RE: War in the West

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: War in the West

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: War in the West

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: War in the West - 9/8/2011 5:06:11 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

The US didn't have an actual manpower problem -- it had an allocation problem. The bodies were there, but not efficiently organized. The infantry in particular was given too small a slice, and of the lowest caliber.

All the other combatants had actual shortages that no amount of organization could fix.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Great_Ajax)

Post #: 91

RE: War in the West - 9/8/2011 6:08:53 PM

jaw

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The US didn't have an actual manpower problem -- it had an allocation problem. The bodies were there, but not efficiently organized. The infantry in particular was given too small a slice, and of the lowest caliber.

All the other combatants had actual shortages that no amount of organization could fix.

Hey, Flaviusx! I resent that lowest caliber crack. My father was in the 80th Infantry Division.

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 92

RE: War in the West - 9/8/2011 6:19:44 PM

KenchiSulla

Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ALLIED MINORS: Belgium, Dutch should probably be 50 at the most. They fought bravely, but were recently mobilized reservists, not the same caliber as the battle-tested Wehrmacht

50 might be a bit high.. What the dutch really lacked was equipment, good entrenchments, fields of fire (the army was not allowed to cut trees and clear the fields of fire in many areas) and depth.. Holland and belgium are really small countries..

Dutch actually did quite well at some points, especially fighting german paratroopers and at the Grebbe. Terror bombing Rotterdam and the 9th panzer division closing in on Rotterdam persuaded the commanding general to surrender.. Keeping up the fight might have delayed parts of the german army but there was no real chance to stop them...

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.�
� Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 93

RE: War in the West - 9/8/2011 6:28:25 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

The US Army depot and replacement system was flawed; it consistenly put strangers into existing infantry units. It was sensible on paper, but managed Manpower like a warehouse full of inventory.

Sure they disbanded the AA units, but that wasn't because of a serious replacement shortage, I think more because of lack of need

The US Army was still raising, training, and sending new Infantry Divisions when the war ended; the British were disbanding units, and cannibalizing for replacements. I also can't think of too many instances where a US Army Division was below TOE for more than a month or two.

Back in the states, the US Army was far pickier than any combattants; fathers were generally excluded from conscription, and numerous exemptions made for 4-H. Age limits were strictly enforced. The US Army never scraped the bottom of the barrel, like everyone else did.

In game terms, the US Army Manpower Production should be "ample". Probably armaments production should be limited only by TOEs. Generally, if you lost a truck or artillery piece or tank, you requisitioned a new one. Many US units were routinely over TOE, in fact, by accumulating extra stuff.

The US Army was nothing special tactically; it was all about production and logistics, where the US was unmatched.

The US Army in WWII didn't solve it's problems; it overwhelmed them

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 9/8/2011 6:35:49 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to jaw)

Post #: 94

RE: War in the West - 9/8/2011 10:08:39 PM

paullus99

Posts: 1985
Joined: 1/23/2002
Status: offline

"Overlord" by Max Hastings goes into great detail regarding the manpower (infantry) shortages in both the British/Allied & US Armies. In particular, the US diverted too much high-quality manpower into the USAAF, Marines & specialized infantry formations (Paratroopers & Rangers) instead of spreading those troops out among the regular infantry divisions.

The US Army was also designed to fight a different kind of war than what they actually found in Normandy (too many AA & Tank Destroyer units) - and it never really got fixed until well after the war was over.

_____________________________

Never Underestimate the Power of a Small Tactical Nuclear Weapon...

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 95

RE: War in the West - 9/8/2011 10:29:57 PM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

Q-ball probably is close -- from the historic literature (I read), it never appeared to be the case that the US formations were at any point critically short of manpower. Maybe distribution was an issue, I read and heard that several times now, but that appears more to be an assignment/training/logistic detail rather than meaning that any US formation would at any point have be close to being disbanded, or unable to be committed to combat for a really prolonged time since replacements were truly not available.

But I'd like to squeeze in the question to the G&G or Matrix guys whether they can already release any more hints on the War in the West, how it will be different from WitE or what it will in fact cover now? Has it reached the stage that something is set in stone already?

(in reply to paullus99)

Post #: 96

RE: War in the West - 9/8/2011 11:20:21 PM

gradenko2k

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

I think someone once described the US as having manpower to have twice as many divisions as they had, they just didn't go through with it, and that they reinforced their formations differently by rotating them in and out of the front lines instead of just sending replacements to the same divisions that were already at the front.

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 97

RE: War in the West - 9/9/2011 12:09:48 AM

Montbrun

Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The US Army depot and replacement system was flawed; it consistenly put strangers into existing infantry units. It was sensible on paper, but managed Manpower like a warehouse full of inventory.

Sure they disbanded the AA units, but that wasn't because of a serious replacement shortage, I think more because of lack of need

The US Army was still raising, training, and sending new Infantry Divisions when the war ended; the British were disbanding units, and cannibalizing for replacements. I also can't think of too many instances where a US Army Division was below TOE for more than a month or two.

Back in the states, the US Army was far pickier than any combattants; fathers were generally excluded from conscription, and numerous exemptions made for 4-H. Age limits were strictly enforced. The US Army never scraped the bottom of the barrel, like everyone else did.

In game terms, the US Army Manpower Production should be "ample". Probably armaments production should be limited only by TOEs. Generally, if you lost a truck or artillery piece or tank, you requisitioned a new one. Many US units were routinely over TOE, in fact, by accumulating extra stuff.

The US Army was nothing special tactically; it was all about production and logistics, where the US was unmatched.

The US Army in WWII didn't solve it's problems; it overwhelmed them

After initial contact, the US and British divisions were habitually below strength. I agree that, for the US, it was a "bottleneck" issue, but for the British, it was a true manpower shortage. For some of the Commonwealth units, it was even worse, and this was a result of having to ship replacements half way around the world. I recently read a report on US 3rd Army for September, 1944 - the Army was short by the equivalent of 90 front-line Rifle Companies at the time.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 98

RE: War in the West - 9/9/2011 1:44:42 AM

Pipewrench

Posts: 453
Joined: 1/5/2010
Status: offline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1944

Canada's manpower in world war 2 . (excerpts)

In June 1940 the government adopted conscription for home service in the National Resources Mobilization Act (NRMA), which allowed the government to register men and women and move them into jobs considered necessary for wartime production, but did not allow them to be conscripted for overseas service.
By the late summer of 1944, the numbers of new recruits were insufficient to replace war casualties in Europe, particularly among the infantry.
Few conscripts saw combat in Europe: only 2463 men reached units on the front lines. Out of these, 79 lost their lives.

(in reply to Montbrun)

Post #: 99

RE: War in the West - 9/9/2011 2:12:39 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

There were no Australian conscripts in Europe during WWII (or WWI for that matter). They were all volunteers.

_____________________________

(in reply to Pipewrench)

Post #: 100

RE: War in the West - 9/9/2011 3:59:23 PM

Captain

Posts: 78
Joined: 5/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pipewrench

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1944

Canada's manpower in world war 2 . (excerpts)

In June 1940 the government adopted conscription for home service in the National Resources Mobilization Act (NRMA), which allowed the government to register men and women and move them into jobs considered necessary for wartime production, but did not allow them to be conscripted for overseas service.
By the late summer of 1944, the numbers of new recruits were insufficient to replace war casualties in Europe, particularly among the infantry.
Few conscripts saw combat in Europe: only 2463 men reached units on the front lines. Out of these, 79 lost their lives.

the conscription crisis of 1944 was more of a political crisis, the manpower problem in 1944 was mostly one of allocation, not an absolute lack of men.

In 1944, the Canadian Army numbered around 550,000. 450,000 were volunteers who had signed up to serve anywhere and 100,000 were draftees who could only serve in Canada.

In June 44, 3 divisions were slated for normandy. Between them, they had around 16-18,000 combat infantrymen. At that time, the Canadian replacement system was a cross between the US and British system. There was a central replacement pool, but an effort was made to allocate replacements to individual regiments and to have the replacements integrated into and trained with the regiment before being thrown into combat. There were around 8-12,000 trained infantry replacements in the pool in june. This was thought to be enough for the whole campaign. This was not the total number of replacements, since there were also replacements for the other branches.

As it turned out, the allied planners were totally off on their infantry casualty projections and the Army had gone through all the infantry replacements by september. This precipated a crisis back home which was fueled by many factors: resentment that draftees were safe back home while volunteers were risking their lives, the endless english-french tensions and media hysteria. This caused the decision to send draftees to Europe.

Meanwhile the Army solved its problem by reallocating personnel: soldiers and replacements in other branches were they were not needed were transferred to the infantry. Since Canada had a democratic volunteer army, the Army first proceeded by asking for volunteers and it turned out there were more than enough to solve the problem. These soldiers then had to be retrained as infantrymen. This process took several weeks/months. However, in the front lines, the infantry shortage was never severe enough to seriously affect the combat units. By the time the draftees showed up in the front lines in 1945, the crisis was already over.

_____________________________

(in reply to Pipewrench)

Post #: 101

RE: War in the West - 9/9/2011 5:30:06 PM

Montbrun

Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

These describe the problems with creating and maintaining the US Army during WWII, and addressing the replacement shortages:

http://www.history.army.mil/books/agf/AGF004/index.htm

http://www.history.army.mil/books/agf/AGF007/index.htm

_____________________________

(in reply to Captain)

Post #: 102

RE: War in the West - 9/9/2011 8:00:43 PM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

These describe the problems with creating and maintaining the US Army during WWII, and addressing the replacement shortages:

http://www.history.army.mil/books/agf/AGF004/index.htm

http://www.history.army.mil/books/agf/AGF007/index.htm

Well, after carefully reading both studies I believe I can summarize the contents as follows

1. There wasn't really a problem
2. Well, there was a problem but we were not given the responsibility we should have had and that's why it happened
3. Except that when we were responsible it really wasn't our fault and we couldn't fix it anyway because everybody else didn't do their jobs
4. There wasn't really a problem, at least on our watch.
5. Next time we will do it better (365 days anyone?)

Overall I get the impression that the replacement process wasn't Rocket Science but the people responsible of creating, implementing and operating the process certainly were not up to the Rocket Science level either.

(in reply to Montbrun)

Post #: 103

RE: War in the West - 9/9/2011 8:30:28 PM

Pipewrench

Posts: 453
Joined: 1/5/2010
Status: offline

totally with you Captain,

that is why it was called the zombie draft. Legions from what I hear were not too impressed with certain individuals after the war but that is another story in itself.

< Message edited by pipewrench -- 9/9/2011 10:15:11 PM >

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 104

RE: War in the West - 9/9/2011 8:59:38 PM

PeeDeeAitch

Posts: 1276
Joined: 1/1/2007
From: Laramie, Wyoming
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack
Well, after carefully reading both studies I believe I can summarize the contents as follows

1. There wasn't really a problem
2. Well, there was a problem but we were not given the responsibility we should have had and that's why it happened
3. Except that when we were responsible it really wasn't our fault and we couldn't fix it anyway because everybody else didn't do their jobs
4. There wasn't really a problem, at least on our watch.
5. Next time we will do it better (365 days anyone?)

Sounds like a summary of my history thesis...

_____________________________

"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."

- Call me PDH

- WitE noob tester

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 105

RE: War in the West - 9/9/2011 11:10:05 PM

IronDuke_slith

Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002
From: Manchester, UK
Status: offline

The issue the Americans had was fixing the number of Divisions they intended to field to 90. That essentially meant that Divisions didn't get rotated out of the line often enough. The Divisions hit initally in the bulge were there resting and absorbing replacements because sufficient units didn't exist to replace them in the line and give them a complete break.

On top of that, the US sent most of the better quality Officers into the Logistics and USAAF. This fit the western european method which saw war as managed rather than just fought, and provided an upside of a logistical effort the Germans could only dream of..

They capped it all off with a replacement system that fed inadequately trained individuals right into battle amongst people and units they had never met before.

In addition, the Army was seemingly gripped by pyschological issues that far exceeded those suffered by the Germans despite the fact the recruitment system screened individuals extensively before admitting them.

That said, they got the job done. War is, ultimately, a results game.

Regards,
ID

_____________________________

(in reply to PeeDeeAitch)

Post #: 106

RE: War in the West - 9/10/2011 1:56:53 AM

wpurdom

Posts: 476
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline

US v. UK
I think the USA was clearly better on offense in France after the first few weeks (after the divisions like the 90th and 79th went through their shakedowns) - I think it was largely a consciousness of the manpower problem the Brits had together with their officer corps hangover from the horrific wastage of men on the Western Front of WWI.
But I don't think there is any reason to think the US was the superior on defense at all, at least if you exclude the paratroops.

You're probably familiar with Patton's statement that inferior infantry need more artillery support and American infantry needed lots of artillery.

Speaking of this, I think the US doctrine on artillery was far superior to any of the major powers - the sophistication of the rapid aimed fire techniques - due to the pre-calculation of multiple tapes kept in file cabinets for different situations meant that aimed fire without pre-registration was rapidly possible, which the other countries couldn't match, combined with US time on target techniques. For American artillery, I think a morale of 85 might not be excessive.

quote:

Q-ball

The US Army was nothing special tactically; it was all about production and logistics, where the US was unmatched.

I would beg to differ. I think that US arty was something special tactically.

< Message edited by wpurdom -- 9/10/2011 2:02:22 AM >

(in reply to IronDuke_slith)

Post #: 107

RE: War in the West - 9/10/2011 2:25:22 PM

Pawsy

Posts: 339
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline

It's always been speculated that one of the main reasons for Market Garden was to make use of the huge airborne resource of highly motivated and trained men and equipment. Having invested so heavily in the concept it had to be used.

(in reply to wpurdom)

Post #: 108

RE: War in the West - 10/16/2011 7:26:39 PM

JSBoomer

Posts: 267
Joined: 11/5/2004
From: Edmonton Alberta
Status: offline

Where do you get that information? While the Canadian Army could have used some more Bert Hoffmeisters it performed quite well despite average leadership. The 3rd Can Div was the only Allied division that came close to completing all its D-Day objectives.

You know for a fact that Panzer meyer though very little of the canadians??? Did you speak to him yourself? I have read more than one account where it would seem he a a grudging respect for the Canadians fighting ability. After all, despite numerous attempts he was never able to break the Canadian line and was forced to withdrawl.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I�m not very well read on the subject but wasn�t the canadian performace a disaster during most of aftermath of D-Day? Mostly because of very poor leadership?

I know for a fact that atleast Panzer Meyer thought very little of the canadians.

_____________________________

Jordan S. Bujtas
Deas Gu Cath

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 109

RE: War in the West - 10/16/2011 9:52:47 PM

Stoat

Posts: 37
Joined: 9/20/2011
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: J Boomer

Where do you get that information? While the Canadian Army could have used some more Bert Hoffmeisters it performed quite well despite average leadership. The 3rd Can Div was the only Allied division that came close to completing all its D-Day objectives.

You know for a fact that Panzer meyer though very little of the canadians??? Did you speak to him yourself? I have read more than one account where it would seem he a a grudging respect for the Canadians fighting ability. After all, despite numerous attempts he was never able to break the Canadian line and was forced to withdrawl.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

I�m not very well read on the subject but wasn�t the canadian performace a disaster during most of aftermath of D-Day? Mostly because of very poor leadership?

I know for a fact that atleast Panzer Meyer thought very little of the canadians.

quote:

adians??? Did you speak to him yourself? I have read more than one account where it would seem he a a grudging respect for the Canadians fighting ability. After all, despite num

Yah, to summarise Kurt Meyer's views on Canadians expressed in his book "Grenadiers", which I read this year so hopefully can still more or less remember it:

1) Commanders: yah, he thought our leadership was garbage, maybe even worse than Soviet leaders I had the sense, on balance. Consistent failure to exploit obvious opportunities. Didn't understand combined arms warfare. By plodding along, either through lack of ability or aversion to losses, they ended up allowing Meyer to engage at times & places of his choosing, rather than forcing issues where & when he would've been screwed, and caused themselves more trouble, effort & losses by so doing. He mighta thought one guy was OK, forget who, maybe an Armoured Brigade commander, or possibly it was Lt Gen Simonds?

2) Troops: He thought Canadian morale was extremely high. Think he was referring especially to the Infantry. He may have said we weren't quite as wise tactically as his guys but I forget details.

3) Artillery: In particular, he thought our artillery kicked. Fast, accurate, overwhelming. I think the implication is he thought our FOO's (forward artillery observers) were very good & their communications with the guns must've been very good too.

4) Prison Population: he had a very low opinion of our criminals, having been incarcerated alongside the general population (in Halifax?), following conviction in the Canadian Army's only Nuremberg-style show trial, and was greatly relieved when his sentence was commuted & he could finally return to his family.

5) Post-war Canadian Forces: he maintained excellent relations with several Canadian officers, mostly field grade and veterans of the Western Front, throughout and following his imprisonment. Believe he actually volunteered to join the CF (and show us how combined arms warfare was actually _done_), to get out of prison, an interesting offer but this didn't go anywhere.

Panzermeyer was certainly extremely bright, articulate & most capable. I enjoyed the book, which covers his whole wartime career (Poland, France, Balkans, East Front, West Front) & would not hesitate to recommend it to you.

_____________________________

GGWitE = Gr�KAZ ("Greatest Wargame of All Time") - thx to GG, Company & Community for continuing to make it even better!

(in reply to JSBoomer)

Post #: 110

RE: War in the West - 10/17/2011 5:08:53 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Stoat,

Spot on! I read it just a few weeks before I wrote that on the forum. I also found his book a very good read. Highly recommended!

(in reply to Stoat)

Post #: 111

RE: War in the West - 10/18/2011 1:15:11 AM

JSBoomer

Posts: 267
Joined: 11/5/2004
From: Edmonton Alberta
Status: offline

Stoat

Thanks for the book title I will have to check it out, sounds like a good read. What you say seems to confirm what other sources I have looked at have said. When you take into the consideration of the lack of experience of the western units when compared to the Germans this could be taken as an overall good impression. Not a complete negative one. All the Western allies learned some hard lessons in Normandy.
Despite large numbers of tanks the Canadian Army was dominated by the Infantry which effected the thinking of its Generals. General Hoffmeister was probably the only real manouver warfare type and he was in Italy with 5th Armoured.

Does anyone have a high opinion of criminals?