Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005 From: Honolulu, Hawaii Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ezz Just read Max Hastings new WW2 one volume. It is very, very blunt in its conclusions. Infantry - Germans undoubtedly the best overall. in attack or defence. - Russians next. never gave up. most likely to die in combat from enemy or own troops. - USA So much firepower that hard to fight against.But terribly slow. - Commonwealth/UK forces. - Come out of book very badly. Patchy record of average at best - Italians - just awful - Japanese come about bottom. {based on China/Manchuria and small unit tactics generally -French {including Free french don't come out too well either} Obviously, all elite formations of all armies are excepted. One theory is that both UK and USA had a very large number of skilled leaders taken into the airforce and navy. The army had to make do with the rest. And of the rest the best would volunteer for paras, chindits, SAS etc. Leadership in the army wasn't coming from the brightest and best. But 'the rest' One comment from Max Hastings was that the Japanese navy suffered from cowardice. Not something normally associated with the Japanese military. What he means is a failure of nerve. From pearl harbour onwards the Japanese admirals failed to take advantage when the tactical situation favoured them. Following up on taking potential leaders out of the infantry, my father volunteered for the infantry but when they saw he had a couple of years of college (in engineering), they transferred him to OCS (officer candidate school?) and made him a lt. in the engineers. So he never saw combat, per se. Instead he followed along behind the fighting units, cleaning up the mess they made (e.g., completing the destruction of partially destroyed bridges across the Rhine). He was in London during the blitz though.
_____________________________
Steve Perfection is an elusive goal.
|