State of the US armed forces [Archive]

View Full Version : State of the US armed forces

Productivity

08-02-2005, 04:33

Strike For The South

08-02-2005, 04:55

As of now some of the bigger threats to global security ie Iran , North Korea are getting away with pretty much anything because the U.S is strechted to thin and we cant do much at all. supposedly the first massive recall of troops from iraq will be in spring 2006 and that might just be feasible. As for Afghanistan we only have about 5,000 troops there many special ops so they might be there for awhile longer

lars573

08-02-2005, 05:15

Inspired by the Iran thread, a question I really don't know the answer to.

Assuming that the US holds to it's commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, what else can the US military currently do? Can it launch another major offensive (I doubt this), minor peace keeping? Nothing?

And how much would be needed to cahnge this. Would taking troops out of Afghanistan (hopefully to be replaced by others) free up enough to allow another major offensive? Or is Iraq a sea anchor on the US armed forces, and they will be handicapped for the near future?

Well while flipping around the TV dile on day in 2004 I came across a CNN report on the state of the US military and it said the US army has 425,000 active duty personell and about 150,000 active duty marines. These are organised into about 15 divisions for the army and 5 for the marines (I'm estimating wildly anyone who knows better please correct me). Now the words reaching my ears are that the US has 150,000 boots on the ground in Iraq from both the marines and the US army right now. Also that the third infantry division is permanantly stationed on the Korean DMZ (the border between north and south). Plus air elements a few brigades of armour and artillery. There is also the bases in western Germany, but they have been reduced to the bare minimum as they serve no purpose now except being the economy of several German towns.

Now as to Afghanistan, it is being secured by a multi-national force of about 8 nations. Basically nato plus a few others. Each has sent a contingent of about 2000-5000. So really there are negledable US forces there.

Azi Tohak

08-02-2005, 05:25

Info on every unit in the army:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/

And where (all the non black ops) units are:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm

Enjoy. I know the site is rather complicated, but it is full of good info.

Azi :bow:

Ice

08-02-2005, 05:46

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/british/images/77vc.jpg

PanzerJaeger

08-02-2005, 07:10

The US military can destroy the offensive military capabilities of any nation on earth without the use of nuclear weapons within a matter of days and destroy the infrastructure of said nation within weeks.

At that point it gets tricky. Ground troops are stretched thin and the US would most likely have to keep said nation bombed to the stone age until they come to the bargaining table or the US is able to compile enough troops to invade.

Tribesman

08-02-2005, 09:13

The US military can destroy the offensive military capabilities of any nation on earth without the use of nuclear weapons within a matter of days and destroy the infrastructure of said nation within weeks.
Yes of course they can ~;)
Now do you mean the US can do it without using nuclear weapons , or do you mean they can do it to countries that do not have nuclear weapons ?
Since more and more countries are getting nuclear weapons then maybe their conventional military strength is becoming irrelevant .

At that point it gets tricky. Ground troops are stretched thin and the US would most likely have to keep said nation bombed to the stone age until they come to the bargaining table
Pehaps it would be better and cheaper if they stayed at the bargaining table in the first place .

Al Khalifah

08-02-2005, 09:55

The UK should hopefully have more troops to back you up with soon thanks to the large scale reduction of the Home Guard in Northern Ireland.
Because we know you can't win without us ~;)

Tribesman

08-02-2005, 10:06

Al khalifah , did you hear the good reverend speaking of the proposed troop reductions yesterday ?
"treason , appeasement , betrayal , a stab in the back...No Surrender" :dizzy2:

Al Khalifah

08-02-2005, 10:09

Ian Paisley is a silly old sod. It's hateful old men like him that prevent real progress being made in Northern Ireland because their minds are bitter and they poison the youth of the nation.

rasoforos

08-02-2005, 12:23

Now as to Afghanistan, it is being secured by a multi-national force of about 8 nations. Basically nato plus a few others. Each has sent a contingent of about 2000-5000. So really there are negledable US forces there.

The US army is allready stretched too thin. Afghanistan cannot possibly be called secured. US control is mostly around Kabul with some other urban pockets. The rest of the country is a heaven for warlords, ex taliban leaders, drug lords and taliban/al qaeda elements. Iraq will eventually become liek that or possibly worse ( a north korea like state ) when the majority of the US troops pull out.

Its not a matter of the US army stretched too thin. Its a matter of the innability of a modern army ( and not only the US army ) to maintain proper and effective occupation of a whole country because of the way resistance is being conducted today. Dirty offensives will meet dirty defence.

Kaiser of Arabia

08-02-2005, 17:30

The US army is allready stretched too thin. Afghanistan cannot possibly be called secured. US control is mostly around Kabul with some other urban pockets. The rest of the country is a heaven for warlords, ex taliban leaders, drug lords and taliban/al qaeda elements. Iraq will eventually become liek that or possibly worse ( a north korea like state ) when the majority of the US troops pull out.

Its not a matter of the US army stretched too thin. Its a matter of the innability of a modern army ( and not only the US army ) to maintain proper and effective occupation of a whole country because of the way resistance is being conducted today. Dirty offensives will meet dirty defence.

*laugs at illusion of Iraq and Afghanistan* ~:)

Sjakihata

08-02-2005, 19:12

the US has 150,000 boots on the ground in Iraq

This means there are 75,000 soldiers there? ~;)

Gawain of Orkeny

08-02-2005, 19:15

This means there are 75,000 soldiers there?

No it dosent. Every soldier gets at least two pairs of boots so you would have to cut that number in half also. ~;)

Redleg

08-02-2005, 19:16

Its not a matter of the US army stretched too thin. Its a matter of the innability of a modern army ( and not only the US army ) to maintain proper and effective occupation of a whole country because of the way resistance is being conducted today. Dirty offensives will meet dirty defence.

World War 2 - shows that it is not just a today thing. The French and Russians showed how people can fight an occupation army.

PanzerJaeger

08-02-2005, 19:23

The French also showed how a people can collaborate with an occupation army. ~;)

Gawain of Orkeny

08-02-2005, 19:26

The French also showed how a people can collaborate with an occupation army.

Yopu shouldnt ave gone there. The same can be said of the new Iraqi government in the eyes of many. Not that I agree with that position.

Sjakihata

08-02-2005, 19:28

The French also showed how a people can collaborate with an occupation army. ~;)

and this trait you specifically attach to the french? I wonder... is the french the only people who ever betrayed their country...?

PanzerJaeger

08-02-2005, 22:37

I dont like the gaullist myth of the great French Resistance.. Its the same line of thinking that got France on the Security Council.

Devastatin Dave

08-02-2005, 22:39

and this trait you specifically attach to the french? I wonder... is the french the only people who ever betrayed their country...?

Nope, we had the same thing in in the US back in the Revolution. We sent all those traitors to Canada, which might explain some attitudes and beliefs of our northern neighbors...

rasoforos

08-02-2005, 23:11

I dont like the gaullist myth of the great French Resistance.. Its the same line of thinking that got France on the Security Council.

Your ancestors fought against the Nazis better than the French I suppose...?

Is it just me or you always get jumpy when it comes to the strong resistance that eventually led to the demise of the nazis? Its time you face the facts...

To the main discussion:

Now to collaborators and quesling governments. Indeed history repeats itself. The nazis were creating quesling local governments ( like the US does in Iraq ) and they would also hire a lot of locals as security forces ( like the US does in Iraq )...and indeed, where these governments substituted dictarorships then they were even called 'democratic'.....

Considering the famine and the lack of work that nazi occupation caused its no surprise that a lot of people collaborated with them. Most of them fled their countries or 'had accidents' soon after the Nazis left. One such person from the Ukraine was revealed in the US yesterday I think and faces deportation.

I am sympathetic to most human beings. However for collaborators I always make an exception, they dont even hold animal status to my eyes.

PanzerJaeger

08-02-2005, 23:22

Your ancestors fought against the Nazis better than the French I suppose...?

Nope, my ancestors were Nazis.

Is it just me or you always get jumpy when it comes to the strong resistance that eventually led to the demise of the nazis? Its time you face the facts...

I get tired of countries that had their asses handed to them glorifying their (pathetic) attempts at resistance while not even acknowledging collaboration. :furious3:

JAG

08-02-2005, 23:23

rasoforos

08-02-2005, 23:37

Nope, my ancestors were Nazis.

Fair enough.

I get tired of countries that had their asses handed to them glorifying their (pathetic) attempts at resistance while not even acknowledging collaboration. :furious3:

I come from a country where the resistance operated airports, held its own fleet , kept large parts of the country virtually nazi free and cost the nazi regime shitloads of resources.

Its time to read the facts and see that the nazis had to fight as much at the fronts as they had to fight behind them. Constant sabotaging and the loss of troops enentually took their toll and the nazis lost at the front as well. To deny this, despite all historical facts, isnt much different than to deny that the nazis killed jews.

Collaboration was never hidden,where you have heroes you ll have traitors and no nation is immune to this, its just that the collaborators were mostly killed or fled after the nazis pulled out, as collaborators always do. The stigma of having a collaborator in the family still exists in some places today 60 years after.

P.S: Its not a matter of who had his ass handed in the beginning, its always a matter of who gets his ass handed to them at the end...and that was the Nazis. Some of them really thought that they d be welcomed in the countries they occupied , its an illusion that still looms around.

PanzerJaeger

08-03-2005, 00:10

Its time to read the facts and see that the nazis had to fight as much at the fronts as they had to fight behind them. Constant sabotaging and the loss of troops enentually took their toll and the nazis lost at the front as well. To deny this, despite all historical facts, isnt much different than to deny that the nazis killed jews.

Are you really trying to say that resistance movements in any European countries caused the loss of the war? Maybe the Russian partisans had a significant impact, but not the others.

The facts are that the Nazis had a very successful occupation technique. In many countries they were able to play the populations against each other, and in many others they were able to draw recruits.

Some countries such as France were easy to occupy, and some like Greece were a bit tougher, but neither had a significant impact on the Nazis ability to wage war. As i said earlier.. the myths of glorious resistance are just that - myths.

Collaboration was never hidden,where you have heroes you ll have traitors and no nation is immune to this, its just that the collaborators were mostly killed or fled after the nazis pulled out, as collaborators always do. The stigma of having a collaborator in the family still exists in some places today 60 years after.

In many countries the Nazis only needed a token force as they could play the collaborators against the "patriots".. that part is downplayed if not ignored by many.

PS. Do you really have to make vague links between the Nazis and the Americans? Remember where that innuendo lead last time... ~:eek

Devastatin Dave

08-03-2005, 00:47

Except Israel*

~;)

Yup, we armed them better than we armed Saddam. ~D

Kaiser of Arabia

08-03-2005, 00:48

Nope, my ancestors were Nazis.

Same, my great uncle fought in the Wehrmacht during Overlord. I hate it when people tend to deamonize my family over their actions in the past. The truth is that they were all good people, every last one of them. They fought for their nation, and there is nothing wrong with that.

The French resistance did nothing, and the French, on a whole, did very little in World War Two. Also, in regards to Vichy France, I'll have to say that Henri Philippe Pétain saved many French lives by creating the Vichy state.

Anyway, back to the topic.

The US can currently take out any nation, we, like all nations at this time, don't have enough men to occupy the nation effectivly. That can be solved simply with a draft or two.

mystic brew

08-03-2005, 01:56

Are you really trying to say that resistance movements in any European countries caused the loss of the war? Maybe the Russian partisans had a significant impact, but not the others.

well, by 1942 the Nazis had commited about 600,000 men to Yugoslavia, that's 38 divisions that weren't available for El Alamein or STalingrad.

Just sayin, props where they are due.

Divinus Arma

08-03-2005, 02:03

Wow. I think this discussion needs to cool just a little.

PanzerJager and Kaiser, I tend to agree with you on most points. But the nazi convo is a tad much for me.

I will concede that Nazi Germany displayed innovative and forward thinking military prowess. Nazi Germany was one of the most powerful military states in the history of the world.

But let us be very very clear on this topic. The aims of Nazi Germany were purely evil. The actions of Nazi Germany were purely evil. These were not men defending their country, they were men conquering peaceful neighbors and decimating populations. I think any nationalistic feelings that you gentlemen obviously feel about the history of your country are slightly misguided. I am deeply saddened to see pride replace shame.

By comparison, it would be like me in America proclaiming the brilliant economic strategy of Slavery.

Divinus Arma

08-03-2005, 02:12

To get back on topic:

The U.S. held two strategic visions for our forces.

(1) To be able to fight and win two major regional wars at the same time. The two nations that this applied to most were Iraq and Korea at the same time.

(2) That has modified quite a bit. Now, the U.S. strategic vision is to be the "international spearhead". It is the intent of U.S. policy to lead the world in a war, rapidly destroying an enemy with overwhelming force and ability. The idea is that the U.S. would special in the entry, and that NATO/EU/etc would handle the low intensity conflict that followed.

The problem with our current philosophy is that it requires allies to accomplish. You can't piuss everyone off and then expect them to follow your "grand vision" of free-nation world military strategy.

And all comparisons between the U.S. and Nazi Germany are disgusting. You people make me sick. We could easily carpet bomb anyone and annihilate entire populations, but instead we choose to use pinpoint accurate missles and risk our men in combat to avoid civilian casualties. We don't slaughter innocents, take slaves, or engage in genocide. We want freedom for Iraq. Freedom dammnitt. I will not believe my Marines have fought and died for imperialism. I will not believe that I am part of an evil military force, bent on world domination. My Marine Corps and the soldiers in my brother Army fight for the love of peace, stability, and human rights. It is about dignity, honor, respect, integrity. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Divinus Arma

08-03-2005, 02:16

Ah but you have to look at things objectively, Divinus. The Nazis were evil, but there is no doubt that they were efficient. The system's flaws are readily apparent, however, if you just take a look at Germany's downfall. For a Nation that had it all going for it (large army, high tech, high morale, efficient system of occupation compared to other nations, ect.).

In your example, it's fair to say that Slavery was an efficient economic status for the purpose it served. That makes it no less heinous, but you can't demonize the facts.

That is exactly what I said. Was I not clear?

I will concede that Nazi Germany displayed innovative and forward thinking military prowess. Nazi Germany was one of the most powerful military states in the history of the world.

Yep. That is what I said. And I said that slavery WAS BAD. I am using it to illustrate a point. I am saying that it would be wrong for me to be proud of salvery and its benefits!

Are we clear?

ARE WE CLEAR?

Divinus Arma

08-03-2005, 02:17

Crystal.

Devastatin Dave

08-03-2005, 02:22

Crystal.

You want the truth!?!?!? You can handle the truth!!!! :furious3:

~;)

Divinus Arma

08-03-2005, 02:35

Not to piss on the rocks in your sauna

Thank you for that. I very much enjoyed the comic visual of urinating on sauna rocks.

but the US' policy before the advent of guided missiles was pretty heinous. We napalmed so many japanese cities that they never did get around to counting the dead. It's estimated to be in the millions; posssible the tens of millions.

After World War II, we refused the UN proposal to ban Napalm. In the Korean War, we had a policy that you did not accept refugees, and most civilians were shot on sight. More Napalm was used in Korea than in World War II.

Well of course. It was a different age. We also took a hell of alot more casulaties too. Not to mention that when we DID take POWs, we fed them and kept them warm, as we do now. We don't cut anyone's freakin head off.

And as for our older brutal policy, it was a different time. If we could have done less damage and achieved the same objectives, we would have.

PanzerJaeger

08-03-2005, 06:09

PanzerJager and Kaiser, I tend to agree with you on most points. But the nazi convo is a tad much for me.

Whats wrong with discussing history?

Divinus Arma

08-03-2005, 06:31

Whats wrong with discussing history?

Dr. evil says. "Righhhhhhhhht...." Okay then.

swirly_the_toilet_fish

08-03-2005, 07:13

Especially in the Pacific in WWII and Korea, most PoWs were strapped with grenades to take out a few more US soldiers with them. This was because the killing rates with generally 16-to-1 if not higher in major engagements or skirmishes. So when a man walked up to you as a PoW, did you really want to risk being shredded by metal for one man who wants to kill you for his god-like emperor or dictator.

And currently the US armed forces are too thin and really shouldn't remain as a dominant force in either of the countries they occupy now. Considering now that our current government refuses to negotiate with North Korea, Iran or Syria (yup, the weapons of mass destruction were sent to Syria now :furious3: ).

In all the US needs to dispose of its corrupted shell of a government before entering anymore major offensives.

Al Khalifah

08-03-2005, 09:23

sharrukin

08-03-2005, 11:06

Good link on Nazi Occupation of France (http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0tmc/occupied/collab.htm)

Occupied France never contained more than 100,000 German soldiers and most of the time this figure was around 60,000. Compared to Yugoslavia, this is barely significant.

ARMY GROUP 'G'
under General J. Blaskowitz
Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts

19th ARMY (19.Armee Oberkommando) had 9 divisions; one mountain, seven infantry divisions
1st ARMY (1.Armee Oberkommando) had 6 divisions; one Panzer (11th), 17th SS Panzergrenadier Division, and 4 infantry divisions

ARMY GROUP 'B'
under Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

7th ARMY (7.Armee Oberkommando) had 14 divisions; 2 Parachute (3rd,5th), 12 infantry divisions
15th ARMY (15.Armee Oberkommando) had 18 divisions; 5 Panzer, 13 infantry divisions

By June 1944, the German forces in France numbered 46 infantry divisions and 9 panzer divisions (notably the Panzer Lehr, 1st, 2nd, and 12th SS Panzer Divisions). Several infantry divisions were inexperienced and contained lower quality young troops and older men - troops that were unable to immediately fight on the Russian front. In addition, of the 850,000 men under Rundstedt's command, 60,000 were hilfswillige (prisoners from the Russian front who volunteered for Russian service - mostly Tartars, Cossacks, Ukrainians, etc.) But, most infantry divisions were of good quality and several consisted of battle-hardened veterans from the Eastern front. A typical German division was slightly smaller than an American division, but because of material and fuel shortages, it lacked significant mobile transport - relying on heavy use of horse and train.

:Military History Online

Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe

08-03-2005, 12:30

Yopu shouldnt ave gone there. The same can be said of the new Iraqi government in the eyes of many. Not that I agree with that position.

Anyone here knows how many French casualties there were in different stage of WWII? How many died in 1940 Battle of France, during the occupation, in concentration camp, after D Day? Both military and civil?

That would probably an eye opener for many here...

I sure hope you don't wish that for Iraq...

Louis,

PanzerJaeger

08-03-2005, 14:56

sharrukin,

The divisions your quote talks about were moved there to counter the US invasion, they were not there to occupy the country.

Redleg

08-03-2005, 18:25

After World War II, we refused the UN proposal to ban Napalm. In the Korean War, we had a policy that you did not accept refugees, and most civilians were shot on sight. More Napalm was used in Korea than in World War II.

Care to back up the bolded print with facts. There are numerous stories of GI and Marines going out of their way to protect civilians - just like there are stories of just such events as the bolded print.

Redleg

08-03-2005, 18:31

PanzerJaeger

08-03-2005, 19:55

Some of the studies and histories of WW2 that I have read show that over 100 Divisions were tied up with Occupation and fighting resistance efforts by partisans of the occupied nations. A good portion of these divisions were not occupation divisions - but front line combat units.

How did they define front-line units? Many new German units were cycled through occupied nations to train and gain some combat experience fighting partisans and learning how to act in an occupied country.

sharrukin

08-03-2005, 20:12

,

The divisions your quote talks about were moved there to counter the US invasion, they were not there to occupy the country.

"Thus in 1943, a year of increasing threats of attack from the west, the German armies in France had not even held their own. General Blumentritt, the OB WEST chief of staff, in September summarized the deterioration for the high command. A year ago, he pointed out, the Atlantic Wall had been garrisoned with twenty-two infantry divisions most of which had three regiments. In reserve were six infantry and seven fully mobile, first-class armored or motorized divisions.

Now, he continued, in a much more dangerous situation, the garrison infantry divisions had increased to twenty-seven, but this increase was largely nullified by the reduction of most of the divisions to two regiments. In reserve were six armored or motorized divisions and seven infantry divisions, of which three were new organizations. In other words, though the holding strength remained about constant in numbers the quality had certainly declined; the striking power had decreased slightly in numbers and very substantially in mobility."

This is for 1942.

General Blumentritt is making the point here that in 1942 he had a more powerful force than he did in 1943 due to the demands of the Russian front for the best troops.

In addition OB WEST furnished twenty rifle battalions from these divisions in late 1943 for duty in Russia and got on average 1.5 Osttruppen (russian POW's) battalions in exchange. By the time of D-day in the LXXXIV Corps sector in Normandy and Brittany, out of forty-two rifle battalions, eight were composed of Osttruppen. These troops were not even close to as good as the German rifle battalions.

There were also other developments that reduced effectiveness.

"In the west the older-age classes as well as a large proportion of the relatively unfit were assigned to the static coastal divisions. Even so, repeated raids were made on the static divisions to sort out their best men for east duty. Eventually these divisions acquired a substantial number of the overage, the very young (classes of 1925 and 1926), men with third-degree frostbite, Volksdeutsche (which were used up to 8 percent of division strength), and Osttruppen. The average age of the 709th Division which held the east coast of the Cotentin was thirty-six."

So according to the general in command of those troops the German occupation force of 1942 was substantially better than that of 1943-44.

When the allies invaded they didn't find it all that easy so what exactly were the French resistance groups going to be able to do against a better army than we faced?

PanzerJaeger

08-03-2005, 20:46

So according to the general in command of those troops the German occupation force of 1942 was substantially better than that of 1943-44.

I count 29 divisions, 7 which were armored. I wouldnt say that is any better than 40 odd divisions in 44.

But divisions dont tell the whole story. How many were tasked with fighting the resistance and how many simply sat there?

When the allies invaded they didn't find it all that easy so what exactly were the French resistance groups going to be able to do against a better army than we faced?

The strength of the German army in June 1944 was brought into France only months before to specifically fight the allies, not the resistance.

Numbers of divisions do not count if they are undermanned and understrength.

The number of troops Germany used to fight the french resistance was significantly smaller in comparison to some other occupied areas. This situation was helped in no small part by the willingness of the Vichy government to fight the resistance itself and other collaboration.

sharrukin

08-03-2005, 21:33

I count 29 divisions, 7 which were armored. I wouldnt say that is any better than 40 odd divisions in 44.

So General Blumentritt is wrong about his own command? He was saying they were better in 1942!

But divisions dont tell the whole story. How many were tasked with fighting the resistance and how many simply sat there?

The same can be said for any occupied country. 107,000 French resistance fighters died fighting the Germans so this wasn't exactly a group of demonstrators singing "We Shall Overcome".

The strength of the German army in June 1944 was brought into France only months before to specifically fight the allies, not the resistance.

No, according to your count most of the divisions (72%), 29 of them were already present and that includes the 7 armoured divisions. So the bulk of them were already present. In addition they were in 1943-44 LESS capable per division than they had been in 1942.

Numbers of divisions do not count if they are undermanned and understrength.

Exactly my point! More divisions in 1944 do not mean greater combat power.

The number of troops Germany used to fight the french resistance was significantly smaller in comparison to some other occupied areas. This situation was helped in no small part by the willingness of the Vichy government to fight the resistance itself and other collaboration.

To some other occupied areas and greater than in some others as well.

PanzerJaeger

08-03-2005, 22:04

So General Blumentritt is wrong about his own command? He was saying they were better in 1942!

But the vast majority were not used to fight the resistance, as there was no large resistance to fight - thats my point.

The same can be said for any occupied country. 107,000 French resistance fighters died fighting the Germans so this wasn't exactly a group of demonstrators singing "We Shall Overcome".

If you look at the lower countries and greece, a majority of the divisions there had to be used against resistance fighters.

No, according to your count most of the divisions (72%), 29 of them were already present and that includes the 7 armoured divisions. So the bulk of them were already present. In addition they were in 1943-44 LESS capable per division than they had been in 1942.

All through 42 and 43, divisions were stripped and undermanned, the Germans felt no need to increase the strength due to the resistance.

Only in 1944 were very capable divisions brought into france, and not to fight the resistance.

Exactly my point! More divisions in 1944 do not mean greater combat power.

I honestly dont know what the disagreement is about anymore.

The French resistance was weak and the German presence in France was focused almost entirely on repelling the allies, not fighting the resistance.

sharrukin

08-03-2005, 22:25

Anyone here knows how many French casualties there were in different stage of WWII? How many died in 1940 Battle of France, during the occupation, in concentration camp, after D Day? Both military and civil?

That would probably an eye opener for many here...

I sure hope you don't wish that for Iraq...

Louis,

The "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," took a quarter of a million casualties in the invasion of 1940
92,000 KIA and between 200-250, 000 wounded

Thats around 2000 killed for each day of fighting, which is more than the Americans have taken so far in Iraq! It's like having Omaha Beach every day for 45 days.

Compare 2000 DEAD every day to;

Tarawa, 2nd Marine Div 990 killed, 2300 wounded in 4 days
Kwajalein Atoll, Marine 4th Division; 313 killed and 502 wounded
Saipan, American losses 3100 were killed, 13100 wounded in 3 weeks of fighting
Iwo Jima The first day cost: 501 killed; 1,755 wounded; 47 dead of wounds; 18 missing and 99 lost to combat fatigue
Okinawa American losses (land battle) 7,374 killed, 31,807 wounded and 239 missing in action in 82 days of battle
Battle of Hürtgen Forest (called the worst of the worst) 24,000 to 33,000 casualties in 3 months of savage fighting

Perhaps closest to what France faced was the Battle of the Bulge, except bigger and give the Germans better troops and more equipment and no American air superiority.
American losses 19,000 killed, 47,500 wounded, 23,500 POW in 44 days

Killed/Wounded
Germany 27,074 KIA/ 111,034 WIA /18,000 missing (most of whom were in fact dead)
Italy 1,247 KIA/ 4,782 WIA

non-combat related deaths, a faction of the wounded died and there were also many thousands listed as missing, many of whom were later established to be dead, so the final number of dead german soldiers in the campaign was around 46,000.

"156,492 German losses (KIA, MIA, WIA) in 45 days, that's 3477 losses per day but in fact the French resistance was all days harder : 2499 German losses per day between the 10th May and the 3rd June but 4762 German losses per day between the 5th and the 24th June. You can compare that to the 4506 German losses per day during operation Barbarossa from 22nd June to 10th December 1941. It seems the western campaign, even if fast and effective, was much more deadly than the common myth admits it. "

British losses in 26 days : 3,457 KIA, 13,602 WIA, 3,267 MIA

161,000 French KIA in subsequent actions.

60,000 French soldiers died as POW's

around 325,000 civilian dead
The Resistance lost 107,000 Killed

in addition
67,000 civilians killed due to allied bombing (not included in the 325,000 figure)

What do the German commanders who faced the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" think?

- “The French soldiers were among the bravest “ (Rommel)
- “In June 1940 the French fought like lions during the battle of the Somme” (Von Reichenau)
- “The French resisted to the last” (Von Stackelberg)
- “The French are the best soldiers after the Germans” (Hitler)
- “this is the darkest day of my life” (Hitler when hearing the successful French landing in Provence 1944)
- “The best troops were the French” (Von Kesselring about Monte Cassino in 1944)
- “There are three battles I will never forget: Stonne, Stalingrad and Monte Cassino”. (Wagner)
- The French are fighting with élan and bravery. My own soldiers are surprised and furious”. (Kempf)

Me, I have some respect for these guys and some respect for the French who fought and died when they could have chosen not to declare war and let Hitler do what he wanted with eastern europe. That after all was the choice America, the Soviet Union and many other neutrals made.

sharrukin

08-03-2005, 22:40

All through 42 and 43, divisions were stripped and undermanned, the Germans felt no need to increase the strength due to the resistance.

Only in 1944 were very capable divisions brought into france, and not to fight the resistance.

I honestly dont know what the disagreement is about anymore.

It is exactly the opposite of this! The German forces in France in 1942 were STRONGER than they were in the first half of 1944. There were more divisions in number in 1944 but greater areas to guard due to the German occupation of Vichy France. Each division in june 1944 was LESS mobile, LESS capable, with INFERIOR troops.

The Resistance is not a field army and no resistance movement is capable of facing an army in the field. They can tie down forces and that's all. The Serbians were the most capable at this, and the Greeks were pretty good as well, but they couldn't face them in battle either.

The French resistance was one of the stronger ones but no resistance movement can liberate a nation by itself. There were in june, 1944, 21 divisions attached to army group E and F holding down Serbia and Greece. Army group B and G in France had 29 divisions. That seems about right.

Redleg

08-03-2005, 22:44

It's not a story, it was policy. Many Civilians, like someone before me said, carried grenades and blew up after they got close to the soldiers. They just stopped taking chances.

What the link you provided states.

American troops were under orders to consider any unidentified people on the battlefield approaching their position as hostile and eliminate them.

What the United States Military has admitted to was the policy of from your same link futher down the article.

There are many more cases than those listed above but evidence, rather than accusations, is hard to come by. At the time, many of the killings were felt justified because of the fear of infiltration by irregular forces by the South Koreans and as a terror tactic by the North Koreans. It is also worth keeping in mind that the Korean war began only five years after the Second World War ended, a war during which targeting of civilians was severe and routine by all major parties involved.

All parties have denied these actions during the war and afterward, but the U.S. has admitted their policy on strafing certain refugee groups.

That is not the same as this statement from earlier.

In the Korean War, we had a policy that you did not accept refugees, and most civilians were shot on sight.

You might find the contradiction of your own statement in the link that you posted - but here are some links that give evidence that it was not official policy to shoot refugees nor that the United States would not accept refugees.

But children, separated by the hundreds from their parents by the tragedies of war, are only part of a much larger group of hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing into any available escape exit to get away from the Chinese and North Korean Communists-any Communists. Because of geography and the nature of the war, most of the escapes exits lead to Pusan, although Pusan itself is no longer an end, but an escape hatch opening to island sanctuaries still farther away.

From a 1951 news article

http://www.koreanchildren.org/docs/PSS-067-Q.htm

One of the major problems of the retreat was the volume of refugees moving through Eighth Army lines. Their numbers were greater during July and August 1950 than at any other time in the war. During the middle two weeks of July about 380,000 refugees crossed into ROK-held territory. The North Koreans often exploited the situation by launching attacks that began with herding groups of refugees across minefields and then following up with tanks and infantry. The enemy also infiltrated U.S. Army lines by wearing the traditional white civilian clothing and joining groups of refugees, thus enabling him to commit a variety of surprise attacks on American soldiers. The commanders of the 25th Infantry and 1st Cavalry Divisions attempted unsuccessfully to control the volume of refugees and enemy infiltration by searching displaced civilians and limiting the times and routes available for their movements. In late July General Walker, with the cooperation of ROK authorities, set explicit rules for the organized removal of refugees to the rear by the ROK National Police. By the end of July the ROK government had established fifty-eight refugee camps, most of them in the Taegu-Pusan area, to care for the homeless. But even with these efforts, refugees continued to hamper the movement of U.S. and ROK troops throughout the battlefield.

Then there is actions of individual commands that lead to this myth being official policy - such as the Air Force Memo shows - and this log

The 8th Cavalry Regiment’s journal, or communications log, records at 1000 hours, or 10 a.m., on July 24, 1950, instructions from 1st Cavalry Division headquarters to "fire everyone," including refugees, trying to cross the front line. The "G-3 Ln" is the regiment’s liaison to the division operations staff.

Look at the time stamp on the document - 1000 hours from the G3 of Divison and to "use discretion in the case of women and children."

http://www.henryholt.com/nogunri/document02.htm

At 10 a.m. on July 26, 1950, just hours before the refugees came under U.S. attack at No Gun Ri, Eighth Army headquarters sent this message to front-line units about organizing refugee movements. Line 4 says, "No repeat no refugees will be permitted to cross battle lines at any time."

http://www.henryholt.com/nogunri/document19.htm

Now show me where it was official policy of the military - that soldiers were to shoot refugees out of hand. The confusion of war lead to some individual commanders making such decisions, it lead to certain actions like requesting strafing of refugee columns because of the inflirations, but nowhere can I find that it was official policy to shot civilians.