Just found in Barrie Pitt´s book 1918 "The Last act" that the US troops used British and French artillery and French tanks. The author claims that the US troops thus had no US tanks or artillery of their own at all until the end of war 1918. Just curious, has anyone data to prove this claim wrong?
I believe you are right. Tanks were not introduced into battle until 1916. It was the 15th of September, 1916, that the first British tanks were used in battle, and the first French use of tanks was on April 16, 1917. The American's didn't enter the war until 1917. So, they didn't have much time to develop and manufacturer their tanks. Some of the first American tanks were the Ford 3 Ton M1918, the Ford 3 man Mark I, and the M1917.
The Tanks part i know is right off hand without even checking. The Artillery however i believe is true as well. The main asset which the Americans provided to the Alliance was their manpower, formed into their large divisions
The majority of tanks used by the US in WW1 were FT17s. I have a photo of Patton stood by one somewhere... unless my mind is playing tricks again! They did indeed use British and French equipment though I think it was in the main French artillery and tanks rather than British that was utilised. I seem to remember that they were also issued Lewis guns to make up for a lack of BARs. CvM is correct. Their main contribution was numbers but it should also be remembered that the men were not war-weary and this made a definete difference on the Western Front. Some of the US actions in WW1 make very interesting reading and they seemed to have performed remarably well. Rather a forgotten part of WW1. Wasnt it the only time that US marines saw action in Europe? And dont forget that the US also saw action, along with the British in Russia during the early part of the Civil war...
Red, a number of U.S. Marines served in Europe during WWII. U.S. Marines also saw action in Europe in 1778, when John Paul Jones led a raiding party ashore in Whitehaven, England. [ 03. January 2005, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Deep Web Diver ]
You still have good brain cells Red. I have seen the picture also of Patton by one of those small French tanks. Also add to the list the US did not have was aircraft. They had to use French planes.
Red, I don't know about the Lewis gun but I know the Doughboys were issued the French Chauchat which was a great steaming pile of totenham! It was that useless LMG with the half moon shaped magazine underneath, the one with the slot in the side so that you could see how much ammo you had, that is if it wasn't totally filled with mud. US troops and their impact on WW1 can be a very interesting subject. Personally I think (maybe a little biased here) that it was the British offensive of 1918 that brought the war to the close, the US and French offensives didn't get off the ground until much later in the year (the US got their major offensive off the ground in late October IIRC). Then again I don't think the British would have launched an offensive of that scale if there hadn't been for having American troops in reserve, not to mention the morale booster of having a new ally. Either way, an interesting debate.
The US troops used a great deal of british equipment, especially webbing equipment and helmets. Stefan is quite right the major reason for the defeat of germany was the 100 day offensive and inparticular the Battle of Amiens, 8 August, which Ludendorff described as the black day of the German Army. Though to call it a defeat is not an accurate picture of the last months of the war. At the end of the war the German Army was still a formidable field force. The reason were much more multi polar, begining with the effect of the British blockade on the civilians.
I beg to disagree or perhaps add a further reason? You are both missing the effects of the Kaiserschlact... While intially making great gains against the British it weakened the Germans immensely for the retailtory attacks. I will have to go dig out Middlebrooks book now!
The US' main contribution to the Allied cause in WWI was, without a doubt, economic. The money lent to France and Great Britain provided enough capital for these countries to go on with the fighting. And even if land actions fought by the US Army, which, as Red said, were remarkable, it was the very Germans who blew it by blooding themselves at Verdun and by waisting valuable and scarce resources in useless tactical movements in the spring of 1918. (Please notice that I do not intend to underrate the valuable actions and efforts and horrendous losses made by the British Empire, France and Russia).
Red, I have to say I agree with you but I guess it is a question of which is key, I mean the Kaiserschlacht allowed the British offensive to succeed undoubtedly. On the other hand if the Kaiserschlacht had happened but the offensive by the British did not the war would have gone on longer. It was the offensive that ended the war, thus to me it remains the decisive factor, German mistakes simply an enabling factor.
Off the topic but, still WWI.......I have to make a presentation Monday about a research paper I'm doing on the "Bonus Army" for History Research class. Any suggestions for an interesting presentation???
My thought is that two time Medal of Honor recipient and former Marine Corps Commandant Smedley Butler's involvement with the Bonus Army is interesting. The article that I linked to also mentions a Patton link to the Bonus Army that I wasn't aware of.
How ironic! I purchased that very book the same day I posted the question. I'm only a few pages into it now, but went ahead and printed that page you sent. Thanks.
You're welcome Wilconqr. Please let us know what you think of the book after you finish it. The Bonus Army is a very interesting event in American history. I would be interested in reading a good book on the subject.
