'Best' infantry division

I didn't think he came across like that, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

I may have perceived your statement incorrectly, but when you wrote:

I took it to mean that based upon hindsight Australia was never in danger of being invaded. I was not intending to engage in What-if's, just to point out that there were certain events that guided the strategic direction the war took. Take anyone of these events away and the whole direction the war took historically would likely have changed. Military leadership, generally tries to reinforce success. First you have the Lae-Salamaua raid by Lexington and Yorktown. The raid struck the original Japanese landing forces on New Guinea. Here's an excerpt that lays out how this little raid effected the overall course of operations in the SW Pacific:

What strategic importance did this little raid have on the overall course of the war?
-- it can be seen that the Lae-Salamaua raid was of vital importance to the Allies for a number of reasons. It was a severe blow to Japan's plan to isolate Australia from the United States as quickly as possible, because the Japanese had intended to use the sunk and damaged transports as part of the invasion force to capture Port Moresby and Tulagi in April 1942. The Japanese were forced to postpone the capture of Port Moresby and Tulagi for one month to replace the sunk and damaged ships, and because they realised that these operations would require support from their own aircraft carriers. In this way, the Lae-Salamaua Raid set the stage for the Battle of the Coral Sea.
The Lae-Salamaua Raid also laid the foundations for Allied victories later in 1942 at Guadalcanal and Kokoda. By delaying for one month the capture of Tulagi, the establishment of a Japanese forward airstrip on the northern coast of Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands was also delayed. The delay in establishing that airstrip on Guadalcanal provided the Americans with more time to prepare a landing force to capture the airstrip that later became famous as Henderson Field. Even so, the Americans barely made it in time. When the Americans landed on Guadalcanal on 7 August 1942, the Japanese were ready to bring this forward airstrip into operation. If the Americans had not seized that strategically vital Japanese airstrip when they did, the Guadalcanal operation could not have proceeded as it did, and would almost certainly have been deferred to much later, probably 1943.


So now we come to Coral Sea. The battle could have gone either way. If it had gone bad for the Americans, Moresby would have been taken. Japan would have quite likely concentrated their efforts in this area. Same with Guadalcanal. If Japan hadn't had their back broken there, where would their offensive operations have taken them. The fact that victory hung in the balance for so long at Guadalcanal caused the US to modify it's Europe first policy, so that in 1943 a much greater proportion of assets and resources flowed into the Pacific theater.

And the geography at Buna-Goa is much different from the Kokoda Trail. Whats the point? Buna-Goa is on New Guinea and the terrain there is quite similar to Guadalcanal. What about Cape Gloucester on New Britain? The terrain and conditions there were different and in many ways worse. What's the point? It's all jungle fighting, which you implied, the Marines weren't any good at. Actually, the Marines in 1942 had a large number of experienced, veteran, jungle fighters, having honed their skills in the Carribean "Banana Wars" during the 1930's.

 

What you are failing to grasp is that Australia did not posess the wearwithall to take the fight to the Japanese. In the same thought the Marines, Army and Navy would not have been able to conduct operations in the South West Pacific without being able to preposition troops and supplies in Australia.

I would be more than happy to supply you with a laundry list of battles the US Marines fought, and won, in varying terrain accross the Pacific; but, that would not serve my point that the Battle of the Pacific was a coordinated campaign which was predicated by the successes of all allied forces.

Call it what you will, I stand by what I say.

You'd be alive, you're forefathers would just have grown up eating fish heads and rice. I am more than convinced that had the Allies not needed a staging area the Japanese would have cut Australia off until it was surrendered.

 

Well saying that Australia wouldnt exist with out the USMC does give me that impression but we are all entitled to our own views.

Agreed that the outcomes of previous battles can lead the direction of future campaigns, But I'm intending to talk in facts, Not WI's. While the raid at Lae-Salamaua was successful, It did not as far as I can tell delay construction of the air field there thus having no baring on the Coral Sea battle.

For the record, I never stated that the Marines were not good at Jungle fighting, I did state that while Japan had the best Jungle fighters at the start they were knocked off the top spot by the Australian's, That does not mean to say the Japanese or Americans or any one else was bad, Just that the Australian's came up with the best tactics for that theater of operations.

Know while the Kapa Kapa trail is geographically more difficult then the Kokoda Track, You must take into account that the US 126th Inf Regiment 32nd Div didnt have to face a single Japanese soldier on the march, Know I dont mean to in any way lower hat they had done cause it was a feat in its self but The Diggers on Kokoda did have to battle the Japanese along there advance.

As for the Battle of Buna Gona its self, Well that also involved largely Aussie units along side US army units, No USMC involved so no idea how this ties in with the USMC on Guadalcanal and the belief that the USMC was superior to All.....

formerjughead, If you honestly think the Aussies would have surrendered just because we were cut off then you know nothing about our history or mentality.. If being surrounded was a sign to surrender then we would have surrendered at Gallipoli and Tobruk...

Yes the USMC did play a part in the Pacific campaign, But it was only a small part, As was the part payed by the Aussies or the US army.. They were all small parts but combined quite a big part of the Pacific war...

So I still stand by my view that the Aussies were the best troops in the South pacific region when it came to the fighting it geographical area's like those in Papua and New Guinea which were far different to those on Guadalcanal.. Ill take your word on it for there similarities when you go do the Kokoda track and visit Guadalcanal...

 

Steve.

Fred Walker is a hero of mine. He knew that the Rapido attack was bonkers.

The action on Monte Artemisio that got between I Para Corps and LXXVI Pz Corps by driving up a 45 degree hill with bulldozers and two Inf Regts in the middle of the night completely undid the German defence - all the more because Clark's decision to switch the assault to the NW straight into the main line of German defence, was simply not working.

The action was a briliant piece of opportunism.

That Walker was sacked after the fall of Rome was an outrage.

Regards

FdeP

 

Why do you say they were the best? I think they were no better than anyone else.

 

I think they were the best in that field of battle due to there success's and the tactic's they employed, The same tactic's they used both in Malay and Vietnam in the 60's and 70's..

Your free to think they were no better then any one else, Just as I believe you over estimate the role the USMC played in 'saving' Australia as well as your apparent underestimation of the Australian troops and the Australian people as a whole...

 

Okay I'll do that

 

I think the best overall infantry of the war was the 1st Fallschirmjager division and it was not even close.

 

Really? Why? What do you think makes them suppeior to say the 101st Airborn or the 1st Special Service Force or the 1st Airborne Division or the Long Range Desert Group or the any of the US or British Marine divisions or ... ?

 

I believe they initially were up until 44. By then they were grinded down. I think the FSSF were the best trained men of the entire war along with the OSS recon teams. The others you mentioned have strong arguements as well. The 101st took on the best Germany had to offer and held their ground.

 

I wouldn't say they took on Germany's best considering Russia had grind ed down Germany's best on the Eastern front.

 

Yet, those same grounded down units still held off the Red Army for another year.

 

They did, But did they hold of the Russian's due to there superior training and equipment? Or simply because the Russians still did not use everything they had to it's best ability.

While the Russian's had improved there tactic's still called for over whelming force in most cases, In such cases it can be easier to delay a larger force then a smaller force as the larger force would require far more logistics and has more targets to shoot at and is hioghly visable while a smaller force is less hampered by logistics and is small enough that can at timews bypass defences with out being spotted...

 

Or even better IMO state what criteria you believe are important for determining best then evaluate your choice(s) and competitors using those criteria.

 

I will second that.

Guadalcanal was the marines on defense. The marines did not get a taste of battling well entrenched Japanese forces and having to root them out until Tarawa.

The US Army and Aussies got a taste of it over a year earlier.

 

There were no US forces on Guadalcanal prior to 7 August, 1942 wich would make it impossible for the Marines to fight a defensive battle against an occupying force who were not well entrenched.

 

Which is my point. The Aussies were fighting a fanatical foe in entrenched defensive positions. And they were doing it over a year earlier than when the marines had their first taste of it.

At least for 1942 and part of 1943, the best light infantry divisions in the world were the Aussie's fighting in New Guinea. And the US Army divisions that took part in that area (and New Georgia) also rose to the top.

I would take an Aussie division over a marine division any time.

 

You're missing my point and not picking up the sarcasm. The Marines landed at Guadalcanal and three other islands wich is an "offensive action" there were defensive battles on Guadalcanal; but, they were defending what they had taken from the Japanese and while that was happening there were other Marine Units out seizing/ securing more of the island. So your opinion that the fighting on Guadalcanal was defensive is only half thought.

As far as the rest of the argument is concerened: It's silly to try and compare or place importance on one Nation, over another, when fighting for the same goal. The other thing to remember is that the US was still building/ re-building it's military and fighting wars on two fronts.

 

I would agree with the U.S.Marine division advocates,but add that the 4th Indian divs record speaks for itself(so I guess that's British Indian).I think all of the major belligerents Airbourne divs were also super,but would like to add British Commando units as magnificent infantry(although not divs).In fact,I cannot make my mind up on the best,but they all had"Their time". Many thanks,Lee.