Plan Kathleen

Define "major". But I think British & French will want to have a word with you (while Israelis and Turks will just scream obscenities from some distance awaywhile Pakistanis will just mutter something to themselves)


Also don't forget that lasttime US did opposed amphibious landing was Inchon and there were very few of them after that done by any military. Yet USMC is still around, still big and other militaries have similar, though smaller, forces.



Still makes one wonder how many of those remained after three guttings....



But you didn't answer my question. Why would US go on crash course to rebuild 2 AB divisions in 2 months after Normandy (one of them for third time in a year!) when they had other fresh, uncommited divisions just kicking their heels? Makes no sense to me but I hope you can explain this



And even that took a few months. US did it in 2 months! With 2 divisions!

I define major as more than one division

amphibious capability is also different and evolved... the marines have tanks and apc's now as part of their organic kit... they are no longer an elite assault force used only to break any enemy coast, but instead are a defacto ground army (sorry calbear but thats how it is)

certain platoons in the 101st had only 3 or 4 "originals" by the time of operation plunder, the infantry company in which audey murphy served had every single man killed or wounded in the north african campaign and italy except murphy and a clerk:eek:...100 percent casualties in some of the regiments was a bitch; but without doubt a certain percentage of lucky/skilled troopers where able to make it through, inspite of their squads being wiped out several times (band of brothers has several excellent segments on the disorganization the replacement streak caused)

the american though (british as well) was that it was superior to feed replacements into divisions that had experienced troops; hitler had the opposite vision... they thought they would get better results this way; there is no deeper reason other than strait doctrine

the german tactic (not necessarily better mind you) was to keep their divisions on the line without giving them replacements, until they where mroe or less destroyed (especially the infantry divisions)... then the command staffs and the few survivors would be pulled off the line and they would be completely rebuild OR they would be withdrawn, broken up and used to feed new divisions

the us strategy in rapid replacement was somewhat dubious because the fellows they inserted usually (unless they were returning wounded) didn't have anything like the quality of training that the "originals" had and where quite likely to be killed in their first engagement (comrade calbear or macauley could provide us with more in depth thoughts on the us replacement system)
 
Is not the most likely context for such an invason for Nazi Germany to have decided to postpone Bararossa until the UK were defeated.

Such a context suggests more u boat activity a more bombing of Britain.
 
Germans were such amateurs. It took them a year to rebuild a division. In a year US did it 3 times.

This might have to do with the fact that Germany with an population of around 80 000 000 fielded an army of over 12 000 000 men in 1944 while those pussy Americans had only ~ 8 000 000 men under arms although their population was over 130 000 000 (and they had a much better access to natural ressources). :p

The USA had much more replacements and could spend much more per soldier.
 
I define major as more than one division

In that case you are correct

amphibious capability is also different and evolved... the marines have tanks and apc's now as part of their organic kit... they are no longer an elite assault force used only to break any enemy coast, but instead are a defacto ground army (sorry calbear but thats how it is)

and the same is with airborne troops today. From military standpoint it makes no sense to keep airborne-capable forces above brigade level.Somecountries still keep it for traditions sake, prestige and because they have a reputation.

certain platoons in the 101st had only 3 or 4 "originals" by the time of operation plunder, the infantry company in which audey murphy served had every single man killed or wounded in the north african campaign and italy except murphy and a clerk:eek:...100 percent casualties in some of the regiments was a bitch; but without doubt a certain percentage of lucky/skilled troopers where able to make it through, inspite of their squads being wiped out several times (band of brothers has several excellent segments on the disorganization the replacement streak caused)

And yet US kept rebuilding and using it despite having fresh uncomited simialr force ready. I wonder why, that's why i asked you

the american though (british as well) was that it was superior to feed replacements into divisions that had experienced troops; hitler had the opposite vision... they thought they would get better results this way; there is no deeper reason other than strait doctrine

Makes sense if you have limited number of such divisions. But makes little sense to keep rebuilding one division over and over again while keeping other, similar, division in the rear jut staring at the clouds.

the german tactic (not necessarily better mind you) was to keep their divisions on the line without giving them replacements, until they where mroe or less destroyed (especially the infantry divisions)... then the command staffs and the few survivors would be pulled off the line and they would be completely rebuild OR they would be withdrawn, broken up and used to feed new divisions

that was partly due to Hitler's amateur sychology. He considered division that was once mauled as "unworthy" and moraly unable to withstand further combat. Some generals thought otherwise and wanted to rebuild existing divisions and maintain cadres in place, but Hitler's view prevailed.

the us strategy in rapid replacement was somewhat dubious because the fellows they inserted usually (unless they were returning wounded) didn't have anything like the quality of training that the "originals" had and where quite likely to be killed in their first engagement (comrade calbear or macauley could provide us with more in depth thoughts on the us replacement system)

Which, as I said, makes no sense in AB forces as US kept rebuilding same 2 divisions over and over again while keeping other AB forces uncommited.
 
In that case you are correct



and the same is with airborne troops today. From military standpoint it makes no sense to keep airborne-capable forces above brigade level.Somecountries still keep it for traditions sake, prestige and because they have a reputation.



And yet US kept rebuilding and using it despite having fresh uncomited simialr force ready. I wonder why, that's why i asked you



Makes sense if you have limited number of such divisions. But makes little sense to keep rebuilding one division over and over again while keeping other, similar, division in the rear jut staring at the clouds.



that was partly due to Hitler's amateur sychology. He considered division that was once mauled as "unworthy" and moraly unable to withstand further combat. Some generals thought otherwise and wanted to rebuild existing divisions and maintain cadres in place, but Hitler's view prevailed.



Which, as I said, makes no sense in AB forces as US kept rebuilding same 2 divisions over and over again while keeping other AB forces uncommited.


the allies (particularly the british) broke up formations to feed "blooded divisions" for example loads of AA and TD battalions where broken up in 1944 (when it was found they where not needed in their original role) and where converted to cannon fodder infantry

I apologize for not having a clever answer as to why they kept the same divisions on the line with the rapid replacement process (my expertise isn't in the american military system) i can only describe HOW it worked as opposed to why... someone who is more of an expert on allied military structure (comrade calbear or macauley?) could perhaps give you some details into WHY the individual rapid replacement system was chosen (this was used right through vietnam, and many here are quite critical)
 

pnyckqx

Banned
Modern airborne forces are like USMC. Well trained, well equiped, highly motivated force that is rarely, if ever, used in their intended role. I think last time division sized forces droped was 1950s (not sure how much Pakistanis droped in 2009). Since then it was mostly battalion sized and rare regimental sized force drops.
The last US combat jump by an Airborne Unit was the 173rd Airborne Brigade's jump into Northern Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. That was an improvised operation. The Turks would not permit the 4th Infantry Division to be flown over their air space.

Prior to that, the 187th Airborne regimental combat team performed a combat jump in Korea.
 
The last US combat jump by an Airborne Unit was the 173rd Airborne Brigade's jump into Northern Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. That was an improvised operation. The Turks would not permit the 4th Infantry Division to be flown over their air space.

Prior to that, the 187th Airborne regimental combat team performed a combat jump in Korea.

There were 2 drops in Iraq (one company and one brigade sized), one in A'stan (batallion sized), 2 in Panama (one regimental and one batallion sized) and one in Vietnam (batallion + supporting units). ;)
 
It is ASB, the planes would be shot down over England.
Assuming they have ASB portal technology to get them safely over England to the Irish Sea though....then yeah...I could well see Eire deciding this is the perfect chance to jump into the war on Britain's side. Bare in mind they claimed all of Ireland at the time. Ireland has just been invaded. Irishmen are being killed.
 
There were 2 drops in Iraq (one company and one brigade sized), one in A'stan (batallion sized), 2 in Panama (one regimental and one batallion sized) and one in Vietnam (batallion + supporting units). ;)

Didn't a unit of US Army Rangers airdrop on the airport at Grenada? And suffer a lot of broken legs for it?

BTW, I see a lot of posts about "2 US Airborne Divisions", the 82nd and 101st. What about the 11th, 13th, and 17th?
 
Didn't a unit of US Army Rangers airdrop on the airport at Grenada? And suffer a lot of broken legs for it?

Not that I'm aware of

BTW, I see a lot of posts about "2 US Airborne Divisions", the 82nd and 101st. What about the 11th, 13th, and 17th?

That's my point! I simply don't understand why US kept rebuilding 82nd and 101st, which were supposedly gutted, when they had completly fresh, uncommited other airborne divisions on stand by. Specially when they had to rebuild them in 2 months after Normandy to take part in Market Garden.
 
Top