OT: question: US military size, prewar

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

When America entered the war, the US Army had 37 divisions, but exactly ONE was considered fit for operational deployment overseas.

Probably true, but then again I'm sure the standards for "fit for operational duties overseas" changed radically overnight. In other words the War Department was managing the military in accordance with peace time standards and over night that standard was changed.

As I understand it the US had a minority, but very vocal group of "don't get involved over there" people. That group was an anchor dragging on the modernization process.

[Terminus]

True enough. The army was in the middle of not just re-arming, but re-organization: only a few of the infantry divisions were triangular, for instance.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Traditionally European armies have always been large due to the close proximity of both hostile and friendly neighbors. They could not afford to not have standing armies as they could be quickly in a world of hurt. Look at the first few weeks of WWI and how quickly all of the powers mobilized massive armies.

England was the exception as until the advent of modern airplanes the theory was that the fleet would protect the Islands.

The US had little need for a large standing army as the continent was considered to be too distant from any potential hostile power. (Well, there is always the Canadian threat.[;)]) It just never made any economic sense to have a large army where it was not needed.

Having not fought a war in 400 years does not prevent the Swiss from having mandatory military service today. (I may be out of date but military service was manditory in Switzerland in the 1980s).

ALthough the Swiss army has compulsory service, I don't think the service is that long...although I think once active duty is up they go on reserve status so could be recalled easily. It's basically the colonial US style militia.

An important point I think worth making, lthough the US Army had training problems at the time, it was a professional army, so the standard by which its being measured is pretty high. I would have stacked up any regular US division against any conscripted division around the world at any time. I think the US Army often gets an unjustified black eye because it wasn't prepared to the level one would have liked for immediate deployment, which was not the policy at the time. As a defensive force it was quite capable.

[Terminus]

Er, Niceguy... The Selective Service Act came into being in 1940, and the US Army became a conscript force.

[mdiehl]

In 1939 the USAAF was smaller than the Rumanian AF.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Er, Niceguy... The Selective Service Act came into being in 1940, and the US Army became a conscript force.

Yep. true enough. I tend to think of the start of WWII as being 1939. There was a period between 1939 and the actual start (for the US) in 12/41 that the military was in great flux. IIRC some of the new divisions weren't even equipped.

I was really referring to the original units, prior to reorg.

Of course I don't care how good training is, every unit is green until its been under fire.

[Terminus]

The World War DID start in 1939, of course. Guess we were missing each other's points...

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The World War DID start in 1939, of course. Guess we were missing each other's points...

Yep. If your point was that the US military was poorly equipped and poorly trained for the start of a world war, i would agree.

[Terminus]

Hooray![:D][:D][:D]

[rtrapasso]

OK - QUIZ TIME: according to the Army - how many mortars did the Army have in Summer 1939?

[bobogoboom]

25.2

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom

25.2

nope! [:'(]

[bobogoboom]

26.2?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: bobogoboom

26.2?

mmmmpph - No...

[rtrapasso]

Since i've already given the answer on The Thread - i'll give it here as well: 93.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Since i've already given the answer on The Thread - i'll give it here as well: 93.

Darn. After reading the answer I was going to be a smart #@! and come over here and make my "guess". [:D]

[JeffroK]

The US Army was so well prepared for war, that it took till Nov 42 to have a force considered capable of taking on the Vichy French.
 
The 32 & 41 Divs sent to Australia were about 12mths short of training when "thrown" into action in New Guinea.
 
"Americal" was a hotch-potch of units which were put together for an emergency.
 
This is the cost of a Democracy, you are never prepared for an aggressor. (The world has learned a bit from this so most Nations now have a reasonable standing Army, but I suppose that was to defend against the USSR or its minions, or the USA & its minions)

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

The US Army was so well prepared for war, that it took till Nov 42 to have a force considered capable of taking on the Vichy French.

The 32 & 41 Divs sent to Australia were about 12mths short of training when "thrown" into action in New Guinea.

"Americal" was a hotch-potch of units which were put together for an emergency.

This is the cost of a Democracy, you are never prepared for an aggressor. (The world has learned a bit from this so most Nations now have a reasonable standing Army, but I suppose that was to defend against the USSR or its minions, or the USA & its minions)

I didn't say the US was prepared for a World War. I said that the training of pre-war units, those prior to 1939 was not as bad as is often reported, IMO. However, from what I have read, these units were essentially reorganized, dispersing the officer and NCO corp into other units and bringing in new officers and NCOs into older units. This may have had the affect of accelerating the training of the overall force, but it also turned previously solid units into less well led and prepared units.

Not to mention, the US was hardly the only country ill prepared for World War. Australia had a constitution that prevented it from sending forces to other locations which, could have really bolstered its defensive position, it had no AC manufacturing capability to speak of. France was in horrible shape, as was Belgium. The USSR was completely unprepared for total war.

It's virtually impossible for a nation to prepare for every possible contingency. Furthermore, you quickly hit a point of diminishing returns for even trying. Standing armies don't directly improve GDP and are very expensive to properly maintain. IMHO the problem with the US military, pre-war, was not that it was completely unprepared to fight a war, or that it was completely unequipped for it's mission (though equipment could have been much better). It's that the mission changed too quickly and the magnitude of change required was incredible.

I will admit however, that the size of the standing army was too small at the time and could easily have been double.

[Big B]

The US Army WAS pathetically small in 1939, but as pointed out above the US Navy was in parity for the #1 slot at that time - and it only got massively bigger.

The US Army was in no way prepared for war in 1939 - nor was the Army Air Corps, which was probably the slowest to come up to speed.

But be that as it may, it gives a false impression of the state of the US Army by 1941, and for example, though the Army may claim to have had some only 93 mortars in 1939, they are being dis-ingenuous. The army still had thousands of Stokes mortars from WWI vintage (76mm), and even with the equipment shortages for filling out new divisions, they had no problem delivering over 100,000 bolt action M1917 rifles to the Philippines in 1941 when they decided to do so.

So, though the US Army was pathetically small and under equipped with new weapons in 1939, it wasn't short of weapons - it was short of 'new weapons' particularly tanks etc.

The 'Why We Fight' films, of soldiers with broomsticks is again propaganda - they had rifles and machine guns and mortars and the like, but not the new ones they wanted (though they really didn't have the armor, modern artillery, and vehicles necessary).

By early 1942, the US Army had equipped and trained for modern war over 20 Infantry Divisions(inducted in 1940) with 60+ more training. The fact that they weren't coming to the Pacific wasn't because they couldn't - it was because of 'Europe First' policy combined with the fact that the British were not about to have a cross-channel invasion in 1942, or 1943 for that matter - so they just weren't rushed over-seas.

B
EDIT: from Order of Battle of US Army in WWII, by Shelby Stanton.

[rtrapasso]

- they had rifles and machine guns and mortars and the like...

93 mortars, to be exact! [:'(]

They did have 2.5 mill bolt action rifles, 113,000 MGs and 9,000 field artillery pieces, though.

They also had a total of 329 tanks (almost all of them light tanks) and 4,000 Garand rifles.