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

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You're still not getting it. *shrug* If you want to stare wide-eyed at some dude who announces he is a veteran and was smarter than Eisenhower and the entire Allied High Command, knock your socks off.

Perhaps you missed the bit where I wrote:

" my problem is not with those who thought he was an imposter"

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Don't piss on Jason simply because he knows better than you.

Now you sound as arrogant as Jason. Perhaps an example of this 'better understanding' can be shown?

Maybe here?

A Jason answer:

They tended to hang around as command tanks and on regimental staff and the like. Weren't meant to be used still for front line combat, though.

An answer from one with less understanding:

Zetterling in Normandy 1944 notes 8./Pz Regt 22 as having 6 short barrel Pz IV s.

6/44 21 Pz Div had 21 short barrel Pz IV s.

20/8/43 26 Pz Div had 17 short barrel Pz IV s.

21/1/44 26 Pz Div had 11 short barrel Pz IV s.

233rd Reserve Pz Div 1/12/44 3 short barrel Pz IV s

The trick is knowing your limitations and instead of trying to answer every question personally point the enquirer towards those you know have the real answer.

Must go now. Have discovered a helpful man with hundreds of original WW2 Normandy battlefield recce photos. I might find someone 'who knows better' who could help me with them..........original research and all that....

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

[snips] ...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.

"Buffy" skills? JasonC can slay vampires? I didn't think he was that kind of SMG grog, but what do I know?

All the best,

John.

[JasonC]

The psychology of the thing is readily apparent. Anybody sane hates being in a war, but most don't hate those around them who are saving their lives everyday and putting up with hell to help do so. This guy did and does.

Morally, that is really all you need to know about him. The rest follows - he will nurse every petty grievance etc. Anybody who has read Celine knows what is going on here. (He reads like a low-brow, illiterate Bardamu). Dislike of the whole war first becomes self-pity and then becomes hatred of everyone around him.

It may even be understood as a defense thing, trying to appear above the war by despising everything about it, blaming his fellows for his being there at all, etc. It is just morally obtuse, and shot through with blatant errors of fact.

As such, it remains the rantings of a crotchity old git, and useless.

One fellow wanted to know how one establishes that X is the best of some category. Simple, one looks around for a better, and if every case that falls under the category falls short of the candidate, then one concludes it is the best of its category.

You can readily conclude e.g. that German had the best tanks, US the best SPA and airborne (if you like, the last level with the Brits but both way ahead of anybody else), etc. If you choose to cherry pick categories to only sound sour notes, then you just convict yourself of bias. Which is what he does. He is ignorant of the ways in which the US army excelled, and likes it that way.

As for why the Grant was obsolete 9 months after being fielded, obviously because the standard was ratching higher continually. Why were Germans reduced to trying to stop the Stalingrad counterattack with Panzer 38t's? (Because a passably useful tank a year early wasn't a year later).

The comment about the Grant is taken verbatim from British officer's accounts of the desert war. It was revolutionary because the Brits had previously been so poorly equipped (the I tanks their best, but underarmed). So was the Sherman when it appeared at El Alamein.

Both gave them a gun that could reliably penetrate any Panzer they faced at range, for the first time. Previously only towed 25 pdrs had been in the same league. They also brought armor sufficient to bounce 50L42, 75L24, and 47L32 rounds, by far the majority of the Axis fleet faced.

The Char-B is the obvious equivalent incidentally. Read Guderian if you think they thought those silly or obsolete, when their own median tank by weight and armor was a Panzer II. Clearly that whole section of his rant is pure spin, straw-grasping stuff.

As for trench foot, along with pneumonia it was indeed a serious problem in the US army in the winter of 43-44 in Italy, and again in France in the winter of 44-45. Both reflect prolonged exposure in poor weather and the greenness of the troops. Not footwear in September.

[Guest Mike]

As such, it remains the rantings of a crotchity old git, and useless.

And you can back up this assessment of the writer by appropriate tests and data?

Now had you said something like "It remains the rantings of an ill informed vet, as many were, and useless." then I would have no problem.

But your message gets camouflaged by your own rantings.

Unlike Michael D. I do see this as being just as useless a satatement as those by the vet in question.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The comment about the Grant is taken verbatim from British officer's accounts of the desert war.

and the source is?

So our 'old git' has set out to copy Céline!

Deliberate falsification of geography and history?

Truth and/or fiction?

The GI's journey from America to France a recreation of Bardamu's voyage from Africa to America?

Maybe it is a sad old mans dreams-or a very clever homage to his favourite author?

I wish I was intelligent enough to know what it is I am saying!

[C'Rogers]

As a side note I was impressed by JasonC reference to BTVS, I always pictured him as some old guy and it took me by surprise (so either he is not some old guy or he is some old guy who keeps up with pop culture).

My definition of "old guy" though is probably fairly young by standards of some here.

[JasonC]

"you can back up this assessment of the writer"

Already have with a dozen factual errors, on top of the screaming basic moral diagnosis others have also noticed and already commented upon.

Name a single thing you think you learned from the website in question that you did not already know before.

[JasonC]

m.k. - it really is kinda cute how you trapse around from thread to thread nipping along like a little terrier and imagining anybody cares. I guess we can see why you over identify much with the petty rodent in question. As for your great acumen and glory on the thread you highlight, the question was of course about the bulge, not Normandy or 1943.

[JasonC]

John D Salt - Oz on Martha Stewart. However, I likewise know jack about hand cut prosciutto...

[michael kenny]

Yeah, whatever you say brains.

Originally posted by JasonC:

The comment about the Grant is taken verbatim from British officer's accounts of the desert war.

and the source is?

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"you can back up this assessment of the writer"

Already have with a dozen factual errors,

Errors are not justification for abuse. Regardless of the number. They are certainly justification for pointing out the errors and saying the whole work is suspect, you shouldn't believe anything this writer says, and other logical conclusions.

"Crotcehty old git" does not fit the evidence.

on top of the screaming basic moral diagnosis others have also noticed and already commented upon.

If you keep up the insults you get to keep getting the flak.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

"Crotcehty old git" does not fit the evidence.

Does from this angle, too. It's clear that the thread has ceased to be about the original link, but about JasonC himself. The thing I've always admired most about him was his ability to see through that and simply walk away from threads that have become about him personally. It's unfortunate when others see that as a victory or some sort of vindication.

To put this in perspective, if this thread were a criminal trial, the accused - the fellow who originated the website would be represented by his lawyer, michael kenny, by making personal comments about the prosecutor, Jason. Makes little sense, but don't kid yourself - character is very much an issue in assessing the remarks of the defendant.

[Guest Mike]

A little politeness goes a long way - there was no need to slag off teh writer of the article under discussion, and the answer to keeping such discussions on track is real easy and in Jason's own hands.

Comparisons with trials are meaningless - there's nothing complicated here that needs explaining by analogy.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

To put this in perspective, if this thread were a criminal trial, the accused - the fellow who originated the website would be represented by his lawyer, michael kenny, by making personal comments about the prosecutor, Jason. Makes little sense, but don't kid yourself - character is very much an issue in assessing the remarks of the defendant.

The problem with your analogy, Mike, is that the prosecutor decided that stating the facts of the case wasn't enough, but instead chose to add totally unwarrented insults and personal attacks to his closing arguments.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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.

Did they know trench foot existed before they got it ? AFAIK it was/is always (in most armies) the platoon leaders job to make sure his men are taking care of their gear and themselves to the best of their ability.

Also, from previous debates on the issue, you guys have always put the blame on the resupply system which put low priority to such things as socks and laundry.

Come to think of it, did the US army platoon have woodburners and tents necessary for the prevention of trench foot in field conditions to begin with ?

The Replacement Depot system has been roundly criticized.

Nicely putting the blame in the system instead of the individuals integral into the design and development of the system.

[JasonC]

mk - source for biblio mom, Forging the Thunderbolt, stackpole book on the origins of the US armor branch. See the sections on just before combat stuff, quotes Brit officers in the western desert etc. Also covers several of the other points I raised (SPA, etc), as I happened to be reading it at the same time the thread was started.

As for those who think alleging abuse an argument, take it up with the original website, which is full of it - bully, coward, fools, etc. There is no place to stand that excuses him and accuses me on grounds of mere tone. If you want to do so, you will have to defend not his tone, but his factual assertions, which are largely indefensible (and cherry-picked spin the rest of the time).

If his tone is praiseworthy as unvarnished and honest, there is no reason not to react the same way to my forthright unvarnished and honest assessment of him, as - you know the rest.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

source for biblio mom, Forging the Thunderbolt, stackpole book on the origins of the US armor branch. See the sections on just before combat stuff, quotes Brit officers in the western desert etc. Also covers several of the other points I raised (SPA, etc), as I happened to be reading it at the same time the thread was started.

Perhaps you could be so good as to either scan the pages or give me the quotes here? I don't have the book and would just like to check out the quote (you said verbatim?) I can then try and find the original work that has the quote(s)

In return I could give you other verbatim quotes (Harry Ramsbottom from 4th CLY) showing that some still prefered their old 'useless' Cruiser tanks.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JasonC:

If his tone is praiseworthy as unvarnished and honest, there is no reason not to react the same way to my forthright unvarnished and honest assessment of him, as - you know the rest.

The thing is he is an actual veteran and you are not. No matter how poor quality his facts may be you are in no position to admonish his opinions which are based on facts as he experienced and knew them. This is why I think you are prosecuting (if not persecuting like I posted earlier) a heretic because he is not in the bandwagon unguestionably admiring the US military during WWII.

We Finns have had to deal with similar "facts" of dubious origin when discussing and debating Red Army veteran memoires concerning the Finnish front (Winter War Cuckoo snipers tied to trees etc). And of course there are the in-house debates concerning different interpretations of the events and facts as presented by Finnish veterans.

I have witnessed very few attacks of this kind on the veterans character and person just because he is clearly not with the programme.

[ December 19, 2006, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[von Lucke]

From the Washington Post obit:

Mr. Rinfret's campaign for governor quickly became something resembling comedic theater. He spent almost as much time criticizing state GOP leaders, many of whom had walked away from his candidacy after he balked at self-financing the effort, as he did attacking Cuomo, who largely ignored his Republican challenger.

From the NY Sun obit:

He called Republican officials "idiots," and they countered by labeling him "a brainless wonder."

This, and the rambling screed that is his website, would seem to give something of a clue into this gentleman's nature. He may very well have been a genius in Economic Theory, but he also seems to be a bit of a crank. (Not to mention, for somebody with a boatload of degrees, a very poor writer. After perusing his accomplishments, I'm dumbfounded by the 5th-grade level composition stylings of his memoir.)

OK, great; the guy's a War Hero and a certified genius. He still seems to have an axe to grind, though, and the sparks are a-flyin'...

[ December 19, 2006, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: von Lucke ]

[The_Enigma]

Errors are not justification for abuse.

Have you seen what people say about Guy Sajer?

*stirs the pot and runs*

Michael Kenny: On the subject of the M3, there are many works which have hailed the M3 as Jason has justly stated.

The M3 was a tank mounting a gun, if rather awkwardly, which could hole the German tanks with ease then our 2 pounders.

It was also sporting more armour then our Crusaders.

Although the tank wasn’t without its own flaws which have also been stated.

Fair enough that there is also documented evidence that some crews preferred the Crusaders to the M3 but there is also alot of evidence which back up crews liked the M3.

Now to fill my own curiosity, (this may be a trivial point).

Would have the author not known this tank has the M3 or the "Lee", in opposed to the "Grant" (which if i understand this correctly, was modified version of the M3, a British turret placed on it so it had a lower profile, radio moved iirc etc)?

[ December 19, 2006, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]

[John Kettler]

The story of U.S. military footwear, and the fate of the feet of those forced to wear it, is by and large, a long and sad one. So sad that if there isn't already a book on this, someone ought to write one. Maybe the Army, specifically Natick, finally got it right, but when I left military aerospace in mid '89, the Army still didn't have a decent combat boot and had in fact repeated history by issuing a rough side out boot like we had in WW II, to which the spit shine crowd responded exactly as before, with lighter fluid and fire to remove the fuzz, making the thing polishable, defeating the whole idea behind it. As for trench foot/immersion foot, I believe the medical corps had a good understanding of it before WW I was even finished. To my mind, failure by command to apply those dearly bought insights should've been chargeable.

I think, too, that a lot more needs to be said about the criminal/near criminal way men were kept in the line until they basically disintegrated, special perks for officers, to include the ongoing issuance of "fruit salad" thereto for little or no combat effort, and that's in addition to the Repple Depple, 90 day wonders, SIWs, failure to supply hot food, etc., issues.

Also, REMFs stealing supplies desperately needed by frontline troops was a HUGE problem at least through the Vietnam War and, for all I know, may still be.

When it comes to what the British call "man management," I'm firmly in the Field Marshal Slim camp who warned his regimental COs that he would break them before their units if they lived better than their men or ate before they did.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ December 21, 2006, 03:47 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Michael Dorosh]

I would have thought it apparent to michael kenny that "primary research" does not get to the whole picture of things and like all other research methods needs to be done in conjunction with others.

That a tank crew might think that any particular type of tank is the "cat's ass" is likely; it does not make that vehicle better or worse than others by those merits alone. Tank crews were notoriously misinformed about the characteristics and capabilities of enemy machines at times, and sometimes even their own. I would not trust their word alone that any particular vehicle type was "better" any more than I would take JasonC's word alone that it was so.

I am quite sure that tank crews in the desert had less access to penetration data or even raw data on armour thickness of enemy vehicles than we do today (indeed, these things continue to be debated even today); certainly they could see what worked and what did not. (Most times. The large engine grille on the side of the Char B1 bis in 1940 - a large Achilles heel - was apparently not known by the Germans to be especially vulnerable until after the French surrender). But in many cases soldiers build up a visceral mistrust of new weaponry based on faulty information, and carry this forward with them (perhaps even into their memoirs, eh). The PIAT is a prime example, due to faulty warheads on original models that failed to detonate unless enemy armour was struck square at a 90 degree angle or close to it. Improved munitions fixed this, but user confidence still remained low and required extra attention through the chain of command.

Veteran's recollections 50 years after the fact (or, perhaps, impressions recorded at the time) might indicate that he thought the PIAT complete pants; a researcher not realizing the background to the whole story is thus left in a position of inaccurate reporting and is unable to judge the true merits of the weapon.

[David I]

Back in my WWII reinactment days I was having some tailoring done on my uniform. I went to pick it up at the seamstress's house. When I came out of the sewing room, her father and a friend were sitting in the living room and the friend asked me what I was doing with the uniform. I explained that I was in the California Historical Group that did WWII reinactment and I asked him if he recognized the uniform.

His reply was very interesting. He said yes he recognized the uniform and that he had served in the 3rd ID (US). He went on to say "Why the **** would you want to reinact WWII. It was the biggest waste of my life. That war stole four years of my life. Four years of my youth and put me into the most miserable, ****ty, rotten situations you can think of. What a waste!"

He hated everything about the war, being drafted, basic training, traveling by ship, Europe, Europeans, the constant exposure to weather, the Army in general, the people trying to kill him (on both sides), everything. He did say that he did make some life long friends, but even then he put in the caviat that he had had friends before the war.

Interesting old guy.

DavidI

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

When it comes to what the British call "man management," I'm firmly in the Field Marshal Slim camp who warned his regimental COs that he would break them before their units if they lived better than their men or ate before they did.

Which is BS. If my battalion commander is responsible for my life and the lives of 700 of my comrades, I pray to God he gets a good night's sleep and his blood sugar is up before he starts making decisions that will affect the chances of our survival in the next 24 hours. I would never begrudge "the Colonel", "the Old Man", or whatever you want to call him a soft bed and hot meal, even if I was in a trench with hard rations. If he's a good CO, he's earned it.

[ December 19, 2006, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[JasonC]

Tero -

I am not a veteran of WW II, just of a peacetime stint in the modern US army, sure. I utterly deny your argument from authority however, to its roots. Vets who were there say different things, where they differ anyone can find one a more plausible source than another, and no one can possible believe them all, since they contradict each other.

mk - get thee to thy library and work, little man. I don't have a working scanner and I fetch and carry only for such as pay me (or family, or womenfolk, ...) I don't doubt you can find a Britisher who said only British things can slice bread, or more to the point a cavalryman who thought 40 mph beats a 75mm gun and thicker plate. But then of course that way (the latter I mean not the former) lies Knightsbridge.