Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Offworlder


Frankly, one must compare her to America in this respect. The US was capable of assembling a huge military force which could go toe to toe with the major opponents it faced, passing through a painful experience or two but actually fielding a decent land force by '43. That had nothing to do with greater resources, training facilities etc. The truth was that the US geared up and not only created a viable fighting force (in terms of military hardware and numbers) but also a decent officer corps. The latter was a real accomplishment for an army that pre-war was quite small.

ORIGINAL: String



Well the US army did have the privilege of being on another continent with no real threat to its home country and having a year or so to prepare for its first real offensive operations and not really getting into the fray in numbers before 1-2 years, while the British were constantly in action since early 1940.

ORIGINAL: Caractacus

Well possibly in Offworlder's defence he was only referring to the British Army in India? Otherwise his statements would make no sense at all!

Before the Commonwealth Army in India/Burma is totally written off, it could be worth bearing in mind that they defeated more Japanese troops there than the US did throughout the whole of its island hopping campaign. (That's something I read a while back, and I'm not gonna defend it if it turns out to be wrong.) [:D]
However, the point is all that didn't happen by accident or incompetance surely?

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace
If your logic that being at war makes it significantly harder to develop a proficient Army were true, how would you explain the Red Army's success?

ORIGINAL: Caractacus

OK, first of all I wish the juvenile 'my sub's better than your sub' guys would bugger off and start their own thread. Especially the SS fanboy and his German friend.

...

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

I agree with you; however I found the similiar performance surprising considering the RAF as a whole had two years of wartime experience to draw on.

The sprinking of veterans sent to the FarEast in some ways actually made the RAF experience worse because it was a classic example of the "wrong" experience for the wrong enemy. RAF vets were used to having the edge in turning maneuvers over their primary adveraries (the Germans). When they came up primary against the Ki-27 and Ki-43, they were not only rudely shocked to find the dynamic reversed but worse.....the enemy was fully capable of sticking it to them. (and did along with most others in early 42)

RAF preformance in Burma 43-45 was puzzling and continues to be debated to this day. A RAF 'troubleshooter' sent to investigate the Hurricane problem vs. the Type 1 concluded that tactics and training were at the root of the problem....an assertation that was hotly disputed by the local RAF commanders. Ultimately the RAF and USAAF overwhelmed the JAAF by sheer level of resources in that theater.

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


Look up how Morton and USS Wahoo died, and perhaps you'll understand this ex-submariner's pique.

I was not aware it is known how Mush and his boat were lost?

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

While I am not necessarily a Mush Morton fan, I am not sure you are being fair in your use of descriptive statistics. Morton's kills on Wahoo were in a very short period of time. Haggard on Truant sank 10 ships in over two years of patrols. Mush sank approximately twice as many in half the time. A 4 times greater rate. Against the same opponent, Haggard on Truant sank 2 japanese vessels in more than 7 months of patrols. Mush on Wahoo did rather better...

ORIGINAL: Mark Weston
Sometimes it's a wonder to me that the British army performed as well as it did, never mind asking why it was sometimes as bad as it was.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


Look up how Morton and USS Wahoo died, and perhaps you'll understand this ex-submariner's pique.

I was not aware it is known how Mush and his boat were lost?

Not 100%, but more than 90% certainty. See http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,118115,00.html

There are also many sites with underwater photos of the wreckage.

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

""rather poor officers that they had""

This is a truly objectionable and unsubstantiated statement - and I know no evidence and no source that can credibly suggest that there was any serious distinction between the officer corps of America and Britain. In truth the weakest officer part of any army was the '90 day wonder' system introduced by the USA later in the war to make up for errors in forecasting officer losses. There are several quotations of Canadian troops expressing sorrow and pity for neighbouring American units ordered into battle knowing that their officers had no comprehension of how to lead


 

ORIGINAL: Caractacus

Well possibly in Offworlder's defence he was only referring to the British Army in India? Otherwise his statements would make no sense at all!

Before the Commonwealth Army in India/Burma is totally written off, it could be worth bearing in mind that they defeated more Japanese troops there than the US did throughout the whole of its island hopping campaign. (That's something I read a while back, and I'm not gonna defend it if it turns out to be wrong.) [:D]

However, the point is all that didn't happen by accident or incompetance surely?

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Well unsubstantiated except for Alan Brooke's lamenting the tremendous gap created in the talent pool for the British officer corps by the terrible losses suffered between 1914 and 1918. Officers that two decades later should have been arriving at the colonel, brigadier and major general rank, except that they were all dead. But what would he know....

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: crsutton
Well unsubstantiated except for Alan Brooke's lamenting the tremendous gap created in the talent pool for the British officer corps by the terrible losses suffered between 1914 and 1918. Officers that two decades later should have been arriving at the colonel, brigadier and major general rank, except that they were all dead. But what would he know....

I still think this is something of a myth, one widely shared. But in the cold light of day, it's only an excuse IMHO. The Germans suffered more in WW1 than the British did, after all. Plenty of dead German officers too.

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

Trying to avoid turning this into a 'who is best' dialogue but I must challenge some of Offworlders highly questionable assumptions:
""The British land forces never really performed that well in the war, especially when facing a first class army""

Considered opinion (ie not my own) is that in 1940 the British and German infantry were comparable, British artillery was superior and British armour despicable. It is also true to say that the US Army itself never faced a 'first-class enemy' - as evidenced by the fact that it only engaged one full-strength panzer division in the whole war (the 2nd Panzer in Normandy). This is not a criticism simply a reminder that comparisons are tricky.

""Infantry/artillery co-ordination was basic""

In fact it was the best of any nation and its systems were copied by the United States Army after Korea. The key here was that its forward observers (regardless of rank) could order not merely request a fire mission. This avoided the debate and time wasting found in the US fire control centre system.

"while armour/infantry was nonexistant"

True if oversimplified. The lack of co-operation was between tanks and motorised infantry in the attack and this problem was not solved until after Normandy. That between tanks and marching infantry was exemplary from the start - as an example note the attack by the combined 1st Tank Brigade and the 50th Infantry Division at Arras in 1940 - the one that gave the SS and Rommel a severe fright! Note that the US Army had precisely the same co-ordination problem at Kasserine Pass as late as 1943.

""rather poor officers that they had""

This is a truly objectionable and unsubstantiated statement - and I know no evidence and no source that can credibly suggest that there was any serious distinction between the officer corps of America and Britain. In truth the weakest officer part of any army was the '90 day wonder' system introduced by the USA later in the war to make up for errors in forecasting officer losses. There are several quotations of Canadian troops expressing sorrow and pity for neighbouring American units ordered into battle knowing that their officers had no comprehension of how to lead

The trouble in this sort of comparisom is that if fails to compare situations. Some (I for one) would agree with the perception that the USA case can be summed up by saying that it produced ""the best soldiers, but the worst army"" among the allies. By this I mean that its magnificent qualities were mucked up by organisational dictats: such as its small size (contrary to Offworlders statement it was tiny in terms of number of divisions versus national population - the smallest in the war); its truly abominable replacement system;some very serious weapon weaknesses, again created by men safely housed in Washington who prized quantity over everything.

Now I feel better!!!