Gen. Gavin`s comments on US Infantry

[SpitfireXI]

I was reading a graphic novel titled `Battlefields` by Garth Ennis and the book contains a appendix where they note some of the sources they used when writing the novel.  In this I came across this supposed quote from Gavin where he says `If our infantry would fight, this war would be over by now...Our artillery is wonderful and our air corps is not bad.  But the regular infantry-terrible. Everyone wants to live to a ripe old age.  The sight of a few Germans drives them into their holes`.  I cant find the entire quote but was would like to know the entire context was about.  Did he really think that poorly of the regular US infantry?  

Edited October 5, 2020 by SpitfireXI

[Erwin]

https://books.google.com/books?id=T6c3acoHBLgC&pg=PT598&lpg=PT598&dq=general+gavin+Our+artillery+is+wonderful+and+our+air+corps+is+not+bad.+But+the+regular+infantry-terrible.+Everyone+wants+to+live+to+a+ripe+old+age.&source=bl&ots=xF0jdBZtUr&sig=ACfU3U3h7cUaanX7w3YNcCnJeA8rYIXx_g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbp6SOkZ7sAhXFF80KHYctAooQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=general gavin Our artillery is wonderful and our air corps is not bad. But the regular infantry-terrible. Everyone wants to live to a ripe old age.&f=false

[Anonymous_Jonze]

I've heard this a couple of times and one of my history professor's in college pointed it out. That many of the "quality" recruits in 44 went to the logistical services and not the frontline troops. The US Army was also noted to have superb Officer Corps. I read somewhere that this changed in 45 and the standard US infantry improved greatly but this was after most of the large battles in the West. My grandfather was a rifleman in the 4th when they fought at the Siegfried line and he never really mentioned anything about quality. Albeit he didn't see the war from a macro scale. There were good units and bad. The Paratroopers, the 1st Division, 29th Division were pretty experienced and professional. And the German Army Divisions at this time? It varied greatly. I'm sure some of German Generals were saying the same thing about their drafted Luftwaffe mechanics and Georgian "volunteers."

I think one thing that gives this idea that the "US infantry sucked" is their tactics. They had all the ammunition they could ask for so they often pummeled the enemy into oblivion then moved infantry forward to mop up. But there's also many occasions where the infantry alone won against superior German forces. 

Edited October 5, 2020 by Anonymous_Jonze

[SpitfireXI]

55 minutes ago, Erwin said:

https://books.google.com/books?id=T6c3acoHBLgC&pg=PT598&lpg=PT598&dq=general+gavin+Our+artillery+is+wonderful+and+our+air+corps+is+not+bad.+But+the+regular+infantry-terrible.+Everyone+wants+to+live+to+a+ripe+old+age.&source=bl&ots=xF0jdBZtUr&sig=ACfU3U3h7cUaanX7w3YNcCnJeA8rYIXx_g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbp6SOkZ7sAhXFF80KHYctAooQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=general gavin Our artillery is wonderful and our air corps is not bad. But the regular infantry-terrible. Everyone wants to live to a ripe old age.&f=false

Thanks this gives way more context to the quote.  

[SimpleSimon]

Draftee Army fighting a war perceived by many in the ranks and at home to be either not their concern (Britain's colonies are Britain's problem) or maybe even a tad sympathetic to the enemy (better dead than red). What does one expect? The propaganda of the age was really that powerful that people today honestly think the Pearl Harbor enlistment drive meant that people were signing up for the infantry and not for...the Quartermaster Corp lol. 

The Nazis weren't poised to invade the East Coast anytime soon and that was plainly visible regardless of the exaggerated media hype toward that. Any way you cut the issue the Roosevelt administration was also going to be challenged by the fact that America's reasons for fighting the war were going to be abstract ones and not from any sort of immediate threat posed to it by the Axis Powers. Pearl Harbor was a godsend...for war against Japan and like I said it failed to provoke widespread enthusiasm for work as a prestigious rifle infantryman, a job which was seen as sort of lowly or treacherous among the society of the time (trauma from the First World War). A lot of people sure are interested in Signals and truck driving now though... 

Motivation and subordination would be consequently low but really this was expected and planned for, and was a major reason why the support branches such as Signals, Engineers, and the Quartermasters in the US Military were such huge organizations...and very good at their jobs too. The most enthusiastic recruits tended to get funneled into them. Gavin for his own part, was an Airborne General and quite invested in the All-Volunteer Airborne Divisions and their cadre of enthusiastic crack troops who possessed a unique Elan among US infantry formations being not only Airborne but by definition, shock-troops explicitly selected and preferred for high enthusiasm and motivation. 

On top of the support branches, US Junior Officers and NCOs also often managed to work wonders when it came to nudging skittish GI's forward "unto the breach"...but really as much as it sounds like i'm roasting US infantry i'm not, and their accomplishments were very impressive given how little tangible reason they had to be present in Europe and Asia fighting concepts (Fascism and militarism) rather than tangible threats to their homeland. Gavin's* statements are unfair. It was seriously incredible and totally unheard of in history to ask men to fight, literally, for a noble cause and no other reason. 

*I still have respect for the man because of his actions in ending the US military's segregation policies, staunch opposition to the Vietnam War and his personal bravery.

Edited October 5, 2020 by SimpleSimon

[Sgt Joch]

Those comments actually originated with Germans who had served on the Eastern Front. Many remarked that U.S. infantry was very cautious when compared to how the Soviets used their infantry to blast their way through German defences. Of course, we are talking about totally different systems. The Soviets could get away with stuff that would have been unthinkable in the U.S. Remember Patton and the soldier slapping incident in Sicily.

I prefer to think of it as fighting smarter. BTW it was not just the U.S., the British infantry were the same.

SOP in an attack was to first bombard with artillery, then move up the infantry. When the infantry met resistance, move up AFVs and artillery up to blast the enemy strongpoint, then move forward again. Rinse. Repeat.

By late 44, everyone, the Russians, Germans, British and even the U.S. were facing a manpower shortage. Infantry casualties in Normandy were a lot higher than anyone had planned and the infantry units were chronically short of replacements. Many U.S. infantry divisions going into Germany in 45 were understrength. The U.S. even resorted to "unofficially" de-segregating the Army and incorporated many African-American infantry units into nominally "white" divisions.

Both the British and the U.S. realised they had a pretty much overwhelming advantage over the Germans in terms of material: number of AFVs, artillery, aircraft and the ordnance they could pour onto any one spot occupied by the Germans. It would not make any sense not to use it.

As it was, what really slowed down the U.S. (and the Russians) was over-extending their supply lines and being forced to stop and re-group before the next offensive.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Sgt Joch