US shortcommings and how did they win.

[ArgusEye]

1. US tanks were not effective

US tanks, as a rule, were effective. They mostly had to exploit -which they did fine- and break down infantry positions. They were used for roles which on the Eastern front would have been played by breakthrough tanks, which a medium tank is decidedly less suited for. The American tanks were therefore excellent medium tanks -possibly better than any competition-, but they were used for more roles than they were good at. This has undeservedly tarnished their reputation.

2, US CAS was not effective against tanks.

Any air support during the second world war was decidedly iffy in effectiveness. Lessons learned documents usually state that 'our' air support was mega-effective, whilst 'theirs' caused little material damage, but disproportionate morale disruption. The same goes for soft targets behind the front line. It was not so much the actual losses to aircraft that stopped day traffic, but the wracked nerves of the drivers who were continually ready to be suddenly attacked.

3. US troops were subpar.

Tricky. Both sides say that German troops were more resilient, more enterprising, and more sly, but neither side has anything to deride their fighting spirit or courage. This is not likely to be due to anything about the troops themselves, and I think it has more to do with the tactical doctrine. German small units were trained with auftragstaktik in mind, whereas American troops were more micromanaged.

4. US machinguns were not very good.

The US machineguns were by no means bad. They may have been oldfashioned and heavy, but they filled their role well. It can be said that they were behind the times in their application of machine gun tactics, but it seems to have worked well.

5. The Garand was not very good.

If it was not very good, then everything everyone else fielded was awful in the extreme. It was an easy to use, robust semi-auto rifle. There was nothing to dislike.

6. US artillery was what won for the US

This statement is so abstracted that it lost all meaning. American artillery did a great deal of the work, but it was not the key to American success. That was plentiful supply of men and materiel.

7. Supply lines too long.

With the amount of trucks, ships and men they had at their disposal, the logistic flow was plenty deep and wide. And that is what matters.

[winkelried]

3. US troops were subpar.

... Both sides say that German troops were more resilient, more enterprising, and more sly, but neither side has anything to deride their fighting spirit or courage. ...

bit an issue of comparing apples and oranges. on both sides there were better and worse units (also depending on training and experience). e.g. everybody would say German Fallschirmjäger units were excellent - true for some, but look at the assault on Lucherberg II./FJ Rgt 8 (3 FJ Division) consisted of 17/18 years old recruits who hadn't eaten for three days ... no match for a well supplied, trained and experienced 104th U.S. Infantry Division. One counter-attack by 246. Volksgrenadier Division ended in utter chaos with huge losses - due to errors in command and probably missing training.

Sure this December 44 - units have sometimes been re-built twice or more since Normandy - but the Germans attacked the weakly protected Allied front in the Ardennes (the Allies had concentrated on Aachen and Hurtgen/Düren) - made good progress and then got stopped by U.S. infantry (and airborne) - and certainly artillery was one of the key factors which saved the day. And the resilient U.S. troops.

Those who want to read a bit more on positive examples of U.S. infantry fighting against the Germans i can recommedn Vannoy and Karamales Against The Panzers (to be taken with a grain of salt sometimes).

But to cut things short - when the effectiveness of U.S. infantry seems to have increased from 1943-1945 the same effectiveness of German troops declined in the same time period.

6. US artillery was what won for the US

This statement is so abstracted that it lost all meaning. American artillery did a great deal of the work, but it was not the key to American success. That was plentiful supply of men and materiel.

The abundant use of artillery was part of the U.S. doctrine (also for the Germans artillery was important, they reduced the infantry per division in the late war divisions, but normally not the artillery). Since artillery was the main killer on the battlefield its used helped to save U.S. lives - and since the U.S. were strong in industrial production it was very logical to heavily rely on artillery. I can give you several examples where the U.S. repulsed German attacks just with artillery properly used.

[DLaurier]

This thread is for the sake of constructive and revealing argument.

Ok.

1. US tanks were not effective.

The American M4 series has defined western tank design for the last 65 years. The M4 series were a very good general purpose, medium, tank... and are still in service in many countrys.

A very versatile 3 inch main gun made it excelent for infantry support, and alowed it to square off against any comparable German tank.

It had a reliable engine that pull it up a good 35 degree slope at speed.

It had a rugged suspension that could cope with most ground conditions.

It had it's shortcomings, but those were countered by well trained crews who were warned about said shortcomings well in advance.

2, US CAS was not effective against tanks..

I'm not touching this

3. US troops were subpar..

Not realy. They were undertrained, but not poorly trained. They learned on the job, and they learned quickly. Most were educated.

They were generaly men of better overall health than average. They were on par with most english speaking troops.

They also had very good officers.

4. US machinguns were not very good..

Yet are still in service more than 90 years after they were designed...

The M1918 medium MG is still in production today.

5. The Garand was not very good..

Yet is still in service in dozens of countrys.

The garand was one of the least sensitive semi autos of the time.

It didnt jam in cold or wet conditions like the G41 or G43.

It was also simple to strip and clean.

Given the choice of any american weapon to take into combat today, I would pick the M1Garand

6. US artillery was what won for the US.

Radios and logistics.

The Americans refined logistics to a high and a precise science.

7. Supply lines too long..

Nope. The Americans had a fully motorized army, and more tanker trucks than you could count. See point 6.

I am a novice when it comes to these subjects..

I noticed. Welome to grogdom. Your journey into madness begins HERE.

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.

Be advised that some of the older grogs are prone to apoplectic fits of rage when confronted by blundering novices... bring a raincoat.

[sburke]

This thread is for the sake of constructive and revealing argument

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.

There is an anecdotal story from the Ardennes fighting. A German POW was being escorted to the rear when he saw US soldiers using gasoline to wash off their vehicle (God knows what they were washing off), it was at that point that he'd realized they'd lost the war.

The US was able to support carrier task forces across the Pacific, there wasn't a logisitical problem we couldn't throw enough stuff at to over come. We had long supply lines, but we had supplies. The German supply lines got shorter from 1943 on and their supply situation only got worse.

[womble]

(God knows what they were washing off)

It's difficult to get a good deep shine if there are tar spots mucking up the wax...

[Jock Tamson]

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.

Seems to me these questions are based on a false premise. The combination of these items was not what was required to win in Normandy. The existence of a second front in the East was what was required. Without that, the Allies would have struggled to avoid defeat in the West.

[Sublime]

Seems to me these questions are based on a false premise. The combination of these items was not what was required to win in Normandy. The existence of a second front in the East was what was required. Without that, the Allies would have struggled to avoid defeat in the West.

I disagree. I think the WESTERN Allies would have defeated Germany without the Russians. If for the sake of argument, the USSR somehow magically stayed neutral, which would have never happened one way or the other, we still would have won, or at the very least had an armistice with Germany that was very favorable to us, not so much to them.

That being said, we would have taken incredible amounts of casualties, and the war would have dragged on for years longer. Do not forget though, that the atomic bomb was intended for Germany originally. That was a very real goal for the Manhattan project.

EDIT - I reread your original post. So let me clarify my statement, I mean the Eastern Front wasnt a necessity for victory against Germany in the war. However, I do agree with you as far as Normandy '44. It's doubtful in the extreme there would have been any landings anywhere in France without the Eastern Front. Also, FWIW I believe that when Germany invaded Russia they had lost the war anyways - regardless of whether we (U.S.) got involved. Again, I believe the same results as I said before - German defeat or German/Soviet armistice, favoring the USSR.

[Georgie]

Seems to me these questions are based on a false premise. The combination of these items was not what was required to win in Normandy. The existence of a second front in the East was what was required. Without that, the Allies would have struggled to avoid defeat in the West.

Very interesting replies. The above quote opens up the question of "what would have happened" if the Germans and Russians had signed a separate peace or the Russians had surrendered. Would the Allies have been able to still win in Normandy with the massive forces that the Germans would have shifted from the Eastern front to France. Would make and interesting strategic level game. Has it already been made?

[womble]

Very interesting replies. The above quote opens up the question of "what would have happened" if the Germans and Russians had signed a separate peace or the Russians had surrendered. Would the Allies have been able to still win in Normandy with the massive forces that the Germans would have shifted from the Eastern front to France. Would make and interesting strategic level game. Has it already been made?

There are lots of strategic games that purport to cover this sort of contingency/counterfactual. How many of them provide enough of a realistic model to provide any insight into what may or may not happen is a question that is best answered with a non-negative integer less than one.

[sburke]

Odds are there isn't a way to simulate it in a wargame concept, this becomes more of a strategic political discussion. For example, the US decided to use the bomb against Germany. We target Berlin to take out the German high command or wherever we believe Hitler is going to be.

If Hitler is dead and the German leadership outside the Wehrmacht high command is headless, what are the odds Germany is not going to be politically in chaos. How long before a leadership is firmly reestablished and the odds of that leadership being committed to Nazis party ideology or war aims is anyone's guess.

[StellarRat]

Do not forget though, that the atomic bomb was intended for Germany originally. That was a very real goal for the Manhattan project.

Your statement is a little contradictory. The war wouldn't have dragged on more than a few months. As we would have nuked the Germans with or without Russia fighting. In fact, we didn't even need the Brits to survive really. With B29 we could have delivered the A bomb from Iceland or Africa.

[Wodin]

They alone didn't win WW2 for starters, that is something that always gets the British backs up, the way some Americans think they alone won both World Wars. However their mass industry and mass firepower was the biggest factor on the Western front. Also the Germans had a little problem with those pesky Russians.

[Rocky Balboa]

Also the Germans had a little problem with those pesky Russians.

Well who's fault was that? I think his name was Adolf ... That's what happens when you choose to follow a paranoid lunatic.

[winkelried]

Well who's fault was that? I think his name was Adolf ... That's what happens when you choose to follow a paranoid lunatic.

And declared war on the U.S. - not the U.S. on him :eek:

[Jaws]

Read some German WW2 reports about CAS. They dont share your opinion about bad US CAS.

A small quote at Apweiler nov 1944 (Operation Queen).

Ich las Ihren Artikel ueber die Kaempfe um Apweiler-Gereonsweiler am

15.-18.11.1944

Ich war Kompaniefuehrer (Ltn.) und habe nit meiner Kompanie Apweiler am

17.11.44 verteidigt. Hierzu folgende Details:

In der Nacht vom 14, auf dem 15.11. eroberten wir Apweiler zurueck von den

Amis. Wir machten einige Gefangene und bezogen Stellung am westlichen

Ortsrand mit Blick auf Immendorf. Wir erhielten Panzerunterstuetzung von

einem Panzer, der in eine Scheune am westl. Ortrand in Deckung fuhr. Der

Panzerkommandant, ein Ltn. oder OLtn. war Ritterkreuztraeger. Er war bei

mir zu einer guten Mahls=zeit zu Gast. Am 16. vormittags erhilet die

Scheune einen Jabo Bombenvolltreffer. Panzerbesatzyng tot. Die

Panzerspuren hatten ihn verraten. Um 8:00 morgens am 17.11. begann

Arifeuer auf unsere Stellung 1 1/2 Stunden alang aus hundert Rohren, Am

Abend vorher waren wir 68 mann, nach Beschuss waren ev. 20 mann uebrig.

Angriff der Amis, ca. 2 Kompanien. Sie kamen dicht anspaziert. Ich gab

durch: Feuer nur auf Befehl. Auf 150m Enfernung eroeffneten wir Feuer aus

Maschinenkarabiner 44 un 2 MG. Ich gewaehrte den Amis Feuerpause zum

Einsammeln Ihre Verluste. Um ca. 11:00 erneut Ari mit folgendem Angriff.

Wir waren noch ca. 6 oder 8 mann, kamen alle verwundet in Gefangenschaft.

It’s about a German tank (with a Ritterkreuz commander) joining an infantry unit. After sharing a meal that night he went back to his Panzer who was parked in a Barn. The next morning they got a full JABO (CAS fighter) blow and the complete Panzer crew was killed..... the track trail leading to the Barn had betrayed them.

[Vark]

Can't wait for the Bagration module/game/pack so we can have forum threads that revisit such topics as

Without the Lend-Lease, Russia would have lost

How did those peasants defeat such a fantastic army like the Germans

If one assumes a minimal border force between a neutral Russia then WWII ends very badly for the Allies. Quite what the Germans would have done with the 180 plus, spare divisions they now have, including the majority of their armour assets, is an armchair Generals fantasy question. I can think of of the Western Desert not being a sideshow and Malta falling and air-supremacy for the Luftwaffe over Europe, just for starters.

As for the original question, simple answer, economic supremacy brought about as a result of a superiority in dozens of fields. This at a time when their economy was also still producing consumer goods, including luxury ones. I have a collection of original US aviation magazines from 1944-45 and the adverts and articles are either about the war or civilian flying, or a mixture of both! The innovation shown by one side of the US society, the industrial sector was more than matched by other sectors, including the military.

Final note, I read an obituary of a driver in 22nd Panzer division, upon returning from the UK as a POW, he was shocked to find the over-whelming feeling of his local town was anger. Not at Hitler for the misery brought them, but at how "this trash" had beaten us, a sentiment some of my German relatives have brought up during the odd unguarded moment. Interesting that the debate still goes on and how effective the German military's propaganda, and self-promotion, post-war, has been.

[ChrisND]

If one assumes a minimal border force between a neutral Russia then WWII ends very badly for the Allies. Quite what the Germans would have done with the 180 plus, spare divisions they now have, including the majority of their armour assets, is an armchair Generals fantasy question. I can think of of the Western Desert not being a sideshow and Malta falling and air-supremacy for the Luftwaffe over Europe, just for starters.

The interesting thing about these what-ifs, whenever they get brought up, is that they seem to always consider what only the Germans would have done differently, as if the Allies like dopes would have continued on the same course and pursuing the same actions.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

5. The Garand was not very good.

If it was not very good, then everything everyone else fielded was awful in the extreme. It was an easy to use, robust semi-auto rifle. There was nothing to dislike.

An excellent service rifle... BUT

1) The eight round capacity was too small and...

2) When the eighth round is fired, the clip is ejected with a very audible TINGGGG noise announcing to all and sundry that your weapon is empty.

Both of these problems were addressed with the M14, which in this writer's opinion is the best service rifle that the U.S. has EVER produced, and is still in the top rankings today.

SLR

[winkelried]

The interesting thing about these what-ifs, whenever they get brought up, is that they seem to always consider what only the Germans would have done differently, as if the Allies like dopes would have continued on the same course and pursuing the same actions.

Fully agree - what if the purge of 1937/38 would have left the Red Army out and Tukhachevsky would have run the show in 1941? And all generals in would have been senior experienced commanders? And if the Red Army would have been set up deep in Russian space and not on the border? etc.

[winkelried]

An excellent service rifle... BUT

1) The eight round capacity was too small and...

2) When the eighth round is fired, the clip is ejected with a very audible TINGGGG noise announcing to all and sundry that your weapon is empty.

Both of these problems were addressed with the M14, which in this writer's opinion is the best service rifle that the U.S. has EVER produced, and is still in the top rank today.

SLR

Compared to the Kar98k ... I still would prefer the U.S. rifle :cool:

[YankeeDog]

An excellent service rifle... BUT

1) The eight round capacity was too small and...

2) When the eighth round is fired, the clip is ejected with a very audible TINGGGG noise announcing to all and sundry that your weapon is empty.

Both of these problems were addressed with the M14, which in this writer's opinion is the best service rifle that the U.S. has EVER produced, and is still in the top rank today.

SLR

II've always been very skeptical of #2, though it is definitely a well-established WWII myth. But the ping is not *that* loud, and most of the time I doubt the enemy would be able to hear it all under combat conditions. And soldiers don't usually fight one-on-one, so just because one American Rifleman has just emptied his clip, doesn't mean the guy next to him isn't fully loaded. Maybe once in a blue moon it mattered.

IMHO, a bigger problem with the en bloc clip system (which was actually incorporated in the design because the Army insisted that the rife *not* have a detachable magazine, so don't blame Garand for this "feature") is the fact that it makes "topping off" the mag more difficult -- if you're down to 1 or 2 rounds, and want to re-fill the mag, you have to completely eject the current en bloc clip, and load a new one.

[JonS]

air-supremacy for the Luftwaffe over Europe, just for starters.

The RAF and the USAAF smashed the GAF all on their own. They needed no help from the Russians for that. From quite early in the war (1943?) the bulk of the GAF was either in Germany or in Western or Southern Europe.

[skimbo]

If I may stick my size nines in on one of the areas - the one regarding allied airpower being ineffective.

Correct me if I'm wrong but during the battle of the bulge wasn't one of the key critera to the success of it hinge on bad weather - thus grounding allied airpower and their abililty to stick it to the german armour moving on the roads?

If allied CAS really was that pants why did the German planners fear it so?

Regards

Skimbo

[YankeeDog]

If I may stick my size nines in on one of the areas - the one regarding allied airpower being ineffective.

Correct me if I'm wrong but during the battle of the bulge wasn't one of the key critera to the success of it hinge on bad weather - thus grounding allied airpower and their abililty to stick it to the german armour moving on the roads?

If allied CAS really was that pants why did the German planners fear it so?

Regards

Skimbo

People seem to be confusing tactical air power being effective at restricting the mobility and combat capability of armored formations with tactical air power being effective at directly knocking out heavy armor. These are two different things.

While there is little evidence that tactical air in WWII was very effective at directly knocking out tanks, there is substantial evidence that tactical air power was highly effective under the right conditions at dramatically reducing the combat capability of armored formations. Armored units have the highest logistical needs of any force type on the WWII battlefield. Kill the fuel trucks, ammunition trucks, spare parts trucks, vehicles carrying the maintenance crews etc., and suddenly the tanks become very expensive pillboxes.

A substantial amount of German armor lost in the ETO was simply abandoned due to lack of fuel or other relatively simple to fix problems that probably would not have been an issue for the Germans if their logistical situation had been more in order. We can't say with any certainly exactly how many of these abandonments can be credited to Allied air supremacy and tactical air attack, but it's a reasonable conclusion that it was at least a contributing factor in many of them.

[skimbo]

Cleared it up for me and seems to make perfect sense.

Skimbo