PzKpfw 1 Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Hi, this thread is for ppl who for whatever reason feel US troops in WW2 have been shafted historicly & by wargames portrayel of US tactical capabilities, & that US troops are often considered inferior to German troops in tactical & operational capability, and some percieve only won battles by application of brute force. This thread is for those who believe US tactical & operational capability was in fact superior to the Germans & provides them a thread to discuss this issue in a coherent manner, by presenting material that suports their thesis. To this end I submit Bonn's When The Odds were Even as an counterpoint to the common beliefe of general German tactical & operational superiority. Bonn's study covers the US 7th Army's Vosges battles & the German Operation Nordwind where US & German forces were about equal in equiptment, men & material, & the US forces soundly defeated some of the best forces the Wermacht & Waffen SS could deploy. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the feild". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 You want to talk about how the US has been shafted and/or slighted on such matters? Please, get in the line over there behind Canada, the UK, France, and Poland. See it? Over there, the line labelled 'Books by Stephen Ambrose and other American Myth-torians'. Gimme a break. Cheers, Walter R. Strapps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Walter: You want to talk about how the US has been shafted and/or slighted on such matters? Please, get in the line over there behind Canada, the UK, France, and Poland. See it? Over there, the line labelled 'Books by Stephen Ambrose and other American Myth-torians'. Gimme a break. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Have you read books by Brits? You'd think Monty was the best thing since sliced bread! Any author can have a bias and to continue to claim it is only an "American" thing is insane. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 11, 2000 Author Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Walter: You want to talk about how the US has been shafted and/or slighted on such matters? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Obviously, as that's the premise of this thread, in that some here feel the US has been slighted etc, check out recent locked threads for more info. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Please, get in the line over there behind Canada, the UK, France, and Poland. See it? Over there, the line labelled 'Books by Stephen Ambrose and other American Myth-torians'. Gimme a break. Cheers, Walter R. Strapps<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, no Walter I will not get in line, the topic is clearly stated as concerning the US, not Canada, the UK, France, Poland etc, feel free to start a similar topic or one for all of those Nations if your so inclined. Where would you like the break ... Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the feild". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Four Stringer Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 But my big brother can beat up your big brother. nyahh nyahh nyahhh ------------------ I used to have a life, now I have CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Four Stringer: But my big brother can beat up your big brother. nyahh nyahh nyahhh <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GI Tom Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 lock n. a bolt, bar, enclosure, prison, akin to G. loch, a hole. 1. a mechanical device furnished with a bolt and, usually, a spring, for fastening a door, strongbox, etc. by means of a key or combination. 2. anything that fastens soemthing else and prevents it from opening, turning, etc. 3. what's going to happen to this thread when a moderator sees it. GI Tom Edit: My terrible spelling. ------------------ To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of wierd sandwich. [This message has been edited by GI Tom (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingcursor Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Another soon to be locked thread. Every nation suffered and gave so why sit and worry about who did more of what? ------------------ "Both sides agree not to bomb civilians" - Washington Post, Sept 3, 1939 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Four Stringer Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 My pleasure. ------------------ I used to have a life, now I have CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 11, 2000 Author Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GI Tom: lock n. a bolt, bar, enclosure, prison, akin to G. loch, a hole. 1. a mechanical device furnished with a bolt and, usually, a spring, for fastening a door, strongbox, etc. by means of a key or combination. 2. anything that fastens soemthing else and prevents it from opening, turning, etc. 3. what's going to happen to this thread when a moderator sees it. GI Tom Edit: My terrible spelling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I guess so Tom I thought instead of the constant inter thread snipeing by a US proponets on the forum, about the uber German groups incorrectl assumptions that everything German were better etc. We could have a thread to discuss the issue and get a handle on whats what. But all the thread has generated so far is bias, so locking it may be the answer. I also want to add that this thread has nothing to do with the other locked threads content, it is a simple question concerning was US tactical & operational abilty consistently on par or superior to German T&O abilities or was it inferior as many books have led us to believe. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the feild". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Getting my shots in now, because I know that someday, somewhere this thread will be behind bars due to irreconcilable differences. I have a grand idea. Let's have another world war, but this time, there won't be any teams, it'll be a battle royal, last country standing (and no, Switzerland, there's no staying out of this one) wins! Wouldn't that be fun? Then the 8 people left on earth can rehash this debate etched on stone tablets due to their being little to no earth left. What fun! But at least we would know who could best talk the talk and walk the walk. I actually have legitimate comments on this topic also, but I will spare them because this is a ridiculous argument that has been continued in multiple threads now, all of which will be locked. Start a new thread and argue if yellow is better than red. ------------------ "Nuts!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingcursor: Another soon to be locked thread. Every nation suffered and gave so why sit and worry about who did more of what? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you don't care about a topic, you don't have to post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Four Stringer: My pleasure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am sure it is. I wonder if people who can't debate a point try and get it locked-up instead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 My God what is wrong with you people, everyone with more than two braincells to rub together knows that the war was won by the Mexicans and only the Mexicans. Everyone else had only supporting roles. Lock this up please, and if they keep persisting with starting new threads start booting. ------------------ Work is the curse of the drinking class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 I commend PzKpfw 1 on the wording of his first post and think those who have dragged the discussion down have acted childishly. As far as tactical issues, I'm not enough of a student of WWII to provide an worthwhile opinion. Doctrinal issues, however, have an immediate effect on CM. If there were other squad types, etc. that the allies could use, I would love to have access to them. This is the only gripe with CM that I have. If, however, these squads never existed, then it's ok with me that they aren't in CM. There are 12.7 million different types of Axis squads and only 2 different types of allied squads. If this was the case in WWII (Once again I demur to the experts) then fine, however if it wasn't, including these additional squads would make the game more fun for me and, hopefully, others. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speedy: Lock this up please, and if they keep persisting with starting new threads start booting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Should that include everyone who posts in them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 I wonder if people who cannot debate a point accuse others of trying to get it locked up? Anyway, there certainly is no reason to lock up any thread arbitrarily based on a perception that it will devolve into a flamewar. As far as the topic goes, the issue is much too complex to be summarized so neatly. There were times when the Americans fought superbly, and there were times when they were grossly outfought. The same applies to almost every nationality. 'Cept maybe the Finns. They were some nasty buggers, and they ended up losing anyway. I would contend that near the end of WW2 the US fighting machine was the most potent military in the world. The Soviets had a lot of numbers, but they were running out of bodies by the end. The Brits were definitely tired of the war, as evidenced by Montgomerys rather manic concern over minimizing casualties at all costs. The Germans had long since declined from the peak of their relative strength, which was probably sometime in 1942 or so. The US Army in 1945 was the most powerful force in the world at that time. Amazing how we managed to squander it away in just a few years. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GI Tom Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Mr. Waters, I was merely stating my view on what was going to happen. I picked this up from the other thread that was closed: "Londoner, and everyone else, please refrain from continuing discussions from locked up threads in new ones. Such behavior is deeply frowned upon. If you feel the need to pursue the issue, use e-mail. Deputy Moderator" I have not claimed that it is biased. Please point out the difference in the discussion between this thread and the others that have been locked. The point that it's being civil is moot, BTS has stated that if the issue on this needs to be pursued, it should occur through email. GI Tom ------------------ To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of wierd sandwich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 PzKpfw 1 has raised a very interinsting and significant question which could be a very good read for a number of reasons. HOWEVER, if people don't start behaving in a adult manner and keep their BS prejeducial bias out of it then I will lock it up. Stay the course and show once and for all that it is possible to have a rational flame free discussion on a topic such as this. Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 11, 2000 Author Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Speedy: My God what is wrong with you people, everyone with more than two braincells to rub together knows that the war was won by the Mexicans and only the Mexicans. Everyone else had only supporting roles. Lock this up please, and if they keep persisting with starting new threads start booting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WTH has this thread got to do with whom won the war? did you even read my post?. Steve if you drop in please read my original posts content & if its not a valid discussion lock it up, this thread, has nothing to do with the locked thread's other then what ppl, who have dropped in, with apperently nothing to contribute to the topic, implied it did. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the feild". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 John, excuse my callousness earlier, and let me add this to your discussion. My knowledge of actual strategy and tactics at the field level in Europe are lacking, but I'd like to comment on another strategic area where I do feel the that U.S./Allies were able to gain a decided edge in the war and that is in intelligence. The great amount of intelligence and couterintelligence work that went on preceding Operation Overlord was immense and operated wonderfully. It took the combined effort of US intel, British intel, and French rebels to manage to pull off such a large invasion, and to leave the enemy guessing until too late. This includes the operations (whose names escape me) that made a fake show of force in England, as well as a fake invasion in Denmark (I believe). This was also used with great results at Midway in the PTO. I've yet to hear any stories of German counterintelligence that surpass what the Allies accomplished in disguising and executing these operations. ------------------ "Nuts!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I wonder if people who cannot debate a point accuse others of trying to get it locked up?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Have I, or John, been acting to have this thread locked up? I think not. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Anyway, there certainly is no reason to lock up any thread arbitrarily based on a perception that it will devolve into a flamewar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I would contend that near the end of WW2 the US fighting machine was the most potent military in the world. The Soviets had a lot of numbers, but they were running out of bodies by the end. The Brits were definitely tired of the war, as evidenced by Montgomerys rather manic concern over minimizing casualties at all costs. The Germans had long since declined from the peak of their relative strength, which was probably sometime in 1942 or so. The US Army in 1945 was the most powerful force in the world at that time. Amazing how we managed to squander it away in just a few years. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And I agree with all of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Rain Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Man, people are sensitive here. Either some self proclaimed expert on board content calls for the thread to get locked up or some idiot answers a question with "Seach newbie". I find the topic of this thead interesting for a number of reasons. 1) I feel it will be diffecult to really score this due to supply issues and air superiorty 2) Both sides used different tactics based on availablitly of supply and manpower 3) Cant use who won, as an apples to apples comparison Lots of folks like to say the US prevailed due to massive use of Artillery and Airpower. Like that was somehow "cheating". Im sure if the germans had the logistics capability of the allies, they would have let HE do the fighting for them. Both sides did show remarkable adaptabiltiy and innovation in the pursuit of their goals. Back to work now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GI Tom: Mr. Waters, I was merely stating my view on what was going to happen. I picked this up from the other thread that was closed: "Londoner, and everyone else, please refrain from continuing discussions from locked up threads in new ones. Such behavior is deeply frowned upon. If you feel the need to pursue the issue, use e-mail. Deputy Moderator" I have not claimed that it is biased. Please point out the difference in the discussion between this thread and the others that have been locked. The point that it's being civil is moot, BTS has stated that if the issue on this needs to be pursued, it should occur through email. GI Tom <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suggest you read Steve's post in the original locked thread. I'll post it here for your sake. "OK, I am locking this one up. My gut instinct was to do this after the first post, because I knew where it would wind up. "What if" posts always wind up with people arguing very passionately about scenarios that could never have happened except in some Star Trek epidsode (with Spock being uncomfortable with his long ears ). So please, nobody take offense by me slapping the padock on this. I am doing everybody a favor. This thread will never, ever die unless I close it up tight. Trust me. Steve This is not a "WHAT IF" thread. READ the initial post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 I cannot find fault with a commander who can kill the enemy without taking casualties himself (eg. use of artillery and air support). That is not much different from the doctrine of Blitzkrieg, and is a very viable, and effective, tactic. So to those who would say that this shows less tactical ingenuity, I disagree. There is no need for ingenuity if your current strategy is effective. ------------------ "Nuts!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts