How Did the American Soldier Stack Up Against the Enemy in WWII?

Great Debates
21

I have heard criticism of the combat capability of the American soldier from British veterans particularly with their performance in North Africa and Italy. Of course this is what I heard in Canada from British immigrants back in the 50’s and 60’s. These comments were usually associated with discussion of the late entry of America in the world wars. Also I believe there was a great reluctance to accept that some colonial upstart had surpassed the European powers with the military culture and institutions that prepare troops for war. Remember also the Japanese view prior to Pearl Harbour. American military success up to that time was attributed mostly to their wealth of materiel.

As to the validity of these perceptions, very recently I viewed a documentary on LBJ,s classified comments during the Vietnam war. The specifics of this particular comment might not be exact but the general tone is relevant. He wondered how America could possibly win the war when the enemy soldier was capable of remaining very still in ambush for 20 hours in a rut, while the American soldier required a cigarette after 20 minutes.

22

It seem to me that the biggest difference between American and German individual soldiers and formation in the European Theater was that until the end, that is until January, 1945, the Germans tended to be veterans while the Americans were not. More importantly German commanders were experienced while American commanders were not. You cannot under estimate the importance of veteran leadership. Even though there might be individuals in a unit without experience, the presence of veteran NCOs and junior officers will establish the unit’s level of fitness for combat. I will argue that the experience of small unit leaders makes all the difference and that the Germans had the advantage in this department.

23

This is probably the most accurate appraisal I’ve read. Read Max Hasting’s “Overlord” – he goes into considerable comparisons between American, British, and German combat “styles”. The book is about the whole 2-3 month campaign until the “breakout” from the hedgerows.

His claim is that the average German soldier inflicted 50% more casualties than the average American soldier. This, he says, held true throughout the war regardless of battle conditions, i.e, regardless of what side had techtical, numeric or strategic superiority in a given situation. It held true even when the Allies were decoding German military communications faster than the Germans were. Good thing there were so many others killing Germans as well.

I read Hastings back to back with Stephen Ambrose’s D-Day. Ambrose comes off as such a cheerleader for America that I tend to believe Hastings is more unbiased.

24

If true, (and I have no reason to challenge it), it says nothing about the effectiveness of the troops. An attacking force will always suffer higher casualties than a defending force (providing there is any equivalence in weaponry) and the U.S. was constantly on the attack. What were his figures for the British troops to the North and East of the U.S. forces in Normandy?

A separate consideration is that most commentators on the Normandy campaign note that the U.S. was quite willing to exchange bodies for yardage (more so than the British who had already sacrificed a lot more soldiers in the first years of the war). Under those circumstances, the strategy of the advance is liable to have a deleterious effect in comparing the effectiveness of the actual troops when casualties are the only guideline.

(I am not going to make any claims that the U.S. forces were clearly better than (or even clearly equal to) their opponents or allies. I merely note that I believe that the trigger statement of the OP that indicated there was no respect for the U.S. soldier and that he deserved no respect is an exaggeration.)

25

The Germans were often on the attack, from small unit patrols to to division strength assaults. You’ll have to judge for yourself by reading him, but his claim is that soldier for soldier, a German was significantly more effective. He acknowledges that American and British elite units were the equal of any, but in the “line” infantry divisions the quality of German soldiers was superior.

26

FWIW, Max Hastings comes to the subject from a journalistic background rather than as an Historian - he was actually the first Brit into Port Stanley at the end of the Falklands War, walking in as the flags went up. He’s now Editor of the London Evening Standard.

I actually think he is reasonably objective in his writing – although how deep is his analysis I don’t know in this case - but nonetheless I found this interesting (with the usual warnings about the impartiality of the .org reviewing the book – although Canadian in this case):

http://www.stratnet.ucalgary.ca/journal/bookreview5.html

<quote>
Following on the heels of Stephen Ambrose’s D-Day and Citizen Soldiers, this study reinforces Ambrose’s contention that Allied soldiers performed better than we have been led to believe. It helps to demolish the myth (put forward by Max Hastings and others), that when Allied and German soldiers met on equal numbers the Germans always prevailed.
</quote>

27

While I’d like to spit in the face of the old Kraut who dismissed the U.S. Army, he wasn’t entirely wrong.

During WW2, the U.S. lost most major battles in which it didn’t have overwhelming superioriy of numbers.

In the end, we won, so that doesn’t matter. But the old German probably believes, with some justie,tahe and his comrades could have beaten the U.S., given anything remotely like even odds.

28

Part of the disrespect levelled at the American military had to do with the conceit of soldiers living under totalitarian regimes. They typically develop a strong martial tradition. They become proud of their ability to withstand punishment and hardship (when they should be more proud of the ability to dish it out!). People who don’t live in free societies just can’t understand the strength and dynamicism of Americans when their backs are really up against the wall.

This has been true for a long time, even after the U.S. became the dominant power on the Earth, and it still continues today, even amongst the American chattering classes. As little as a week ago we were having to listen to endless amounts of handwringing over what a quagmire Afghanistan was going to be, and how tough those Guerilla fighters were. Remember the Gulf? About how the U.S. was going to get its ass kicked in the ground war, because the Iraqi’s were such tough, battle-hardened troops?

But as Patton said (and this is a quote I’ve been hearing a LOT lately), the trick in war is not to die for your country, it’s to make your enemy die for his. And Americans are very, very good at this. They’ve never been much good at dying, because they’ve never been much interested in siege warfare. The pilots of the U.S. Marines and Navy had a kill ratio of something like 19:1 against Japanese pilots. The Japanese stationed huge garrisons of men on a number of islands, expecting the U.S. to come and dig them all out and suffer huge casualties. It never occured to them that MacArthur would just go around them.

What American soldiers gave up in pure military discipline, they more than made up for in cleverness and the ability to adapt rapidly to changing battle conditions. If you look at the wars the U.S. has fought in this century, that pattern keeps emerging.

And it’ll keep happening. Every 10 or 20 years Americans have to go and kick some serious ass somewhere to get the world to take them seriously again. The Bin Ladens and Hitlers of the world look at free countries and see weakness. They are incapable of understanding the strength that comes with freedom.

BTW, these comments apply pretty much to soldiers and citizens of other free countries, too. Do you think Hitler really believed that the British people would have the resolve they did? When Churchill was walking the streets of London during the Blitz, a woman asked him what she should do if the Germans invaded. Churchill said, “Grab a knife and kill a Nazi.” That type of resolve had to be completely inexplicable to a man who saw British people squabbling amongst themselves in 1938 while he watched tens of thousands of Nazi soldiers goose-stepping in unison in parades in Berlin. Just as the current resolve of the U.S. had to be inexplicable to Bin Laden when he saw the country squabbling and fighting over piddly little actions in other countries.

Sofa King: I loved that message.

29

Word, Sofa King! I believe it holds true to this very day.

30

That might also have something to do with British soldiers in North Africa being experienced combat veterans encountering raw American troops. The performance of U.S. troops in the initial stages of the American campaign in Africa was BAD. They were green as hell.

My general read of this matter has been that German troops were, on a tactical level, superior to all their opponents, at least up to the point that Germany started to run out of warm bodies - in the last stages of the war their troop quality got spotty. German troops recieved better and more extensive training, were better organized at low levels, and used a doctirne that gave the individual soldier more tactical initiative.

However, Germany’s armies were not a strategic match for Allied armies. They weren’t just outnumbered, althought that disadvantage was bad enough; their logistics systems weren’t as good or as well organized, interservice rivalry was unbelievably distracting, and they lacked for a real supreme commander. Basically, the German soldier was betrayed by his leaders.

And this is the German combat soldier vs. the American combat solider, and it’s a very small advantage. However, armies are made of more than infantrymen. In many other areas, American (and Allied) troops were vastly superior, and Allied military prowess was way ahead of Germany’s. For instance, the ridiculous advantage enjoyed by American fighter pilots has already been mentioned, and that’s not just numbers and plane quality; the difference in quality of tactics were especially evident against the Japanese, whose one-on-one dogfighting approach stood no chance against the American’s fanatical devotion to group tactics and fighting as a team. Another good example is EW; the Allies enjoyed a HUGE advantage in their understanding and application of electronic warfare, including direction finding, jamming, deception, ECCM, radar, and cryptography. Those were soldiers doing that stuff, too.

As Sam Stone points out, Germany was a nation that, at the time had a strong militaristic tradition. they also enjoyed the advantage of having lost the previous war, which gave German military thinkers the chance to try some unorthodox stuff, giving them a huge advantage early on. But the eventual victory of the West (and a USSR heavily subsidized by the West) demonstrates the folly of criticizng the American soldier; if he seems green at the start of the war it’s because he was spending the last twenty years as a civilian building the super-humongous economy that’s going to run you over like a steamroller.

31

is the question which country had the better armed forces, or which had the better soldiers?

No question who had the better military – we did. Who had the better ARMY? That’s maybe debatable; we certainly did in terms of logistics and strategic leadership, and let’s not forget the Russians. Who had the BEST soldiers? I’d guess it was a tossup along a bunch of elite units on all sides. Who had the best AVERAGE infantry company? I’d bet on the Germans. Who had the bravest? For sheer suicidal insanity, I’d bet on the Japanese.

Re: Iwo Jima. I read somwhere that some 2,000 damaged B-29s landed there at the end of the war. This is about 20,000 guys, though I suppose quite a few crews used it more than once. And I suppose many more were saved because of the fighers based there. How do you do the math to figure out whether it’s worth it, especially since the Abomb resolved the issue so unecpectedly? PS, dropping Bomb – GOOD THING!

32

As others have noted, Americans chose not to fight under the same conditions other countries fought with. These countries then made the mistake of thinking that because Americans were better fed, received better medical support, had more equipment, and used tactics that minimized casualties, they were incapable of fighting in any other manner. But by the end of the war, American soldiers had demonstrated that they could fight effectively when conditions were not favorable as well.

Another factor that led to underestimation of Americna troops is that they entered the war late. German, Russian, and British troops in 1942 may have been better than American troops, but the American troops were probably fighting as well as the Germans and British had in 1939 or the Russians had in 1941. By 1943 and 1944, American troops had acquired the same battlefield experience that other nationalities had and fought at equal levels, but first impressions lingered.

33

I’ve no opinion personnally, but I saw this exact statement being challenged on another board some days ago. On the ground that germans privileged elite units to a great extent (best soldiers, better material, first pick on everything, better supplying, etc…).

The result being that though a part of the german army could outclass anybody else, the average unit couldn’t challenge an equivalent allied unit from any point of view except (still according to the same posters) for tactics (capacity of NCOs) and versality (not sure the word exists…I mean ability to form very quickly new units from disparate elements). The statement was that on the overall, the allied had better “average” units.

34

Some other random points that I’ve wondered about:

[ul][li]Firepower: Allied troops in Normandy were able to rely on massive artillery and air support, and an almost inexhaustible source of tanks. I wonder if that partly explains any perceived ‘reluctance’ on the part of the Allied infantry to demonstrate the same ferociousness as German soldiers were reputed to show.[/li][li]Casualties: British soldiers aren’t particularly reputed to have been ineffective (although that doesn’t apply to senior officers) but given the casualties sustained already in the war I’m sure British NCOs and officers were less than happy to throw themselves into the line again.[/li][li]Motivation: in North-West Europe and the Eastern Front, German soldiers were fighting for their country and the beliefs/propaganda they’d been exposed to. The Russian troops often fought with NKVD battalions ‘encouraging’ their commitment with machine-guns. The Allies, particularly American conscripts, didn’t have the same motivation to fight (and to die).[/li][li]Experience: the Germans and British had the longest experience in combat, and a greater chance to develop a core of veteran NCOs and officers. The Russians didn’t seem to trust their officers to any degree, and the Americans (the newer units in Europe, at least) had to land on their feet. I don’t know whether the casualties from fighting for longer make any difference to this idea, mind.[/li][li]Organisation: German troops were mixed up in crack units and in reserve units that were never intended to be the first line in a battle (the static volksgrenadier divisions being a case in point). Attacks were mostly led by the best troops, and defences were bolstered by small units of veterans. Units were often based around regional loyalties too (e.g. Austrian divisions). The British followed a similar pattern, but the US had a specific policy of feeding divisions without regard to local loyalties. Maybe fighting alongside people you have some kind of local connection makes a difference?[/ul][/li]
These are just thoughts, and obviously aren’t intended to criticise the efforts and suffering of those who served as best they could.

35

Go ask any soldier. If you do, you will be told that the difference between good troops and poor troops is training and discipline, which are much the same thing.

When trained and disciplined troops are in conflict then the decisive factors are, not necessarily in order of importance, leadership, experience, motivation and direction, combat support by for example gun or aerial bombardment, adequacy of supply, tactical doctrine and morale and numbers. A good big man will beat a good little man every time. God is on the side with the biggest battalions.

In WW II, in Europe after the first battles in Poland and France the contest was between trained and disciplined forces. The Americans, and British Empire forces had the advantage in combat support and adequacy of supply and numbers. The Germans had the advantage in experience and in experienced small unit leadership. The Allies had the advantage in large unit leadership because the German command was yoked to a corpse in the person of Hitler. By the winter of 1944, despite the huge number of green American divisions, there was parity between German and Allied experience. With that and the horrendous losses suffered by the German army on the Eastern Front the advantage shifted strongly to the Allies. In the end it was numbers and industrial production that made the difference.

I don’t want to start a fight here, but I have seen several references to the WW II Marine divisions as elite troops on the order of Royal Marine Commandos, Rangers and the airborne divisions. Let me suggest that while the Marine Corps had any number of units that were clearly elite, the bulk of the Marine divisions, like the Army’s divisions and the Navy’s ship’s crews, were largely made up of draftees who had been rushed into the fight just as soon as they completed minimal training. By and large a WW II Marine division was indistinguishable from an Army infantry division. This is not to say that the Marines did not accomplish great things at great sacrifice, only that you cannot fairly regard all, or even most, Marines as elite troops.

36

I look at the battles for Bastogne and Guadalcanal, and I see that the American combat troops had true grit. This is in no way intended to detract from the bravery of the troops of our allies and our enemies. The Japanese and the Germans had incredibly brave troops too.

But we had a number of decisive advantages which we used rather than performing frontal banzaii assaults.

We (allies) had broken the Axis codes and they had not broken ours. We had destroyed their spy networks, they were not as effective against ours. The importance of the intelligence advantage cannot be underestimated. Stalin ignored clear warnings given by the British and his own intelligence services that the Germans would attack. At least 20 million Soviets died, how many lives would have been saved had Stalin taken the warnings?

We had plenty of materiel, although much of it was inferior in quality to the German stuff, such as tanks and big guns. The troops adapted in the field and new tactics were employed. We hear a lot about the importance of technological advantage, but without the proper tactics to put it to use, you can be beat by inferior weapons with better tactics, this is true throughout history. The Afghans recently proved this against the Soviets and to a certain degree the Vietnamese proved this against us. We proved it against the British in the Revolutionary War. (That and long supply lines.)

We had better leadership. While Hitler had some of the best generals who ever lived, he chose to rely exclusively on the advice of a washed up WWI corporal – himself, and his generals rarely disagreed with him. The Japanese had a similar problem. They had a truly great naval genius in Yamamoto, yet they ignored his advice when they attacked the United States. They didn’t have people to answer to other than Tojo’s own ego.

Contrast this with the Allies, by his sixth decade Churchill had finally admitted to himself that he was not a military genius (I don’t know that he ever said it out loud though, but Gallipoli and the 10 year plan were his brainchildren). He let his generals and admirals call the shots. When Churchill was at a planning session and suggested invading a mediterainian island (Crete I think), when General George C. Marshall (more later) looked him dead in the eye and said: “Not one American soldier is going to die on that g***amn island.” As mediocre as the British generals were (Montgomery was their best, and he was so afraid of losing that he never really won anything. He only kicked Rommel out of North Africa by outnumbering him 50 to 1 in armor.)

American commanders were overseen by Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff. Marshall was a straighforward genius who promoted strictly by merit and ruthlessly weeded out the ranks of incompetent officers. This was unheard of by any other country.

In the Pacific, MacArthur and Nimitz actually agreed on “island hopping”, which ignored Japanese units isolated on islands where they were strategically ineffective. As obvious as this seems now, it was revolutionary then.

37

"The Bin Ladens and Hitlers of the world look at free countries and see weakness. They are incapable of understanding the strength that comes with freedom.

BTW, these comments apply pretty much to soldiers and citizens of other free countries, too. Do you think Hitler really believed that the British people would have the resolve they did? When Churchill was walking the streets of London during the Blitz, a woman asked him what she should do if the Germans invaded. Churchill said, “Grab a knife and kill a Nazi.” That type of resolve had to be completely inexplicable to a man who saw British people squabbling amongst themselves in 1938 while he watched tens of thousands of Nazi soldiers goose-stepping in unison in parades in Berlin. Just as the current resolve of the U.S. had to be inexplicable to Bin Laden when he saw the country squabbling and fighting over piddly little actions in other countries."
Sam Stone, I do not understand your rhetoric. I don’t believe there is evidence that Hitler had a disdain for freedom. The object of the war was to increase Germany in size. The larger a country is, or the more space a cultural group occupies the more powerful it will be and the more secure and prosperous it’s culture will be. Just look at you Anglophones and the Spanish. Spread out over entire continents. You guys, as well as the Chinese, are not going anywhere. America’s strength comes firstly from your size, your large population and your resources. Denmark is also a free country, but what power do they have? For all intents and purposes I could say that Hitler wanted Germany to Ultimately be like America is today: Big, prosperous, influential, rich in resources and free to do whatever it wanted, with a language that will never disappear and to police “world harmony and peace”. The strictness of National Socialism was of course intended to unify, mould and prepare the country for the sacrifices that the war was going to require. Englishmen had always enjoyed a great deal of freedom during the days the Empire was forged; however, the English firmly believed that it was their manifest destiny to rule this earth and that no other group was equal or superior to them. The government did not need to resort to draconian measures to keep the population focused on the goal, but the ideologies that were followed had the same effect.

38

I don’t blame soldiers who fought in a world war for years not respecting a group of farm boys who just passed Basic led by career desk jockeys.

I have no doubt the attitudes of German soldiers in particular changed as they lost friends in combat to those ‘clowns’.

39

The British Historian Max Hastings has written that whichever way you slice it, the German infantryman was pound-for-pound the finest fighting man in the conflict. The reason being that soldiers of the Anglo-Americans who advanced in the western front were born and raised in liberal democracies. They were citizen soldiers, civilians who by and large wanted to get the business over with and go home. The soldiers of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were born and raised in totalitarian regimes, indoctrinated and terrorised into fighting with ruthless discipline.

Antony Beevor on Hasting’s Armageddon

40

Just so everyone realizes, this thread is more than 11 years old.