Why was the US only able to field 98 infantry divisions during WW2?
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty - Former Central Planning at NATO
Really bad planning on the part of General Marshall.
The initial plan was to field 265 divisions of 4 regiments each … he managed to field only 89 with 3 regiments [or regimental equivalents] each.
How could this happen?
The main reasons, however, were the duplication of forces and the horrid logistics system that swallowed up enormous numbers of troops without providing any results. There were so many administrators that the US actually suffered from a “typewriter shortage”.
Link
____________
I found this on Quora and decided to dive down the rabbit hole. It was written by a fellow that I have no real way of vetting his credentials ("Former Central Planning at NATO") but I was intrigued enough by what he said to explore it further here on the WAB.
Another Quoran dismisses his posts thusly: "This guy tends to write wildly imaginative answers without any sources backing them up. Some are interesting if true and others are outright absurd if true, but I believe it’s all best consumed under the idea of “historical fiction” unless he manages to cough up a direct source some day."
Can any of our resident experts (Looking at you Buck!) confirm or deny his assertions, especially #2?
And it looks like I have two new books to consider....
Thierry Etienne Joseph Rotty - Former Central Planning at NATO
Really bad planning on the part of General Marshall.
The initial plan was to field 265 divisions of 4 regiments each … he managed to field only 89 with 3 regiments [or regimental equivalents] each.
How could this happen?
- Lack of coordination between Army and Navy. This led to massive amounts of duplication. You had Army and Navy units trained to load and unload ships. In practice, most of the loading and unloading was done by civilians. So throughout the war, you had soldiers and sailors sitting in major ports doing absolutely nothing. for example. You had duplication in administrative functions, logistics, garrison forces, etc.
- A logistics system that was one of the worst on the planet. Forget the PR stunts such as delivering a turkey dinner for Thanksgiving to the troops or the Americans having fuel to spare. The reality was that the logistics system sucked big time. On average, the Americans needed four times as many people compared to the British … and still, most supplies never reached the frontlines. A good example is the Northwestern Theatre. The logistics of Montgomery's 21st Army group were handled by his personal staff of 36 people. These were the same people who planned operations. The Americans had a separate entity called Communications Zone [Comm Z] to handle logistics. The commander of Comm Z was General Lee who had a personal staff of 12,000. That is an entire infantry division worth of administrators telling other administrators what to do. The number of administrators who had nothing to do or truck drivers that could not drive because of a lack of fuel was staggering. If you want to know more about how bad life for a soldier really was, I suggest the books “Voices from Normandy” and “Voices from the Bulge”. Two American books in which veterans tell you what really happened.
- Too many people in the arms industry. The US produced enormous numbers of weapons, an impressive achievement. The problem is that tens of thousands of tanks, guns, and airplanes were never used due to the lack of crews to use them. People should have been transferred from arms production to military services.
- Non-divisional assets. Infantry divisions did not have any organic tank or anti-aircraft weapons and limited anti-tank weapons. These weapons were provided by attaching separate battalions to the existing divisions.
The main reasons, however, were the duplication of forces and the horrid logistics system that swallowed up enormous numbers of troops without providing any results. There were so many administrators that the US actually suffered from a “typewriter shortage”.
Link
____________
I found this on Quora and decided to dive down the rabbit hole. It was written by a fellow that I have no real way of vetting his credentials ("Former Central Planning at NATO") but I was intrigued enough by what he said to explore it further here on the WAB.
Another Quoran dismisses his posts thusly: "This guy tends to write wildly imaginative answers without any sources backing them up. Some are interesting if true and others are outright absurd if true, but I believe it’s all best consumed under the idea of “historical fiction” unless he manages to cough up a direct source some day."
Can any of our resident experts (Looking at you Buck!) confirm or deny his assertions, especially #2?
And it looks like I have two new books to consider....
Comment