|
Post by quincannon on Aug 30, 2015 3:08:33 GMT
Dave: In my view the Japanese were inflexible, overcomplicated, and stereotyped.
Early on they had a powerful fist but always led with their chin.
Their big failure, land, sea, and air was an inadequate logistical system, and that coupled with the thousands of square miles in their total battle space doomed them about 10:00 hours on 7 December 1941.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 30, 2015 12:27:11 GMT
Late war, the Germans had a chronic shortage of officer’s and it was common to find an infantry company to be led in the following manner;
1st platoon: Oberleutnant or Leutnant (1st or 2nd Lieutenant) 2nd platoon: Feldwebel (Sergeant 1st class) 3rd platoon: Unteroffizier (Sergeant)
The Japanese got a taste of what modern warfare was all about when they fought the Russians in 1939, when Zhukov showed them how to deploy armour during the border clashes in Mongolia, it may have been only a border clash but the battle of Khalkhin Gol resulted in the deaths of 8.248 Russians and 8.440 Japanese.
Yan.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 30, 2015 15:56:21 GMT
QC Somewhere in the dim recesses of my brain, I remember reading that a captured German officer complained of running into American troops led by NCOs. The enemy could not understand how the American's could operate without officers being in charge.
The flexibility of US GIs operating without direct supervision has been commented on several times has it not?
RegarDave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 30, 2015 19:04:09 GMT
Armies mirror the societies they spring from. Those that place great value on individual initiative, will have armies that place the same value on it. Those that don't, won't.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 30, 2015 19:43:56 GMT
The Soviet army in 1939-42 were very poorly trained and led, they had two great AFVs in the T-34 and KV-I but squandered them in badly co-ordinated attacks which were repulsed by less effective German weapons, which were utilized more efficiently. Stalin's purges left the army with a lack of good officers, some of the Generals were really company or battalion commanders.
Field Marshal Alan Brooke said in 1941 that the cream of the British officer corps died on the field of France during WW1 and it was these men that should have led the army in WW2 and would have made better commanders.
Yan.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Aug 30, 2015 22:23:54 GMT
Culture certainly matters. One weakness of traditional asian culture is the custom of never questioning a superior (involves loss of face). This has been especially troubling in the air as some asian commercial air crashes have been attributed to crew being unable to talk to the captain about what the aircraft was doing. At least this is how I am informed by friends in that industry. Good management always invoves a culture of sharing ideas and information. Cheers
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 31, 2015 1:05:40 GMT
Yan Would not the Germans and French lost potential leaders also during the great dying of 1916 as well as the entire war?
Mac The Asian culture was a difficult matter to deal with as a University administrator. I spent countless hours explaining the meaning of the word no. Asian students continually argued with me about university rules and regulations as well as state laws. The refusal to accept no was a pain in the a$$ for all faculty and staff. University police officers would be called to see about Asian females that had been struck by husbands. Mississippi law requires an officer to arrest the accused as soon as they are informed about the incident. Females assaulting officers arresting their husbands was a colossal wing ding for all. We had Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Laotians and it was a circus at times. Regards Dave
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Aug 31, 2015 3:09:30 GMT
Yan Would not the Germans and French lost potential leaders also during the great dying of 1916 as well as the entire war? Mac The Asian culture was a difficult matter to deal with as a University administrator. I spent countless hours explaining the meaning of the word no. Asian students continually argued with me about university rules and regulations as well as state laws. The refusal to accept no was a pain in the a$$ for all faculty and staff.University police officers would be called to see about Asian females that had been struck by husbands. Mississippi law requires an officer to arrest the accused as soon as they are informed about the incident. Females assaulting officers arresting their husbands was a colossal wing ding for all. We had Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Laotians and it was a circus at times. Regards Dave Re the red bit...away from home many people become a pain in the ...well you know! Always hated the idea that Americans travelled badly, trurh is no one travels well but some who are a pain at home become an even bigger pain away. Remember too that to be at your institution they were very successful and priveleged at home and not used to hearing no..as in my original post. Re the green...Always a problem ...I know police experience this here and I suspect everywhere. Domestic violence is very complicated. Cheers
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 31, 2015 3:28:04 GMT
Mac I understand your post. My point was there is a great divide in customs of different countries and societies but one must adapt and adjust to the ways of the country you are residing in. Ala when in Rome!
Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Aug 31, 2015 9:23:15 GMT
Dave you are correct both France and Germany lost many too as men were killed on an industrial scale between 1914-18, the French army made a poor show defending their own soil in 1940, the Dutch, Belgians, Polish and Norwegians all had a good pop at the invaders and even the Danes gave the German advance guard a bloody nose, but the Czechs (who in theory were just as well armed as the Germans and had a pretty good army), were the worst as they capitulated without firing a shot.
After WW1 the Germans were kept to an army of just 100.000 men, and these troops were well trained and led, and when war did breakout these 100.000 formed the nucleus of the German officer and NCO corps, add this to visionary officers who saw the value of mobile warfare and you have a winning formula and it showed as no one had an answer to the blitzkrieg between 1939-41.
Yan.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Aug 31, 2015 15:23:51 GMT
Yan The Allies defeat in France and the low countries in 1939-1941 was certainly mirrored in the Far East. The ABBD, American-British-Dutch-Australian, forces in early 1942 were overwhelmed by a prepared Japanese force with modern vessels and flash less powder. None of the Free World nations were prepared for war in spite of all the obvious warnings. For some reason or reasons Free Countries always kick out the warriors as soon as the conflict is over and bring back the bureaucrats. America has always done this. I hate to say this but 911 was another example of our not being ready for a an enemy attack. I don't think we as humans let alone Americans really ever learn form past mistakes. Hopefully I am wrong and full of hot air. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2015 15:51:56 GMT
Bringing this back to The Great Sioux War generally, and Powder River, Rosebud, and LBH specifically, and no Dave you are not full of hot air, the United States Army had just defeated in the largest land conflict waged in the Western Hemisphere, a very fine (for the day) army.
Two things set in after such conflicts, 1) We beat the other guy so we must be really good - hubris, and 2) We will fight these new people the way we fought those before and we will prevail. Neither are true. You are only as good as your current status allows you to be. The current status of the U S Army in 1876 was pitiful, and the officer leadership were still basking in the recent past.
Now just take that paragraph above and recall all those history channel presentations in the early to mid 1990's where we had won the first Gulf War on technology, and then think about our own hubris, then turn your mind to box cutters and improvised explosives.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Sept 1, 2015 1:04:30 GMT
Excellent post QC! Can I take up point 2. The theme of this thread relates to could Custer win with what he had against what he faced and the answer probably is yes but not with the way he used his resources. Part of this is in your use of the word hubris. This is the link perhaps to why he used his resources the way he did. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 1, 2015 1:44:13 GMT
Mac: The enemy you underestimate is the very enemy that will find a way to hurt you, and perhaps beat you.
That goes for armies and it especially goes for commanders. That is why anyone who brings up this person or that person's previous combat record, as a means to say he was great, he was this, he was that, betrays themselves as being either fanboy or fool. I personally judge armies, commanders, and leaders, in the crucible of the here and now. Do they have what it takes now, this minute, to enable them to prevail. If not. Why not?
He used his resources the way he did because that is the only way he knew how to use them. He did what he always did in command, but his previous commands had been at brigade and division level. Poor analogy I suppose, but it is like the guy who has always had all the money one could dream about, being suddenly reduced to a strict household budget, and not knowing how to husband those limited resources, to purchase what is really important, and what he really needs.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Sept 1, 2015 3:05:33 GMT
Actually not a bad analogy. We only know what we have learned and Custer never had much time to learn how to use smaller forces. Of course the question then is did he try to learn?
|
|