User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:04:35 PM EDT
I keep reading this, in book after book. Other than Rangers, Airborne Troops, and some "elite" infantry divisions, like the 1st, US Infantry was simply not very good.
The Air Corps, Armor, Artillery and Technical Services got the good men. The Infantry got the duds. Is this close to reality? In anything close to an even match, the Germans simply trounced US Infantry? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:06:31 PM EDT
[#1]
So in on this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:07:03 PM EDT
[#2]
Never heard this. Germans certainly thought otherwise after the Bulge. They did not expect the resistance they got.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:07:34 PM EDT
[#3]
What books are you reading? Are they books written by Airborne, Armor or Artillery writers?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:07:37 PM EDT
[#4]
Many were conscripts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:08:11 PM EDT
[#5]
revisionist history......expect nothing less from our "institutions of higher learning"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:08:39 PM EDT
[#6]
tell that to any member of the 29th Inf who stormed Omaha Beach.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:09:23 PM EDT
[#7]
They were a bunch of 18yo with not much training.
How much time did they give them in boot before shipping to the front? I think we did pretty well, We did win after all. They are still the best Generation. You better remember them tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:09:27 PM EDT
[#8]
Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:09:39 PM EDT
[#9]
I would be willing to bet there was almost no difference whatsover between American and German infantry units of similar combat experience.
I don't know what books you are reading, but you have to remember that Germany had been actively at war since 1939, and the U.S. entry did not occur until late 1941, with most U.S. troops not experiencing combat until months after that. Stack up green troops against combat veterans and yes, the veterans are going to look better, until the green troops have mastered the learning curve of combat, at which point things are going to even out PDQ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:10:13 PM EDT
[#10]
and that's why we lost the war
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:10:33 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
What books are you reading? Are they books written by Airborne, Armor or Artillery writers? I've been reading a lot of Hastings. But the same point was made in "Army at Dawn". It got so bad that after Normandy, there was a whole scale move of good troops from Service Units to Infantry. The British simply ran out of Infantry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:10:48 PM EDT
[#12]
What the fuck is up with these damn threads today?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:10:55 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: revisionist history......expect nothing less from our "institutions of higher learning" If quotes of some of the top US Generals are to believed, they weren't very happy with the a great majority of troops. Especially as the war was winding down. Most knew it was only a matter of time, and a lot of people didn't want to die in the last days/minutes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:13:05 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
They were a bunch of 18yo with not much training. How much time did they give them in boot before shipping to the front? I think we did pretty well, We did win after all. They are still the best Generation. You better remember them tomorrow. Bingo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:13:43 PM EDT
[#15]
learning curve to combat...the Japanese and Germans had a few years head start.....and the Germans and Japs had a low opinion on everybody elses infantry...that's why they got their ass kicked..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:14:18 PM EDT
[#16]
The problem was not so much with the individual soldiers, it was more the collective level. The Army really did not have a good realistic way to train companies and higher until the two way live fire started. While officers and enlisted alike could outperform the Germans individually it took time for units to gain the level of expertise required to conduct modern maneuver warfare.
Fast forward to the 1970's. All those guys that had WWII and Korea experience were now GO's and CSM's. This is how NTC, JRTC and CMTC came into existence. A way to provide units combat experience without combat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:14:47 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
They were a bunch of 18yo with not much training. I read that the average age was actually late-20s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:15:31 PM EDT
[#18]
Germans thought this initially at the Kasserine Pass. Later on not so much. LIke anything though Im sure there were crap US regiments, like there were crap Axis and other allied divisions. What does it matter the victory wasnt even close to being in dispute once it got rolling.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:16:23 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were a bunch of 18yo with not much training. I read that the average age was actually late-20s. In WW2, average age of U.S. infantry was 25. In Vietnam, it was 19. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:16:36 PM EDT
[#20]
In before the low ASVAB scores arrive.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:16:55 PM EDT
[#21]
Depends on the year and the theater. Pacific 41/early 42- green and ill equiped Late 42- army didn't fight much 43- green but well equiped 44- good 45- very good Europe late 42- green and well equiped but with early equipment 43- getting better, a few units quite good, but most still pretty green 44- getting even better in Italy with better equipment, Late 44- France invasion troops were very well trained but without experience in many cases, best equipment of the war 45- arguably the best trained, equipped and led Army of the world with lots of combat experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:17:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
tell that to any member of the 29th Inf who stormed Omaha Beach. An they where National Guard! We (USA) are not the Russians, yes we drafted but had a much higher education. Think todays 18 year olds could handle 1941 without I-phones 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:18:33 PM EDT
[#23]
FYI
In the fall of 1944, General Eisenhower put out a call to send more troops. The Americans were advancing faster than planned. It had been anticipated that the war would be going on through 1948. As a consequence, a number of college educated men were in training as officers for an expanded US military. In response to Eisenhower's call, those men were shipped, largely without triaining to Europe. The new troops were fed piece meal into the line as replacements rather than by unit as was the normal practice. Many of those replacements were killed because of lack of experience. "...there were also a few famous administrative screw-ups where troops were directed to combat units instead of basic training." The same lack of experience was observed in Vietnam. Somewhere above 1/2 of the casualties were incurred in the first 30 day sweep. When this was observed, an incountry training of 30 days was instituted. My cameo Sgt. in basic training related how rank in the Boy Scouts correlated with not being killed in combat starting with Eagle and going down to Star Scout. So, experience and more training do count. It may also be accurate to say that people who volunteered for special units were more highly motivated as well. OP- some 20% of the military inductees were rejected because of their physicals. Yep, the Depression was that bad and many of those people were malnourished. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:20:05 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
I keep reading this, in book after book. Other than Rangers, Airborne Troops, and some "elite" infantry divisions, like the 1st, US Infantry was simply not very good. The Air Corps, Armor, Artillery and Technical Services got the good men. The Infantry got the duds. Is this close to reality? In anything close to an even match, the Germans simply trounced US Infantry? The US Infantry was good enough to get the job done in the big picture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:20:54 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
So in on this. Me too
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:22:06 PM EDT
[#26]
Everybody sucks until they have been seasoned, fact of life. Read about our troops in N. Africa. We got into the game after the Brits and Germans had blooded the majority of their troops.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:23:56 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
I would be willing to bet there was almost no difference whatsover between American and German infantry units of similar combat experience. I don't know what books you are reading, but you have to remember that Germany had been actively at war since 1939, and the U.S. entry did not occur until late 1941, with most U.S. troops not experiencing combat until months after that. Stack up green troops against combat veterans and yes, the veterans are going to look better, until the green troops have mastered the learning curve of combat, at which point things are going to even out PDQ. One major difference was the replacement system. Other than that, I think you are absilutely correct. ETA - IIRC< Stephen Ambrose said it, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:24:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Depends on the year and the theater. Pacific 41/early 42- green and ill equiped Late 42- army didn't fight much 43- green but well equiped 44- good 45- very good Europe late 42- green and well equiped but with early equipment 43- getting better, a few units quite good, but most still pretty green 44- getting even better in Italy with better equipment, Late 44- France invasion troops were very well trained but without experience in many cases, best equipment of the war 45- arguably the best trained, equipped and led Army of the world with lots of combat experience. My Grandfather was Army during the Pacific campaign and was in from 1942 till 1945, I think his record stands. ETA.....auto-spell check "CAMPAIGN" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:26:52 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
If quotes of some of the top US Generals are to believed, they weren't very happy with the a great majority of troops. This is basically true of every army in the history of warfare. Leadership bitches about the grunts a lot. It's one of the great universal truths. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:27:19 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: I would be willing to bet there was almost no difference whatsover between American and German infantry units of similar combat experience. I don't know what books you are reading, but you have to remember that Germany had been actively at war since 1939, and the U.S. entry did not occur until late 1941, with most U.S. troops not experiencing combat until months after that. Stack up green troops against combat veterans and yes, the veterans are going to look better, until the green troops have mastered the learning curve of combat, at which point things are going to even out PDQ. One major difference was the replacement system. Other than that, I think you are absilutely correct. There were some complaints by German Officers about how they were forced to piecemeal units together towards the end, and the lack of training/quality of these units. Pretty similar to complains on the Allied side of things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:28:03 PM EDT
[#31]
The battle of the Bulge was fought by the best and brightest.
Hap Arnlod released 70K aviation cadets and the ASTP program released a shitload of college students to the infantry about that time. The criminal part of this is that these guys released from the plum programs were poorly trained. For the most part, basic training and into the line. A lot of guys got chewed up because of the lack of training. Kurt Vonnegut was just one of these and he was taken POW during the Bulge. He was not alone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:28:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They were a bunch of 18yo with not much training. I read that the average age was actually late-20s. In WW2, average age of U.S. infantry was 25. In Vietnam, it was 19. Great, now that song is stuck in my head. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:28:14 PM EDT
[#33]
They may have been young and typically had little training, but our boys had the best small arms weapons and notable swagger. They were fear/respected.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:28:22 PM EDT
[#34]
I wouldnt think that US troops were not "good" so to speak. I could understand that they were not as experienced as German troops maybe, because the german troops had been in combat longer. I would expect the average german combat soldier probably spent more time on the frontlines than his allied opponent. Especially if he was serving since 1939 and had not been killed or captured by early 1944. I would expect that the average German combat soldier who came in after the blitzkrieg campaigns to get experience quicker than an allied replacement for the same reasons.
I think the american soldier my have been greener than his axis opponent, but adapted very quickly once exposed to actual combat. I think the american soldier benefitted from the lack of the rigid command guidelines and structure that the germans operated under. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:28:29 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
I keep reading this, in book after book. Other than Rangers, Airborne Troops, and some "elite" infantry divisions, like the 1st, US Infantry was simply not very good. The Air Corps, Armor, Artillery and Technical Services got the good men. The Infantry got the duds. Is this close to reality? In anything close to an even match, the Germans simply trounced US Infantry? You have to look at it from a lot of angles. Line infantry battalions were only as successful as their Regiments and Divisions set them up to be. That meant proper coordination of fires, air support, communication lines, re-supply, and most importantly...sound and timely decisions by leaders. Read "Company Commander" by Charles B. MacDonald. In it, he explains a lot of the problems his company faced fighting the Germans in the European campaign. Basically, there was not much he could against constant German artillery barrages and armored assaults except try and hold his line together and stay under cover. Biggest weapons the Infantry had were mortars. What good are they when you can't even see the enemy or pinpoint their locations? What do you do when those constant artillery attacks sever your communication lines time after time and you lose contact with your higher headquarters? Believe me, the Germans faced the same problems we did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:28:30 PM EDT
[#36]
Not sure on the quality of troops but I know that the replacement system was crap. The Repple Depples didn't really do anything to help the replacements before they got to the frontlines and I think that's what got a lot of them killed. They were replaced as individuals instead of as units which meant less cohesion between vets and new guys. Vets didn't get attached to the replacements so they were pretty much on their own - I think the stats are the average lifespan for a replacement was something like 3 days? Just going on what I've read from Stephen Ambrose and Band of Brothers FWIW.
Perhaps this was a degradation to unit quality later in the war? I have never really read a bad view of US infantry during the war, most everything has been good. You can bet there were bad units but you get those in every military. No way around that. The vast majority did their jobs and did them well, going above and beyond the call of duty. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:28:48 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Everybody sucks until they have been seasoned, fact of life. Read about our troops in N. Africa. We got into the game after the Brits and Germans had blooded the majority of their troops. In WWI the Allies wanted the US troops arriving to be placed in veteran French and British units. Pershing refused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:29:34 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would be willing to bet there was almost no difference whatsover between American and German infantry units of similar combat experience. I don't know what books you are reading, but you have to remember that Germany had been actively at war since 1939, and the U.S. entry did not occur until late 1941, with most U.S. troops not experiencing combat until months after that. Stack up green troops against combat veterans and yes, the veterans are going to look better, until the green troops have mastered the learning curve of combat, at which point things are going to even out PDQ. One major difference was the replacement system. Other than that, I think you are absilutely correct. ETA - IIRC< Stephen Ambrose said it, too. German Infantry training was better. They aimed to train HARDER than combat. If some troops were not killed in training, it was considered too lax. They were fighting the RUSSIANS. Human waves with machine guns at their backs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:30:09 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: All infantry units suck until they have been seasoned. Fact of life, read about our troops in N. Africa. We got into the game after the Brits and Germans had blooded the majority of their troops. Not true. There were quite a few units that participated in the Europe campaign that did not have combat experience that did quite well during their initial entry into the war. i.e. 29th, 4th, 36th and of course the 101st. They had great training however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:30:23 PM EDT
[#40]
I totally believe that the U.S. Army probably wasn't too hot right out of the gates in North Africa.
As American success shows, they learned quickly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:30:28 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Not sure on the quality of troops but I know that the replacement system was crap. The Repple Depples didn't really do anything to help the replacements before they got to the frontlines and I think that's what got a lot of them killed. They were replaced as individuals instead of as units which meant less cohesion between vets and new guys. Vets didn't get attached to the replacements so they were pretty much on their own - I think the stats are the average lifespan for a replacement was something like 3 days? Just going on what I've read from Stephen Ambrose and Band of Brothers FWIW. . The running joke was "the army consists of the (insert number here) division and 1.000.000 replacements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:31:47 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Quoted: Everybody sucks until they have been seasoned, fact of life. Read about our troops in N. Africa. We got into the game after the Brits and Germans had blooded the majority of their troops. In WWI the Allies wanted the US troops arriving to be placed in veteran French and British units. Pershing refused. More meat for the grinder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:32:13 PM EDT
[#43]
I suspect that part of the perception on the German part was due to a difference in philosophy between the armies. The American theory was always to expend ammunition rather than lives. So rather than get into a knife fight with the Germans "mano e mano," we'd just pull back and pound it with air or arty.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:32:20 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
What the fuck is up with these damn threads today? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:32:23 PM EDT
[#45]
Other than at Kasserine, and I think it was the 36th infantry(not positive) who surrendered pretty much en masse at the beginning of the Ardennes campaign, they gave as good as they got. There were obviously some exceptions, for instance when US infantry units first tried on Fallschirmjager troops. But even then they usually regrouped and thumped them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:33:10 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure on the quality of troops but I know that the replacement system was crap. The Repple Depples didn't really do anything to help the replacements before they got to the frontlines and I think that's what got a lot of them killed. They were replaced as individuals instead of as units which meant less cohesion between vets and new guys. Vets didn't get attached to the replacements so they were pretty much on their own - I think the stats are the average lifespan for a replacement was something like 3 days? Just going on what I've read from Stephen Ambrose and Band of Brothers FWIW. . The running joke was "the army consists of the (insert number here) division and 1.000.000 replacements. That line was used in "The Big Red One", but it was the 1st, not the whole army. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:33:16 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Everybody sucks until they have been seasoned, fact of life. Read about our troops in N. Africa. We got into the game after the Brits and Germans had blooded the majority of their troops. In WWI the Allies wanted the US troops arriving to be placed in veteran French and British units. Pershing refused. Pershing also used tactics that everybody used in 1914, to bad it was 4 years out of date. No cohesion and combined use of artillery as well as made assaults on machine gun fortified trenches. As well you have to consider some of the initial allied assaults on WW2, places like Operation Torch, Norway or Dieppe were all mostly first combat for several allied forces and all huge disasters. A combination of bad planning and green troops. Then you have the Germans who has been fighting since Condor, its all relative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:34:21 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: I would be willing to bet there was almost no difference whatsover between American and German infantry units of similar combat experience. I don't know what books you are reading, but you have to remember that Germany had been actively at war since 1939, and the U.S. entry did not occur until late 1941, with most U.S. troops not experiencing combat until months after that. Stack up green troops against combat veterans and yes, the veterans are going to look better, until the green troops have mastered the learning curve of combat, at which point things are going to even out PDQ. This. At the start of the war, the US troops were not very good. At the end of the war, they could beat anyone –– including the Russians, had we been so inclined. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:35:21 PM EDT
[#49]
In WW2 the US infantry was good enough. Comparing our forces against the germans is like comparing your dick to a donkeys. German training and combat experience could not be matched on the ground. It made very little difference. Germany was outnumbered by the russians and buried in material by the united states. By the time our infantry was involved the german army was a shadow of what it once was.
If we had faced the german army of 1939 on our own with no air support, the US army would have suffered losses concurrent to the Russian loses. At least 8-10 million combat deaths. In the end we had essentially unlimited production capacity for planes and tanks, and stalin was willing to send 25+ million soviets to their death, so german infantry skills were of little importance to the over all war. Modern US infantry tactics borrow very heavily from the german tactics used during the war. The invasion of Iraq looked like a page out of germanys 1938 playbook. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2012 6:36:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Zombie Audie Murphy is going to claw his way out of his grave, butt stroke you with a carbine, and eat your face.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
