What I see alot of in America

[Keynes]

Originally posted by Top Cat
The Somme taught the British Army it's trade and after the disastrous campaign opening the British emerged with new tactical doctrine and more experienced soldiers. Their performance after the Somme was excellent.

It taught the British army its trade "Haig-style" which is to say blundering headlong assaults relying on artillery prep resulting in massive casualties and no discernible strategic gain. You are correct that the British managed to maintain a slightly superior casualty ratio, but that was a little consolation at a time when Britain's French and Russian allies were clearly on the ropes.

As for learning lessons and improving performance, the major campaign of Passchendaele the following year demonstrated that Haig and the British command had learned nothing and perhaps regressed.

What you are effectively saying is that in 1916 the Allies should have let the Germans win.

No I'm just saying they shouldn't have insisted on "winning" themselves by delivering an ultimatum demanding reparations. Instead they should have opened up serious negotiations for an eventual settlement based on the status quo ante. I don't see how the latter could be seen as "letting the Germans win"

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
While the psychological effect of US troops - and the defeat of the 1918 offensive - definitely was a factor in the German surrender, the military effect of US troops on the battlefield was next to nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Absent US entry, the French war effort collapses in 1917 under strain of mutiny and chronic manpower shortages. Oh - I assume you take military impact to mean only front line combat troops on the ground, not sea, air or logisitics where the US played major roles.

As for ground force impact, US troops were not involved in repelling the Ludendorff offensives its true. But the failure just meant Germany wouldn't win, not that it would lose. US troops did spearhead the highly successful St. Mihiel offensive which resulted in the total collapse in the German position in the salient. Germany was never able to re-establish a solid position in that sector, although the US military follow-up in Meuse-Argonne was hampered by terrain and logistical delays. So "nothing, zilch, nada" is just not correct.

As for WWII, US aid had a very to significant impact on the Soviet Union's ability to deal with the 42 offensive and eventually take back the initiative.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Keynes, with the greatest of respect you clearly don't have much in depth understanding of the British Army in WW1. If you want to discuss it it might be an idea to open a new thread on the subject. I'll happily go through stuff with you but I'm not going to do an enormous post here for no purpose.

Basically, and I don't want to offend you here, your analysis of the British Army and British fighting methods in WW1 is not up to scratch.

If you knew anything about British tactical doctrine 1916-1918 you'd know it was anything but "blundering", nor did it rely entirely on artillery.

And your comment about the British high command having learned nothing and regressed is complete nonsense. For a start, talking about the "British high command" is a chimera because individual army commanders had a great deal of leeway in planning their attacks and you can't simply bundle them together with an umbrella statement like "Haig and the high command"

Anyway, we can go over this if you like as I say, I'm just not going to launch into an essay becuase it'll take me all day.

 

[King]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum


Not totally correct. The U.S. declared war in April, the revolution in Russia began in March (February according to the Julian calendar).

Pirate,

Didn't the February revolution bring Kerensky's[sp?] provisional government to power? I though the evil commie mutant traitors didn't come to power till a bit later in the year.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by Keynes

Absent US entry, the French war effort collapses in 1917 under strain of mutiny and chronic manpower shortages.

That is simply not true. Some French troops refused to participate in offensive operations, but they still showed excellent conduct when on the defensive. Apart from that every army of every belligerent was on the verge of collapse in 1917.

Oh - I assume you take military impact to mean only front line combat troops on the ground, not sea, air or logisitics where the US played major roles.

Yes. I primarily meant on the ground. But I'm curious since you seem to know a great deal about this: Exactly what major impact did the US have on the sea and air war and on logistics?

As for ground force impact, US troops were not involved in repelling the Ludendorff offensives its true. But the failure just meant Germany wouldn't win, not that it would lose.

The failure broke the back of the German army, and the high command realized that it simply could not win the war. That's were the real effect of US entry to the war came. It was obvious to anyone that any continued fighting was futile by now.

US troops did spearhead the highly successful St. Mihiel offensive which resulted in the total collapse in the German position in the salient. Germany was never able to re-establish a solid position in that sector, although the US military follow-up in Meuse-Argonne was hampered by terrain and logistical delays. So "nothing, zilch, nada" is just not correct.

No, it's not correct. It was an exaggeration of the simple fact, that US ground fighting amounted to very, very little compared to the fighting that had been going on from 1914-1918.

As for WWII, US aid had a very to significant impact on the Soviet Union's ability to deal with the 42 offensive and eventually take back the initiative. [/B]

Yes. The impact was significant. But it was not crucial. There's an important difference.

Regards,

EoE

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by Top Cat
Basically, and I don't want to offend you here, your analysis of the British Army and British fighting methods in WW1 is not up to scratch.

I am not particularly offended and i realize this is an area of great interest to you and you have strong views. I am curious though how Passchendaele can be considered other than a groteque failure for the British (including the Canadians in this) and since this was their major campaign in 1917 I'm not sure how one can argue that British military effectiveness improved substantially between the Somme and that campaign.

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe
That is simply not true. Some French troops refused to participate in offensive operations, but they still showed excellent conduct when on the defensive.

That's a polite way of saying they mutinied. And it was quite widespread. Now they didn't just desert and go home like in Russia. But with Germany holding large swaths of France, the war would be unwinnable for the Allies if French troops would not conduct offensives.

But I'm curious since you seem to know a great deal about this: Exactly what major impact did the US have on the sea and air war and on logistics?

Don't know about "great knowledge" though the US played a key role in the wwi "battle of atlantic" and supplied their allies with massive qunatities of food and critical materiel. They also were able to participate in air operations earlier than effective land campaigns. Not to mention critical financial support for an overstrained British Empire. All these things mattered quite a lot given that the outcome of the war was essentially decided by the effects of cumulative war exhaustion.

 

[unmerged(6657)]

The French mutinies were a bit overstated. The French Marchals simply executed all the leaders of the mutinies and pushed the French troops back to the trenches at gunpoint. The real problem in France was that they were running out of men of fighting age, as the number of men who reached fighting age in 1919 was to be a lot less than the number of men Germany would have been able to pull in 1919. Maybe Hanny has a link with the exact numbers.

The St. Mihiel offensive was spearheaded by British tanks that were able to withstand the machine gun fire and barbed wire, disrupt the German lines, and allow the infantry to push the Germans back. The U.S. wasn't as effective in fighting as they are portrayed. The Ardennes salient wasn't a total victory by the Americans, and Pershing's refusal to allow American units to be integrated dulled the use of American troops.

The major reason that Germany lost the war in 1918 was that they were pulled in too many directions. There were a good amount of troops on involced in the Italy offensive (Hanny some help again) and there were almost 1 million troops in the areas of Russia that were taken as a result of Brest-Litvosk. The problem was that Germany was supplying these troops, as well as the Austrian civilian population, which had been starving since 1915. The supply problems that Germany encountered were the major hinderance to the final drive towards Paris during the Ludendorff Offensive.

 

[Keynes]

Originally posted by BRYCON316
The Ardennes salient wasn't a total victory by the Americans, and Pershing's refusal to allow American units to be integrated dulled the use of American troops.

And exactly how many Allied offensives on the Western Front in WW1 resulted in "total victory"? For the Allies I mean. The Americans were raw and still won. That didn't bode well for Germany's future in the war in they stayed in . . .

 

[King]

I think World War I on the Western front was a classic battle of attrition. The last battalion would win the war. America supplied the last battalion, How important you think the last battalion was depends on how important you feel American support was. As a side note American help was conditional on the allies accepting the 14 points, which the allies did. So I would think that the allies would have found it difficult to find the last battalion themselves.

 

[unmerged(7307)]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe


Those are opinions. Not facts. You might want to substantiate those opinions with data. And a word of advice: Try to look at the dates and how they coincide with a) US entry into the war, b) the crises of the BoB and Operation Typhoon.




Newsflash: Denmark is not part of Russia. (stated by emperor of Europe)
Th
(Good point,but Brazil is also not a part of Russia,but the Ukraine was.)

If Russia was alone against Germany, and the Battle of Britain didn't happen 2600more planes could of helped in the push to Moscow.172,000metric tons of bombs that fell on England could of been hitting Russian targets. Operation East Front could of been alot different. The resources that built fortress europe could of been used against Russia. OK, anything could happen in war. But at best a stalemate between Russia and Germany could of been reached and that would of been a victory for Germany as Germany gained vast amounts of territory.
Other factors in Russia vs Germany
1)The american and british bombing of Germany prevented new supplies for Germany. The industrial might of Germany vs. Russia. Which was greater?
2)No war supplies from America for Russia.
3)History shows Germany was working on a a-bomb. If the war is drawn out longer maybe German would of made one. I never read anything about Russia building one during WW2 but that doesn't mean anything.
4)Air support in general plus v2 rockets,etc. Blizzard conditions were not yr round in Russia.
Don't get me wrong Russia was the biggest contributor to defeating Germany but needed help.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by King


Pirate,

Didn't the February revolution bring Kerensky's[sp?] provisional government to power? I though the evil commie mutant traitors didn't come to power till a bit later in the year.

You're absolutely right in this point. What I was objecting is that you said previously that the first Russian Revolution hadn't occurred by the time of the American entrance in the war.

 

[King]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum


You're absolutely right in this point. What I was objecting is that you said previously that the first Russian Revolution hadn't occurred by the time of the American entrance in the war.

It was Dark Knight who said that, but I see your point. I had it my head that this was the communist revolution everyone was on about. I would just like to appoligise for blackining your good name.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

BTW, I think I have expressed my opinion about WWII in another thread. I'll just summarize it here.

In my view, WWII was actually two wars:

*** a traditional European conflict, with the addition of an ideological life/death struggle between nazism/communism. Basically a war between Germany and the Soviet Union, the other nations: GB, Italy, France, etc.; although important at times, were never decisive. GB's defiance in 1940 was more of an annoyance to Hitler than a threat. Things would be very different, of course, in 1944, when he had to face a combined British and American invasion. But by then things had already been decided on the Russian steppes.

*** an ultra-modern conflict in the Pacific between two emerging powers: Japan and the United States. Although other countries were important: China, Australia, GB, India, USSR, etc.; the decisive confrontation was between Japan and the U.S.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

Originally posted by King



It was Dark Knight who said that, but I see your point. I had it my head that this was the communist revolution everyone was on about. I would just like to appoligise for blackining your good name.

Oops, my bad! I was confused by your avatars...

 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum
BTW, I think I have expressed my opinion about WWII in another thread. I'll just summarize it here.

In my view, WWII was actually two wars:

*** a traditional European conflict, with the addition of an ideological life/death struggle between nazism/communism. Basically a war between Germany and the Soviet Union, the other nations: GB, Italy, France, etc.; although important at times, were never decisive. GB's defiance in 1940 was more of an annoyance to Hitler than a threat. Things would be very different, of course, in 1944, when he had to face a combined British and American invasion. But by then things had already been decided on the Russian steppes.

*** an ultra-modern conflict in the Pacific between two emerging powers: Japan and the United States. Although other countries were important: China, Australia, GB, India, USSR, etc.; the decisive confrontation was between Japan and the U.S.

The conflict on continental europa was modern in its own way. Though the reasons behind it were more-or-less traditional (Hitler's initial plans weren't that different from the von Schlieffen Plan of WW1) the techniques of execution were very modern. WW2 is in that respect the first effective use of combined arms to make speedy conquest possible.

The conflict in the Pacific was fought for the same reasons European nations had been fighting for over a century: imperialism. Japan wanted its own colonial empire. In that respect the Pacific war was very European indeed. What was different in the Pacific was the aspect of combined arms. Whereas Europe was mostly landbased, the Pacific was sea-based with amphibic landings.

P.S. anyone knows that it was a flemish man from Nieuwpoort who won WW1. Yep, I'm talking about the guy that had the presence of mind to flood parts of the front to stop ze Germans.
P.P.S. If the Belgians hadn't resisted at the start of the war the Germans would have gotten to Paris a lot faster. Now they never arrived. We actually screwed up their von Schlieffen Plan.

 

[unmerged(6657)]

The Germans in WWII weren't producing supplies because Hitler didn't switch the economy to total war mode until mid-1943, since he didn't want citizens to experience shortages and other wartime struggles.

Another forgotten man who helped defeat Germany was Il Duce. His offensive offensive against Albania and the Balkans slowed down the planned Barbarossa invasion, allowing winter to breakdown the spearhead. Also, anytime I can blame Italy for something, I take the opportunity.

 

[King]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum


Oops, my bad! I was confused by your avatars...

It's an easy mistake to make.

 

[swilhelm73]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe


While the psychological effect of US troops - and the defeat of the 1918 offensive - definitely was a factor in the German surrender, the military effect of US troops on the battlefield was next to nothing. Zilch. Nada.

Regards,

EoE

I never argued teh French did not stop Germany desperate last assault to win the war before the Americans could get involved by themselves (with the Brits of course). However, if the Americans hadn't been coming into France, the Germans would have had more time and a much greater margin for error in their planning.

Even had the French still stopped the Germans, they would then not have been very likely to successfully counterattack, and the Germans would have been VERY unlikely to just up and surrender, as they historically did in the face of the Allies with a whole new ARMY in the form of the Americans.

Minus the Americans, the war of attrition would have eventually yielded Germany a victory of some sort after Russia's defeat.

 

[swilhelm73]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe


And what were those planes supposed to do in the blizzard conditions of the Soviet counterattack?

In 41 the Russians stopped the German on their own...a scant 20 miles from their capital mind you.

American and British bombing of Germany and supplies sent to the Russians certainly helped them.

The Russians did face the Germans mostly alone in actual combat...I believe something like 80% of German military casualties were on the Eastern front, but as the result was so close, I don't think you can claim that the Russians would have been sure of victory without the support of the Americans and British.

And as a final point, the neutrality of Japan in regards to Russia would probably not have lasted had the Japanese not been at war with America and Britain...