Hi
Firstly I never said they broke and ran. My point is that they performed badly due to poor training. An American makes just as good a soldier as a German what makes a difference is the training and leadership.
Its always good to read the article before commenting I submit some Quotes from the article mentioned by Baggypants.
"These natural advantages held by the enemy prevailed in other sectors as well as the 90th Division's. A partial solution to the combat problem was the persistent application of basic infantry principles and lessons- the axioms concerning fire and movement, control, bunching-and maximum initiative by individuals and small groups. This lesson was stressed in an operational memorandum issued on 19 June by 90th Division headquarters. It stated that the division's small gains and heavy losses were due in part to failure to apply training lessons properly and suggested stressing to the men the fundamentals of constant movement, of returning fire by some while others maneuver, and of following artillery closely. General Landrum also underscored these basic infantry tactics when he spoke to the battalion commanders of the 358th Infantry on 15 June. Some of his remarks were noted in the Regimental Journal:
Coming under hostile fire causes inertia to our troops ... [do not] believe they're afraid, but bewildered, and this can be broken by common sense, applying simple tactics of fire and movement which are applicable in any type of fighting ... it is doubtful whether any man is pinned down unless out in the open ... mustn't let ourselves be stopped by fire ... must get something moving right away ... part of the line may have to take it, but have to get fire on the hostile weapons, the machine guns ... it is seldom that any unit of any size is pinned down, so it should be possible always to maneuver some of your forces if there's any concealment at all, and there's plenty of it here ... PWs say they can tell the direction from which we are coming and how we're going, which indicates we've got to control our fire ... and they say also that we bunch up ... we should be able to control our men better in this terrain ... the danger of the 88 is that it multiplies in quantity as one man tells another about them, and finally our men think there are four times as many as there really are ... it is an effective weapon, but it can be beaten ... we have plenty of artillery to be used on call ...."
That right, TRAINING not applied.
"The 357th Infantry, on the right flank of the 359th, also encountered difficulties. On 14 June it prepared to attack Gourbesville again, its objective being the Gourbesville-Beauvais line. An air mission arranged for 1400 was canceled for lack of proper marking smoke, and an artillery preparation was substituted at 1800. Because of poor coordination, a number of shells fell on American troops and the attack became disorganized. The concentration was fired again at 1930 and the 3d Battalion entered the village at 2230. It was unable, however, to clean out enemy resistance that night, and Gourbesville remained in enemy hands."
Which way is up on this map?
"In the 90th Division one only one regiment was involved in the advance toward Urville on 16 June, the 357th Infantry having been temporarily withdrawn to a reserve position. The 358th Infantry prepared to jump off at 0800, but there were several delays, due primarily to the 1st Battalion's loss of direction. The attack did not get off until 1715, at which time Lieutenant Colonel Bealke's 3d Battalion led the advance into le Calais."
Oh Hell MY battalion is point?????
" in view of the previous slow progress of the 90th Division, General Collins asked General Bradley for a replacement and was given the 79th Division, which, however, was not to be employed until later. "
Yes their doing so well I want a replacement division.
Initially 90th didnt do a river crossing they actually crossed a river into bridgeheads already held. My origional reference mentions that when they couldnt get this right alarm bells began ringing.
as baggypants says
"Eisenhower (in the first 30 days of the landings) relieved several hundred officers til the Cobra breakout 'took his rearend off the fire'"
or perhaps these guys just wernt up to it? or more precisely poorly trained after all Eisenhower will only be removing these guys on recomendation and it certainly isnt good for morale to see your officers removed so I imagine it wouldnt be done unless there was a real problem.
Ive already posted this but ill include it here for completeness.
Heres what Captain Michael D. Doubler from leavenworth says about the standard of American training.
from
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...er/doubler.asp
"
Despite successes in Tunisia and Sicily, the U.S. Army that assaulted the Normandy beaches was still far from being a well-oiled, coordinated fighting machine. Shortcomings in prebattle training and battlefield coordination during 1942 and 1943 prevented the U.S. Army from developing its full potential as an effective fighting force. One of the major problems discovered was the surprising lack of aggressiveness displayed by infantry units. Instead of employing techniques of fire and maneuver to close with and destroy the enemy, infantry attacks often merely located and pinned down the enemy. Artillery fire was then called on to finish the infantry's job of destroying the defenders. Instead of relying on their organic weapons, infantrymen trusted in the big guns of the field artillery to deliver the coups de grace.16
Another problem compounded the infantry's reliance on artillery support. The purpose of the infantry division's mortars and assault guns was to support the attacks of the riflemen. Consequently, these weapons were usually employed close to the fighting front and became favorite targets for German artillery, tanks, and other heavy weapons. American mortar, antitank, and assault-gun crews often suffered heavy casualties. A tendency developed in which these weapons remained hidden and silent until the salvos of the supporting artillery landed on the defenders' positions. Artillery fires suppressed and neutralized the Germans, and only then would the infantry's organic heavy weapons join in the battle.17
Even more disturbing was the poor coordination that existed during tank-infantry attacks. Experience in combat painfully showed that stateside training lacked emphasis on the planning and execution of combined arms attacks. Infantry commanders habitually failed to exploit the mobility and firepower of the tanks attached to their units. Conversely, tankers operating with infantry were often reluctant to aggressively advance, taking the burden of the attack away from the riflemen.18
"
Training presented a problem because of these numbers.
In sept 1939 Hitler has 108 fully trained fully equipped divisions.
In june 1941 Stalin has 178 on the western front alone.
In Sept 1939 the American Army has 5 divisions thats 188500 men and 14400 officers.
So recruiting training and equipping all started too late. Lend lease added to the problem because equipment that should have been used for training was flowing overseas.
Which is why I say that I find the American experience 65 morale 75 a bit high compared to the German experience 70 morale 65
90th Division was facing the 91 german infantry division,
see
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/
The division was formed in Jan 44 apparently had very little ammunition for its gun batteries. It started out understrength at 7000-8000 men, lost about 5000 in the normandy fighting but managed to retained a lot if its heavy equipment it didnt "break" but was disbanded through lack of numbers.
Best regards Chuck
Re: 90th Division remarks
Hybrid Mode
