A vet's unflinching account of service in the 104th Reg. 26th Inf. Div.

[WineCape]

Tsk,tsk, sunshine for all? Anyone? I agree with both sides of the coin. Does it make me a "draadsitter?"

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[qb]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 ?

Because something better - the Sherman - came along, in short order, in sizeable quantities. Playing stupid was never becoming on you before, Tero, why do you insist that it might somehow be so now? I believe the Churchills also made their debut in Tunisia, where some were even credited with Tiger kills and the ability to traverse steep terrain considered impassable by the Germans.

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.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I noticed our friend wasn't quite clear about the use of gaiters and his own memory admittedly didn't jive with that of fellow veterans. They didn't wear "shoes", they all had boots. He's being misleading, probably not willfully, but no one sent US soldiers into battle in loafers. And the boots they had may have been poorly adapted to cold conditions, but they were no worse than the British Ammunition Boots that CW soldiers wore in both World Wars. My regiment's predecessor, the 10th Battalion, CEF, suffered very few cases of trenchfoot - the reason? Discipline. Morale. You changed your socks regularly, used whale oil when available, and if lucky rotated out of the line regularly. The latter was no doubt not an option during the Bulge for many, and I have no idea what replaced whale oil. But the point is that trenchfoot was considered an indicator of morale and discipline in the CW armies and no reason not to apply that standard to the US Army. If buddy's unit was suffering from trenchfoot, it probably wasn't because of their boots (incidentally he calls them shoes only because he is contrasting them deliberately with the later, newer, two buckle boots that were introduced with the 1943 combat uniform which, as he points out, may not have been universally supplied as fast as he would have liked) but may have been indicative of soldiers too miserable to try and look after themselves. In other words, if his pissy attitude when he made that website was the same when he was in the service, I'd look to that to explain his foot problems.

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.

More like mocking a douchebag, if you ask me.

[ December 18, 2006, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Tero:

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 ?

Two reasons probably;

Firstly, because it wasn't. The British used the Lee/Grant for over a year against the Germans.

Secondly, because something even better came along about 5 months after the Lee/Grant's debut.

[Hetzer38]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

...

</font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Because something better - the Sherman - came along, in short order, in sizeable quantities. Playing stupid was never becoming on you before, Tero, why do you insist that it might somehow be so now?

Just wanting to point out that Jasons outpour was leaning towards the side of grandstanding and browbeating and that while Grant/Lee was adequate it was by no means excellent. The British may have wept over its excellence but the Red Army tankers did call it the Grave for Seven Brothers (IIRC).

I believe the Churchills also made their debut in Tunisia, where some were even credited with Tiger kills and the ability to traverse steep terrain considered impassable by the Germans.

Churchills being used by the British I think is an outlier when discussing the old gits opinions.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But I noticed our friend wasn't quite clear about the use of gaiters and his own memory admittedly didn't jive with that of fellow veterans. They didn't wear "shoes", they all had boots. He's being misleading, probably not willfully, but no one sent US soldiers into battle in loafers. And the boots they had may have been poorly adapted to cold conditions, but they were no worse than the British Ammunition Boots that CW soldiers wore in both World Wars. My regiment's predecessor, the 10th Battalion, CEF, suffered very few cases of trenchfoot - the reason? Discipline. Morale. You changed your socks regularly, used whale oil when available, and if lucky rotated out of the line regularly. The latter was no doubt not an option during the Bulge for many, and I have no idea what replaced whale oil. But the point is that trenchfoot was considered an indicator of morale and discipline in the CW armies and no reason not to apply that standard to the US Army. If buddy's unit was suffering from trenchfoot, it probably wasn't because of their boots (incidentally he calls them shoes only because he is contrasting them deliberately with the later, newer, two buckle boots that were introduced with the 1943 combat uniform which, as he points out, may not have been universally supplied as fast as he would have liked) but may have been indicative of soldiers too miserable to try and look after themselves. In other words, if his pissy attitude when he made that website was the same when he was in the service, I'd look to that to explain his foot problems.

The trench foot did not affect this fellows unit alone. IIRC the US Army suffered several divisions worth of medical casualties due to this affliction during the winter of 1944.

More like mocking a douchebag, if you ask me.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

Firstly, because it wasn't. The British used the Lee/Grant for over a year against the Germans.

My bad. I was counting from El Alamein (November 1942) to Tunsia (May 1943) when I should have counted from Gazala (May 1942) onwards.

Secondly, because something even better came along about 5 months after the Lee/Grant's debut.

I thought Sherman was replacing Lees in the US units already during the African campaign.

[John Kettler]

Did those of you wondering whether the man was real who wrote all this controversial stuff about his infantry experiences during the War happen to see this? I did.

http://www.parida.com/index.html#anchor74363

Lots of checkable stuff here. Your "bitter old man" clearly accomplished nothing and was an ignorant lout. Not! To the contrary, by any reasonable yardstick, this guy was a heavy hitter..several times over.

http://www.rinfret.com/eandh.html

No work ethic, either!

http://www.rinfret.com/fun.html

Closet REMF?

http://www.rinfret.com/combat.html

Summary of a complete waste of an incarnation! Learned nothing, did nothing, saw nothing, failed to live, helped no one!

http://www.parida.com/bifram.html#anchor75662

So, yes, I am rubbing it in! Some of you, IMO, need to stop rushing to judgment. You're oh so eager to dismiss me and anything I post about which you find even slightly offputting. When you look at the myriad, even phenomenal, achievements in this man's life, compared with your exceedingly narrow, negative view of him based upon his description of the part of his life he frankly labeled "hell," I can only conclude that you have achieved some sort of altered state so sublime in its ridiculousness that you would embarrass those merely guilty of straining at the gnat.

Independent, far from fawning confirmation in his obit of many things he said on his site.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201993.html

A longer, far more detailed obit.

http://www.nysun.com/article/35447?page_no=1

Nice summary here of the man and his many accomplishments.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/banking-financial-services/20060705/NEW02105072006-1.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

Good one John.

He still sounds like a grumpy old man though. A bit like the book 'The other side of time', written by a battalion MO in 12th (US) AD.

I am not sure that morale is a good explanation for high incidences of trench foot in the US forces. Lack of training, and lack of ability to change, dry out, as well as lack of officer interest strike me as more likely. One thing I recall from reading a British memoir (I think) was the comment that the US infantry was supposed to get by on cold K-Rations while in the line, while in the British case every effort was made to get hot food forward. Then there is the RD system. Taken together, it leaves me with the impression that there appears to have been a failure to take the proper interest in welfare of the PBI on the US side, and this is quite sufficient to explain the amount of anger to me.

All the best

Andreas

[Bigduke6]

Yeah, when saw 2001 on the site I thought he would be dead by now. RIP.

Rinfret from what I can tell was a real combat veteran. He was in the line, walked point, and saw lots of people die. To me, he sounds like he was trying to tell the truth. So if he writes he went into combat in his dress shoes, and had to wait until late October for boots, I believe him. If he writes he didn't receive winter clothing until November, I believer him.

Naturally I do not take his account as proof the entire U.S. Army had these failures. But it is evidence of a supply problem of some kind, although the bottleneck could have been anywhere from the company supply room to the off-loaders at Utah beach, and every one inbetween.

Rinfret's criticisms of the low quality of U.S. company leadership certainly have precedent, as do his complaints about the low standards of training for U.S. combat units.

Yes he does non-grog things like using the 88 to demonstrate the alleged superiority of German artillery, or mislabels the Springfield. Clearly, this is a man that did not take well to military discipline, which he almost certainly referred to as "chickensh*t". This is also almost certainly why he carried a lot of anger with him for the rest of his life: incompetence in war kills people, and incomptence - especially to the intelligent- is almost always preventable.

Considering the man's later accomplishments (Fullbright Scholar, twice, for instance), it is almost amazing to me that even the U.S. Army failed to see that this was a person smart enough, that it did the service no good to have him walking point in front of an infantry company.

In retrospect, he was clearly too bright to be fed into the infantry meatgrinder. I am not so sure he was officer material, he doesn't strike me as a person that liked structure and subordination.

But why the system didn't stick a man like that into intelligence or the Airborne or the Rangers or something, is a little confounding.

Of course, maybe he became a bright light only after he went through the war. Now we'll never know.

In any case, Rinfret was apparently in the line for close to a year, and I think his first-hand recollections sound credible.

Sure some of his interpetations could be challenged, as Jason pointed out the Grant was well-received when fielded in Africa. However, the sponson arrangement for a main gun was not only obsolete and a dumb design, so calling the Grant a crappy tank is not a huge error.

Also, I think it is worth bearing in mind that by the time Rinfret started gaining combat experience - late summer '44, the Grant was in fact a rotten tank, no ifs ands or buts. Thus I think it's hard to argue Rinfret was doing anything but telling the truth as he saw it, when he was talking about the Grant.

Taking Rinfret to task because he mislabels Springfield - he is writing a half-century after the event - is petty. Give the guy a break.

For me I think the really useful thing is that right after he garbles the nomenclature on the Springfield, he describes the Garand as a good but not great weapon. That is valuable, the guy was a combat infantryman and his opinion is worth a lot on something like that. Nothing of what he said should be taken as the gospel truth of the entire U.S. Army, but by that same token, it is proof of the situation in a part of that army.

De mortuibus dice tantum bonem.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

In retrospect, he was clearly too bright to be fed into the infantry meatgrinder. I am not so sure he was officer material, he doesn't strike me as a person that liked structure and subordination.

Actually, I think that the general argument is that there were not enough bright guys walking point in the infantry companies.

All the best

Andreas

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

[QB] In retrospect, he was clearly too bright to be fed into the infantry meatgrinder.

Yeah, cause only morons are fit to be in the infantry. Doesn't take brains at all, just grab a rifle and go. Anyone with an IQ joined the air force anyway. The way this guy wasn't promoted to brigadier general the day of his induction is probably a war crime.

But why the system didn't stick a man like that into intelligence or the Airborne or the Rangers or something, is a little confounding.

Reread his comments about feeling no honor carrying the company flag because he wasn't being paid more. That said it all, to me. Hey, he could have volunteered for the airborne; the pay would have been an incentive.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I am not sure that morale is a good explanation for high incidences of trench foot in the US forces. Lack of training, and lack of ability to change, dry out, as well as lack of officer interest strike me as more likely. One thing I recall from reading a British memoir (I think) was the comment that the US infantry was supposed to get by on cold K-Rations while in the line, while in the British case every effort was made to get hot food forward. Then there is the RD system. Taken together, it leaves me with the impression that there appears to have been a failure to take the proper interest in welfare of the PBI on the US side, and this is quite sufficient to explain the amount of anger to me.

Good points, particularly the trench foot issue. I probably over emphasized discipline, but perhaps we agree that it was largely preventable and that at some point, at least in some cases, the soldiers themselves are at fault - wittingly or not.

The Replacement Depot system has been roundly criticized.

Whatever justifications this fellow thought he had, the presentation he selected is juvenile, and the many errors of fact and overblown opinion leave me no sympathy for him. It is far too easy to trash people who were in the main working hard for a common purpose; that many mistakes were made along the way is forgivable, except apparently perhaps by those who were forced to live, and die, by their mistakes.

As I said, if this fellow really needs to blame someone for the fact his boots were inadequate and his brother got killed waiting in line for chow, blame the fat and happy in 1938 who did not want to believe a war was coming. I have a hard time doing so - we live in the same blissful ignorance today. And we like it that way. It is the next generation who will pay with their lives because of us, should there be another major conflict. Sucks to be them.

[Andreas]

Why should he feel any loyalty to a unit that in his view did not show any loyalty to him (look at his comments about the Irish old boys network shafting the new draftees), or its soldiers in general (see his account of the maneuver incident)?

All the best

Andreas

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Why should he feel any loyalty to a unit that in his view did not show any loyalty to him (look at his comments about the Irish old boys network shafting the new draftees), or its soldiers in general (see his account of the maneuver incident)?

All the best

Andreas

It's not a question of loyalty; why pour all that bitterness onto a website and indict a bunch of anonymous people and give the impression nobody - including people well outside your chain of command - ever did anything right? I don't see the purpose. He speaks of honor but apparently has none.

Incidentally, I love how he pads his list of "accomplishments" that John links to -

"Visited Canada 4 times a year minimum for more than 20 years."

Can the Medal of Honor be awarded retroactively?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Incidentally, I love how he pads his list of "accomplishments" that John links to -

"Visited Canada 4 times a year minimum for more than 20 years."

Can the Medal of Honor be awarded retroactively?

That caught my eye too. If he had not been American, I would have diagnosed him with irony.

All the best

Andreas

[imported_Wildman]

I was curious how he was awarded a degree in Electrical Engineering from Maine in 1944 if he was in combat at the same time?

[Andreas]

26th was not shipped to Europe before August 1944.

All the best

Andreas

[Dook]

--Warning! Pedantic word usage intervention ahead!--

It's bromide, not bromine.

--All clear--

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

26th was not shipped to Europe before August 1944.

All the best

Andreas

But he did his basic training in 1943, so presumably was in the Army for all of 1944?

[Andreas]

It says in his CV that it was an Army degree, IIRC.

All the best

Andreas

[Nemesis Lead]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

In retrospect, he was clearly too bright to be fed into the infantry meatgrinder.

Guys,

He got a college degree and was in infantry because he was in the ASTP program. This is an interesting story:

When the US joined WW2, the US Army offered its most intelligent soldiers the opportunity to join ASTP. The deal was that these guys would go to college during the first part of their army tour. After the war, these college-educated soldiers would then be more effective in German and Japanese occupation roles.

Keep in mind that had these guys not volunteered for ASTP, they would have CERTAINLY been assigned to rear-echelon jobs and would have never gotten near combat.

Now comes the great irony. In 1944, US infantry losses in Normandy, the Hurtgen Forest, etc. were so severe that the US was lacking infantry replacements. There was also a hue and cry in the US about the least intelligent soldiers being deployed to the infantry (the Army largely used IQ and Aptitude tests to select branch).

Hence, the US decided to cancel the ASTP program and to retrain all ASTP soldiers as infantry.

Here is a link:

http://www.astpww2.org/

So the gentleman writing the article was in college at the start of the war. He never dreamed he would be in combat. In fact, he thought it was great that he could get a college degree and almost certainly avoid combat. Then the ASTP program was cancelled and he was forced the infantry.

In Europe, the veterans in the infantry often did not initially take well to the "college boys" and the author complains that often the ASTP soldiers were initially treated very poorly.

While the gentleman often does not get his facts straight, his article gives one an excellent sense of what was bad about life in the combat infantry.

Some of you guys should be ashamed of yourselves. If the guy was 70% incorrect and 30% correct, why not learn something from the 30% that is correct? Why would you personally attack this guy?

[ December 18, 2006, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Thanks for the clarifications, Nem.

[michael kenny]

Though it now seems this 'old git' is indeed genuine my problem is not with those who thought he was an imposter. Rather it is the petty and vindictive way he was dismissed by Jason.

He may wiggle now by saying it was all a bit of showing off and a chance to show his 'Buffy' skills. Thats the problem when you are too clever by half. Less endowed individuals miss the point.

It was also (loosely) a pop culture reference that few apparently got (BTVS, Joyce of principal Schneider).

[JonS]

This thread reminds me a lot of Cooper's Death traps. Some folk swear by it, while others swear at it. I just wish Cooper had stuck to his own lane, and talked about things he'd personally done and experienced.

There are far better analysts out there than Cooper or this guy - Rinfret. But vets have something that any amount of analysis won't buy you, if only they'd tell of it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Though it now seems this 'old git' is indeed genuine my problem is not with those who thought he was an imposter. Rather it is the petty and vindictive way he was dismissed by Jason.

He may wiggle now by saying it was all a bit of showing off and a chance to show his 'Buffy' skills. Thats the problem when you are too clever by half. Less endowed individuals miss the point.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It was also (loosely) a pop culture reference that few apparently got (BTVS, Joyce of principal Schneider).

</font>