[Silent]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Silent - i usually get burned if i assume anything, but... it sounds like you've never been in the military.

You would assume incorrectly.

Originally Posted by lookout123

One of the reasons Pershings men would run into withering fire was because they believed in him. one of the reasons they believed in him is because had earned their respect. it is standard for a commander (especially one in command of green troops) to be boisterous and build them up - telling them (and anyone else who can hear) that they are the absolute best unit in existence. there is no one smarter, stronger, tougher, meaner... he says this to give them the confidence that is needed in a situation where the individual can look to his left and right and no that 1 of 3 will die in the coming hours or days.

If you read above, I give him credit for having the ability to inspire the men below him. Not an insignificant ability, and a requirement for anyone to be successful in command for any length of time.

Originally Posted by lookout123

if the brits and french were offended at Pershings insistance that HIS troops were the best and the brits and french weren't worthy of any praise, then too bad. do you really think he felt that way? or is it more likely that his troops were hearing how badly chewed up the brits and french were and he needed to give them the confidence that it wouldn't/couldn't happen to them?

My opinions about Pershing's attitudes were not derived from his pre battle speeches, or talks to his troops. They are garnered from the writings of men who were there with him as well as his own notes. He was an Anglophobe who viewed the French (after touring their lines) as weak and defeatest.
He does not come right out and say these things (especially to his allies) but it is what I and many historians have garnered from the written records and writings of the men who were there.

Originally Posted by lookout123

Silent - ignoring or choosing not to follow the advice of military leaders who had gone to trenches is not a sign ignorance or foolishness - it is an acknowledgment that a completely different thought process was needed. America was weak on many war materials - but it had plenty of men. an overwhelming number of men if used properly. while Pershing was not a military genius, he knew what the situation was, what his strengths were and acted accordingly.

That's just it. He did not dismiss the recomendations of his allies to try something new. What he did was not new. It was not inovative. It was the same old tactics that were used in 1914 with a couple of adjustments in equipment and artillery usage. The fact that he did not send thousands to a pointless death was entirely due to the quality of the troops facing him. Had the Americans been deployed in the Arras sector, or perhaps closer to Ypres, the results would have been quite different.

I give him credit for his leadership. I give him credit for resisting French and British pressure to deploy the AEF piecemeal. As for his military capabilities, I defer to Douglas MacArthur, who considered Pershing a desk soldier with no grasp of tactics or innovation.

Originally Posted by lookout123

judging him against modern values and strategic thought wouldn't be proper.

Who is doing that? I'll give you a short list of current-at-the-time tactics Pershing did not use:

Creeping barrage, trench raids, interdictive artillery fire, independant platoon action, squad level LMG support, counter battery fire.

Some of these were employed by local commanders, but they were not in Pershing's "Play book". His "Wave" attacks and direct artillery fire methods were so 1916..

:p