opinion on American effectiveness in ETO

[russellmz]

omaha was the toughest beach, i assume we can agree on that. but the brit paratroopers did a tremendous job(i recall ambrose writing one seperated unit charged a numerically superior force and took the objective)

the above quote was something like:

"american soldiers know the least but learn the fastest." -rommel

once in the field the united states developed some tactics that weren't in any books:rhino tanks and white phosphrous and various other methods to beat the normandy hedgerows. they built enough stuff to beat germany and japan, while building the a-bomb.

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

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Banshee]

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

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

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually he was pretty good about all things "logistical". if you look at the African campaign, he went farther with less than anyone else. The fact that he had few supplies was through no fault of his own, it stemmed from 2 major factors, 1) Low priority given his front by the German High Command 2) Ultra, we were able to intercept high % of his resupply traffic.

Rommel was able to bring his forces together at the decisive points (which is a logistical excercise) in battle, and also pull them back to avoid annihilation (i.e. didnt let his ego interfere with his objectivity like Patton and Montgomery). I can definetly see why people respect his commanding abilities.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Aussie Smith]

Normandy…ah Normandy….

No matter the size/strength of the allied forces assembled on these beeches – nor the quality of the ground troops – 2 main forces contributed to the allied successes:-

1. Air power – or should I say total domination of the space above the front; and

2. Hitler’s micromanagement of the German command system.

I agree John? Worthing that the US troops did get better after D-Day as any infantry man does after being exposed to combat (no school like reality) but the allied success on the beach heads is more attributable to the leaching of the German war machine by OKW and the high command and the destruction of the German logistics by concentrated air power.

Imagine if you will if Von Rhunestead (sp?) had acted independently and released the Panzer divisions for engagement at the front a day and not a week after the invasion because the truth of the matter is once the allies had an established beachhead then the war for Germany was pretty much decided (actually it was lost anyway after they invaded the Soviet Union in 42’ but that’s another story).

As an Infantry Officer I can tell you nothing is a greater teacher than life – what you learn in books never really relates well to a changing tactical environment – and that’s what the US troops learnt in Normandy and beyond – that to win you needed to be flexible and adapt to a changing situation. This they learnt the hard way as the Germans were the undisputed masters of tactical warfare and whilst the Brits learnt this lesson in NA they still worked within an inflexible Officer Class that hamstrung more often than not the excellent NCO’s in their army.

As I’ve said in other posts – it’s a testimony to this adaptability of the modern US army that the current modus operandi is based on that used by the Germans in WW2. To me that says it all.

Craig

[Aacooper]

Based on the intense WW2 reading I've done, spurred on by CM, I believe that most US divisions in CM's place and time initially had either green soldiers or green commanders. Some divisions came in and fought real well. Most divisions had deficiencies in one or the other at first, and got better as time went on. I also believe the biggest US advantages were the artillery, and the coordination of the arms. Bulge has two examples 1) Bastogne was saved in part because air strikes were called on individual German tanks, and 2) elsewhere a whole German regiment (forget which one) clustered in the open was annihilated by a massive artillery concentration. The US fighting man fought just as hard as the German soldier, and surrendered much less often!

On a final, teasing, note, XPav said:

"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."

Of course, they saw the tail of the Allied divisions when they were marching to the prisoner-of-war camps.

[KLilly]

I think its awfully hard to generalize. Some units (US Airborne, Rangers, Abrams' tank unit) probably matched up pretty well with the Germans. Others (e.g. the units initially attacked in the Bulge) not so well. Eisenhower's Lts. (a dense read) talks about various divisions and how they performed. There's a big disparity. And, finally, coming into a war when the other combatants have been at it for 3 years is tough. I would be pretty surprised if they had all walked in looking like the guys in Das Reich.

[XPav]

... most info in my post pulled from Ambrose...

I'm still going to have to say that the reason the Germans kept going toward Berlin (excepting those few occasion when they starting heading back to London) was because they didn't have the supplies.

The Germans got attacked from the air when the tried to move and had constant attacks on their supply base by the Allied forces (effective or not, the bombing campaign did draw off the entire Luftwaffe).

The Germans had more supply problems that the Allies did, even when the entire Allied army ground to a half after the chase across France following Falaise.

I've read how Germans complained that the Allies weren't fighting fair. Someone would shoot at them, and the Allies would stop, and call in artillery to level the place. To do that, you need serious logistical support, as well, as previously pointed out, good procedures for support.

One of the major problems for the Americans (as opposed to Allies here <g>) during the Battle of the Bulge was that artillery shell production was way down, because "oh! the war is going to be over! no need to make more shells!" was the general consensus.

So if the German Army falls into the "good tactics, lousy supply" category, the best example I can think of for the "lousy tactics, good supply" category would be the pre-Grant US Army of the Civil War. All the men, but with no one around who knew how to use it.

[XPav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would be pretty surprised if they had all walked in looking like the guys in Das Reich. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Last time I checked infantry casualty figures, they were enormous. I think the 4th Infantry Division, in continuous combat from D-Day until the end, had something like a 400% casualty rate.

Just because the division has been in the fighting the longest means that its the most experienced. Sure, its got some guys that know their stuff, but I'd put money on that the primary people getting experience from continuous combat would be the divisional/regimental/battalion staff, and not the "guys" out in the maneuver elements.

[CavScout]

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

Actually he was pretty good about all things "logistical". if you look at the African campaign, he went farther with less than anyone else. The fact that he had few supplies was through no fault of his own, it stemmed from 2 major factors, 1) Low priority given his front by the German High Command 2) Ultra, we were able to intercept high % of his resupply traffic.

Rommel was able to bring his forces together at the decisive points (which is a logistical excercise) in battle, and also pull them back to avoid annihilation (i.e. didnt let his ego interfere with his objectivity like Patton and Montgomery). I can definetly see why people respect his commanding abilities.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rommel continue to outrun his supply lines. He continued to attack even when ordered not to. If not for Rommel's "eager" dash to the canal, the Germans may have held Africa for much longer. Everyone seems to forget he lost Africa. I'll never understand the laurels he and others, like McArthur, recieved.

Cav

[Mike Oberly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rommel continue to outrun his supply lines. He continued to attack even when ordered not to. If not for

Rommel's "eager" dash to the canal, the Germans may have held Africa for much longer. Everyone seems

to forget he lost Africa. I'll never understand the laurels he and others, like McArthur, recieved.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some of his greatest successes were when he attacked when 'ordered not to'.I agree with the earlier poster that he had a much greater understanding of supply than he is generally given credit for.Despite all his complaints,however,he was never given the amount of supply that he realised he needed.He was fighting a battle in the desert that was impossible to win,but he made a brilliant attempt at it.

McArthur,though,I entirely agree,was a hack,and a dangerous hack to boot.

[This message has been edited by Mike Oberly (edited 09-29-2000).]

[JWorthing]

"When only like 20% of your soldiers are fireing their weapons its kind of hard to break the enemys will to fight."

I think that was proved to be a fallacy. How that most American soldiers did not fire their weapons since they were trained to shoot their weapons at individuals instead of area fire (which supresses the enemy).

One point to refute this was how much ammunition was used up and how much needed to be sent up to the front.

Plus, in combat mission all our soldiers shoot their weapons!=) proof enuf for me!

[Major Tom]

Glad to see that this didn't evolve into a direct flame war!

From my years delving into the world of history I have come to trust only one thing. Never EVER trust a single book.

In order to get a truer feeling for a historical event you have to read A LOT of books, by different authors, from different nationalities to get even remotely close to the truth. EVERY author has a bias, you should expect this in everything you read.

We could cite quotes till our eyes bleed and never come close to the actual truth of the matter of quality of forces. We will never know how the British and Canadians would have performed on Omaha beach, just as we will never know how any other American formation would have performed on that beach. Could the Western Allies have won the war against Germany without America's help? Definitely not. Could America have won the war against Germany without the Allies' help? Definitely not.

Citing a few particulars does not prove a universal.

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

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>

Including Utah in that comparison was a bad move. The troops landing on Utah were almost unopposed.

To be fair, on D-Day the Brits and Canadians had to contend with a counter-attack by the 21st. Pz. Div., as half-hearted as that was. While not faced with a slaughter on the scale of Omaha, the British/Canadian landings were certainly no cakewalk.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 09-29-2000).]

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

So very true. Which makes you wonder why so many idolize Rommel...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've always attributed it to the '70s and the Final Victory of Style Over Content.

But seriously, I take your point. I think von Rundstedt is quoted somewhere as describing Rommel as "an excellent division commander". Rommel had the dash and tactical flair to make an excellent division commander, but never quite seemed to get the hang of being an army or army group commander.

[Mike Oberly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rommel had the dash and tactical flair to make an excellent division

commander, but never quite seemed to get the hang of being an army or army group commander.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd have to ask,when did he ever get the chance to prove that one way or the other?The only time he had command of a force that large was in Normandy,and he was under Rundstedt anyway.Nevertheless,he did quite well,considering the forces arrayed against him.

It seems to me that most of the judgements against Rommel come from his jealous contemporaries rather than objective evaluation of his activities in the field.

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

Actually he was pretty good about all things "logistical". if you look at the African campaign, he went farther with less than anyone else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...Due to his tactical expertise, which no-one is doubting. But the fact is that while Rommel continually complained about his lack of supplies, he never did much in-theater to improve his supply situation. And certainly in the summer of 1942 it was exceedingly foolish of him to outrun his logistical tail and get stranded so far from his base that he couldn't get supplies to his front.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The fact that he had few supplies was through no fault of his own...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I've already indicated, I disagree with that sentiment. Not only did Rommel fail to plan his operations to be consistent with what he could realistically support logistically, he neglected to do a number of things that might have eased his supply situation.

I will give you an example. Everybody knows the great victory he scored at Halfaya Pass by using emplaced 88s against the British armor. What they fail to realize is that by continuing to hold the 88s at the front after that battle, he prevented them from being used in their assigned role as anti-aircraft weapons to protect his harbors from bombers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...it stemmed from 2 major factors, 1) Low priority given his front by the German High Command...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What priority should he have been given? The decisive battle of the war was being fought in Russia. If that battle is lost, all is lost. If that battle is won, North Africa and the Middle East can be dealt with later. North Africa was a sideshow. An interesting sideshow, one I personally have given a disproportionate amount of my own time to, but a sideshow nevertheless.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2) Ultra, we were able to intercept high % of his resupply traffic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In which case, he should have tailored his operations to conform to what was logistically possible. Rommel was sent to Libya with one mission: to prevent its capture by the British. That's all he had to do. But he got ambitious and over-extended his army by plunging into Egypt. And there he could be defeated by even such a mediocre general as Montgomery.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rommel was able to bring his forces together at the decisive points (which is a logistical excercise) in battle, and also pull them back to avoid annihilation (i.e. didnt let his ego interfere with his objectivity like Patton and Montgomery).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about. All three of those gentlemen had sizable egos; to command at that level, you have to have. And each in his own way, and with varying success, struggled with his ego and sometimes lost.

I have described Montgomery as a mediocre general, and I think that's fair. But he had many good qualities and among them was, I think, a genuine concern for the guy carrying a rifle. I think a lot of his technique of warfighting, ill-conceived as it may have been, was designed with the intention of sparing his country the horrendous casualties it had suffered in the previous war. He expended huge amounts of materiel in an effort to not shed British blood.

Patton was, in my opinion, an enormously complex man little understood either by his contempories or posterity. I think a lot of his blowhard bluster was an act designed to instill confidence in his troops, and to assuage his own fears that he might somehow not measure up. Although there were many occasions when he would have well profited from keeping his damn trap shut, when it came to the business of making war, the man possessed a keen intelligence. Time and again, he made right decisions that were contrary to convention. It was he who realized that he could trust the FFI to guard his open right flank as he pursued the defeated German army across France. It was he who was not surprised by the German attack through the Ardennes and even had a plan in hand that allowed him to respond to it within 24 hours.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can definetly see why people respect his commanding abilities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. I can too. I admire Rommel a great deal. He was a truly splendid tactician. But my admiration does not require that I deceive myself about the man's shortcomings. Or to denigrate the men who opposed him.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

Rommel continue to outrun his supply lines. He continued to attack even when ordered not to. If not for Rommel's "eager" dash to the canal, the Germans may have held Africa for much longer. Everyone seems to forget he lost Africa. I'll never understand the laurels he and others, like McArthur, recieved.

Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good P.R. Hitler and his gang wanted a hero to offer to the German people, and Hitler liked Rommel anyway...until he decided to kill him, but that was later. So, Rommel and his Panzer Armee Afrika were off fighting a noble fight in an exotic, romantic (to the public's imagination; *they* didn't have to put up with the heat, the sand and the flies) theater. Not at all like the grim, savage fighting that no-one wanted to think about going on in Russia. A perfect P.R. set-up.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

In order to get a truer feeling for a historical event you have to read A LOT of books, by different authors, from different nationalities to get even remotely close to the truth. EVERY author has a bias, you should expect this in everything you read.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen! That bears repeating, so I have quoted it here. Frankly nothing irritates me more than a self-styled "expert" who has obviously read only one book on a subject but is absolutely confident that he's got the story down. The more I study and the more I think, the more fuzzy and indistinct the outlines of the truth become. You have to take your best shot and go with what you think you know, but it's best to retain a bit of humility into the process.

Michael

[David Aitken]

I'm in a bit of a hurry just now, but in reference to Croda's comments – it is a myth that the British and Canadians had it easy during the Normandy landings. In some areas it was comparable to Utah beach, in being relatively unopposed. In other areas they took heavy casualties. They didn't have it as bad as Omaha beach, but that doesn't mean they had it easy.

David

By the way, my signature refers to the British landings.

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

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Grisha]

I thought it might be cool to direct you all to a link that contains a lot of interesting stuff about the US's armor, and how the US tankers felt about them. An eye opener for some, I'm sure.

[This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 09-29-2000).]

[ScoutPL]

I want to bring this back on track, re: American "numerical superiority vs. quality." This whole notion that the US only won through bigger numbers pisses me off. Would anybody be willing to say that Napolean was a success because his infantry was better disciplined? Or because he understood tactics? Or that Grant was successful in the east because he was more ruthless then Lee? Not on those accounts singly, no. Each had a lot to do with those commanders success but the actual victory came to them because they were able to pull it all together and make it work. I get the feeling that some folks would like for us to feel sorry for the Germans. Liked we ganged up on them and fought an "unfair" fight. Does anyone think that a rifle platoon leader fighting in the Mortain campaign felt sorry for the germans after two days fighting isolated and surrounded? How about the armored infantry squad leader from the 2nd Armored trying to get into Bastogne? I think they were all very grateful that there was artillery by the bucket load on call and when the skys cleared they had air power. Though US close air support was in its infancy and was just about as dangerous to both sides. My point being that the US came to that war, a global war mind you, ready to use its assets and capabilities to the fullest. As an infantry officer I will always be more willing to pound a hill infested with enemy into an anthill before sending one soldier up to clear it. And by carrying this conviction I'm supposed to believe I lead inferior soldiers or somehow am taking the "easy" way out? Not hardly.

[Croda]

Hey, just to clear my name...

It was improper to mention Utah with Omaha, you are all correct. And I did not intend to defame or otherwise knock the combat abilities or participation of non-American Allies. Just took a light-hearted look at a serious subject. Every beach was contested, every man saw combat, and every man deserves credit. I'm sure that the resolve shown by the British troops throughout the Blitz, and Dunkirk, and elsewhere would also have won through on Omaha beach had that been there task.

And as for Mister Bates suggestion about building a McDonalds (even on the Normandy beaches) I point out that there is a KFC right across the street from Gettysburg National Military Park (I've eaten there often) and Americans would be hard pressed to find a more sacred battlefield in North America than Gettysburg. So hell, a McDonalds for every Normandy Pillbox, I say.

[CavScout]

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

Some of his greatest successes were when he attacked when 'ordered not to'.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps but his "greatest" defeat was also because he decided to ignore such orders.

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

I agree with the earlier poster that he had a much greater understanding of supply than he is generally given credit for.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Based on what?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Despite all his complaints,however,he was never given the amount of supply that he realised he needed.He was fighting a battle in the desert that was impossible to win,but he made a brilliant attempt at it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If "he realised he needed" a certain amont of supplies and DIDN'T have them and yet continued to take offensive operations doesn't that PROVE he didn't understand "supply" as well as you claim. If you know you need X amount to complete an operation and you know you don't have it and yet continue to partake in that operation are you not making a logistical mistake?

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

McArthur,though,I entirely agree,was a hack,and a dangerous hack to boot.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

McArthur and Rommel were both propaganda soldiers. Both were good about being gone when their forces surrendered.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-29-2000).]

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I've always attributed it to the '70s and the Final Victory of Style Over Content.

But seriously, I take your point. I think von Rundstedt is quoted somewhere as describing Rommel as "an excellent division commander". Rommel had the dash and tactical flair to make an excellent division commander, but never quite seemed to get the hang of being an army or army group commander.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read that book as well. I couldn't find it in my bookshelf and was hesitant to cite something I could not provide the source for.

[CavScout]

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

I'd have to ask,when did he ever get the chance to prove that one way or the other?The only time he had command of a force that large was in Normandy,and he was under Rundstedt anyway.Nevertheless,he did quite well,considering the forces arrayed against him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He commanded a "large" force in Africa and proved he could not operate within the constraints of his logistics.

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

It seems to me that most of the judgements against Rommel come from his jealous contemporaries rather than objective evaluation of his activities in the field.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hardly. Rommel, like several generals of both sides, seemed at times looking for personal glory.

Cav

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

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."

--Bertrand Russell

"God is always with the strongest battalions."

--Frederick the Great

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

--Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."

--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Good P.R. Hitler and his gang wanted a hero to offer to the German people, and Hitler liked Rommel anyway...until he decided to kill him, but that was later. So, Rommel and his Panzer Armee Afrika were off fighting a noble fight in an exotic, romantic (to the public's imagination; *they* didn't have to put up with the heat, the sand and the flies) theater. Not at all like the grim, savage fighting that no-one wanted to think about going on in Russia. A perfect P.R. set-up.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

America had McArthur, Germany had Rommel.