IronDuke_slith
Posts: 1595
Joined: 6/30/2002 From: Manchester, UK Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: geozero quote:
ORIGINAL: IronDuke I understand he wrote another rant about the Blitzkrieg, apparently discovering things that were a surprise (not bad for an English professor coming to the war for his first book, after 60 years of scholarship from others). It was mainly his attitude re American forces. There's ample evidence to show the Americans were brave but two years behind everyone else tactically when they got started, and there's plenty of evidence to show a learning curve amongst British Commanders that culminated in the series of successful bite and holds of 1918. The American's real impact in the war was to break German morale by convinving them that the war of attrition could not be won. His point on casualties is also poor. On the Somme, I thought Allied casualties were usually put in the 6-650 000 mark, whilst German casualties look to have been almost 600 000 if memory serves. There's a quote from some German Officer somewhere where he says the Somme was the muddy graveyard of the German field Army. There is some evidence to suggest the Germans were more innovative at a tactical level, and the work of Bruchmuller stands out as the war's finest artilleryman. However, the British Army learned much from Ypres and the Somme, at a time when the landscape for the attacking side had changed completely because of trenches, barbed wire, heavy concentrations of artillery and machine guns. By 1918, those lessons were driving all before them. Regards, IronDuke I agree that American intervention broke the German morale more than anything else. It also demonstrated to all European countries that the war would continue to "expand". But there were some U.S. commanders with some prior military experiance, though not on the scale seen in Eurpoe. I think that the technical achievements were a larger contributor to Allied victory (American production, machine guns, tanks, aircraft, etc). The British and French (and Germans) had a lot more battle experience. If U.S. had not intervened it is possible that Germany's 1918 offensive would have proven either successful or dragged the awr a few more years. IN any event, on final analysis, America's involvement was needed. Geo, I'd agree in that it was required to end it in 1918, but I suspect the Gertmans were beaten when their Spring offensive failed. Frank's right to point to the blockade. Dissension at home and enemies becoming more efficient would have taken their toll eventually. I also think it was essentially American bodies, not production that won it. Tanks did not really have much of an impact (IMHO) and I don't think the Allied Armies were that badly off in terms of equipment. The artillery barrages before the Somme and then Passchendaele did not lack for ordinance. But the Germans knew their own casualty figures from defensive "successes" like the Somme. They knew that many more battles like that and they were finished, even if they won them. The American arrival in theatre held out that exact prospect to the demoralised Germans. Although (I'd argue) tactically more proficient than their enemies (a trait also displayed by their children 25 years later) the Germans were not blind to the numbers. American production was more a factor in WWII, I'd suggest. Indeed, probably the prime reason the Western Allies reached Germany at the same time the Soviets did (thankfully for western Europe). On the point of Americans with prior Military experience, I'm guessing most of that would have been against the Mexicans, the Spanish in Cuba and suppressing Native American uprisings. I don't think anything they would have previously encountered would have prepared them at all for what they found in France. regards, IronDuke
|