WWII Surge?

[Some Bloke]

Just thinking about the Surge strategy we used to hear so much about in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What if the idea of a surge (i.e. a temporary allocation of a large force to a given theatre to achieve either concentration or superiority for a specific time or objective) were applied to a campaign during WWII.

Axis or Allies?
Army, Navy or Airforce?
Does it pay off or fail horribly?

[Satrap]

Force ratios/logistics could be a problem.

Also sending large numbers of technologicaly superior forces against insurrgents is one thing, but against an equally or possibly superior technological enemy is another.

[MrP]

Originally Posted by Some Bloke

What if the idea of a surge (i.e. a temporary allocation of a large force to a given theatre to achieve either concentration or superiority for a specific time or objective) were applied to a campaign during WWII.

Something distinct from Hitler's invasion of Russia, the Allies D-Day landings, the failed Market Garden operation and so on? Application of significant force to a particular point is a longstanding thing, so I'm not at all sure what you have in mind.

[Arachnid]

Yeah the idea of allocating a concentration of forces to a particular sector so to create a schwehrpunkt where you outnumber the enemy by a decisive margin was basic military strategy and universally used.

[tez]

Originally Posted by Aracnid

Yeah the idea of allocating a concentration of forces to a particular sector so to create a schwehrpunkt where you outnumber the enemy by a decisive margin was basic military strategy and universally used.

"Schwerpunkt".

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

"Surge" as used re Iraq and Afghanistan is basically a political term. It would have had no meaning in the U.S. of World War Two where most people supported the war and knew it couldn't be won overnight, and where soon on we began to rack up major victories with few setbacks. The military equivalent of "surge" for the U.S. during World War Two was the amphibious invasion. Operation Torch was a surge, as were Overlord and Dragoon.

"Surge" in Iraq meant reversing a bad situation which had resulted from civilian Pentagon officials trying to conduct a war on the cheap with yes-men as generals. This was not the case in World War Two. There was a huge industrial build-up at home, a logistics driven strategy abroad, the use of massive firepower and a slow but steady build up of broad front pressure to where it became irresistable. Marshall and Ike would not have tolerated the civilian Defense Dept. meddling we found in Iraq, nor would Roosevelt (the least meddlesome of civilian war leaders on either side) for that matter. Furthermore, the Donald Rumsfeld of that day, MacArthur, was kept safely away from the main theatre of action.

For the record, I believe that if ASBs had replaced Bush, Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks, with Roosevelt (or Truman), Marshall and Eisenhower in late 2001, there wouldn't have been any second Iraq invasion at all. They would never have been fooled by a cheap con man such as Chalabi, and they would have recognized that Wolfowitz and the other neocons had no military experience or judgement and sent them packing back to academia.

[Ariosto]

A "Surge" arguably occured throughout all the Second World War for both sides. The entire American military was for the most part committed to both the Atlantic theater and the Pacific theater. Its different these days. As an example, imagine if we brought back the draft? The public would go ballistic, a large number of people would refuse to serve, etc. Back in those days, it was not nearly as much a problem.

[Just Leo]

The term "surge" was invented by the "clever language" inventers paid for and motivated by the political people who wish the public to not comprehend the gravity of the situation when a minor little war turns into a much bigger war with unforseen but obvious complications. It has nothing to do with world war situations where the entire country is mobilized. Escalation is the term being replaced by surge due to it's Vietnam references.
Oh, my God! We're having an escalation in the war!

Calm down, we'll just have a surge, instead.

[jack_donaghy_is_the_shado]

[QUOTE= For the record, I believe that if ASBs had replaced Bush, Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks, with Roosevelt (or Truman), Marshall and Eisenhower in late 2001, there wouldn't have been any second Iraq invasion at all. They would never have been fooled by a cheap con man such as Chalabi, and they would have recognized that Wolfowitz and the other neocons had no military experience or judgement and sent them packing back to academia.[/QUOTE]

Ah..wow I think that just made my cold go away for a few minutes. Reminds me of a story I will never fully develop...

[Magniac]

Originally Posted by Alien and Sedition Bat

"Surge" as used re Iraq and Afghanistan is basically a political term... "Surge" in Iraq meant reversing a bad situation which had resulted from civilian Pentagon officials trying to conduct a war on the cheap with yes-men as generals.

The high profile rhetoric of the 'surge' replaced the high profile rhetoric of all good Americans trusting in the president and his secretary of defence 'coz they had, er, real world business experience. Hell, the vice president's great contribution to the election of 2000 as a strategy guy was to blithely allege he had never benefitted from the taxpayers when earning a fortune as chairman of a major Pentagon contractor.

I have to give credit to Petraeus: he was a much more adroit political leader during '07/'08 than his actual political leaders were at anytime after late '03.

Originally Posted by Alien and Sedition Bat

Furthermore, the Donald Rumsfeld of that day, MacArthur, was kept safely away from the main theatre of action.

No, this unfair. Douglas MacArthur was a serious planner, who brought massive force to bare when he had it. He never planned on beating the Japanese on the cheap.

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien and Sedition Bat
Furthermore, the Donald Rumsfeld of that day, MacArthur, was kept safely away from the main theatre of action.

No, this unfair. Douglas MacArthur was a serious planner, who brought massive force to bare when he had it. He never planned on beating the Japanese on the cheap.

I was referring to MacArthur's and Rumsfeld's egomania, but you are right that MacArthur was capable of serious planning and was certainly not a bean counter. Still, Rumsfeld's ego-driven push for an unnecessary war in Iraq bears a certain resemblance to MacArthur's promotion of an unnecessary I-shall-return invasion of the Philippines.

[Some Bloke]

Ok ok, I agree wholeheartedly that the invasion of Iraq was an act of military and political stupidity on a Supermussolinian scale but ... back to
the task at hand.

Some very good points have been made on the relevence of the Surge
strategy and the comparison with the Schwerpunkt (did I spell it right).

Personally I'd say that the Surge is application of the Schwerpunkt principle on a specifically operational level rather than tactical (in the case of concentration) or strategic (in the context the Schwerpunkt as such is often discussed).

This question was designed as a plausibility check and you've pointed
out some interesting historical paralels and argued that a "surge" ploy had in fact been used during WWII. I might try tweaking the question or come up with a specific scenario later on but I've enjoyed reading your thoughts on the basic idea and I suspect there are some more people wanting to pitch in.