|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 29, 2019 17:13:09 GMT
HR, I think that you giving a disservice to what was in 1940, the best fighting machine on the earth. I personally think that the US Army was mad to turn down Walter Christie's Suspension system in favour of the vertical volute spring suspension, a system which was not ignored by the British and Soviets, the T-34 for example. Your own country with Liddle Hart, was probably one of many who tried to develop modern tank tactics which combined armour and infantry plus artillery [The Germans used the Stuka in the direct support role too], but the German Blitzkrieg was a class act, but it had its flaws, because it was only good over a short period of time and mainly developed for war in Europe, which contained small countries with decent roads what could be overrun in weeks, even days. This is was one of the reasons it failed against Russia, it was just too large. The US Army were no mugs, they saw the need for a main battle tank with a 75mm gun in a fully rotating turret, they saw this need because they saw first hand how good the Mk. III and Mk. IV was in combat in France, plus just as importantly a three-man crew in the turret. They got their act together during the 1941 Louisiana Maneuvers and put in place the right men to command this new force.
In 1940, Britain and France got taught a lesson on how to develop tanks and more importantly, how to use them, the French threw in the towel and we where left alone, we couldn’t simply stop building tanks and start developing new designs, we had no time and had to keep on building the old types otherwise we would have had nothing to fight with. By the time we got our act together it was 1944 and then we started to build some good AFVs and learnt how to use them, but it 1940/41, we had to roll with the punches because we had nothing else only unreliable tanks and outmoded tactics. But we stayed in the fight, which was an achievement in itself.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 29, 2019 20:35:01 GMT
A couple of random thoughts in no particular order.
The U S Army did not adopt the Christie system, not because it was not good. It just happened to be not what the U S Army wanted for a tank, or how they envisioned the tank at the time. They would not change their minds for a good while, and by that time there were better ideas out there.
HR's remarks about the fact that it did not matter how good the German Army was as long as Hitler was at the helm, should not be lost on anyone. He is completely correct.
In the 1930's there were two foreign mechanization programs the Germans looked at very closely, the British and the American (in the form of the 7th Cavalry Brigade). Of the two, and although they had great respect for Liddell-Hart and his intellectual followers, it was the 7th Cavalry Brigade that they modeled the Panzer Force on, not the British model. The biggest difference between the two, is that the 7th Cavalry Brigade integrated the all arms concept at one echelon lower than did the British.
Germany's greatest enemy is geography. Geography is what beat them with a little help from the Allies.
The British Commonwealth alone could not beat Germany without American help. On the other side of that coin though, is that Britain and the Allies, including the United States, could not beat Germany had Great Britain fallen in 40-41.
The best day in Winston Churchill's life was 7 December 1941. The second best was when Germany declared war on the United States two days later.
War is not about fighting. War is about how you prepare yourself to fight. From the US perspective World War II was not won in 43-45 in France, Italy and Germany. It was won in 25-39 in Leavenworth, Kansas, Columbus, Georgia, and Lawton. Oklahoma.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 29, 2019 20:53:29 GMT
The Christie Suspension could be used to run off tracks and road wheels, is is useful when you want to drive long distances and not ware out your tracks, I am not sure if Britain inveted the vertical volute spring suspension which was used by most of the US tanks.
HR took things up to another level when he mentioned Hitler, we all know about him and how his meddling cost the German army dear. I always try to stick with the fighting troops and down in the weeds stuff, and not the big boys at the top, because as we know the big mistakes come from this level of leadership.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 30, 2019 0:35:30 GMT
Ian, by law at the time Christie was peddling his wares here in the States, all tank stuff was the purview of the Infantry. They controlled all of the money for tank development. The Infantry were not interested in a fast tank, only one that would be used like you folks used the Matilda's. The Cavalry branch, or rather the bastard step children of the cavalry, the ones not on the invitation list for the Saint George Day balls, are where we developed the Armor doctrine used in WWII. They saw value in Christie's work, but had no control of the purse strings. Horses were "THE" mount of the cavalry, and those that did not think so were exiled to the leper colony of Fort Knox. Imagine trying to prepare for a mechanized war that you know is coming and having as a branch chief a frozen in time moron like Rini.
You cannot understand the strengths and limitations of the lower level Ian, unless you first understand what goes on at the top. You must first read works like "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", by Shirer, and see what is going on at that level before you go down gradually to the level you are most comfortable with, so that you may understand the whole picture. In this type study it must be top down. A bottom up approach on the other hand will leave you with more questions that answers, ending in complete confusion.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Mar 30, 2019 9:54:51 GMT
Going large scale; In terms of strength of forces Hitler went to war with just a fraction of his forces, the elite part of his forces, as a modern army. The majority still needed development and this development could not happen under war conditions. In other words he went too soon and without a well functioning economy. This of course just shows that he was delusional even in the 1930's, but he could get away with it then. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Mar 30, 2019 10:28:30 GMT
Rational delusion?
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 30, 2019 11:07:26 GMT
What we see today in planning and management is far different than we saw in WWII. This change has been coming since 1969 and is still developing. I think Chuck was involved in some of this change over. Correct me if I am wrong. We are seeing what the civilian business sectors have called bottom up management. While the Defense Department and the guys with the stars, at the "Puzzle Palace on the Potomac" still make the final call, the input from below has increasingly impacted these decisions. Weapon systems are tested by the boots. Teams have helped make a difference. Much has been incorporated that could not have been during a World War. We, as well as the British have built in flexibility that we have did not have in the past. For the most part we have a better, more well rounded officer corps and a professional NCO corp. Special forces have learned from the past and in many ways are the tip of the spear. Integration is better than ever with regard to air, infantry, armor, naval power, and varied weapon systems.
The world today may be a more dangerous place than the 1920's and 30's.
The above is strictly opinion only.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Mar 30, 2019 11:49:55 GMT
Going large scale; In terms of strength of forces Hitler went to war with just a fraction of his forces, the elite part of his forces, as a modern army. The majority still needed development and this development could not happen under war conditions. In other words he went too soon and without a well functioning economy. This of course just shows that he was delusional even in the 1930's, but he could get away with it then. Cheers There were significant economic and historic difficulties which bred the prevailing culture of victimisation after Verseille. The French were particularly vindictive towards Germany. Interestingly, modern economics are rooted in the close of WWI and Keynesian Rationality. Germany could not openly follow its continuing intellectual obsession of unification and domination and therefore its focus upon 'self defence' was covert and surreptitious and followed excellence and quality. There was an abiding awareness of the consequences of fighting wars on two fronts and that distilled into the proving ground of Spain during 1936. It was 'easy' and prudent to train and equip an elite fighting force at the same time as driving the entire population into employment. In Poland and then France, the German Army perfected tank tactics which began in 1917. Whilst the German offensives of 1939 to 1942 are impressive, the Japanese campaign into the Southwest Pacific in 1942, should rank as perhaps the most effective yet in history. Deeply flawed it was carried through ruthlessly with wholly unproven Naval Warfare doctrine and tactics which altered the face of warfare and civilisation. Had Germany conquered Russia then who knows how life today would have been. Had Japan taken Australia, would China then have succumbed? Does it bare thinking about.....?? The strategic and tactical campaigns surmounted immensely difficult problems with speed. Once upon a time that edge in battle was provided by the horse.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Mar 30, 2019 12:06:31 GMT
What we see today in planning and management is far different than we saw in WWII. This change has been coming..... Regards, Tom Given a very short space of time, China could today put 100 million troops into a land war on its borders. 1 in 15 of the population.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 30, 2019 15:20:27 GMT
Chuck, I have read many books about the main leaders in WW2, we all know that Hitler was a very good politician but a lousy military commander in chief. Stalin killed many of his own people etc. I never actually bought any books on these figures, I preferred to get them from the library instead. I also helped Jacob out with his history school work, he had to learn about WW1 and 2, and I enjoyed reading up on some of the main leaders, I said to him that WW1 was started when some bloke shot another fella called 'Archie Duke' and his wife 'Ferdiand' Trouble I find with books written in the past, is that they are now out of date and much more new stuff about those leaders has emerged in the last decade since new documents have been released. Therefore, the WWW is the place to find more relevant data on these leaders. I do remember reading and enjoying, DCs posts on Churchill, I think that old Winny was a favorite of his. Mac, I am not sure that Britain and the USA, were the only two countries which were nearly 100% mechanized. I say nearly as some of the units in the far east and Africa, had to use animals to some degree, I think I read that the US 10th Mtn Div, used pack transport in northern Italy and we can't forget the 26th CAV (PS) in the Pacific. France and Italy tried to mechanize too, but never actually managed it, the Italian army in Libya was pretty much mechanized as was the Afrika Korps, but on the whole, in other theatres they had to use animals for pretty much everything. I think that in 1944 the Germany infantry battalions had on one real motorized unit and that was their anti-tank company.
When the Axis invaded Russia, the German's three main hoppo's Hungary, Romania and Italy, all relied on horses in their Infantry divisions, the Italians also sent a mobile Expeditionary Corps of one cavalry division and two auto-transportable divisions, incorporating 3,000 officers and 59,000 men, 5,500 motor vehicles, 220 artillery pieces, 92 anti-tank guns, 83 aeroplanes, and 4,600 horses and mules.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 30, 2019 17:22:02 GMT
I agree with Mac concerning Germany. None of the Axis powers had sufficient industrial capacity to fully motorize their respective forces. That's why you must know top down, rather than count guns, tanks, horses, and personnel. You can't have what you can't produce, and a wise man knows and understands that BEFORE he sharpens his sword, and the band plays too loud.
The 10th Mountain Division did use pack animals in Italy, and the 5307th Composite Group (Provisional) used pack animals in Burma. The 26th Cavalry (PS), and all but a very few U S Cavalry regiments were still horse mounted in 41 and early 42, thanks to a two star moron John K. Herr. In the case of the first two though it was simply a matter of terrain that caused animal transportation to be used, not that we could not motorize them
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Mar 31, 2019 10:20:50 GMT
One school of thought is that Hitler was always delusional but it happened by fate that that delusion was a political benefit in the 30s, not so much later. Better to ask what if Hitler had stopped at Austria perhaps?
As to Japan, they needed to know their limitations. Poking the US bear was just dumb.
Geographically they could never hope to hold what they had taken with their resource base. Taking and holding all of Australia was never likely. Despite heroic defense in New Guinea, the main thing keeping Japan from Australia was logistics. There is that l word again. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 3, 2019 20:03:32 GMT
Its took me over two years to complete this section of my site, well nearly complete as the Itaian army seems to forget about which officers commanded what division on what date. I must add that I had some help of some nice people too, who know what there is available about the Italian army in WW2;
I might try the same with the Norwegian army next, Noggy on the black board was in the Norwegian army and as said he will help me out if needed, so I may have a go and see how it pans out.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Apr 3, 2019 21:21:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 15, 2019 14:43:42 GMT
The weather outside is overcast and drizzly, so I have spent the morning reading up on the red army in WW2. I quickly saw myself drawn to the cavalry section of the book and was interested to see that not a lot had changed from 1876, with commanders detailing men to act as horsed holders. Soviet cavalry platoon 1939. Platoon Headquarters: Platoon Leader Pvt Observer/Signaler Pvt/Messenger Corporal/Horse Holder 2 x Privates/Horse Holders 6 x Horses 1st Mounted Section 6 x Man LMG Squad 6 x Man Grenadier Squad 12 x Horses
2nd Mounted Section 6 x Man LMG Squad 6 x Man Grenadier Squad 12 x Horses
The Platoon consisted of 30 all ranks when at full strength. When dismounted for action, they detached the corporal and ten privates as horse holders, which left the platoon leader, observer and messenger to lead the two squads, which also had a reduced strength eight with four men per section. One contained an LMG and the other a rifle grenade launcher. The rest were armed with Mosin-Nagant rifles. This would give the platoon a combat strength of 19 all ranks.
Each cavalry squadron had a Squadron Head Quarters, plus a trains group and four of these cavalry platoons.
|
|