If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 19:42

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#46

Post by Orwell1984 » 11 Nov 2017, 19:41

Plain Old Dave wrote: I mentioned Close Air Support earlier, and need to revise my earlier statement. The Marines had begun experimenting with dive bombing as close air support in the early Teens in Haiti and perfected it as a tactic in Nicaragua.
I'd really love to see your evidence for Marines executing divebombing as close support in the early teens, which is something not even the official marine portal claims.
http://guides.grc.usmcu.edu/aviation

The first Marine aviation unit to see combat was in 1918:
http://guides.grc.usmcu.edu/content.php ... id=2518132
The First Marine Aviation Force (FMAF) was the first Marine aviation unit to see combat. Serving in northern France and Belgium between 9 August and 11 November 1918.
Here's the offical history of Marine Corps Aviation for the years 1912 to 1940 written by Lieutenant Colonel Edward C
. Johnson, USMC:
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publi ... 163523-137

Zero mention of any air action in Haiti in the early teens as the organization was still in its infancy and sorting out its relation to the Navy.

In fact it wasn't until 1919 that Marine aviation became involved in overseas Marine operations (excluding their actions in the Great War).
As to their invention of diving bombing:
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publi ... 6800_2.pdf
page 53 of the history has this to say in its footnote discussing air operations in Haiti and the actions of Marine aviation:
By modern standards, what Sanderson was doing would be called "glide bombing,"as a true, steep,powered dive was impossible in the planes of that day. At the time, however, they called it dive bombing and with sturdier machines like the Curtiss F6C series began to approximate the modern tactic. Lieutenant Sanderson never claimed to be the inventor of dive bombing, although probably he was the first Marine to use the tactic. Apparently, dive (or glide) bombing evolved in a number of air services during World War I. Both Allied and German pilots are reported to have used it in combat,and U.S. Army fliers at Ellington Field, Texas, practiced it during 1917–1918, dropping their bombs from wing racks controlled by wires leading to the pilot' s cockpit.
So the USMC itself seems to have a more balanced view of its role in close support evolution.

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#47

Post by Plain Old Dave » 11 Nov 2017, 21:41

You're cherry picking. The plain facts follow:

1) The AEF was key to allied victory in WW1; Britain and France were bankrupt and on the verge of total collapse when we came in.

2) For all intents and purposes, the 5th and 6th Marines WON the war at Belleau Wood.

3) The United States Marine Corps invented CAS. Certainly people expended ordinance on target before Haiti and Nicaragua, but if anybody had even THOUGHT about fire direction control with on station aircraft before the Marine Corps did, they never wrote about it. A key fundamental of fire support is fire correction.


Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 19:42

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#48

Post by Orwell1984 » 11 Nov 2017, 21:58

Plain Old Dave wrote:You're cherry picking. The plain facts follow:

1) The AEF was key to allied victory in WW1; Britain and France were bankrupt and on the verge of total collapse when we came in.

2) For all intents and purposes, the 5th and 6th Marines WON the war at Belleau Wood.

3) The United States Marine Corps invented CAS. Certainly people expended ordinance on target before Haiti and Nicaragua, but if anybody had even THOUGHT about fire direction control with on station aircraft before the Marine Corps did, they never wrote about it. A key fundamental of fire support is fire correction.
No, I'm presenting sourced evidence to show that you've made an incorrect statement. It's how this forum functions and how adult historical discussion takes place. I notice that rather than reply with any historical evidence or sources ,you've chosen to reply with unsourced opinion and deflection. If you wish to have a proper historical discussion I'd be happy to participate. Please provide evidence for your claims,with proper sources , as the forum rules require. I look forward to your response and your sources so this discussion can proceed. Thank you

jesk
Banned
Posts: 1973
Joined: 04 Aug 2017, 09:19
Location: Belarus

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#49

Post by jesk » 11 Nov 2017, 22:20

Much depended on the government's ability to maintain the morale of the army and the population. France and Great Britain lost 2.67 million soldiers killed and captured during the war. 300 thousand are demobilized after wounds. 3.1 ~ 3.2 million total irrecoverable losses. The total draft age in the two countries is 21.5 million, 15% loss. It's not that much. More was the fear of the morale of the army and the population to continue the war.

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#50

Post by Plain Old Dave » 11 Nov 2017, 22:48

Orwell1984 wrote:
Plain Old Dave wrote:You're cherry picking. The plain facts follow:

1) The AEF was key to allied victory in WW1; Britain and France were bankrupt and on the verge of total collapse when we came in.

2) For all intents and purposes, the 5th and 6th Marines WON the war at Belleau Wood.

3) The United States Marine Corps invented CAS. Certainly people expended ordinance on target before Haiti and Nicaragua, but if anybody had even THOUGHT about fire direction control with on station aircraft before the Marine Corps did, they never wrote about it. A key fundamental of fire support is fire correction.
No, I'm presenting sourced evidence to show that you've made an incorrect statement. It's how this forum functions and how adult historical discussion takes place. I notice that rather than reply with any historical evidence or sources ,you've chosen to reply with unsourced opinion and deflection. If you wish to have a proper historical discussion I'd be happy to participate. Please provide evidence for your claims,with proper sources , as the forum rules require. I look forward to your response and your sources so this discussion can proceed. Thank you
Ryan Mosier's Myth Of The Great War, and virtually anything published by the Marine Corps Institute on WW1. European historians have been engaged in nearly century long conspiracy to marginalize the AEF; therefore European historians can be dismissed as biased sources.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#51

Post by pugsville » 12 Nov 2017, 01:33

Plain Old Dave wrote:
Orwell1984 wrote:
Plain Old Dave wrote:Y. European historians have been engaged in nearly century long conspiracy to marginalize the AEF; therefore European historians can be dismissed as biased sources.
Or Americans are too easily swayed by their own Nationalist agenda and can be dismissed. American exceptionalism. Aside from that fact they were Americans can you present any argument way the AEF was so significant?

Belleau Wood, Sgt Your the American public needed Heroes and success stories, they were generated. It;'s amazing how old propaganda still continues to work. (Napoleon's propaganda still holds a powerful sway for example). Why do yo think Belleau Wood was OS significant?

You have yet to present any argument let alone evidence that the AEF efforts in 1918 were critical. As they were a very small fraction of the forces fighting the German Spring offensive, you would need a compelling argument backed up by more than just grandiose and irrelevant statements that somehow they efforts were massively out of proportion to their numbers. The British and French armies did most of the fighting and they remained effective fighting forces til the End of the War.

American Army reviews of the AEF performance in 1918 is full if things like poor staff work, poor artillery co-ordination. The AEF was new to mass warfare, and trench warfare, a very technical and demanding style of warfare. They had to train up officers and men from a very very low base. In 1918 they were along way off the pace. (it's similar to the Kitchner's Army thing for the British, which was very green going into the Somme, which suffered from many of the problems the AEF did )

CroGer
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 20:27
Location: Germany/Croatia

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#52

Post by CroGer » 12 Nov 2017, 02:14

pugsville wrote:
Plain Old Dave wrote:
Orwell1984 wrote:
Plain Old Dave wrote:Y. European historians have been engaged in nearly century long conspiracy to marginalize the AEF; therefore European historians can be dismissed as biased sources.
Or Americans are too easily swayed by their own Nationalist agenda and can be dismissed. American exceptionalism. Aside from that fact they were Americans can you present any argument way the AEF was so significant?

Belleau Wood, Sgt Your the American public needed Heroes and success stories, they were generated. It;'s amazing how old propaganda still continues to work. (Napoleon's propaganda still holds a powerful sway for example). Why do yo think Belleau Wood was OS significant?

You have yet to present any argument let alone evidence that the AEF efforts in 1918 were critical. As they were a very small fraction of the forces fighting the German Spring offensive, you would need a compelling argument backed up by more than just grandiose and irrelevant statements that somehow they efforts were massively out of proportion to their numbers. The British and French armies did most of the fighting and they remained effective fighting forces til the End of the War.

American Army reviews of the AEF performance in 1918 is full if things like poor staff work, poor artillery co-ordination. The AEF was new to mass warfare, and trench warfare, a very technical and demanding style of warfare. They had to train up officers and men from a very very low base. In 1918 they were along way off the pace. (it's similar to the Kitchner's Army thing for the British, which was very green going into the Somme, which suffered from many of the problems the AEF did )
It's also interesting that he compares the german army with.... Haiti. :milwink:
The biggest international war that the americans had until then was the spanish-american war, which lasted 3 months.

Here's an interesting occurance during that war
During the American assault on the strategic Cuban city of Santiago, a small force of 750 Spanish troops armed with Model 1893 Mauser rifles defended positions on San Juan and Kettle hills. The attacking force consisted of approximately 6,600 American soldiers, most of them regulars, armed with the then-new smokeless-powder Krag–Jørgensen rifle and supported by artillery and Gatling gun fire. Though the assault was successful, the Americans soon realized that they had suffered more than 1,400 casualties in the assault. A U.S board of investigation pinned the blame on the superior firepower of the Spanish Model 1893 Mauser rifles, although modern analysis has determined that many of the casualties were due to superior Spanish fortifications on the high ground
The USA was just not the military juggernaught that it is today. When they entered WW1, they had a bunch of guy who were really green, against a bunch of guys who had wiped he floor with the russians and romanians, had the italian on the verge of defeat in the alps, and was able to keep the franco-british troops at bay.

That was quite a feat for a nation of 65 million. But they had their internal problems, so they agreed to demobilize, and where screwed over.
But they still had a large army, with experience in all types of warfare, apparently very tough to beat, and with very skilled people at home.

What would have happened if the axis fought on?
The only answer is it would have been a bloodbath, with the only good thing coming out of it that some bullet might have killed Hitler.
Sperg

Aber
Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#53

Post by Aber » 12 Nov 2017, 02:19

3) The United States Marine Corps invented CAS. Certainly people expended ordinance on target before Haiti and Nicaragua, but if anybody had even THOUGHT about fire direction control with on station aircraft before the Marine Corps did, they never wrote about it. A key fundamental of fire support is fire correction.
Oh dear

For example of aircraft providing fire correction for ships in mid 1915:
There were some military problems that only a plane could solve.  A prime example is the hunt for the German light cruiser the Königsberg.  At the outbreak of the war she was based in Dar-es-Salaam in east Africa, from where she attacked British shipping.
Pursued by more powerful British warships, she entered the Rufiji river delta and hid upstream.  The deeper draught British cruisers could not follow.  Having lost contact with the Königsberg the navy acquired a Curtis flying boat - one of the only aircraft then in Africa - in order to search for the ship.  The Curtis, using an improvised Ford motor car radiator to replace its own damaged one, located the Königsberg in November of 1914, but in a later flight the plane was brought down by rifle fire and the pilot captured.
The Königsberg remained trapped upstream until June of 1915 when the shallow draught river monitors Severn and Mersey could be brought out from Britain.  They were accompanied by 4 aircraft of the RNAS (Royal Navy Air Service) - 2 Caudron G3s, and 2 Farman F27s.
These wireless equipped aircraft were to be used for spotting, as the Severn and Mersey could not risk coming within visual sight of the more powerful Königsberg.  During late June the small force of aircraft practiced cooperation with the monitors, but one aircraft of each type was damaged during these practice runs.
The first artillery duel between the Königsberg and the monitors took place on the 6th of July 1915, and ended with neither side gaining a victory.  The aerial spotting had been inaccurate, because the Severn and Mersey were firing together, and the observers could not differentiate which ship had fired which round.  They were further confused because the shells often landed in soft mud and did not explode at all.
The Severn and Mersey returned on the 11th of July.  This time each ship fired on its own, and the Königsberg was eventually bracketed and sunk under a withering fire. 

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#54

Post by Plain Old Dave » 12 Nov 2017, 15:18

Apples and oranges, again.

The US Marines were the first armed force to solve the fire direction problem as relates to close air support. I.E. Air delivered ordinance in support of land combat.
Or Americans are too easily swayed by their own Nationalist agenda and can be dismissed. American exceptionalism. Aside from that fact they were Americans can you present any argument way the AEF was so significant?
I'll have to leave Part One as I understand modern political discussion to be outside the parameters of this forum. I have already covered the other two here time and time again.

1) The AEF did something in weeks the Brits and French had failed to do in 3 1/2 years of effort: Clear the Argonne, the most fortified, densely wooded area on the Western Front.

2) The straight-shooting 5th and 6th Marines stopped the "Ardennes Offensive" the Germans actually tried at Belleau Wood. The Germans learned at Cantigny that the US Army could fight and win, and at Belleau Wood that the Marine Corps were virtually unstoppable. As Chesty said a generation later, there's not a force on Earth that can stop a Marine rifle regiment from going anywhere it wants to go any time it wants to go there.

By the close of the Argonne, the Germans understood that the US was a nation fully committed to victory, with a competent military that could actually WIN battles. Further, the US had a virtually bottomless pool of manpower and had been financing Britain and France since 1915. European historians will never admit any of this, because to do so would be to admit that they were weeks from losing the War when the US came in in 1917.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#55

Post by pugsville » 12 Nov 2017, 17:04

"It was a good thing for the AEF that armistice came on 11 November 1918., The American force in the Meuse-Argonne had almost exhausted it's ability to fight on. Poor supplies, breakdowns in command and stand, and bad weather had weakened the effort. Donald Symthe, Pershing's biographer , later wrote "that the First army was able to break through on November 1 was due not to any new method like open warfare, nor even to the Army's growing competence, but in large part to the steady deterioration of the enemy". In hi after-action report Charles P Summerall, the ruthless and hard-driving V Corps commander, stated "By desperate fighting, the fresh divisions were able to carry the line forward to the Kriemhilde Stellung, where it was again temporarily stabilised. In spite of successive efforts, the gains were slight during a period of two weeks." Summerall's use of the word "stabilised" really meant meant that the troops were unable to advance and simply remained in position in the face of the determined and skilled enemy"

Pershing and His Generals: Command and Staff in the AEF (page 139)
By James J. Cooke

"But the US 1st Army not only outnumbered rtes dispirited german forces by a margin of four to one , they possessed overwhelming superiority in artillery, aircraft and tanks, all supplied by the allies. In fact the germans did not have any tanks available in their defence. American success would largely depend on sheer numbers"

"However , it did not take long for the inexperienced troops to develop problems. Soldiers grouped together making easy targets for the enemy machine guns that mowed down entire platoons in one sweep. Divisional artillery was ineffective , firing blindly without direct observation. Tanks failed to progress forward at an adequate rate and soldiers recognising that tanks were an easy target, refused to accompany them hence tanks were easy prey for the Germans who systematically disabled them. Compounding the problems in execution , communications was extremely poor due to a combination of incomplete, conflicting reports and a breakdown in the means of transmission notably , cut phone wires. by nightfall the Americans , in the words of Colonel George C Marshall Jr, "disorganised and confused to a remarkable degree", were stopped at a point centred on Montfaucon , well short of their ten mile goal.
The Attack resumed the nest day with similar results. The Rolling barrage advanced too quickly allowing the germans to remain in their entrenched positions until the barrage passed and then rise and cut down the bunched up attackers"

"Again , uncoordinated and disorganised infantrymen were methodically cut down. On the 14 october 1918, new corps commanders led a new wave of assaults with similar results"

"Execution of the 1st Army's plan of attack, though eventually meeting it's objectives , was riddled with errors. Fault can be identified in all the combined arms. Infantry soldiers attacked in groups rather than spread out, did not use cover and concealment when attacking enemy positions, failed to use grenades in close combat, and failed to mop up pockets of resistance. Artillery performed badly too, advancing too slowly and firing blindly rather than by direct observation leaving unharmed machine gun nests for the infantry to assault. Likewise , cooperation and coordination between artillery and infantry was non-existent largely because liaison between the various echelons was difficult to maintain die to the broken nature of the terrain and the numerous wooded areas. In General, command and control was impaired by incomplete and contradictory information reported by frequently malfunctioning radios, telephone wires and messaengers. Colonel R.T. Ward of the AEF Operations Section succinctly summarised the initial assault "It would seem that our troops are not well organised for an attack. The gaining of the objectives, for the present , does not seems possible without undue losses unless time mistaken to reorganise and prepare for concentrated , simultaneous attacks"

" The training agenda mandated by general Pershing was responsible for many of the problems encountered by the AEF"
"The foundation for the poorly conceived trading was erroneous AEF doctrine."
"hence , training provided to soldiers did not emphasise fire and manoeuvre or coordination between the two most significant arms in battle, m the infantry and artillery,The sane was true for other supporting arms, notably tanks and aircraft. The AEF clearly failed to adapt to the doctrinal lessons of the war learned by the French and the British"


"For the Meuse-Argonne offensive AEF headquarters provided detailed instructions to attacking commanders. therefore , units frequently halted their advance while waiting for units on the flank to catch up, even when objectives could have been taken without waiting. Detailed guidance was necessary, however , to manage organisation as large as the square division (two brigades , two regiments per brigade) Though General Pershing installed in his soldiers the idea that they should take the initiative , specific orders listing specifiic boundaries and objectives actually curtails initiative. But to have a force trained to take the initiative requires string junior leaders. Unfortunately for the AEF, string junior leadership was among the many things it did not have abundance. training, doctrine and planning were not complimentary

"The 1st Army faced a decimated enemy who did not have adequate reserves""

----- "Preparing for Battle: learning the lessons in the US army during WW1" (Glen T Cullen LCDR USN 1985)
(thesis of the US army staff and command college)




"

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#56

Post by pugsville » 12 Nov 2017, 17:32

While it may seem like an Anti American rant it is not. WW1 trench warfare was exceedingly technical and challenging warfare. The AEF had been massively expanded before being sent to Europe, in many ways like the British new army at the time of the Somme. Effectiveness in 1918 was doctrine, training, leaderhship,co-ordination logistics. Given all the problems adjusting to the western front and the western front that the AEF struggled first up should not be much of surprise.

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#57

Post by Plain Old Dave » 12 Nov 2017, 21:00

pugsville wrote:While it may seem like an Anti American rant it is not.

That is PRECISELY what it is. And it's deeply offensive. I will continue to fight it until an Admin asks me to stop or I'm banned from here. The plain historic fact is the Allies were on the verge of disaster in 1917, within weeks of being forced out of the war. And the Germans were completely incapable of stopping the AEF, whether Army or Marines, after Cantigny and Belleau Wood.

The AEF may well have faced a 'decimated' enemy. However, their allies were demoralized and bankrupt. At the end of March 1917, any honest historian HAS to say that the Central Powers were winning the war both on land and at sea.

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#58

Post by Plain Old Dave » 12 Nov 2017, 21:11

CroGer wrote:
What would have happened if the axis fought on?
The only answer is it would have been a bloodbath, with the only good thing coming out of it that some bullet might have killed Hitler.
Just saw this. I have mentioned several times that France and Britain were demoralized and on the brink of disaster in the Summer of 1918. A 1919 Allied offensive would have been a predominantly AEF show, and there would be no armistice. Pershing and at least his Chief of Staff, Marshall, were convinced their entire lives that Germany didn't know they had lost the war in 1918 and therefore Pershing's demand in 1919 would have been the same as Grant's in 1865: Unconditional surrender.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#59

Post by pugsville » 12 Nov 2017, 22:25

Plain Old Dave wrote:
pugsville wrote:While it may seem like an Anti American rant it is not.

That is PRECISELY what it is. And it's deeply offensive. I will continue to fight it until an Admin asks me to stop or I'm banned from here. The plain historic fact is the Allies were on the verge of disaster in 1917, within weeks of being forced out of the war. And the Germans were completely incapable of stopping the AEF, whether Army or Marines, after Cantigny and Belleau Wood.

The AEF may well have faced a 'decimated' enemy. However, their allies were demoralized and bankrupt. At the end of March 1917, any honest historian HAS to say that the Central Powers were winning the war both on land and at sea.
Well if you are unwilling to look at history objectively, the truth hurts. Can you handle the truth? Do you want to understand history or do you want the fantasy?

The quotes were from americans. The long stuff from a US officer writing at the US command College. And there is plenty of others. The US military does not agree with you.

Plain Old Dave
Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 26 Apr 2004, 06:30
Location: East Tennessee

Re: If WW1 had continued into 1919 and 1920 would those years have resembled WW2 more than 1914-16?

#60

Post by Plain Old Dave » 12 Nov 2017, 23:19

The US Army does not agree with you.
Fixed that for you. The Army has had a mad-on for America's 911 Force ever since Floyd Gibbons' coverage of Belleau Wood. The paucity of Marines in the ETO in WW2 was a conscious decision by George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower. There was to be no repeat of the 5th and 6th Marines' "stealing" headlines; the USMC involvement in the war in Europe was consciously limited to a supportive role with NO direct combat involvement of the Fleet Marine Force or Marine Air. And by the mid-50s, Marshall and Eisenhower were leading the charge to disband the Corps.

Might be interesting to see what a Naval War College thesis has to say on this topic. The NWC is a separate entity, located in Newport, Rhode Island.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”