TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑05 Jan 2021 08:54
First, I'll note that Richard, Chris, and Trevor are three different people.
True, but using the same basic information and, as far as I know, only including British divisions from the Italian campaign? Also, and again I need to check this, but all under US Army command. At least the TDI team actually tried to use hard data - even if there are those who quibble about the workings of their model which seems to include hard data (numbers of guns, tanks, men, etc) with more subjective data (who won, the worth of each vehicle, gun, etc) and then comes up with an exact figure which everyone latches on to.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑05 Jan 2021 08:54
As you can see, the contributors gave an average "B" grade to American tactical performance and average "D" to the British.
Thank you for the reference which I will follow up.
Firstly, which volume is that from?
Secondly, wasn’t each contributor asked to comment on the subject of their own chapter? So less an average of all contributors but more an indication of each historians “subjective” perspective to back up their existing commentary.
I also don’t understand how, for example, anyone can “grade” US “tactical performance” between the wars - who did they fight? Some veteran protestors? Surely “tactical performance” can only be judged in a comparative sense? How was it “better” than British performance, for example?
How is US Army “tactical performance” “graded” the same from 1942 to 1945 - wot, no learning curve?
Equally, how does one grade the British Army for “tactical performance” between the wars - based on what? The small wars that the British Army actually fought in Ireland, India, Afghanistan (again!), Palestine, etc or exercises on Salisbury Plain?
It’s all so arbitrary and subjective as to be, IMHO, worthless.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑05 Jan 2021 08:54
In their book about the U.S. 88th Infantry Division, authors Sheridan and Hammerman compared 24 representative divisions of countries that fought on WW2's Western Front. Of the top 10, nine were German, one American, none British.
“Compared” - great, but how? Did they use a statistical model like the TDI’s one (OK, Rich, more than one

)? Did they use specific casualty data or rates of advance; were all the engagements they “analysed” similar in context and size? How representative was their “picking” of divisions.
TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑05 Jan 2021 08:54
Do you have any analysts of military effectiveness representing the opposite view?
Well, even in the TDI database from the Italian engagements the “grading” of divisions didn’t run in a straight line from German to US and then British. I’m probably paraphrasing here (and no doubt Rich will jump in if my paraphrasing is ‘A Bridge too Far’) but on occasion some US units seemed to struggle, on some occasions the British units struggled and on some occasions even the German units struggled. And obviously on some occasions that wasn’t the “fault” of the division but owing to them being set impossible tasks given the context of force ratios, terrain features, weather, amphibious assaults, river crossings, combat exhaustion, etc.
Regards
Tom