Why do we hate the french again?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I'll do better than that I personally know a half dozen people that were there. The attack of Pearl was a very risky move on the japs part. Many mistakes were made like not believing the radar, thinking the attack would be in McArthurs yard, thinking the japs would declare war first even though they had attacked without warning, repeatedly, in the past. Yes I know the Translation story.
But, we were hardly sleeping, do you think the carriers were out of pearl without their usual escorts accidently?

We were sleeping, admit it. I don't know anyone who was at Pearl. My Dad was with the Royal Canadian Air Force at the time and later flew the "hump" over India to Burma to supply Merrill and the rest of the US forces there. I have little respect for Pershing because McArthur disliked him strongly. My Dad was a huge fan of McArthur. So much for personal connects in WWII. Pearl took us by surprise, get over it, already.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I was trying to stay on topic.

So was I. However a discussion of the First World War must include the major combatants, don't you think? Sure, we could just talk about France. Let's see, in 1914 the French for some strange reason dug a bunch of trenches and fired off a bunch of ammunition and then in 1918 they stopped after thousands of young men from France had died. The end.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's right, Pershing refused to crawl in the trenches like the others. Maybe that's why we suffered 321K casualties (114K dead) compared to the 15 million the french, Brits and Russians totaled. Oh yeah, Pershing was really stupid.

Come on, you're not actually going to try to back yourself into a corner over PERSHING, are you? Give me something I can USE here, Bruce! Let's discuss Robert E. Lee's generalship or Rommel's or McArthur's or even Westmoreland's. I'm not wasting my time on Pershing. You can sing his praises if you want.

You over-looked one teensy little thing. Everyone else was in that damn war from 1914-1918 which (I'll help you out) = 4 years. US forces didn't arrive in Europe in any number until 1918. So, Pershing gets credit for the fact that we were involved in the conflict for only a year and the dead from our country were fewer in number than the dead from THREE others? See what I mean about attempting to defend Pershing?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I'll stick with my "over simplified" version to your politically correct version.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY UNITED STATES ARMY

Well, I suppose in a sense they WOULD be "politically correct." Hell, I'm sticking with the US Army's version. My Dad would expect no less of me.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Waiting with abated breath.

A-bated, really? Well, hang on while I go check my trap lines. You've caught me at a busy time. :p

[Silent]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yes it was, for years and years because the french didn't have the brains or balls to take it to Germany

Actually, taking the fight to Germany was exactly the French's strategy in the opening phases of the fighting 1914. The French, however chose the wrong point for their assaults (fighting the previous war, as many nations are inclined to do) and ended up rushing into the Germany envelopment.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It's only when the Americans said fuck the french and took the battle to the Germans did the stalemate finally break and push the Germans back to Germany.

Ummm, don't give me that. I know American history books are terribly biased, but check your facts.
By 1918 more then 2/3 of the German infantry and 3/4 of their artillery were aligned against the British to the north of Paris. The American role in the majority of the fighting of 1918 consisted of making sure the Germans could not redeploy more strength to the north by making sustained, large scale attacks of the kind the French were too tired and worn down to make.
The reason for the high percentage of American casualties was not their equipment, but rather the failure of Pershing (another arrogant bastard, by all accounts) to adopt the artillery/infantry tactics used by the majority of front line troops by 1918. His continued use of wave style frontal assaults (at a time when the elite of both sides were using squad style fire and manuever tatics) only suceeded due to the state and number of the German troops arrayed against them. Those same tactics tried 2 years earlier would have resulted in an even greater slaughter of American troops and, very likely, little sucess.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Since you're an expert on De Gaulle, tell me, was he in charge of the french troops in Morocco that shelled our boys trying to land in Africa?

Actually, no he wasn't. He was on a British ship off shore pissed off that he was not allowed to land with the troops.

[lookout123]

By time the American Expeditionary Force got around to joining the conflict in 1918, Pershing resisted using American forces as reinforcements for British and French units, as suggested by the Allies. Pershing also maintained the use of frontal assaults, which had been discarded by that time by British and French commanders. As a result the American Expeditionary Force suffered a very high rate of casualties in its operations in the summer and fall of 1918.

Let's see, now. we are sending American troops over to a war that has been eating trench troops alive. should we put our fresh troops in as reinforcement in the trenches? here is an idea - let's do something that will be extremely bloody and brutal for the short term, but has a much better chance of bringing the war to a close sooner. while the majority of the german military is still tied up maintaining the strongpoints of their trench system, let's attack their weaker points en mass. it will be bloody, but one of two things will happen - A) you will find THE weak spot and snap the line, or B) they will have to rebalance troops along the line to prevent option A, thus allowing the allied troops to then push the entire line back in a methodical manner. Pershing was not a military genius, but he would have been downright stupid to have fallen into the trap of lending American troops as mere reinforcements.

[Trilby]

At this point your hostage bitch says, "baby, baby...wha's goin' ON?" and you all disperse in a rain of fire.

[lookout123]

huh?

[Happy Monkey]

I'm not sure who Brianna is channeling, but it reminds me of the Evil Midnight Bomber what Bombs at Midnight...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by marichiko

We were sleeping, admit it. I don't know anyone who was at Pearl. My Dad was with the Royal Canadian Air Force at the time and later flew the "hump" over India to Burma to supply Merrill and the rest of the US forces there. I have little respect for Pershing because McArthur disliked him strongly. My Dad was a huge fan of McArthur. So much for personal connects in WWII. Pearl took us by surprise, get over it, already.

Only the civilians were sleeping and only a fool would think that Roosevelt or the pentagon were getting very much sleep at the time or the 2 years before. Yes I know it wasn't built yet.
They new the war was coming, they could only guess where and when. They guessed wrong.

So was I. However a discussion of the First World War must include the major combatants, don't you think? Sure, we could just talk about France. Let's see, in 1914 the French for some strange reason dug a bunch of trenches and fired off a bunch of ammunition and then in 1918 they stopped after thousands of young men from France had died. The end.

Now you've got it! For 4 years the french did nothing but loose. To their credit they didn't acquiesce...that time.[quote]
Come on, you're not actually going to try to back yourself into a corner over PERSHING, are you? Give me something I can USE here, Bruce! Let's discuss Robert E. Lee's generalship or Rommel's or McArthur's or even Westmoreland's. I'm not wasting my time on Pershing. You can sing his praises if you want.[/Qoute] Good move...don't waste your time with something you don't know jack shit about.

You over-looked one teensy little thing. Everyone else was in that damn war from 1914-1918 which (I'll help you out) = 4 years. US forces didn't arrive in Europe in any number until 1918. So, Pershing gets credit for the fact that we were involved in the conflict for only a year and the dead from our country were fewer in number than the dead from THREE others? See what I mean about attempting to defend Pershing?

So you (and Silent) are saying that if we had followed the french example of fighting in the trenches we wouldn't have had their 76% casualty rate and the war would have ended soon any way? Grow up. Pershing may have been decimated 2 years earlier but it wasn't 2 years earlier, was it? Pershing did the right thing for and at the right time. He ended the war quickly with a casualty rate of 8%. :p

Originally Posted by lookout123

Let's see, now. we are sending American troops over to a war that has been eating trench troops alive. should we put our fresh troops in as reinforcement in the trenches? here is an idea - let's do something that will be extremely bloody and brutal for the short term, but has a much better chance of bringing the war to a close sooner. while the majority of the german military is still tied up maintaining the strongpoints of their trench system, let's attack their weaker points en mass. it will be bloody, but one of two things will happen - A) you will find THE weak spot and snap the line, or B) they will have to rebalance troops along the line to prevent option A, thus allowing the allied troops to then push the entire line back in a methodical manner. Pershing was not a military genius, but he would have been downright stupid to have fallen into the trap of lending American troops as mere reinforcements.

Well, Lookout, I imagine historians could debate this endlessly. I'm going to give a snip from a Great WWI site. Tons of information there from a wide variety of sources. This thread has really drifted along hasn't it? Maybe that's why Brianna seems so confused!

The initial attack was carried out according to schedule but the successive waves showed great inaptitude in following up the advance. Officers as well as men did not understand how to make use of the terrain. Instead of seeking protection when they encountered opposition they merely fell back. To crawl backward or forward on the ground or to advance in quick jumps does not seem to by understood by the Americans. They remain lying on the ground for the time being, and then just stand up again and try to advance.

Neither in mass formations nor individually do the Americans know how to conduct themselves in an attack.

The higher command, also, did not understand how to grasp quickly the new situation and exploit it to the best advantage. After the infantry had reached its objective the higher command failed. They were not familiar with the tactical principles in the use of divisions and attack units for the destruction of the enemy. It was therefor possible for the [German] Army Detachment, under the most difficult conditions, to extricate itself from its precarious situation in one night, and, with only a short distance intervening between it and the enemy, to occupy new positions of resistance…



U.S.
Assault formations too dense and lacking flexibility. . .scouts seldom used. . .supporting arms improperly deployed. . .junior officers show little initiative. . .command HQ too far in the rear.


Exactly two weeks after St. Mihiel, the greatest battle of the AEF, the Meuse-Argonne Offensive began. With some units redeployed from St. Mihiel without any chance to digest the lessons they had just learned and with other divisions placed into the line with minimal training, things came unraveled.

According to Alan Millett and his associates who grade the AEF with a D for tactical performance::

The US approach to war [had become] basically attritional and the US also failed to emphasize surprise and exploitation of advantages. The failure to capture Montfaucon on the first day of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive was the biggest example of this. The 4th Division could have circled the hill as the 79th division in front was stalled. But, directives hindered the thinking of commanders and the Germans reinforced the position, helping stall the offensive.





The 35th Division on the Attack the Second Day of the Argonne Offensive
The Germans Staff after the start of the Argonne. Offensive put it rather brutally in one of their analyses:

The American Infantry is very unskillful in the attack. It attacks in thick columns, in numerous waves echeloned in depth, preceded by tanks. This sort of attack offers excellent objectives for the fire of our artillery, infantry and machine guns.


In 1989 Historian and Army Officer Rod Paschall analyzed what had happened to the AEF.

It had gone wrong. [in the Argonne]. Even in the best of conditions it was doubtful whether nine divisions could be supported over such a poor network of roads. The Americans were tied to a simple but inflexible plan that called for attacking on line, anchoring flanks with the advance of neighboring units, and keeping within the confines of divisional boundaries, a system that the Germans had learned to abandon long before.


Col Paschall explains there was a problem with basic tactical doctrine. of the AEF:.

…American doctrine was based on the 1917 Field Service Regulations, which were hardly revised from the prewar 1911 version. The manual specified that the attack should be conducted under the conditions of fire superiority , with advance achieved by infantry rushes. Fire superiority was to be gained by accurate rifle fire. For the Americans, the bane of Western Front attackers--the machine gun--was viewed as a "weapon of emergency". . .To be sure, artillery would assist the infantry, but the soul of an American assault was the rifleman.

General Hunter Liggett, observed in April 1918 that he could find no definitive U.S. instructions on open warfare. There was little doubt that all the U.S. officers talked about it, but when one attempted to find precise doctrine for its execution, the existing literature was a bit thin. Liggett made his concern known to Pershing's headquarters, and action was eventually taken. New Doctrine was published--after the war was over.

[lookout123]

Marichiko - any time you take green troops with only basic combat skills and align them against a bloodied but experienced opponent there will be some mistakes made at a tactical level. so what is your point? what should Pershing have done? i don't want a hindsight view of things - this was real war, real bullets, real time. you never know exactly what your opponent has, is thinking, is doing - you only have what you think they have, are thinking, are doing.

so with that backdrop - what better way did Pershing have to end the war?

and BTW - citing foreign military command's opinions of American leadership strengths and weaknesses is not exactly flawless. i seem to remember quotes from British officers complaining about the American's absolute ignorance of the proper use of infantry. that may have been during the revolutionary war.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But.... Pershing ended it quickly with a very low casualty rate. You can nit pick till the cows come home but them's the facts. :p

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They guessed wrong.

Thank you. :p

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Now you've got it! For 4 years the french did nothing but loose. To their credit they didn't acquiesce...that time.

It was a stalemate, Bruce. Read your history books. The Brits and the French against the Germans. No one went much of anywhere.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Good move...don't waste your time with something you don't know jack shit about. So you (and Silent) are saying that if we had followed the french example of fighting in the trenches we wouldn't have had their 76% casualty rate and the war would have ended soon any way? Grow up. Pershing may have been decimated 2 years earlier but it wasn't 2 years earlier, was it? Pershing did the right thing for and at the right time. He ended the war quickly with a casualty rate of 8%. :p

See my reply to Lookout, above. I wouldn't be talking about "not knowing jack shit" after your little oversight in regard to information from the Office of Chief of Military History. Glass houses and all that, you know.

Originally Posted by lookout123

Marichiko - any time you take green troops with only basic combat skills and align them against a bloodied but experienced opponent there will be some mistakes made at a tactical level. so what is your point? what should Pershing have done? i don't want a hindsight view of things - this was real war, real bullets, real time. you never know exactly what your opponent has, is thinking, is doing - you only have what you think they have, are thinking, are doing.

so with that backdrop - what better way did Pershing have to end the war?

and BTW - citing foreign military command's opinions of American leadership strengths and weaknesses is not exactly flawless. i seem to remember quotes from British officers complaining about the American's absolute ignorance of the proper use of infantry. that may have been during the revolutionary war.

That was several quotes, the last one from an American officer. Pershing trained American troops in Paris for 6 months before committing them to battle. This was another complaint the allies had against him - the inordinate (to them) length of time before Pershing would commit his divisions. You can have very experienced soldiers, but they will die just like raw troops when forced to make stupid battleground stances.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Thank you. :p

They were not asleep as you claimed. :p

It was a stalemate, Bruce. Read your history books. The Brits and the French against the Germans. No one went much of anywhere.

Unlike you I read my history and talked to the people that made it.
No one went much of anywhere except the cemetary.
And Pershing ended the stalemate that would have continued had he crawled in the trenchs with the french.

See my reply to Lookout, above. I wouldn't be talking about "not knowing jack shit" after your little oversight in regard to information from the Office of Chief of Military History. Glass houses and all that, you know.

What oversight? I made no oversight. You are just trying to obfuscate the disscussion with bullshit details like you did with the post about tactics. But that doesn't work because results not endless details are what count. I don't care if your father was chairman of the joint chiefs, you don't know what your talking about, if you did it wouldn't take you so long to look everything up before posting.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh....and the french suck. :p

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You are just trying to obfuscate the disscussion with bullshit details like you did with the post about tactics. But that doesn't work because results not endless details are what count. I don't care if your father was chairman of the joint chiefs, you don't know what your talking about, if you did it wouldn't take you so long to look everything up before posting.

Right, wouldn't want to dilute a debate with any nasty old facts. Name-calling is so much more fun without them.