Tim the Tank Nut Posted December 23, 2020 Share Posted December 23, 2020 CaptLuke's last sentence is one of the great statements of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alejandro_ Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 Quote I just still can’t figure out how the Germans had decided that we were a nation of wimps, I’m not trying to be rah-rah patriot, but we were serious some very combative mofos from 1776-1939. The assumption was that it would take a while to mobilize resources and campaign in the USSR would be finished soon. It is noteworthy that few German officers had travelled around in the 1930s, thus they were not familiar/knowledgeable about the US industrial capability. Field Marshall Walter von Reichenau was quite appalled by the decision to declare war. He had been to the US and remembered the massive difference the US made in the First World War. Quote German aircraft plants were some of the most modern in the world, as they should have been given most were constructed in the mid 1930s as the Nazi government pumped money into it. They utilized assembly line manufacturing techniques to build air frames and in final assembly. Rich, considering that the US industry had much more experience in serial manufacturing (for example cars), you don't think the US had in general an advantage in this field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 17 hours ago, Ken Estes said: Apart from presumed hypothetical actions after a USN defeat at Midway, the JA did effect a counter-landing against Army troops at Arundel Is. in the Central Solomons. The 43rd Inf Div signaled for help from the defense battalions that had helped them take Munda previously. The 9th, 10th, and 11th Defense Battalion tank platoons, then totaling 13 tanks ready, reported on 16 September 1943. Their surprise attack the next day pushed the Japanese troops back, advancing 500 yards with Army infantry support. After losing two tanks to 37mm antitank guns, the accompanying infantry covered the retreat of the chastised crews. On 19 September, the remaining 11 tanks attacked in two lines in front of their supported infantrymen, using 37mm canister and machine gun fire to clear the way. The Japanese Army evacuated Arundel the next day. . Thanks Ken. Learned something new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted December 24, 2020 Share Posted December 24, 2020 On 12/19/2020 at 4:42 PM, Ken Estes said: Download Vol I of the Hist of USMC Ops WWII here: https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/History of the U.S. Marine Corps in WWII Vol I - Pearl Harbor to Guadacanal PCN 19000262400.pdf?ver=2018-10-30-091708-147 Read especially the details of the fighting over Wake, pages 106-150 and you will see that the Marine positions more than held their own even on the last days of the battle, and both the USN captain commanding the atoll and the USMC major commanding the elements of 1st Defense Battalion were unaware of how the battle was going and assumed that the end was upon them when the USN relief force had turned back. Each officer acted to save lives of his command by surrender completely unaware of how well the Marines had held out. Another notch for the uncertainty of war. We added 8 light tanks and a rifle company to the Defense Battalion T/O in 1942 and nothing of the sort ever happened again. Good and inspiring read. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobu Posted December 25, 2020 Share Posted December 25, 2020 (edited) On 12/23/2020 at 4:46 PM, Tim the Tank Nut said: CaptLuke's last sentence is one of the great statements of all time. Glad you feel that way, as his earlier sentence in it suggesting that Japanese miscalculations of U.S. determination could have been rectified with a visit to Gettysburg may have been one of the stupidest. Edited January 30, 2021 by Nobu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted January 8, 2021 Author Share Posted January 8, 2021 "The biggest losers at the Battle of Moscow were [wait for it] ..... The Japanese." --Theodore Ropp, Duke Univ 1974. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 After recently watching Alexander Nevskiy, I can kinda see what he meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kennedy Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 On 12/21/2020 at 7:57 AM, CaptLuke said: Similarly, I'd be curious if anyone knows how much knowledge there was of the American civil war in Europe and Japan: it's a lot harder to write off the determination of the US military if you've spent a day wandering around Gettysburg. Dammit, we had a really good and heated thread on this like 10 years ago and I can’t find it. Opposing viewpoints were “ACW was basically a precursor to Ww1, technology wise, massive casualties etc.” vs “no it wasn’t” because uh I forget. Must be some good reading out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted January 9, 2021 Author Share Posted January 9, 2021 15 hours ago, Brian Kennedy said: Dammit, we had a really good and heated thread on this like 10 years ago and I can’t find it. Opposing viewpoints were “ACW was basically a precursor to Ww1, technology wise, massive casualties etc.” vs “no it wasn’t” because uh I forget. Must be some good reading out there. That's the classic notion that the ACW was both the last of the old style wars and the first of the new style ones. Essentially, the ACW was tied to the 18/19thC. type of war because all generals were trying to imitate Napoleon, there was no conscription except at the very end of the war, no mobilization of the economy or women in industry. Logistics still depended upon the horse. OTOH, the ACW was a precursor to the Great War because of some conscription, and firepower dominated the ground battle. economic warfare became paramount [blockade, riverine operations, Sherman's March to the Sea, and so forth]. Naval Warfare saw the rapid development of the steam and steel warship, also the submarine. Railroads dictated the conduct of campaigns and modern logistics had its beginning thanks to the use of a general staff [not yet termed so]. One can easily add to either list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted January 9, 2021 Author Share Posted January 9, 2021 (edited) Quote Similarly, I'd be curious if anyone knows how much knowledge there was of the American civil war in Europe Moltke wrote of the ACW as "bands of farmers circling each other, each in search of the means to victory, [Edited to add] taking four years to do so." Edited January 13, 2021 by Ken Estes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssnake Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 Show me an army before the 1960s that wasn't effectively a "band of farmers". When the majority of the population still works in the agricultural sector, that's where they're coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichTO90 Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 1 hour ago, Ken Estes said: Moltke wrote of the ACW as "bands of farmers circling each other, each in search of the means to victory." I've often thought that BG Vincent Esposito's assessment of Prussian staff work in the Napoleonic Wars (as found in the West Point Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars) could have as easily applied to Moltke's in the Austrian-Prussian Six Weeks War. European infantry, cavalry, and artillery tactics, material, and organization also had little to gloat about in comparison to American, having for the most part not advanced beyond that of the Napoleonic Wars (with a few minor exceptions). So he should be careful of slinging all the stones around in his glass house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobu Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 Moltke may have taken into consideration the percentage of troops on both sides of the ACW who went into battle barefooted when making his assessment. No disgrace in being shoeless as a result of days of marching and logistical issues. Being shoeless due to shoddy manufacturing/war profiteering is another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrybk Posted January 9, 2021 Share Posted January 9, 2021 This is actually a pretty good read (I'm the same BK as before, just new account) https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/the-military-legacy-of-the-civil-war.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yama Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 10 hours ago, Ken Estes said: Moltke wrote of the ACW as "bands of farmers circling each other, each in search of the means to victory." Though, that seems to be prevailing attitude amongst the modern First World commentaries towards any modern conflict in fUSSR or Third World. "They're just untrained peasants, they have no clue and no training, we have nothing to learn from them, if they had some of our REAL SOLDIERS there it would look whole different" etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrybk Posted January 10, 2021 Share Posted January 10, 2021 The other hand = the 1991 Gulf War iraqis had been fighting for a decade with first world tech, a lot of outside observers mistakenly thought their military was competent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted January 12, 2021 Share Posted January 12, 2021 On 1/10/2021 at 2:26 AM, Yama said: Though, that seems to be prevailing attitude amongst the modern First World commentaries towards any modern conflict in fUSSR or Third World. "They're just untrained peasants, they have no clue and no training, we have nothing to learn from them, if they had some of our REAL SOLDIERS there it would look whole different" etc etc. Like Afghanistan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrybk Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Afghanistan and Iraq were fails because US civilian leadership abrogated its responsibility and tasked the military with figuring out things beyond their “break things kill people” role, which they’re still world-class at doing but suck at most else. ACW was two extremely sophisticated armies massacring each other and Euros should have realized their sophistication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 8 hours ago, Angrybk said: Afghanistan and Iraq were fails because US civilian leadership abrogated its responsibility and tasked the military with figuring out things beyond their “break things kill people” role, which they’re still world-class at doing but suck at most else. ACW was two extremely sophisticated armies massacring each other and Euros should have realized their sophistication. If a military is not able to figure counterinsurgency, then the best civilian leadership in the world is not going to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWB Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 16 hours ago, Angrybk said: Afghanistan and Iraq were fails............ Why do you believe they were fails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 20 hours ago, JWB said: Why do you believe they were fails? Why do you believe they aren't? I doubt the obejctive was to make Iran rule Iraq and give Afghanistan back to the Taliban... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWB Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 2 hours ago, RETAC21 said: Why do you believe they aren't? I doubt the obejctive was to make Iran rule Iraq and give Afghanistan back to the Taliban... None of that is true. If Iran was in charge this never could have happened: Iraqis Set Iranian Consulate Ablaze https://calrev.org/2018/10/10/iraqis-burn-iranian-consulate/?v=7516fd43adaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 1 minute ago, JWB said: None of that is true. If Iran was in charge this never could have happened: Iraqis Set Iranian Consulate Ablaze https://calrev.org/2018/10/10/iraqis-burn-iranian-consulate/?v=7516fd43adaa Sure, why not? they also have riots in Iran, the Ayatollahs are still in charge: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/12/iran-riot-police-anti-government-backlash-ukraine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWB Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 16 minutes ago, RETAC21 said: Sure, why not? they also have riots in Iran, the Ayatollahs are still in charge: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/12/iran-riot-police-anti-government-backlash-ukraine Iran has about as much influence in Iraq as it has in Syria. The operative word is influence. If Iran were actually in charge Assad would not be President nor would Al-Kadhimi be PM. That is particularly true about the latter: "During a rare visit to the Saudi capital, Riyadh, in 2017, accompanied by former Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, al-Kadhimi was seen in a long embrace with his friend Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). " https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/5/7/who-is-mustafa-al-kadhimi-iraqs-new-prime-minister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 1 minute ago, JWB said: Iran has about as much influence in Iraq as it has in Syria. The operative word is influence. If Iran were actually in charge Assad would not be President nor would Al-Kadhimi be PM. That is particularly true about the latter: "During a rare visit to the Saudi capital, Riyadh, in 2017, accompanied by former Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, al-Kadhimi was seen in a long embrace with his friend Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). " https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/5/7/who-is-mustafa-al-kadhimi-iraqs-new-prime-minister Well, that's not something for this thread, but I will point out that Israel must have some kind of reason to attack Iranian targets in Syria and that must mean that Iranians are doing something: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55646298 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now