US shortcommings and how did they win.

[Georgie]

This thread is for the sake of constructive and revealing argument

1. US tanks were not effective

2, US CAS was not effective against tanks.

3. US troops were subpar.

4. US machinguns were not very good.

5. The Garand was not very good.

6. US artillery was what won for the US

7. Supply lines too long.

I am a novice when it comes to these subjects. Those grogs who have info on these subjects are hereby petitioned to explain what happened in Normandy 44. If of course they deign to do so.

[JonS]

yeah ... you need to be a little more, no; a lot more specific.

1. US tanks were not effective

Not effective at what? Most US tanks never came up against an enemy armoured vehicle. Overall exchange rates are firmly in the Allies favour. Shermans were very good at infantry support. US tanks were very good at exploitation.

2, US CAS was not effective against tanks.

No, but then no-one's CAS was any good against point targets at the battlefront. Arguably, CAS still isn't very good at attacking point targets. It's brilliant at attacking logistics links though, and a tank without fuel and ammo is just as useless as a burnt out wreck.

3. US troops were subpar.

ROFL. Don't let Ambrose hear you say that.

4. US machinguns were not very good.

They were ok. The MG34/42 were the benchmark against which everything gets measured, and became the philosophical basis for GPMGs over the next 60-odd years. Still, US MGs were good enough.

5. The Garand was not very good.

Wait, what? The US was the only nation that equipped essentailly its entire force with semi-automatic rifles. No-one uses bolt action rifles anymore. I'd say the US was well ahead of the curve with the Garand.

6. US artillery was what won for the US

Debateable. Someone still has to go stick a flag in it. But let's assume the premise; US artillery was what won for the US. So what? That approach gets maximum points for style from me.

7. Supply lines too long.

Whose supply lines? Germany's? True. The US'? No, not really. Long supply lines did occasionally hamper operations - most noticeably in Aug-Sept-Oct 1944 -but that was transitory.

Besides, there's no such thing as supply lines that are too long. There is such a thing as expecting too much from your logistics services in a given set of circumstances, but it was the Germans who were the masters at that bit of operational idiocy, as they proved in Russia and North Africa.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

1) Debatable: The Sherman was a match for the Pz IV, but NOT the Pz V or Tigers. It was a good anti-infantry tool, and the Rhino variant enabled it to go cross-country in bocage, which gave a significant advantage over the Germans who had to stick to the roads.

2) German veterans might beg to differ with you on this one. Manoeuvre by day was often fraught with danger. Check out the many pictures of heavily cammed up German vehicles. Allied airpower was the primary reason for this.

3) The following does not apply to certain exceptional U.S. units but to bog standard formations only. Basically Ambrose was wrong, Hastings was right. The U.S. used the infantry as a dumping ground for the less able, and the whole 'General Infantry' concept was flawed. The British regimental and the German divisional systems were streets ahead, enabling soldiers of these nations to develop more of a sense of belonging and pride in their units than the G.I.s. U.S. infantry did improve though.

4) U.S. MGs were not sub-par. The problem was that the German MG 34 and 42 were world beaters.

5) Totally disagree. The Garand was a truly great service rifle for its day.

6) There were a few logistic hiccoughs, but in the main, the Allied logistic operation worked very well.

6) U.S. Artillery was indeed superb.

I will listen respectfully to all arguments. Apologies (again) for any ruffled feathers.

SLR

[Erwin]

IIRC US armor philosophy was to use the M4's for inf support and the M10's etc for anti-armor. Wasn't successful, but that was the theory at the time.

Also, I was always under the impression from documentaries etc that CAS was superb (the Germans could only move safely at night) and the majority of German armor was KO'd by air. Or was that only the Brits' CAS?

The primary advantage of the Allies was economic. They could churn out more equipment and they had more men.

[BloodyBucket]

US shortcommings and how did they win.

My father always maintained they did it by outfighting the Germans. They did that by maximizing whatever unfair advantage that they could get.

[JonS]

Also, I was always under the impression from documentaries etc that CAS was superb (the Germans could only move safely at night) and the majority of German armor was KO'd by air. Or was that only the Brits' CAS?

T'was neither. CAS - any nation's CAS - was responsible for a negligably small number of tank KOs.

The primary advantage of the Allies was economic. They could churn out more equipment and they had more men.

Ya, but you still have to use all that kit effectively. The German air force thoroughly outnumbered the British in 1940, but the British still emerged victorious because they used their smaller quantities of 'stuff' far better than the Germans used their mass.

[JonS]

My father always maintained they did it by outfighting the Germans.

Word.

padding

[Sublime]

1. US tanks were not effective

Not true. As stated by many above. And they improved quite a bit as the war progressed.

2, US CAS was not effective against tanks.

Perhaps not directly against armor. But we slaughtered supply lines, ground the Luftwaffe to dust, had air supremacy, etc etc etc. Air power then and since has been a U.S. trump card.

3. US troops were subpar.

Absolute nonsense. A lot of paratroopers and marines would get pissed at that. In fact a lot of regular riflemen, tankers, etc etc would too. Yeah there were poor examples of U.S. troops. I can also think of just as many examples of poor German, French, Russian, Brit, or whatever troops.

4. US machinguns were not very good.

So how do you explain the M2 Browning .50 cal? IIRC it has to longest service life of any machine gun so far in history.

5. The Garand was not very good.

Best rifle in world for that time. Good round. Accurate. Semi automatic. Very good weapon.

6. US artillery was what won for the US

It helped. But I'd agree. Our manafacturing won the war for us, oh that and heavily supplying the Soviet Army who bled for us. But thats not to say that a lot of our boys, and a lot of other countries boys died too. And we basically took care of Japan on our own.

7. Supply lines too long.

They were long. But too long? No. Almost every West Front memoir by Germas mentions the gigantic U.S. material superiority. I'd say we handled supplying armies over the Pacific and Atlantic VERY well. The Germans had land routes to Russia and the West and they couldnt supply half the stuff we did.

[teamgene]

This thread is for the sake of constructive and revealing argument

1. US tanks were not effective

They were effective, most history channel programs and some books do poor scholarship comparing the sherman with a panther or tiger. Not even the t34 which was the best tank of the war was equal to them. Both the sherman and t34 could take them out though.

2, US CAS was not effective against tanks.

Lots of film footage from the air of US catching german armor on the roads and tearing them up. Also lots of pictures of gi's walking by knocked out King Tiger's that was done from the air.

3. US troops were subpar.

another myth. US troops had a large learning curve due to entering the war late, but gave as good as they got on all fronts.

4. US machinguns were not very good.

true, the brownings were fine but not very portable and the US was left with the BAR which also served in Korea but was rather weak as a squad mg.

5. The Garand was not very good.

This is new too me. Garand was a war winner.

6. US artillery was what won for the US

artillery helped, but it still takes man to jump into a foxhole to get a man out of a foxhole. USA had supply issues until they could grab a major port in France, had they depended on artillery, they would have never got off the beaches.

7. Supply lines too long.

See above about the supply issues due to no major port to unload supplies.

I am a novice when it comes to these subjects. Those grogs who have info on these subjects are hereby petitioned to explain what happened in Normandy 44. If of course they deign to do so.

Many grogs are panzerphiles, so they will see anything german a superior. Part of this is due to after war germans concentrating on writing of their operational successes on eastern front and to a lesser degree west. In most cases the successes came at the end of major strategic disasters against exausted enemy units, but that is another story.

[Splinty]

1. US tanks were not effective

Not true. As stated by many above. And they improved quite a bit as the war progressed.

2, US CAS was not effective against tanks.

Perhaps not directly against armor. But we slaughtered supply lines, ground the Luftwaffe to dust, had air supremacy, etc etc etc. Air power then and since has been a U.S. trump card.

3. US troops were subpar.

Absolute nonsense. A lot of paratroopers and marines would get pissed at that. In fact a lot of regular riflemen, tankers, etc etc would too. Yeah there were poor examples of U.S. troops. I can also think of just as many examples of poor German, French, Russian, Brit, or whatever troops.

4. US machinguns were not very good.

So how do you explain the M2 Browning .50 cal? IIRC it has to longest service life of any machine gun so far in history.

5. The Garand was not very good.

Best rifle in world for that time. Good round. Accurate. Semi automatic. Very good weapon.

6. US artillery was what won for the US

It helped. But I'd agree. Our manafacturing won the war for us, oh that and heavily supplying the Soviet Army who bled for us. But thats not to say that a lot of our boys, and a lot of other countries boys died too. And we basically took care of Japan on our own.

7. Supply lines too long.

They were long. But too long? No. Almost every West Front memoir by Germas mentions the gigantic U.S. material superiority. I'd say we handled supplying armies over the Pacific and Atlantic VERY well. The Germans had land routes to Russia and the West and they couldnt supply half the stuff we did.

What he said.

[mjkerner]

What JonS and Sublime said.

[TrapOne]

Surely over-long supply lines are a good thing, on balance, a sign that the fight's going in your favor?

[JonS]

... not really. They didn't work out so great for the Italians (1940), British (1941), Italo-Germans (1941), Germans (1941), Americans (1942), British (1942), Germans (1942), Italo-Germans (1942 and 43), Japanese (1942 onwards), Germans (1943), etc...

[StellarRat]

This thread is for the sake of constructive and revealing argument

1. US tanks were not effective - They ran, they had supplies, they outnumbered the Germans 4 to 1

2, US CAS was not effective against tanks. - That's why the Germans were reduced to road movement only at night, right?

3. US troops were subpar. - See number 1

4. US machinguns were not very good. - Hello, can you say M2? You know, the one that goes through any normal cover.

5. The Garand was not very good. - Semi-auto and the Germans had???

6. US artillery was what won for the US - Comm net, practically all the ammo they needed (who else had that?), proximity fuse...

7. Supply lines too long. - At least they had supplies, they Japanese didn't even have food sometimes and the Germans weren't too much better off.

[Gurra]

US shortcommings and how did they win.

Well, a very general answer to that would be something like r e s o u r c e s.

(Debateable) shortcomings did only matter on a tactical level, not the strategic level. And I suppose that the germans were really the ones who proved that tactical flair do not win campaigns. But nevertheless the tactical aspects forced the Allies through a much longer campaign in France than perhaps anticipated, not mentioning reaching Berlin.

[Magpie_Oz]

But nevertheless the tactical aspects forced the Allies through a much longer campaign in France than perhaps anticipated, not mentioning reaching Berlin.

Yeh, except for the bit where the Normandy campaign was actually shorter than anticipated.

Nazi Germany was soundly defeated by a superior enemy, the Allied tanks were better, the troops were better, their weapons better, the logistics better, manpower better and under more or less air supremacy.

[The Warrior]

My father always maintained they did it by outfighting the Germans. They did that by maximizing whatever unfair advantage that they could get.

My grandfather was with the 5th AD and that's what he pretty much told me too. They just strait up out fought them. Let's not forget too, it was the Germans who gave U.S. Air Borne troops the name Devils in baggy paints.

Also. The M1 was not very good? That's a first for me.

[Gurra]

Nazi Germany was soundly defeated by a superior enemy, the Allied tanks were better, the troops were better, their weapons better, the logistics better, manpower better and under more or less air supremacy.

Well, I wouldn´t say that tanks and weapons were better, probably the contrary on a piece by piece comparison. They were better, however, in respect of availability and numbers. And in the long run, that beats narrow excellence nine times out of ten. It was definitely shown on the eastern front, i. e the T-34 'doctrine', where a good solid tank with predictable performance was the way to go in the long run, as opposed to more expensive german solutions - not just tanks - that seem to have fragmented and drained their pool of resources. The Sherman I think shows a similar pattern.

As have been pointed out many a time before, the outcome of the war was decided on the eastern front. Germany had not the resources to fight a long drawn war on two fronts, much the same as in the Great War. They did however, and just like in they years 1916-18, they managed to do so much thanks to a absurdly effective economic and arms program drawn up by equally suited men to their tasks; Rathenau and Speer.

Speers armaments program started to show effect despite heavy allied bombings in late 44-45, and the effect was what would have been needed much earlier: streamlining production focusing on a few rationalized weapon designs. Believe it or not, even though (from my point of view) german organisation was in general remarkable and in places outshone allied counterparts, armed forces management were at the same time suffering from fragmentation and lack of consensus. And a lot of people in charge late in the war were just dilitants. IMHO, late in the war, one perspective of the defeat of Nazi Germany is that it was as much a work of itself, as the Allied war effort.

[Gurra]

I think I should add that I by no means mean to degrade allied troops here. Of course there were allied formations that showed as much professionalism and esprit as any elite german formation, not only airborne or obvious elite corps. And there were lesser german troops as well showing unexpected resistance. So truth shows width as usual.

[LukeFF]

LOL at the Garand comment. It takes only one session (heck, one clip) firing a Garand to see what an excellent weapon it is. German semi-autos (namely, the G43) were finicky about the quality of ammo with which they were loaded and were known for their parts failures. SVT-40: decent weapon and OK accuracy, but a lot of internal parts, which in the field are easy to lose; gas cylinder which must be constantly adjusted with a special tool in order to keep it firing properly (AKA, yet another thing to lose in the field).

[Other Means]

US shortcommings and how did they win.

They didn't. The allies did.

[Lt Belenko]

2. CAS was not effective in the pitch of a battle - to call a strike on a particular spot - rarely happened. But nobody's was. Anything that moved behind the lines was hindered, destroyed and holed up by day.

3. Subpar? Maybe in the opening of the bocage war, but they soon learned to coordinate tanks, arty, and inf. It was difficult terrain. Many historians have questioned the replacement system used by the US, leading to a slightly less effective fighting force.

7. Supply lines - the best line in that terrible movie Battle of the Buldge isd where the German commander has the cake from the captured American and its fresh. The American logistics was fantastic despite its length. Long supply lines are only an issue if they are interdicted by bombing, subs, or partisans. The Battle of the Atlantic was won by mid 43. The short German lines were hassled non stop.

[winkelried]

They didn't. The allies did.

True. But the whole discussion focusses again on the tactical level. The operational and the strategic level are not-present. E.g. interdiction was much bigger contribution by the air forces than CAS. And strategic bombing (as soon as they hit the right targets - the petroleum industry) even more.

Look at the German successes in 1940/41 - the Germans had inferior tanks (eg compared to a B2), had to improvise on anti-tank defense and use anti-aircraft guns (88s) etc etc they lost some tactical engagements due to their shortcomings, but they were able to win the campaign in the West and to knock on the doors of Moscow. Why? because they had advantages on operational (blitzkrieg) and strategic level (suprise) and with their blitzkrieg doctrine.

But it didn't last since they:

1. underestimated the manpower reserves and the political stability of the soviet union
   
2. they underestimated the will of the UK to continue to fight
   
3. they underestimated the economical power of the U.S.
   

all of which are not represented on the level CMx1/2 games are played ...

[teamgene]

Well, I wouldn´t say that tanks and weapons were better, probably the contrary on a piece by piece comparison....

Depends on how you define better?

German tanks were not as reliable as us or ussr tanks. Problem with the germans is they tended to 'over' make things. So, if something could be done with 3 parts, the germans would use 5 parts.

US and Russian equipment worked and generally was more reliable and quicker to produce than the german counterpart.

As one historian said, it may have taken 5 shermans to kill a panther but on any given day odds were that the 5 shermans would be on the battlefield and the odds were that the panther would not.

[Wiggum]

Let's not forget too, it was the Germans who gave U.S. Air Borne troops the name Devils in baggy paints.

...oh no, dont start with those fancy nicknames.

"Devil Dogs", "Green Devils"...and last but not least "Devils in baggy pants".

Yeah, someone somewhere wrote something and thats how it all started...

About the fighting power issue:

I always like to think of it like a ordinary work in a ordinary company.

The big boss wants to get something done and is really enthusiastic about it.

The normal worker...does what needs to be done and tries to avoids the stressful and back-breaking work.

I think thats the way most fighting was like. The ordinary conscript from all countrys just tried to stay alive.

(Why are the casualties in games like CM always to high, because they simulate the most extrem combat situations where the commander forces his soldiers into the meat grinder and they dont refuse to go).

Most campaigns were won an levels the normal soldier could not even imagine.

Sure there were some really heroic small unit actions on all sides, and thats the stuff they make movies from.

No one cares about the million of conscripts who just tried to survive the war.

...just my thoughts about it.