Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#16

Post by LineDoggie » 29 Dec 2021, 02:38

Cult Icon wrote:
17 Dec 2021, 15:30
The clumsy, heavy trenchcoats were not optimal gear for anyone in WW2.

Optimal were the two-piece snowsuits.
The US and UK issue snowsuits were just cotton twill with no liners for insulation, they were merely for camouflage effect. The suits were not like the Wehrmacht or Soviets insulated snow suits

US forces had a range of Cold weather closing seen in the Ardennes battle besides the Melton Wool Overcoat and the Raincoat-

M1938 Mackinaws- Blanket lined, thigh length double breasted coats with a high shawl wool collar. It"s outer shell was tightly woven poplin with a water resistant coating. 2 large hip pockets could carry a wide variety of ammo or grenades, even canteens

Image

Artic Field Jackets- a Longer thigh length version of the standard temperate "M1941" field jacket. this was seen among Tank Destroyer crews (SP and Towed)

M43 Field Jackets- the classic combat jacket worn with little change until the 80's
4 fly fronted pockets, tight woven outer shell with liner capability. Fly fronted button closed.

Winter Combat Jacket- aka the "Tanker Jacket" waist length blanket lined zippered jacket that was part of an ensemble with overalls in matching material. Typically seen among tank crews and halftrack infantry. Entire divisions issued the ensemble in Italy. It came with a Hood with long tail to wear under the M1 Helmet or M38 Tankers helmet.


Anti Gas Hood- a Wool hood, part of the gas mask kit which when worn properly left only a small amount of face exposed. My Dad loved that bit of gear and kept using it until 1958.

Some of the Airborne units had scrounged USAAF B10-B15 nylon flight jackets with the fur collars
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 4472
Joined: 08 Apr 2014, 20:00

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#17

Post by Cult Icon » 31 Dec 2021, 06:39

The greatcoat also has significant heat loss making it inefficient.

A lot of heat is lost from the legs. WW2 troops wore long johns but did not always wear the correct pants. The quilted/insulated pants were better.


Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#18

Post by Sid Guttridge » 31 Dec 2021, 16:15

A trivia aside that may count as as an equipment shortage:

The US Army found it had difficulties in quickly evacuating wounded through deep snow in the winter of 1944/45. They therefore flew in dog sled teams of Huskies and their handlers normally used for aircrew rescue purposes around shuttle airfields in Canada, Labrador and Greenland. Unfortunately, they were deployed just as the snow was melting. Some of these dogs had already served in the Antarctic on pre-war expeditions.

Cheers,

Sid.

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#19

Post by LineDoggie » 01 Jan 2022, 01:28

Cult Icon wrote:
31 Dec 2021, 06:39
The greatcoat also has significant heat loss making it inefficient.

A lot of heat is lost from the legs. WW2 troops wore long johns but did not always wear the correct pants. The quilted/insulated pants were better.
There were no Quilted trousers or trouser liners on issue during the war for US ground troops.
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#20

Post by OpanaPointer » 01 Jan 2022, 01:47

Meanwhile the USN guys are nice and warm.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#21

Post by LineDoggie » 04 Jan 2022, 18:16

OpanaPointer wrote:
01 Jan 2022, 01:47
Meanwhile the USN guys are nice and warm.
They're on ships with heat from the boilers, so surprise surprise captain Obvious
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

OpanaPointer
Financial supporter
Posts: 5644
Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#22

Post by OpanaPointer » 04 Jan 2022, 20:25

LineDoggie wrote:
04 Jan 2022, 18:16
OpanaPointer wrote:
01 Jan 2022, 01:47
Meanwhile the USN guys are nice and warm.
They're on ships with heat from the boilers, so surprise surprise captain Obvious
I was asked if I would rather walk to Asia or take a ship.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

James A Pratt III
Member
Posts: 897
Joined: 30 Apr 2006, 01:08
Location: Texas

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#23

Post by James A Pratt III » 05 Jan 2022, 18:22

In the fall of 1944 when the US was having supply problems there was a shortage of winter gear for the troops. I would say the problem was corrected by the start of the Battle of the Bulge. There were instances where German troops stole the boots off dead US troops. If they where taken prisoner wearing them their US captors often got very "upset".

User avatar
Empiricist
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: 03 Jun 2021, 12:22
Location: European Union

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#24

Post by Empiricist » 14 Jun 2023, 16:02

von thoma wrote:
11 Oct 2021, 23:54
Was the US military ill-equipped during Ardennes Offensive ?
"We are fighting a war of logistics" -- "The Officer's Guide", 9th edition, Military Service Publishing Company, Harrisburg 1942, page 251.

With the above sentence "We are fighting a war of logistics" every American officer entered World War II and that would be the shortest response to your post. "Logistics" is key word to answer your post.

You illustrated your post with the US troops taking part in the Ardennes hostilities. The US Army of that time was not "poorly equipped", as you wrote, because the US military warehouses in the USA, UK and France were full of the best goods for infantry. At the end of 1944 American ships, planes and USAAF gliders Horsa Mk I and CG-13A were constantly transferring all possible military goods from Great Britain to liberated areas.

The problems were completely different and it is well researched and described by historians like PhD Stephen E. Ambrose mainly.

When the US Army had its heavy materiel crisis? In 1942 only. Fortunately, the US diplomacy won "The Battle of Brazilian Cotton" against the Third Reich. In 1942 there was lack of aluminum and lack of thousands of the other military materials and items. One of the US 1942-made M1910 Canteen from my collection could tell this story. It is made of the worst possible aluminum; Canteen is corroded inside and out and water comes down of corroded holes. But this is not Bastogne case study.

Note that up to this time NOS (new old stock), mint condition American Red Cross huge muffler scarves are offered in auctions from time to time. I like them very much and have a few in my US WWII militaria collection. And that is "Bastogne case study" -- all these scarves should land in France between September and October 1944 together with all the other elements of winter combat uniforms, boots etc. to be distributed for the US troops in November but they did not.

Why? There were three reasons:

1. SHAEF's excessive optimism that the war on the ETO will end before winter.

2. So-called Quartermaster Supply Pipeline -- see below. As calculated, from the moment an American worker took in his hands some materials and tools to produce something for the army to the moment when it reached the soldier in the trench, a minimum of 6 to 7 months elapsed.

3. Gangs of thieves in the US Army Quartermaster Corps. Among others, the historian Stephen E. Ambrose described them in his book "Citizen Soldiers". Tons of military supplies, including winter clothing, were stolen by QMC gangsters and sold on the black market in France. The problem of theft was so great that even American soldiers in the rear -- close to the QMC -- found it difficult to get warm winter clothes. Even the USAAF glider pilots who took part in the rescue operation "Repulse" for the besieged Bastogne did not always have winter clothing and flew there in the summer one, e.g. in Parachute Jumper Coat (Spec. P.Q.D. No. 114).

That's why the US Army in winter 1944 was not "poorly equipped" as you wrote. The problems were completely different. The US servicemen were inadequately supplied, but not "poorly equipped".
Attachments
1.jpg

rcocean
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 01:48

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#25

Post by rcocean » 14 Jun 2023, 17:04

I thought the US combat boots were found to be inadequate in the cold and wet of a European winter. Hence, the massive problem with Trench foot. There was also a inadequate supply of "Shoe pacs". Could be wrong though. Possible that Trench foot epidemic was due to lack of disipline and/or ignorance.

User avatar
Empiricist
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: 03 Jun 2021, 12:22
Location: European Union

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#26

Post by Empiricist » 14 Jun 2023, 17:15

rcocean wrote:
14 Jun 2023, 17:04
I thought the US combat boots were found to be inadequate in the cold and wet of a European winter. Hence, the massive problem with Trench foot. There was also a inadequate supply of "Shoe pacs". Could be wrong though. Possible that Trench foot epidemic was due to lack of disipline and/or ignorance.
The warehouses were full of everything, but it was not delivered to the front. There were shoes, there were impregnites for them, there were warm socks, there were oversized overshoes to put them on basic shoes. Even the USAAF had these overshoes, but not the infantry on the front line.
Attachments
1.jpg
Last edited by Empiricist on 14 Jun 2023, 17:22, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Empiricist
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: 03 Jun 2021, 12:22
Location: European Union

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#27

Post by Empiricist » 14 Jun 2023, 17:20

LineDoggie wrote:
29 Dec 2021, 02:38
Some of the Airborne units had scrounged USAAF B10-B15 nylon flight jackets with the fur collars
Both B-10 and B-15 were made of cotton.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 01:48

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#28

Post by rcocean » 14 Jun 2023, 17:36

Yes, I think you're right. Here's what an official US army source says:

What all of this added up to was that United States soldiers were improperly clothed and shod during the fall and winter of 1944-45 and that the epidemics of cold injury which occurred must be attributed, at least in part, to those deficiencies. The "pipeline obstacles" were numerous, but the shortages themselves "were in large part the result of poor planning and wishful thinking in the ETO and production difficulties in the Zone of Interior."

Although it seems the combat boots were ill fitted for wet/cold weather:

6. The fact that shoes were originally fitted too snugly gave rise to a number of other consequences. The soldier's feet spread during combat training, and a shoe which had fitted him in civilian life no longer fitted him now. When the shoes became wet, the fit, because of shrinkage of the leather, was even snugger than it, had been originally. No provision at the original fitting had been made for the wearing of extra socks or heavier socks during cold weather, and the shoes were therefore too tight when these socks were used. When the shoes were removed for foot care and to change the socks, the feet swelled and it was difficult to replace a shoe which had been fitted snugly to begin with. The practical consequence, in the European theater, was that men were unwilling to remove their shoes to care for their feet.

7. Neither the combat boot nor the service shoe was waterproof or water resistant. The welt sole leaked, there was leakage at the seams, and the leather was permeable.


As a result overshoes were needed. And the lack of them due to bad planning resulted in trenchfoot:

For the week ending 27 November, 82 of 100 men with trenchfoot had lacked overshoes or had not received them in time to be effective, 52 had not received overshoes, 28 had received them after sustaining cold injuries, and 2 had discarded their overshoes before combat.For the week ending 21 December (the first week of the Battle of the Bulge), 60 of 100 men had lacked overshoes for the reasons just stated. Of this group, 38 had not received overshoes at all, 10 had received them too late, and 12 had discarded them before combat

User avatar
Empiricist
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: 03 Jun 2021, 12:22
Location: European Union

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#29

Post by Empiricist » 14 Jun 2023, 18:02

Yes, the problems were multi-threaded then. Thousands of the American women made huge muffler scarves for the ETO's winter front, but let someone show pictures of even five soldiers in such scarves.

Below: One of the WWII mufflers from my collection (58"×9") – mint, NOS, undelivered to frontline.
Attachments
1.jpg
2.jpg

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10058
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Poorly Equipped U.S. Army

#30

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 14 Jun 2023, 18:10

rcocean wrote:
14 Jun 2023, 17:36

Although it seems the combat boots were ill fitted for wet/cold weather:

6. The fact that shoes were originally fitted too snugly gave rise to a number of other consequences. The soldier's feet spread during combat training, and a shoe which had fitted him in civilian life no longer fitted him now. When the shoes became wet, the fit, because of shrinkage of the leather, was even snugger than it, had been originally. No provision at the original fitting had been made for the wearing of extra socks or heavier socks during cold weather, and the shoes were therefore too tight when these socks were used. When the shoes were removed for foot care and to change the socks, the feet swelled and it was difficult to replace a shoe which had been fitted snugly to begin with. The practical consequence, in the European theater, was that men were unwilling to remove their shoes to care for their feet.


Still a problem in my service 1974-1997. Marines used to form fitted running shoes, or other civilian shoes had not clue how to size heavy combat boots. That occurred by trial & error for most individuals. In those years I went from a ten/half regular width to a eleven EE. Correct fitting socks mattered too. To large & they bunched causing blisters, too tight & they restricted movement of the foot components in relation to each other. Particularly the toes, and of course restricted blood and other fluid circulation. In the 1970s this was compounded by selection of some badly designed and made boots that were chosen mostly for appearance & not quality of manufacture, or any other good design feature.

Post Reply

Return to “USA 1919-1945”