april dispatches (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter vandilay
- Start date
redhugh
Master Sergeant
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,348
We of the SOHK & IC Collectors Appreciation Society would like to applaud the latest offering available in this months’ dispatches. You guys really don’t know what you’re missing.
Jeff
What sort of cammo is that, oak-leaf
where's his helmet
aujj65
Colonel
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 9,153
What sort of cammo is that, oak-leaf
Yes, now that you mention it....
Jeff
Currahee Chris
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,776
Oh! A controversy here?
Pierre.
Oh no you don't- don't go luring me into this thing
Sure Brad, I'd be happy to.
I think we can all agree that Louis has issues with senior US commanders and after awhile, to me at any rate, it grows tiresome. I go to shows, I go to conventions and wargaming events and I hear all these opinions about how MacArthur was a thoughtless SOB, Patton was a psychopath and a myriad of littanies against Ike and DDay. At some point in time, my pride as a soldier kicks in and I get tired of hearing it. I look at these guys- they have read all the books till Sunday on this and that battle and how Ike screwed up and all of a sudden, they are experts- never mind that for some reason they missed the books (for those not in the loop- commonly refered to as Field Manuals in US Army jargon)-covering the nuts and bolts of soldiering- for example- could these armchair historians, strategists, etc shoot an azimuth (much less know what it means) could they field strip a 16 (or M1), competently clear the bore of an 81 mortar, competently call in indirect fire without blowing their platoon to dust in the process or a myriad of other basic soldiering that need to be mastered before we can start sitting about planning operations like Overlord, Enduring Freedom, etc, etc. Yet for some reason, somewhere in their minds they begin to think that because they have read some books, saw a documentary or two, they have some competence in the art of strategic operations.
I got news for you- you don't- neither do I. I just guess I have enough sense or respect for the individuals who do to understand that saying certain divisions were "Sacrificed" is just utter nonsense.
And yes, I have been to West Point several times and of course to the War College here in Carlisle. I have gotten to know several field grade military officers and a general officer or two to know that, they are actually human beings who despise warfare and the underlying cost in human lives. No one in US command at any level goes about "sacrificing" US soldiers, sailors and airmen. The toll that these types of decisions take on them is unGodly. I for one and very very thankful we had commanders like Patton, Mac and Ike who had the guts to make the calls when they needed to be made- and, more importantly, were willing to live with the ire of public scrutiny for those decisions ('cept Patton).
Darn you Pierre!!
This probably reads as a personal attack on Louis- it isn't- guess it's just a pet peeve of mine. No need for apologies or anything like that- I am probably just being oversensitive to the point of absurdity.
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 18,137
Chris,
I don't take it as a personal attack. You are absolutely right that I have little or know knowledge of the nuts and bolts of soldiering. I respect the heck out of those brave young men who have learned the skills of soldiering and used them to protect my life and freedom.
Where I think that there is any disagreement between our positions is on the grand tactical/strategic levels. Again, I am no expert, and would never have the hubris to offer to lead troops into battle, but I have spent the past 30 years ago devouring every treatise I could get my hands on about military strategy and tactics, and reading and collecting just about every first hand account of WWII campaigns written by Allied and (rarely) axis troops who actually participated.
Based on reading these accounts, I have developed an opinion that our brave Allied troops were often poorly led and let down by their commanders. This is my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. I would like to think it is an educated opinion, but it is based on books not first hand experience. I was not there. However, I stand by my opinion, based on the fact that many of the actual U.S. and other Allied combat officers and enlisted men whose accounts I have read condemn elements of our leadership for setting them to perform often impossible or incredibly difficult tasks due to poor preparation, failure to actually approach the front line and study the ground in question, and failure to analyze or appreciate intelligence. And no, I will not cut the leaders who made these mistakes any slack just because they were on our side. If you do become a career officer, attain the rank of General, and thereby command troops, you bloody well better learn your job right and do it well.
American history is rife with commanders who had the hubris and pride to seek high command, but not the skill or know-how to lead the brave American troops whose lives had been entrusted to them.
On the other hand, we have had our share of great generals as well, from Knox in the Revolution through Sherman in the Civil War, Peirshing in WWI, James Gavin and Matthew Ridgeway in WWII through Norman Schwartzkopf in Desert Storm.
As to the specific comment you took umbrage with, about sacrificing the 29th Infantry Division, this is based on reading several books about D-Day, all of which noted that the Allied commanders, not just Ike, expected as much as 50% casualties in the first wave, and consciously chose and decided to put inexperienced unblooded divisions into the first wave (except for specialty forces like the Airborne and the Rangers with specific tasks), so as to save the experienced Divisions for the breakout. This statement was not intended by me to be a judgment against the Allied Commanders. Under those circumstances, the decision to put green troops in harms way and preserve the proven fighting Divisions for the hard fight to come, certainly seems to be the correct one.
In any event, I certainly had no desire to tick you off. I do not claim to be in any way shape or form a competent military commander, just a student of military history who has formed an opinion. You have formed a different opinion. I will certainly try to respect yours, whether or not you can respect mine.
Canadian Samurai
Staff Sergeant
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 808
Yes, except they are missing every defining element of D-Day beach equipment: black gasmask bag around the neck, gas detection arm band, assault vest, floatation belt etc. It's possible for individual guys to have dropped all that stuff but not on mass. It would be good to intermingle them with some of K&C's existing Rangers so that fact doesn't stand out as much.
Binder's point that these can also be used in Sicily is a good one: another overlooked theatre in WW2. They don't work for mainland Italy because Big Red One never fought there.
Pierre
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 1,410
Oh no you don't- don't go luring me into this thing
(...)
Darn you Pierre!!
Hi Chris-
I was just happy that for one time I was not involved (or looked as involved) in something in a thread devoted to K&C
Mes meilleures amitiés,
Pierre.
tdubel
Major
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,893
Generals, some were good, some were not, true in every war.
What's missing from the analysis is the political/espionage side. For instance, Stormin Norman could have dismantled Iraq in 1990, but the politicos stopped him.
Patton to me was a great general, he really understood the art of war. My opinion, WW2 was a war strategized and fought with the idea of overwhelming force in the way of numbers of soldiers and numbers of weapons and numbers of tanks. Therefore, the strategies that involved unfortunate casualties seemed to be the right one, ie. we had people we could "afford to lose" or sacrifice for the cause". I am not passing judgement on this, but I believe its a true statement. Gentleman, war is not for the sentimental or the weak of heart or the pondering of thoughts, it is just war, there is an end goal.
Sorry to sound cold and it is easy to say that from the sidelines, but I believe it is also common sense. You fight a war to win, in WW2, that is how we operated and we had the strategy, the force and the tools (and allies) to do it.
TD
What's missing from the analysis is the political/espionage side. For instance, Stormin Norman could have dismantled Iraq in 1990, but the politicos stopped him.
Patton to me was a great general, he really understood the art of war. My opinion, WW2 was a war strategized and fought with the idea of overwhelming force in the way of numbers of soldiers and numbers of weapons and numbers of tanks. Therefore, the strategies that involved unfortunate casualties seemed to be the right one, ie. we had people we could "afford to lose" or sacrifice for the cause". I am not passing judgement on this, but I believe its a true statement. Gentleman, war is not for the sentimental or the weak of heart or the pondering of thoughts, it is just war, there is an end goal.
Sorry to sound cold and it is easy to say that from the sidelines, but I believe it is also common sense. You fight a war to win, in WW2, that is how we operated and we had the strategy, the force and the tools (and allies) to do it.
TD
Rob
Four Star General
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 26,622
Thanks CS,i like the mixing idea,or maybe i'll keep my Big Red for action after the beach landing.
Rob
binder001
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,729
Yes and no. One explanation for the 29th leading was that even though green they were well trained and being green they were no as likely to be "overly wary" of advancing as troops who had gone through a previous invasion might be. Kind of a trade off - comabt experience versus innocent enthusiasm. Look at the British 7th Armoured Division in Normandy - the famous "Desert Rats" performance was disappointing to Monty and he had to relieve the commander and some other officers.
I agree that in a number of cases many brave Americans (and other men) were thrown into action by commanders who did not appreciate the nature of the combat or the lay of the land.
Gary
Harrytheheid
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,672
Oh, so they're not just ornaments then.....
Only kiddin' Rob...
The new SOHK set is a must have. The Big Red One figures are exactly what I've been looking for - for a future Tunisian dio. The new 88 vehicle looks mega.
Don't think anyone can complain too much about these despatches.
Cheers
H
OzDigger
Colonel
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Messages
- 8,521
Would now be a good time to bump an old 'Politics v Military Command' thread
http://www.treefrogtreasures.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1010&page=4
tdubel
Major
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,893
Great read on that thread OZ.
Seriously, I really should get my stepdad on here, he used to be Branch/Division Chief in the Army Research Lab at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Retired after 30 years, PHD, patents, the whole nine yards and yes, you guessed it in Weapons. He is a walking historian/encyclopedia on this stuff especially WW2 tanks. And yes, he is one of the clan who can spot a flaw/falsehood a mile away on miniatures, for the record, he laughed at the RJ and Heydrich car. (He did still think they were neat models that were well done). ANyhow, I will see if I can get him on here some time to resurrect the Monte/Patton/Rommel and various Tank debate, it should be pretty interesting. I will just have to make sure he "dumbs it down" (for my benefit, not the esteemed scholars of the board). I thought I was smart until I met him!
Tom
Seriously, I really should get my stepdad on here, he used to be Branch/Division Chief in the Army Research Lab at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Retired after 30 years, PHD, patents, the whole nine yards and yes, you guessed it in Weapons. He is a walking historian/encyclopedia on this stuff especially WW2 tanks. And yes, he is one of the clan who can spot a flaw/falsehood a mile away on miniatures, for the record, he laughed at the RJ and Heydrich car. (He did still think they were neat models that were well done). ANyhow, I will see if I can get him on here some time to resurrect the Monte/Patton/Rommel and various Tank debate, it should be pretty interesting. I will just have to make sure he "dumbs it down" (for my benefit, not the esteemed scholars of the board). I thought I was smart until I met him!
Tom
Rob
Four Star General
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 26,622
Hey Simon.The new Bulge figures are spot on arn't they.So far i have three of the sets Walking wounded,Bazooka team,and Command set.The faces,poses and sculpting are all first class.I think K&C have had faces nailed for some time now.I have the set EA15 'Returning fire' and the faces on these are very good.Especially the guy kneeling making ready with his Lee Enfield.I also think the same is true of the Arnhem figures,you really have to see these up close before you realise how good they are.
Rob