|
Lenses
Jun 11, 2011 18:42:23 GMT -6
Post by wild on Jun 11, 2011 18:42:23 GMT -6
Just this point for openers.
As an example, it takes 2 years to train a Special Forces soldier. Average cost is about $230,000. Attrition is high, if we start with 100 students at the front of the pipeline, we graduate 19. I attended an Ivy League college. Tuition back then was about $50k with a throughput rate of about 75% The US military is the muscle for corporate America. It's like what's his face?Yes, Tony Suprano &Co.Business man,lovely family,nice wife,great barbecue but don't mess with his interests. Empires became outmoded and inefficent in the asset stripping business.And into the vacuum stepped the US Marine Corps. The cost of the Corps was just a fraction of that of an empire. Masive industrial producer required raw materials and markets and who better to ensure favourable conditions for US business to trive than the Marine Corps?
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 11, 2011 18:43:31 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 11, 2011 18:43:31 GMT -6
William and DC: Some random thoughts while I still ponder.
William: While you place the start of reform in 1881 with the establishment of the School of Application for Cavalry and Infantry (today's C&GS), I am not so sure. As I stated above I think the big push came after 98 and the miserable showing we had against the Spanish. I want to take a moment here. By miserable I am not talking about individual soldier performance. I mean overall institutional performance. Sherman establishing a school system was certainly better than nothing, but it would take more. So I guess what I am saying is that the thing necessary for real reform was more mindset that school. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing I suppose. Regardless, if Sherman's school was the start of reform, it took Root to place it in gear.
DC: You make a good point about WWI. The piece of planning that mobilized the Army for that was was probably the most professional piece of work the Army had done until that time. Yes we had to borrow a lot of stuff, basic stuff, which makes it hurt all the more. Just think what it would have been like though without the M1911A1 and the M1903 Springfield. Better yet, what would it have been like without Elihu Root?
Little known I think sidebar: Up until the Root reforms there was no standardized tables of organization in the components of the U S Army. National Guard units could pretty much organize any way they damned well felt like for instance, although the Regulars were all on the same sheet of music. Such idiocy would have made the mobilization for the Mexican Border and WWI a complete nightmare, had it not been for Root.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 11, 2011 19:17:47 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 11, 2011 19:17:47 GMT -6
Still, some American units had to undergo basic training in France. The professional Army was so small previously that it probably ALL had to be used to train the draftees, with not a few Indian War vets in the upper ranks. We declared war in April of 1917, about a year and a half before it ended.
In the three weeks after we declared war, only 32k volunteered, so we went to the draft, most of whom were to report in September to bases not built yet. By November - seven months after declaration - we had 87k men in Europe. A year after declaration, we had about 318k men there, and only one (1) division was in line at the front, and that in a quiet sector.
During the last German offensive starting in March for about 120 days, the Brits had 448k casualties, the French 490k, and the Germans 963k. We suffered 9600. By July, though, we had 1.3 million in France in various stages of readiness for the big offensive. How we patted all this into shape by the end for our boosters to claim 'we won the war' is somewhat difficult. Everyone was exhausted and drained but us, and against the enemy we did fine.
But in the cold light of history, we weren't all that impressive as an Army (great praise to the men, though) to those in the know on our side and against us. The enemy was in many ways defeated already. This is not a slam, just an illustration that like farm land, breathable air, and students that can read and learn and boost industry in all sectors, you cannot create a military worth anything out of myth and nonsense and mere patriotism. It takes money, brains, training and a cold clear eye on the brutal ways of the world and staying ahead of those ways.
Don't forget, our heroic Minutemen firing into the solid red formations of British at Lexington hit fewer targets than the Brits did firing back at them. If England hadn't been busy (and Parliament drunk) and the French King willing to help we might all be speaking BBC English today. Militias sometimes aren't even good for street fighting, but deadly shooting folks in the back.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 11, 2011 19:57:28 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 11, 2011 19:57:28 GMT -6
DC: I don't think any American divisions went through basic in France. That was done at the mobilization stations here in the States. I will grant you though such training was rushed and rather slipshod. There is no question though that once American units arrived in France they went through a lot of more advanced training mainly under the French.
Also keep in mind that an American Division in 1917-1918 was about the size of a French or British Corps, somewhere between 28 and 30 thousand man authorized strength
That 9600 man casualty figure you put out was actually quite large considering the number of divisions on line at the time which if memory serves was only three or four. I know the 2nd and 3rd. Can't remember what the others were. We launched our first all-American offensive operation in May at Cantigny (Fred's Big Red 1)
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 11, 2011 20:39:06 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 11, 2011 20:39:06 GMT -6
"Many units actually underwent basic training in France...." Page765, Massie, Castles of Steel, referencing Herwig, First World War, page 422.
Our divisions were huge and didn't correspond with Allied nomenclature which is why I kept to numbers. Whether 8k or 25k, it was all we had on the line a year after declaration. The numbers are for the 120 days after the German offensive began only, and only the 1st was in line. Fred will now be INsufferable.
Also, casualties are dead, wounded, missing, sick, prisoner. A lot of those were STD cases throughout this war, but I don't know the breakout for this number. Would apply to the others as well.
Again, we had to roundup, train, equip, and ship across the bloody Atlantic everything, something nobody else had to do. My point isn't that we sucked - given the start and finish, pretty impressive - but that the Army despite improvements wasn't ready for the job at hand, which was not its fault without legislation for the money to do so. We learned so well that in 1942 it looked like someone had just turned on a switch.
Given that WWI took away any claim for our Monroe Doctrine and that Uboat snorkles would have doomed the Allied cause had they been installed (they thought of it back then) well before 1917, it was a close run thing if half our ships went to the bottom because our Navy wasn't all that hot either. As bad as British shooting was, we were much worse and a fair fight with the Kaiser's ships would have been far worse than Pearl Harbor and Savo Island.
The Kaiser had plans to invade New York from before the war. Surreal and dumb, but for the point.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 11, 2011 20:42:32 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 11, 2011 20:42:32 GMT -6
DC: Soimewhere in my stash I have the WWI order of battle published by CMH. I will check into this training business. It is a multi-volume thing and it will take some time to dig into. Will report back.
Could your references mean basic unit training as opposed to basic training. Just about every unit in the operational AEF underwent BUT in France. The exceptions were some NG and National Army units that were converted into depot divisions in France for the sole purpose of providing replacements to units in combat. It seems our planning overlooked the fact that men get killed and wounded in battle and there was no other replacement system except breaking up these later arriving divisions.
Still all in all a good piece of planning and when the National Defense Act of 1921 came along this was used as a basis for the creation of the skeletenized mobilization troop basis, that played out fairly well in WWII. Not perfect but better.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 11, 2011 21:32:40 GMT -6
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 11, 2011 21:32:40 GMT -6
Bear in mind, I have no clue myself, but the rest of the sentence is:
"....learning from British and French instructors how to throw hand grenades, use machine guns, fire trench mortars and field artillery, do night signalling and wire cutting, and prepare for gas attacks." I can only assume that was part of basic training rather than unit basic training, which I couldn't define either.
So, I don't know but it seems like there were a number of observations that the US Army was not at risk of being over-trained for their mission. Maybe because we were going to be using their weapons anyway it made more sense to train them over there with the weapons they'd use rather than here with weapons they'd never get to use. The French had training areas without many new recruits and we, it seems, had few till the construction to receive the draftees were finished.
And if they were going to do that, why not do ALL the training over there? Having the troops there, ready or not, had to be a morale boost and the opposite to the Germans and it would make more sense than waiting for training facilities here.
But I don't know.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 11, 2011 21:44:13 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 11, 2011 21:44:13 GMT -6
DC: What you describe sounds like Basic Unit Training. Of the things you describe most, with the exception of hand grenade, (which we probably did not have in great supply for training here) are more advanced. BUT is the phase when units learn to maneuver and fight together. Basic training like the name implys is more basic, school of the soldier, rifle marksmanship, first aid and the like.
Field Artillery training in France makes sense in that Americans were equiped with French 75's and a 155mm gun whose name I do not remember. Trench mortars, NBC (only C then) and that stupid light machine gun of theirs with the open magazine. So BUT was everything above the basic level of soldering. Now that all makes sense.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 1:45:52 GMT -6
Post by wild on Jun 12, 2011 1:45:52 GMT -6
Cathal, The 155mm piece was the Canon de 155 Grande Puissance Filloux (GPF) mle.1917. It was the supply of poop to the allies which tipped the balance. [with apologies to Fred and the Big Red One.] In fact so much poop was delivered to the allies that there was none left for the farmers.Giving rise to those great big dusty thingies.So instead of the poop going down the toilet the economy went in that direction.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 6:48:50 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2011 6:48:50 GMT -6
Wild: I stand in awe of your fount of knowledge. You have to tell Fred about the kid, the mortar bombs and the pidgeon poop. He will laugh his red one off.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 8:15:22 GMT -6
Post by wild on Jun 12, 2011 8:15:22 GMT -6
Hi Cathal Will do. But here's one for you it being a slow wet Sunday afternoon here but not wanting to interrupt a serious conversation. It was my No 1 senior grand daughter's birthday a few days ago.My son's family is in Philly.Anyway I went to the bank and got a few dollars,bought birthday card and returned home to write card and post it off.Wrote message,put dollars in card and then discovered I had got an envelope too small.I did not have another one big enough.So I got a sissors and cut the card down to size.Inserted it into the envelope and went to post box and sent it off.I retrned home picked up the cut portion of the card and threw it in the garbage only to see pieces of 10 dollar bills scatter in all directions.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 8:28:16 GMT -6
Post by wild on Jun 12, 2011 8:28:16 GMT -6
Meanwhile back at the ranch. When the Yanks arrived in France they spent most of their time on range practice.Never again would they be caught as was the 1870s army. Trouble was marksmanship was redundent in 1917.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 13:28:06 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Jun 12, 2011 13:28:06 GMT -6
Wild: I have sent your name to the U S Treasurey. You may expect a visitor any day now to ask you about the unauthorized destruction of U S Curency. I just got notice yesterday that I overpaid my taxes by $55. I can float you a loan to pay you fine. Call me. I will be in Antartica for the next six years.
Marksmanship in the Army during the whole century was poor to say the very least. That was not so important in the ACW with mass and volume making up for precision. Out West it took on all new meaning and we failed to adapt, or even see the need to. WWI produced some fine marksman, but like you say it was overcome by events. They were teaching you to shoot at 300 meters or more and combat ranges were miuch less.
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 14:22:45 GMT -6
Post by markland on Jun 12, 2011 14:22:45 GMT -6
Bear in mind, I have no clue myself, but the rest of the sentence is: "....learning from British and French instructors how to throw hand grenades, use machine guns, fire trench mortars and field artillery, do night signalling and wire cutting, and prepare for gas attacks." I can only assume that was part of basic training rather than unit basic training, which I couldn't define either. So, I don't know but it seems like there were a number of observations that the US Army was not at risk of being over-trained for their mission. Maybe because we were going to be using their weapons anyway it made more sense to train them over there with the weapons they'd use rather than here with weapons they'd never get to use. The French had training areas without many new recruits and we, it seems, had few till the construction to receive the draftees were finished. And if they were going to do that, why not do ALL the training over there? Having the troops there, ready or not, had to be a morale boost and the opposite to the Germans and it would make more sense than waiting for training facilities here. But I don't know. I recommend you all read the book To Conquer Hell about the American campaign in the Meuse-Argonne. Pershing and most of his subordinates went into the battle with the same attitude that the British & French did in 1914: Attack, always attack. And, until they figured it out, the casualties were needlessly heavy. Regarding training, as the American Army & Marine divisions/regiments arrived, they usually were trained to some extent by British & French troops. Unfortunately, no one bothered training the divisional/regimental officers on lessons learned nor the machine gunners on indirect fire or the importance of communication with the artillery or.... Quinn & Wild, to put words in your mouths, marksmanship was not a useless skill. However, to put it to use you have to get within range which necessitated something throwing bodies at Maxims. By the way, after having read the aforementioned book, my formerly very positive opinion of Pershing was revised downward. Billy
|
|
|
Lenses
Jun 12, 2011 14:47:00 GMT -6
Post by benteen on Jun 12, 2011 14:47:00 GMT -6
So, By the way, after having read the aforementioned book, my formerly very positive opinion of Pershing was revised downward. Billy Markland, Billy, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "Black Jack" Pershing knew that an armistice had been signed and the war would be over at 2300 hrs that night. But ordered an attack that day. How many young American and German men were only hours away from going home but were killed because of someones ego Come to think of it , I'm reminded of someone else. Be Well Dan
|
|