As a student of history, especially military history, I never ceased to be amazed by the absolute non value of human life in times of conflict.

We like to think that only the fanatical Germans and Japanese viewed their soldiers as "cannon fodder" but the reality is many a US serviceman was pretty expendable.

But often a serviceman wasn't even as valuable as the cargo he delivered, and this was especially true if you happened to be a Merchant Marine in the North Atlantic.

Convoys of cargo ships and warships early in the war braved the U boats to deliver material to England and Russia. And the costs of doing so were high. And those costs weren't simply men killed in the attack and material lost.

When U boats attacked the convoy kept going. The unit was the primary means of defense. If the convoy stopped to try and assist a ship that was under attack or wounded, more ships would be lost.

But that meant, uninjured men, sometimes numbering in the hundreds, were left to die in the open Atlantic while the convoys continued past them. Ships would not slow down, life boats would not be lowered.

One former merchant marine is still haunted by the memories of a young 20 something man in the water as his ship sailed past calling out in a joking manner "Taxi......Hello there...Taxi...." with both men knowing full well that he would not be saved and would die.

It was a far cry from todays "nobody left behind" mindset.

Not sure I could handle it.

Reading about the trench warfare of WW1 always horrifies me.  Battles like Passchendale (second Ypres) where hundreds of thousands of men pretty much died for no gain is very scary, as is the mindset of commanders (like Haig) that oversaw it.  There's no doubt that there was a different perspective - seeing soldiers as just accounting numbers.

I'm not saying that's inherently wrong - obviously hard decisions need to be made in war, and sometimes costs have to be calculated in terms of how many people are probably going to have to die, but I think sometimes the callousness - while necessary - is very frightening.

In the Pacific theater, the invasion fleets did the same. No stopping for any reason to maintain schedules.

A good reason to make sure it's the right decision before you commit to war.

Oh its not even a "qauint old notion."

The mission being more important then the individuals carrying it out is the firmament upon which all modern military thinking rests.

If you think it went out of style go look up the specifics of "Operation Reforger", the planned resupply of Europe for when the Russians came over the fulda gap. Transport ships sailing round the clock, hundreds of thousands of men. Estimated casualties of 100% for the first 3 days until the enemy attack subs could be found and nuetralized.

Antietam.

When I was a kid and reading what I could on WWII and watching documentaries, I always kept this thought in my head that we valued our soldiers much more than other nations' did theirs.

The more I read and learned, the less that was true. And not that men were wasted, per se, but more that the expenditure was necessary. When you come to that realization it is quite sobering.

I was young when I read "Black Sunday" by Martin Caidin - well, read parts of it anyway. I had to stop and give it back to my dad. It was just too depressing. (It was about the 8th Air Force in WWII for those that don't know... ) The more strategic the materiel or target, the more men it is "worth" (for lack of a better term)...

I do not envy those generals and admirals' decisions.

Quoted: A good reason to make sure it's the right decision before you commit to war.

You're under suspicion...

That's because men had BALLS back then and would volunteer knowing full well that they might not come home.



We owe everything to them!


ETA:  It's a far cry and a damn shame from a majority of the reservists that joined simply to go to college in the mid to late 90's

Loss rates for the Merchant Marine were staggering, and they still aren't considered "veterans."

Action in the North Atlantic with Humphrey Bogart was a very cool movie about the Merchant Marine in WWII.

I'm sorry if I sound horrible, but I can understand why convoys wouldn't stop. 1 man in the water could delay vital goods, that may be needed at the front to save many more. it's the big picture in conflict and somtimes men, like that merchant marine, are scraficed to keep the big picture alive( time tables, supplies, stradgeys,etc) WWI was just horrible conflict, the slaughter those men faced.... boild down to tactics not keeping up the technology.

I agree with both of your posts. The true root cause of these outcomes lies w/ the nations failure to see that things have/are/and will change. They failed to prepare for the present/future.
The Civil War commanders failed to understand the fundamental change in weapons and continued to use tactic from the Napoleonic era.
WWI commanders made the same mistake in that they failed to take into account the machine gun.
WWII Europe failed to see the ramification of mobile warfare. They also forgot the lesson of unrestricted U-boat warfare learned in WWI. They failed to prepare for another war of aggression from within.
In WWII all of the allies had the resources and technology to over come these faults but they failed to apply those resources soon enough to prevent slaughter.

We are currently in the same situation with the WOT. If we fail to adapt/modify our tactics/thinking, we will suffer just as those before us have.
We may win but it will cost us dearly. Just as it did in WWI & WWII
I will say that we are not as prone to underestimating our enemy as in the past, and are doing a much better job overall.
We owe this to the troops on the ground and a few far sighted commanders.

My .02 and worth just that

Quoted: I'm sorry if I sound horrible, but I can understand why convoys wouldn't stop. 1 man in the water could delay vital goods, that may be needed at the front to save many more. it's the big picture in conflict and somtimes men, like that merchant marine, are scraficed to keep the big picture alive( time tables, supplies, stradgeys,etc) WWI was just horrible conflict, the slaughter those men faced.... boild down to tactics not keeping up the technology.

It's not even that so much, just consider what a U-boat commander would do when a ship stopped to pick up survivors.  Easy pickins there.

Its sad, but the reality of war.

We truly take a lot for granted. Forget the football "heroes" and movie "stars".

Quoted: What about throwing 2000 men at an objective knowing (actually predicting in advance) that 500 to 750 wouldnt make it. You would be arrested and charged and probably jailed for that today but in WW2 it was no big deal.

That same objective today would not incur such losses as weapons, tactics, armor and medical attention have improved.  The Armor and medical aid are two of the best improvements.  The time to serious trauma care now is measured in minutes or hours versus days in WW2.  
All that being said, people now could not handle large scale losses of troops.  We are too used to "clean" combat.  A war with China or Korea or Iran would be back on the death rates in Vietnam or Korea if not WW2.

Quoted: not as prone to underestimating our enemy as in the past, and are doing a much better job overall.

FDR would have rounded up all the Muslims in America, placed them into concentration camps, closed the Mexican border, and done a fucking head count.

I'm waiting for the mushroom cloud over an American city that came through the southern border.  Maybe then the Neocons will understand the true meaning of Homeland Security.

If America was the White House, the Neocons would tear down the security perimeter, invite Pablo Escobar to stay in the Lincoln bedroom and send the Secret Service to Federal prison for patting down bin Laden at a State dinner.

How can we secure the borders of Iraq when we can't even secure the borders of El Paso ?

Quoted: Quoted: not as prone to underestimating our enemy as in the past, and are doing a much better job overall. FDR would have rounded up all the Muslims in America, placed them into concentration camps, closed the Mexican border, and done a fucking head count. I'm waiting for the mushroom cloud over an American city that came through the southern border.  Maybe then the Neocons will understand the true meaning of Homeland Security. If America was the White House, the Neocons would tear down the security perimeter, invite Pablo Escobar to stay in the Lincoln bedroom and send the Secret Service to Federal prison for patting down bin Laden at a State dinner. How can we secure the borders of Iraq when we can't even secure the borders of El Paso ?

Well said sir!

Supposedly Churchill had to make the decision not to evacuate several residential neighborhoods where there was advance notice of a German bomber attack from deciphered Enigma intel-imagine the political fallout if a similar decision was made today.

Quoted: I agree with both of your posts. The true root cause of these outcomes lies w/ the nations failure to see that things have/are/and will change. They failed to prepare for the present/future. The Civil War commanders failed to understand the fundamental change in weapons and continued to use tactic from the Napoleonic era. WWI commanders made the same mistake in that they failed to take into account the machine gun. WWII Europe failed to see the ramification of mobile warfare. They also forgot the lesson of unrestricted U-boat warfare learned in WWI. They failed to prepare for another war of aggression from within. In WWII all of the allies had the resources and technology to over come these faults but they failed to apply those resources soon enough to prevent slaughter. We are currently in the same situation with the WOT. If we fail to adapt/modify our tactics/thinking, we will suffer just as those before us have. We may win but it will cost us dearly. Just as it did in WWI & WWII I will say that we are not as prone to underestimating our enemy as in the past, and are doing a much better job overall. We owe this to the troops on the ground and a few far sighted commanders. My .02 and worth just that

The surest way to lose a war is to fight it the same way you won your last war.

Quoted: Quoted: not as prone to underestimating our enemy as in the past, and are doing a much better job overall. FDR would have rounded up all the Muslims in America, placed them into concentration camps, closed the Mexican border, and done a fucking head count. I'm waiting for the mushroom cloud over an American city that came through the southern border.  Maybe then the Neocons will understand the true meaning of Homeland Security. If America was the White House, the Neocons would tear down the security perimeter, invite Pablo Escobar to stay in the Lincoln bedroom and send the Secret Service to Federal prison for patting down bin Laden at a State dinner. How can we secure the borders of Iraq when we can't even secure the borders of El Paso ?

Is your repeated use to of the word "neocons" relevant, or are you just using it to draw attention?

Quoted: Antietam.

This is the first battle that came to my mind as well. Miller's Cornfield. Probably as close to hell on earth as you can get.

"Butcher" Grant?

I could never have done what those American generals did, sending men to certain death storming Petersburg or Normandy.

I must be a softie, but reading about Stalingrad these past couple weeks really makes you believe war is madness.

Quoted: Quoted: ranting..... Well said sir!

Sorry to hijack, but here it goes.

Thank you.  Like many Americans I'm fed up with the status quo.  The GWOT should include waging war against the criminal alien invaders from the South.  Tens of thousands of American citizens are the victims of criminal alien invaders- murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, DWI etc.- not to mention all the drug dealing, social services fraud, tax fraud, document fraud, etc. done by the non-violent illegals.

For Dave_A who thinks it is only a matter of people coming here to live a better life as a criminal in America.

This continued invasion constitutes a de facto war upon American citizens and the American taxpayer.  

How many Americans have to die before this issue is settled once and for all ?

What percentage of my income should go to the .GOV which supports this invasion and war against ME ?

Quoted: Is your repeated use to of the word "neocons" relevant, or are you just using it to draw attention?

Conservatives are not in charge of our .GOV.  The Neocons have been in power for the past 6 years.  What label would you apply to the GWB administration.  Compassionate conservatives ?  If the label fits, apply it.  Be thankful I didn't label them globalists, Satanists or Illuminati.

American Battlefields American Battlefields
American Battlefields
Wilderness  

Other Names: Combats at Parker’s Store, Craig’s Meeting House, Todd’s Tavern, Brock Road, the Furnaces

Location: Spotsylvania County

Campaign: Grant’s Overland Campaign (May-June 1864)

Date(s): May 5-7, 1864

Principal Commanders: Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Maj. Gen. George G. Meade [US]; Gen. Robert E. Lee [CS]

Forces Engaged: 162,920 total (US 101,895; CS 61,025)

Estimated Casualties: 29,800 total (US 18,400; CS 11,400)

Description: The opening battle of Grant’s sustained offensive against the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, known as the Overland Campaign, was fought at the Wilderness, May 5-7. On the morning of May 5, 1864, the Union V Corps attacked Ewell’s Corps on the Orange Turnpike, while A.P. Hill’s corps during the afternoon encountered Getty’s Division (VI Corps) and Hancock’s II Corps on the Plank Road. Fighting was fierce but inconclusive as both sides attempted to maneuver in the dense woods. Darkness halted the fighting, and both sides rushed forward reinforcements.  At dawn on May 6, Hancock attacked along the Plank Road, driving Hill’s Corps back in confusion. Longstreet’s Corps arrived in time to prevent the collapse of the Confederate right flank. At noon, a devastating Confederate flank attack in Hamilton’s Thicket sputtered out when Lt. Gen. James Longstreet was wounded by his own men. The IX Corps (Burnside) moved against the Confederate center, but was repulsed. Union generals James S. Wadsworth and Alexander Hays were killed. Confederate generals John M. Jones, Micah Jenkins, and Leroy A. Stafford were killed. The battle was a tactical draw. Grant, however, did not retreat as had the other Union generals before him. On May 7, the Federals advanced by the left flank toward the crossroads of Spotsylvania Courthouse.

Result(s): Inconclusive (Grant continued his offensive.)

Quoted: I'm sorry if I sound horrible, but I can understand why convoys wouldn't stop. 1 man in the water could delay vital goods, that may be needed at the front to save many more. it's the big picture in conflict and somtimes men, like that merchant marine, are scraficed to keep the big picture alive( time tables, supplies, stradgeys,etc) WWI was just horrible conflict, the slaughter those men faced.... boild down to tactics not keeping up the technology.

I understand that. But it remains horrible.

Quoted: What about throwing 2000 men at an objective knowing (actually predicting in advance) that 500 to 750 wouldnt make it. You would be arrested and charged and probably jailed for that today but in WW2 it was no big deal.

Combat engineers in today's Army are kept around in at a ratio of 3 for every 1 that is needed to do the job.

Quoted: Supposedly Churchill had to make the decision not to evacuate several residential neighborhoods where there was advance notice of a German bomber attack from deciphered Enigma intel-imagine the political fallout if a similar decision was made today.

The city of Coventry England if I remember correctly.  It was obliterated.  The allied forces coined the term "coventrate" when similar raids on German cities with little industrial infrastructure were undertaken.