As I'm sure you all know, the Americans are known throughout history for their lack of tactics and feeling of self superiority. From the Foolish attack on Vietnam to Custer's Last stand, the Americans are not exactly famous for their tactical knowledge and the quality of their troops. So imagine my suprise when I found that the US Army had been given high troop quality and Leadership!!! I suppose all the Americans here will disagree with me, but I just thought I'd have my opinion said and done.
------------------
Verior Procella
US Army with Tactics???
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
ChrisMcDee
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: England
- Contact:
US Army with Tactics???
Verior Procella
Douglas MacArthur, nuff said! Tactical Genius, probably the best tactical commander the world has ever seen. Both WW2 and Korea, the only bad choice I think he ever made was splitting up his force with a mountain in the middle when he got over-confident later on, but his Inchon landing was pure tactical brilliance.
As for Custer, the battle plan he was a part of was good, three pronged attack from three different sides, would have worked great, but Custer was a cocky stuckup son of a bitch who though he could do it all himself and attacked with only his prong hours earlier than the plan called for. Needless to say he got his ass kicked, permanently!
Robert E. Lee, another tactical Genius, if he had had the same resources as Grant he could have run rings around him, and Grant was not too shabby himself.
Just my two cents...
JIM
As for Custer, the battle plan he was a part of was good, three pronged attack from three different sides, would have worked great, but Custer was a cocky stuckup son of a bitch who though he could do it all himself and attacked with only his prong hours earlier than the plan called for. Needless to say he got his ass kicked, permanently!
Robert E. Lee, another tactical Genius, if he had had the same resources as Grant he could have run rings around him, and Grant was not too shabby himself.
Just my two cents...
JIM
Hmmm well if we had not decided to leave Nam we would still be killing them 10 to 1, check the stats we lost 50,000 they lost 4 million, they only won when we "decided" to leave for political reasons at home. As for WWII several American Generals were outstanding tacticians, the fact the even a private in the US Army has to learn tactics is a good point in our favor, many German units in WWII were ineffective the minute they lost their NCO's or command structure. Did we have some boobs you bet all armies do and did but in the main the American Army and US forces in general can hold their own with any force in world, of course "opinions vary" I guess but then we haven't lost many and that ONE was really not a loss but withdrawal on our part since from a military stand point we won by any measure while the war was going on.
BigJim
BigJim
-
ChrisMcDee
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: England
- Contact:
Ok, this topic really put a stick in my craw.
You think that the US Army or any segment of the US military is lacking in tactics?
Revolutionary War - US defeats an organized and well equipped British army with resolve, determination and guerilla tactics.
WW2 - Why was Eisenhower given command of the entire allied operations during the invasion of "Fortress Europe"? Because everyone knew the son of a bitch knew what he was doing.
Iraq War - Stormin' Norman's invasion of Iraq saved tens of thousands of American lives by pulling off his never to be forgotton logistical feat of slicing into Kuwait and Iraq with practically everything the US had over there and the Iraqi's were still caught off guard.
Sure, we have had tactical blunders throughout history and so have 99% of the great armies of the world since the beginning of organized armies.
One thing I will say that nobody can deny about the US military. No other army in the world is logistically adept at moving men and equipment anywhere in the world in the shortest time frame possible. What we lack in tactics we definately make up for with good old American ingenuity and logistics.
Just my 2 cents
Aktion T4
You think that the US Army or any segment of the US military is lacking in tactics?
Revolutionary War - US defeats an organized and well equipped British army with resolve, determination and guerilla tactics.
WW2 - Why was Eisenhower given command of the entire allied operations during the invasion of "Fortress Europe"? Because everyone knew the son of a bitch knew what he was doing.
Iraq War - Stormin' Norman's invasion of Iraq saved tens of thousands of American lives by pulling off his never to be forgotton logistical feat of slicing into Kuwait and Iraq with practically everything the US had over there and the Iraqi's were still caught off guard.
Sure, we have had tactical blunders throughout history and so have 99% of the great armies of the world since the beginning of organized armies.
One thing I will say that nobody can deny about the US military. No other army in the world is logistically adept at moving men and equipment anywhere in the world in the shortest time frame possible. What we lack in tactics we definately make up for with good old American ingenuity and logistics.
Just my 2 cents
Aktion T4
I should also mention the Battle of Midway as another example of good 'ol US tactics.
Read this and weep:
JAPANESE LOSES
CU Akagi
CU Kaga
CU Hiryu
CU Soryu
CA Nikuma
+ 332 aircraft
AMERICAN LOSES
CU Yorktown
DD Hamman
+ 147 aircraft
All I have to say is, "Admiral Nimitz, Chester Fletcher, and Raymon Spruance"
'nuff said
I thought I had to put a plug in for the US NAvy as well!
8)
Read this and weep:
JAPANESE LOSES
CU Akagi
CU Kaga
CU Hiryu
CU Soryu
CA Nikuma
+ 332 aircraft
AMERICAN LOSES
CU Yorktown
DD Hamman
+ 147 aircraft
All I have to say is, "Admiral Nimitz, Chester Fletcher, and Raymon Spruance"
'nuff said
I thought I had to put a plug in for the US NAvy as well!
8)
Sorry, I cannot agree with you in any form. Especially in Viet Nam. Had the military been allowed to call the shots instead of Johnson and his croonies, the outcome would have been much different. Case in point, over coffee and donuts, johnson and company would review proposed targets for the air war on a daily basis. Most times scratching what the military deemed necessary to further our efforts in the war and instead selecting targets of little importance, which many times resulted in the deaths or capture of many air crew members. This idiot even specified time over target and egress points, usually always the same time every day.Originally posted by ChrisMcDee:
As I'm sure you all know, the Americans are known throughout history for their lack of tactics and feeling of self superiority. From the Foolish attack on Vietnam to Custer's Last stand, the Americans are not exactly famous for their tactical knowledge and the quality of their troops. So imagine my suprise when I found that the US Army had been given high troop quality and Leadership!!! I suppose all the Americans here will disagree with me, but I just thought I'd have my opinion said and done.
I think you under estimated the U.S military and it's tactics.
Just my thoughts, no offense intended.
Bill Keys
Originally posted by ChrisMcDee:
As I'm sure you all know, the Americans are known throughout history for their lack of tactics and feeling of self superiority. From the Foolish attack on Vietnam to Custer's Last stand, the Americans are not exactly famous for their tactical knowledge and the quality of their troops. So imagine my suprise when I found that the US Army had been given high troop quality and Leadership!!! I suppose all the Americans here will disagree with me, but I just thought I'd have my opinion said and done.
And how about those limeys? From Gallipoli to the battle of Cowpens, and from the Zulu's to Yorktown the mighty English High Command has never performed any huge tactical blunders. I am not assinine enough to say that the US was tactically superior to the Germans, but we did have our strengths and weaknesses. The US went from having the old square division at the start of the war to triangular modular divisions by the end.
I've always wanted to ask an Anglophile, "how did it feel to watch your "little colony" develop the largest navy in the world from standing still?" You know if Monty would have been in charge of the war we would still be fighting it today. You guys never seemed to grab an enemy by the balls and just rip them off. (that's why Patton detested your bloke and when did Monty ever advance at the Rate of the Third Army?)
As for Vietnam... we have Vietnam England has Ireland, and our Revolution, and Singapore. Great nations get their nose bloodied from time to time when the civillians lack the stomach and willpower to do necessary things for victory. How did it feel to lose the mightiest empire the world had ever seen-all in the space of twenty years(give or take?)
regards,
sven (himself an Anglophile)
------------------
Give all you can all you can give....
[This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-08-2000).]
[This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-08-2000).]
Oh and another thing "lad", tell me brilliant tactician decided that trench warfare would be all the rage in WW1? It seems to me that England had a nasty habit of getting in over her head and calling on US material production, manpower, and elan to extricate her posterior from the proverbial pyrotechnic resevoir. When is the last time England won an engagemnt bigger than the Falklands on her own anyway?
regards,
sven
------------------
Give all you can all you can give....
regards,
sven
------------------
Give all you can all you can give....
hmmm, well this is either a poorly worded request for clarification, or a blatent slander meant to get a rise out of a certain North American culture.
I'll opt for the first choice since it takes a better #2 than that to get a rise out of me
what era in game and/or scenerio's are you reffering to for the US Army.?
In mid 43 i would expect the majority of US Army divisions to have exp levels in the 50's and 60's which would represent (roughly) a fully trained unit but with little to no 'actual' combat experience.
This is again 'in general' as all armies had their share of 'elite' units as well as poor units.
Later in the war the #'s should be higher to reflect our experiences in combat.
Hav'nt yet done an American campaign so i cant comment on the country training levels therein. For the canned scenerios though the exp ratings i've seen dont seem askew. I'm currently fighting the 'Bushmasters' scenerio, these units were, by the scen notes, more intensivly battle trained which concured with their historical record so the avg exp ratings were in the 70's making them very competant in facing the veteran Japanese units portrayed.
I have noticed though that in Soviet scenerio's i've played so far that their exp levels are a bit higher on average than i would expect. It has been giving the Germans a much harder fight than other 1941(ish) scenerio's i've played in the past.
I'll opt for the first choice since it takes a better #2 than that to get a rise out of me
what era in game and/or scenerio's are you reffering to for the US Army.?
In mid 43 i would expect the majority of US Army divisions to have exp levels in the 50's and 60's which would represent (roughly) a fully trained unit but with little to no 'actual' combat experience.
This is again 'in general' as all armies had their share of 'elite' units as well as poor units.
Later in the war the #'s should be higher to reflect our experiences in combat.
Hav'nt yet done an American campaign so i cant comment on the country training levels therein. For the canned scenerios though the exp ratings i've seen dont seem askew. I'm currently fighting the 'Bushmasters' scenerio, these units were, by the scen notes, more intensivly battle trained which concured with their historical record so the avg exp ratings were in the 70's making them very competant in facing the veteran Japanese units portrayed.
I have noticed though that in Soviet scenerio's i've played so far that their exp levels are a bit higher on average than i would expect. It has been giving the Germans a much harder fight than other 1941(ish) scenerio's i've played in the past.
Hi!
In the seventies there was a big examination lead by famous officiers of the US-Army. They examinated the leadership qualities of the armies in the WW2. They ranked the major powers by following result.
1. Germany
2. Japan
3. US
4. USSR
5. Britain
6. Italy
They also ranked the normal soldiers with this result.
1. Germany
2. Japan
3. USSR
4. Britain
5. US
6. Italy
from "Der Freiwillige" a german magazine which printed some parts of the study (I never read the whole study)
Possible Reasons: The Reichswehr was prohibeted to have more than 100 000 soldiers. They searched for a possibility to increase the army in short time. So everbody in commanding position learned to command troops two levels higher. So every Squad Leader was able to command a company. A normal 2nd Lt. was able to command a baon. This was a reason for the possibility to increase the men strengt in very short time after 1933 (election of Adolf Hitler for Reichskanzler). They also recognised that this system was very good, if one of the leader was killed. During the first 2 years of the war there were some lucky lessons for the german army, where they learned how to use the combined arms. For the rest of the war they had the best tactics of all armies. The russians learned the lesson fast in the last two years they where nearly as good as the germans. Under normal conditions the US Army was not able to win against the Germans. If you study all the big battles like D-Day, El Alamein, Battle of the Bulge or others the only chance to win was mass. If there was no artillery, figther-bombers, or odds with more than 4-1 the US-Forces never attacked. If somebody is interested in gathering more information post it in the forum.
Skuderian
In the seventies there was a big examination lead by famous officiers of the US-Army. They examinated the leadership qualities of the armies in the WW2. They ranked the major powers by following result.
1. Germany
2. Japan
3. US
4. USSR
5. Britain
6. Italy
They also ranked the normal soldiers with this result.
1. Germany
2. Japan
3. USSR
4. Britain
5. US
6. Italy
from "Der Freiwillige" a german magazine which printed some parts of the study (I never read the whole study)
Possible Reasons: The Reichswehr was prohibeted to have more than 100 000 soldiers. They searched for a possibility to increase the army in short time. So everbody in commanding position learned to command troops two levels higher. So every Squad Leader was able to command a company. A normal 2nd Lt. was able to command a baon. This was a reason for the possibility to increase the men strengt in very short time after 1933 (election of Adolf Hitler for Reichskanzler). They also recognised that this system was very good, if one of the leader was killed. During the first 2 years of the war there were some lucky lessons for the german army, where they learned how to use the combined arms. For the rest of the war they had the best tactics of all armies. The russians learned the lesson fast in the last two years they where nearly as good as the germans. Under normal conditions the US Army was not able to win against the Germans. If you study all the big battles like D-Day, El Alamein, Battle of the Bulge or others the only chance to win was mass. If there was no artillery, figther-bombers, or odds with more than 4-1 the US-Forces never attacked. If somebody is interested in gathering more information post it in the forum.
Skuderian
gez.
Skuderian
Skuderian
The Prussian General, Von Stubben was very frustrated that he had to explain the reason "why" to every drill order to the American Revolutionary army. He noted that he never had to do that that with European troops. They just did what they were told, no questions asked. That fact has never changed in the training or conduct of American arms. We are are a nation of immigrants who question why, value our independence above all else, and believe in ourselves. Tends to make us cocky, sure.
It is important to note that the USA was 17th, behind Bulgaria, in Armed forces at the start of WW2. We had a lot of catching up to do. To train, equip and direct a large fighting force in the short time the US did is a remarkable feat that is recognized by literallly ALL the combatant powers of that era and beyond. To do that meant making hard choices. US infantry tactics were limited in scope to reduce training time. The Sherman was weak but easily manfuctured, shipped, and maintained. These and a miriad of other equally mundane subjects added up to as complete a Victory as was ever seen. The US soldier of late '44-45 can stand against any force as equal.
It is important to note that the USA was 17th, behind Bulgaria, in Armed forces at the start of WW2. We had a lot of catching up to do. To train, equip and direct a large fighting force in the short time the US did is a remarkable feat that is recognized by literallly ALL the combatant powers of that era and beyond. To do that meant making hard choices. US infantry tactics were limited in scope to reduce training time. The Sherman was weak but easily manfuctured, shipped, and maintained. These and a miriad of other equally mundane subjects added up to as complete a Victory as was ever seen. The US soldier of late '44-45 can stand against any force as equal.
It is hard to judge tactics and leadership in a war. It is not a WARGAME! The odds are never balanced and factors that can not be simulated by a computer are not given enough consideration. People slag one army to the next but all nations and all sides fought bravely in WWII. To say one is overrated from the next is kinda bogus. The huge amounts of personel and equipment of the US Army makes them look good, while quality German equipment makes them look good. It usually is a matter of stratigic deployment that had the most bearing on the war, not the individual soldier or piece of equipment. There is exeptions to this. But if every German tank was outnumbered 7 to 1 then good luck for even the bravest and most tactically sound soldier on the battlefield.
Well said, it seems it has to be pointed out that the US started (relatively speaking) from scratch... This was a side effect of "isolationism" in regards to Europe and her seemingly infinite capacity for warfare. As well as a policy to not have much of a standing army in peace time.Originally posted by Mark_Ezra:
We are are a nation of immigrants who question why, value our independence above all else, and believe in ourselves. Tends to make us cocky, sure.
It is important to note that the USA was 17th, behind Bulgaria, in Armed forces at the start of WW2. We had a lot of catching up to do. To train, equip and direct a large fighting force in the short time the US did is a remarkable feat that is recognized by literallly ALL the combatant powers of that era and beyond. To do that meant making hard choices. US infantry tactics were limited in scope to reduce training time. The Sherman was weak but easily manfuctured, shipped, and maintained. These and a miriad of other equally mundane subjects added up to as complete a Victory as was ever seen. The US soldier of late '44-45 can stand against any force as equal.
As for the Sherman, well lets just say that much maligned tank certainly managed to help the 3 major powers at wars end, to WIN the war... Whereas the venerated almost whorshiped Tiger didn't. One of the things that's constantly ignored by Grogs when it comes to Tanks is speed. rate of fire, Turret speed etc. Things aren't so black and white in real life. It's not just "my armor versus your main gun". Reputations and a certain mythology have been built up over 55 years from people reading jokes, "in extremes" examples, anecdotes with personal bias' and intentional "self deprecating" exaggerations of reality.
I hate to site an unattributed anecdote, maybe one of you will remember it (I think it's in "The Longest Day") where a single Sherman takes out more than one Tiger by driving amongst them causing confusion and using it's maneuverability, and turret speed advantage, to great effect. It wasn't just "okay my Tiger's armor defeates your 76 round at 200 meters accourding to my Penatration table; and <rolls dice> it's 88 defeats your armor".
Simon
--
Simon Moderator Capitals@his.com
Aka Alhazred
http://capitals.washington.dc.us/
http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/
Simon Moderator Capitals@his.com
Aka Alhazred
http://capitals.washington.dc.us/
http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/shooter/
Chris,
I won't get into an argument with you on the historical value of US troops versus other countries. You have a right to your opinion.
All countries have their debacles militarily, Germany, Poland, Japan, etc. We can all point fingers.
But I fail to see in the game this "high" quality in US troops. Where do you get that from?
I know this came from A..hole to appetite. One of my biggest bitches is the poor quality attributed to the Allied forces, including the US in 1942-1944.
Give me some proof of this claim, because I just don't see it in the game.
I can give you proof to the contrary, however, simply by choosing some German and then some US soldiers and looking at their experience and morale. The Germans are almost 80% of the time superior.
Wild Bill
------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games
I won't get into an argument with you on the historical value of US troops versus other countries. You have a right to your opinion.
All countries have their debacles militarily, Germany, Poland, Japan, etc. We can all point fingers.
But I fail to see in the game this "high" quality in US troops. Where do you get that from?
I know this came from A..hole to appetite. One of my biggest bitches is the poor quality attributed to the Allied forces, including the US in 1942-1944.
Give me some proof of this claim, because I just don't see it in the game.
I can give you proof to the contrary, however, simply by choosing some German and then some US soldiers and looking at their experience and morale. The Germans are almost 80% of the time superior.
Wild Bill
------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant
I don't know, Desert Storm, D-Day, Patton's sweep through central and southern France, etc. weren't so bad (G)...Oops, I said I would not do this. Sorry 
WB
------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games
WB
------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant
agreed on the Sherman.
Tanks, (like battleships) tend have their most obvious characteristics glorified vs the more mundane but equally important (in both strategic as well as tactical sense) aspects.
So tanks with either a huge gun and/or thick slabbed armor tend to shine whereas a tank which mediocre armor and/or guns, but with outstanding ruggedness, reliablility and speed would be less appreciated.
The Sherman actually had very decent armor for a medium tank on the front quarter, on a par with the T-34 and better than the almost unsloped Mark III's and IV's of Germany. Side armor was deficient given the vertical sides. Outside of 'stats' The tank's worst feature (in early marks) was its distressing tendancy to catch fire when hit (even if the shot did'nt penetrate) hence its nickname as the 'Ronson' tank.
Its high silowette was also a sore point with me. But in overall terms of protection, its vulnerabiliy was more testimony to the power of the later generation of German AT weapons rather than mediocrity on the Allied side. Heck, weapons like the German 88/56 and the Panther's 75/70 could easily deal with their own thick hides and we know how well protected those were. As for the 88/71, only the near post-war JS-III had a prayer in hoping to defeat that weapon.
in terms of mobility and reliability though, factors often overlooked (not surprising given that wargames like SP:WAW deal strictly with immediate tactical situations) the M4 shined and was actually far better suited for the classic war of movement for which the tank was the prime component.
Try to do a classic long range blitzkreig with a King Tiger, see how far you get! (and hope your supply train is well prepared)
Tanks, (like battleships) tend have their most obvious characteristics glorified vs the more mundane but equally important (in both strategic as well as tactical sense) aspects.
So tanks with either a huge gun and/or thick slabbed armor tend to shine whereas a tank which mediocre armor and/or guns, but with outstanding ruggedness, reliablility and speed would be less appreciated.
The Sherman actually had very decent armor for a medium tank on the front quarter, on a par with the T-34 and better than the almost unsloped Mark III's and IV's of Germany. Side armor was deficient given the vertical sides. Outside of 'stats' The tank's worst feature (in early marks) was its distressing tendancy to catch fire when hit (even if the shot did'nt penetrate) hence its nickname as the 'Ronson' tank.
Its high silowette was also a sore point with me. But in overall terms of protection, its vulnerabiliy was more testimony to the power of the later generation of German AT weapons rather than mediocrity on the Allied side. Heck, weapons like the German 88/56 and the Panther's 75/70 could easily deal with their own thick hides and we know how well protected those were. As for the 88/71, only the near post-war JS-III had a prayer in hoping to defeat that weapon.
in terms of mobility and reliability though, factors often overlooked (not surprising given that wargames like SP:WAW deal strictly with immediate tactical situations) the M4 shined and was actually far better suited for the classic war of movement for which the tank was the prime component.
Try to do a classic long range blitzkreig with a King Tiger, see how far you get! (and hope your supply train is well prepared)
Thanks for backing me up on the Custer thing, Bigjim.
For those who want to read about how Custer screwed up what was probably a good plan, see this link: http://www.history-magazine.com/bighorn.html
For those who want to read about how Custer screwed up what was probably a good plan, see this link: http://www.history-magazine.com/bighorn.html
-
troopie
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
One of the most overlooked qualities of the Sherman was its durability. The transmission, drive train and engine were as reliable as Detroit could make. They blew up, but they didn't break down. The Panther, Tiger and King Tiger had the annoying habit of breaking down during even light use, some vehicles spending as much time in the shop as on the road. They look so impressive, and ARE in a short fight, that we tend to overlook their long term deficiencies.
Shermans were also easy to manufacture. Admitted, the US didn't have bombers hitting its factories. But when you can produce three tanks to your enemy's one, you can get an advantage.
Certainly, one Tiger or Panther is more than a match for one Sherman. But one Panther or Tiger isn't going to face ONE Sherman, it's going to face three or more. The Shermans are faster, and going for side and rear shots.
Remember Oom Joe Stalin's "Quantity has a quality all its own."
And good operational art benefits you little if you're lead by imbeciles.
troopie
------------------
Pamwe Chete
Shermans were also easy to manufacture. Admitted, the US didn't have bombers hitting its factories. But when you can produce three tanks to your enemy's one, you can get an advantage.
Certainly, one Tiger or Panther is more than a match for one Sherman. But one Panther or Tiger isn't going to face ONE Sherman, it's going to face three or more. The Shermans are faster, and going for side and rear shots.
Remember Oom Joe Stalin's "Quantity has a quality all its own."
And good operational art benefits you little if you're lead by imbeciles.
troopie
------------------
Pamwe Chete
Pamwe Chete