US Forces, WWI and WWII

[healdav]

To be fair to Patton, he actually said that he would refuse to command British troops as he didn't understand their mentality. But he did understand the US mentality.

Also, he is famous for being a foul mothed bully. In fact, according to his daughter and his biographer, much of that was show for the troops. In private life he was a Southern gentleman who rarely raised his voice and would never be impolite to guests. Remember that this was a man who would have a village church barred off for his personal use for an hour or so, and during that time he would be on his knees in prayer. Only his personal aide was allowed in the church during this time.

When he came out he invariably said that now he was back on track with God.

A bizarre character he was - and his biographer says that on several occasions - but you have to give it to him; he knew how to win battles; and what else do you want from a general?

Once again his WW2 persona and philosophy was affected by his WW1 experience. His mantra of keep hitting them, never let them start digging in or get their breath, came directly from the WW1 trenches.

He didn't get on with Monty too well (but as neither of them mentions the other in their memoirs or diaries it is difficult to know to what extent the 'hated each other' school is correct), but Monty also was influenced by WW1. He had seen that chaos of bad staff work and planning and and was determined to avoid it.

The standing orders to their staffs that both put out are a fascinating read and practically a manual of man management and leadership on one sheet, and both quite different.

[6th Shropshires]

Hi Kim

There has been a film put out about the Kokoda Track. I intend to see it when in Melbourne in a couple of weeks time. All the reviews say it is very confronting, and by young new filmmakers.

Sounds interesting, give us a review once you have seen it.

Annette

[DaveBrigg]

An intriguing discussion. Can anyone point out any books / articles / websites that are critical of US or Australian troops? I can't think of any.

I was thinking of several threads about Australia's contribution, on this forum, for example http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...46entry398346. A more careful check suggests that they are not representative of opinions in general.

Hew Strachan's 'The First World War' has 332 pages, but only 40 lines that I could find about the contribution of American troops. He mentions:

'courage... a product of ignorance and naivety', Pershing's refusal to accept that 'the British and French armies had also learnt tactical wisdom' and concludes with this description of the American division 'It was short of lorries and guns, and it proved cumbersome in manoeuvre and poor in its ability to coordinate infantry and artillery'.

Possibly not critical of the troops themselves, but hardly a ringing endorsement. How true this description is, I'm not well informed enough to comment.

For the Australians, Strachan says:

At Gallipoli the ANZACs ' earned a reputation for mayhem and indiscipline, mingled with combativeness and high morale, which was to last throughout the war'. 'most of them were city dwellers, not the bronzed 'diggers' from the outback of popular legend. Nor were they necessarily more natural soldiers than any other troops in this war. Morale came close to collapse on 25 April. The landings at Z beach were poorly managed...the result was congestion and administrative chaos. Moreover, here the Turkish reaction was vigorous and swift... Many unwounded Anzacs were making their way back to the beaches... A New Zealand-lieutenant colonel, William Malone of the Wellington Battalion, thought that the Australian commanding officer commanding the unit alongside his should have been court-martialled and that his men were 'a source of weakness'. When the Australians were relieved on 28 April, he wrote 'It was an enormous relief to see the last of them. I believe they are spasmodically brave and probably the best of them had been killed or wounded. They have been, I think, badly handled and trained. Officers in most cases no good.'

The only other reference to Australian forces at Gallipoli is a quotation from a French officer 'The Australians massacre all the Turks: the Australian's national enemy, one of them said to me, is the Turk'.

Is he being selective in choosing his sources?

[andigger]

Just a quite glance through the indexed references to the US army participation in To Win A War, Terraine confuses no one about his take on the US Army and it preparedness or ability for war. In fact the only positive (again after only a brief review) came from an Austrialian officer. Andy

[DrB]

Naive, boastful and, most of all, green to trench warfare....

Sounds like a few other armies three years before.

Poor staff work, slowness of movement: sounds like a few other armies a few years before.

Reluctance to learn from the experts...there were no experts three years before. It had to be taught, in a very costly manner.

No one should argue that the Yanks were ready or well equipped by any means in 1917, but it appears that political pressure from both the Allies and Washington thrusted them into a mess they were not ready or trained for. They were eager and thought they knew the answers when they didn't really understand the questions. The result was history.

Just don't fault fault the Doughboy or his junior leaders. The Generals (the Know It Alls) perhaps, but, then there was French and his cronies, Poppa Joffe et al. who were not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer.

We contributed, albiet in a costly manner, but the bottom line was that we were there. (Besides, Wilson, after all his political posturings, had to have a slice of the victory pie)

DrB

[Ozzie]

For those who have not yet discovered this resource.

This chapter deals with the Americans and the Hindenburg line, with references to ability etc.

http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/7/chapters/20.pdf

Cheers

Kim

[Terry]

Gee, I feel left out. Just about everyone has been mentioned on this thread except the Canadians. We were there too, and did fairly well, from most accounts!

[AndyHollinger]

Gee, I feel left out. Just about everyone has been mentioned on this thread except the Canadians. We were there too, and did fairly well, from most accounts!

But isn't that the perfect fate for Canadians? I mean they do it right at Vimy Ridge ... have a great country full of talented and productive people ... take care of medical ... civil gov't ... great art museum ... live fairly well with substantial minorities - French, Chinese, Poles ... let the American indians live ...

Face it ... you don't make the news! If you'd move Ottowa to say the same geography as Austin, I'd be there ...

Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Canada inherited British food ...

[Neil Burns]

I was thinking of several threads about Australia's contribution, on this forum, for example http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...46entry398346. A more careful check suggests that they are not representative of opinions in general.

Hew Strachan's 'The First World War' has 332 pages, but only 40 lines that I could find about the contribution of American troops. He mentions:

..... and concludes with this description of the American division 'It was short of lorries and guns, and it proved cumbersome in manoeuvre and poor in its ability to coordinate infantry and artillery'.

This is a very misleading statement that appears often in English accounts (by the way I'm not faulting David!) the British and French insisted that the US send men with the shipping available and promised to supply trucks, guns etc. on arrival. The US division was designed to fight as if it were a European Corps with organic artillery. The Allied rush to get US men overseas screwed this up and divided the US artillery from the infantry during training.

So to bring Strachen's comment above in line with reality wee may wish to add "Thanks to it's Allies..."

Neil

[Steven Broomfield]

Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Canada inherited British food ...

Not perfect, then