Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The best and most elite infantry force of WW2?

Discussion in 'World War 2' started by DesertWolf, Dec 17, 2004.

  1. Greg Pitts

    Greg Pitts New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    DFW Texas
    via TanksinWW2
    KBO,

    Surely you must know that nothing compared to the USA armored infantry battalion!

    :smok:
     
  2. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Hi Greg, its been a long time since you've been here, welcome back !

    Nothing compared how ? In numbers you might be right. ;)

    Best regards, KBO.
     
  3. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    The guns were firing at Utah and the action took place on D-Day, but the rest is all true. However, you must realize that this was a succesful assault of a unit of 12 against half a German company, with MG42s and well entrenched. It shows that the Allied paratroopers were often in no way inferior to their German counterpartsa, so there is no reason to assume that the latter were better elite soldiers.
     
  4. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    What good is it that your intrenched when your enmy is surprising you from the side, wich makes digging that trench like diggging your own grave. Any infantry division could have taken out those guns, as the defender is at a definitive disadvantage !

    It shows nothing, any platoon could have done that. The Germans were firing at the time of the attack, and didnt know where the Allied Paratroops were, while the Allied Paratroops knew exactly where the Germans were.

    However U.S. paratroops were properly trained men, no doubt about it.

    Best regards, KBO.
     
  5. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    First you say any division could have done that, then you say any platoon could have done it, but in the event, one squad did it. Outnumbered at least 4 to 1, and at least 3 of those 4 were dedicated to defending the guns, not to firing them! When he is entrenched and well equipped the defender is always in the advantage, and the fact that confusion overtook the Germans at this battery is entirely the result of the tactics employed by the Americans in the assault.

    Can you give me any example of a German (Fallschirmjäger or SS) squad pulling this off?
     
  6. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    via TanksinWW2
    Once again any Alllied, esecially western, especially American accomplishment is nothing and can be expalined by superior numbers, weight of material, etc.
    A simialr achievement by any German unit however is proof of their superior training and warrior skill. I find this truly tiring. Give credit where due. The elite and superior Germans lost the war and it wasn't all due to numbers and Hitler. Some damn good people were on the Allied side.
     
  7. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The attack was from the side, wich puts the intrenched defenders at a big disadvantage. And sorry for the confusionon on the division-Platoon thing, what i ment was platoon.

    Thats not true, it highly depends on where the attack accures, and what are the natural surroundings.

    Yes, it was a damn good tactic, wich overtook 50 Germans by surprise.

    Noone is denying their skill.
    ----------------------------------
    About FJ succeses: for one, have you heard about the Veldvezeldt Bridge ? over 400 intrenched defenders dead, 59 FJ's dead.

    Or how about "Operation Leopard" at Monte Meroviglia. ?

    And there's plenty more where that came from.

    KBO
     
  8. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Trouble is, you could easily point out that the Germans had the defenders there at an equal disadvantage.
    You could point out that the only large-scale use of paratroops as paratroops by the Germans (Crete) was nearly a disaster, and only succeeded due to an incompetant British commander and poor British communication equipment.
    The large-scale uses of Allied paratroopers:
    D-Day was successful.
    Market Garden - well, the troops did as well or better than anticipated, given the structure of the plan they were forced into. Although local commanders did tend to place more emphasis on securing their perimeter than capturing bridges ASAP...

    You could further point out that the Germans were the pioneers of using paratroops/glider-bourne infantry in warfare* to capture/knock out fortifications, but somehow were surprised when the Allies did it to them. ;)

    *Yes, the CCCP were the real large-scale pioneers back in the 1930s, but the Germans were the first to actually use paratroops on a reasonable scale in warfare.
     
  9. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    And yet here it was a squad. If the attacker always strives to have a 5 to 1 advantage, then these guys must have been completely out of their minds! The fact that they actually won definitely has to do with their skill, training and leadership.

    [/quote]
    Then it's a bad defensive position. If not all routes are covered then it is an imperfect defence, and thus Patton always claimed that nothing had ever been succesfully defended (which isn't true; most examples that come to mind, by the way, are city walls).

    How many attackers and defenders took part in this battle? I'm sorry but I haven't heard of it yet, where did it take place?

    By the way, just for clarification, I am not trying to establish that the German paratroopers were nothing compared to their Allied counterparts, just that they weren't superior to them in any obvious way.
     
  10. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Just the fact that they came in from the side, neglates all defensive advantages of the intrenchment, and puts it at a really high disadvantage! And the fact that the attack was carried out by surprise and artillery was firing at the same time puts the unprepared defenders at yet another disadvantage. Also some paratroopers did die that day trying to take those guns, and not all of the 50 Germans defending at died, many of them escaped.

    That defense was against foward-comming landing-troops, not Paratroops ! Thus it was the worst defense against Paratroops you could get.

    Agreed.


    92 FJ's carried out the attack. It was in Belgium.

    I know.

    Best regards, KBO. :D
     
  11. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    You seem to think the guns at Brecourt manor were protected by a single trench parallel to the coastline. This was not the case; the trench system there linked all four guns, positioned in a more or less square formation and further protected by a long trench with a 90-degree corner in it. This corner, in which an MG42 was positioned, was the point the Americans attacked. After that they got into the trench system itself and from there they went from gun to gun, but the initial assault was straight at a trench from two sides, not into it sidewise.
     
  12. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes but after that MG42 was taken out, wich it was pretty quickly, they came thumbling in from two sides. After all they could study the whole place before attacking, and develope a tactic, the Germans could do nothing but be totally surprised.

    By taking out that MG42 position they had created themselves a good gateway into the trenches. And once inside the trenches they had full advantage.

    Best regards, KBO.
     
  13. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Which is known as being well trained & having a good commander.
    :D

    How would you allow for the German takeover of the Belgian forts in 1940 - is it:
    "being well trained & having a good commander"
    or
    "they surprised them and so the Belgians lost"

    Really, it is a bit of both - in all cases where paratroops were used. The whole surprise angle is the very reason for paratroops (well, and partly the quick movement of troops to inaccessible places).
     
  14. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    No doubt about it.

    Those were "campaigns" not a single small-area action as this singular U.S. one were discussing. You wont find any other such effective atack carried out by U.S. Paratroopers.

    And btw the paratroopers who attacked the trenches were after all the 101st ! ;) :D

    Best regards, KBO.
     
  15. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    The knocking out of the Belgian forts were individual actions by small units of paratroops - they did not knock out one then move on to the next... (as far as I am aware! ;) ) It is perfectly comparable.

    For effective attacks (and campaigns) by American paratroops - try the whole paratroop drop on D-Day. Or check the sterling performance of the US paratroops in Market Garden (82nd & 101st, IIRC).
     
  16. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Bloody me !! We are talking 'Eben Emael' here right ?

    Code:
    For effective attacks (and campaigns) by American paratroops - try the whole paratroop drop on D-Day. Or check the sterling performance of the US paratroops in Market Garden (82nd & 101st, IIRC).
    You can't call the Market Garden Campaign a succes ! Of 35,000 troops committed by the Allies, 11,583 became casualties ! an additional 87 Fighters and bombers were destroyed.

    KBO
     
  17. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Btw a funny note:

    Montgomery still called Market Garden "90% successful" and said:

    In my prejudiced view, if the operation had been properly backed from its inception, and given the aircraft, ground forces, and administrative resources necessary for the job, it would have succeeded in spite of my mistakes, or the adverse weather, or the presence of the 2nd SS Panzer Corps in the Arnhem area. I remain Market Garden's unrepentant advocate.


    But Dutch Prince Bernhard said to Cornelius Ryan:

    My country can never again afford the luxury of another Montgomery success.

    :D
     
  18. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I did not. And I don't want to get into a M-G discussion again! :D
    I just pointed out that the American Paratroops involved did a good job - their part of the campaign actually worked - IIRC.

    How many German troops, ships & aircraft on the Crete campaign were casualties? ;)
     
  19. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Hmm.. that can be debatable ! :D

    Exactly 1915 German paratroopers died and 1759 were missing, not much when you considder the opponents casualties. ;)

    Best regards, KBO. :D
     
  20. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    How many wounded? Wounded are usually included as casualties. How does a breakdown of the Allied 'casualties' in M-G look?
    How many were committed?
    How many aircraft were lost?
    How many of the main force sailing up to relieve the paratroops were lost when the RN sank them? (they will count as committed troops if you count the Allied forces trying to reach the paratroops at the bridges ;) )
     

Share This Page