morganbj
Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline
|
When I came back to the States in 1975, the tank battalion to which I was assigned only have five tanks. The rest of us used jeeps and trucks as tanks in field excercises. That's 1975. Big bucks in the budget. Lot's of troops. Much equipment. Just not were I was.
I was in a unit that had been de-activated in Vietnam and was being reactivated in the US. (That in itself is an interesting way of doing things, BTW.)
In the jolly green jungle the division was mostly infantry; in the US it was to have one tank-heavy brigade (2 tk 1 inf btns) and a second split brigade (2/2). The third brigade was to be a roundout bde of national guard.
We didn't get all our tanks for over a year, so seeing troops train with broomsticks, and trucks labeled "tank" in 1940 is very possible. Remember, we went from a small 200,000 to something approahing a 1,500,000 in a single year. That's reactivated units out the wazoo!
Those films are hardly propaganda. My father and two uncles were in the service pre-war, and all three have told me that the films weren't accurate. Why? "Broomsticks were too expensive for most units," according to my uncle. It was said tongue in cheek, but it was backed up by first-hand knowledge.
Also training wasn't all that great, either. Sure we were "trained," but we were using woefully outdated doctrine. We only got VALUABLE training once we started taking horrendous casualties early in the war. We adjusted our docrine some, especially to account for faster and more lethal combat, and were much more prepared later in the war. Units already deployed had little time to conduct this new training and were forced to learn as they went. (This was actually a pretty effective way to do it, as it turned out.) An example: We didn't have a clue about mobile, combined arms warfare until sometime after Kasserine. Another? We ddn't figure out how to use airborne troops until sometime around Normandy. (My uncle was a D-Day Screaming Eagle and said we never did figure it out. But he was a little biased since his stick missed the drop zone by 13 miles.) ANother? Our knowledge of the use of airpower. Another? The use of carriers in naval operations.
While there were some who knew how to train troops, sailors, marines, etc. The service doctrines were just not modern enough to do a good job at the operational levels. Sure, the rifleman could shoot, the radio operator could communicate, the pilot could fly. Individually we were pretty well trained, but at battalion or higher, we were just cluless. Being a great shot is a wonderful thing, but if you're in the wrong place, you're worthless.
The marines were probably the most ready of all the services. The others, I'm afraid, were all tied for last place.
The point is that we were not ready for war in 39 or 40. We were not ready for war in 1941, either. It did take us until the second half of 42 to even come close. Why? Congress fought Rooselvelt tooth and nail to leave Europe to solve its own problems. Pretty shortsighted, if you ask me, but that's the truth about it. I'm no Roosevelt fan, but he was right.
|
Printable Version
RE: OT: question: US military size, prewar - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread