America's Army Sucks, Fact

Montgomery-- was borderline
incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
Crap,
he planned the raid of Dieppe. Look how that turned out.


I wonder why Brits under command of incompetent Generals suffered much less
casaulties than US soldiers under command of military geniuses on D-Day?

Denyav wrote:

Montgomery-- was borderline
incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
Crap,
he planned the raid of Dieppe. Look how that turned out.


I wonder why Brits under command of incompetent Generals suffered much less
casaulties than US soldiers under command of military geniuses on D-Day?

because the US drew the toughest sectors?

redc1c4,
"Market Garden"... 'nuff said.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."

Army Officer's Guide

redc1c4 wrote:

Denyav wrote:

I wonder why Brits under command of incompetent Generals suffered much less
casaulties than US soldiers under command of military geniuses on D-Day?

because the US drew the toughest sectors?

No, because the Brits stopped for tea! Yes. Really. Folks who were there have
told me about it.

-- Charlie Springer

Montgomery-- was borderline
incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
Crap,
he planned the raid of Dieppe. Look how that turned out.


I wonder why Brits under command of incompetent Generals suffered much less
casaulties than US soldiers under command of military geniuses on D-Day?


At least partly because the Americans faced a first line infantry formation
that was on manuevers in the area right behind Omaha Beach.

At Utah, the US casualties were similar to those on Brit/Canadian beaches.

Walt

On 31 May 2004 03:11:43 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

Montgomery-- was borderline
incompetent. None of his plans ever worked even remotely as advertised.
Crap,
he planned the raid of Dieppe. Look how that turned out.


I wonder why Brits under command of incompetent Generals suffered much less
casaulties than US soldiers under command of military geniuses on D-Day?
you need to study the US civil war and compare MCCLELLAN and Grant to
see why the US didnt like Monte. Grant lost way more people in one day
then MCCLELLAN would loose in his whole tour, but Mcclellan would not
gain any ground, Grant did. All those people that died serveing
MCCLELLAN died for nogthing, and that is the true waste in war.

JMO

you need to study the US civil war and compare MCCLELLAN and Grant to
see why the US didnt like Monte. Grant lost way more people in one day
then MCCLELLAN would loose in his whole tour, but Mcclellan would not
gain any ground, Grant did. All

Overwhelming force (translationlenty of gun fodders) makes
Butchers like Grant or Sherman win and the finest officers North American
continent has ever seen like Lee,Forrest or Stuart lose.

you need to study the US civil war and compare MCCLELLAN and Grant to
see why the US didnt like Monte. Grant lost way more people in one day
then MCCLELLAN would loose in his whole tour, but Mcclellan would not
gain any ground, Grant did. All

Overwhelming force (translationlenty of gun fodders) makes
Butchers like Grant or Sherman win and the finest officers North American
continent has ever seen like Lee,Forrest or Stuart lose.



More in one day? Didn't McClellan command at Antietam?

Bad civilian leadership will negate any military prowess. Look at the Germans.

The rebel government was extremely incompetent. State governments often just
ignored edicts from Richmond. The rebel government also had to resort to
conscription early on. When things started going badly, the rebel armies
largely faded away. There was little that the government in Richmond could do
to stop it.

Neither Grant nor Sherman were butchers. They were both masters of Maneuver.

In his campaign around Vicksburg, Grant used maneuver well and extensively to
defeat the rebels when they had generally more forces available than he did.
In the overland campaign, Grant constantly maneuvered around Lee's left. This
was ultimately successful. Grant did order the Cold Harbor assault. He
learned from that. Lee it was for 'hey-diddle-diddle-right up the middle'
tactics. He lost more men on every day of the Seven Days Battle than little
Mac did, and don't forget the third day at Gettysburg. No wonder Lee's army
was riven with desertion.

Sherman constantly turned the rebel forces out of ther positions during the
Atlanta campaign. After he left Atlanta, no sizeable rebel force opposed him
at all.

And don't forget Hood, who had seen that third days' attack at Gettyburg, yet
practically immolated his army at Franklin.



Walt

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
you need to study the US civil war and compare MCCLELLAN and Grant to
see why the US didnt like Monte. Grant lost way more people in one day
then MCCLELLAN would loose in his whole tour, but Mcclellan would not
gain any ground, Grant did. All

Overwhelming force (translationlenty of gun fodders) makes
Butchers like Grant or Sherman win and the finest officers North American
continent has ever seen like Lee,Forrest or Stuart lose.


In fact Lee lost a greater percentage of his troops then
Grant ever did and Sherman's losses were suprisingly small
considering the boldness of his campaigns, marching
across the confederacy with an army of 60,000 men
cutting their own roads through forests and swamps
and laying waster to Georgia and the Carolina's was
a complete revolution in military practise. Sherman
and Grant were in many ways the first of the modern
Generals ffighting a total war.


Overall 11% of union soldiers became casualties
compared with 15% of confederates.

It was Lee who threw away men's lives at Gettysburg
and Nathan Bedford Forrest who had his men launch a
frontal attack on a Union force that badly outnumbered
them at Tupelo suffering considerable losses to no effect.

Worse still at Franklin John Bell Hood murdered 6000
of his own men and 6 generals in pointless frontal attacks
that fatally weakened his army and led to its rout at
Nashville.

Keith

In fact Lee lost a greater percentage of his troops then
Grant ever did and Sherman's losses were suprisingly small
considering the boldness of his

Surely,If your Army is 100000 men strong the loss of 5000 men percentagewise
insignificant,But if you have only 25000 men,loss of 5000 men is very
significant.

Even during so called Union victory at Gettysburg, Union lost more soldiers
than Confederates but percentagewise Union casaulties were less than 25% of
their streght,but Lee lost almost half of his force.

considering the boldness of his campaigns, marching
across the confederacy with an army of 60,000 men
cutting their own roads through forests and swamps

Dare to compare their actions with Nathan Forrests'.
(He could not even dream of having 60000 men )

a complete revolution in military practise. Sherman
and Grant were in many ways the first of the modern
Generals ffighting a total war.

He was simply a Butcher without military finesse of Lee and other Confederate
commanders.
His legacy is the main reason why US military was and is unable to win anywhere
without "overwhelming power" which always means "lots of gun fodders".

It was Lee who threw away men's lives at Gettysburg
and Nathan Bedford Forrest who had his men launch a
frontal attack on a Union force that badly outnumbered
them at Tupelo suffering considerable losses to no effect.

They had no other chance,unlike Union that was able to replace losses within
days with fresh immigrants,they had no chance of fighting on equal or near
equal terms.

Worse still at Franklin John Bell Hood murdered 6000
of his own men and 6 generals in pointless frontal attacks
that fatally weakened his army and led to its rout at
Nashville.

True.But when you speak about Confederates you speak about American Aristocrats
and Knights,a breed that unfortunately does not exist in US anymore.
BTW I am sure you know the story of light cavallery during Crimean War.Mistakes
happen in wars,sometimes the mistakes themselves show the quality of fighters
who try to carry out orders.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
In fact Lee lost a greater percentage of his troops then
Grant ever did and Sherman's losses were suprisingly small
considering the boldness of his

Surely,If your Army is 100000 men strong the loss of 5000 men
percentagewise
insignificant,But if you have only 25000 men,loss of 5000 men is very
significant.


Conversely if outnumbered you should be husbanding
your scarce manpower.

Even during so called Union victory at Gettysburg, Union lost more
soldiers
than Confederates but percentagewise Union casaulties were less than 25%
of
their streght,but Lee lost almost half of his force.


Incorrect. While exact figures for the Confederate casualties arent
available
the most common estimates place them at between 20,000 and 28,000
while Union casualties were 23,000. The Confederates were
around 75,000 strong while the total strength of the army
of the Potomac was aroun 97,000. However on the first
day only a fraction of the Union force was present

considering the boldness of his campaigns, marching
across the confederacy with an army of 60,000 men
cutting their own roads through forests and swamps

Dare to compare their actions with Nathan Forrests'.
(He could not even dream of having 60000 men )


He could have if Lee hadnt left 25,000 of them at Gettysburg

a complete revolution in military practise. Sherman
and Grant were in many ways the first of the modern
Generals ffighting a total war.

He was simply a Butcher without military finesse of Lee and other
Confederate
commanders.

Not so, he outmanoevered and outfought the Confederates deep
in their own territory

His legacy is the main reason why US military was and is unable to win
anywhere
without "overwhelming power" which always means "lots of gun fodders".

It was Lee who threw away men's lives at Gettysburg
and Nathan Bedford Forrest who had his men launch a
frontal attack on a Union force that badly outnumbered
them at Tupelo suffering considerable losses to no effect.

They had no other chance,unlike Union that was able to replace losses
within
days with fresh immigrants,they had no chance of fighting on equal or near
equal terms.


Which makes throwing away lives pointlessly even more stupid.

Worse still at Franklin John Bell Hood murdered 6000
of his own men and 6 generals in pointless frontal attacks
that fatally weakened his army and led to its rout at
Nashville.

True.But when you speak about Confederates you speak about American
Aristocrats
and Knights,a breed that unfortunately does not exist in US anymore.

No. Nathan Bedford Forrest was a slaver who murdered his prisoners.
In the 20th century he'd have been executed for war crimes.

BTW I am sure you know the story of light cavallery during Crimean
War.Mistakes
happen in wars,sometimes the mistakes themselves show the quality of
fighters
who try to carry out orders.

Enough of them lose the war.

Keith