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

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

[Michael Dorosh]

Good points, Andreas. I edited my post before your response to indicate "if he is a good CO, he's earned it." Certainly someone who chose to expose himself to risks or discomfort on occasion would be one of those "good" C.O.s.

I recall driving our company commander around the training area, and feeling quite humbled when the OC and the CSM put their rucksacks on to march with the troops - leaving me to drive back to our assembly area at the end of the exercise.

Was especially humbling when I got the jeep stuck.

Twice.

Two of our wartime COs stood in stark contrast to each other also; one who won the DSO in Normandy wore a US helmet because it offered more protection and lived in deep bunkers. He was a disciplinarian and described as "shell shy". He was not well liked. His replacement wore a soft cap even under shellfire and visited the men in the forward trenches often. Their respective understanding of tactics was never compared in the literature; perhaps there was nothing to choose between the two of them. But the men revered the latter. I may have stated the case too strongly, but I will bet the men would not have begrudged Colonel Ellis a cot and a hot meal either while they occuped wet trenches in the Nijmegen Salient.

Of course, as you point out and as I attempted to intimate, you do have to earn that respect first.

[Andreas]

I just remembered that the other possible reason for walking may of course have been to stand out less, since the country they were walking through was not secured, and snipers were a real risk. So it may have been a case of a morale-boosting effort that had the nice benefit of being uncomfortably alive, rather than comfortably dead.

All the best

Andreas

[Tero]

Originally posted by JasonC:

I am not a veteran of WW II, just of a peacetime stint in the modern US army, sure.

I did my national service in the Finnish army. Peace time at the time when we still had the WWII stuff stored in reserve.

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.

Agreed. But you choose character assasination which amounts to falling like a ton of bricks on the one which contradicts your POV (the commonly accepted less than critical hype). You choose to focus on the minutae but bypass the valid overall critique he presents.

[JasonC]

Show anyplace where I believe the conventional hype. Heck, define conventional hype. Or let me - widely believed but demonstrably false boosterism, meant to make everything look better than it is or was.

Do you want chapter and verse on my posts on this site calling war an industrial accident on a continental scale in which men are ground to death by impersonal machinery? My debunkings of sergeant rock idealism and the illusion of safety in prowess, or in cleverness? My endless debates with others to establish that the truth of any long war is attrition?

Show anything he taught either you or me, that we didn't know before.

I've already shown several places he is wrong, and highlighted his own pettiness. He can't complain of the tone he himself practices, and neither can proxies presuming to defend him.

[JonS]

I think the basic jist of it is that he's old, now dead, and a vet, therefore he gets a free pass.

By denying him that free pass you are a meany.

Or sumfink.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

The story of U.S. military footwear, and the fate of the feet of those forced to wear them, is by and large, a long and sad one.

(snip)

Regards,

John Kettler

John, I love this sentence. If a book gets written, this must be the first line.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Show anyplace where I believe the conventional hype. Heck, define conventional hype.

Seemed to me you are at least allergic to bad mouthing US made gear. Especially by ex US service personel.

Show anything he taught either you or me, that we didn't know before.

Found these site 1 site 2 which claims there was such a thing as an US Enfield rifle used by US troops in some capacity during WWII.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

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, ...)

As I thought, you do not have a "verbatim from British officer's accounts" reference.

Nice swerve there.

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.

Typical Jason. All things not stamped 'made in the USA 'are to be denigrated.

By the way boy, I am not a 'Britisher'.

[ironbar]

A few points immediately come to mind; if you see Mr Rinfret’s article as a personal memoir, well then we should just dismiss it as adding nothing to the historical record, and hence ignore it.

The statement that; “The following quote is taken from "THE BATTLE MEMOIRS OF GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON, WAR AS I SAW IT". There is no indicated publisher nor is there a date of publication! I don't know how or where I got the book but the forward is by his wife.

1. In my judgment the book was probably published by the CIA or the DIA which is a standard Intelligence technique. “

Kinda lead me to take this more as a personal statement than an attempt at a historical document.

David I raised an excellent point that we often overlook; some of the ‘Greatest Generation’ view their wartime experience with nothing but contempt. Not all who served were ‘Band of Brothers’ material.

[ironbar]

Originally posted by Other Means:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John Kettler:

The story of U.S. military footwear, and the fate of the feet of those forced to wear them, is by and large, a long and sad one.

(snip)

Regards,

John Kettler

John, I love this sentence. If a book gets written, this must be the first line. </font>

[JasonC]

Tero - I am allergic to hyperbole, fanboys, injustice, ingraditude, vindictive spite, and forum nannies, but not to anyone simply describing a piece of equipment as inadequate when it is. Has anyone ever praised a French 75 on a halftrack? (lol).

On the 2 million US made Enfields of late WW I, touche and a fair point, of the "something new every day" variety. Don't see anything wrong with them, unlike the original website, but it was news to me.

[Hensworth]

Originally posted by ironbar:

John that is the opening line of a bestseller.

I should hope not, seeing as it is a grammatical monstrosity.

[JasonC]

mk - it is, it is a direct quote from a British officer. Also, if you swing a dead cat at the battle of Gazala you will hear Brits and Germans alike describing the arrival of the Grant as the first time the Brits outranged the Germans instead of the other way around.

And I never called you British, I said I would not be surprised if you could find one who preferred Crusaders - but it is a perverse preference belied by all their combat histories. The Grant was in every way a superior tank to the Crusader. Which wasn't saying much, since the Crusader sucked.

(You could call a late Churchill a better tank, who would argue - you could call a Challenger a better tank, obviously - but to call a Crusader a better tank? Next you will be extolling the M13/40 as far better than the Panzer IV).

[JasonC]

"he's old, now dead, and a vet, therefore he gets a free pass"

Gee so are Matthew Ridgeway, George Marshall, George Patton, Creighton Abrams, etc etc - did the guy with the website give them a free pass?

Nooo. And we are supposed to find him all insightful because of it. He is just a louse on their heads pretending to see farther, that's all.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by JasonC:

Show anyplace where I believe the conventional hype. Heck, define conventional hype.

Seemed to me you are at least allergic to bad mouthing US made gear. Especially by ex US service personel.

Show anything he taught either you or me, that we didn't know before.

Found these site 1 site 2 which claims there was such a thing as an US Enfield rifle used by US troops in some capacity during WWII.

To the first - prove him wrong, Tero, don't make unsubstantiated and very general claims.

To the second - the P17 rifle is no mystery. They were exchanged between Canada and the US at some point during the war and used for training at home.

[The_Enigma]

But they were much better then the A13 which they replaced

The MkII increased the armour.

The MKIII addressed the now very much outdated 2 pounder and slapped a 6 pounder on itstead which iirc could take on most tanks.

Went on to be an AA tank, tractor, ARV etc

Not to bad for a "sucky" tank

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

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, ...)

As I thought, you do not have a "verbatim from British officer's accounts" reference.

Nice swerve there.

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.

Typical Jason. All things not stamped 'made in the USA 'are to be denigrated.

By the way boy, I am not a 'Britisher'. </font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"he's old, now dead, and a vet, therefore he gets a free pass"

Gee so [is] ... George Patton, ... did the guy with the website give [him] a free pass?

Nooo. And we are supposed to find him all insightful because of it. He is just a louse on their heads pretending to see farther, that's all.

Actually from the very little of that site that I did read (it is very painful on the eyes), he did give Patton a pass:

"When I look back and realize the brilliance of people like Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton and Clark ..."

"There were people in the American Army who knew tank warfare from A to Z (General George Patton)"

I stumbled across those while looking for the quote from that little know CIA publication "War As I Saw It" [sic]. I couldn't find the meentioned quote anywhere on the site though.

BTW, before you start getting pissy at all and sundry, be aware that not everyone thinks you are out to lunch on this.

[ December 19, 2006, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by the_enigma:

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

Nothing to do with the M3.The issue is the quote Jason gave:

"When they first got Grants in the western desert, Brits wept with joy"

When challenged he responded:

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

Then later:

"See the sections on just before combat stuff, quotes Brit officers in the western desert etc"

Unfortunately Jason does not have access to a scanner so he is unable to show us these quotes. The only help he gives is an admonishment to

"get thee to thy library and work"

Well after a quick perusal of my volumes (a fairly substantial collection numbering in the several thousands)it would seem I was not able to aquire a copy of this fine work. The source of the reports about these poor men on their knees and in rapture is to be denied me.

This is nothing to do with any criticism of M3's M4's or M5's. I do not need to disparage other tanks to promote the ones made in my country. Nor do I feel the need to crucify any poor soul who does not share my myopic view of military history

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

That a tank crew might think that any particular type of tank is the "cat's ass" ......................... any more than I would take JasonC's word alone that it was so.

Lets not confuse things. I want to know the source of the VERBATIM report that Jason used, NOTHING ELSE.

I am quite well informed about all the late war tanks used by The Allies and The Axis.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

I am quite well informed about all the late war tanks used by The Allies and The Axis.

We have no reason to believe that based on what you've presented here.

[The_Enigma]

MK: erm right oh.

You may be intrested though:

Up to May 1942 our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent. The American built Grant tank, which appeaered for the first time in the summer battles, undoubtedly had a match in oue long barrlled Panzer IV

...

Nevertheless, the Grant had the advantage as it could shoot up the short barrelled Panzer IV at a range where the latter's shell was unable to penetrate the heavy armour of the American.

- Erwin Rommel

The Rommel Papers, Pg 196

The main armament of our panzer formations was the Panzer III, which, with its 50-mm gun - of which by far the majority were short-barrlled- was even less of a match for the Grant

-Erwin Rommel

The Rommel Papers, Pg 197

He goes on to say how the Italians were even worse off and the men called there tanks "Self Propelled Cofins".

If the other side of the hill think the tank was better then the Crusader and Crusiers, and historians state the British believe this .... i think we can conclude they are right.

Hence the whole jumping for joy thingy...

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

No, you're a waste of everyone's time if all you can do is commit ad hominem attacks and not bother discussing the things that are at issue here.

If someone says they are using a VERBATIM report and I ask the source of the quote what exactly is your problem? Is Jason just to be accepted at his word because 'you' like him?

What exactly was this post supposed to prove other than the fact you have reached intellectual bankrupcy?

It proves Jason has not got a VERBATIM report

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by michael kenny:

I am quite well informed about all the late war tanks used by The Allies and The Axis.

We have no reason to believe that based on what you've presented here. </font>

[undead reindeer cavalry]

lol!

now that i have read this absurd thread i simply HAVE TO go and read that article, even if it will hurt my eyes and dull my brains.

as for JasonC's posts, if i am not mistaken his posts do contain certain type of humor, the presence of which is not accidental i am sure. perhaps he is a tense anal bastard, perhaps not, but surely it doesn't hurt to relax a bit and take it with a grin? gees, it's just WW2, not something that actually matters.