Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 8/13/2005 4:13:24 PM EDT
I was once told something similar by an old Soldat, but just came across this thought-provoking take in Death of a Division:

"The troops facing the Americans were... contemptuous of their opponents. The Amis, they thought, had many faults as soldiers. They avoided close combat and would not attack unless supported by tanks, heavy artillery and air strikes. They did not like to fight at night, nor off the roads. They did not know how to look after themselves in rainy or snowy weather... they were not well-motivated... They kept up a continuous chatter on their radios..."
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:17:45 PM EDT
None of those guys obviously had their........ edelweiss or they would have not been afraid
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:18:28 PM EDT
The soldiers on that part of the front were either green or units sent to reconstitute.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:20:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rodent:
I was once told something similar by an old Soldat, but just came across this thought-provoking take in Death of a Division:

"The troops facing the Americans were... contemptuous of their opponents. The Amis, they thought, had many faults as soldiers. They avoided close combat and would not attack unless supported by tanks, heavy artillery and air strikes. They did not like to fight at night, nor off the roads. They did not know how to look after themselves in rainy or snowy weather... they were not well-motivated... They kept up a continuous chatter on their radios..."



Of course. Even then most (but by no means all) of the US Army was pretty inexperienced.

It doesn't matter that, one for one, the Germans were GENERALLY more experienced. What mattered in the end was control of the air, firepower, and logistical staying power.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:20:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
The soldiers on that part of the front were either green or units sent to reconstitute.



And they still kicked their sorry arses back to Germany.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:21:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rodent:
I was once told something similar by an old Soldat, but just came across this thought-provoking take in Death of a Division:

"The troops facing the Americans were... contemptuous of their opponents. The Amis, they thought, had many faults as soldiers. They avoided close combat and would not attack unless supported by tanks, heavy artillery and air strikes. They did not like to fight at night, nor off the roads. They did not know how to look after themselves in rainy or snowy weather... they were not well-motivated... They kept up a continuous chatter on their radios..."



Interesting, thanks.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:27:45 PM EDT
The one arm of the US Army the Germans feared was its artillery, it was able to quickly shift, mass on targets and expend enough ammunition to have an effect. This lead both Patton and Eisenhower with crediting the artillery for much of the victory.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:29:44 PM EDT
In the book........... "Loyalty is my Honor' Personal accounts from the waffen ss............... All of the guys interviwed that fought the americans said they where not afraid of them........... That the brits and russians were better fighters.......
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:31:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dru:
In the book........... "Loyalty is my Honor' Personal accounts from the waffen ss............... All of the guys interviwed that fought the americans said they where not afraid of them........... That the brits and russians were better fighters.......



Hmmmm... but they still lost...hmmmm.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:32:46 PM EDT

So the Iraqis could say the same thing today. Americans took six months to build up forces before the attack.

The American strategy then and now is to build up forces and launch a "Combined Arms" attack. German staff knew this, enlisted grunts probably have no idea. It saves live and wins battles. Even the Germans did this back when they still had tanks, planes and artillery. By the time the Battle of the Bulge was over they were using hand carts.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:34:59 PM EDT
A lot of this has to do with perception and a large dose of sour grapes and bullshit.

The troops the Germans initially faced during the Bulge were stretched thin, worn down, and not as well equipped.

Why should US troops stand toe to toe and fight when they did not have to and instead could use air power and artillery to best advantage. It is just plain stupid to die when you don’t have to.

If the point of the above was US troops should throw away their lives when they did not need to… no thanks. A smart Army plays to its strong points

US troops pushed the Germans across France despite far inferior armor. They pushed the Germans out of the Bulge.

The simple fact of the matter is given US troops and say British troops the US troops almost always would accomplish more quicker. The historical record supports this in France and Italy.

There are plenty of examples of US troops fighting toe to toe when they needed to. Why would ANYBODY engage in close cobat when there is another way without close combat.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:35:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:

Originally Posted By Dru:
In the book........... "Loyalty is my Honor' Personal accounts from the waffen ss............... All of the guys interviwed that fought the americans said they where not afraid of them........... That the brits and russians were better fighters.......



Hmmmm... but they still lost...hmmmm.



Hmmmmmmmmm....... Yes you're right.....hmmmmmmmm
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:37:05 PM EDT
Do not seek the counsel of losers.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:38:05 PM EDT
I have a hard time believing that Americans were poor fighters.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:38:16 PM EDT
Well Germans are very proud people. I highly doubt you would be able to find one that said "there were some Americans who outfought us man to man"
Its like when I tell the story about how I got my ass kicked in high school. I tell people that if he had fought fair i woudl have kicked his ass. You guys dont know me so I can tell the truth, he fought really dirty, but even he hadn't he still would have won.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:38:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:

Originally Posted By Dru:
In the book........... "Loyalty is my Honor' Personal accounts from the waffen ss............... All of the guys interviwed that fought the americans said they where not afraid of them........... That the brits and russians were better fighters.......



Hmmmm... but they still lost...hmmmm.



No, the Brits and Russians won, too.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:39:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 4:40:20 PM EDT by Dru]

Originally Posted By slipfit:
I have a hard time believing that Americans were poor fighters.



+1
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:40:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ohio:

Originally Posted By wetidlerjr:

Originally Posted By Dru:
In the book........... "Loyalty is my Honor' Personal accounts from the waffen ss............... All of the guys interviwed that fought the americans said they where not afraid of them........... That the brits and russians were better fighters.......



Hmmmm... but they still lost...hmmmm.



No, the Brits and Russians won, too.



And the German still LOST.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:41:09 PM EDT
The Allies had a secret plan that if D-Day and the following battles did not meet success, then they would send a squad of United States Marines to take Europe.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:42:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
A lot of this has to do with perception and a large dose of sour grapes and bullshit.

The troops the Germans initially faced during the Bulge were stretched thin, worn down, and not as well equipped.

Why should US troops stand toe to toe and fight when they did not have to and instead could use air power and artillery to best advantage. It is just plain stupid to die when you don’t have to.

If the point of the above was US troops should throw away their lives when they did not need to… no thanks. A smart Army plays to its strong points

US troops pushed the Germans across France despite far inferior armor. They pushed the Germans out of the Bulge.

The simple fact of the matter is given US troops and say British troops the US troops almost always would accomplish more quicker. The historical record supports this in France and Italy.

There are plenty of examples of US troops fighting toe to toe when they needed to. Why would ANYBODY engage in close cobat when there is another way without close combat.



There is a very interesting chapter about this subject in the book "On Infantry." The authors cites many books written by Senior Officers in the USA and few in the UK Armies after the war. It basically boiled down to for the most part the infantry got the rejects that couldn't qualify for the more technical branchs. Only the airborne got allot of high quality troops. Several Generals to include Patton cited this for onethe reasons that while the Germans normally used Squads as the basic manuaver element, in many Army divisions they basic unit of manuaver was the Battalion.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:43:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dru:

Originally Posted By slipfit:
I have a hard time believing that Americans were poor fighters.



+1



Thank you. There is plenty of evidence to show that the American fighting man of WWII was as competent and able as any other soldier... and the US did the lion share of the fighting and planning.

Also, we won.

Fuck the sissy SS.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:44:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 4:53:03 PM EDT by imposter]
As mentioned above, our artillery was first rate, probably the best in the world. Our artillery was not only good in terms of quantity, we also had superior doctrine.

The Germans also greately feared our air power.

The armor branch was handicapped by poor doctrine and inferior tanks.

It is tuff to create infantry almost from scratch, especially when you are facing the best army in the world. We surely could have done better.

The Russians and Brits also did not do too hot against the Germans. The Russians in particular had some terrible failures, much greater than we ever did. The Brits --- well, that is another subject.

All in all, we did pretty good, considering that we were playing catch-up. The Germans may have won Kaserine, but after that all they could do was retreat with style. I think a lot of what they have to say is sour grapes from sore losers.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:44:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Do not seek the counsel of losers.



Most US military doctrine is based on the German doctrine, our Military Decision Making Process is almost a direct copy of the German Army Staff Planning Process. Our artillery was almost completely an outgrowth of French WW I artillery doctrine.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:46:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 4:50:11 PM EDT by WildBoar]
"To the German Commander, "Nuts!" The American Commander."

“They’ve got us surrounded again, poor bastards.” Creighton Abrams
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:47:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By slipfit:
I have a hard time believing that Americans were poor fighters.



American had a tendency of avoiding unnecessary fights. If the American found a situation to hot they would not hesitate to try to find an alternative less costly way to do the job… some British and Germans like to make this weakness when it is really just smarter.

The are more than enough examples of US troops pushing forward and taking tremendous casualties when they HAD to. Omaha Beach comes to mind in Europe and Okinawa in the Pacific along with hundreds of other places.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:50:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 4:51:33 PM EDT by Hydguy]

Originally Posted By steve-oh:
Well Germans are very proud people. I highly doubt you would be able to find one that said "there were some Americans who outfought us man to man"
Its like when I tell the story about how I got my ass kicked in high school. I tell people that if he had fought fair i woudl have kicked his ass. You guys dont know me so I can tell the truth, he fought really dirty, but even he hadn't he still would have won.



Where do you think the name teufel hunden for the Marines at Belleau Wood?

The Marines didn't name thmeselves....

My bad.. talking about WWII, Not WWI....
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:51:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 4:51:59 PM EDT by VTwin60]

Originally Posted By Rodent:
I was once told something similar by an old Soldat, but just came across this thought-provoking take in Death of a Division:

"The troops facing the Americans were... contemptuous of their opponents. The Amis, they thought, had many faults as soldiers. They avoided close combat and would not attack unless supported by tanks, heavy artillery and air strikes. They did not like to fight at night, nor off the roads. They did not know how to look after themselves in rainy or snowy weather... they were not well-motivated... They kept up a continuous chatter on their radios..."



Yeah thats what happens when you're winning and fighting in someone else's country....not fighting by any means possible because your sorry ass army hasn't got anything else.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:52:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 4:53:10 PM EDT by dport]
.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 4:56:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hydguy:
Where do you think the name teufel hunden for the Marines at Belleau Wood?

The Marines didn't name thmeselves....

My bad.. talking about WWII, Not WWI....



It along with allot of other things told recruits at boot is more myth and legend than truth. There is allot of indications that in fact the moniker "Devil Dogs" was made up by a reporter from some paper in Chicago.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:03:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rodent:
I was once told something similar by an old Soldat, but just came across this thought-provoking take in Death of a Division:

"The troops facing the Americans were... contemptuous of their opponents. The Amis, they thought, had many faults as soldiers. They avoided close combat and would not attack unless supported by tanks, heavy artillery and air strikes. They did not like to fight at night, nor off the roads. They did not know how to look after themselves in rainy or snowy weather... they were not well-motivated... They kept up a continuous chatter on their radios..."



I can find no fault into going into a technical battle well-prepared. These men were not defending the homeland, they were invading a Nazi reich one village at a time, unwelcomed.

Yeah, I'd wait for the air cav and the arty to hit before I moved in too.

Do you know what the blitzkrieg was? Heavy air assault, followed by heavy armor assault, followed by the infantry. Not too far from what the old Soldat's deployment was. Except it was normally deployed against innocent civilians.

Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:07:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 5:08:34 PM EDT by Robert2011]

Originally Posted By STLRN:

Most US military doctrine is based on the German doctrine, our Military Decision Making Process is almost a direct copy of the German Army Staff Planning Process.



In WWII the Germans copied the American "Combined Arms" strategy used to kick their butt near the end of WWI. It broke the stalemate in the trenches and lead to the fastest collapse of the German army in history. It was so effective the Germans studied it and refined it. Never forget, we invented it.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:08:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:12:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Robert2011:

Originally Posted By STLRN:

Most US military doctrine is based on the German doctrine, our Military Decision Making Process is almost a direct copy of the German Army Staff Planning Process.



In WWII the Germans copied the American "Combined Arms" strategy used to kick their butt near the end of WWI. It broke the stalemate in the trenches and lead to the fastest collapse of the German army in history. It was so effective the Germans studied it and refined it. Never forget, we invented it.


Actually, the British invented it. Lindell Hart ring a bell?
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:13:07 PM EDT
The comments on American troops sounds like sour grapes. Victory in Poland, France, Belgium but had their hands full in Finland and Norway. Lost to the Russians despite superior equipment, etc. Just B.S.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:13:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
www.armystudyguide.com/samc/images/audiem_uniform2.jpg



+1
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:24:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2005 5:26:23 PM EDT by FN-TPS]
Yeah...It was so damned unfair, that the Luftwaffe got it's ass kicked, early in the game and then the P-47's, P-51's and Typhoons, blew the living shit out of, just about everything with wheels, treads or had a black cross and a gun on it, all the way across France, till there was nothing left to engage in "close combat" with.

The reason for all that radio chatter, the Germans seem to hold so much in contempt, is that the Americans were arranging for their highy trained, camo clad, Waffen SS asses, to meet gott, at the hands of American tactical air power or from the tube of a 105 howitzer.

The Germans in France, never seemed to grasp the fact, that we were not the Russians, and we were not going to "play fair" and march a division of infantry, right into their gunsites and allow them to casualy mow it down. At least, not after Kaiserine Pass or the Rapido River in Italy. The American Army learned from it's early war mistakes. While the Russian's and the British, came at the Germans in pretty much the same way, as they had in 1941, only in larger numbers. The American army that landed in France was a far diffent animal, than the American Army that landed in North Africa, just two years earlier. It was a much more tacticaly adaptible army.

The Germans were so used to being "the Adaptible Army", they developed a sort of ego driven, Germanic tunnel vision. They had been the worlds leading "adaptible army" for so long, they didn't recognize the fact, that anouther "tacticaly adaptible army" had just taken the field against them.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:24:55 PM EDT
So the American troops weren't that hot according to some loser Kraut huh? Well....I would refer him to the story of just one company of American troops: Easy Company of the 506th PIR, 101st AB.

There were many more infantry, armor, paratroop, combat engineer and arty units that fought bravely and like fucking TIGERS during the Bulge.

I think that he should have visited some of the Easy Co. reunions to get a good idea of how tough the American Citizen Soldaten can be when put up against the professional in the Heer. Shit...half of those Old Warriors could probably STILL kick that German's ass.

Yes, many of the front line American units did poorly against the seasoned German troops initially. Many were captured and many were KIA or MIA. They were also green, new replacements and second echelong combat units for the most part. Yes, the initial push by the Heer and the SS Panzer units was very effective. That said, I think most of us here know what happened at Bastogne, once the better American units stepped into the breach.

As to the jerk's whining about us depending on armor, arty and tactical air? That just shows his ignorance of combined arms warfare. Why in hell should I sacrifice grunts in a stupid frontal assault if I can take out my objective, say a strong point or a Tiger tank, with a rocket firing Thunderbolt of Typhoon. That assertion is silly on its face!

Finally, lest we forget, when The Battle of the Bulge was finally over, the Heer was done in the West and the door was open to The Elbe. Most military historians consider that campaign to have been an unmitigated DISASTER for the Germans and one of Hitler's poorest decisions.

Still can't get over it, huh Fritz?
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:25:53 PM EDT
In Italy, 600+ Rangers were surrounded by 15k Germans. 6 escaped, the rest being killed or captured. 5k Germans were killed or wounded.

Is that not resolve?
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:31:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
In Italy, 600+ Rangers were surrounded by 15k Germans. 6 escaped, the rest being killed or captured. 5k Germans were killed or wounded.

Is that not resolve?



Since Rangers were all volunteer units that were put all through the Commando Course in Scotland prior to leaving England. I would say that a Ranger Battalion and a line battalion were no where near the same.

The same thing with the paratroopers, they were all volunteer, they had a very tough selection process and they would be expected to be head and shoulders compared to the line infantry.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:33:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:33:23 PM EDT
Wow....Im trying real hard to remember history class. Who won that WWII deal?


Hmmm, now that Im thinking, when was the last time the Germans were victorious, other than the East German women's swim team.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:35:53 PM EDT
The fight that you lose is a fight that you fough fair. Why would't we use our firepower? They would have used it too... Oh yea thats right, the army air corps bombed them back to the stone age and they did't have shit to fight with.Yes the Germans did really good all the way up to 1944 but when you wake the sleeping giant you gots to pay the price.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:36:38 PM EDT
We won. That very well-trained and professionally led German Wehrmacht had its ASS KICKED by just plain Joes led by mostly amatuers with inferior tanks (but superior artillery, superior radio communications, superior motor transport, superior rations, superior small arms - the M1!, etc... and way more of it because we had the superior industrial base, superior work productivity and a superior political system - i.e., FREEDOM).

I find little admirable about the vaunted professional officer corps of the Wehrmacht who served the second greatest evil the world ever faced (communism was the third - so gues what the first is...).

Oh, yes, and we KICKED THEIR ASS.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:37:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Wow....Im trying real hard to remember history class. Who won that WWII deal?


Hmmm, now that Im thinking, when was the last time the Germans were victorious, other than the East German women's swim team.



Using that argument than the US forces must also have issues, after all the Vietnamese won the war.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:37:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STLRN:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
In Italy, 600+ Rangers were surrounded by 15k Germans. 6 escaped, the rest being killed or captured. 5k Germans were killed or wounded.

Is that not resolve?



Since Rangers were all volunteer units that were put all through the Commando Course in Scotland prior to leaving England. I would say that a Ranger Battalion and a line battalion were no where near the same.

The same thing with the paratroopers, they were all volunteer, they had a very tough selection process and they would be expected to be head and shoulders compared to the line infantry.



It could be argued that our "elite" troops vs their regular troops was a more fair comparison because they had more combat experience than our run of the mill grunts.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:37:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STLRN:
Since Rangers were all volunteer units that were put all through the Commando Course in Scotland prior to leaving England.





I don't remember Scotland being in England

Mark
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:41:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Wow....Im trying real hard to remember history class. Who won that WWII deal?


Hmmm, now that Im thinking, when was the last time the Germans were victorious, other than the East German women's swim team.



Are you sure those were women?
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:41:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By streetfighter:

Originally Posted By STLRN:
Since Rangers were all volunteer units that were put all through the Commando Course in Scotland prior to leaving England.





I don't remember Scotland being in England

Mark



Did I say that? I said they went through the Commando Course in Scotland prior to leaving England. One act doesn't exclude the other.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:41:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STLRN:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Wow....Im trying real hard to remember history class. Who won that WWII deal?


Hmmm, now that Im thinking, when was the last time the Germans were victorious, other than the East German women's swim team.



Using that argument than the US forces must also have issues, after all the Vietnamese won the war.




Which argument?
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:42:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By STLRN:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Wow....Im trying real hard to remember history class. Who won that WWII deal?


Hmmm, now that Im thinking, when was the last time the Germans were victorious, other than the East German women's swim team.



Using that argument than the US forces must also have issues, after all the Vietnamese won the war.




Which argument?



Just because in the end, one side wins and the other looses than the side that lost did a worse job man for man.
Link Posted: 8/13/2005 5:45:14 PM EDT
The "Death of a division" during the bulge was the US 106th Div. This unit was very green, and was led by poor commander. In addition, it was placed in a terrible tactical position, a dense forrest with a major river at it's back. Most American units fought hard, but were hampered by a horrible replacement system. When a unit took casualties, the unit was seldom pulled out of the line. Replacements were just sent in. Almost all other armies practiced unit rotations, where burned out units were pulled out of the line to train replacements and rest. The Germans learned that from the French at Verdun. For the US infanty soldier, the only time he could get of the line is when he was wounded, killed, or cracked-up. If a unit was made up of a high percentage of these inexperienced replacements, the unit would fold fast if an old hand or two were killed.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top