Infantry of World War 2

The British conscripts equivalent to the U.S. conscripts, or the Russian conscripts? 'Cause the Russian conscripts were farmers with guns shoved into thier and shoved at the enemies.

 

Okay, then I'll aks you to give me one example of a battle where American infantry showed outstanding perosnal initiative and skill. Just regular infantry, no airbornes or assault engineers or marines, just the ordinary standard infantry division.

 

Roel,

How about at St Vith, 1944?

Let's see... was it the 106th?

 

Yes, that was the 106th Infantry with exactly ten days of field experience... You've got me there. But I said before that the Ardennes is one of the few occasions where Ameircan infantry draws praise for its actions.

 

Exactly Roel. There aren't a whole lot of examples to be had.

When one has the ability to "Overwhelm and Devastate", and who's doctrine is to do so, it does not allow to many examples and opportunities for individual units to shine.

America has been one to win through superior firepower and have done so quite impressively for some time. Only when there have been a few isolated instances such as the Battle of the Bulge (Bastogne, St Vith), has there been American units in desperate circumstances.

Germany on the other hand, had many times placed their troops in desperate circumstances so naturally you have more instances of individual valor.

:smok:

 

It should be said that the German troops had one ability no one else could usually match: The ability to form ad hoc combat units on very short notice and have them fight effectively. They were called "kampfgruppen", if memory serves me correctly, and could consist of any mixture of troop types (infantry, engineers, signals, etc.). When anyone else tried to do something similar, the results were usually disastrous, one of the few exceptions being what was known as Team SNAFU in the Battle of the Bulge. Lack of unit identity tended to doom ad hoc units in most armies, though. Only the Germans pulled it off consistently.

 

How about the 2nd battalion, 120th Infantry regiment, 30th Infantry division defense of hill 317 at Mortain in August 1944 for just one example.

 

Roel,

Another instance might be Omaha beach on D-Day. I'd say the American GI's showd their metal that day!

:smok:

 

Absolutely, no question there.

(to stir the pot, though, they did have rather a lot of firepower at their disposal...)

I think, in general, you tend to find that infantry of any nationality is inclined to be bloody stubborn when it needs to be!

However, Roel was asking about "outstanding perosnal initiative and skill" not simply supreme courage etc.

I look forward to your answers!

 

Back to the Jap soldiers. I don't think they were that good, just loyal to the emperor and slightly crazy. Talking to vets that fought with my grandfather and reading my grandfather's letters, I have run into lots of accounts of the banzai attacks and other suicidal tendancies(sp?). They even used the Okinawan civilians to suicide attack the american marines b/c they lied to them and told them all the horrible things the americans would do to them.

Some japs stayed on Iowa Jima for years after the war b/c they didn't know that Japan had surrendered.

I think that Germans were very well trained, but the numbers of American infantry outweighed their inefficiencies.

 

They did have a lot of time to practice in the long retreat in Russia and the shells of units joining to fight on the Western Front. Other countries may not have been as efficent at it because the need was never there as much as for the Germans.

 

Japanese, please.

Yes, this was all part of the Bushido code of honor.

I belive the last Japanese soldeir to surrender on Okinawa was in 1974-5.

 

Ddin't they find one a couple of years ago, still wearing some rags of his 1945 uniform? This might be a blown-up story but I'm not sure. Just serves to show their dedication, which has no equal. You might want to show some respect for this, KKlover.

 

What about the Gurkhas, anyone who has read about them or served with them has to admire them. Also aussies and Kiwis. I happen to be english too. 8)

 

True, it shows dedication and loyalty, but to that extreme? I think some of them were a bit off the deep end. But yes, that dedication is unseen anywhere else in WW2.

I also remember a story about a Jap who was went back to Iwo Jima (or maybe Okinawa) to be part of a TV series. As he was being interviewed and telling his story, he jumped up and ran off a cliff yelling the banzai yell. Maybe this was just a fabricated story, but I wouldn't be suprised if it were true. Anyone else hear anything like this?

 

That dedication came from the fact that Japanese believed that if you surrender, you also surrender all rights as a human being. They treated their prisoners as such. I can't respect that. That is a sick concept.

 

Yes, the Gurkhas were good soldiers. But could they be considered a strong fighting force (b/c of their limited number)? I heard that the British soldiers did or still do train with the Gurkha knives.

 

Yes. Watch a Bridge over the River Kwai and you get that feeling from the beginning. My grandfather said they didn't take many Jap prisoners because of this (they simply didn't surrender).

 

Only the ones who have bought them. they are not official issue.

As for fighting force, We have a brigade of Ghurka's, our army is not big but just better trained (now that is). We rely on utilising the locals under our training to fight.

If it came down to fight with a regiment of Ghurkas against a regiment from any army or to fight with any regiment against the Gurkhas, personally I would chose the Gurkhas.

 

Sorry or unless you have srved with a Gurkha unit.