opinion on American effectiveness in ETO

[JWorthing]

You always hear how the Allies in the ETO won by sheer numerical superiority. It seems the general consensus leans to this idea of sheer weight of numbers and that the allies basically "sucked". =)

OKay, I know there must be people here who prefer to play the Americans/allies (as I do). What are your opinions about this view?

correct? somewhat correct? incorrect?

I read a book a while back arguing that despite the allies numerical superiority they (the Americans) got good at what they do. It took a while and required the proper leadership but Americans showed that if they were led properly and integrated into the battlefield properly then they would do extremely well.

They had trouble immediately after D-Day but later on many American divisions became excellent fighting machines. It just took them longer because training usually was lacking (plus the long boat voyage decreased effectiveness; usually the soldier forgot most of the things they had learned in boot camp) and basically they had to have 'on the job training'. Even the commanders seemed to be lacking but they did learn from their mistakes! The book even sites German sources, commending the Americans on their ability to adapt and learn from their mistakes.

Another thing the book points out is that American commanders in the Divisional level were actually pretty good. It was that the higher ups usually weren't that imaginative or bold. (case in point: the Failas pocket. how many germans escaped that? They could have closed the pocket earlier but something happened -don't remember what- probably misreading of the situation).

I'm not an expert so don't come down on me too hard about anything I get wrong. And I'm not going to rant on further. I would love to hear other opinions on this.

I don't wish this to turn into Americans/allies vs. Axis thread! just would like to hear if anyone else feels the Americans always get a bad break.

I apologize if this has been discussed before.

[M. Bates]

Why not try mentioning the Americans even more - you could then pretend that 3 of the 5 D-Day beaches never existed!!

[JWorthing]

uh, cause the book I read was all about americans and I'm not about to talk about stuff I don't know about.=) I guess we could broaden the discussion to encompass any of the allies. Would you like to add anything?

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Would you like to add anything?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just did, for the second time.

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

"War is like the cinema. The best seats are at the back... the front is all flicker."

- Monte Cassino by Sven Hassel

[Spook]

Oh, this subject, in its generalized nature, has come up plenty of times before, JWorthing, but no need to apologize. In fact, I think that this WW2 subject deserves being reviewed or "refreshed" as long as well-thought & historically-substantiated opinions are offered, without sinking to nation-baiting as you've earlier requested.

Is the book that you're citing Michael Doubler's "Closing with The Enemy"? It's a good read, but shouldn't be taken alone as definitive for NW Europe combatant performances.

I'll have to come back to this later, but my quick answer is "No, the US ground forces did not uniformly 'suck' in their performance through the course of the West Front campaign." However, by hindsight, there were certainly many elements about the US forces---tactics, organization, replacements, equipment---that could've been better than was the actual case.

[Croda]

Pretend that 3 of the 5 beaches didn't exist? For all the opposition that was there, they might as well have not existed. Gold, Juno, and Sword were like assaulting Atlantic City, Ocean City, and Fort Lauderdale. (oh boy I can feel the flames on my back as I'm typing).

Disclaimer: Please excuse all hyperbole as the maniacal ramblings of a man trapped at work without CM.

[Schrullenhaft]

Michael Doubler has an excellent book called "Closing with the Enemy" that covers this very subject (though it only analyzes the American Army). If you haven't read it, I'd suggest checking out your local library. If you have the cash to spend it is definitely worth adding to a military library.

It seems that a good number of units that landed in Normandy weren't that experienced (though some were). Normandy itself brought up some tactical situations that weren't exactly faced in other theaters of the war (bocage primarily). And numerical superiority wasn't always the case, but material superiority was.

In the American case, I have read that the Divisional and above staffs were very competent in most regards. However the battalion level and below leadership lacked (initiative, application of tactics, etc.) generally speaking, especially compared to the German leadership at the same level.

The Canadians and British on the other hand seem to be an opposite situation. Their Divisional staffs didn't quite adapt (initially) to war on the Continent (compared to their previous service in North Africa). Many of the regiments and lower formations were quite well lead most of the time. But I'll have to admit here that the facts/opinions are a bit hazy in my mind.

A good number of times troops got training in tactics before being committed in battle (if time and resources permitted it), especially in the case of new tactics (like bocage fighting). The American troop replacement system was generally seen as a failure. Troops would return to different units (non-debilitating wounds) or filled out depleted formations where they knew no one (fresh replacements from the States, etc.).

So, in general the formations that participated in Normandy were either green or weren't prepared (tactically) for combat on the Continent. Numerical superiority in troops existed early on, but did not remain a factor by late fall and the approach to Germany. Material superiority was always a factor in favor of the Allies.

[Von Fauster]

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

../just would like to hear if anyone else feels the Americans always get a bad break.

I apologize if this has been discussed before.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think they always get a bad break. IIRC, one of the major premises of Stephen Ambrose's in "D-Day" was that the American soldier in general, and American non-coms in paticular, were actually quite good at what they did and that the democratic principles of the U.S. produced, in the long run, a better soldier than the fascist state ever could. If that's not the book you are referring to, I would highly recommend it, as he does a pretty fair job of supporting his thesis.

Good Hunting!

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Patton's troops acheived amazing kill ratios throughout the war. Which was do to great training which gave his troops awesome esprit de corps. Patton hit the enemy where he was weak and used his tanks properly. He did not attack with Shermans head on. He used them to smash the enemys flank, constantly. Other American formations did very poorly in the ETO. Hurtgen forrest being the best example I can think of. Germans formations much smaller were able to hold of much bigger American forces time and time again. I think this was do to Americas lack of perperation during the 20s and 30s. When only like 20% of your soldiers are fireing their weapons its kind of hard to break the enemys will to fight. But even when putting Americans in bad situations, amazingly, they were able to improvise and figure out a way to circumvent the enemy. Except in Italy. I think the American commander there was born in England. He gave Germans all the time in the world to set up defences. Kind of like McClellen in the American Civil War. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Croda]

I got the same feeling from Ambrose (fantastic book). As a matter of fact, one the biggest points he tried to make was that the American (the book was decidedly American based) Junior Officers were what truly made the Normandy invasion a success. They arrived, with little training or experience, on a beach (most often 100's of meters away from where the were supposed to land) where the defenses that were supposed to have been bombed into submission were stronger than expected and were cutting G.I.s to pieces. These Junior Officers had the coolheadedness to create mixed units and assault the nearest position looking for an exit. Ambrose gives all credit to those officers, probably rightly so.

In my reading and experience, I don't recall the U.S. troops being termed as 'sucking.' Any time you have a wartime army as opposed to a standing army the 18 year old draftees are going to have a lot to learn, and will not be experts immediately upon being placed in the field. My 2 magazines worth.

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pretend that 3 of the 5 beaches didn't exist? For all the opposition that was there, they might as well have not existed. Gold, Juno, and Sword were like assaulting Atlantic City, Ocean City, and Fort Lauderdale. (oh boy I can feel the flames on my back as I'm typing).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How pathetic.

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

"War is like the cinema. The best seats are at the back... the front is all flicker."

- Monte Cassino by Sven Hassel

[Mark IV]

Another book on the same topic is "When the Odds Were Even", focusing on the Vosges campaign.

American forces did not suck. They were learning modern European war as they went, and basically had from the North African landings through '45 in which to do so. I think the improvement in equipment, tactics, and leadership in that very short period was remarkable.

The artillery in particular was outstanding, and this can't be fully appreciated at CM's scale. Did anyone say "airpower"? If America was inherently sucky it isn't too obvious in this department.

As for the tanks, they were mass-produced and shipped thousands of miles to the front, and then it's too late to do anything about the design. They weren't that bad, anyway, but so much of being a good commander is making victory with the forces you have at hand. And they made a victory.

The Americans got a really great "break" out of the deal- they ended up as the first superpower. That's why some feel compelled to cut them down to size by highlighting their mistakes. There were lots of mistakes... but the huge war machine was built, trained, and hardened in one-sixth the time of Germany's, and America was also fighting a two-front war in vastly different theaters.

So I think they did pretty well, after the hard learning was done.

[Croda]

Bates,

don't take it so seriously. All 5 beaches, and the airborne drops, and the rangers on Point-du-hoc, and the feignts in Denmark and Pas de Calais, and Patton's fake Army in England, and everything else were all very important. My point was that comparing the fighting on Gold, Juno, and Sword, to that on Omaha and Utah is comparing Apples to Oranges.

[JWorthing]

Well, I don't think they 'sucked' (as blandly as I put it). Just wanted to see other people feel the same way.

The reason I say this though is the very general statements you read, see, and hear.

(like this one: that D-Day was the biggest invasion ever when in actuality it was the biggest seaborne invasion ever)

How about that History Channel deal about the sherman. If I didn't know any better I would believe the sherman 'sucked' flat out. But, from learning it here on this board, the shermans were a match for most/some? of the german tanks when in closer ranges. The show kept perpetuating that basically the shermans were weaker.

I was disapointed that they did not discuss the upgrades that the sherman went through, though.

Thanks for the book suggestions. I've read D-Day by Ambrose although from what I hear he is a bit biased towards Americans (that's okay). Excellent book either way.

Closing with the Enemy? I haven't had a chance to read that one although I only hear good things about it. The one I read is American GI's in europe or something like that.

Mark IV: good to hear from you. I haven't been up to pbem since CMMC is coming up. Did you sign up?

[JWorthing]

Don't mind bates. I feel he is only trying to 'bait' us into arguing with him.=)

[Herr Oberst]

I forget who the quote is from, but one German general once said (roughly), "I have never seen soldiers who performed so poorly in their first battle, nor any who learned so much by their second."

[Croda]

Well Master B can say anything he wants. That's why we Americans fought on Omaha and Utah...to make the world safe for Democracy and the American way of life...including free speech.

[Herr Oberst]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

...

As for the tanks, they were mass-produced and shipped thousands of miles to the front, and then it's too late to do anything about the design. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are numerous references to the design and size of US armor. Some of the major concerns were: they were built in numerous places, we needed alot of them fast, they had to get across the ocean, which means they had to fit into the ships of the day. You didn't see many of the big RORO's that would make the voyage across the Atlantic.

Domestically, railroad flatcar size, rail capacity, tank quantities nedeed, ship's hold and hatch size, etc. all played a part in determining dimensions.

Yeah, I know, no reference cited, but the hobbies of railroading and wargaming have some strange, often unexpected dynamics.

[Mike Oberly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point was that comparing the fighting on Gold, Juno, and Sword, to that on Omaha

and Utah is comparing Apples to Oranges.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually,Utah was an absolute cakewalk(relatively speaking,of course).Omaha was by far the worst beach,but all of the British/Canadian beaches were much tougher nuts than Utah.

Mike

[M. Bates]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That's why we Americans fought on Omaha and Utah...to make the world safe for Democracy and the American way of life...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can other nations join in too? We'll even let you build a MacDonalds at the end of every road and allow you to write all the history books, excerpts of which are printed on the side of Happy Meal boxes to coincide with the release of Saving Private Ryan 2.

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

"War is like the cinema. The best seats are at the back... the front is all flicker."

- Monte Cassino by Sven Hassel

[This message has been edited by M. Bates (edited 09-28-2000).]

[Spook]

Actually, Oberst, "rail transport" issues similarly put constraints on what the British could design for their cruiser tank series, too. For a while, only the Sherman tank could suffice to the British for mounting a "full" 17-lbr gun effectively (the Challenger was also built as a stopgap, but was on the unreliable side) until a downgraded version of this gun was made for the Comet, due to hull width limits.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

Can other nations join in too?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need. They'd been fighting before we Yanks got involved. They were waiting for us to join!

[Von Fauster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike Oberly:

Actually,Utah was an absolute cakewalk(relatively speaking,of course).Omaha was by far the worst beach,but all of the British/Canadian beaches were much tougher nuts than Utah.

Mike<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A fair point, though I'd hesitate to describe any scenario wherein troops are asked to wade ashore under fire a "cake walk". As I recall (and its been a while since I read about this) the Americans took something like 179 casualties at Utah, compared to something like 3,300 at Omaha. Its no cakewalk if you're one of the 179. But I know you meant no disrespect, and your point in context is valid.

In terms of how this relates to the topic, one wonders how the Germans would have faired had Sea Lion been carried out, in comparison to the Allied effort 4 years later. Personally, I don't think they could have done any better- and probably a lot worse. Additionally, a lot of the Axis troops at Normandy were scrub troops collected from the far corners of the Reich who had little interest in seeing Germany win the war, let alone hanging on to France, whereas a German invasion of Britain would have faced a determined people, familiar with war, and bent on fighting to the last man for their nation and freedom if need be.

My .02 for the day.

[XPav]

Whats that saying?

"Amateurs discuss tactics, professional discuss logistics."

Now, I'm an amateur. The thing that I have read in several books (Ambrose, Ryan...), is that Germans soldiers defending realized the war was over the moment they saw all the ships in the invasion flotilla.

Other German soldiers said nearly the same thing the moment they saw the amount of motorization and equipment at the tail of the allied divisions.

[CavScout]

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

Whats that saying?

"Amateurs discuss tactics, professional discuss logistics."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So very true. Which makes you wonder why so many idolize Rommel...

Cav