Political Crossfire Forums

[ChronicApendage]

I was surprised to learn a surprising world war II statistic: It took approximately three of our standard tanks to eliminate but one German standard tank. Generals knew this, and used America's superior resources to fulfill their counter German armour doctrine: Make more tanks. This robbed me yet further of this G.I. Joe ideal of the American military: An elite, well trained force fighting Alamo style against wave after wave of evil-doers. This is I believe how we are taught to see our troops. Now, In Iraq, people are being sent to battle in insufficient body armour!
I guess the question I was getting to is the following: To what extent is the American military cannon fodder? I know little on the subject, so please post your thoughts. Thanks.

[Wizard From Oz]

The prbblem you have - you fight with what you got. The US entered the war in late 1941 First engaging the Germans a year later. Unfortunately it is only when you get in the field you know how good your tanks are. By the time of D-Day the Americans had simply not had enough time to develope suitable tanks.

By the time the Americans introduced tanks to cope with what they found in 1942. The Germans already began introducing their next generation of tanks. It was a catch up that the Americans never had time to do.

Instead they played a numbers game, also combined air support took the edge of the German advantage. The Soviet Union also had to go down a similar road. It was nothing to see less powerful tanks ram their opposition to take them out of the battle.

And infantry is not defenseless against tanks. In broken country or urban battlefields, the advantage actually lies with the infantry

[Bobby Chicken]

It took two Shermans to take out one fully opperational German Panzer. But Shermans were built at a much lower cost and were much more mechanically sound. The U.S. had the abillity to build badass tanks that could have taken out even the most powerful contmeperary tank, but they chose two Shermans over one heavy tank, a decesion we can't fault too much considering they won the war.

[XiangYu]

Bobby Chicken wrote: It took two Shermans to take out one fully opperational German Panzer. But Shermans were built at a much lower cost and were much more mechanically sound. The U.S. had the abillity to build badass tanks that could have taken out even the most powerful contmeperary tank, but they chose two Shermans over one heavy tank, a decesion we can't fault too much considering they won the war.
Then why is it that modern militaries are building heavier and heavier tanks? Tanks can be replaced, but soldiers who die in scantily armored tanks are harder to replace.

[ChronicApendage]

I'm an idealist, but god damn it you can't just "replace" tanks left and right. But a man? His soul? His dreams. Oh yeah. There's a million more where that came from. Jesus Christ I hate war.

[Spider]

Military planning on a full scale war does involve at least some "Canon Fodder" mentality. When you have two opposing forces...a rule of thumb that has come through historically time and again is that whoever gets there firstest with the mostest wins. Operation Overlord was planned from day one under the assumption that massive casualties would need to be taken. It was going to be bloody, they knew that in order for the following waves to be effective, earlier ones would suffer extremely high casuality rates, and they knew ultimately if the overall invasion was to succeed a lot of guys were going to be dying. Theres actually a bit of pretty complex statistics derived math that deals specifically with projecting troop fatalities...in a full scale war, its all about numbers.

I'm borrowing a link from MG1962 concerning the cancelled invasion of Japan in the event of the failure of the nuclear attacks. Its interesting reading, and it raises the eyebrows as far as the sheer amount of "cannon fodder" they were preparing to accept.

http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm

[Bobby Chicken]

At the time it was impractical because it was so expensive and was also slightly slow. It was less useful for taking out infantry and didn't fit as well into the American battle plan which including plenty of infantry and planes as well. All I'm saying is that it could have owned any panzer, not that it was the world's greatest tank, all factors considered. The measure of a tank is not determined by who wins a fight in an arena, it's who has the biggest effect on the battlefield. And the Sherman was reliable, fast, and versitile.

[TNBiologist]

The term you are looking for in “Acceptable Loss”. In any military action there are going to be losses so the command comes up with a number of people/equipment they are willing to loose in order to accomplish the objective.

In the case of WWII, we could have produced better tanks (heavier armor and more powerful guns) but it would have taken time. By the time we produced enough higher quality tanks to combat the German’s tank on an even level or advantage to us, the Germans would have been able to produce more of their now lower quality tanks. It would then put us in the same position the German’s were historically not to mention pushing back D-day and allowing the Germans to focus on Russia, possibly to the point of Russia suing for peace thus allowing Germany to shift its full military weight to bare on the Western Allies (which we could not have won).

[antonio62]

Bobby Chicken wrote: It took two Shermans to take out one fully opperational German Panzer. But Shermans were built at a much lower cost and were much more mechanically sound. The U.S. had the abillity to build badass tanks that could have taken out even the most powerful contmeperary tank, but they chose two Shermans over one heavy tank, a decesion we can't fault too much considering they won the war.

I thought the figure was generally considered to be 4 or 5 shermans to take out a panzer.

[thundertaker]

US Military doctrine at the time was that tanks did not take out other tanks. Tanks were for infantry support. The task of destroying other tanks was relegated to specialised Tank destroyers like the Wolverine, or for ground-attack aircraft.
Germans designed their tanks to destroy other tanks. The US doctrine was fundamentally flawed, which is why it was altered after the war to produce MBTs. However, the americans made up for this simply by having overwhelming numbers and better air support......

[NAB]

antonio62 wrote: Bobby Chicken wrote: It took two Shermans to take out one fully opperational German Panzer. But Shermans were built at a much lower cost and were much more mechanically sound. The U.S. had the abillity to build badass tanks that could have taken out even the most powerful contmeperary tank, but they chose two Shermans over one heavy tank, a decesion we can't fault too much considering they won the war.

I thought the figure was generally considered to be 4 or 5 shermans to take out a panzer.

I've always heard 3-1. I remember catching a documentary a while back (from the UK) that covered this very thing. I wish I could remember the name of it.

[DSwain]

NAB wrote: antonio62 wrote: Bobby Chicken wrote: It took two Shermans to take out one fully opperational German Panzer. But Shermans were built at a much lower cost and were much more mechanically sound. The U.S. had the abillity to build badass tanks that could have taken out even the most powerful contmeperary tank, but they chose two Shermans over one heavy tank, a decesion we can't fault too much considering they won the war.

I thought the figure was generally considered to be 4 or 5 shermans to take out a panzer.

I've always heard 3-1. I remember catching a documentary a while back (from the UK) that covered this very thing. I wish I could remember the name of it.

There's an excellent UK doc series abour WW2 armour - called "Killer Tanks" - I know that they've covered this in some depth; they have eps covering the M3 (Grant/Lee), M4 (Sherman), the Churchill, the Cruiser series and also German tanks. That might be the show you're thinking of? It's a good show, shown frequently on the History Channel.

[NAB]

DSwain wrote: NAB wrote: antonio62 wrote: Bobby Chicken wrote: It took two Shermans to take out one fully opperational German Panzer. But Shermans were built at a much lower cost and were much more mechanically sound. The U.S. had the abillity to build badass tanks that could have taken out even the most powerful contmeperary tank, but they chose two Shermans over one heavy tank, a decesion we can't fault too much considering they won the war.

I thought the figure was generally considered to be 4 or 5 shermans to take out a panzer.

I've always heard 3-1. I remember catching a documentary a while back (from the UK) that covered this very thing. I wish I could remember the name of it.

There's an excellent UK doc series abour WW2 armour - called "Killer Tanks" - I know that they've covered this in some depth; they have eps covering the M3 (Grant/Lee), M4 (Sherman), the Churchill, the Cruiser series and also German tanks. That might be the show you're thinking of? It's a good show, shown frequently on the History Channel.

That might be the one. I saw it on the History Channel or the Military Channel here in the US. I remember them even doing a 3D simulation of the Sherman tactics on defeating Panzers. It would definitely suck to be the guys in the first 2 tanks. :?

[aznninjahitman]

I think acceptable casualties is about 50% of the men in a unit... not sure about equipment.

Now, though, the public will only accept much less (Americans value American life more than foreign life, generally... it's common sense, really).

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: I think acceptable casualties is about 50% of the men in a unit... not sure about equipment.

Now, though, the public will only accept much less (Americans value American life more than foreign life, generally... it's common sense, really).

It is closed to 30% After that some really wacky mental problems start to emerge and units have great difficulty continuing to be combat effective

cavet - US Marines have made an industry of accepting losses of 60% and continuing to be cohesive - The same may be said for other countries elite forces, but I've not come across any hard data

[aznninjahitman]

Okay, mistake on my part then. :) Thanks.

I've heard about those... debilitating... mental problems that begin occuring after substantial casualties in a unit. Hm...

Personally, I highly doubt the US military sees any of its personnel as cannon fodder. It would rather have massive collateral damage and civilian deaths, or have allied soldiers die, than have its own die. That, or military 'contractors.' The problem is weighing the PR; after all, if the job is too dangerous, people won't join up in droves. If the military has a tainted reputation, though, same deal.

That's why they're training Iraqis to fight and trying to get them "ready." No one's ever ready for combat, but you can train them and equip them and they'll have a better chance, and if the men dying are enemies and allies/auxiliaries, it's a good deal for you. What are a few rifles and helmets and uniforms given away, as opposed to several soldiers' lives lost and generating protests and reinforcing negative news stories about IED's?

It's sickening, really, war. The human rationale, too - American civilians and media seem to publicize daily individual American deaths more than the commonplace Iraqi mass kidnapping or murders. Clearly a trivialization of the Iraqi lives lost, and eurocentrism/ethnocentrism. Then again, it's easy, because they're 'over there.'

[mODULAR mAN]

ChronicApendage wrote: I was surprised to learn a surprising world war II statistic: It took approximately three of our standard tanks to eliminate but one German standard tank. Generals knew this, and used America's superior resources to fulfill their counter German armour doctrine: Make more tanks. This robbed me yet further of this G.I. Joe ideal of the American military: An elite, well trained force fighting Alamo style against wave after wave of evil-doers. This is I believe how we are taught to see our troops. Now, In Iraq, people are being sent to battle in insufficient body armour!
I guess the question I was getting to is the following: To what extent is the American military cannon fodder? I know little on the subject, so please post your thoughts. Thanks.

There is no way to glorify war. You try to win, whatever the cost. That is why I am so oppsed to it when it is a war of choice.
War is continually glorified, and we are trained to treat soldiers as Gods, but the truth is, governments use flesh to protect natural resources and gold.

I always think of Maj. Gen. Smedley Butlers suggestion: During wartime, make industry work for no profit. He claims you would make war obsolete.

While there is a truth to this, the problem is when a foriegn nation invades another. The Iraqi's can't decide to enact these rules, they are fighing for their Nationhood, as maligned as some of them may be. (Nationalism is huge problem, too).


A military IS cannon fodder. THey join kowing this, but believing that they are fighting for a cause, and that they have better cannons.

My issue will always be, not my lack of respect for the troops, but for the people who feel they can use the troops with less then the deepest respect.

[zMtLlC]

While I believe that there were an overabundance of American troops in World War II and the ratio of Americans killed to Germans killed was most likely high, I don't believe that there was a malignant motive in the US Army's use of this tactic. As someone else pointed out, they did everything they could to win the war.

If you look at the recent wars, the opposite trend is true. Look at Vietnam's kill ratio and the current war. The US Military has changed a lot in 50 years...

[Bobby Chicken]

zMtLlC wrote: While I believe that there were an overabundance of American troops in World War II and the ratio of Americans killed to Germans killed was most likely high

I would be suspisious of any statistic that indicated the Americans loss more men than they killed. Total German losses were 5.5 million, U.S. loses 450,000, but mostly in the Pacific. We have no way of knowing how many Germans the US. Killed, by I suspect it was more than 4 or 5 percent of total men killed by the allies. As a general rule, I wouldn't accuse any nation of poor tactics when they win a war and emerge as the world's most powerful nation. The U.S. fused large numbers, hight moral, and economic power and I believe it's general accepted that the killed more men than they lost (especially if we factor in the jolly old fat man and that scrawny little boy).

[Bobby Chicken]

I found it. The name I was looking for was Pershing, a U.S. heavy tank in between german medium tanks and heavy tanks in field abillity. It was ready to go as early as 1942, but never really went into production because Shermans were accepted as better than any German tank. The U.S. had the production of them down to where they could build as many as they wanted. It wasn't 1 versus 2 or 3 or 4 or 5. It was 100 versus 700, plus B-17s flying overhead, plus 50 destroyers prowling behind the Shermans. Put simply, Germans didn't like the odds and retreated back where they came from. If you have overwhelming numbers, then play on your terms and keep your casualties to a minimum by swarming the enemy, not fighting them on their own terms. That's like having nukes but opting to develop better kamikzee techniques.

As has been stated, today it's a differnet story. The America millitary doesn't rely on numbers of tnaks or of people; instead it is, for lack of better words, frickin' badass. B-2s, Abrahams, and ICBMs are in my book of fun things to have comin' at you. Hopefully those will be used (both in reality and in threat) wisely, because their pretty expensive little gismos to not be helping your cause.