Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:

AustonT wrote:The American Army was better of before women were allowed to join, especially the ugly ones.

You'd have to say something that isn't true or controversial to get some discussion going.

Well I think it is likely to be true.. So that makes it controversial? ;-)

My bad apparently I imagined another I in WWI

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...

Agreed.

Kill it with fire...

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.

I can't see anything good from this thread. The OP wasn't trolling and people have over-reacted, I can't see what's really being debated here.

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.

Ironically, this is listed in Wikipedia's Phyrric victory section: Battle of Chosin Reservoir

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.

LordofHats wrote:

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.

Ironically, this is listed in Wikipedia's Phyrric victory section: Battle of Chosin Reservoir

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.

Yep, the ROK did nothing during the war at all and McArthur wasn't overly reliant on Air Support. lmao

US forces were between 80-90% of those involved as part of the UN peace action, so...

And since WW2, nobody has fought a war without air support... so...

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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

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.

Amaya wrote:Yep, the ROK did nothing during the war at all and McArthur wasn't overly reliant on Air Support. lmao

You're making up arguments again. No one said that.

1. I already answered that.

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?

The winter God Oleg strode out from the steppes and smote the Whermacht, arguably the finest army of the 21st century! That's how.

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.

LordofHats wrote:

1. I already answered that.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

sebster wrote:

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.

Yeah, pretty much this.

chaos0xomega wrote:

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).

chaos0xomega wrote: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).

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.