Another post about U boats

[husky65]

Originally posted by Marc:

I wish to apologize for wasting everyone's time. It is very evident Husky doesnt wish to discuss facts. I sited but one of many sources. Another is Weinberg's A World at Arms. I will know better in the future then to try to discuss with Husky or be baited by his posts. Once again my apologies to the rest of the list

Cheers

Marc

Its good to see an attempt to put the boot in before running away disguised as an apology.

Read John Ellis 'Brute Force', then you will understand - the allies didn't use finesse, in most cases this was a good idea, as sheer overwhelming force may not be as fast as finesse, but it also will not fail as badly if it goes wrong.

BTW, since you haven't given ANY examples to support your contention that the US army (a force renowned for its lack of finesse and massive application of firepower) used finesse rather than production to solve its problems, so your self righteous posturing is a little unconvincing to say the least.

[Sol Invictus]

I'm afraid I must agree with Husky, the American military hasnt used finesse since the war with Mexico. The Anerican Civil War set the pattern for the U.S. Military from that time to now. The massive application of overwhelming firepower and industrial might is a sure warwinner. You gotta go with your strenghts, and operational and strategic military genius has not been one of them.

[Randell Daigre]

Yes. As we all know, there was no finesse at all involved in the Gulf War. I mean, the fact that nobody predicted the allied forces' "left hook" around the Iraqi western flank doesn't count as finesse. And of course using roughly the same amount of troops and equipment as the enemy always counts as "brute force". The only people I've ever met who think that the U.S. military bases its strategies and plans on overwhelming numbers alone are people who have no knowledge of U.S. military thinking, little practical military experience, and no desire to correct these shortfalls.

While it is true that the U.S. has used overwhwlming force (and numbers) many times in the past, this does not mean that we have ever been incapable finesse, merely that it is often the most prudent course to overwhelm the enemy if you have the forces available. I would, however, point out that while Montgomery was still picking his nose in front of Caen (an objective he was supposed to have captured in the first 24 hours of Overlord) Patton was busy outflanking and encircling the German forces in Northwestern France (an encirclment the Canadian Army let the Germans slip out of).

[Guest Mike]

So...let's see....it's all Canada's fault that Patton failed and Monty didn't get anywhere anyway s why should we criticise anyone else and WHAT THE F*CK has any of this got to do with U-boats??

Go have your temper tantrums somewhere else please people - jeeze...and to think people were asking for Commi to be removed from the board....at least he has the apparent excuse of being young and stoopid !!

[Sol Invictus]

Randell, I wasnt saying the American Military is and always has been completely incompetent. We have almost always had the luxury of almost unlimited resources and have been glad to throw them at anyone who has opposed us. Nothing wrong with that, if you can afford it; and America can. The Germans called it Materialschlacht.

The Gulf War is hardly a good example to showcase Americas genius for war. We essentially pulverized the Iraqis with overwhelming airpower and sent in the Army to take prisoners. The result would have been the same if we went straight in. You must admit, the Iraqis were not a top notch military organization.

As a former Artillery Officer in the U. S Army and a lifelong, avid reader of military history, I feel I have a fairly good idea about the history of the American application of military power. Again, mine wasnt a slam on the U. S Army, it is just my opinion that the U. S. Army is usually not very subtle in the application of force.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Randell Daigre:

" Patton was busy outflanking and encircling the German forces in Northwestern France (an encirclment the Canadian Army let the Germans slip out of)."

Patton did well until he met the enemy, then he ground to a halt just like almost all the other allied commanders, he has been refered to as being one of the best traffic cops of the war.

The outflanking and encircling bit is an example of the power of good PR and Hollywood - most of his German opponents were able to slip away from him.

Re Falaise, Bradley ordered Patton not to close the bag, there is plenty of blame to go around for the failure to close the falaise pocket and half of it has to go to the US.

[glezmez]

I am going to have to agree with Husky and Sol, American production won the war not military strategy. The Americans made many mistakes and because of the endless supplies these mistakes did not really affect their war effort.You also have to remember that in 1942-1943 the German forces were fully commited to a war on 2 fronts. Had this not been the case and Germany had been able to face any one oponent be it Russia, U.K. or U.S.A. there is no way Germany would have lost.But then again this is just my personal opinion and these are all what ifs? I guess we will never know will we???(at least until the full game arrives in the mail)

[husky65]

Originally posted by Sol Invictus:

Randell, I wasnt saying the American Military is and always has been completely incompetent. We have almost always had the luxury of almost unlimited resources and have been glad to throw them at anyone who has opposed us. Nothing wrong with that, if you can afford it; and America can. The Germans called it Materialschlacht.

Exactly, when finesse fails it can fail VERY badly, suppose in WW2 Europe the 'single drive for Berlin' strategy (rather than the 'broad front' strategy) had been used, certainly precise application of force and an example of finesse - but if the enemy managed to cut off the salient - then we would have lost entire armies.

Quite a few individual attacks on the broad front were stopped or only partly successful - but none of those defeats/delays threatened the eventual victory of the allies.

[Madison]

Gentleman,

I think all of you make interesting points, and there is truth in literally each of them. I have enjoyed reading through the thread. So, I'll add my 2 cents for what its worth.

There are many reasons, perhaps hundreds of reasons, why World War 2 ended as it did. I would like to think that one of the most contributing factors that led to the early success and later failures of the war for the Germans was Adolf Hitler. Much of his gambles paid off in the early years and were an extension of his political agenda (and gambles) during the thirties. As the war progressed, the stakes became higher and higher, and the absolute ruler of Germany, "let it ride" a few to many times.

The German army won its greatest victories with its early equipment, and considerably modest firepower (as compared to the later army). This helps support the theory that tactics, operational co-ordination between the arms (blitzkrieg) and the decisiveness, leadership and independence of its field officers became the winning ingredient against often numerically superior foes, who were neither defecient in similar weaponary or outproduced by the nazis. The arms race to get the tech edge was driven by battelfield experiences and lessons learned. This can not be better expressed in the developement of tanks by the Germans, Soviets and to an extent the U.S.

Anyways, there are many strategies and theories, all of which I would love to write a thesis on, but this is a game forum for SC and if I remember a thread started by U-Boats. Regardless SC has transparent layer or benefit to its players, in that it has sparked such a wide range of interesting armchair discussions. Well for brevity sake I will end my little 2 cents with a few book recommendations I have enjoyed and a few games if your also a die hard counter pusher:

Books

When Titans Clashed

The Forgotten Soldier

Hitlers Panzers East

Games

GMT-Barbaross series

Europa

Advanced Third Reich

War in Europe

Best

John

[ July 26, 2002, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Madison ]

[Fubarno]

What is the definition of finess being discussed here? If it means snatching victories in the face of superior opposition on a shoe-string budget, well the U.S. certainly had finess in the pacific theatre. The ETO was given priority and so the commanders in the pacific had to definetly use alot of finess to pick and choose where they would commit their limited resources and still achieve victory, especially in the early part of the war. Examples: Coral sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Burma, breaking the Japanese naval code, etc..

If anyone could answer a SC question about subs, it would be most appreciated. What are the rules for spotting subs? It seems like sometimes I can be two hexes from an enemy ship and they will not attack my sub. Other times I will be far from any contacts and I will be first attacked by the British bomber command, fighters and then ships until my sub pack is sunk. Thanks in advance for any feedback.

[Sol Invictus]

Madison, Forgotten Soldier, excellent book. You just have to feel for those poor Germans on the Russian front during the later part of the war.

Fubarno, well when your talking naval strategy I think the United States did aquit itself very well in WW2. Of course it helps when you have broken the enemies code but then that's all part of the game. Midway was a classic battle.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Fubarno:

What is the definition of finess being discussed here? If it means snatching victories in the face of superior opposition on a shoe-string budget, well the U.S. certainly had finess in the pacific theatre. The ETO was given priority and so the commanders in the pacific had to definetly use alot of finess to pick and choose where they would commit their limited resources and still achieve victory, especially in the early part of the war. Examples: Coral sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Burma, breaking the Japanese naval code, etc..

I wish it were the case, breaking the codes was useful but once again the allies (US mostly) swamped the Japanese - Guadalcanal was a stunning lack of finesse, when urged to assault Guadalcanal on Aug 1, Ghormley (with MacArthurs support) delayed, turning it into a protracted campaign.

When the Japanese were largely defeated and the survivors pushed into a corner of the island, inadequate patrolling on land sea and air allowed over 13,000 Japanese troops to be evacuated without a single ship being attacked.

Midway was a combination of reading the enemys op plan, having an enemy that went for an over complicated plan and some luck.

Burma, In the final march on Rangoon the allies had aprox 260,000 men V 20,000 Japs and 4,600 combat a/c V 66

The allies in the Pacific were lower on the supply priority list than Europe, but the production superiority was such that in 1943 the US built 65 x CV, CVL or CVEs, in 1944 they built 45 x CV, CVL or CVEs - in the entire war the Japs built 17 x CV, CVL or CVEs.

Total a/c production - 1939 to 45 USA = 324,750 - Japan = 76,320.

Once again the allies used their massive production advantage and swamped the axis.

[Randell Daigre]

Sorry about the tirade, folks. I've been hearing (and reading) all my life from Europeans (and some Americans) about how America is only capable of winning battles and wars when it has overwhelming amounts of material and firepower. Comments such as:

the American military hasnt used finesse since the war with Mexico.

and:

You gotta go with your strenghts, and operational and strategic military genius has not been one of them.

tend to stick in my craw. I understand now that neither of you was saying that the U.S. is incapable of using finesse in war, just that it tends not to.

Honestly, I will try to keep the temperture lower in the future. My sincerest apologies.

[Titan]

Being a former New Zealand infantryman (Section commander),i find also the US is cumbersome in its use of its military.And maybe not the most effecient around either.But the resourses of the US military are almost endless and i think a military sometimes models itself off the nation in general,IE: lets look at the soviet army for example,Cumbersome and abit backward nationally and very ineffectant with its resourses and it has been since ww1 right up until today with its army as well.The States is the land of plenty and also a nation of disposal,if it broke buy a new one, plenty of everything.Its military could bomb any nation into oblivion with missles and bombs well before it ran out of them.

Lets look at New Zealands Army for example,very small in world standards but everything is used to the utmost,each soldier is trained to a very high standard in comparison to US and Russia and also very versitle.Me for example was trained on the mortars in all positions,SFMG platoon,rifleman,grenadre,parachuting,plus may other skills.And that was gernerally the Norm for most Kiwi Soldiers if not even more.So the point here is our resourses are alot more limited so one tends to squeeze alot more out of what we got.

But the point is the US military despite some of its shortfalls does things the way it does because it can afford to,im sure we would be the same if we had that Luxury as well.

So i do agree it maybe is not the best but when in a sitation it has the sqeeze on it im sure we would see some amazing things,look at Bastonge for example or the battle of the bulge in general.

And on the other hand look at Vietnam it was at its worst,lots of money,plenty of men just lots of everything and never utilised what it had very well.New Zealand and Australia had much smaller contributions to that war and made sure that what we sent was top notch because of the fact that we didnt have much and had the luxury to pay alot more attention to the individual as opposed to a massed produced soldier.

Just my thoughts on this matter

[ July 26, 2002, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: Titan ]

[Marc]

I will try once again. Since Husky hasnt read the book in question, how can he make blanket statements?

Did the US make use of its industrial might and production? OF COURSE. You play to your strengths and minimize the enemies weaknesses. Blunt force, properly applied, is very effective. The US had an excellent system for called fire. So the US didnt use outstanding small unit tactics to try and maneuver German units out of a particular position. Rather they could call on overwhelming firepower to flatten a position and then occupy it.

As to finesse, I am sure Huskey will tell you about Sgt Poole, and AMERICAN tank ace. Ah, wont you? Using the mobility of the Sherman he was well known in the western theater for knocking out numerous German tanks and assault guns, vehicles which had better armor, a better gun, and the advantage of being on the defensive. We hear of Whitman, why not Poole?

For those who wish to read a well done, well researched and documented book I once again recommend the Doubler book.

I will repeat, to continue the myth that the only reason the Western allies won the war is they threw massive amounts of equipment and manpower at the enemy simply isnt true. As someone else pointed out, there were numerous reasons, working in conjunction, which led to victory.

I served this country proudly for 25 years, my father, who passed away last year, landed at Omaha beach ON D-Day. To make blanket claims which paint the American military as hulking Neanderthal's who use mass and human life in place of tactics, strategy, and finesse is simply a canard. And, as to "running away" I could see where this was going, since some are convinced they have the only "truth".

Marc

[Desert Dave]

Pardon me, I don't believe I am being chauvanistic when I say -- there are uncounted millions and millions of soldiers AND civilians who are thankful that USA used its Industrial might to help the Western Allies crush the Nazi insanity, rather than, say -- finesse it to death over 8 or 10 or 15 years.

Does this mean that we shouldn't abide by the Just-War Doctrine as formulated by Augustine, and later refined by Saint Thomas Aquinas? Hardly. Might does NOT make right, then or now.

It would be sublime if we could retrieve the better aspects of The Chivalrous Age, but Progress -- and its symbols, primarily Money, is the Western substitue for communal religion, and since Progress is presently defined as material advancement, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

Technology can get out of control, and has, and will again as long as we-the-people worship external objects instead of a Greater Spirit. Let's hope, and even, pray that -- if it does, the wisest and most enlightened commanders -- right down to the squad leader, are at the controls.

In the meantime, we can sublimate an innate aggression by being aesthetic and creative. Playing games -- of all kinds, is one way to do that.

I don't have THE answers either, but wanted to add a few thoughts about this issue. Sorry if I have offended anyone.

[DevilDog]

I think many posters on this thread are confusing Strategic level planning with operational planning and tactics. The United States have usually had superb strategic level military leaders. If nothing else, WW 2 showed that. The very plan to use overwhelming resources and production against the Axis is a type of strategy. In fact the whole strategic plan to invade France was to create an opportunity to bring this strength to bear.

That being said, I will definitely agree that historically the U.S. military commanders at the operational level, and at times even down at the tactical level, have left a lot to be desired.

Don't know how a U-boat thread devolved into this discussion.

[ July 26, 2002, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: DevilDog ]

[David Brown]

A few things - and none of them about u-boats

First, the 'overwhelming force' thesis is a common one, and there is some truth to it. As a counter-balance, Husky, I suggest you read Richard Overy's "How the Allies Won the War", a book I've mentioned before. You've mentioned Ellis a few times (a book I now intend to read), but you might find Overy has good counterpoints - reading the book will be better than trying to argue it out here in the forum.

Having said that, I'll argue a few things anyways:

Clearly the Allies learned to fight, and fight well, by the end of the war. (It is debateable as to whether their small-unit tactics were ever at the level of the typical German unit, but they were good enough.) The Soviets went from losing seven or eight tanks to every German loss at the beginning of the war to a one to one ratio by the end. Someone mentioned 'luck' at Midway. There is luck in every battle, but at Midway the American leaders made their luck. They planned well, took advantage of their intelligence, and defeated a numerically superior, well-trained foe. I think Midway was a fine example of finesse in action. The Allied deception regarding Overlord (convincing the Germans that they were going to land in the Pas de Calais rather than Normandy) was an excellent example of finesse. Remember that despite overwhelming air superiority during the Overlord landings the Allies still only landed five divisions, nowhere near overwhelming ground superiority. Had the Germans concentrated forces at the landing sites they would have had a very good chance to throw the Allies back into the sea. The Overlord deception was an excellent example of finesse.

After the horrors of the trenches in WWI, the Western Allies were determined to defeat the Axis with material rather than human lives. This does not seem to me to be a particularly bad thing. It can lead to mistakes - but of course the Axis powers made huge errors as well.

Lastly, someone mentioned the two-front problem. Remember that in WWI the Germans successfully fought a two-front war. They weren't defeated in the west until after they had converted it into a one-front war by defeating Russia in 1917. Given that the German army suffered 70% of its casualties on the eastern front, and devoted most of its men and material there, it's likely that the Soviet Union would have eventually defeated Germany without the intervention of ground troops in the West.

[Marc]

Originally posted by David Brown:

A few things - and none of them about u-boats

.

David;

Indeed well said! I agree on Overy's book being an excellent source as well. One other worth a read, and relates to our game:

"Why the Germans Lose at War: The Myth of German Military Superiority" Kenneth Macksey, Greenhill Books, London & Stackpole Books Pennsylvania, 1996.

And with that, should we return to arguing about best strategy and tactics in the game in quesiton?

Marc

[Sol Invictus]

Ah, you know it must be a great game when it can ignite such a passionate debate.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Marc:

"I will try once again. Since Husky hasnt read the book in question, how can he make blanket statements?"

Because Husky has read hundreds of books on the subject and one or two that purport to prove (in spite of the well documented facts) that the US was a shining example of strategic finesse are not going to change the overwhelming balance of evidence.

"Did the US make use of its industrial might and production? OF COURSE. You play to your strengths and minimize the enemies weaknesses. Blunt force, properly applied, is very effective. The US had an excellent system for called fire. So the US didnt use outstanding small unit tactics to try and maneuver German units out of a particular position. Rather they could call on overwhelming firepower to flatten a position and then occupy it."

Are you on your side of this argument or mine?

Explain again about the strategic finesse of relying on overwhelming arty preperation and how that isn't just a production numbers game?

By implication that would make the Somme in WW1 an example of finesse for both sides...

"As to finesse, I am sure Huskey will tell you about Sgt Poole, and AMERICAN tank ace. Ah, wont you? Using the mobility of the Sherman he was well known in the western theater for knocking out numerous German tanks and assault guns, vehicles which had better armor, a better gun, and the advantage of being on the defensive."

You are rather grabbing at straws here citing an individual tank commander as an example of US strategic finesse.

" We hear of Whitman, why not Poole?"

Because M. Wittmann killed 138 tanks and many of his opponents were not virtually immobilised by poor logistics and fear of air attack?, because Wittmann didn't have virtually unlimited logistic, air and arty support?, because Wittmann fought much of the war on the eastern front which made the western front look like a picnic?, because Wittmann was routinely heavily outnumbered by enemy tanks?,

or perhaps it was for such achievements as destroying 6 Soviet tanks in one engagement - whilst in command of a Stug III ausf A

"I will repeat, to continue the myth that the only reason the Western allies won the war is they threw massive amounts of equipment and manpower at the enemy simply isnt true."

Yes it is, it has been well documented and well proven.

"I served this country proudly for 25 years, my father, who passed away last year, landed at Omaha beach ON D-Day."

None of which makes your arguments any more credible and is a pretty transparent appeal to emotion.

" To make blanket claims which paint the American military as hulking Neanderthal's who use mass and human life in place of tactics, strategy, and finesse is simply a canard."

The American military (and as I pointed out, the entire western allies) were hulking neanderthals that used mass in place of strategy - tell me again about how well run the Huertgen forest battles were and how strategicly vital that area was to winning the war?

" And, as to "running away" I could see where this was going, since some are convinced they have the only "truth".

You have yet to give anything except a tactical examples and then pretended that they apply to strategy.

[husky65]

Originally posted by David Brown:

" I think Midway was a fine example of finesse in action. "

The entire Pacific war was a perfect example of a blundering colossus - the US fought 2 wars in the Pacific, had they only fought one they would have defeated Japan a year earlier.

In fact you could also ask why they fought either of the two wars in the Pac they fought -

they could have grabbed Java and Borneo (cut off the oil that the Japs needed) and then build subs to strangle Japan of other resources, base bombers and troops out of China, but no - they bludgeoned their way north along two seperate paths.

"The Allied deception regarding Overlord (convincing the Germans that they were going to land in the Pas de Calais rather than Normandy) was an excellent example of finesse."

But not strategic finesse, it was intelligence finesse.

" Remember that despite overwhelming air superiority during the Overlord landings the Allies still only landed five divisions, nowhere near overwhelming ground superiority."

The allies relied on overwhelming air superiority and fire superiority (both an example of 'mass production warfare').

" Had the Germans concentrated forces at the landing sites they would have had a very good chance to throw the Allies back into the sea."

None whatsoever, tanks do not fare well against BB and CA main guns.

"The Overlord deception was an excellent example of finesse."

Just not strategic finesse.

"After the horrors of the trenches in WWI, the Western Allies were determined to defeat the Axis with material rather than human lives. This does not seem to me to be a particularly bad thing. It can lead to mistakes - but of course the Axis powers made huge errors as well."

I don't recall saying it was a bad thing strategically.

[David Brown]

Husky,

You said, referring to one of my points about Overlord, "But not strategic finesse, it was intelligence finesse."

You are making a false distinction. Strategy is defined as [Websters], amongst other things:"

"1. The science and art of using all the forces of a nation to execute approved plans as effectively as possible during peace or war.

2. The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations."

An effective, good, and dare I say, 'finessed' use of intelligence is good strategy. The Western Allies did not, in the case of Overlord, rely strictly on overwhelming material force to get ashore. Without the proper use of intelligence, in a strategic sense, I do maintain that Overlord might have failed - it was never a given. You wrote:

"None whatsoever, tanks do not fare well against BB and CA main guns."

Remember that the landings against Salerno did not have the same success, despite local air and sea superiority:

"The Allies failed to break out of the Salerno beachead due to overwhelming enemy numbers and tough German defenses. The American and British forces remained pinned to the coast until the British Eighth Army threatened Kesselring's troops from the south and forced them to withdraw up the peninsula. A week after the Salerno landings the British Eighth Army made contact with the American Fifth Army ending the greatest worries of the Allied leaders."

[Dr. Robert M. Browning, Jr]

For Overlord itself, there were serious problems at Omaha beach. High seas and shore bluffs greatly reduced naval gunfire accuracy. The point is that as significant as naval gunfire can be, it is no guarantee of success. After all, Rommel had 34 divisions under his command to face 5 Allied divisions. Had the Germans handled their forces better, and had they not been spread out due to the Allied deception, Overlord might have been a disaster.

You wrote much earlier, "the allies didn't use finesse". I don't think that anyone is disagreeing with you that the Allies certainly did use their material superiority to win the war, but I, amongst others, are simply claiming that there were indeed cases where the Allies did show good strategic planning and execution sometimes (as well as showing poor strategic planning and execution sometimes). You asked for examples of finesse: I gave Midway as an example. Your response was to claim the whole Pacific war was mishandled. Even if that is true (and I don't intend to argue it), that doesn't invalidate the Midway example.

I'm still going to read Ellis as I earlier offered to do, and perhaps he'll convince me of your case better than you. My main contention is simple: as important as Allied material superiority during the war was (and it was important), it did not, in and of itself, predestine Allied victory. The Allies had to fight. Did they fight as well as the Germans? Perhaps, and perhaps not, but in the end they fought well enough.

(All that, and nothing about U-boats again. Except this bit).

[Guest Mike]

Sigh - bugger it - I'm gonna wase in here too

Waht is finesse? I don't have a dictionary handy, but to me it means applying the minimum force at the optimum point to get the desired result.

There ain't no army/country/general/grunt in history has ever been able to do that with anything approaching consistancy!!

War is NOT about finesse - it's about making hte fewest mistakes and killing hte other guy first.

But then IMO out producing him in every important area can be considered a form of finesse too.

The term is far too vague to be able to be used to describe the war effort of hundreds of millions of people!!

Now can we discuss something useful please??

[Randell Daigre]

Numerically superior French U-Boats with rocket launchers air-dropped into Moscow to minimize the effects of a large-scale Japanese invasion of Siberia, that's what this game needs.