Elite Units?

[Major Tom]

This reminds me of politics. No matter how hopeless your situation is, you still have to cling on to your policies. XXX Corps screwed up at Market Garden. Goodwood was a disaster. British Generals tended to be incompetent. The Germans were of just as good quality against the Americans as they were against the British. More tanks doesn't mean better. Most of the crack Allied formations were Infantry, not Armour. The Americans faced some Parachute Divisions, if I am not mistaken. These were the best German units in the entire war. Well suited to small engagements they kicked ass in the heavily forested terrain around St.Lo. I can see no reason why American troops would not be as good, if not better on average than British troops. I would still put in an objection of either army being better then us Canadains:)

Wake, well, there was a major screw up there too, equal to that of Market Garden. A task force based around the Saratoga, commanded by Rear Admiral Fletcher made a half assed attempt at relieving the garrison. He took his sweet time, and was EXTREMELY close to Wake when the commanders at Pearl finally called him back. If he would have put any sort of effort towards getting to Wake, 18 More F4F's and some more Marines could have landed, making another invasion attempt impracticle. However, they were risking an Aircraft Carrier. I think that there were 12 Wildcats of VMF-211.

Same can be said of the stupidity at Singapore. Just a few weeks before the surrender, the 18th British Division was landed, and their sole contribution to the war effort was to surrender. Churcill was just as deadly as Hitler sometimes.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oooh, we could start up a whole thread about idiotic reinforcement decisions Off the top of my head I can think of two gems. The Germans put in fresh units into Tunisia instead of withdrawing. They reinforced the Crimea when it should have been evacuated. I am sure there are a few more good ones, but that is all I can come up with off the top of my head.

Oh, didn't the British order a reinforcement of the Dieppe landing after it was clear that it was to fail? I seem to remember some poor sods, with their feet still wet from the landing, being told to get back in the boats.

Steve

[Lee]

If you want to talk about quality of opposition, how about

what the U.S. (and others) soldiers were up against at Monte Cassino?

We went up against some of the very finest warriors that Germany

had to offer. Not to mention some of the most defensible terrain

imaginable. Definitely no cake walk.

[Hakko Ichiu]

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

Wake, well, there was a major screw up there too, equal to that of Market Garden. A task force based around the Saratoga, commanded by Rear Admiral Fletcher made a half assed attempt at relieving the garrison. He took his sweet time, and was EXTREMELY close to Wake when the commanders at Pearl finally called him back. If he would have put any sort of effort towards getting to Wake, 18 More F4F's and some more Marines could have landed, making another invasion attempt impracticle. However, they were risking an Aircraft Carrier.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's a judgement call. Having already lost the cream of the Navy at Pearl, the idea of CinCPac wanting to husband his resources is not entirely ridiculous from a strategic point of view, although the relief force might have turned the tide at Wake. One account of the battle that I seem to recall indicates that the Marines could even have repulsed the final Japanese assault, had their C&C not been knocked out. I'd have to go back and check on that.

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

I think that there were 12 Wildcats of VMF-211.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct. There were 8 on the ground when the first Japanese air assault began -- 7 of those were destroyed. I think another was shot down in the first air battle.

Short term memory is the second thing to go

Ethan

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

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Major Tom]

Steve, yep, the Canadian reserve battalion was committed after reports of isolated groups managed to infiltrate into Dieppe. They just assumed that the entire force made it into the town! Jeepers! A VC was won by a chaplain who managed to see the situation was hopless and rerouted 200 men of the battalion away from the beachead before he was killed.

I would agree that sending the Saratoga back was a good idea, but, they had already risked the sucker and were pretty close anyway. If they were a little more organized they could have made it. Also, I think that the CinC of Wake was a POW. Did you mean knocked out as unconcious or dead? I saw the movie, and it reminded me more of how the Japanese would defend the island more than how an Allied force would. Casualties were relatively light.

Hopefully posts like this link it turning into will only serve to open peoples minds to realize that certain myths are only just that, myths. I don't mean to inflame anyone, I am just trying to express my opinion, which could very well be wrong:)

[Owen]

I believe flying monkeys won the war. New evidence proves that these leathal weapons backfired badly on Jerry, destroying the arms factories that they were produced in. Thus crippling the German War machine. The Germans should have evacuated there homelands, whilst they still had a chance and moved to Slovenia where they could live happily ever after drinking tea and eating cruppets.

[This message has been edited by Owen (edited 04-01-2000).]

[Owen]

At least I made my anme known on this site

[guachi]

Which leader was it who said never to reinforce failure?

My mind seems to think it was Frederick the Great, but I'm not sure. Certainly a wise policy whoever said it.

Jason

[Guest mch]

Hello fellow history debaters!

It seems(at least by the German Account)that

the U.S.Forces learned to fight verry quickly.The average U.S. /g.i. acclimated to

the enviroment of battle at a rate surprising to the Germans.What about the British?what was the GERMAN view of them as opponents?(i don't know,wondering.help?anyone

Discussing Market/Garden,It seems that the

real problem of the operation was the failure

to successfully interpret the intellegence

data of the opposing force.The fault here must lie with Montgomery.

...Upon finding the SS PzDs....

Smith warns Monty.."Either they should drop

the equiv.of a 2nd Div at Arnhem,or drop one of the U.S.div up at Arnhem..Monty "ridiculed the idea"and"waved my objections aside"

It seems (to me anyway)that M/G isin't really

a good operation to use as an example of

troop quality.I personally doubt any of the U.S.divs could have done better than XXX Corps or 1st Airborne..The plan of M/G really

"didn't have a leg to stand on"

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

It is no disgrace to be defeated...It is a disgrace to be surprised.

-attr.to Fredrick the Great-

[Darryl]

Debates about who had the "best" armed forces while very interesting, usually come down to the old football axiom of..

"On any given day, any given team can win"

In other words there are examples of each of the western armies performing brilliantly, and other examples where they flopped.

There are just too many variables to be able to objectively say "The Tommies were better than the Yanks." or such like.

Even if you could set up an evenly matched meeting engagement between two sides, think of all the variables. Someone could always find some aspect that was unfair to one side, or the other, ie; One side had an unfair terrain advantage, the other side had more competent officers, etc.

I just prefer to acknowledge that no nationality had a monopoly on effective soldiering in WWII.

However as I said, the debates are very enjoyable nonetheless.

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

Darryl

[Owen]

I agree with mch and daryl as do the flying monkeys of Bavaria. Both good points boys!

[Gen. Sosaboski]

(Going into character mode)

Gentlemen,

It has come to my attention that there is some debate over this Operation named "Market-Garden". I apreciate all your comments on my troops' fighting skills and the other Airborne units. They all deserve the same credit.

Now, why did this fail? Let me remember.

Browning: "We go next Sunday."

Gavin: "7 days?"

Browning: "The sooner the better. We've got them on the run".

There's reason number one. Bad planning.

Me: "Don't you think that since we know that Arnhem is so crucial to their safety they might know that too?!"

Reason number two. The brass underestimates Germans.

101st Abn Col.": They're 36 hours behind schedule."

Reason three: SINGLE road used for an entire corps with bridges to cross. Not that smart for a guy who won against Rommel (only becuase he was low on supplies), eh?

Urquhart, my good friend: "Two days they say, we've been here nine!"

Reason four (in conjunction with reason three): XXX Corps was TOO SLOW! After Waal River crossing, road was pretty much wide open to Arnhem, 12 miles away. But they had to wait for supplies and infantry. Meanwhile, they brewed tea while their paras died.

XXX Corps officer: "Why didn't we just try to burst through?"

Uhhhh, I don't know, why didn't you?

Reason five: Brit intel dismissed photos of panzers around the Arnhem LZs.

Reason six: LZ were too far away from bridge.

Reason seven: There was only one Brigade holding the bridge, not the entire 1st Abn.

Gentlemen, I have had enough of this Montgomery. Let me close with a quote from a Netherlands noble: "Never again can my county afford the luxury of another Montgomery success".

(Out of character mode).

Sorry quotes were taken from theatrical trailer, but they basicaly convey my points. Now let's please move on.

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

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member!

[Guest Big Time Software]

As I have said before, after walking around Arnhem and driving out to Oosterbeck, all I could tink was...

What the %*&$ was Monty thinking?!?

There are several old military axioms about simplicity. Basic gist is that the more simple the plan, the more likely it is to succeed. The opposite is true. There other one to take note of here is that planning on things going wrong is one of the ways to assure success.

The main problem with Market Garden was that it wasn't a simple plan, nor was it a plan that had much room for error. On top of that there were certain variables that were horribly downplayed. The limited advance route, the overall distance, the drop zones around Arnhem, the brushing off of II SS PzKorps, logistical problems that couldn't be overcome, etc. Any single one of these things could have spelled disaster, but having multiple weak spots in the plan nearly assured it. In short... BAD idea.

Steve

[Aacooper]

Someone asked what the Germans thought of English troops.

Rommel said, if I may paraphrase, that they were great troops, but poorly led.

To go back to my first post, I didn't list ALL of the Commonwealth divisions in Normandy, just the first two that popped into my mind. Normandy WAS the first battle for the 15th Scottish Division, and also for the 6th Airborne (as far as I can figure out). I didn't list the more experienced divisions. Naturally they would get higher ratings.

[von Lucke]

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

If you want to talk about quality of opposition, how about what the U.S. (and others) soldiers were up against at Monte Cassino? We went up against some of the very finest warriors that Germany had to offer. Not to mention some of the most defensible terrain imaginable. Definitely no cake walk. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everybody (Kiwis, Indians, Ghurkas, French, Algerians, Moroccans, Brits, Americans, and finaly Poles) got their asses kicked at Cassino.

If anything, the whole operation serves as a cautionary tale about not becoming overly target fixated: Kesselring had given direct orders that the monastary be respected as a historical and religious site, and was left un-occupied --- that is until some New Zealand general got it into his head that the place must (because of it's commanding view) be a German OP. It wasn't until we bombed the hell out of the place that the Germans moved in --- and only then because the rubble was the only source of cover from all that bombing / arty!

The monastary had already been out-flanked by French and American crossing's of the Rappido, and Kesselring had given the order to withdraw, when the final battle took place in May. But by then it was too late: The Poles lost over 850 dead and 2500 wounded in only six hours of fighting during the final assault. They also went through something like 15,000 tons of ammo --- and even so, some units were on empty after they beat back the last German counter-attack. IIRC total casualties for the entire campaign were something like 200,000 on all sides --- yet, ironically, the troops who took part in the Monte Cassino action were often called "D-Day Dodgers" by those who landed in France a few weeks later...

[This message has been edited by von Lucke (edited 04-02-2000).]

[Guest MantaRay]

If British Troops were so good, why did they get there asses kicked clean accross Africa by Rommel, and the Italian Troops? Who bailed you out? Patton and the US!

Who finally succeeded in making DAYLIGHT bombing runs on France and Germany after Britian Failed so miserably? Oh no, it looks like America did that too!

And if it wasnt for America, you most certainly would have been crushed by Hitler in 44, as they would have secured the MidEast and had the necessary resources to not only defend the West from the awesome power of the UK(notice sarcasim)but they would have been able to rebuild the Luftwaffe and send more troops to the East to stem the tide of Russias advance.

And I do have to thank you for the SAS. They are a fine bunch of fighting men, and taught the Ranger Units quite a bit about fighting. This had a trickle down effect that eventually made our SFOD troops the best in the World. I thank them, and my unit thanks you. :rollseyes:

And BTW, how many wars has Britian won against the US? I believe they are 0-2. Damn Canadians do have one up on us I'm afraid. I declare war now, hehe.

And Remember, "Rangers Lead the Way."

Ray

PS, this post was all in fun, and since I am not a history grad, it makes my opinion mean nothing.

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

MantaRays 5 Pages

[Guest JonS]

turning topic a bit: how many world class team sports is the US any good at? BBall doesn't count, and gridiron and ice hockey certainly don't!

{oops, forgot the smiley...)

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 04-02-2000).]

[Guest JonS]

[guachi]

Men's basketball US

Women's basketball US

Women's soccer US

Women's hockey US

American football US

(America might not have the best baseball team in the world so I didn't include it. So many of the great players are not Americans...)

You can't just discount three entire sports because your country isn't any good in them!! In that case you can't include rugby, field hockey, volleyball, men's soccer, and any other team sport America isn't anty good in!!

[Country boasting mode on] Which country's economy grew at 7.3% in 1999Q4? Which country has an unemployment rate under 4.5%? Which country has a per capita GDP 87% higher than NZ?[Country boasting mode off]

[guachi]

I feel like I'm in highschool boasting about how my highschool is better than yours.

Jason

[This message has been edited by guachi (edited 04-02-2000).]

[All American]

It's really 0-1-1 Manta Ray. If you look at the reasons why America declared the War of 1812 you would see America didn't achieve any of it's major goals declaring the war. Unless you consider keeping the Brits out of our country from a war we started even though instigated from the Brits, then it was a draw. I don't mean to flame at you here, I just didn't want to see someone flaming you for saying the War of 1812 was an American victory.

All American

[Mark IV]

Yeah, gotta agree with All American there, for the most part. 1812 was a definite draw. But... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Unless you consider keeping the Brits out of our country<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>... I mean, they totally burnt the capital, so we didn't keep them out real well.

Interesting thing is, they never really taught that we won 1812 in school. We just seem to assume that if we didn't lose, we won. The Brits don't see it that way, and our failure to add 5 miles of snow to our dominion constitutes a loss in some eyes...

[Guest MantaRay]

I know it was a draw, i am just trolling.

Reality is that in war, it seems that no one ever goes alone into it, and every little bit helps. It is like Nato and the UN of today being in a sense the same as the Crusades. England couldn't have set off on it w/o help, and the US couldnt have won the War w/o the Allies.

No matter who had the better troops...the Allies would have won because of one huge factor...resolve.

Ray

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

MantaRays 5 Pages

[Major Tom]

Uh, yeah.

General Wavel, with 30000 men kicked the crap out of 200000 Italians in 1940. Operation Crusader, an entirely British Operation, relieved Tobruk and slaughtered Rommel (10000 Allied casualties vs. 30000+ Axis casualties). El Alemain, a British and Commonwealth fought battle, beat the crud out of Rommel and completely destroyed the Italian Army in Africa. Kasserine Pass, the US II Corps got their asses kicked by Rommel. British and French troops were added to aid the American defence in Tunis in 1942. Frankly, most of the British forces in the Middle East and North Africa didn't take part in the fighting at one time against Rommel. Most of these forces, good ones at that, were on Garrison duty of Egypt and the Middle East. Britain was never really at the point of losing the Middle East, Hitler didn't think it important enough to spare the extra troops until it was too late.

In 1942-43, Rommel stated of the British troops "They are hard to crack, but, once cracket take a while to reform", of the Americans "They crack easy, but, reform quickly". They ballance out pretty equally.

Aboout Patton, personally I think he is a jerk, and I don't think too much of Monty either. Any leader who considers victory, or their own personal gain over that of their men are pathetic commanders. Patton took too many risks, but, was lucky none of them turned out to be a Market Garden.

May I also mention too that America had SO much difficulty with daylight bombing. There were MANY slaughters of American bombers in late 1943 and early 1944. It wasn't until Allied planes with a long enough range were introduced that daylight bombing cout be practicle. The P-51 Mustang was actualy a joint US-British project, originally meant for the RAF, but, the Americans saw how good this plane was and picked it up themselves. So, it wasn't just due to Americans being better than the British and Commonwealth, it was just circumstance and introduction of new equipment.

There is too much amaturish generalizations here. Read more than one book on a subject and you will discover a heck of a lot more than you are taught either by your American or British history teachers. How about we close this thread because too many Pro-Brits and Pro-Americans are ignoring the actions of others just to make their nation appear better. It makes me ill.

[Owen]

MantaRay what about that small little battle called El Alamain