![800px-General_John_Joseph_Pershing_head_on_shoulders[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/tmO60z7.jpg "800px-General_John_Joseph_Pershing_head_on_shoulders[1].jpg")
Why were Americans such parochialistic fuckups in World War 1?
Pic very fucking related.
>mfw Americans post about how they "won" WWI and "saved Europe"
Way to show up late to the party guys
>>86173
Not like they're alone. ANZAC, the Limeys and the French are all convinced they did more than the others to win the western Front.
>>86173
Not only show up late, but pull their troops out of combat moments before an offensive was to be underway.
>On July 2, two days before the counteroffensive was scheduled to begin, Monash arranged for the popular Australian prime minister, Billy Hughes, to address some troops from each brigade, taking care that Hughes' visit would not disrupt preparations for the coming "show." Then Monash's planning hit a serious snag. During a visit to the U.S. II Corps headquarters, the AEF commander, General John J. Pershing, learned of the plan to commit American troops to the assault on Hamel and advised General Read that they should not participate. The next day, he telephoned with "further and positive instructions...that our troops should be withdrawn." Pershing believed it was better if American troops fought together rather than as scattered units among the Allied armies. He also wanted assurance that they were fully trained before committing them in offensive actions.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/1123998/posts
>>86202
ANZACs contributed more than any other force.
>>86222
>He also wanted assurance that they were fully trained before committing them in offensive actions.
This seems logical, but pulling out troops right before an operation is JUST
Was Pershing any good as a commander?
I know his name holds considerable weight in American military history, but this guy cut his teeth against Injuns and chasing after Pancho Villa in Mexico
>>86239
Elaborate.
>>86222
>Early on July 3, Pershing's order to withdraw reached six of the 10 U.S. Army companies attached to the Australian Corps. The troops reacted with disappointment. Two Americans in the 42nd Battalion donned Queenslanders' tunics and stayed. The rest dutifully obeyed the order. The Americans' departure at that late juncture hurt Monash's meticulous plan badly because it required reorganizing Australian units -- the 16th Battalion's strength was halved, and the 11th Brigade's manpower dropped from 3,000 to 2,200 soldiers.
Goddamn America, grow some fucking balls.
>>86324
Monash's offensives throughout France, not only devastating the morale of German high command but revolutionising the battlefield with combined arms warfare rather than throwing men at the trenches.
>>86328
Wasn't the problem with US troops that they were too eager and inexperienced such that they were often easily killed?
>>86026
because they never had a chance to see the horrors of the long term war. All of Europe the fuckups ruled in 1914 by 1918 they were mostly dead.(Not actually but you know what I mean)
>>86353
That article discusses how it's a bad idea to combine an experienced company with inexperienced ones. Apparently the Australians would hop between cover at very precise moments with covering fire, and the Americans simply followed them straight afterwards, with complete disregard for the enemy.
Pretty funny actually.
>>86353
Pretty much.
Also remember that during 1916, America was still largely a farming nation that had only emerged as a major player on the world stage about 20 years previously.
>>86222
>Harrassing artillery fire kicked in at 3:02 a.m. For several weeks previously, Monash had ordered that high explosives, smoke bombs and poison gas shells be fired toward the target at about that time, a tactic intended to condition the defenders to regularly expect a barrage -- and make them think that the smoke masked the presence of gas. This time, however, Monash purposely omitted the gas, making it possible for his troops to move forward safely under cover of smoke and noise.
Monash was truly an innovator of modern warfare.
>>86173
we only say that so we can say back to back world war champions
we were fighting a war that literally no one wanted to fight, on territory we never fought or cared for, with new shit we had never seen before. This wasnt the first time either, look at the union during the civil war, the commanders where the definition of fuck ups with Grant and Sherman coming a bit late to clean their mess
>>88910
>forgetting about Meade
The Liberal Media Conspiracy still lives on...
>>88910
So were the Australians, but they gave more of a punch than the keked and pathetically trained Americans ever could.
>>86350
>revolutionising the battlefield with combined arms warfare rather than throwing men at the trenches.
monash while an extremely competent general did not invent combined arms, nor does "throwing men at the trenches" do justice to the strategy and tactics of the time
>>88958
>nor does "throwing men at the trenches" do justice to the strategy and tactics of the time
Go on.
>>88955
to australians any territory is laughable because there arent giant spiders
>>88973
Not him but proto-operational level was invented late in the war by French general staff and is one of the reason of German collapse.
>>89000
The problem was a complete lack of communication structure when the offensive was taking place. Artillery was very likely to hit friendlies, air drops were always off target and ended up falling on German lines, not to mention the lack of communication between individual tanks.
>>89000
Also it was only Monash who minimised casualties by allowing the tanks to approach at the heel of the infantry.
Every other general considered this lunacy, as tanks were a precious resource.
>>89062
Don't write off Arthur Currie--like Monash, a pleb, a militia (as opposed to full-time professional) soldier, and someone who took great pains planning operations to spare his men's lives.
Both Currie and Monash were reputedly under consideration by Lloyd George to replace Haig had the war stretched out into 1919.
>>86026
I wouldn't write off Pershing so easily. He was the perfect man for organizing and administrating a 2 million man army from scratch on short notice. Yes, his tactical doctrine was shit, but pretty much everyone in the AEF thought the same way. I doubt any American could've done a better job than him.
