of hastings, the 1st crusade etc ect
I agree that war is the scourge of humanity and that being shot at is not an experience I would care to repeat, but this is a discussion board for a hobby that involves plastic soldiers. What do you expect?
Finally, I take issue BIG issue with Frazz going on about 1814 and the battle of New Orleans. This battle was fought after the treaty was signed. The British knew this and hence, put up no resistance. Compare this to the treachery of the American forces led by Jackson who ignored British pleas to stop fighting. Our guys were peace loving tourists who took a wrong turn in Canada
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:It's a free speech thing. Nobody here fought in WW2 or WW1 but if we want to talk about it all day and night, that is our right. Unless of course the mods say otherwise Anyway, with that sort of logic, nobody should talk about the past or study it because nobody here was alive during the civil war, battle of hastings, the 1st crusade etc ect
This.
Oh and I just thought I'd mention that the latin in your signature isn't quite right. It should be "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori". From the poem by Wilfred Owen, right? Great poem.
Poppabear wrote:Ok, in WWI, the Germans new they already lost before the Americans even landed in France. The U.S Army's only major battle was in some forest near the german border and it took them weeks to take the whole thing.
Are you suggesting that Operation Torch, the Battle of Cherbourg, the Falaise Pocket, or the invasion of Italy never happened? Or are we using some arbitrary definition of major battle?.
Pretty sure none of that happened in WW1
I agree with Popabear. The US had little significant to do with WW1. To be honest the name it is usually given in europe: 'The Great War' is more apt than world war one.
Other than al the actions in Africa, the Middle East, the Stans area and Far East Asis you're completely correct.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:It's a free speech thing. Nobody here fought in WW2 or WW1 but if we want to talk about it all day and night, that is our right. Unless of course the mods say otherwise Anyway, with that sort of logic, nobody should talk about the past or study it because nobody here was alive during the civil war, battle of hastings, the 1st crusade etc ect
I agree that war is the scourge of humanity and that being shot at is not an experience I would care to repeat, but this is a discussion board for a hobby that involves plastic soldiers. What do you expect?
Finally, I take issue BIG issue with Frazz going on about 1814 and the battle of New Orleans. This battle was fought after the treaty was signed. The British knew this and hence, put up no resistance. Compare this to the treachery of the American forces led by Jackson who ignored British pleas to stop fighting. Our guys were peace loving tourists who took a wrong turn in Canada
I'm really amazed at how claiming America's army is overrated equates to saying that it is garbage.
Since a great deal of people fail miserably at reading comprehension I will further explain my statement.
1) The Army is a branch of the military not the entirety of it. Saying that a branch of the military is overrated does not equate to saying that the whole military is overrated (which it is not, if anything it does not receive the respect it deserves). An appropriate metaphor would be to say that a basketball player's jump shot is overrated, even if the player is still quite good.
2) There is no denying that the Army is very good and certainly one of the best trained and equipped in the world. The soldiers serving in Combat Arms right now are quite possibly better in terms of skill than any of their predecessors. Certainly, the Special Forces are extremely skilled and would rival the greatest warriors of history. Despite that, the Army has historically had many failings and still has some of those failings today.
America has never had the will to send large numbers of her men to fight and die in foreign wars except in defense of a ally or in a 'righteous' crusade. You'll note that America initially desired to avoid conflict in both WW1 and WW2 and delayed considerably in providing reinforcements to Korea. This shortcoming detracts from the quality of the Army, not necessarily the individual soldier.
Because of America's lack of will the Army is frequently gutted immediately following a war. An excellent example of this would be the post WW2 Army. Not only were many units under 70% strength, but the soldiers in them were undisciplined and poorly trained. The new, softer Army was forced by the civilian populace to stop being tough and harsh on its soldiers. This contributed significantly to the armies embarrassing performance in the early days of Korea. American men literally threw down their weapons and fled from the NKPA onslaught abandoning wounded and supplies. It was undoubtedly one of the poorest showings by the Army in its history.
The Army is still soft in many ways today and many young soldiers (and Marines for that matter) fail to grasp that they are in the service to fight, and be killed . It is not their fault, but that of all Americans, because we loathe war so greatly that we can not stomach the true nature of a soldier. This shortcoming is relatively recent, I would say it only dates as far back as Korea. Still, even prior to that, the American army had never won any overly impressive victories. That is not to say they weren't successful, because they were wildly successful. Success alone does not make an army great. The Werhmacht was ultimately defeated, but is widely acknowledged as one of the finest armies of all time, if not the finest army of the 20th century.
Finally, I take issue BIG issue with Frazz going on about 1814 and the battle of New Orleans. This battle was fought after the treaty was signed. The British knew this and hence, put up no resistance. Compare this to the treachery of the American forces led by Jackson who ignored British pleas to stop fighting. Our guys were peace loving tourists who took a wrong turn in Canada
I can only assume you are being sarcastic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote: The Werhmacht was ultimately defeated, but is widely acknowledged as one of the finest armies of all time, if not the finest army of the 20th century.
Poppabear wrote:Ok, in WWI, the Germans new they already lost before the Americans even landed in France. The U.S Army's only major battle was in some forest near the german border and it took them weeks to take the whole thing.
Are you suggesting that Operation Torch, the Battle of Cherbourg, the Falaise Pocket, or the invasion of Italy never happened? Or are we using some arbitrary definition of major battle?.
Pretty sure none of that happened in WW1
I agree with Popabear. The US had little significant to do with WW1. To be honest the name it is usually given in europe: 'The Great War' is more apt than world war one.
Other than al the actions in Africa, the Middle East, the Stans area and Far East Asis you're completely correct.
Well other than the middle east, which again the US had relatively little to do with, they weren't significant theatres. So yeh, pretty much correct.
Compairing armies throughout time, and tech levels is such a wobbly position to posit from.
Really this sort of thing just leads to silly assertions and memes like this one.
sebster wrote: The US armed forces are the only army in the history of world for which it can be said that they can go anywhere in the world they please, and be confident of inflicting decisive defeat on whoever's army happened to be defending that place. I really don't see how you can dismiss that.
Except when the army defending it is not using conventional tactics. Guerilla warfare defeated them in Vietnam and terrorism tactics used by the Taliban has so far prevented a decisive victory in Afghanistan.
In Vietnam they were facing a force extremely well trained in their choice of fighting. The Vietminh (later called Vietcong) had had years of warfare against Japan in World War 2 and then against France when they were fighting for independence from colonialism. The US had vastly superior technology that didn't work against the tactics that were being used against them.
Best crack open a book or two. After Tet '68 the Vietcong were about extinct and the NVA took up the fight, and it wasn't limited to guerilla warfare. You may also want to do a bit of research into how the US Army (and other branches) performed against them and then look at the strategic side to adjust your knowledge on what defeated the US. (hint: it wasn't the VC guerilla warfare tactics).
Zakiriel wrote:Compairing armies throughout time, and tech levels is such a wobbly position to posit from.
Really this sort of thing just leads to silly assertions and memes like this one.
Silly assertions? Yeh I'd say. Assuming there is a place which exists called "Briton" of course.
Amaya wrote:The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.
Many of the boards historians are busy debunking your historical facts, and I'll leave them to it. I have an issue with your phrasing. Claiming that these armies were better 'throughout history' really makes this a hollow statement. That would mean that the Roman army of 1911 (remember those guys?) were a superior army to America today. The same goes for the modern day Persian army. Heck, logically the Germans or the Romans must have had worse armies when they were mixing it up during the fall of Rome.
If you'd like to advance this discussion into- well, a discussion- please set your criterion.
What constitutes a major war?
What are the qualities of a good army?
What are signs of a bad army?
How can we compare a bunch of sword and spear wielding Romans to a force that is equipped with modern assault rifles and heavy armored vehicles?
Do results make for a successful army, or is it the intent of the training and preparation?
You may have a point amaya- but you're going to have to get past your rhetoric to make it.
The "historians" disproving my points are either rambling wildly (Frazzled) or unable to understand my post (partially my failing).
Any war that exceeds a certain duration, mobilization of troops, historical impact, number of territories affected, and number of casualties. The only major wars that America has been involved in during the 20th Century would be WW1 and 2, Korea, and Vietnam. I don't consider the current War on Terror to be a major war due to relatively low number of casualties and lack of significant battles. It is more of a short war followed by a prolonged holding action.
The US has a good army. It doesn't have a great or legendary army. The closest thing to that probably be Patton's 3rd Army and the Marines (despite being a Marine Corps and not an army).
The soldiers of a great army must understand or at least accept their purpose (to fight and be killed), be willing to do so in foreign lands far from home, must possess excellent physical stamina, must be highly disciplined and skilled, and must be able to cope with fear.
America only tends to accept the first two in defense of an ally or in a "crusade" such as in the Pacific Theater of WW2. Americas inability to accept those points led to defeat in Vietnam whereas an army that possessed the qualities of the Roman Legions would have been much harder to drive out.
The necessity of physical stamina is at times ignored or considered to be of lesser importance due to our mechanized forces. In areas where our vehicles are unable to move, the ability to march 15-20+ miles a day becomes increasingly important. The necessity of physical stamina is highly enforced in the Marine Corps because they lack vehicles and are quite active in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan. The USMC SOI requires Marines to complete a 15 kilometer march with an existence load (read 100~ lbs of gear and weaponry) in order to complete the course. Other Marines are required to complete a 10 kilometer march.
China's temporary success in Korea can be attributed greatly to their marching speed. They moved farther and faster than American intelligence could have possibly believed and managed to catch American forces unaware. The superior firepower and armor of American forces ultimately prevailed, but it did service to highlight the value of fast moving infantry.
I would say that the average discipline and skill of US Army today is quite possibly the highest it has ever been in some ways, but it really doesn't compare to older armies. There was a time when soldiers served for life regardless of rank. 20 year privates (or whatever the lowest rank or two of the army was) were not uncommon. A 20 year veteran is enormously superior to a soldier who has served only a handful of years. They are battle hardened and tough beyond modern understanding. Younger soldiers may panic, but it will take much more to break the will of a grizzled veteran. Therein lies a great problem, the Army's officer and NCO corps is without a doubt excellent, but soldiers typically serve for 4-8 years. The days of ancient campaigners are over.
It is, of course, very difficult to compare soldiers from different eras, but I think we can safely acknowledge that the average legionnaire was both physically and mentally tougher than any modern infantryman in addition to quite possibly being more skilled at his trade. The more committed a soldier is to his trade the better he will be. America does not require its soldier to be nearly as devoted to their trade as other armies have done in the past because we have no love or desire for war and because our technological (especially naval and air) superiority allows our forces on a whole to be victorious without having our average soldiers on par with Roman legionnaires.
Maybe its because you write like you tried to OD'd on angry angsty teenager pills. here let me bold some of the things that might piss people off, instead of encouraging some sort of, you know, reasonable discussion.
Amaya wrote:I'm really amazed at how claiming America's army is overrated equates to saying that it is garbage.
Since a great deal of people fail miserably at reading comprehension I will further explain my statement.
****Frazzled bold****Here's where the angry pills kick in.
1) The Army is a branch of the military not the entirety of it. Saying that a branch of the military is overrated does not equate to saying that the whole military is overrated (which it is not, if anything it does not receive the respect it deserves). An appropriate metaphor would be to say that a basketball player's jump shot is overrated, even if the player is still quite good.
***Frazzled note: you didn't say this in your first post and very few posts have alluded to that.***
2) There is no denying that the Army is very good and certainly one of the best trained and equipped in the world. The soldiers serving in Combat Arms right now are quite possibly better in terms of skill than any of their predecessors. Certainly, the Special Forces are extremely skilled and would rival the greatest warriors of history. Despite that, the Army has historically had many failings and still has some of those failings today.
***Frazzled note: probably, heh no ones perfect.
America has never had the will to send large numbers of her men to fight and die in foreign wars except in defense of a ally or in a 'righteous' crusade.
***Frazzled note: wait where's the bad thing here?***
You'll note that America initially desired to avoid conflict in both WW1 and WW2
****Again, where's the bad side? Plus this has nothing to do with the uber killy power, just that, wow democracies aren't generally eager to go to war***
and delayed considerably in providing reinforcements to Korea.
***NO. They didn't Your awareness of history is incredibly bad. There were US military units fighting there immediately. The US pulled together a coalition under the UN (unheard then and since) in record time to support SK). It took time, because at the start, the US military had just massively downsized from WWII. Everything was in mothballs and US forces available were limited.
This shortcoming detracts from the quality of the Army, not necessarily the individual soldier.
***NO. it means, until the Cold War, the US did not maintain a large standing army. We didn't need to. There are really strong arguments you still don't. To hit us in the US with troops you have to get through the Air Force, Navy, and enough nuclear weapons to scare Darth Vader. ***
Because of America's lack of will the Army is frequently gutted immediately following a war.
***Don't be daft. Its not lack of will (you're clearly not a taxpayer). We don't need to. Indeed if the Cold War had not occurred the Army would have been tiny. Who exactly do we need a large standing army to fight?
An excellent example of this would be the post WW2 Army. Not only were many units under 70% strength, but the soldiers in them were undisciplined and poorly trained. The new, softer Army was forced by the civilian populace to stop being tough and harsh on its soldiers. This contributed significantly to the armies embarrassing performance in the early days of Korea. American men literally threw down their weapons and fled from the NKPA onslaught abandoning wounded and supplies. It was undoubtedly one of the poorest showings by the Army in its history.
***And within days they toughened up. Thats called surviving a surprise attack. Shortly thereafter the corn cob guy came and planned Phillipines II-this time its nuclear and we stomped the NKs head to toe.
The Army is still soft in many ways today and many young soldiers (and Marines for that matter) fail to grasp that they are in the service to fight, and be killed .
***Wow, this just screams teenager who's never fought anything except his sisters. In the real world, there is no Respawn.***
This shortcoming is relatively recent, I would say it only dates as far back as Korea. Still, even prior to that, the American army had never won any overly impressive victories.
****You would say wrong.
-Yorktown
-New Orleans
-Gettysberg
-Vicksburg
-Chattanooga
-Sherman's Georgia campaign
-The Seminole Wars
-Cuba
Normandy
Morocco
Sicily
Operation Cobra / Cobra II
Bulge
breaching the Siegfried Line
Borneo
New Guinea
Phillipines
Guadalcanal
Okinawa
Inchon
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ifStatement wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
ifStatement wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Poppabear wrote:Ok, in WWI, the Germans new they already lost before the Americans even landed in France. The U.S Army's only major battle was in some forest near the german border and it took them weeks to take the whole thing.
Are you suggesting that Operation Torch, the Battle of Cherbourg, the Falaise Pocket, or the invasion of Italy never happened? Or are we using some arbitrary definition of major battle?.
Pretty sure none of that happened in WW1
I agree with Popabear. The US had little significant to do with WW1. To be honest the name it is usually given in europe: 'The Great War' is more apt than world war one.
Other than al the actions in Africa, the Middle East, the Stans area and Far East Asis you're completely correct.
Well other than the middle east, which again the US had relatively little to do with, they weren't significant theatres. So yeh, pretty much correct.
Didn't say the US just said its not just a European War. If you look at a map of all the locations and countries that fought, its literally the vast majority of the populated surface of the Earth.
Poppabear wrote:Ok, in WWI, the Germans new they already lost before the Americans even landed in France. The U.S Army's only major battle was in some forest near the german border and it took them weeks to take the whole thing.
Are you suggesting that Operation Torch, the Battle of Cherbourg, the Falaise Pocket, or the invasion of Italy never happened? Or are we using some arbitrary definition of major battle?.
Pretty sure none of that happened in WW1
I agree with Popabear. The US had little significant to do with WW1. To be honest the name it is usually given in europe: 'The Great War' is more apt than world war one.
Other than al the actions in Africa, the Middle East, the Stans area and Far East Asis you're completely correct.
Well other than the middle east, which again the US had relatively little to do with, they weren't significant theatres. So yeh, pretty much correct.
Didn't say the US just said its not just a European War. If you look at a map of all the locations and countries that fought, its literally the vast majority of the populated surface of the Earth.
Yeh and i didn't say it was just a European war either.
I think it would be wise of you to at least read a book or two on Korea since your grasp of the initial stages of the war are at best, quite poor. This Kind of War by T.R. Fehrenbach would be a good start.
Amaya wrote:I think it would be wise of you to at least read a book or two on Korea since your grasp of the initial stages of the war are at best, quite poor. This Kind of War by T.R. Fehrenbach would be a good start.
Neatly summed up.
Overall, then, how does This Kind of War stack up? Clearly, it is dated in its presentation of the political context and the MacArthur firing. From today’s perspective, the author’s language and views of the Cold War are almost quaint. While the emphasis on individuals stands up well, despite the book’s length, Fehrenbach’s coverage of the war is narrow. There is very little on the air portion of the war. The lack of either citations or a bibliography also limits the usefulness of this effort. Finally, this is a long book written in a flamboyant, journalistic style that some readers will find refreshing and others will find annoying
As a historian I tend to find books without citation "questionable" sources and return them to the stack as useless.
sebster wrote: The US armed forces are the only army in the history of world for which it can be said that they can go anywhere in the world they please, and be confident of inflicting decisive defeat on whoever's army happened to be defending that place. I really don't see how you can dismiss that.
Except when the army defending it is not using conventional tactics. Guerilla warfare defeated them in Vietnam and terrorism tactics used by the Taliban has so far prevented a decisive victory in Afghanistan.
In Vietnam they were facing a force extremely well trained in their choice of fighting. The Vietminh (later called Vietcong) had had years of warfare against Japan in World War 2 and then against France when they were fighting for independence from colonialism. The US had vastly superior technology that didn't work against the tactics that were being used against them.
Best crack open a book or two. After Tet '68 the Vietcong were about extinct and the NVA took up the fight, and it wasn't limited to guerilla warfare. You may also want to do a bit of research into how the US Army (and other branches) performed against them and then look at the strategic side to adjust your knowledge on what defeated the US. (hint: it wasn't the VC guerilla warfare tactics).
The Tet Offensive shattered American support for the war just as much as the revelation of the atrocities at My Lai. All the technology and firepower couldn't stop the North Vietnamese from being able to strike right at the heart of the south.
US tactics were centred around achieving a high number of confirmed kills, which was reflected in their use of Search and Destroy missions. With mobile infantry using helicopters they had a good fighting force but one that was ill-trained and ill-equipped to fight in the jungle environment they found themselves in.
I have studied the Vietnam War. Guerilla warfare was not a military victory but it was a strategic one. US soldiers were living in constant fear of attack when on patrol and any villager could potentially be a Vietcong fighter. The psychological effects of Guerilla warfare were extremely successful.
The "historians" disproving my points are either rambling wildly (Frazzled) ***I mustb have hit a nerve. As I like to sing when walking by the kids “teeeeeeeeeeeeenager!”
Any war that exceeds a certain duration, mobilization of troops, historical impact, number of territories affected, and number of casualties. ***WTF are you talking about?
The only major wars that America has been involved in during the 20th Century would be WW1 and 2, Korea, and Vietnam. ***You forgot a little shindig in the 90s with arguably the largest tank battle in history.
I don't consider the current War on Terror to be a major war due to relatively low number of casualties and lack of significant battles. It is more of a short war followed by a prolonged holding action. ***That’s because you’re not there and probably don’t know anyone who was/is.
The US has a good army. It doesn't have a great or legendary army. The closest thing to that probably be Patton's 3rd Army and the Marines (despite being a Marine Corps and not an army). ***See above. We took less than 300 casualties.
The soldiers of a great army must understand or at least accept their purpose (to fight and be killed), be willing to do so in foreign lands far from home, must possess excellent physical stamina, must be highly disciplined and skilled, and must be able to cope with fear. ****Except for the foreign lands part duh. For the foreign lands part…says you.
America only tends to accept the first two in defense of an ally or in a "crusade" such as in the Pacific Theater of WW2. Americas inability to accept those points led to defeat in Vietnam whereas an army that possessed the qualities of the Roman Legions would have been much harder to drive out. ****Well the Romans would have just killed everyone or sold them into slavery. Is that what you’re saying?
The necessity of physical stamina is at times ignored or considered to be of lesser importance due to our mechanized forces. In areas where our vehicles are unable to move, the ability to march 15-20+ miles a day becomes increasingly important. ***Duh. And my ability to use a slide rule has really gone to *(&^( since we invented calculators.
The necessity of physical stamina is highly enforced in the Marine Corps because they lack vehicles and are quite active in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan. The USMC SOI requires Marines to complete a 15 kilometer march with an existence load (read 100~ lbs of gear and weaponry) in order to complete the course. Other Marines are required to complete a 10 kilometer march. ***Good. And?
China's temporary success in Korea can be attributed greatly to their marching speed. ***No it can be attributed to surprise, a massive weight of numbers, and guts.
I would say that the average discipline and skill of US Army today is quite possibly the highest it has ever been in some ways, but it really doesn't compare to older armies. There was a time when soldiers served for life regardless of rank. 20 year privates (or whatever the lowest rank or two of the army was) were not uncommon. A 20 year veteran is enormously superior to a soldier who has served only a handful of years. They are battle hardened and tough beyond modern understanding. Younger soldiers may panic, but it will take much more to break the will of a grizzled veteran. Therein lies a great problem, the Army's officer and NCO corps is without a doubt excellent, but soldiers typically serve for 4-8 years. The days of ancient campaigners are over.
***Of course, back in the old days, life meant until you were 30, so big whup.
It is, of course, very difficult to compare soldiers from different eras, but I think we can safely acknowledge that the average legionnaire was both physically and mentally tougher than any modern infantryman in addition to quite possibly being more skilled at his trade. ****In the words of Col. Sherman Potter: “HORSEPUCKY!”
The more committed a soldier is to his trade the better he will be. America does not require its soldier to be nearly as devoted to their trade as other armies have done in the past because we have no love or desire for war and because our technological (especially naval and air) superiority allows our forces on a whole to be victorious without having our average soldiers on par with Roman legionnaires. ***Roman legionnaires were mercenaries. Get over yourself. You’ve been playing computer games too long.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:I think it would be wise of you to at least read a book or two on Korea since your grasp of the initial stages of the war are at best, quite poor. This Kind of War by T.R. Fehrenbach would be a good start.
TEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENager!. I had family that fought in Korea. Thou knowest not thine own knavery.
Frazzled wrote:It is, of course, very difficult to compare soldiers from different eras, but I think we can safely acknowledge that the average legionnaire was both physically and mentally tougher than any modern infantryman in addition to quite possibly being more skilled at his trade.
****In the words of Col. Sherman Potter: “HORSEPUCKY!”
sebster wrote:
The US armed forces are the only army in the history of world for which it can be said that they can go anywhere in the world they please, and be confident of inflicting decisive defeat on whoever's army happened to be defending that place. I really don't see how you can dismiss that.
Except when the army defending it is not using conventional tactics. Guerilla warfare defeated them in Vietnam and terrorism tactics used by the Taliban has so far prevented a decisive victory in Afghanistan.
In Vietnam they were facing a force extremely well trained in their choice of fighting. The Vietminh (later called Vietcong) had had years of warfare against Japan in World War 2 and then against France when they were fighting for independence from colonialism. The US had vastly superior technology that didn't work against the tactics that were being used against them.
I think the bigger issue currently being problematic in Afghanistan isn't so much the guerilla tactics of the insurgency, but rather their peoples' insanely backwards resistance to entertain even the very notion of change.
As a whole, the Afghan people don't want anything to change. It's a very closed-minded society who are still firmly rooted in what even Churchhill considered a 'barbaric culture of oppression'.
Those few that wanted change have for the most part gotten out. The ones left are either content to flip the bird to the civilised world or else are too young and/or frightened to get out.
I don't think any force no matter how elite or how well they're lead, be it American, Canadian, British or whoever can make a change or outright 'win the war' over there sadly.
Amaya wrote:I think it would be wise of you to at least read a book or two on Korea since your grasp of the initial stages of the war are at best, quite poor. This Kind of War by T.R. Fehrenbach would be a good start.
The fact that I have read books on the subject makes me unwilling to engage someone who not only doesn't know what they're talking about, but is so cranky with people that disagree.
I'd just like to point out that as evidenced in this thread, expertise on a given topic isn't just the reading of the subject matter, but the interpretation an application of the material as well.
Frazzled your ignorance and vitriolic responses are at once both amusing and annoying.
My father served 23 years in the US Army, retiring with the rank of Lt. Colonel. He was deployed for the entirety of the Gulf War and a couple of times to Iraq during the current WoT.
My uncle is currently an active duty Lt. Colonel in the USAF.
I have a cousin who recently was promoted to Petty Officer, 1st Class (E6, equivalent to Staff Sergeant in the Army) after only 5 years of service. Up until now he has served aboard submarines and I believe he is going to be moving into an instructor billet soon. My knowledge of the USN's recruit training and MoS schools is lacking, so I'm not entirely sure where he will be stationed.
I have multiple friends in both the Army and Marines and I have known individuals who have died and been wounded while serving in the WoT. I will admit that I have not lost a close friend or family member to the war, thankfully.
As for myself, I completed USMC basic at MCRD, San Diego and MCT at Camp Pendleton, California before being medically discharged from the service. Even in that short time frame I was greatly impressed by the professionalism and dedication of USMC officers and NCOs, a view somewhat skewed by the fact the individuals who serve at MCRD are typically the most 'picturesque' Marines and those at MCT are nearly all combat veterans.
So to say, I have no idea what I am talking about and am "blinded by video games" (funny, I don't even own a military video game of any kind) is quite asinine. Yes, combat veterans have greater knowledge than me, but many veterans have willingly shared their knowledge with me and I base my opinions on a combination of reading, personal experience, and second hand knowledge acquired directly from veterans.
Unlike you, I am able to discuss something without becoming emotionally involved in it. For whatever reason you are personally offended by my opinions.
Frazzled wrote:It is, of course, very difficult to compare soldiers from different eras, but I think we can safely acknowledge that the average legionnaire was both physically and mentally tougher than any modern infantryman in addition to quite possibly being more skilled at his trade.
****In the words of Col. Sherman Potter: “HORSEPUCKY!”
Amaya wrote:I think it would be wise of you to at least read a book or two on Korea since your grasp of the initial stages of the war are at best, quite poor. This Kind of War by T.R. Fehrenbach would be a good start.
The fact that I have read books on the subject makes me unwilling to engage someone who not only doesn't know what they're talking about, but is so cranky with people that disagree.
I'd just like to point out that as evidenced in this thread, expertise on a given topic isn't just the reading of the subject matter, but the interpretation an application of the material as well.
Perhaps you should read Frazzled's posts including his hastily edited "feth off kid!".
I care very little if anyone disagrees with me as long as they do so politely. I am not a Christian and I do not show common courtesy to those who spit upon me.
AustonT wrote:OT, but yet totally worth 30secs of you life to read.
Allegedly the German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are renowned as a short-tempered lot. They, it is alleged, not only expect one to know one's gate parking location, but how to get there without any assistance from them. So it was with some amusement that we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747, call sign Speedbird 206. Speedbird 206: "Frankfurt, Speedbird 206 clear of active runway." Ground: "Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven." The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop. Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?" Speedbird 206: "Stand by, Ground, I'm looking up our gate location now." Ground (with quite arrogant impatience): "Speedbird 206, have you not been to Frankfurt before?" Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark,...... and I didn't land."
Amaya wrote:Frazzled your ignorance and vitriolic responses are at once both amusing and annoying. My father served 23 years in the US Army, retiring with the rank of Lt. Colonel. He was deployed for the entirety of the Gulf War and a couple of times to Iraq during the current WoT.
My uncle is currently an active duty Lt. Colonel in the USAF.
I have a cousin who recently was promoted to Petty Officer, 1st Class (E6, equivalent to Staff Sergeant in the Army) after only 5 years of service. Up until now he has served aboard submarines and I believe he is going to be moving into an instructor billet soon. My knowledge of the USN's recruit training and MoS schools is lacking, so I'm not entirely sure where he will be stationed.
I have multiple friends in both the Army and Marines and I have known individuals who have died and been wounded while serving in the WoT. I will admit that I have not lost a close friend or family member to the war, thankfully.
As for myself, I completed USMC basic at MCRD, San Diego and MCT at Camp Pendleton, California before being medically discharged from the service. Even in that short time frame I was greatly impressed by the professionalism and dedication of USMC officers and NCOs, a view somewhat skewed by the fact the individuals who serve at MCRD are typically the most 'picturesque' Marines and those at MCT are nearly all combat veterans.
So to say, I have no idea what I am talking about and am "blinded by video games" (funny, I don't even own a military video game of any kind) is quite asinine. Yes, combat veterans have greater knowledge than me, but many veterans have willingly shared their knowledge with me and I base my opinions on a combination of reading, personal experience, and second hand knowledge acquired directly from veterans.
Thats it, you're just a Jarhead. That explains it. Of course you think Army pukes are wusses (to be polite). Thats the law.
Unlike you, I am able to discuss something without becoming emotionally involved in it. For whatever reason you are personally offended by my opinions.
No you are, or you have an absense of understanding of "tone." Again I'll highlight. To the record, you've yet to say where I am wrong.
sebster wrote:
The US armed forces are the only army in the history of world for which it can be said that they can go anywhere in the world they please, and be confident of inflicting decisive defeat on whoever's army happened to be defending that place. I really don't see how you can dismiss that.
Except when the army defending it is not using conventional tactics. Guerilla warfare defeated them in Vietnam and terrorism tactics used by the Taliban has so far prevented a decisive victory in Afghanistan.
In Vietnam they were facing a force extremely well trained in their choice of fighting. The Vietminh (later called Vietcong) had had years of warfare against Japan in World War 2 and then against France when they were fighting for independence from colonialism. The US had vastly superior technology that didn't work against the tactics that were being used against them.
I think the bigger issue currently being problematic in Afghanistan isn't so much the guerilla tactics of the insurgency, but rather their peoples' insanely backwards resistance to entertain even the very notion of change.
As a whole, the Afghan people don't want anything to change. It's a very closed-minded society who are still firmly rooted in what even Churchhill considered a 'barbaric culture of oppression'.
Those few that wanted change have for the most part gotten out. The ones left are either content to flip the bird to the civilised world or else are too young and/or frightened to get out.
I don't think any force no matter how elite or how well they're lead, be it American, Canadian, British or whoever can make a change or outright 'win the war' over there sadly.
Except Rambo
But seriously you are right. The only way you could begin to change that is to get rid of the thing which cemented that view, which in this case was all the propaganda spewed out by the Taliban when they were in power. As long as the Taliban are still there and capable of offensive action they can continue to reinforce their warped view, which makes it impossible to get the full support of the local population which means you can't get rid of the Taliban. A vicious cycle.
What they really needed was an uprising of their own people, without overt international support. If that was at least partially successful (managing to secure territory and support from the population) then it would have shown that there was a portion of the population that does want change and is actively working towards it. If the movement was strong enough with charismatic leaders then it might be able to carry out its goal without outside help, like the Cuban Revolution. If it can't then there would be the case for helping militarily like in Libya.
Amaya wrote:I think it would be wise of you to at least read a book or two on Korea since your grasp of the initial stages of the war are at best, quite poor. This Kind of War by T.R. Fehrenbach would be a good start.
The fact that I have read books on the subject makes me unwilling to engage someone who not only doesn't know what they're talking about, but is so cranky with people that disagree.
I'd just like to point out that as evidenced in this thread, expertise on a given topic isn't just the reading of the subject matter, but the interpretation an application of the material as well.
Perhaps you should read Frazzled's posts including his hastily edited "feth off kid!".
I care very little if anyone disagrees with me as long as they do so politely. I am not a Christian and I do not show common courtesy to those who spit upon me.
I was trying to remember rule #1 and be polite. However the original post is my true thought.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:I care very little if anyone disagrees with me as long as they do so politely. I am not a Christian and I do not show common courtesy to those who spit upon me.
Amaya wrote:Frazzled your ignorance and vitriolic responses are at once both amusing and annoying.
My father served 23 years in the US Army, retiring with the rank of Lt. Colonel. He was deployed for the entirety of the Gulf War and a couple of times to Iraq during the current WoT.
My uncle is currently an active duty Lt. Colonel in the USAF.
I have a cousin who recently was promoted to Petty Officer, 1st Class (E6, equivalent to Staff Sergeant in the Army) after only 5 years of service. Up until now he has served aboard submarines and I believe he is going to be moving into an instructor billet soon. My knowledge of the USN's recruit training and MoS schools is lacking, so I'm not entirely sure where he will be stationed.
I have multiple friends in both the Army and Marines and I have known individuals who have died and been wounded while serving in the WoT. I will admit that I have not lost a close friend or family member to the war, thankfully.
As for myself, I completed USMC basic at MCRD, San Diego and MCT at Camp Pendleton, California before being medically discharged from the service. Even in that short time frame I was greatly impressed by the professionalism and dedication of USMC officers and NCOs, a view somewhat skewed by the fact the individuals who serve at MCRD are typically the most 'picturesque' Marines and those at MCT are nearly all combat veterans.
So to say, I have no idea what I am talking about and am "blinded by video games" (funny, I don't even own a military video game of any kind) is quite asinine. Yes, combat veterans have greater knowledge than me, but many veterans have willingly shared their knowledge with me and I base my opinions on a combination of reading, personal experience, and second hand knowledge acquired directly from veterans.
Unlike you, I am able to discuss something without becoming emotionally involved in it. For whatever reason you are personally offended by my opinions.
Oh a marine, well this explains everything Those uppity jarheads are just pissed off because they have nothing to pick on except each other.
No one can invade Russia in the winter, it is absolute idiocy.
If you think its winter that really caused those invasions to fail then you need to go read more history. Also, Germany didn't invade in the winter. As an aside, both those winters (1812 and 1941) were actually quite mild. Russia's size is the problem not its winter (and German tanks kept breaking down due to Russian dust clogging the air filters in the engines that doesn't really help). EDIT: Russian winter is as much a hyped myth as France always surrendering and no where near as funny when turned into a joke.
Thats actually incorrect. It was the mud that caused the German tanks to get bogged down, not the dust clogging air filters. And the Russian winter is not a myth. They may have been "mild" winters (actually thats kind of a lie, as they were both average for Russia (in the case of WW2 only 41-42 was really that bad IIRC)), but the reality of that is a "mild" winter in Russia is still a pretty damn cold winter with temperatures well below 0 deg F.
Then explain how Germany and Napoleon invaded Russia in winter when they invaded in June and Russian winter doesn't start until mid October. Also, explain why its Russian winter that beat Napoleon when by the time temperatures started reaching freezing he'd already begun his retreat? Temperatures don't even drop bellow zero until November.
I'm not well versed on my Napoleonic History, so I'll ignore that bit, but in the case of Russia, the invasion didn't really begin to stall until autumn when the first frosts hit and the fall rains come, turning everything to mud. The invasion still had a bit of ''oomph" left in it and kept pressing forward with a good amount of success until... WINTER.
German planners thought Moscow was 200 miles closer than it actually was, and failed to recognize that vital Russian rail lines were a different width than western European lines (meaning they couldn't use trains to transport supplies).
Citation please. Its common knowledge that the Germans had very poor intelligence and the maps were extremely outdated, going back to the first world war, but missing the location of Moscow by 200 miles is kind of unlikely... especially considering, you know, the Germans had diplomatic offices in Moscow, and military staff regularly traveled between Berlin and Moscow and other parts of Germany/Russia prior to the war (as they had a somewhat shaky alliance and the Germans and Russians trained together). Likewise, it was pretty well understood that their was a difference in the rail gauge. The bigger issue was that rail lines that existed on maps were no longer there or were unusable either because of age or deliberate sabotage and dismantling by retreating russian forces. Of course it didn't help that supplies transported by rail had to be unloaded from wide gauge railcars and then reloaded into narrower gauge ones at the border/transition points.
In any case, the operational goal of the invasion was the A-A line, a boundary along the Volga river running from Archangelsk to Astrakahn, and well past Moscow, so that Moscow was mislocated is largely irrelevant.
EDIT: Frankly I find your idolization of the Heer odd. The Wehrmacht I'd argue was all around worse than the Western powers bar Italy. They had an army of between 100 and 140 division. At any given time, 20 of those divisions only existed on paper. Half of them were under manned and equipped, and all but about 30 Germany divisions were pretty much photo copies to their WWI counter parts. The Germany army in WWII was not a modern army and not even a very good army. What it had were a handful of extremely well trained and equipped divisions who managed to use revolutionary tactics to break their opponents, i.e. they got one of the greatest strokes of luck in military history with a brilliant dash of genius (and some pepprica). By 1944, the Heer was finished and it was the Waffen SS pulling a lot of the weight (and getting a lot of the goodies from factories).
I disagree with this assessment. Look at the number of casualties inflicted by the Germans relative to the number suffered. A positive kill ratio is a good measure of effectiveness, and brother you better believe that the Germans were in the black. Regarding the number of divisions that were undermanned, etc. The same can be said of all the combatants. Its sort of impossible to maintain a division at full strength in the middle of a war, similarly a lot of divisions end up being training and replenishment units. The Germans might not have started the war as a modern army, but they were one by the end of it (arguably because only the most modernized units still remained at all combat effective). This post also diminishes the bravery that the common German fighting man exhibited on the battlefield. Theres a reason why numerous famous allied generals have been quoted about the effectiveness of the German armed forces (Patton most famously IMO). Given the dire straights they were in, they were still a stubborn and deadly opponent on the battlefield.
Germany was beaten WAY before America even came in to WWI, the Germans were about to collapse, and there is no two ways about it. America just spread up the process by a tiny bit.
Thats a joke, right? You realize that the Spring Offensives failed because they encountered heavy resistance from fresh American troops that bolstered the line and boosted morale immeasurably amongst the other Allies, right? And that the Hundred Days Counter-Offensive that ultimately broke them would not have otherwise been possible? I mean, granted I dont think the Germans would have won, but I dont think we would have had the same result we did without American forces present in France, the Germans would have been in a much better position to get a more reasonable set of terms of surrender, because the reality of the situation was that France and Britain were only fairing slightly better than Germany in terms of internal affairs. Hell, elements of the French army took up arms against the government at one point...
The Navy (and consequently the Marine Corps) has had a huge part in aviation, and it wasn't AAC planes bringing down japanese warships in WW2... If the air force didn't exist, we would manage. Plus, why should "big" have anything to do with how competent a force is?
Categorically disagreed. While you're right that it was Navy aviation that brought down most Japanese ships, the Army Air FORCE played a huge and instrumental role in the Pacific War.
1,000,000 (at least) to 300,000 is 'shocking'? I wouldn't call it shocking. Especially considering every Marine is a rifleman and is trained to kill. I think you're right about most of those invasions, except possibly the Gulf Wars. Marines were the first to fight in Desert Shield, IIRC.
Overrated. Every Marine is a Riflemen does not mean Every Marine is an Infantrymen. Most Marines will tell you that they wouldn't expect a unit formed of supply clerks to be at all effective in a combat zone. Marines have a pretty good track record... because they have a really good propaganda machine that ignores the contributions of other forces or shifts the blame for their defeats to others.
Because of America's lack of will the Army is frequently gutted immediately following a war. An excellent example of this would be the post WW2 Army. Not only were many units under 70% strength, but the soldiers in them were undisciplined and poorly trained. The new, softer Army was forced by the civilian populace to stop being tough and harsh on its soldiers. This contributed significantly to the armies embarrassing performance in the early days of Korea. American men literally threw down their weapons and fled from the NKPA onslaught abandoning wounded and supplies. It was undoubtedly one of the poorest showings by the Army in its history.
Need to check your facts mate. The Army didn't even get to Korea until it looked like the NKPA was going to win things, and when they arrived it was without heavy equipment capable of dealing with armor (seriously, they sent riflemen in without consideration for enemy armor or any sort of heavy support) and they trickled in a few hundred at a time. That being said, they did a pretty damn good job of holding the line at Pusan.
I find this thread to be full of people stroking their/their nations egos, presenting 'facts' of dubious accuracy, and in general making stuff up or engineering reality to suit the purposes of their argument (the OP for one). When in doubt, listen to AustonT, thats what I say.
Amaya wrote:
As for myself, I completed USMC basic at MCRD, San Diego and MCT at Camp Pendleton, California before being medically discharged from the service.
A glowing recommendation for your ability to interpret actual combat stresses, and the capabilities of a modern force. You went to Hollywood and got shipped out as a non hacker.
Somewhat different than hanging out the ass end of a Shithook buzzing along the desert, or humping your gear from the LZ to the pick up site just to get there, find out the trucks aren't coming, and hump back home. Oh I forgot, the jump to get there.
Amaya wrote:
As for myself, I completed USMC basic at MCRD, San Diego and MCT at Camp Pendleton, California before being medically discharged from the service.
A glowing recommendation for your ability to interpret actual combat stresses, and the capabilities of a modern force. You went to Hollywood and got shipped out as a non hacker.
Somewhat different than hanging out the ass end of a Shithook buzzing along the desert, or humping your gear from the LZ to the pick up site just to get there, find out the trucks aren't coming, and hump back home. Oh I forgot, the jump to get there.
Just polish your airsoft kit and keep dreaming.
Can I eat some chili cheese queso and a burger at Chilis instead?
It's painfully obvious the OP knows very little about military history and is trying to compensate by posting snide comments to the people who are simply tying to correct him. I think this "debate" is pretty much over...
Lord Solar Awesome wrote:It's painfully obvious the OP knows very little about military history and is trying to compensate by posting snide comments to the people who are simply tying to correct him. I think this "debate" is pretty much over...
Lord Solar Awesome wrote:It's painfully obvious the OP knows very little about military history and is trying to compensate by posting snide comments to the people who are simply tying to correct him. I think this "debate" is pretty much over...
Like the people convinced that the Russian winter had nothing to do with Napoleon and Hitler's defeat in Russia?
Like the people convinced that America played a massive role in the European Theater of WW2 when Russia inflicted upwards of 80% of the casualties that the Germans suffered?
Like the people convinced that the ROK contributed nearly nothing to the Korean war effort, when, if not for their heroic defense, the NKPA would have surely overrun the peninsula?
I like Frazzled's comment on how marching speed doesn't matter and yet he says that the Chinese caught the Americans by surprise. Hello, they caught them by surprise because they marched farther and faster than American intelligence gave them credit for (in addition to avoiding American air patrols by hiding during the day and marching at night). To say that speed is irrelevant is silly, it was a very important factor.
Amaya wrote:Like the people convinced that the Russian winter had nothing to do with Napoleon and Hitler's defeat in Russia?
Now that you bring it up I'd still like you to explain how it did. I asked some questions and you in your great wisdom never answered.
Like the people convinced that America played a massive role in the European Theater of WW2 when Russia inflicted upwards of 80% of the casualties that the Germans suffered?
One can recognize an event as not meaning much to the outcome of the conflict and still recognize it as an achievement worthy of praise.
Like the people convinced that the ROK contributed nearly nothing to the Korean war effort, when, if not for their heroic defense, the NKPA would have surely overrun the peninsula?
There's this thing called Pyhrric victories. Its where you win, but not really. Of course my position is that McArthur was douche.
Scuse' me, I was wrong about Desert Shield being a Marine operation. It was a pretty impressive joint campaign, led by the Army. Jarhead constitutes much of my knowledge of Desert Shield
Samus_aran115 wrote:Scuse' me, I was wrong about Desert Shield being a Marine operation. It was a pretty impressive joint campaign, led by the Army. Jarhead constitutes much of my knowledge of Desert Shield
Tony Swofford is an idiot, discard that piece of trash and read "Guns Up" By John Clark or if you like fiction "No Better Way to Die" also by John Clark. Neither is about Desert Shield/Storm, but both are worthy of reading and copious praise.
Amaya wrote:Like the people convinced that the Russian winter had nothing to do with Napoleon and Hitler's defeat in Russia?
Now that you bring it up I'd still like you to explain how it did. I asked some questions and you in your great wisdom never answered.
Like the people convinced that America played a massive role in the European Theater of WW2 when Russia inflicted upwards of 80% of the casualties that the Germans suffered?
One can recognize an event as not meaning much to the outcome of the conflict and still recognize it as an achievement worthy of praise.
Like the people convinced that the ROK contributed nearly nothing to the Korean war effort, when, if not for their heroic defense, the NKPA would have surely overrun the peninsula?
There's this thing called Pyhrric victories. Its where you win, but not really. Of course my position is that McArthur was douche.
1. I already answered that.
2. Irrelevant. The point is America's army has never been the greatest or as good as many Americans believe. It is certainly excellent, but there's a fine line between excellent and omgbestevar!
3. Don't really see the point. People act as though America was the only important force in that war. America played the largest role, but if anything that war highlights the weaknesses of the American army or at least McArthur. McArthur was overly reliant on air support and despite air superiority (read: complete dominance of the skies) the USAAF did not play an incredibly pivotal role and without said air support the army proceeded to falter.
I think people don't understand that America doesn't have a great, juggernaut of an Army simply because it has never needed or wanted one. There was a period of time when having one would have been useful, but right now, America's air and naval superiority is unrivaled and that allows it to exert its will on distant parts of the world without relying on having thousands of troops stationed across half the globe.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Scuse' me, I was wrong about Desert Shield being a Marine operation. It was a pretty impressive joint campaign, led by the Army. Jarhead constitutes much of my knowledge of Desert Shield
Jarhead is more about Desert Shield than it is about Desert Storm. I mean, yeah Desert Shield is there where the Army and Marine units sit along the line of departure waiting for permission to roll out, but most of the movie (AFAIK/IIRC) revolves around Desert Storm and covers the feelings of angst and irrelevance that the Marines feel because there was nobody to fight, the Air Force (mostly) having already defeated the Iraqi army during the 36 day air campaign preceding the ground invasion.
Amaya wrote:People act as though America was the only important force in that war. America played the largest role, but if anything that war highlights the weaknesses of the American army or at least McArthur. McArthur was overly reliant on air support and despite air superiority (read: complete dominance of the skies) the USAAF did not play an incredibly pivotal role and without said air support the army proceeded to falter.
1st Sentence: Because the were.
Everything afterwards, factually incorrect nonsense.
Par for the Course.
Amaya wrote:Yep, the ROK did nothing during the war at all and McArthur wasn't overly reliant on Air Support. lmao
...It's as if I already went over this...oh here it is on page one.
AustonT wrote:[The ROK is notable in the invasion for mass defection and retreat, incredible bravery indeed. I guess we'll overlook that while the 8th Army was pushing past the 38th Parallel that the Air Force and Fleet Air Arm completely lost air superiority to the MiGs for nearly a year while the Soviet and Chinese fighter ran amok. Lacking any form of air support indeed.
I think that sums up how I reacted to your entire rant of factually incorrect dribble: indeed.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Scuse' me, I was wrong about Desert Shield being a Marine operation. It was a pretty impressive joint campaign, led by the Army. Jarhead constitutes much of my knowledge of Desert Shield
Jarhead is more about Desert Shield than it is about Desert Storm. I mean, yeah Desert Shield is there where the Army and Marine units sit along the line of departure waiting for permission to roll out, but most of the movie (AFAIK/IIRC) revolves around Desert Storm and covers the feelings of angst and irrelevance that the Marines feel because there was nobody to fight, the Air Force (mostly) having already defeated the Iraqi army during the 36 day air campaign preceding the ground invasion.
Yeah, I forgot the movie digs into like the 300th day of the campaign or something, which was well beyond the initial Desert Shield operation.
Tony Swofford is an idiot, discard that piece of trash and read "Guns Up" By John Clark or if you like fiction "No Better Way to Die" also by John Clark. Neither is about Desert Shield/Storm, but both are worthy of reading and copious praise.
I'll give those a look, thanks. I think my library has a pretty big 'war fiction' section, hopefully they have them. I've been looking for something to read.
No you didn't. No one invaded Russia in winter. Napoleon and Hitler invaded in the summer. Napoleon was defeated before winter began and had already begun retreating (unless Russian winter is so bad that it beat Napoleon before it came) and Operation Barbarossa failed in August. That the Germans kept trying doesn't mean they were defeated by winter it just means they were stupid.
I don't think it's reasonable to compare America's Army to military forces of the past, the ways humans wage war has changed a lot since Vietnam, a ton since WWI and II and Napoleonic tactics are nearly irrelevant on the modern battlefield. Compared to the modern military of most countries, the US makes the top five easily and you'd have a really hard time debating them out of the top ten.
No you didn't. No one invaded Russia in winter. Napoleon and Hitler invaded in the summer. Napoleon was defeated before winter began and had already begun retreating (unless Russian winter is so bad that it beat Napoleon before it came) and Operation Barbarossa failed in August. That the Germans kept trying doesn't mean they were defeated by winter it just means they were stupid.
So. How did winter win it for the Ruskies?
You're arguing semantics, just because the invasion didn't START IN THE WINTER doesn't mean that they weren't INVADING IN THE WINTER.
And yes, Russian Winters are so bad that it could defeat someone before it arrives. The fall rains turn everything into a muddy quagmire and makes it impossible to move around, this is largely considered the start of 'winter weather' in Russia. As for Napoleon, the argument there is that the winter led to the destruction of the Grand Armee rather than its defeat. Granted he might have abandoned the campaign with some 100k out of 600k men, but the winter is apparently responsible for him returning with only a fraction of that number.
Perhaps he is a troll, perhaps he is not, but I'd like to say my opinion.
In World War II, there are several views on various armies. For the Heer, you have the bumbling wacky Nahzees who can't shoot straight, make overrated gak that isn't worth it's parts to a super elite korps filled with super duper super men who had the greatest firearms ever invented, tanks that could put a Baneblade to shame and only lost because of Herr Hitler and the sheer weight of numbers of the allies. But I think the truth is in between. The Wehrmacht was like any other army, it had it's pros and cons and ultimately it's pros couldn't win a total war. Some people like to trounce that the StG44, the ME-262 and Hitler listening to his troops would have made a Nazi land out of earth. Others contend that the StG44 was a piece of junk that was prone to misfires, the ME-262 was terrible, expensive and could be shot down in numbers by the Mustang and their Generals were stupid so there. Again, the truth lies in between. The StG44 was a superb advance in military technology but it wasn't a gun that would had changed everything like a magic wand. The ME-262 was the same. Germany had a lot of good things going for it, great ideas but wasn't prepared or equipped to take on the entire world.
For the US Army, it ranges from a bunch of yuppies throwing themselves at MG42s and winning only cause of mortar fire and the Bombers to elite super men who could wipe out an entire SS Sturmtruppen Scary German word Panzer Elite Division with but a M1 Garand and bottle of whiskey. Yet again, the truth lies in between. The US had one of the greatest logistics systems of the allied powers. And the average GI was a match for your average Wehrmacht Shutze. And there were a lot of them. With tanks. And Jeeps. And planes. And a Air force that was superior to the Luftwaffe. You cannot simply win against odds like that. The GIs did their absolute best and they are heroes for their actions, and I wouldn't belittle their accomplishments simply because the USSR wiped the floor with the Third Reich. They fought, died, and won. Many of the people who say poorly of them cannot say the same. However, I believe more attention should be called to the Ostfront. Normandy '44 wasn't the only war, y'know.
TL;DR: US was a good army and shouldn't be ignored simply because the Russians were there first. They did fight, y'know. The Wehrmacht also was not a bunch incompetent buffoons, but they also weren't the super elite truppen that had their right to glory snatched away by the Allies. Rant over.
The Tet Offensive shattered American support for the war just as much as the revelation of the atrocities at My Lai. All the technology and firepower couldn't stop the North Vietnamese from being able to strike right at the heart of the south.
US tactics were centred around achieving a high number of confirmed kills, which was reflected in their use of Search and Destroy missions. With mobile infantry using helicopters they had a good fighting force but one that was ill-trained and ill-equipped to fight in the jungle environment they found themselves in.
I have studied the Vietnam War. Guerilla warfare was not a military victory but it was a strategic one. US soldiers were living in constant fear of attack when on patrol and any villager could potentially be a Vietcong fighter. The psychological effects of Guerilla warfare were extremely successful.
A couple of points I'd like to bring up as someone who lived during that time and had an uncle that flew bombing raids over North Vietnam and Cambodia.
When he got back from Vietnam he was pissed because, as he told my father at the time, they weren't being allowed to bomb the harbors or really unload on the railroad systems.
He would fly missions over Hanoi and have to watch as French, Russian, and Swedish ships, among others would be unloading war materials and supplies onto the docks. He was forbidden to bomb them. He was also forbidden to bomb dikes , thanks to Teddy Kennedy and his group, that would have flooded out the city and destroyed a main area of supply to the NVA army.
My plagtoon sergent was Recon in Vietnam, and he told me of how his unit would have to call in permission to return fire when they would come under attack in certain areas because there were rubber plantations belonging to tire companies that didn't want their trees damaged.
I'll never buy a Ford because they had a plant in Russia that made military vehicles which were then shipped to North Vietnam.
A good amendment to your statement would be that all the firepower at your disposal won't help if the politicians won't let you use it decisively
and corporations from your own country act as traitors.
chaos0xomega wrote:You're arguing semantics, just because the invasion didn't START IN THE WINTER doesn't mean that they weren't INVADING IN THE WINTER.
No you're arguing semantics. They didn't invade in the winter they invaded in the summer. Its a fairly straight forward statement that is 100% true. The statement "they invaded in the winter" inherently leads to a false conclusion. EDIT: Which is why this myth of Russian winter is so prevalent. No one invaded Russia in the winter, don't play around with words to try and make a misleading statement something other than misleading and then tell me I'm arguing semantics.
And yes, Russian Winters are so bad that it could defeat someone before it arrives. The fall rains turn everything into a muddy quagmire and makes it impossible to move around, this is largely considered the start of 'winter weather' in Russia.
Which begins in October. Snow fall generally starts in November. Russia has an extremely short fall.
No one planned to be in Russia during winter. Napoleon and Hitler both planned to be done with their invasions by the time winter came.
As for Napoleon, the argument there is that the winter led to the destruction of the Grand Armee rather than its defeat. Granted he might have abandoned the campaign with some 100k out of 600k men, but the winter is apparently responsible for him returning with only a fraction of that number.
Which is an important distinction. Winter didn't cause his failure in Russia it just made the failure worse.
Joey wrote:Compare the casualty rates for Battle of the Bulge to Battle of Kursk and American troops were head and shoulders above the Soviets. The Germans would have crushed the Soviets were it not for the Western allies, of which the USA was the major player.
That's a completely nonsensical way of comparing the relative strengths of armed forces. I mean, yeah, we know the individual Soviet trooper performed far worse than the average German or American trooper, it's just that that isn't what determines the winner. The Soviets had deep reserves and tremendous military production, so they were simply putting more troops, and vastly more tanks and aircraft into the field than the Germans. And at a higher level they had a military system that was able to combine the operations of multiple divisions and even armies to break through enemy lines in a meaningful manner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:The Germans would have crushed the Soviets if they didn't have to divert so many men and resources to the war in the West. Not to mention the huge damage done by strategic bombing to their industry. Not to mention the entire soviet infrastructure dependant on Lend-Lease trucks. Not to mention the huge invasion of France in 1944 by the Western Allies. But yeah, other than that the Soviets won.
This is just not true.
Let's look at Soviet and German production during the war.
Tanks and self-propelled guns Soviets 92,595 Germans 43,920
Artillery Soviets 516,648 Germans 159,147
Machine Guns Soviets 1,477,400 Germans 674,280
Fighter Aircraft Soviets 63,087 Germans 55,727
Bombers Soviets 21,116 Germans 18,449
Transport Aircraft Soviets 17,332 Germans 3,079
The Soviets had such a massive advantage in production that everything else becomes irrelevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote:Except when the army defending it is not using conventional tactics. Guerilla warfare defeated them in Vietnam and terrorism tactics used by the Taliban has so far prevented a decisive victory in Afghanistan.
But that's really a product of the two home populations willingness to accept casualties, not the actual capabilities of either side.
In Vietnam they were facing a force extremely well trained in their choice of fighting. The Vietminh (later called Vietcong) had had years of warfare against Japan in World War 2 and then against France when they were fighting for independence from colonialism. The US had vastly superior technology that didn't work against the tactics that were being used against them.
The tactics in use were very effective. Look up the relative casualties suffered to those inflicted, it's about 20 to 1 in favour of US forces... that's a pretty big indicator of US tactical superiority. It's just that victory under the political conditions the US ended up with were not possible, as they weren't willing to invade the North, and the immense casualties they inflicted in the South could never be enough to force a surrender.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ribon Fox wrote:I't may not have been big or flashy but the UK had the brains, the US the brawn.
Both sides had technological advantages the other lacked. Indeed the US, with it's significantly greater number of radio sets per division, granting the ability of any unit to call for support directly, may well have been the world's first modern army (as opposed to an industrial army). To say they lacked 'brains' is utterly bonkers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Dennis Showalter (WWII Scholar): "British tank design in the Second World War was so atrociously bad that I'd go so far as to suggest it was treasonous."
Yeah. It took the British five years to really put out a decent tank, and the Cromwell wasn't much better than the Sherman.
Yeah, the British started the war with tanks that adequately fulfilled battlefield roles that were strategically out of date by 40 years (though to be fair most everyone had the same problem). From there they were basically always a generation behind in tank design. You mention the Cromwell being their first decent tank, but even then as you say it was only on par with existing tanks, it wasn't actually superior. It wasn't until the Comet rolled out that the British had an actually good tank of their own.
What's really frustrating is that the parts needed for the Comet, Rolls Royce engine, suspension and gun, were more or less available in 1941.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:The Werhmacht was ultimately defeated, but is widely acknowledged as one of the finest armies of all time, if not the finest army of the 20th century.
Yes, but the reason is because war nerds get excited by pictures of big tanks and really good looking dress uniforms. An actual look at the performance of the Wehrmacht will tell a much less flattering picture.
With victory over France the Germans had the industrial capacity of just about all of continental Europe at their disposal. That's an industrial base that should have been just about capable of taking over the world. Yet they focussed on super weapons and weapons of war that were entirely ill-suited to actually winning a war (increasingly heavy but vastly less mobile tanks, for instance). As a result the Soviets out produced them in every class of mlitary assets other than trucks.
To compound this, the Wehrmacht proved itself incapable of effective co-ordination of strategic and operational goals, a result of the still existing Prussian culture of granting junior officers free reign in their actions, leading to tactical excellence and strategic failure.
So, basically, no, the Wehrmacht is not one of the finest armies of all time, it isn't even one of the finest armies of the 20th C.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote:The Tet Offensive shattered American support for the war just as much as the revelation of the atrocities at My Lai. All the technology and firepower couldn't stop the North Vietnamese from being able to strike right at the heart of the south.
The Tet Offensive was intended as a military victory. It utterly failed and all but destroyed the Viet Cong as a fighting force.
That this had the side effect of getting people in the US to start wondering if the official story was really true was a side effect that the communists stumbled into.
US tactics were centred around achieving a high number of confirmed kills, which was reflected in their use of Search and Destroy missions. With mobile infantry using helicopters they had a good fighting force but one that was ill-trained and ill-equipped to fight in the jungle environment they found themselves in.
You don't get to call an army ill-trained and ill-equipped for a war when the achieve a kill/casualty rate of about 20 to 1. That's just crazy talk.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Experiment 626 wrote:It's a very closed-minded society who are still firmly rooted in what even Churchhill considered a 'barbaric culture of oppression'.
'Even' Churchill? Churchill had that kind of stuff to say about everyone. Dude was really racist, you know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote:I disagree with this assessment. Look at the number of casualties inflicted by the Germans relative to the number suffered. A positive kill ratio is a good measure of effectiveness, and brother you better believe that the Germans were in the black. Regarding the number of divisions that were undermanned, etc. The same can be said of all the combatants. Its sort of impossible to maintain a division at full strength in the middle of a war, similarly a lot of divisions end up being training and replenishment units. The Germans might not have started the war as a modern army, but they were one by the end of it (arguably because only the most modernized units still remained at all combat effective). This post also diminishes the bravery that the common German fighting man exhibited on the battlefield. Theres a reason why numerous famous allied generals have been quoted about the effectiveness of the German armed forces (Patton most famously IMO). Given the dire straights they were in, they were still a stubborn and deadly opponent on the battlefield.
There is no denying the effectivenss of the German army on a tactical level, measured by things such as the kill ratio, as you mention. But it is not enough by itself. The poor co-ordination of German forces in the attack on France didn't cost the Germans, but similar mistakes cost them badly with Barbarossa. I mean, you've got an army caught completely unaware, it's airforce almost completely wiped out, and receiving no real command from above, and you still can't effect an encirclement?
Then you look past that, and you have an army that just threw more and more troops into Stalingrad, while remaining completely unaware of the amassing of multiple mechanised armies groups on each flank. Then the hopelessly telegraphed Kursk offensive, that gave the Soviets all the time they needed to develop an incredible network of defensives. And after that you've got an army that's operationally so far behind it's opponent that despite still holding near parity in force sizes they never really mount a meaningful offensive again, limiting themselves to sporadic counter offensives and a slow retreat into Berlin.
Thats a joke, right? You realize that the Spring Offensives failed because they encountered heavy resistance from fresh American troops that bolstered the line and boosted morale immeasurably amongst the other Allies, right?
No, the Spring Offensive failed because the Germans shifted operational goals constantly, in order to keep advancing into less well defended areas. The French and British meanwhile defended key ports and rail junctions heavily, and the result was that no major strategic location was ever really in doubt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:Like the people convinced that the Russian winter had nothing to do with Napoleon and Hitler's defeat in Russia?
Umm, Napoleon invaded in June, and the Russians offered battle outside Moscow on 7th September. Unable to effect a decisive defeat on the Russians, Napoleon began to retreat. The casualties began to mount after that, when winter began in late September. That's the story of the whole thing, the Grand Armee suffered horrendous casualties on the retreat out of Russia, not during the campaign.
We're dealing with a very subjective subject that has lots of objective data but biases and unchanging viewpoints that are going to drown out a proper debate.
That's a completely nonsensical way of comparing the relative strengths of armed forces. I mean, yeah, we know the individual Soviet trooper performed far worse than the average German or American trooper, it's just that that isn't what determines the winner. The Soviets had deep reserves and tremendous military production, so they were simply putting more troops, and vastly more tanks and aircraft into the field than the Germans. And at a higher level they had a military system that was able to combine the operations of multiple divisions and even armies to break through enemy lines in a meaningful manner.
And its name was Zhukov...
Additionally, I want to point out that Joey's arguments about the "Germans would have crushed the Soviets had it not been for the Allied bombing campaign against German industry" thats actually contrary to the facts. Post war the US Army Air Forces and later the US Air Force conducted studies which pretty much concluded that strategic bombing of German industry had no noticeable, lasting, or long-term impact on production. In fact, the Reich's own production figures and Albert Speer's testimony confirmed that production actually INCREASED despite the bombing campaign (largely because the German economy did not even begin to mobilize for proper wartime production until 1943, so it had an industrial reserve that it slowly continued to increasingly exploit during the course of the war).
To compound this, the Wehrmacht proved itself incapable of effective co-ordination of strategic and operational goals, a result of the still existing Prussian culture of granting junior officers free reign in their actions, leading to tactical excellence and strategic failure.
So, basically, no, the Wehrmacht is not one of the finest armies of all time, it isn't even one of the finest armies of the 20th C.
Disagreed strongly. I dont know where you got the idea that the Heer had a culture of giving their junior officers free reign in their actions... that is anything but the truth. Hell, friggin' senior officers didn't even have free reign in their actions, arguably the reason why Operation Overlord succeeded was because Rommel was away from the front and was unreachable by telephone, etc. His subordinates either didn't have the authority to mobilize the armored reserves (which may or may not have been positioned too far away to really be of effect when they were needed), or they feared acting without permission from their superior officers or Hitler himself.
I will however agree about the lack of co-ordination, though this was largely the result of an inter-service rivalry that would make any of the other nations service branches blush. Its hard to coordinate when there is no single unified command structure, and the labyrinthine somewhat sort of almost command structure you do have is fighting with itself almost as much as it is with the enemy. I blame Hitler personally, if he had left the OKW to run the show (and consolidated the authority of the OKH, OKM, and OKL, and ESPECIALLY the SS under it) and make the decisions they were trained and expected to make and allowed to ignore the party politics that made the command structure in the field so damned inefficient, I think they could have done a much better job of it.
There is no denying the effectivenss of the German army on a tactical level, measured by things such as the kill ratio, as you mention. But it is not enough by itself. The poor co-ordination of German forces in the attack on France didn't cost the Germans, but similar mistakes cost them badly with Barbarossa. I mean, you've got an army caught completely unaware, it's airforce almost completely wiped out, and receiving no real command from above, and you still can't effect an encirclement?
Then you look past that, and you have an army that just threw more and more troops into Stalingrad, while remaining completely unaware of the amassing of multiple mechanised armies groups on each flank. Then the hopelessly telegraphed Kursk offensive, that gave the Soviets all the time they needed to develop an incredible network of defensives. And after that you've got an army that's operationally so far behind it's opponent that despite still holding near parity in force sizes they never really mount a meaningful offensive again, limiting themselves to sporadic counter offensives and a slow retreat into Berlin.
Disagreed strongly. I dont know where you got the idea that the Heer had a culture of giving their junior officers free reign in their actions... that is anything but the truth. Hell, friggin' senior officers didn't even have free reign in their actions,
The manner in which junior officers behaved in the Heer is relatively well known. It is backwards yes. Hitler tended to dictate to senior officers what they could or couldn't do (this was contrary to German military tradition btw) but junior officers had a lot of freedom when it came to command and it led to them sometimes getting carried away pursing ends that didn't benefit the army as a whole.
arguably the reason why Operation Overlord succeeded was because Rommel was away from the front and was unreachable by telephone, etc.
It was his wife's birthday, so I'm unsure what that has to do with this.
His subordinates either didn't have the authority to mobilize the armored reserves (which may or may not have been positioned too far away to really be of effect when they were needed), or they feared acting without permission from their superior officers or Hitler himself.
This is a common problem for German staff officers (who actually tended to be quite capable but horribly overworked). EDIT: Staff officers also are not junior. The problem was that by 1944 Hitler was dictating everything which is different from how it was in 1941. Of course, I'd argue that the Germans could have better defended against Overlord by setting their defenses more inland but with their poor artillery and no air support I find it debatable that the Germans could have stopped the invasion. Over half of German tanks in France were destroyed in the first few days by Allied air power and Luftwaffe frankly just didn't have the it them to fight even a short war despite several innovations of their part (being led by a man with no knack for military business didn't help).
Additionally, I want to point out that Joey's arguments about the "Germans would have crushed the Soviets had it not been for the Allied bombing campaign against German industry" thats actually contrary to the facts. Post war the US Army Air Forces and later the US Air Force conducted studies which pretty much concluded that strategic bombing of German industry had no noticeable, lasting, or long-term impact on production. In fact, the Reich's own production figures and Albert Speer's testimony confirmed that production actually INCREASED despite the bombing campaign (largely because the German economy did not even begin to mobilize for proper wartime production until 1943, so it had an industrial reserve that it slowly continued to increasingly exploit during the course of the war).
Interesting. I knew that strategic bombing had been broadly ineffecitice, but I didn't know that specific facts to back it up. Thanks.
Disagreed strongly. I dont know where you got the idea that the Heer had a culture of giving their junior officers free reign in their actions... that is anything but the truth. Hell, friggin' senior officers didn't even have free reign in their actions, arguably the reason why Operation Overlord succeeded was because Rommel was away from the front and was unreachable by telephone, etc. His subordinates either didn't have the authority to mobilize the armored reserves (which may or may not have been positioned too far away to really be of effect when they were needed), or they feared acting without permission from their superior officers or Hitler himself.
I'm thinking of mission type tactics, where officers are given significant reign in how they go about achieving their prescribed objectives. I think it played a significant role in German success in France, where officers acted on their own initiative to continue to exploit the collapsing French and English position, but a significant role in the failure of Barbarossa, where it prevented sufficient command and control to properly destroy the Soviet army.
I do agree that the German military became increasingly hidebound as the war went on, largely a result of well trained, independantly capable officers being killed in the Eastern Front meatgrinder.
I will however agree about the lack of co-ordination, though this was largely the result of an inter-service rivalry that would make any of the other nations service branches blush. Its hard to coordinate when there is no single unified command structure, and the labyrinthine somewhat sort of almost command structure you do have is fighting with itself almost as much as it is with the enemy. I blame Hitler personally, if he had left the OKW to run the show (and consolidated the authority of the OKH, OKM, and OKL, and ESPECIALLY the SS under it) and make the decisions they were trained and expected to make and allowed to ignore the party politics that made the command structure in the field so damned inefficient, I think they could have done a much better job of it.
I agree to an extent, but I question how much reform could have resolved inter-service (and inter-divisional) rivalry. I mean, you really have an all alpha male culture going on there, and just putting one person in absolute command wouldn't have resolved that.
Hitler certainly made things much, much worse than they might otherwise have been.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Scrabb wrote:Are we debating the history of the United States Army or it's current capabilities?
If it's the latter a whole lot of this discussion is more or less meaningless.
We're basically dealing with an idea in Amaya's head that isn't clearly defined beyond 'I disagree with people who say the US military is completely awesome', and shifts from point to point. So yeah, the whole thing is basically meaningless.
But seriously, America's military force in modern times is capable of armored or infantry assaults, rapid reactions/preemptive strikes, artillery bombardments, air strikes, and the like at a level in which no other country is capable of.
I think it played a significant role in German success in France, where officers acted on their own initiative to continue to exploit the collapsing French and English position, but a significant role in the failure of Barbarossa, where it prevented sufficient
Additionally, I want to point out that Joey's arguments about the "Germans would have crushed the Soviets had it not been for the Allied bombing campaign against German industry" thats actually contrary to the facts. Post war the US Army Air Forces and later the US Air Force conducted studies which pretty much concluded that strategic bombing of German industry had no noticeable, lasting, or long-term impact on production. In fact, the Reich's own production figures and Albert Speer's testimony confirmed that production actually INCREASED despite the bombing campaign (largely because the German economy did not even begin to mobilize for proper wartime production until 1943, so it had an industrial reserve that it slowly continued to increasingly exploit during the course of the war).
Interesting. I knew that strategic bombing had been broadly ineffecitice, but I didn't know that specific facts to back it up. Thanks.
ChaosOmega here is actually incorrect I'm afraid. The concept of the strategic bombing offensive being ineffective is a myth.
What you actually find is that Germany built up stocks of war materials prior to the invasion of Poland and France in the years immediately preceding their aggresion, giving them a solid foundation to draw upon, resulting in no need for a full war footing in the economy until later on in the war. The amount of ordnance dropped between the years 1939-1941 was minimal, and the expanding war economy rendered it fairly moot.
However, what we find come 1943, is that American aircraft building up in the offensive for D-Day, and the increase in the amount of munitions dropped, combined with the exhaustion of those resources gathered pre-war resulted in the impact of the allied air offensive increasing up until the end of the war. The German war economy was expanding, its true, but the bombing offensive destroyed transportation networks as well as the actual material producing plants. This resulted in abundances of certain resources in certain places, that couldn't get anywhere, and raw resources being unable to be shifted to the factories where it was needed, in order to produce material and munitions.
Speers testimony was actually along the lines of Allied Bombing having had a rather deleterious effect upon the German warmaking capacity. He believed that at one stage, it was accounting for the retardation of the German economy by 30-40% (if memory serves, I may be a little off on the precise figures). I read the transcripts of his interviews personally whilst compiling research on the subject some time back. He also commented that one or two more raids on the level of Dresden would probably have forced surrender upon Germany, interestingly enough.
Mannahnin wrote:Where is the rest of this sentence?
Added now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:ChaosOmega here is actually incorrect I'm afraid. The concept of the strategic bombing offensive being ineffective is a myth.
Okay, sounds like this is a discussion that's actually worth having then.
What you actually find is that Germany built up stocks of war materials prior to the invasion of Poland and France in the years immediately preceding their aggresion, giving them a solid foundation to draw upon, resulting in no need for a full war footing in the economy until later on in the war. The amount of ordnance dropped between the years 1939-1941 was minimal, and the expanding war economy rendered it fairly moot.
This seems to conflict with comments I've heard about the Germans gaining a massive boost from captured French military industry.
Anyhow, I know the greater issue is much more complex, because within the allied bombing there's the switch from targeted industrial bombing to greater strategic bombing, and it's the second that people criticise. So exactly what the overall effect is I might go an make an effort to read about. Then maybe we can have a new thread on the issue?
Disagreed strongly. I dont know where you got the idea that the Heer had a culture of giving their junior officers free reign in their actions... that is anything but the truth. Hell, friggin' senior officers didn't even have free reign in their actions, arguably the reason why Operation Overlord succeeded was because Rommel was away from the front and was unreachable by telephone, etc. His subordinates either didn't have the authority to mobilize the armored reserves (which may or may not have been positioned too far away to really be of effect when they were needed), or they feared acting without permission from their superior officers or Hitler himself.
I'm thinking of mission type tactics, where officers are given significant reign in how they go about achieving their prescribed objectives. I think it played a significant role in German success in France, where officers acted on their own initiative to continue to exploit the collapsing French and English position, but a significant role in the failure of Barbarossa, where it prevented sufficient
I do agree that the German military became increasingly hidebound as the war went on, largely a result of well trained, independantly capable officers being killed in the Eastern Front meatgrinder.
I still don't know if I would say it was an encouraged behavior. I recall that Rommel (not Junior at this point but still rather low in the grand scheme of things as a Division Commander) was rather much disliked by many of his fellow officers both above and below for his tendency to ignore orders and act as a maverick during the invasion of France and the Low Countries. I think your assessment of it becoming more restricted as time wore on is a good one, as it certainly seems by the end of the war (especially from certain memoirs I have read about the last days before Germany's capitulation and certainly during the Battle of Berlin) the expectations of what an officer was to do with his given orders were rather rigid it seems, though this may in part come from the fact that junior officers became increasingly more important as the military was ground down to a smaller and smaller size, and thus had more direct interaction with Hitler and/or higher command. It also seems that the culture at this point promoted it, as an officer that took the initiative and suffered losses (which were unaffordable) would be removed from command for failing in his duty or acting against orders and in some instances tried as a political criminal, while officers who took an initiative and succeeded would be awarded the knights cross for their actions. The officers would be far less likely to act of their own accord if one of the two possible outcomes (and indeed the more likely one) would put their future and possibly even their life, in jeopardy.
And Ketara, I disagree. Its certainly no myth that Strategic Bombing failed to live up to the expectations of the Airpower theorists of the interwar years, and, once again, the USAAF and the USAF themselves had determined that it was an ineffective campaign (in the European theater, the Pacific theater gets interesting due to the differences in weapons and strategies/tactics employed, as well as the differences between european and japanese architecture and urban planning).
Likewise, the claim that Germany built up a surplus of war material runs contrary to what I have read and what I have studied. In fact, it runs contrary to a lot of the facts I've been presented during my studies (having studied both the strategic bombing campaign in depth for my military related studies, as well as wartime production for my industrial engineering degree) which stated that German production was stalling prior to the start of the war due to the expanding military's insatiable demand for war materiel, as well as the necessity to produce and/or provide consumer goods to a civilian population that was being lifted out of the depression and once again had money to spend on luxury goods and of course the desire to do so.
The reoccupation of the Rhineland and especially Sudetenland (and later the occupation of the rest of the Czechoslovakia) certainly helped alleviate the stress and may have allowed some stockpiling to occur, but much like Sebster, from what I have seen, German production was not operating at a surplus level until after French industry was secured, Norway was occupied (thus essentially monopolizing the flow of Swedish iron ore), and Romania joined the Axis powers in 1940. The stockpiling of significant resources prior to the war would have been virtually impossible given the demands placed by the military on German industry, and certainly one of the key factors influencing the invasion of Norway was that the Germans were in desperate need for Swedish ore, since it was of a higher quality than that which Germany was able to produce domestically or source from elsewhere given the various trade embargoes and blockades it had imposed on it.
I dont deny that the air campaign made things difficult, certainly the constant repairs to infrastructure and the delays caused by severed rail links were a drain, but the impact was certainly minimal. By the USAAF's own BDA, only 20% of ordnance dropped fell within 1000ft of the target area... and that was supposed to be "precision" bombing (in fact, thats largely because in the last say 6-8 months of the bombing campaign they finally figured out how to do things right, i recall reading that in late 1944, the figure was less than 10% "accuracy"). The well known operations, such as the Ploesti oilfield raid and the Schweinfurt-Regensburg bombing really had little impact. Ploesti for example, had largely the same output before the raid as it did immediately after (because the refineries were not operating at full capacity and when several were lost, they simply increased production at the others to compensate, this 'tactic' is actually horrifyingly true of a lot of the major raids and is certainly telling of how inefficient german production was), and after repairs were affected was operating at an even higher capacity than previously capable about a month later. Schweinfurt-Regensburg temporarily disrupted production, but by that point in the war Germany did have a surplus available and thus the production shortfall wasn't even an issue to overall war materiel production. The real benefit that the allies derived from the strategic bombing campaign was the massive investment of resources into air defense, which largely drained resources that were desperately needed elsewhere (the amount of AAA produced by the Germans was actually rather ridiculous). Which, if my memory serves, is what Ketara refers to here:
Speers testimony was actually along the lines of Allied Bombing having had a rather deleterious effect upon the German warmaking capacity. He believed that at one stage, it was accounting for the retardation of the German economy by 30-40% (if memory serves, I may be a little off on the precise figures). I read the transcripts of his interviews personally whilst compiling research on the subject some time back.
See Also: United States Strategic Bombing Survey, it provides a pretty good analysis on what worked and what didn't, and for the most part, it points to the conclusion that strategic bombing was ineffective.
In any case, just throwing it out there, if the German high command (and no doubt Hitler) had taken a more realistic view of the situation at this stage in the war, they would have realized that they were fighting a defensive war, and thus their insistence in producing mechanized units (self-propelled artillery, anti-aircraft weapons, assault guns, etc.) was a drain on the economy, and they would have been better served producing more static equipment with which they could "hold the line" and perhaps in some areas turn the tide, while they slowly built up a reserve of mechanized units and armor with which they could counter-attack (and depending on the time period you're looking at, possibly turned the tide of the war.
chaos0xomega wrote:I still don't know if I would say it was an encouraged behavior. I recall that Rommel (not Junior at this point but still rather low in the grand scheme of things as a Division Commander) was rather much disliked by many of his fellow officers both above and below for his tendency to ignore orders and act as a maverick during the invasion of France and the Low Countries. I think your assessment of it becoming more restricted as time wore on is a good one, as it certainly seems by the end of the war (especially from certain memoirs I have read about the last days before Germany's capitulation and certainly during the Battle of Berlin) the expectations of what an officer was to do with his given orders were rather rigid it seems, though this may in part come from the fact that junior officers became increasingly more important as the military was ground down to a smaller and smaller size, and thus had more direct interaction with Hitler and/or higher command.
I admit I've never exactly gotten my head around mission type tactics, and the exact extent of where that begins and ends.
sebster wrote:
Interesting. I knew that strategic bombing had been broadly ineffecitice, but I didn't know that specific facts to back it up. Thanks.
However it was greatly effective in three ways (in Europe).
1. The destruction of the refineries and other attacks on the oil industry had a marked effect on reduce fuel supplies, which is a major killer.
2. Destruction of "marshalling yards" and other rail intermodal points played havoc with the movment of troops and material.
3. It effectively destroyed the German Luftwaffe, such that German attacks on DDay were materially insignificant.
Once can argue in the Pacific theater it had a much greater impact.
But seriously, America's military force in modern times is capable of armored or infantry assaults, rapid reactions/preemptive strikes, artillery bombardments, air strikes, and the like at a level in which no other country is capable of.
I don't know about that me. Americas budget is massive cos you pay your lads fairly, but I reckon the Chinese could probably launch 50 million men into an infantry assault that would put the USA to shame.
your right,but they do not have enough weapons for them.Heck let us see them put in boats and see them invade us.That one would be a big joke.us Americans are all armed pretty good.i think some of us wishsome foriegn country would attack us,so we would have target practice!
chaos0xomega wrote:I still don't know if I would say it was an encouraged behavior. I recall that Rommel (not Junior at this point but still rather low in the grand scheme of things as a Division Commander) was rather much disliked by many of his fellow officers both above and below for his tendency to ignore orders and act as a maverick during the invasion of France and the Low Countries.
Um, not really. Most division commanders in the German army tended to behave that way. Rommel was dislike for how he became a division commander (afaik). He asked Hitler, as he was in charge of his personal guard before the war, and Hitler asked him what kind of command he wanted and Rommel said he wanted a Panzer division. Being an infantry officer, this upset a lot of men such as Guderian, who had worked and develped the German armor doctrine for years. At that point most men hated him, especially Jodl who despite being an avid Hitler fan, to some degree still adhered to Prussian military traditions that held politics and the military should be separate entities.
I'm amazed that people can not differentiate between ARMY and MILITARY.
That's a hard distinction to make because for the majority of US military history the leaders of the military were Army. The Army planned the Civil War, WWI, and the majority of WWII (outside the Pacific) EDIT: And all those little wars for the most part. You can't really talk about US operational planning without talking about the Army planners who were the driving force behind it hence the lack of differentiation at least on my part.
Amaya wrote:I'm amazed that people can not differentiate between ARMY and MILITARY.
Well, yeah, they get the most government funding and have the most influence over the other branches of military. The Army is the backbone of sustained American combat
Its also the senior service, and given that american military operations are largely a joint affair and assets are integrated across the spectrum, its hard to talk Army without also incorporating the other branches into the discussion.
Squidmanlolz wrote:The Army is the backbone of sustained American combat
Sorry I have the Secretary of the Navy on the line. He and the Marine Corps Commandant would like to have a discussion with you, just behind the building to your left...
Squidmanlolz wrote:The Army is the backbone of sustained American combat
Sorry I have the Secretary of the Navy on the line. He and the Marine Corps Commandant would like to have a discussion with you, just behind the building to your left...
Tell that to the guy writing out the mil's budget.
Squidmanlolz wrote:The Army is the backbone of sustained American combat
Sorry I have the Secretary of the Navy on the line. He and the Marine Corps Commandant would like to have a discussion with you, just behind the building to your left...
Tell that to the guy writing out the mil's budget.
Amaya wrote:I'm amazed that people can not differentiate between ARMY and MILITARY.
I'm amazed you still post in this thread.
Squidmanlolz wrote:Well, yeah, they get the most government funding and have the most influence over the other branches of military. The Army is the backbone of sustained American combat
Last time I checked, which was maybe a month ago the Navy received the most money. For the benefit of the doubt I will go check. The sustained combat bit is absolutely true though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oops I see Jake beat me to it.
But seriously, America's military force in modern times is capable of armored or infantry assaults, rapid reactions/preemptive strikes, artillery bombardments, air strikes, and the like at a level in which no other country is capable of.
I don't know about that me. Americas budget is massive cos you pay your lads fairly, but I reckon the Chinese could probably launch 50 million men into an infantry assault that would put the USA to shame.
They'd be lucky to get even a tenth of that across the ocean given that the US has moved most of its naval assets to our west coast.
And even that assumes they'd have the naval capability to move that many people in the first place.
Which they don't.
The reason we don't differentiate between the Army and the Armed Forces is because the US military is smart enough to realize that combined arms is the best way to win. The army doesn't go to war without the Air Force and Navy backing it.
The reason we don't differentiate between the Army and the Armed Forces is because the US military is smart enough to realize that combined arms is the best way to win. The army doesn't go to war without the Air Force and Navy backing it.
It almost burns my skin to agree with you: but when you are right you are right.
This post is all over the place, but I like it. Nazi Germany, US marines, secretary of the navy, latin quotes... all mentioned in the same thread. Only on dakka.
Slighty OT. A few months ago I asked for recommendations for American history books/films. My thanks to Auston for recommending Gods and Generals. damn good film. Got it on DVD the other day. Should have watched it years ago.
And finally, it has never been explained to me why the US Marines are deployed in a landlocked country. Iraq yes (tiny coastline) Afghanistan no
And finally, finally, who would win out of a fight between the US marines and the Swiss guard Like I said, the thread is all over the shop.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
And finally, it has never been explained to me why the US Marines are deployed in a landlocked country. Iraq yes (tiny coastline) Afghanistan no
An interesting question. It may be because we're seeing the Marines less as a waterborne police/jump-off-the-ship-and-attack force that they've been historically and more as an overall 'shock-attack' force.
The role of the US Marines has gone from the traditional role of marines to that of a first strike force for a variety of reasons. I'm pretty sure the USMC is larger and and has superior armor and artillery than the majority of actual 'armies'.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:This post is all over the place, but I like it. Nazi Germany, US marines, secretary of the navy, latin quotes... all mentioned in the same thread. Only on dakka.
Slighty OT. A few months ago I asked for recommendations for American history books/films. My thanks to Auston for recommending Gods and Generals. damn good film. Got it on DVD the other day. Should have watched it years ago.
And finally, it has never been explained to me why the US Marines are deployed in a landlocked country. Iraq yes (tiny coastline) Afghanistan no
And finally, finally, who would win out of a fight between the US marines and the Swiss guard Like I said, the thread is all over the shop.
I'm immensely pleased you enjoyed it, and fun fact you can glimpse Ted Turner during the flag song and dance bit.
The USMC is not the only Marine Corps deployed to Afgan, the RM and I'm sure other similar forces are also there. The answer you are looking for is much more complex but the short answer is that the modern Marines are a land force, with the Army and its reserves at full extension the Marines fill a manpower gap in needed land forces. Additionally the Marines are using the current war as a place to blood a new generation of NCOs and Officers and to test equipment in what is unarguably one of the most difficult infantry environments in the world. There's certainly more to it...but for the most part that provides a solid base.
In equal numbers probably the USMC, they simply have the experience that the Swiss Guard haven't gotten in what...centuries? The SG are well trained, but today they are mostly a excellently trained paramilitary police force. Where the USMC remains America's bulldog assault force that hasn't been at peace for more than what 10-15 years at a time in the previous century. It also doesn't hurt that the USMC is a small combined arms force with armor and air support and on the field the SG is a solely infantry force.
Squidmanlolz wrote:The Army is the backbone of sustained American combat
Sorry I have the Secretary of the Navy on the line. He and the Marine Corps Commandant would like to have a discussion with you, just behind the building to your left...
Tell that to the guy writing out the mil's budget.
My apologies, they do receive more funding than America's ground-based fighting forces, which are smaller in comparison though. But the Marine Corps budget is still only around 12% of the Army's.
Did the development of the tanks and trucks and helicopters and planes, and radios the Marines use come from their budget, or did they piggy back on other services? Do they get to take advantage of the total purchase of any platform lowering the price for the quantity they field?
(hint: In general, Uncle Sam's Misguided Children get some darned good deals when it comes to paying for DoD acquisition programs. There are VERY few USMC unique platforms out there.)
They also prototype virtually everything the Army eventually adopts, so not only do they pay lower costs they get the toys first...and the Army pays for them.
AustonT wrote:They also prototype virtually everything the Army eventually adopts, so not only do they pay lower costs they get the toys first...and the Army pays for them.
That's only fairly recently, up until now, the Marines have been almost famous for using outdated weaponry. They used Springfield rifles in WWII instead of Gerands, Gerands instead of M14s in Korea, and M14s instead of M16s in Vietnam. They used the BAR until Vietnam was just about over, instead of the M60 (you could argue the M60's reliability issues here, though), Can you please list some modern/recent examples of the Marines prototyping weapons for the Army, I can't think of any off hand (might be having a brain-fart).
AustonT wrote:They also prototype virtually everything the Army eventually adopts, so not only do they pay lower costs they get the toys first...and the Army pays for them.
That's only fairly recently, up until now, the Marines have been almost famous for using outdated weaponry. They used Springfield rifles in WWII instead of Gerands, Gerands instead of M14s in Korea, and M14s instead of M16s in Vietnam. They used the BAR until Vietnam was just about over, instead of the M60 (you could argue the M60's reliability issues here, though), Can you please list some modern/recent examples of the Marines prototyping weapons for the Army, I can't think of any off hand (might be having a brain-fart).
ERDL and digital camouflage. The MOWAG Pirhana that you may recognize as the LAV-25 and then Stryker. Metal pin on rank. I think you'll also find that some equipment "adopted" by the Army first was employed by Marines before it's official adoption by the DoN.
I think if you carefully pick over your quote you'll find some errors: e.g.
The Army did not fully field the Garand until either 1941 or 42. No one used the M-14 in Korea as it was not developed until 1957, the Marines maintained M-14s on a 1 per squad basis replacing the m1-c/D in the squad designated marksmen that was eliminated in the Army otherwise the standard Marine battle rifle was the M-16 at least by Tet I, the M-60 was in full use by at the very least the 5th and 7th Marine Regiments when they arrived in Vietnam in fact the notable users of the BAR in Vietnam are the Green Berets it remained in USANG service into at least 1972 long after OT had been phased out of USMC issue.
It's true that the Marines have a long and almost proud history of using old gak to kick ass, it's largely a myth. The Army drove development during the whole 20th century but often the Marines uniformly adopted and used trucks,tanks, and guns and submitted improvements to designs first. In the current era of Joint development you'd be hard pressed to say who had what first, though certainly a Wikipedia entry will say Army a joint system is more likely to be fielded by the Marines first. Were you to flip through and index of pictures from say wwIi to present you'd likely find basic infantry equipment in the hands of Marines before soldiers.
Those cheeky Brits seem to think they had something to do with it.
A Pan Am 727 waiting for start clearance in Munich overheard the following:
Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance time?"
Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in English."
Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane, in Germany. Why must I speak English?"
Unknown voice from another plane (in a British accent): "Because you lost the bloody war!"
I'm sure this was actually much funnier in the 60's and 70's when British and German combat aviators were still active in the aviation community in large numbers.
I think the impression that the Marine Corps is "Old Fashioned" really has nothing to do with them using old stuff, it's just that the Army is constantly rushing into new things and buying things that are radically different (Zippered battle fatigues come to mind. Everyone else uses buttons) from what the Marines use.
Although, you still see Marines sporting ALICE rucksacks, Vietnam-era web gear, m40 gas masks and the occasional M16A1 rifle, so I could see where the impression would come from.
Samus_aran115 wrote:I think the impression that the Marine Corps is "Old Fashioned" really has nothing to do with them using old stuff, it's just that the Army is constantly rushing into new things and buying things that are radically different (Zippered battle fatigues come to mind. Everyone else uses buttons) from what the Marines use.
Although, you still see Marines sporting ALICE rucksacks, Vietnam-era web gear, m40 gas masks and the occasional M16A1 rifle, so I could see where the impression would come from.
You haven't seen a Fleet Marine wearing ALICE gear
Since the early 2000's, when they received the ILBEs that are head and shoulders above the Army MOLLE ruck, the M40 is just now being replaced in ALL services by the M50; who got them first? Ding ding! The Marines. You won't find an M16A1 in the hands of active Marines because it's incapable of stabilizing the standard S109 round. You will however find M16A3s and A4s in the hands of Marines because they chose not to give up their rifles for carbines citing reliability issues in USMC testing. Soon you'll find at least one grunt in every Fleet Infantry squad with his grubby hands on an M27. A leap (a logical and frankly belated) forward to improve the M4 only SOCOM has made previously. Marines are also carrying the M32 grenade launcher, rather than waiting an hoping for the XM-25 to finally be ready. Like I said Marines using old equipment is a myth, they use what works until they find something better, then field it. Rather than finding something new but half as good, fielding it, making improvements and ending up with the same or often less capability than the equipment you replaced...but in new colors(Army).
Samus_aran115 wrote:I think the impression that the Marine Corps is "Old Fashioned" really has nothing to do with them using old stuff, it's just that the Army is constantly rushing into new things and buying things that are radically different (Zippered battle fatigues come to mind. Everyone else uses buttons) from what the Marines use.
Although, you still see Marines sporting ALICE rucksacks, Vietnam-era web gear, m40 gas masks and the occasional M16A1 rifle, so I could see where the impression would come from.
You haven't seen a Fleet Marine wearing ALICE gear
Since the early 2000's, when they received the ILBEs that are head and shoulders above the Army MOLLE ruck, the M40 is just now being replaced in ALL services by the M50; who got them first? Ding ding! The Marines. You won't find an M16A1 in the hands of active Marines because it's incapable of stabilizing the standard S109 round. You will however find M16A3s and A4s in the hands of Marines because they chose not to give up their rifles for carbines citing reliability issues in USMC testing. Soon you'll find at least one grunt in every Fleet Infantry squad with his grubby hands on an M27. A leap (a logical and frankly belated) forward to improve the M4 only SOCOM has made previously. Marines are also carrying the M32 grenade launcher, rather than waiting an hoping for the XM-25 to finally be ready. Like I said Marines using old equipment is a myth, they use what works until they find something better, then field it. Rather than finding something new but half as good, fielding it, making improvements and ending up with the same or often less capability than the equipment you replaced...but in new colors(Army).
es.
Anyway, with that sort of logic, nobody should talk about the past or study it because nobody here was alive during the civil war, battle of hastings, the 1st crusade etc ect
