Lets play world war II mix and match!

[UnderseaLcpl]

This seems kind of silly...but it also sounds like fun. I'll play

Country- Pwnia
Infantry- German Waffen SS. I know, they were bad guys, but man for man they were damned good fighters!
Armor- German (post-1941. I know the Russians had more serviceable and more effective tanks, but I cannot endorse their crew training model. They just threw men away)

Air Force- Russian. An odd choice, I know, but the Russians developed a close air-support model based on the German model in relatively short order and then actually had the resources to employ it effectively. The US and the British did nothing of the sort. They just threw men and machines at the war until the Axis was literally without means to oppose them, and even then they didn't have any success accomplishing their stated objectives. Worse, the Western Allies engaged in massive and ineffective terror-bombings of civilians. Not in my damn airforce!

Navy- I'll take the US Navy. For all their considerable power and subsequent attempts to check the U-boat threat, the Royal Navy was precisely garbage until the US showed up. All they managed to do was to lose every surface naval engagement and fail to adequately address the U-boat threat on their own, in like, multiple ways.

Actually, now that I think about it, screw the US Navy. The only people who had any idea of how to use a Navy with the goal of "force projection" were the Japanese. They were proactive rather than reactive. Were it not for the incredible stroke of luck we had at Midway, they would have beat our asses black and blue before they succumbed to our material superiority. I want US material superiority combined with Japanese naval tactics.

Artillery - German

German artillery targeting and employment was so frakking good that the US uses it as a model for combined-force operations to this day, and it serves very well.

Command Model - German again. The German model of command is so good that their methods are embraced by the world's only remaining superpower. In fact, we go a step beyond that and have adopted German unit tactics, camoflauge, and even helmets.

Logistics- I'd go with the US, though Russians are a close second. There's nothing quite like mindlessly throwing vastly superior resources at the enemy until they give up because they no longer have the means to resist. It's not a good or effective strategy, but it does work. Actually, I take that back. I'd use the British model of logistics. There is nothing quite like throwing someone else's vastly superior resources at the enemy until they no longer have the means to resist.

So I guess what I really want is allied material superiority and axis troops. Can I do that?

[frau kaleun]

Nation: Giggity Republic of Hotchacha

(Airborne) Infantry-Damian Lewis as Major Dick Winters
Armor-Erwin Rommel as himself
Air Force-some cute guy with an accent in a Spitfire
Navy-Jürgen Prochnow as der Alte
Artillery-whoever has the biggest gun
Command Model-I vill be giffink ze kommants, ja?
Logistics-we'll start with a game of nekkid Twister and go from there



It's entirely possible that I've missed the whole point of this exercise.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

Nation: Giggity Republic of Hotchacha

(Airborne) Infantry-Damian Lewis as Major Dick Winters
Armor-Erwin Rommel as himself
Air Force-some cute guy with an accent in a Spitfire
Navy-Jürgen Prochnow as der Alte
Artillery-whoever has the biggest gun
Command Model-I vill be giffink ze kommants, ja?
Logistics-we'll start with a game of nekkid Twister and go from there



It's entirely possible that I've missed the whole point of this exercise.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Air Force- Russian. An odd choice, I know, but the Russians developed a close air-support model based on the German model in relatively short order and then actually had the resources to employ it effectively. The US and the British did nothing of the sort. They just threw men and machines at the war until the Axis was literally without means to oppose them, and even then they didn't have any success accomplishing their stated objectives.

This guy would beg to differ with you, vis a vis CAS; my only addition would be that the Soviets & Germans both had the need to develop CAS a lot sooner than did the US, as we weren't even engaged in large-scale land combat until Africa in 42, where the Russians and Germans had been throwing a lot of lead at each other for a couple of years already.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Growler

This guy would beg to differ with you, vis a vis CAS; my only addition would be that the Soviets & Germans both had the need to develop CAS a lot sooner than did the US, as we weren't even engaged in large-scale land combat until Africa in 42, where the Russians and Germans had been throwing a lot of lead at each other for a couple of years already.

I did some research and it seems like General Quesada had the right idea, thanks for bringing him to my attention. However, his ideas did not win out. The US never really adopted CAS as a combat doctrine during the war. Unescorted daylight strategic bombing with massive losses were the rule at the time. Such results would suggest that something about the military system itself needed to be changed. Even then, it took almost 40 years for the US military to concede that the German military model for CAS was superior by all but completely adopting it, along with virtually every other aspect of it. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it isn't the Germans.

[August]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

The US never really adopted CAS as a combat doctrine during the war.

Didn't the Marines do a fair amount of CAS development in the Pacific?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

Didn't the Marines do a fair amount of CAS development in the Pacific?

CAS development? Are you serious? What the Marines developed during the Pacific war was a way of throwing men and machines at worthless targets with no justifiable effect. The only thing seperating us from the Army in that conflict is some really good PR.

[August]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

CAS development? Are you serious? What the Marines developed during the Pacific war was a way of throwing men and machines at worthless targets with no justifiable effect. The only thing seperating us from the Army in that conflict is some really good PR.

I thought the Marines had begun the practice of using FAC's as early as Guadalcanal. I guess I was mistaken.

But don't you think "throwing men and machines at worthless targets of no justifiable effect" is kind of harsh for men who managed to win their war against a tenacious and committed enemy with less casualties than we suffered in a single Civil war battle?

[tater]

Jap as line infantry?

They were terrorized when they faced real armies that actually had artillery that didn't use 3-4 guys on foot as the prime mover. They were utterly shattered by the Soviets before the war started. They won an excellent victory in Malaya, but everywhere else? When did they win in a real fight?

"Fighting spirit" is meaningless, or they'd have won the war.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

I thought the Marines had begun the practice of using FAC's as early as Guadalcanal. I guess I was mistaken.

No, you're not mistaken. But they did manage to frack the concept up. At the time it was thought that sheer weight of firepower, be it from aircraft or artillery or naval assets would flatten the enemy and allow us to simply walk in and take the territory. Since that never happened even once in the entire war, we were forced to reconsider our attitude. Then we screwed it up again in Korea and Vietnam. Then we just ended up copying the WW2 German model.

But don't you think "throwing men and machines at worthless targets of no justifiable effect" is kind of harsh for men who managed to win their war against a tenacious and committed enemy with less casualties than we suffered in a single Civil war battle?

Harsh? No, not really. Marines don't think like that. Marines think in terms of mission accomplishment. Simply winning a battle or a war is not accomplishing the mission. The fight must be won, and it must be won without undue casualties. Every dead or wounded Marine is a Marine who isn't around to fight later. Every casualty is blemish on our reputation as a fighting force. It is difficult to explain.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I did some research and it seems like General Quesada had the right idea, thanks for bringing him to my attention. However, his ideas did not win out. The US never really adopted CAS as a combat doctrine during the war. Unescorted daylight strategic bombing with massive losses were the rule at the time. Such results would suggest that something about the military system itself needed to be changed. Even then, it took almost 40 years for the US military to concede that the German military model was for CAS was superior by all but completely adopting it, along with virtually every other aspect of it. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it isn't the Germans.

The only thing I would add is that the XVIII Fighter Command began releasing their Thunderbolts and Mustangs to fighter sweeps in mid-to-late 44, as the Luftwaffe began its terminal fade; such sweeps included low-level attacks on targets of opportunity. However, they began to see increases in pilot losses due to the ever-present threat of flak - down to guys on the ground shooting rifles into the strafing aircraft - as well as the inherent hazards of flying fighter aircraft at single-digit altitudes and high rates of speed; they slapped a moratorium on low-level antics in, iirc, March of 45, to last until the end of the war.