Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: World War 2 US and German infantry tactics
bravoss    6/13/2007 5:36:04 PM
how many men did each fireteam consisted of ? who carried which weapons and what were the roles of each soldiers ? any info on infantry tactics will be appreciated.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
Sabre       11/27/2007 4:54:04 PM


Understand that the HHC in a US Army maneuver battalion is large for a few reasons....but not as big as they used. to be.

 
Actually I was referring to companies "further back", in the Corps Support Commands, for example.  From browsing through TOE's, I seem to recall some transportation or maintnenance companies being especially large.

HHC's in mechanized combat battalions were, as you said, essentially sub-divided amoungst the staff... kinda-sorta like "mini-companies"... I wonder how the mindset would change, if the larger chunks of an HHC were split and called companies?
 
Armored Cavalry Troops (when I was in) had 126 personnel, plus 3 medics and a 3-man fire support team (attachments beyond that were actually rare, but then again, a cav troop was rather self-sufficient to begin with)...  Maybe a Bradley Stinger vehicle with 4 crew....
 
Quote    Reply

RichardW    U.S. WWII Rifle Squad   11/28/2007 11:00:46 AM
bravoss:

I worked on a couple of projects wherein we had some pretty smart guys research this subject. As best as I can remember this is what was passed on to me:

Organization and weapons:

The U.S. WWII Rifle Squad consisted of a squad leader, assistant squad leader, sniper and three teams titled "Able, Baker and Charlie".

Able was the Scout group and had two scouts assigned to it both armed with M1 rifles

Baker was the gun group and had 4-men assigned to it armed with a BAR and three M1 rifles one of which was authorized a grenade launcher.

Charlie was the rifle group and had three men assigned to it armed with M1 rifles one of which was authorized a grenade launcher.

The sniper was armed with the 1903 Springfield rifle. I do not know if this was configured as a sniper weapon. The Sniper was assigned to Team Able in open terrain and to Team Baker in close terrain.

The squad leader ("SL") and his assistant ("ASL") were armed with M1 rifles.

Tactics:

Movement to contact:

The squad moved in a loose column. Able led followed by the SL, Baker, Charlie and the ASL. The Scouts made silent contact with the enemy. The SL then placed the sniper and Baker in firing positions. He sent the Scouts to find a flanking position. The SL then led Charlie to the flanking position. The ASL took charge of the sniper and Baker. Once the enemy was in a cross fire the SL initiated the attack with rifle grenades and rile fire from Able and Charlie. The ASL followed with fires from the sniper and Baker. Once fire superiority was established the SL would leap frog Able and Charlie forward covered by the sniper and Bravo until they were in hand grenade range. The soldiers would then fix bayonets and grenade the enemy position and then make the final assault. When the grenades went in the sniper and Bravo would lift and shift fires.

Defense:

The SL would position Bravo to cover the high speed avenue of approach. He would position Charlie to protect Bravo's most vulnerable flank. The SL would put Able forward as an OP.

Attack:

The squad would approach their objective in a loose column as outlined in movement to contact above. At the assault position Baker and Charlie would go on line while the scouts retired to the rear. Baker and Charlie would then leap frog to the objective until in hand grenade range and assault as out lined above.

A better explanation can be found in a book titled "On Infantry" by John English.

I am sure that I forgot something but I hope this helps.

Richard

 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       1/14/2008 11:25:43 PM
Many of the US Army's most competant officers and NCO's were sent to the Pacific as it was seen as more of an infantryman's war. The US infantry performed as well as any other in Western Europe, and the Germans believed that of the allies they had the soundest grasp of mobile warfare. Criticisms of US infantry performance was when they were on the defense. The Germans could often push US infnatry back for miles, while they had a terrible time counterattacking the British. One false criticism is the US reliance on airpower. Post-war reports showed that airpower did not have nearly the affect on the German military machine that the allies thought it did.The bombings disoriented the Germans, and made them less mobile, but most of the killing (for the US) was done by the awesome US Army artillery.
 
WW2 critisicms that the US depended too much on artillery is unfounded also, as it wasn't an issue of poor performance of US infantry, but rather of the excellent performance of US artillery, which was, without a doubt, the best in the war. Almost all captured German soldiers stated that what they feared most about the western allies was American artillery. The US had good artillery, plenty of it, and used it to maximum effect. This does not mean that US infantry in western Europe was unwilling or incapable of closing with the enemy, only that US artillery did an excellent job.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       1/15/2008 1:03:56 AM

WW2 critisicms that the US depended too much on artillery is unfounded also, as it wasn't an issue of poor performance of US infantry, but rather of the excellent performance of US artillery, which was, without a doubt, the best in the war. Almost all captured German soldiers stated that what they feared most about the western allies was American artillery. The US had good artillery, plenty of it, and used it to maximum effect. This does not mean that US infantry in western Europe was unwilling or incapable of closing with the enemy, only that US artillery did an excellent job.

The true strength of the United States in Europe during WWII was our logistics.  Most of the time we simply had more of everything to throw at the enemy than they had to throw back.  It's not elegant, but it works.
 
One of the big complaints that those German soldiers also had was that when they spotted US activity, they had to send out a patrol to see what we were up to.  When the US Army spotted German activity they tended to send an artillery barrage and then a patrol to see what they had been up to.  The German's thought we were trigger happy.
 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       1/15/2008 4:40:09 PM
True, but the material superiority argument can be used for almost any allied army from 43-45. Yes, one of the US Army's strengths was logistics, but we had to send materials and supplies across two of the worlds biggest oceans, so we often did not have as much as some historians would like us to believe. The Germans had an advantage in that they were on the defense, and materials and supplies didn't take long to get to the front. The US had to ship them across the ocean, first to the UK, and then to France and so on. We had to ship oil across the ocean as well, whereas the Germans had access to Indo European oil fields. We also did not adhere to the "Germany first" strategy, as we sent a lot more men and material to the pacific than we did to Europe.
 
Artillery was the greatest offensive weapon of that war. This was true of both the Eastern and Western fronts. Infantry alone did not have as much say in the outcome of the conflict. After Stalingrad, the Russian infantry relied mostly on raw recruits with little training. But in Kursk, they went up against the cream of the German army, and almost achieved parity in kill ratios. In operation Bagration, the Russians handed the Germans their greatest defeat of the war, perhaps as devastating as operation barbarossa. A lot of this is owed to the Russians superiority in artillery. However, Russian artillery, while plentiful, was often innacurate. US artillery on the other hand, was very accurate. The Germans had little confidence in their own artillery, and thought that anyone who used artillery to it's full advantage had to have a ton of it. This wasn't always true, American generals always had to fight for their share of supplies. Was the US military in WW2 a logistical masterpiece? No doubt. But people often underestimate the difficulty of supplying two fronts across 2 huge oceans. We didn't just snap our fingers to get what we wanted, we often had to wait for supplies to cross the ocean, even at the most critical moments of the war.
 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       1/15/2008 4:43:14 PM
To correct my post. Operation Bagration was as devastating to the Germans as Operation Barbarossa was to the Russians.
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       1/16/2008 2:23:14 AM
dirtykraut,

I'm sure it's true that the US used artillery to great effect in Europe and most of the Pacific.  However, it should be noted that the US did fight effectively without artillery in Burma.  The 5307th Composite Unit, aka Galahad, aka Merrill's Marauders fought a classic light infantry war without artillery.  So did the Chindit brigades.  Mule packed 81mm mortars were the heaviest thing they had.

The Burma campaign is a great study on pure light infantry operations.  Many mistakes and misuses were made but I think most would say that the forces involved were still very effective light infantry.

 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       1/17/2008 5:22:28 PM
longrifle, you are correct. There are hundreds of examples of US infantry performing very well without CAS or Artillery in WW2, especially in the pacific and the Burma campaign. Joe Stillwell was chosen to be the commanding American general in that theater for his expertise in leading infantrymen, and Merills Marauders was a textbook example in the use of light infantry. I was arguing that the reason people always bring up material superiority and logistics when they talk about American fighting men in ETO in WW2 is because of the very affective use of artillery. Much of this was because the Germans, not great artillerymen themselves, didn't understand how artillery could be used so effectively.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       1/17/2008 6:33:18 PM

Much of this was because the Germans, not great artillerymen themselves, didn't understand how artillery could be used so effectively.

You do realise the German army fought in WWI?  It is simply not true to suggest they "didn't understand how artillery could be used effectively".
Germany however, was not ready for war in 1939.  They had insufficient war-stocks to defend an allied counter-offensive after Poland for instance, while they only had Panzer I's and II's in numbers at the start of the war.  They also were lacking in suitable artillery.  This was why they focussed their doctrine on the Stuka and dive bombing to provide CAS in place of artillery support.
 
By the time America was heavily engaged in he ETO on the continent, German air-cover was not sufficient to provide air-superiority for their Stukas.


 
 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       1/18/2008 4:53:36 PM



Much of this was because the Germans, not great artillerymen themselves, didn't understand how artillery could be used so effectively.


You do realise the German army fought in WWI?  It is simply not true to suggest they "didn't understand how artillery could be used effectively".

Germany however, was not ready for war in 1939.  They had insufficient war-stocks to defend an allied counter-offensive after Poland for instance, while they only had Panzer I's and II's in numbers at the start of the war.  They also were lacking in suitable artillery.  This was why they focussed their doctrine on the Stuka and dive bombing to provide CAS in place of artillery support.

 

By the time America was heavily engaged in he ETO on the continent, German air-cover was not sufficient to provide air-superiority for their Stukas.



 



"You do realise the German army fought in WWI?" No, yimmy, I had absolutely no idea. The Brits, the French and the Russians mobilized millions of men just for the hell of it. Like the moon landings, WW1 never happened.....
On a more serious note, I never said the Germans couldn't use artillery effectively, just that they did not understand how it could be used as effectively as it was by the allies. (hence the so before effectively). The performance of German artillery in WW2 was abysmal, and it may very well be because they lacked suitable artillery, or preferred the Stukas to provide CAS rather than use artillery, but you cannot deny that the Germans did not use artillery to their advantage in the war. The reasons you explain does not change this fact. People are always quick to point out deficincies in the US Army in whatever era, but God forbid that the mighty Wehrmacht wasn't perfect.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics