US WW2 inferiority Complex 101...

[82nd Airborne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting, very rarely do I hear that the US got shafted in this manner. Most of the time (in the games I have played) they get generous proficiency ratings.

As for the real life WW2, it is very hard to judge as it would be quite rare for the US & Germany to match up evenly(air power alone tips the field). Certainly the US came out poorly in the Hurtegan(sp?) forest battle.

I know this might be heresy but I think that Germany was largely a defeated army by 1944 when the US(and Allies) finally met them in any strength. Lots of children and old men filling out their ranks, especially in the West. In fact I would go so far to say that Overlord was unecessary in the final victory as the Russians had it pretty well in hand by then. Simply the threat of invasion was sufficient.

That the US (and every combatants) men fought valiantly is a given IMHO. To evaluate the tactical efficiency is a very subjective argument and considering the circumstances of 1944-1945, pretty much impossible. Matching a 1942 German army vs a 1945 US army would be interesting indeed but can only be speculation, much as it would have been neat to see Marciano vs Ali.

Interesting topic however.

------------------

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[Monticello]

John,

I'm currently reading Bonn's When The Odds were Even, so I need to reserve my comments until I complete the book. I'll bump this thread in a few days after I gather my thoughts.

Gary Heverly

[Lawyer]

This matter is discussed very intelligently and fairly from a U.S. perspective in "Closing with the Enemy" by Michael Doubler, an excellent book that has been recommended many times on this forum.

The author concludes that U.S. military forces gained military excellence through tough on-the-job experience and ready adaptability of their doctrine and available resources. The author cites many examples where U.S. forces matched and exceeded the Germans in individual and unit fighting skills.

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Just to let you all know, say all you want to about Germany's army being defeated by '44, but don't try it with a veteran, he'll bust your lip if he's kind.

Have a vet who was transferred from AA Arty to the 80th Inf Div in Jan of 45, and from his accounts, the Germans didn't think they were beaten.

But in any case, before a flame war erupts about that, let me say that the US had some superb intelligence, troops, and weapons. No where was there such a rifle as the M-1 Garand. I think that victory depends on good intelligence, good commanders, good troops on the line and luck. The US had just about everything, but Germany was still a potent foe, and the US is to be congratulated for its victory.

Lest we forget...

[Four Stringer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

I am sure it is. I wonder if people who can't debate a point try and get it locked-up instead...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could care less if this thread and others like it get locked up or not, and I certainly did not lobby or request that it should happen to this thread.

I was simply making a smart a**ed comment directed at those who turn thought provoking threads (like this one) into flame fests. I'll take care not to sink to the juvenile level of the "flamers" in future posts. Silly me.

------------------

I used to have a life, now I have CM.

[This message has been edited by Four Stringer (edited 10-11-2000).]

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know this might be heresy but I think that Germany was largely a defeated army by 1944 when the US(and Allies) finally met them in any strength. Lots of children and old men filling out their ranks, especially in the West. In fact I would go so far to say that Overlord was unecessary in the final victory as the Russians had it pretty well in hand by then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is very true, after the loss of an army at Stalingrad, it was not long before the Germans began to "scrape the barrel".

What does it matter if the Germans or the Americans were a little bit better some of the time than the other? Just who cares?

[ASL Veteran]

The biggest crime against American fighting prowess in world war 2 was ASL/SL assigning American squads a morale of 6 when everyone else in Europe (other than the Italians) had a morale of 7

[virtualfreak]

I dont see much here to argue about. neither Germany or Japan really wanted a war with the United States even in the first world war germany didnt want the US to get involved.

Why?, Because the United States at that time was the worlds largest industrial power. We had some of the best generals while Hitler mostly ignored his, Plus germany knew that for every fighter plane they put in the sky the Americans could put up 5, for every tank germany produced we made about 6. These figures are just my guesses though.

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by virtualfreak:

I dont see much here to argue about. neither Germany or Japan really wanted a war with the United States...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why did the Japanese attempt to destroy the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor? Why did Germany declare war on the United States first? Did they not think that war would be the result?

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by virtualfreak:

neither Germany or Japan really wanted a war with the United States

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, where do you get this from?

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[The Commissar]

Well, in the early years it is my humble oppinion that the US troops were not up to the quality of the hardened Germans. With numbers, they did manage to suceed however.

Later on in the war, the US gained it's own veterans and profficient fighters who were able to actually stand up to the Germans. Then again, by this time the Germans were fighting tooth and nail with the Russians on one side, and the Americans (reinforced by Brits and France) on the other. So whether it was skill or mass is hard to tell.

I didn't read the book myself. I can't directly comment and expect it to be correct in my own eyes. What I can say is that I suspect that even though the German and US forces were about equal at some point, the Germans could have been tired, poorly fed, and bitter with the prolonged fighting. The US troops however were fresh and many.

Well, just my 2 cents.

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[PawBroon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Uh, where do you get this from?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hadn't Hitler said it on the Jerry Springer Show?

------------------

Will you trade your Peng for a box of Seanachai?

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by virtualfreak:

I dont see much here to argue about. neither Germany or Japan really wanted a war with the United States even in the first world war germany didnt want the US to get involved.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm... Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us... come again? Germany and Japan didn't want us in the war?

[Maximus]

I think we may need to look at this perspective from a broader aspect.

For one, since the US was not directly in the "front lines", there was no impedance in its industrial strength and build-up.

Secondly, in conjunture with the US's industrial might, the US was able to build a HUGE amount of tanks, planes, and ships. Man-power came through patriotism and honor.

Thirdly, a lot of how the war concluded came through the massive bombing campaigns of the 8th Air Force. With less and less of Germany's production facilities, it would be only a matter of time before the German war machine would stutter to a halt.

On the seas, the ALLIED fleets were slowly, but gradually eliminating the German fleets of surface ships and most importantly, the U-Boats. Again, shrinking the man-power of Germany.

Now on the battelfield, I would have to agree that yes, the US had more aggressive leaders because we weren't as cautious towards casualties as the British were, due to one doctrine known as, "The faster we get this war over, the better." This could also explain the use of A-Bombs on Japan. It was estimated that the US would have suffered over ONE MILLION casualties in a homeland invasion of Japan. Japanese casualties would have been total. So you destroy two cities killing several hundred thousand people. But look how many you saved.

And for the battlefield equipment such as tanks. So what if you lose a gaboon of tanks, we'll make more. A majority of tank crews survived and came back for new tanks.

By the end of the war, as German man-power got thin, is when you started seeing a lot of Volksturm Divisions.

So in summary, a combination of sheer manpower and industrial might dictated the combat doctrine of the US over Germany. Along with relatively fresh commanders that knew how to kick ass and do it quickly.

[Lorak]

As for Germany and Japan not wanting a war with us..

I believe this is correct. They did not want to go to war with the USA, but Japan had to do something as its war in China had reached a stand still and the USA was part of the reason they weren't reciving enough raw goods to continue.

Germany declaired War on the US, in the mistaken idea that by siding with Japan against the USA, that Japan would help Germany with Russia.

So yes, neither wanted war with the US, but through turn of events it could not be avoided.

Lorak

------------------

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

Cesspool

[pzvg]

Germany was forced to declare war in order to maintain it's alliance, politics, they really didn't need another enemy.

And Let's see here, America, for the most part, writes the history of WW2, so if America has been subject to rather scathing reviews of it's performance, remember who's writing it.

I don't care for threads like this, as they do not constitute debate, but opinion, If you want the debate, I think the West Point

library has some fine material on it. I do not see where, childish insults aside, anyone is going to come up with a consensus on a very touchy subject, since in trying to "debate" the war from the extreme range of history always subjects one to pet theory,opinion, and jingoistic rhetoric, which always leads to flaming.

My (cost adjusted for inflation) 1.25

------------------

Pzvg

"Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg:

Germany was forced to declare war in order to maintain it's alliance, politics, they really didn't need another enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Japan didn't enter the war against Russia so why was Germany bound to enter against the US?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And Let's see here, America, for the most part, writes the history of WW2, so if America has been subject to rather scathing reviews of it's performance, remember who's writing it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is silly. I have read more books by Brits and Germans than by Americans.

[Lorak]

Thats the point Cavscout.

It was a mistake in judgement. Germany thought that by declairing war on the US and standing by Japan, that Japan would in turn declair war on Russia and help Germany out. Germany hoped that this action by Japan would force russia to hold its forces in the east.

As we all know Japan didn't declair war on russia and Germany (by declairing war on the US) had just made one on its biggest mistakes.

Lorak

------------------

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

Cesspool

[Aussie Smith]

Maximus

Bloody hell mate - you have earned my respect - your post was the most insightful in this thread to date.

Actually by 1943 the German Army was a shadow of its former self, The Russian army was bleeding, the Brits were shell shocked, the Italians neutralised as a force by Commonwealth blood and the Canadians sending younger and younger men to the fronts.

I'm sorry John, I respect your views normally very highly but on this thread I can only say that the US has had in all wars secure borders in which to safely produce copious quality of war goods which the European armies could never do.

The US soldier in WW2 was supremely equipped. In Divisional slices a soldier was supported by a logistics train that worked on a ratio of 1:8 (each Front-line soldier was supported by 8 others in logistics etc - The Germans in 1944 were working on a ratio of 1:3 - source "On Infantry" by A? English).

An army that can maintain such high logistic numbers will always win as they can commit maximum pressure with minimum build-up. Something the European powers in 1943-45 could not do.

Honestly the US soldier did a very very good job but in reality this type of argument will never be agreed upon, as we cannot compare apples with apples. I also put a question to you - "what would be the situation if air-power were removed from the equation?" Imagine if you will the effect if Panzer Lehr, 12th SS Panzer etc were able to move unmolested to the front line. If I remember correctly Panzer Lehr suffered 60% losses to its combat ability by the time they arrived in Normandy.

To finish as I've said before all infantry in WW2 were potentially of equivalent quality but no matter how you argue it - 4 years of war provided the Germans/Russians/Brits/Canadians with experience that the US would never truly match in WW2.

Craig

[JWorthing]

Good thread. (if only people would stop being so negative about it)

I read in a book, (keep forgetting its name)

that the American Army was the only one who learned how to attack in the hedgerows. The only thing was that the American Army did not have an effective means to pass on this experience to newer divisions coming in line.

They did manage to have commanders write proper doctrine but, stupidly, the newer commanders would have to request this sort of information -yet they did not know this information was available. I hope I remembered that correctly. I should borrow it again from the library.

Question: I keep hearing about "Closing with the Enemy". Someone talk about something specific from that book that the author talks about. Specific evidence (from the book) that "proves" that the U.S. were pretty good in World War 2. Thanks!

Oh yeah-I second Meeks' request for additional Allied squads only if it was historic.

[This message has been edited by JWorthing (edited 10-11-2000).]

[Mark IV]

From my CM-less exile far away:

I have the book and enjoyed it, but hardly consider it decisive on the matter. For a previous thread with some good discussion on it, see http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003149.html

I think the German infantry of CMBO's time were better articulated in small units, had a higher officer to enlisted ratio, and more anti-tank defences.

There were a higher percentage of German soldiers with extensive and bitter combat experience, and while they were "scraping the barrel" to an extent, the presence of these hardened old vets in their midst stiffened many a green unit. The Germans had cult-ified the military like few other modern nations and produced some exceptionally motivated young men.

By CMBO the Germans were fighting for their homeland in a very visible way. Their news from home was about the bombs falling on the old neighborhood and family. The GI may have been fighting a crusade, but crusades can be tempered with many a rationalization- home and family can't. No indictments here, just some insight into the high levels of determination and even fanaticism noted among some German troops.

So there were times and places where German troops outperformed equal numbers of their Ami counterparts. It would be silly to make blanket judgements about an entire nation's forces, but the Germans had already learned many lessons the hard way. The US Army studied Wehrmacht practices and organizational structures after the war, and disseminated the memoirs of German officers to combat arms, signal, and logistics officers in the American army.

Even if we could determine that on average, the German platoon was more capable than its American counter-part, it would in no way diminish the valor of the American soldier who took part- he didn't design the equipment, organization, or political situation. He went and did his job and the result is history. And the equipment, organization, or political situation were the best the US could do on short notice, and they proved sufficient.

Summing these random thoughts, I think the better (and more soluble) question would be "are the units and equipment of all sides modeled correctly in CM?". BTS states that there is no inherent pro-German bias, and I don't see it if it's there.

If the units and vehicles are modeled correctly, isn't the rest up to the individual gamer/editor? If they are not, shouldn't supporting evidence for correction (regardless of the army) be submitted dispassionately, for public discussion?

[Wilhammer]

Japan could of avoided war, but fortunately Yamamoto was a poor strategist. Brilliant tactician, totally ignorant of how is enemy would react to the one move that ensured a swift, determined American response.

Without a doubt, one of the greatest Strategic blunders in History.

Germany wanted to go to war with the US some kind of bad. Hitler saw us as the most practical threat to racial hedgemony dreams he was trying to impose.

The one time he actually lived up to an agreement, he declares war on the US. Another stupid mistake. One can seriously doubt Roosevelt could of got a decleration of War against Germany without Hitler's assistance.

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Smith:

Maximus

Bloody hell mate - you have earned my respect - your post was the most insightful in this thread to date.

Craig<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, I can be something other than a "Butticus" But I usually post to other stupid threads because I think they're hilarious. I don't think the world's face is gonna change over what is said on a lonely ol' wargame forum.

------------------

Coming soon to a web near you...

The Maximus CM Mod HQ

This site will be host to a plethera of mods from myself and others.

Please send questions and comments to: davem@shawneelink.net

[Lindan]

1944 The German Army had declined in quality. It's veterans killed, old men and very young men thrown into the front lines. Whole Panzerdivisions fighting with less than 100 tanks.

This wasn't the Wehrmacht of '42 anymore.

Noone disputes this. [i fully agree with Mark IV on the points he noted above]

The US arrived on the ETO with a fresh and very well equipped army that learned it's lessons fast and adapted well.

It's for you to decide if you like to compare

both armies on account of the battle in the Vosgues or in places like Anzio and Monte Cassino.

To dispute the fact that German Tactics were in many instances superior to the Allied tactics is refuted by the fact that they were copied after the war by many nations, including the US.

Mr. CavScout:

I don't know what your problem is, but I've never seen a person who is so blatantly ignorant. I'm German and as you perhaps know, the Germans defeated the Poles in '39. Many German accounts I read stated that the Poles were tough and brave fighters who gave the Wehrmacht a run for the money on many occasions. If I were like you I'd just say that they couldn't have been any good because they lost. This is so very primitive that I'm lost for words.

Rant off.

[This message has been edited by Lindan (edited 10-11-2000).]

[PeterNZer]

The American's had the best boots, that's why the Allies won.

That's straight from a NZ vet, who hid out with US forces right neart the end of the war because they had the best food and boots

PeterNZ