John Kettler Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 In trying to find that accursed report to Ike on U.S. weapon inferiority vs. German ones, I found this searing veteran's account, which I've just begun to explore, of his direct experiences and the terribly inadequate gear with which he fought. This is NOT a rosy U.S. material superiority story, so be warned! http://www.rinfret.com/ww2.html Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evzone Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 Excellent read, thanks JK! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 16, 2006 Author Share Posted December 16, 2006 Evzone, Just finished it myself. Ought to be mandatory reading, IMO. Can you imagine playing CM under iron man rules based on what Rinfret describes? Egad! Also, it more than confirms what I've said for years about why the Army adopted all that high tech gadgetry to determine where its men are. The FO's own location estimate is way off. Even in the 1980s, the average own location error was 300 meters. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 I found it unrestrained bromine. It failed to tell me anything, was incoherent on numerous points, clearly wrong on others, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hensworth Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 I try to be gracious to the elderly, but these are clearly the ramblings of an old fogey. He raises a grand total of 3 different points and can't seem to decide where he stands on any of them. This rather illustrates why I'll take the word of the scholar with no first hand experience over that of the simpleton who was there, but that's just me of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 After the war. I looked up some of my comarade on the web. Didnt realise the commerical internet was that old :eek: May i ask, since am confused. Why is it he was trained on a copy of the Lee Enfield instead of a M1 or a Springfield as i would of thought? Edit: I hate to be an ass but: Tanks and reconnaissance vehicles were a horror and the first American military tank produced for World War II (called the "Grant" I was under the impression that this was a British nickname for the modiefied Lee (again British nickname?) and the Americans never called them this and only referred to them as the M3 Mediums. :confused: [ December 16, 2006, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: the_enigma ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 16, 2006 Author Share Posted December 16, 2006 the_enigma, For the first, blame time dilation! Regarding the second, I thought at first there might've been a version chambered for .30'06, but if there ever was, I couldn't find it in Ezell's SMALL ARMS OF THE WORLD. My next guess is that the U.S. likely ended WW I armed with a mix of French Lebels, British Lee Enfields and Springfield M 1903s, with the last being hard to come by, whereas Enfields were produced by the million. Reinforcing this scenario is the parlous state of the U.S. military which trained with wooden guns, trucks labeled "tank" and so forth. Other things being equal, maybe he was lucky to even have a rifle! The M1 didn't enter service until after the campaign to seize Guadalcanal had begun. The antitank popgun to which he refers is not the one pictured, which is an M6 37mm antitank gun. What he's referring to, and I've seen it in newsreels, is the watercooled .50 caliber machine gun, which was originally a dual purpose antiaircraft and antitank weapon. Regarding AFVs, I think his report is based on what he saw, rather than a careful check of the records. SOFAIK, the first U.S. tank produced for use in WW II was the M3 Stuart in its various configurations, and it was basically a rework of the M2 our hero may've seen on maneuvers. Clearly, he thought the M3 medium tank was an abortion, even though he botched the arrival sequence and the nomenclature. Certainly, it's possible to nitpick what the man said (dead now), but I think that it's wise indeed to heed what he has to say about military unpreparedness, officer incompetence, equipment deficiencies, supply shortages, lack of essential items, land nav issues, cowardice in battle, SIWs, war crimes by the Germans and lack of same by our troops, and a bunch of other things I don't remember now, having been up all night and it now being nearly 1 p.m. my time. FWIW, I always saw our M3 Mediums written about as M3 Lees. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Actually, it is wise to dismiss him as an ill informed crabby old git. When they first got Grants in the western desert, Brits wept with joy. With good reason - it was the best tank on the field at the battle of Gazala in mid 1942. Its lesser gun up in the turret was comparable to the German standard, its armor superior to anything the Germans had, and its hull gun was superior to everything on a chassis other than handful of thin Marders mounting captured Russian 76s. He says Enfield because he can't tell an Enfield from a Springfield - they are both "fields" and bolt action, all he knows. He thinks his BAR was "made" in 1917 when it was designed in 1917 - and was way ahead of its time, copied by the Czech and Brits leading to the Bren, etc. He thinks units needed more realistic training and then whines about being forced to cross a river or crawl under machinegun fire because it is too dangerous. Meanwhile Patton et al took what become 2nd Armored out into the middle of nowhere for months of the toughest desert training to get them ready for North Africa, taught them to go without sleep for 3 days straight, maintain their tanks in desert dust, operate in 140 degree conditions, throw out equipment that couldn't take it, etc. He thinks a sergeant he hated as a bully had to be a coward because he got ranting mad under a barrage. Which shows he was a small-minded vindictive rodent of a man. Meanwhile, the brass he likes to rail against was doing little things like taking a non existent experimental armor force of 6000 transfered cavalrymen, and creating a magnificent separate armor branch and building it up to 15 divisions formed or forming, before they ever saw the enemy. Chafee saw what was needed, rammed it through, got the cadres it required, established the right doctrine for the force and instilled it, etc. They also got Shermans before US ADs landed, from lessons on the Grant learned by the Brits. One artilleryman turned armor service took said armor force from a support standard of 36 towed 75s to 54 fully tracked SP 105s per division in less than 7 months, and got them built too. As a result, the US had the finest SP arty in the world. Then his superior noticed they would work even better with a few spotter planes, and got that to happen - something the Germans never managed even when they controlled the air. All before hearing a shot fired. Meanwhile the US created the finest airborne infantry force in history, and used it to decisive effect in multiple invasions, and on the ground. There wasn't a single paratrooper in the US in 1939. Men like Ridgeway came out of nowhere - no thanks to sad full of themselves old coots like this useless stuffsack. Etc. "We were wet and didn't want to be there and hated it". Well duh, it is called a war, you silly gasbag... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Enigma Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 I agree with Jason ... but didnt really want to point them all out lol Now am no Army man ... so am under no illusions how things truly work. It states he had to zero in his BAR during actual fighting, when the division landed and went right into combat. Again i hate to be an ass, but the division history shows they landed in port or on beaches (a different one from which he states) and didnt start fighting till around a month later. Would one be wrong to presume that would be all the time he needed to zero his rifle? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 I would think the real reason for this garbage Originally posted by JasonC: Actually, it is wise to dismiss him as an ill informed crabby old git......... Which shows he was a small-minded vindictive rodent of a man....... no thanks to sad full of themselves old coots like this useless stuffsack........ Well duh, it is called a war, you silly gasbag........... is that the unfortunate gentleman would not admit that: When they first got Grants in the western desert, Brits wept with joy. He thinks his BAR was "made" in 1917 when it was designed in 1917 - and was way ahead of its time, copied by the Czech and Brits leading to the Bren, etc. As a result, the US had the finest SP arty in the world Meanwhile the US created the finest airborne infantry force in historyHmmm.........who else could the phrase "sad full of themselves old coots like this useless stuffsack" apply to? Answers on a postcard please! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 If you dispute any them in particular, you have only to explain that the Brits hated the Grant and found it useless, explain how Browning copied all his ideas from Baron Munchausen and nobody ever used his, describe the superior SPA the Germans or Russians possessed, or name the previous airborne that accomplished more. If you can't, then you dispute it anyway because... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C46thVA Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 As someone who has done a fair amount of research using both period and post war 1st person accounts, I have found that both must be taken with a grain of salt.Likewise we must be careful with the work of scholars with no first hand knowledge of the subject matter. In the end it comes down to our own interperataion of the events. The researcher or historian is always walking a fine line between fact and opinion. JW 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 That the guy's 'facts' may not be entirely accurate is one thing, but to spew the venom as you have is totally uncalled for. There simply is no reason for ripping into him as you have, except for being an asshole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Originally posted by JasonC: . If you can't, then you dispute it anyway because... Well because you are pig ignorant. Is that plain enough? Perhaps you should be reminded of something from another site? Informed debate is appropriate so long as it is CONSTRUCTIVE........... Now where did I read that Jason? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmoney Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Originally posted by Kingfish: That the guy's 'facts' may not be entirely accurate is one thing, but to spew the venom as you have is totally uncalled for. There simply is no reason for ripping into him as you have, except for being an asshole. Once you post your thoughts publicly you need to expect for them to be scrutinized. That would be like if I said I hate all the scenarios you make (which I don’t), then when asked what I hated about it I start describing something about SC2 and not even about cmak or cmbb. So you see this guy didn’t even have his facts straight. To me unless someone actually knows this fellow I doubt it’s even from a WW2 vet. Personally, from what I read I think it’s a false account, I think the site is a fake. I could be wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Having someone's historical inaccuracies pointed out is nothing new, God knows I've seen plenty in this forum alone, but calling someone a "small-minded vindictive rodent of a man" in the process is not the way to do it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 It is sauce for the goose, exactly what the man was doing himself. And it is an accurate description of the psychology that takes glee in a man going ranting mad under artillery fire with an "I knew it! ha ha ha". It was also (loosely) a pop culture reference that few apparently got (BTVS, Joyce of principal Schneider). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Originally posted by Kingfish: That the guy's 'facts' may not be entirely accurate is one thing, but to spew the venom as you have is totally uncalled for. There simply is no reason for ripping into him as you have, except for being an asshole. And calling JasonC one makes you what, exactly? The venom in this case was the creator of that website. I like also how he complains about his brother being killed because of bureaucratic incompetence - citing the "fact" that a chow line was set up in the front line. Without facts in evidence telling both sides of the story, it really doesn't mean anything. It is unfortunate his brother was killed, but I don't see it as an excuse to indict everyone in the Army over the rank of corporal... I thought Jason's post was entirely on target, well thought out, and supported by historical fact. *shrug* The site indicated is more than a little pathetic; it is unfortunate that it would be considered 'recommended reading' by anyone. Kudos to JasonC for taking the time to point out there are two sides to every issue. And he is quite accurate when he indicates that if anyone wants to explain why his historical points are inaccurate, they are welcome to post alternative views and sources... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 two wrongs make a right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: two wrongs make a right? Absolutely not. Luckily that isn't the case here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 For awhile we even wore the "puttees" of World War I! When I took "Basic Training" at Fort McClellan, Alabama we were issued puttees from World War I!Here's another gem. Canadian forces also wore puttees at the start of the war; in fact, they wore them in combat at Hong Kong in 1941 and throughout the war in Canada as part of summer dress. I don't know if they were produced before or after 1918, but either way, they were a practical piece of military kit. He goes on to whine about not having leggings to keep the mud out of his "shoes". Seems to me the puttees he was knocking would have come in handy, then. In Italy, many Canadians actually preferred shorter length puttees to the issue web anklets, and they were worn in Korea in combat and after the war for many years. Some officers were still wearing them with the kilt when I signed up in 1987. I love how "World War I" is used by some people as if it was synonymous with the Dark Ages or something. Modern militaries trace just about everything they do back to the lessons of 1914-1918, and modernization of the world's militaries changed far less from 1918 to 1939 (or 1941, heh) than from 1914 to 1918. Far from being a Dark Age, the First World War was where such things as machine guns, infantry squads, tanks, artillery barrages, radio communication, counter battery fire, etc. etc. were developed. So this guy stands up and hollers "hey, we wore puttees" as if it is somehow shorthand for "my God our generals were stupid, sadistic butchers!" I can't believe anyone pretending to be well read in modern military history would fall for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 That's me carrying the company flag at Fort McClellan, Anniston, Alabama some time in early 1943 (note the fixed bayonets). I was called the "guidon bearer" and it was supposd to be an honor but I never got any extra money or perquisites!I get a lump in my throat just looking at our Regimental Colours every time they are on parade. As a junior NCO I will never have the honour of bearing them on parade (that distinction goes to subalterns only). This gentleman obviously missed the point entirely. He considers something an honour only if it involves extra pay? I think that says volumes about him right there. "Rodent" seems quite apt. It's sad, really. If this is actually a war time veteran, it's apparent he "didn't get it" when he was in, and "didn't get it" when he designed that tribute to his comrades and superiors. War destroys people in more ways than one. In that sense, he is certainly a casualty. Kudos to him for fighting for his country (and for us) but shame on him for spewing such self-serving garbage, and giving so many others an un-deserved black eye in the process. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: And he is quite accurate when he indicates that if anyone wants to explain why his historical points are inaccurate, they are welcome to post alternative views and sources... How do you 'disprove' an opinion? What exactly is conclusive proof that something is 'the best'? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Originally posted by michael kenny: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: And he is quite accurate when he indicates that if anyone wants to explain why his historical points are inaccurate, they are welcome to post alternative views and sources... How do you 'disprove' an opinion? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: At any rate, Jason's post dealt primarily with matters of fact, not opinion. Yes. But the way Jason presents the facts is opinionated. For one, if Grant was something to weep of joy over because of its excellence why was it relegated to Far East not 6 months after its combat debut ? Also, the old git does raise a very valid point about trench foot. Which Jason steers cleverly clear of because it is one of the more valid gripes which is dead on right and historically correct. Jason clearly espoused matters of historical fact that the website in question discusses solely as matters of opinion. Jason is not addressing the failings alone, he is persecuting a heretic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.