U.S. army too srong?

[ILCK]

I was quite clear that the US troops would have been worse than their 1914 version European cousins. While they were, even in 1918, raw they did play an important role by weight of numbers no matter what.

Still, I think harrybanana overstates the incompetence of the US Army in the war. Their role in the Grand Offensive went rather well. No army really covered themselves in glory during the war and the Ameican performance was no better or worse than others. While experience was not on their side they also did not have the same level of exhaustion among their troops- there is something to be said for naivety in this case. In the end, the Americans played a pivotal role and the mass of manpower they had really meant that the war could come to an end something not likely with the exhausted TE combatants fighting alone.

I think the bigger argument is that the USA arrives too fast and their troops are of too high a quality when they hit French shores. The arrival of the troops either needs to be delayed or else there needs to be some reverse war exahustion to reflect the training up of the raw American recruits.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: ILCK

I think the bigger argument is that the USA arrives too fast and their troops are of too high a quality when they hit French shores. The arrival of the troops either needs to be delayed or else there needs to be some reverse war exahustion to reflect the training up of the raw American recruits.

I second that - delay their entry [8D]

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: ILCK

I think the bigger argument is that the USA arrives too fast and their troops are of too high a quality when they hit French shores. The arrival of the troops either needs to be delayed or else there needs to be some reverse war exahustion to reflect the training up of the raw American recruits.

I am in agreement with this point. In fact, in the first draft of the post you are responding to, I made a similar point about reverse war exhaustion. I removed it for fear of Frank Hunter deciding to live up to his surname and track me down to shoot me [:)]. In order to properly simulate the performance of the US wartime expansion of the military, all units would start at quality C until after their first battle. They would have a chance of going to quality B or even A with combat experience.

Coding that would be difficult, I suspect, but it would reflect the reality that green US units historically performed poorly but they improved rapidly with combat experience. I am sometimes surprised by the fact that in every single war the US fought, the officer corps had to be combed out after the first few battles, but I guess peacetime promotion and wartime promotion are based on different standards. Some historical fiction I read refered to a character as "the kind of officer the Navy appolgizes for in peacetime and promotes in wartime".

[anarchyintheuk]

Experience is only one part of the mix in determining quality. All armies had their growing pains and learned at different rates in different areas. E.g. the Germans used very dense formations and platoon and company fire vs. the Brits at the Marne to their great cost, when the Brits were using extended order and depending on the marksmanship of the individual soldier. For a variety of reasons the reverse seemed to happen during the Somme. Prewar the British failed to recognize the importance of heavier artillery and suffered for it.

IMHO, US entry date is a bigger issue.

I wouldn't be suprised about US officers. Uneveness in officer quality comes w/ rapid expansion of armies. CivWar, WWI and WWII meet any definition of rapid expansion. Haven't read much about it, but there were complaints about the level of training of the troops prior to the Somme. Speculation but I'd imagine the same was true for the field officers. Staffing the rapid expansion of Kitchener's army w/ acceptable officers would have been difficult. The Russians probably had similar issues in WWI and WWII, although the latter was self-inflicted.

Aristocratic/class priviledge would have made the removal of of incompetent officers in some armies more difficult before and during WWI. US NG units sometimes had the same problems due to pre-war, civilian relationships of the officer corps.

I'm starting to ramble.

[orabera]

look at the Marine component of the 2nd Division (The Rock of the Marne).

3rd Infantry, the Rock of the Marne Division is the 3rd and had no Marines.



The Dog Face Soldier Song

I Wouldn't Give A Bean
To Be A Fancy Pants Marine,
I'd rather Be A Dogface Soldier Like I Am.
I Wouldn't Trade My Old O.D.'s
For All The Navy's Dungarees
For I'm The Walking Pride Of Uncle Sam;
On All The Posters That I Read It Says
Be All That You Can
So They're Tearing Me Down To Build Me Over Again
I'm Just A Dogface Soldier
With A Rifle On My Shoulder
And I Eat Raw Meat For Breakfast Everyday.
So Feed Me Ammunition,
Keep Me In The Third Division,
Your Dogfaced Soldiers A-Okay.

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: orabera

look at the Marine component of the 2nd Division (The Rock of the Marne).

3rd Infantry, the Rock of the Marne Division is the 3rd and had no Marines.

[:(] You are indeed correct. I did become confused between the 2nd Division at Bellau Wood and the 3rd Division nearby. Mea Culpa.

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Experience is only one part of the mix in determining quality. All armies had their growing pains and learned at different rates in different areas. E.g. the Germans used very dense formations and platoon and company fire vs. the Brits at the Marne to their great cost, when the Brits were using extended order and depending on the marksmanship of the individual soldier. For a variety of reasons the reverse seemed to happen during the Somme. Prewar the British failed to recognize the importance of heavier artillery and suffered for it.

True experience is only a part of it, but given the historical performance of US troops, no Corps should be B or A quality before they experience a battle. Although Rommel may not have actually said that the US forces he faced in North Africa in WWII were the worst he'd seen (but they learned more quickly than any), it is a roughly accurate reflection of their performance and that of their fathers in the First World War.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Experience is only one part of the mix in determining quality. All armies had their growing pains and learned at different rates in different areas. E.g. the Germans used very dense formations and platoon and company fire vs. the Brits at the Marne to their great cost, when the Brits were using extended order and depending on the marksmanship of the individual soldier. For a variety of reasons the reverse seemed to happen during the Somme. Prewar the British failed to recognize the importance of heavier artillery and suffered for it.

True experience is only a part of it, but given the historical performance of US troops, no Corps should be B or A quality before they experience a battle. Although Rommel may not have actually said that the US forces he faced in North Africa in WWII were the worst he'd seen (but they learned more quickly than any), it is a roughly accurate reflection of their performance and that of their fathers in the First World War.

Agree to disagree then. Historically, the performance of the BEF (Kitchener's army part of it) was poor at the Somme, due in part to its rapid expansion. Incomparable to two years later when it was, relatively speaking, a combined arms machine. Should they be C quality corps until they are used? Or the reverse? Have Italian corps turn to a C or D after facing Germans w/ assault researched. Apologies to anyone affected by a Caporetto cheapshot. Whatever the US forces lacked in experience they made up for in morale, which is also a part of the grading system. As far as their rl performance, I can't see where they failed to take an objective tasked or gave up ground when ordered to hold.

[mrensing]

Anarchy, they did not. 
The performance of the 3ed outside Paris was exemplary, the equal of the BEF in '14.  
The 4th and 5th Marines had Bellau Wood renamed in their honor; from that day forward the Marines were classified by the German High Command as elite 'shock troops' and given their nickname of 'devil dogs.'  They showed a class of battlefield marksman ship not matched even by the BEF.
The performance of the AEF in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive...exemplary.
 
The AEF were green but competent.  They quickly learned.  Judging from Historical documents, it was not that Pershing did not appricate the futility of frontal assaults on entrenched troops, he simply understood that one does not win by being on the defensive.  Like Grant before him, he was convinced that the only way to save lives in the long run was to throw them into the meat grinder in the short term.  Attrition worked for Grant; it worked for Pershing as well in this instance. 
 

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Experience is only one part of the mix in determining quality. All armies had their growing pains and learned at different rates in different areas. E.g. the Germans used very dense formations and platoon and company fire vs. the Brits at the Marne to their great cost, when the Brits were using extended order and depending on the marksmanship of the individual soldier. For a variety of reasons the reverse seemed to happen during the Somme. Prewar the British failed to recognize the importance of heavier artillery and suffered for it.

True experience is only a part of it, but given the historical performance of US troops, no Corps should be B or A quality before they experience a battle. Although Rommel may not have actually said that the US forces he faced in North Africa in WWII were the worst he'd seen (but they learned more quickly than any), it is a roughly accurate reflection of their performance and that of their fathers in the First World War.

Agree to disagree then. Historically, the performance of the BEF (Kitchener's army part of it) was poor at the Somme, due in part to its rapid expansion. Incomparable to two years later when it was, relatively speaking, a combined arms machine. Should they be C quality corps until they are used? Or the reverse? Have Italian corps turn to a C or D after facing Germans w/ assault researched. Apologies to anyone affected by a Caporetto cheapshot. Whatever the US forces lacked in experience they made up for in morale, which is also a part of the grading system. As far as their rl performance, I can't see where they failed to take an objective tasked or gave up ground when ordered to hold.

I apologize for the delayed response, I was otherwise occupied for a few days.

I think that we are not all that far apart here. I agree that experienced AEF units performed well (see my post up thread suggesting that a comparison to the Canadians was unfair to the AEF). I merely suggest that given historical performance of wholely new US units, none should be A quality in their first battle. It took time and blood to get to that point.

If you wish, we can simply leave it at this and agree to disagree with no hard feelings on my part.

[anarchyintheuk]

No reason to apologize. Enjoyed the discussion.

[FM WarB]

It should be noted that a U.S> "A" quality unit is actually rated the same (7) as a German "C" quality unit. The latest four CV reduction to all U.S. units helps.

[Kaliber]

Playing the CP in version 1.3 f I just air recconed Brest, where the first americans have landed. I noticed their corps were still CV 40 and 36. Is this because we upgraded from 1.3 c in the course of the game?

[lordhoff]

The disparity always seemed to me to be more a function of the relative strength of the US Army when it happened to arrive- like Mike Dubost said. The US units were stronger/better merely because they were not the shredded remnants of the armies already there. In other words, a US unit in 1914 against a German or French or UK units would not have been better/stronger....likely much worse. The US didn't enter in 1914 and by 1918 they were "better".

The thing is the game already has a mechanic to handle this - exhaustion and the attrition decline of unit quality not to mention that by 1918 neither side will be fielding full strength corps so the US units do not need to be made bigger against the absolute size of the peacetime European forces because they will be bigger relatively even at a more "normal" size.

In game terms, Americans were "A" (for America) and British and French units were at best "B" by then. One also has to remember that in organization, a US division at the time was only slightly smaller then a European corp. Keeping to the game definitions requires that US corps be much superior numerically. I'm not really sure how a US "A" corps in the games stacks up to a European corps but I'm betting the relative quality of the US "A"corps is far below that of British or French "A" corps but as is historically correct, much larger numerically. If anything (IF) should be changed, it would be the relative quality of the troops.

It should be noted that a U.S> "A" quality unit is actually rated the same (7) as a German "C" quality unit. The latest four CV reduction to all U.S. units helps.

That seems about right then - ie - historically correct.

[Kaliber]

ORIGINAL: Kaliber

Playing the CP in version 1.3 f I just air recconed Brest, where the first americans have landed. I noticed their corps were still CV 40 and 36. Is this because we upgraded from 1.3 c in the course of the game?

No, countrary to what has been said, the US first corps still arrives at CV 40 in 1.3 f. Just played the 1917 scenario hotseat to verify this.

Frank, where are you please? There are a host of issues here and we haven't heard anything for two weeks.

[esteban]

I agree that 36 strength "A quality" U.S. corps are WAY too powerful.  Basically they function as
 
Best to make them 28-30 strength B Quality units and to have them give the Brits and French a morale boost when they show up.  Maybe make the 1st corps an A quality corps. 

But its ridiculous to say that the U.S. should be A quality when they had to practice at home with wooden field guns and then had to get additional training once they landed in France.
 

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: esteban
Best to make them 28-30 strength B Quality units and to have them give the Brits and French a morale boost when they show up. 

The Entente receive a humongous morale boost when America enters (up to around 20). You can track this down by using the victory progress screen and click on your countries to see political morale boost for previous turns. There you can also follow morale gain/loss for countries entering/conquered. These numbers are random for each county though.

[lordhoff]

But its ridiculous to say that the U.S. should be A quality when they had to practice at home with wooden field guns and then had to get additional training once they landed in France.

Remember, "A" just means the highest quality that the USA had - it is not meant to compare with "A" of another country and indeed, as another poster pointed out, USA "A" is approximately the same as German "C".

[FM WarB]

It should be noted that the "corps" units we play with in this game are NOT Corps. They are an approximation of available strength, fudged by the game designer. From past posts, Frank said that the 24 of a German "corps" in 1914 was the standard, and all else was fudged from there.
A German 1914 Korps has two inf divisions. By 1918, a Korps could have four or five divisions (not as strong as 1914 versions, landser-wise, but oft stronger weapon-wise). So why is a German four division Korps with some experience that much weaker than a US two division Corps, albeit with alot more green infantrymen?
Answer: The US "corps" are NOT corps, either. They are also game designer estimates of available strength.

[SMK-at-work]

It's all mixed up because the strengths are not simply a reflection of manpower - life would be much easier if strength points = manpower, and quality = everything else (equipment, perceived quality of the troops, etc)...but alas that was something that was decided early on and is now (IIRC) unable to be changed.