Strange account written by a US Army Ranger

I find this account rather strange, as this man participated in many Ranger missions and was part of what was probably the most highly trained special forces infantry battalion in the US Army. Were there issues, things wrong, etc. with US infantry doctrine during the earlier stage of the war (1942-1943)?

Ranger Officer Bing Evans (1st Ranger Battalion):

"Up until the Sened Station raid (Feb. 1943), we were no match for the Germans, man for man. I don't know if I should say that or not, but it's the truth. They were simply better than we were and whipping the behinds of all the Allied troops. We hadn't been seasoned yet.

But as time went on, why, things changed. We became battle-wise troops and good adversaries for them. There were some crack Italian units that were good soldiers, but the Germans were all good soldiers. The SS were extremely good. One of the reasons I think they were so good, is that they were ruthless. Ruthlessness is something that can make a good soldier. And with Americans, many times, we couldn't get ruthless until we got really mad."

 

Green troops are seldom as good as veterans. He may also have been speaking of US troops in general. If it was Italy then there's also the problem that a well thought out defense tends to make the defenders look better.

 

I wouldn't call that account strange. Its his professional opinion having witnessed the fighting first hand.

But yes, Green Troops are still wet behind the ears, and it takes more then their first baptism of fire before they become 'veterans'. Given the dates (from D-Day to the date the Ranger mentions) you've got to call that 6 months, which seems about right for turning a Green Unit into a battle-hardened one. 6 months of fighting and your survival instinct is in full gear, you have a much better understanding of the enemy and how the enemy fights, you're used to life on the front line, etc.

 

Keep in mind the Germans had a few years of experience prior to D-Day Landings in Normandy, not to mention a good portion of men having served in a Para-Military group of some sort in the 1930's.

 

Another thing to remember is that Germany did not have conscription prior to 1935 and as the war went on German Army started to run out of "seasoned" veterans and started to replace them with less experienced soldiers. German Army of 1941 and 1945 are two different things. This does not take away from the fact that Allied soldiers got better over time.

 

Nothing strange about this. I have been trying to tell you this for three weeks. The Germans were the best trained by far they just bit off more than they can chew.

 

I remember reading somewhere that Hitler wanted to expand the German army faster prior to WWII. His generals told him that it would be a bad idea because they couldn't train NCOs and junior officers fast enough to support it. There is probably a pretty good case to be made that this was the biggest problem faced by US troops as far as training goes.

 

Apparently, the Rangers were selective but not as highly trained as I thought. Their additional training was only composed of a 4-month course. As for his opposition, the Ranger officer most likely encountered various German armored and infantry units. Afrika Korps, FG, HG division, etc. His comments about the SS are probably directed towards members of the 16.SS Armored infantry division.

Looking at the Ranger chronology:

June 1942- Ranger volunteers for the 1st US Army Ranger battalion are hand picked from thousands of volunteers. 30% of the officers, ncos, and men were chosen from the 1st US armored division. 60% were chosen from the 34th Infantry division. 10% are from other.

July 1942-October 1942- Training with British Commandos

November 1942- Operation Torch

 

Rangers have always been a elite unit. Why don't you man up and actually give the Germans and the Waffen SS their due?

 

I don't like the tone I see appearing in this thread.

P_twinlugers:

Keep in mind that the Rangers, as we think of them today, were non-existent back then and hadn't developed a highly-specialized training regime. The Germans were rich in Military history (Prussia anyone?) and highly trained their specialized units. It all has to do with the doctrines and policies adopted post-WW1 in the interwar years (for instance, getting rid of Snipers etc at the end of WWI only to bring them back later in WWII).

 

That's true. When one thinks of Rangers today they think of combat professionals that have been training for years.

Now, it makes more sense now, as a lot of them were from 1st Armored, which ran into a lot difficulties in North Africa (Kasserine Pass, etc.). I can assume that the infantry (and armor) doctrine was greatly improved after those first few encounters.

Interestingly enough, the first US Ranger battalion was deactivated in August 1944.

 

There's a new book that details the evolution of US armor doctrine in WW2 printed by Stackpole. I don't remember the exact name, unfortunately.

It would be interesting to see materials on the evolution of US infantry doctrine in WW2 as well.

 

Well that Ranger made no misconception with his statement.

-Germany has always had very intelligent military men as well as revolutionary tacticians.

-Like most other European countries, the men were all generally healthy and physically fit.

-Their divisions generally stayed in the field quite longer that the Allies would allowed for their own; which allowed for the troops to have quite a haul of experience.

-Weapons used by Germany were proven to be quite effective on the field; which sometime negated the reliability.

 

Evans was a 2nd. Lt. at the time of Torch. So given his role as a commando, his perspective is from a smaller scale, IE. firefights, etc.

The entire account:

Ranger Officer Bing Evans (1st Ranger Battalion):

"General Rommel was probably one of the best field commanders to come out of WW2 from either side. We saw a lot of his men. Up until the Sened Station raid (Feb. 1943), we were no match for the Germans, man for man. I don't know if I should say that or not, but it's the truth. They were simply better than we were and whipping the behinds of all the Allied troops. We hadn't been seasoned yet.

But as time went on, why, things changed. We became battle-wise troops and good adversaries for them. There were some crack Italian units that were good soldiers, but the Germans were all good soldiers. The SS were extremely good. One of the reasons I think they were so good, is that they were ruthless. Ruthlessness is something that can make a good soldier. And with Americans, many times, we couldn't get ruthless until we got really mad.

Not all the Italian civilians, or soldiers for that matter, were on the side of the Germans. In fact, we never knew which side they were on. I believe that they were on the side of whoever was handy. I don't ever remember being helped by them, but occasionally we would scare one of them enough so that they would help use. We knew an Italian would tell the Germans where we were if he had a chance to leave.

So, if we were behind the lines in the middle of enemy terroritory, and if we had a few Italians by our side, we'd keep them with us and threaten them with their lives. They knew what it meant when we pointed a gun at them. They were usually happy to stay.

The Italians were lovers not fighters. That's all I can say. I remember one time they gave up in drove about five times more of them than us, their captors. We just turned them over to someone else. The Italian prisoners didn't have to be watched as much as the German prisoners."

 

Nah, I didn't mean for it to come across that way. I just need to express myself better.