|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 4, 2017 15:42:04 GMT
I think you want to just keep this thread in tune with the US Army period, I was talking in general terms and not just the USA, but you started this thread and it is about the US Army so I will not ruin it by posting how other countries over come their deficiencies, but take note, the US Army watched closely to what went on in Europe and how battles were fought, that gave them an inight to how changes must be made. The problem with many European armies was that when these issues needed to be addressed, they never had the resources or the industries that America had. Britain had to struggle on with tanks that they knew were inferior to the Germans because they didn't have the infrastructure to halt all tank production, to allow for new models to be developed, so they struggled on with under armed and under armoured vehicles. Bottom line was they didn't have the time. The US Army saw the need for a 75mm gun mounted in a turret capable of 360 degree traverse, they saw the need because of the way German tanks had such qualities, which was great when your country had the industries and time to equip your army with such vehicles, we didn't, but we fought on because we made the most of a bad job, but thank god we got through it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 4, 2017 15:57:40 GMT
That is very true. We did have the production capacity, and we used it to its fullest extent. We were turning out ten of an item when other countries were turning out one.
I would submit though that most German armor in the early stages of the war was not as good as or about the equal of what the Brits had. German Armor though was better in how it was organized and employed, and the Brits did not take advantage of what they did have. You were consistently beaten in the Western Desert because the German horse-foot-guns was a superior concept to your horse.
You also wasted a lot of your production capacity on outmoded concepts like Infantry Support tanks such as the Matilda and Valentine. That was a throwback to WWI that you never shook off until late in the war.
You are very correct in that we watched everything very carefully, and were particularly impressed when the Germans cut down the number of tanks in their panzer divisions to something more manageable , which was the genesis of our reorganizing all of our armored divisions, from the heavy monsters we started out with to the lighter units of 43, 44 and 45.
You learn more from mistakes than anything else, and if somebody else is making those mistakes, and you can learn the same lesson they do, all the better.
If you wanted semi-automatic rifles why didn't you ask for them. We had enough excess to equip your whole army. I never did understand that.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 4, 2017 16:09:10 GMT
The Germans managed to get a tank in the field with a fully revolving 75mm gun, which was capable of being up gunned. The British cruiser tanks may have been on par gun wise with the early versions of the Mk III, but they were unreliable vehicles, they lost more tanks to break downs then to enemy fire.
Rommel had a great anti-tank gun in the Pak 38, and knew how to use it, all our main battle tanks were armed with 2 pdr guns, which for some reason never came with a HE round, and as everyone should know, firing AP rounds against a small target like a AT gun at 500 yards plus just doesn't work, so they were knocked out at these ranges without being able to fight back. But you are right the Germans did constantly beat us in the field, but we gave as good as we got and give Rommel a few bloody noses, otherwise he would have beaten us in 1941, but he didn't and we won the Libyan campaign well in the end.
We never put a decent medium tank in the field until 1944 and that was out of date. The best main British tanks used in WW2 was the Cromwell and Churchill, so we had to rely on US made tanks.
BTW: I must add that the British infantry tanks caused the Germans more problems then all our other tanks put together, the Matilda and Churchill ran over German AT Guns, forcing the Germans to field 88mm AA guns and it was these lessons that taught the Germans how to deal with the Soviet heavy tanks, because these same tanks that was used against us, also had to face the Russian T-34 and KV-1, so these lessons were adapted and again German tactics got them through.
The Churchill was one of the most adaptable tanks ever and was converted to carry everything from a flame-thrower to a bridge, and if you look carefully you will see that the US Army in Korea was full of praise for the Churchill Crocodile, not only for its flame-thrower, but for its ability to climb steep hills and take out enemy positions.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 4, 2017 16:43:53 GMT
The Infantry tank was a complete waste. It had al the attributes you said it had, but it was still a waste. The Russian Heavy tanks were a waste as well.
The idea of a tank design that specifically addressed supporting dismounted Infantry is the problem. Any tank can support dismounted Infantry and it does not require a special design to do so. We used the Sherman's attached to Infantry Divisions for that role, and we used those same Shermans, identical, in our armored divisions where they were used as the modern equivalent of the mounted element of the dragoon concept, with armored Infantry the dismounted portion.
Who told you guys to put two pounders on your cruiser tanks. You did. You did because you were operating under the outmoded concept of specialized tanks for specialized roles.
You did the same thing with your destroyers in the RN. You changed designs every eight ships. You produced the Hunts, taking up shipyard capacity that could have been better put to use building full capability fleet destroyers, If you needed escorts, why didn't you dial up Uncle Sam and tell him you needed a hundred more Captains. We would have gladly filled the order.
Anyone who compares tank on tank does not get it at all. You compare organizations and organizational concepts, ALL ARMS, and then you get closer to the truth. If the Germans did not use their 88's in conjunction with their tanks and Infantry they would have been fools. The Brits were very late in understanding how All Arms - Combined Arms work and function as an inseparable team. That was the greatest deficiency of the British Army throughout the war. Auchinleck himself told his commanders they were nuts in how they were operating in the desert. People like Jock Campbell understood what needed to be done, and no one would listen. So I do not feel a bit sorry for the poor Brits, if they did not take heed when they were told by their own people that the king may think he is dressed but in reality has no clothes on. Read Barnett's "Desert Generals" he will tell you all about it. Then read Barry Pitt's two volumes on the desert war. Pitt will reinforce it. Then read Rommel and von Mellinthin and pay attention when they tell you the Brits were easy to beat tactically, because they were same old same old.
War is not a matter of weapons alone. War is the full mobilization of a nation, and the one that will win, is the one that is better at the organization and execution of the full spectrum of what is necessary for the endeavor. That goes from strategies of production all the way down to battlefield concepts, and is always a reflection of the culture of a nation. Old and tried and true is far harder to change than new and upstart.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 4, 2017 17:01:47 GMT
I don't know how we actually stayed in fight up until late 1942, by what I have read above we should have been dead and buried along with the rest or Europe in 1940.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 4, 2017 17:21:30 GMT
You stayed in the fight because of the English Channel and the Royal Air Force, that's how. The summer of 1940 was the critical time in the German's westward expansion. They got the snot beat out of them by the RAF, and that was possible because the RAF was not chained to the tradition that hampered the British Army and the Royal Navy. They were completely modern in how they both thought and fought. They used a combined arms team to build a system of air defense that was the marvel of the time, combining radar, ground control, and superior fighter aircraft that were both efficient and adaptable. The Battle of Britain was where the German's lost the war, and never forget that. After the Battle of Britain it was only then a matter of time, and figuring out how to close the deal and win.
Tradition, and same old same old is an enemy, and never forget that either. When your tankers think they are the Union Brigade at Waterloo during the Crusader battles (read "Brazen Chariots" by Crisp), you have something wrong in tank land. When your Infantry shuns modernity in favor of that well aimed shot that few are capable of, the Queen of Battle is a toothless fairy princess (Enfield vs. Garand). When your Infantry brigade is just that, Infantry, and does not take full advantage of combined arms by deliberate design (the Clusterf**k that was Caen) you have missed the boat, and sit alone on the dock of military despair.
You had some very bright people that you were not willing to listen to. That is no one's fault but your own.
It always has amazed me how the same Army that excels in special operations, could have been so very backward on the conventional battlefield.
These are not meant as slams against Britain or their Army. They are slams against the people who led that Army and made those decisions that so much held you back.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 4, 2017 18:05:11 GMT
I thought that it was a combination of the battle of Britain, breaking the enigma code and the invasion of Russia that put the war out of Germany’s reach.
Rommel tried twice to kill off the British in North Africa, Operation Crusader saw him knocked back right across Cyrenaica to his start lines around El Agheila, then we had to strip our forces to aid the Greeks, Rommel took advantage of this and pull off out flanking after out flanking move until he got to El Alamein, then he found out that he could not out flanks us and his attacks were stopped dead.
Then the British pulled off a great set piece battle over the same ground and without any out flanking moves. They hit them right through the guts with Infantry leading the way and armour flooding through the gaps. This whole affair was won by British and Empire troops and was a knockout blow to Rommel, who never stopped retreating to he reached Tunisia.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 4, 2017 19:17:52 GMT
No it was only the Battle of Britain. Absent those other two things it would have made it harder, but as long as the British Isles were sitting twenty miles away from occupied France, as an unsinkable base, that they could not either invade or interdict, then Germany's fate was sealed.
No you stripped your forces to go to Greece under O'Conner and before Rommel set foot in North Africa. Rommel went toward Egypt after that. The first counteroffensive was Battleaxe, which turned into a very dull hatchet. Crusader was in November 1941. Rommel beat the snot out of 8th Army initially although he was greatly outnumbered. He made then one of his few mistakes in overreaching in his race to the wire (the Egyptian Border then to Alexandria). His miscalculated and took his boot off of 8th Army's neck long enough for Tobruk to brake out. That unhinged him and he fell back past Bengazi. He then turned right around moved east again and assaulted the Gazala Line, turned it, captured Tobruk, and went as far as Alamein. The guy who stopped him there was Auchinlech who won First Alamein.
He could not outflank Alamein, BECAUSE of a sand sea fifty miles south of Alemein station. God' looked kindly up the King, and blessed Sir Claud.
Yes, Second Alamein was a set piece battle reminiscent of the Somme and Verdun, and there were a hell of a lot of kids that grew up in Britain and the Commonwealth without a father because Monty was a blithering idiot with absolutely no imagination. By the way Rommel was not even there when Montgomery attacked. He was in a hospital bed in Germany. AND, while he got there shortly afterward, had he been able to withdraw like he wanted to and was ordered not to, Monty would have never laid a glove on him. Monty was too slow. Rommel was ordered to stay and fight it out by Hitler himself, and tried to obey his orders. Finally he said screw Hitler and moved away. So Monty had Hitler as an allied factor.
For your reading pleasure
Desert Generals by Barnett
Panzer Battles by von Mellinthin
The Rommel Papers by Guess Who
I can't recall the name of Pitt's two volumes
Barnett tears the Royal Navy a new ass hole with his one volume history of their performance in WWII also
These are your guys and the people you fought against saying this, not me, I am just the messenger delivering a message you do not wish to hear.
Ask Justin sometime about the self analysis of the British Army after WWII. We did it too, and we found ourselves far from perfect. Even the Germans looked at what they did right and wrong, and built the new German Army upon the ashes of the deficiencies they had in WWII. Only the Russians stayed the same in mental attitude.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 4, 2017 19:58:34 GMT
Sorry everyone I got my dates wrong, it was Rommel’s first excursion against us when we were stripped of men to help Greece; linkI really don’t understand the American hatred for Monty, I understand he could be really annoying, but so could Patton and the other fellow Mark Clark. I would also add that during the Normandy campaign the German’s concentrated their armour and nearly SS division against the Montgomery led British and Canadians armies, I wonder why? I think El Alamein was a great victory, yes it cost nearly 5000 allied dead but it cost the Axis 9000, but it was not just a victory in Egypt, it was victory for Britain and that was worth its weight in gold, because I don’t think that America has ever been in such a predicament like that and Britain was in dire need of need of the lift that victory brought, and only for torrential rain, we would have followed them with more vigour. And you are right, I don’t want to see my countries armed forces be treated like a joke and Justin should know better, but seeing he is never here, it makes no matter. I for one will fight their corner and I don’t for one minute think that anyone of this site would expect me to do anything but defend them, just as much as I would expect them to face up to me if I tried to discredit the US Army. I am done with this thread Chuck, it start off so innocent and turned into a fiasco with you talking to me if I was a fool who knew nothing about warfare, but I am better than that.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 4, 2017 20:45:25 GMT
I don't think you are a fool. Far from it. What I do think is that you have concentrated all your efforts on weaponry, and the nuts and bolts of what makes up this or that unit, and you do not fully understand how it all comes together, because you have never concentrated your efforts in that area. That is the area that I have concentrated my efforts, and were I to talk weaponry with you, you would soon make me feel foolish. It is where each of us place emphasis, nothing more.
I cannot speak for all Americans but I do not hate Montgomery. I do not worship him either, nor Patton, and especially Clark. I think Montgomery had good points and bad. I think Second Alamein was a waste of lives and should have never been fought. I do not think "feel good" is sufficient reason to get people killed.
Don't believe me. Take out a map of the coast of North Africa. Mark on it the German supply bases. Then think what happened on 8 November 1942. The allies landed behind Rommel in French North Africa. His goose was cooked from that moment. Montgomery could have set on his butt, and Rommel could not move as long as he was there. Had Rommel stayed there the allied armies that had landed in North Africa would have made their way down the coast and captured Rommel's supply bases. Rommel would be forced to abandon Alamein and fall back on his bases before they were captured. Montgomery could have advanced against him without firing a shot.
No one is denigrating the British Army. They fought hard and well throughout World War II. If you and I, and anybody else that is interested has any one to denigrate then it is the leaders of the British Army that made decisions to stick with the ways of World War I, not listen to the bright people, your own people like Liddell-Hart and all of your armor pioneers, Hobart and the rest, who were telling that leadership you are falling way behind the times and it is going to cost us big time. Well they did not listen, and it did cost you. Because they did not listen to these very smart folks who told them where they were deficient ten years before the war broke out, your battlefield communications were deficient, your organizational constructs that had served you since Napoleon were way out of date. Your ability to command and control to fire and direct fire, to integrate with your air forces, were all not worthy of the troops that served the King.
Now to the U S Army. If you tried to discredit them you are correct I would not care for that at all. However if you pointed out their legion of deficiencies, their initial timidity to do battle, their failure to get rid of dead wood, the mistakes they made in organization (which they did) I would not only listen, I would probably agree with 90 percent of what you have to say.
What I would also say is be happy when your mistakes are pointed out. Do not be sad or angry. It is in shinning light on your mistakes that brings them out in the open and allows them to be corrected.
Your national pride may be hurt, but it was hurt by an honest appraisal of your performance in World War II, both good and bad, by your own people, and an equally honest evaluation of your good and bad points, by those you fought against.
Again these are not my evaluations. I am only reporting your own people's evaluation of your performance. I happen to think they are correct. I also see the massive change in the British Army that has largely corrected every criticism directed against them. So don't shoot the messenger. Read it for yourself. I have given you the starting places.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 4, 2017 22:24:44 GMT
As this is the US Army thread, could someone please explain to me what a condemned cavalry horse is? I know it's not a death sentence but where they not assigned to pull artillery pieces? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 4, 2017 22:47:28 GMT
That's one for Steve, Dave.
I have heard the same expression used, and I have also heard they were used to pull artillery and wagons.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 5, 2017 0:06:03 GMT
It appears is a horse who is either too old or untrainable as a cavalry mount. Link
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 5, 2017 12:01:56 GMT
I would say that the British were not alone in fielding large tank formations, the French, Russia and Germany also had top heavy tank formations, the Germans had to drop theirs from 260 in 1940 to around 190 in 1941 and 160 tanks in 1944, probably because of loses.
By 1943 the US Army too soon found out that two tank regiments was too unwieldly, but two retained their heavy status. The 2nd and 3rd armored divisions still had two armoured regiments. They contained around 3.500 vehicles of all types, including 390 tanks and 800 half-tracks plus 14,620 men. The other fourteen were then classed as light with 260 tanks and 10.900 men.
Here are the main components of these two divisions, I have omitted HQ, signal and service units for clarity.
2nd AD;
66th Armoured Regiment 67th Armoured Regiment 41st Armoured Infantry Regiment 17th Armoured Engineer Battalion 82nd Armoured Reconnaissance Battalion 14th Artillery Battalion 78th Artillery Battalion 92nd Artillery Battalion
3rd AD;
32nd Armoured Regiment 33rd Armoured Regiment 36th Armoured Infantry Regiment 23rd Armoured Engineer Battalion 83rd Armoured Reconnaissance Battalion 54th Artillery Battalion 67th Artillery Battalion 391st Artillery Battalion
Here is a little snippet, before the US declared war on the Axis, they still had delegates in Europe, and in 1939 one of these men a chap named Major Percy Black, managed to get his hands on copies of German operations manuals and included in these was the manuals for panzer divisions, he managed to get these back to the states and they were soon translated into English and picked through by the American military.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 5, 2017 14:49:25 GMT
I do not know where you obtained the orders of battle for 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions of the U S Army.
They are incomplete, in error, and do not reflect reality.
1) The 502d AG Company did not exist until the mid 1950's.
2) There was no 2nd and 3rd Ordnance Maintenance Battalion. There was a maintenance battalion in each of these division, and there was in addition a supply battalion which you did not list. In both cases they were simply known as maintenance battalion and supply battalion, without any numerical designation.
3) You failed to included any headquarters companies in what you listed above. The headquarters company for the division was not listed. Headquarters and Headquarters Company Division Trains was not listed. Service Company for each of the divisions was not listed
They are inconsistent with your own web site.
Your web site contains the orders of battle drawn directly from the appropriate orders that organized these units. I know, I am the one that drew that information from those organizational documents and gave them to you. They are completely correct, and completely consistent with the records of the United States Army.
If you are going to make your point do so, but do it with accurate data, drawn from the only source that matters, the United States Army.
We discussed these matters at length during the building of your web site. To refresh your memory units in the U S Army are constituted, organized and activated by Army General Order. They specify what the units are to be named, under what TO&E they are to be organized, when they are to be activated, and where they are to be activated. When they are reorganized for any reason, an appropriate General Order is also issued. Any deviation from those organizational orders and supporting documents is inaccurate, and the published sources that abound in England concerning the U S Army are always incomplete, usually inaccurate , and sometimes pure unadulterated fiction. Do not use them for any reason under the sun, and especially do not use them here where I will see them.
When I give you data it is complete. When I offer opinion, it is opinion based upon research, and is generally labeled opinion and backed up by the source documents of that research. That does not mean you have to like or accept that opinion. It does not mean that you are not perfectly free to differ with that opinion. I do not blow smoke. I do not sugar coat for the benefit for the intended audience. I resent the implication that I denigrate anyone's Army. I try only to lay out the facts as I know or believe them to be. You were off base yesterday, and if you were made to feel foolish it was a self inflicted wound.
Let us have no more of this, it does no good.
|
|