Hi BaggyPants
I am not suggesting rearranging one OOBs morale rating based on one hard luck outfit.
The levenworth article clearly details poor performance
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...er/doubler.asp
on a much wider scale. 90th division just serves as an very good example of problems due to poor training that I think were probably to be found in many/most American divisions/regiments. ie because they all got the same training. And of course dont forget Kasserine, same problem.
Thats right aggressiveness is'nt everything, but when you have some substantial advantages such as air, supply, numbers etc you should perform OK but if you then fail through lack of agressiveness or you could say, lack of initiative then that must be from poor training.
Normally when a section hits an obstacle and its a single fire position the corporal will get some info, place the LMG in a spot to cover the target and leapfrog the sections rifle group and scout group over the objective, same deal but more complicated for the coy lieutenant taking out a section etc. Now this is the British and Australian approach, and in the first instance takes about 10-20 minutes up until going back over the objective seaching the body and putting in a radio report, If you prefer to use the American "fixing attack" this can be a lot slower depending on your artillery availability, which may be one reason they got stuck in the bocage. And the enemy has the opportunity to "bug out" while you bring in the ranging shots and of course you lose the advantage of surprise.
The practice in most armies is to limit the amount of artillery support available according to the size of the formation being supported, this means you have to be aggressive or you dont get anywhere. American doctrine of allowing much higher levels or artilery support at lower formation sizes encourages reliance on artilley, no doubt saving American lives, but is slower. Allowing the enemy time to adjust to your advance.
The Germans had a higher proportion of Officers to noncommissioned ranks killed than the Americans, After losing and replacing officers such German Divisions didnt drop to green status, I guess because the replacements were usually pulled up from within the divisions ranks?
Your war college essay, emphasises the difficulties of the bocage, and it is good defensive terrain, but dont forget the closer the cover the more men needed to cover it. It sounds like the Germans had built the Maginot line in there but actually very few units were well dug in, there was very little depth and there were big gaps between some units. The Americans should have found these gaps and pushed through for all they were worth, a similar "missed oportunity" happened at Anzio. German replacements and resupply of course arrived in dribs and drabs and had to be thrown into the line piecemeal after being shot up by air all the way in.
The 90th wasnt reorganised it just had its commanders replaced.
Best regards Chuck
Re: 90th Division remarks
Threaded Mode