With all respect I think you might have been reading a bit of revisionist history ala Stephen Ambrose.
This quote about the American Expeditionary Force comes from Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_States_in_World_War_I): “The high casualty rate sustained at a time when Allied casualty rates were lighter can be attributed to Pershing's insistence on doing things his way and not incorporating the latest field tested tactics that were proving successful to other Allied commanders on the ground”. I know Wikipedia is not a particularly great source, however that’s what I could dig up quickly. I do not own many books on US involvement in WW1, but I have read a lot from the library and watched some television shows (apparently not the one Mitch saw!) that consistently regard the American expeditionary force as quite tactically deficient and that they won many of their battles by force of numbers alone. The individual U.S. soldiers should be commended for their impressive aggressiveness and élan, however its commanders should have been a bit smarter with the lives of their men.
Early on Pershing’s conception of stormtrooper tactics was a bit primitive: snipe at the enemy with your rifles to pin him down, then charge right at him, and finally hopefully bayonet him to death. Like I said, more or less 1914 human wave tactics minus hiding in the trench beforehand. American casualty rates in Belleau Woods and Argonne were scarcely better than the British in the Somme, in spite of the fact the German army was in retreat and a shadow of its former strength during those battles. The Americans could have and should have followed the tactics practiced by the Canadians which made them the best shock army in the world at that time.
And from my comments above you'll know I agree that Haig was a complete idiot who should have been sacked in favour of someone more competent like Currie. But Haig was certainly not the only British, French or Commonwealth general! Lower ranking generals were getting the picture hence the stunning combined Brit/Canadian/Australian/French success of the Amiens and subsequent offensives. And even Haig didn’t do a bad job coordinating the hundred days offensive which ended the war; he was also becoming more cautious with his troop’s lives near the end so I wouldn’t say he learned absolutely nothing. Surely you do not think America was single-handedly winning the victories of the last 100 days, or even that it carried the majority of the weight of these final offensives? I think that credit would go to Canada, as the French would say "Les cent jours du Canada" (Canada's Hundred Days).
Werent the Americans supposed to break through at Eindhoven and link up with the brave and resourceful and dashing British paras
![]()
I have never in my life ever said anything negative about any country's commanders or leadership (well, except Napoleon). I have never EVER said anything negative about Monty or anyone else. I do value all military traditions from across the globe and do my very best to avoid playing Monday morning general. Please note that this posting was intended to give some of my "Napoleonic" friends a chance to pick on me a bit as I always razz them about their appreciation of Nap- namely Wellington and Cap Ron- nothing more- If memory serves, I did, from the beginning, CLEARLY identify that there was no scientific thought put into this whatsoever and that it was simply just to liven/loosen things up- guess it got things going lively enough
- This was a list of my favorites, nothing more. Do they happen to be American, yes, for the most part they are- how this got twisted into me not supporting other countries leadership is beyond me.
Simply put, this was one soldiers way of discussing his favorite commanders and if anyone here has felt that I have slighted their country or their military tradition, I am terribly sorry for that. That was NEVER my intention.
Shannon and Peter- I offer my deepest apologies yet again for opening a can of worms with another one of my threads, trust me, it wasn't my intention.
You guys stay cool and live free- CC signing off. It's been a fun ride.
Hi CC, I hope you reconsider leaving the forum because you cannot be held accountable for the actions of other members. I also hope that my post(s) didn't influence you in any way as I was speaking in general terms when I suggested members read military books from a variety of countries.
It's human nature to jump to the defence of your own country and also to have a biased view of most things, including military history.....and military models.
I have never in my life ever said anything negative about any country's commanders or leadership (well, except Napoleon). I have never EVER said anything negative about Monty or anyone else. I do value all military traditions from across the globe and do my very best to avoid playing Monday morning general. Please note that this posting was intended to give some of my "Napoleonic" friends a chance to pick on me a bit as I always razz them about their appreciation of Nap- namely Wellington and Cap Ron- nothing more- If memory serves, I did, from the beginning, CLEARLY identify that there was no scientific thought put into this whatsoever and that it was simply just to liven/loosen things up- guess it got things going lively enough
- This was a list of my favorites, nothing more. Do they happen to be American, yes, for the most part they are- how this got twisted into me not supporting other countries leadership is beyond me.
Simply put, this was one soldiers way of discussing his favorite commanders and if anyone here has felt that I have slighted their country or their military tradition, I am terribly sorry for that. That was NEVER my intention.
Shannon and Peter- I offer my deepest apologies yet again for opening a can of worms with another one of my threads, trust me, it wasn't my intention.
You guys stay cool and live free- CC signing off. It's been a fun ride.
Hi CC, I hope you reconsider leaving the forum because you cannot be held accountable for the actions of other members. I also hope that my post(s) didn't influence you in any way as I was speaking in general terms when I suggested members read military books from a variety of countries.
It's human nature to jump to the defence of your own country and also to have a biased view of most things, including military history.....and military models. A good recent example being K & C's BBA013 "JES Make Sure He is Dead" figure set, that depicts a couple of GI's apparently considering shooting a "dead" German soldier with a BAR....just to be sure:
![]()
I suspect if that were two Germans soldiers about to shoot an "apparently" dead GI I'd say Andy would have received a number of complaints by now as well as an issue of some debate on this forum.
To be honest this set doesn't worry me in the slightest.I like it.It was war,they were the enemy,its what happened.I think its a very natural set and it probably happened all the time.I hope i would not be upset if it was a Brit or GI either,its realistic and its what our young men had to do to come home alive.
Rob