Solving the US gun violence problem

[Flying Pig]

Those were still major assaults done by American forces with significant casualties. Certainly qualifying as 'high intensity actions' given the number of casualties sustained.

Yes; I'm afraid I used a peice of jargon, perhaps incorrectly and, with hindisight, insensitively. My point is that the Americans were - rightly - seen as untested in the early days, and so they were sent into action more to see how they were working and give them some practice than as pivotal points in decisive battles; there was no real question that the Americans would be on the losing side in an engagement of this period. Bellau Wood and Chateau Thierry were a step up from this, being serious battles, but not on the scale of a major Entente offensive: shortly before it, the Entente had put a French Army and a British Corps into the field for the Third Battle of the Aisne, at which two American divisions featured; and would field 44 French and 4 British at the Second Battle of the Marne not long after. The Bellau Wood campaign was simply an order of mangnitude smaller than the major offensive operations being carried out by the British and French at the time; it does not represent the Americans being in any way an equal party, in terms of manpower or 'importance', in a military sense, to either of these.

Saint-Mihael may have been much smaller than these battles, but it did at least see an entire American Army in the field, which represented some degree of parity with a 'normal' Entente operation. However, it must be stressed again that the major American commitment to the war was not its relatively insignificant injection of manpower - at a time when Germany was carrying out the Kaiserschlacht, which can be accurately described as its death throes - but its hugely significant injection of money to the Allied cause. This, far more than the military assistance, is what justified Woodrow Wilson's place at Versailles.

Unless you really want to quibble over what a major assault is.

In this context, see above.

 

[WindFish]

I'm sorry, some correction is in order here: the WW I Allies were on the brink of military and economic collapse. Had it not been for the US forces arriving, the Germans might well have won.

Prove it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The US played an even more minor role in WWI than it did in WWII.

Death as a Percent of population:

US 0.13%
Australia 1.4%
Canada .9%
New Zealand 1.6%
UK 2.19%
France 4.29%
Italy 3.5%
Russian Empire 1.9-2.1%
Romania 9.3%
Serbia 16%
Total Entente Powers 1.2%

 

[MobBoss]

The US played an even more minor role in WWI than it did in WWII.

Wait a sec. You think the US played a minor role in WWII?

Because that is how your sentence is parsed.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yep. You can thank the Soviet Union for being the main reason why the Germans were defeated, albeit with the help of supplies from the US and the UK.

By the time the US military made it to France the war was all but over. The US could have fought alongside the Soviets against the elite German troops deployed to the Eastern Front by taking the same route as the supplies to get there. But they didn't.

And thanks for properly understanding my post for a welcome change, while even politely asking if that is what I really meant.

 

[Agent327]

Prove it.

Google it. Do your homework, sir.

You can thank the Soviet Union for being the main reason why the Germans were defeated, albeit with the help of supplies from the US and the UK.

Well, that and their "willingness" to sacrifice 20 million of their population in the process.

 

[Takhisis]

A million is a statistic, and indeed without the Murmansk run the Soviets'd've been really undersupplied.

 

[MobBoss]

Yep. You can thank the Soviet Union for being the main reason why the Germans were defeated, albeit with the help of supplies from the US and the UK.

Protip Form...WWII wasnt just about the war in Europe.... And neither does number of casualties correctly correlate into a nations role/effort in the war.

Yeah...you keep on putting your foot into your mouth via things military. I love it.

As to the Soviets doing all that work....what about Lend Lease giving them all the guns, boots, small arms, ammo, trucks and other war material to help make it happen? Just a minor effort? Leave it to you Form, to totally ignore the largest contribution of any nation to influence WWII...logistics. And the US was the master of logistics in this war, sending millions upon millions of tons of war material in the war effort. For example, the US produced 2.38 million trucks for the war effort - the next nearest nation in that stat was actually Canada with 800k. Another one: military aircraft. The US produced 324,750 aircraft for the war. The next closest nation in that was the Soviet Union with less than half that at 143,145. One of the most critical in that was bombers produced, where the USA produced more bombers than all other nations combined for the war effort. You think those bombers had a minor effort in winning the war? What about naval merchant tonnage to move that war material all over the world? The USA had over 5 TIMES the amount of merchant tonnage moving material than the next closest nation, the United Kingdom.

You think all that war material produced and shipped by the USA had a minor part to play in the war?

And you wonder why people laugh at you when you make comments about things military? Your myopia and lack of knowledge in regards to it is utterly staggering.

By the time the US military made it to France the war was all but over.

So, North Africa and Italy dont count at all? Figures.

The US could have fought alongside the Soviets against the elite German troops deployed to the Eastern Front by taking the same route as the supplies to get there. But they didn't.

And thanks for properly understanding my post for a welcome change, while even politely asking if that is what I really meant.

Yeah, I perfectly understood how myopic and incorrect your wiki search would be. Just like I knew it would be - it always is with you. You always are when you try to comment about things military, and I dont expect that to change anytime soon.

 

[WindFish]

Google it. Do your homework, sir.

Why should I when you refuse to construct an argument?

 

[Tee Kay]

By the time the US military made it to France the war was all but over. The US could have fought alongside the Soviets against the elite German troops deployed to the Eastern Front by taking the same route as the supplies to get there. But they didn't.

Sending lend-lease supplies vs sending and supplying entire armies -> not the same thing.

And it was Stalin who kept needling the Americans to land in France.

 

[Agent327]

Why should I when you refuse to construct an argument?

Actually the non-argument was yours, sir. You made a non-substantiated and rather bold statement. If anyone is in debt of providing a source, it would be yourself, not me. But to inform you, I will "disclose" that the appalling state of the Allied military surprised the US general in command of US troops which were to be deployed to bolster the Western front, the dismal state of which hardly is "secret knowledge". If you had been following the History forum, you might have witnessed an interesting discussion of the matter.

Anyway, I see that MB is at it again, and he even learned a new word today:

Protip Form...WWII wasnt just about the war in Europe....

You may have missed the Europe First strategy of the Allies.

And neither does number of casualties correctly correlate into a nations role/effort in the war.

Really? I'd be happy to see your sources for that statement. Perhaps you'd like to compare WW II casualties by nation with the Vietnam war casualty list.

Yeah...you keep on putting your foot into your mouth via things military. I love it.

As to the Soviets doing all that work....what about Lend Lease giving them all the guns, boots, small arms, ammo, trucks and other war material to help make it happen? Just a minor effort? Leave it to you Form, to totally ignore the largest contribution of any nation to influence WWII...logistics. And the US was the master of logistics in this war, sending millions upon millions of tons of war material in the war effort. For example, the US produced 2.38 million trucks for the war effort - the next nearest nation in that stat was actually Canada with 800k. Another one: military aircraft. The US produced 324,750 aircraft for the war. The next closest nation in that was the Soviet Union with less than half that at 143,145. One of the most critical in that was bombers produced, where the USA produced more bombers than all other nations combined for the war effort. You think those bombers had a minor effort in winning the war?

They may have, or may not have. Decisive was, as your military mind surely knows, the action on the ground. And the USSR was quite capable of producing its own aircraft and materiel. The most prolificly produced tank in WW II (to name just one example) was the T-42; the comparable US tank of the time was considered less impressive by the Soviets, so they politely declined to use it.

Since Allied troops only arrived in mainland Europe in 1943 (and getting stuck up the Italia boot), that leaves the USSR as taking the brunt of the action. By the time of D-Day the Soviest were already at the East German border. And surely you, as a miltary man, know that the Eastern Front was were the most part of an unending line of German casualties fell.

And you wonder why people laugh at you when you make comments about things military? Your myopia and lack of knowledge in regards to it is utterly staggering.

Still not able to play ball, MB?

 

[WindFish]

Dont call me sir because it annoys me

The Spring Offensive depleted German manpower so much that they needed 200,000 extra people a month to get back to full strength yet they could only muster 300,000 extra people for the whole of 1918 and they couldn't transfer units from the east to the west until 1919 so please tell me how the Germans could win the war before the Yankees arrived in the summer of 1918?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, that and their "willingness" to sacrifice 20 million of their population in the process.

Of course, that is by far the biggest difference between their incredible sacrifice to defeating the Germans and our own. But it wasn't exactly due to "willingness" on their part. The Germans who massacred 13-14 million Soviet civilians had much to do with it. Don't you think?

Protip Form...WWII wasnt just about the war in Europe....

"Protip:" I never claimed it was.

What you apparently don't know about the history of your own country, much less the rest of the world, and the massive preconceived notions you have as a direct result are quite obvious from your posts.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yep. You can thank the Soviet Union for being the main reason why the Germans were defeated, albeit with the help of supplies from the US and the UK.

By the time the US military made it to France the war was all but over. The US could have fought alongside the Soviets against the elite German troops deployed to the Eastern Front by taking the same route as the supplies to get there. But they didn't.

And thanks for properly understanding my post for a welcome change, while even politely asking if that is what I really meant.

Soviet casualty figures are a little inflated, relative to all others except possibly Chinese, for the simple reason that Soviets were a lot easier to kill than any other soldiers. I just came across this article on the dangers of statistics, which I highly recommend. I'll just quote his conclusion, but the whole thing really is worth a read:

As usual, the problem is beware of statistics. Impressive sounding numbers of divisions do not necessarily relate to an actual combat value, particularly if they are not often in action. In terms of contributing to winning the war Chinese ‘divisions’ were a joke, Russian ‘divisions’ were an exaggeration, and the vast majority of American divisions were too late to see fighting in the critical years – early 1942 to late 1944 – when the tide was turned.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Why were the American units "too late" when the most severe fighting in the Soviet Union occurred in the winter of 1942 during the battle of Stalingrad and in 1943? What exactly prevented them from taking part, especially given that most of the Japanese army was already committed to fighting elsewhere, especially in China? Furthermore, what stopped the UK from doing the same?

Almost all of Germany's elite units were deployed on the Eastern Front which made the Allied invasion of Europe in the summer of 1944 a virtual cakewalk by comparison. The war was essentially over by then except for mopping up.

And what exactly does this have to do with the topic of the OP?

 

[Flying Pig]

This chap's point is twofold (he discusses the Eastern Front here) - firstly, that divisions in the East were rarely at full strength anyway, so simple numerical comparisons are a lost cause; he estimates that a Soviet Corps was about the same strength as a British division, and some Chinese divisions scarcely matched a British battalion - and secondly that the mass attrition of infantry wasn't all that important to breaking Germany. Infantry, of the poorly-trained and rather useless variety, could be replaced easily: killing thousands of them didn't really affect Germany's ability to wage war. What counted was killing well-trained troops and armoured divisions - heavy equipment broke the bank more than manpower - and the bulk of that destruction was done in the west.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Again, virtually all of Germany's top units were deployed to the Eastern Front where the "well-trained troops and armoured divisions" were defeated by the Soviets. With few exceptions, the only German troops in Europe in 1944 were reserves.

The war was effectively over by the summer of 1944. When the allies then refused to accept any form of end to the hostilities besides unconditional surrender, the final result was inevitable.

 

[Flying Pig]

The German armoured divisions fighting in the East were actually at half strength as standard - they were forced to use the vast majority of their heavy armour and air power in the West, because British and American divisions were immeasurably better equipped than their Russian counterparts. You're right that by D-Day there was very little question that the Axis would win the war, but I think you've put the date too late - once America had been brought into the war, Germany had the world's three superpowers all ranged against it at once, and no strong ally in Europe to support it.

 

[MobBoss]

You may have missed the Europe First strategy of the Allies.

Does nothing to disprove my point regarding the war in the pacific. But lets debunk your offer of proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_first

The inability of the two allies to mount an invasion of German-controlled northern Europe in 1943 permitted the U.S. to maintain more military forces arrayed against Japan than Germany. As late as December 1943, the balance was nearly even. Against Japan, the U.S. had deployed 1,873,023 men, 7,857 aircraft, and 713 warships. Against Germany the totals were 1,810,367 men, 8,807 airplanes, and 515 warships.[12] The military buildup of American forces for the invasion of France in 1944 shifted the balance of American resources toward the European theater and made Europe First a reality. However, despite the majority of American resources going into Europe in 1944, the U.S. still had sufficient resources to mount several major military operations in the Pacific that year: Saipan (June 1944); Guam (July 1944); Peleliu (September 1944); and the invasion of the Philippines at Leyte in October 1944.

As I said, your point does nothing to disprove mine. At all.

Really? I'd be happy to see your sources for that statement. Perhaps you'd like to compare WW II casualties by nation with the Vietnam war casualty list.

Was Vietnam of the scale/scope of WWII? Nice try, no logic.

They may have, or may not have. Decisive was, as your military mind surely knows, the action on the ground. And the USSR was quite capable of producing its own aircraft and materiel. The most prolificly produced tank in WW II (to name just one example) was the T-42

Actually, my military mind tells me the most produced tank of WWII was the Russian T-34 (56,000 produced) followed closely by the Sherman (50,000 produced).

And we arent discussing what nations were capable of, but what they actually produced. Lets deal in facts...not fantasy ok?

the comparable US tank of the time was considered less impressive by the Soviets, so they politely declined to use it.

They didnt decline to use it.

The Soviet Union's nickname for the M4 medium tank was Emcha because the open-topped figure 4 resembled the Cyrillic letter che or cha (&#1063.[citation needed] The diesel engined M4A2 used by the Red Army were considered to be much less prone to burn and explode than Russian tanks.[9]

A total of 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease. Of these, 2,007 were equipped with the 75 mm gun, and 2,095 carried the 76 mm gun. The total number of Sherman tanks sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease represented 18.6% of all Lend-Lease Shermans.[10]

The first 76-mm-armed Shermans started to arrive in Soviet Union in the summer of 1944.[11] In 1945, some units were standardized to depend mostly on them, and not on the ubiquitous T-34: 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, 3rd Guards Mechanized Corps, and 9th Guards Mechanized Corps.[11]

My lord...you're worse than Form on military history. And thats saying something.

Since Allied troops only arrived in mainland Europe in 1943 (and getting stuck up the Italia boot), that leaves the USSR as taking the brunt of the action. By the time of D-Day the Soviest were already at the East German border. And surely you, as a miltary man, know that the Eastern Front was were the most part of an unending line of German casualties fell.

And what made that possible? Do you not think the continuous day/night allied bombling of German military production (munitions/ballbearings/oil) didnt affect the Germans ability to fight the Soviets in the East?

Yeah, you're just as myopic as Form is, if not worse.

Still not able to play ball, MB?

Oh, I can play ball. But from your comments above, you're not even in the stadium yet.

Why were the American units "too late" when the most severe fighting in the Soviet Union occurred in the winter of 1942 during the battle of Stalingrad and in 1943?

Form, surely you realize that this doesnt equate to the US having a minor role in WWII as you alleged, right? No one is arguing that there wasnt severe fighting in 42/43 in the East, but that simply doesnt wash away what the US did in the other factors affecting the war: logistics, the war in the Pacific, US bombing campaigns in Europe, and lend lease.

Nor does it make the US effort minor.

What exactly prevented them from taking part, especially given that most of the Japanese army was already committed to fighting elsewhere, especially in China? Furthermore, what stopped the UK from doing the same?

The US and UK did take part, just not on the ground in the East. Are you seriously unable to equate levels of involvement aside from ground ops in the East? Are you that naive in things military? It would seem so.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The German armoured divisions fighting in the East were actually at half strength as standard - they were forced to use the vast majority of their heavy armour and air power in the West, because British and American divisions were immeasurably better equipped than their Russian counterparts. You're right that by D-Day there was very little question that the Axis would win the war, but I think you've put the date too late - once America had been brought into the war, Germany had the world's three superpowers all ranged against it at once, and no strong ally in Europe to support it.

By the summer of 1944, there was near total allied air dominance in western Europe. While the Germans did indeed shift some armored units from the Eastern Front westward to counter the invasion of Europe and to try to protect Germany against the inevitable, there were only two Panzer divisions that I know of in France on D-Day.