4 ms·

Actually Kamikaze squadrons had lower mortality rates then when Japan did their conventional attacks against the US Navy. In conventional attacks whole groups o

Actually Kamikaze squadrons had lower mortality rates then when Japan did their conventional attacks against the US Navy. In conventional attacks whole groups of planes flew right into the teeth of US air defense, fighting threw 3 layers of death and getting annihilated. The reason they adopted Kamikaze was that normal air-attacks were suicide but suicide with no results what so ever. In Kamikaze the pilots had more freedom and often only attacked the outlining ships. And quite often they just bailed out, or faked engine problems and flew back. In terms of the 'strategic' bombing in Europe, the US was just incredibly arrogant and didn't want to listen to the Brits who had already learned some lessons. The way they employed air-power was outright insane, suicidal and also completely and utterly ineffective. It took smart people using internal politics to sideline the idiots to turn the strategy around and do something actually useful.

Spooky23 1y ago
A lot of criminal incompetence was erased by the ultimate victory. The insanity of the bombing campaign is one, others include the defective torpedoes that plagued the Navy for the first couple of years and killed countless sailors and airmen, and the homicidal policy of shipping in replacements to frontline units that were decimated multiple times.
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  WWI: “Hold my beer.” The big issue with WWI, seemed to be staggeringly incompetent generals. This appears to have been on all sides. Maybe the Americans were better, but that just may be because they didn’t have time to get bogged down. I heard that Pershing refused to follow British and French tactics. I assume that this was because many generals were trained on Napoleonic-Era tactics, that didn’t do well, against machine guns and semiauto rifles.
  - tekla 1y ago
    This is an incredible misunderstanding of WW1. While there were some generals that were a bit too resistant to changing strategy when it might have seemed reasonable, the fact of the matter is, is that this was the 1910s. Everyone was trying to solve the problem of trying to figure out how to fight, and no one could keep up with how fast warfare was changing. Armchair generals watching people die in almost real time from drone footage in Europe did not exist in 1915.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
      I’m not sure it’s a “misunderstanding.” Maybe calling them “incompetent,” isn’t fair, but they made a shitton of terrible strategic and tactical blunders, that resulted in millions of casualties. Why they made those decisions sounds like exactly what you’re talking about.
  - panick21_ 1y ago
    That WW1 is special is mostly a myth. The reason we have this view of WW1 is that after WW1 in the 20s many normal people in the 20s started writing about the horrors of war and that combined with the strong anti-war sentiment lead to the view we have now. Claiming that generals like Haig was an incompetent butcher. The whole 'lions led by donkeys' myth. However non of that is actually true. Or not anymore true then in any other war. For example, there is stark contrast to right after the war, where Haig was considered a hero and most soldiers in their post-WW1 writing liked him. In terms of causality rates, WW1 isn't that special, high intensity combat in modern war isn't that different, from Crimea to WW2. If you have warfare at that level, even if you are successful, you have massive causalities. The Somme for example wasn't that different from the Normandy campaign in WW2. These generals had to deal with armies of literally million of people and they didn't even have wireless communications. How do you command 500 men in a coordinated attack without communication? The Americans had to go threw the same learning curve as the others, but they started right away fighting against an enemy that was mostly veterans. Americans could have learned better, but it also has to be said that Pershing by command from the president was not allowed to fully integrate his troupes with that of the French army. > I assume that this was because many generals were trained on Napoleonic-Era tactics This is complete and utter nonsense. Please stop spreading these myths. This all just Post-WW1 anti-war politics propaganda. > against machine guns and semiauto rifles This is again a myth. Semiauto rifles practically didn't exist in the beginning of WW1. And machine guns had existed for a while and were not that effective. The big killer on the battle field is the fast shooting artillery. Massive innovations in that had happened in the 30 years before WW1.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
      Eh. Certainly not worth fighting over. > This is complete and utter nonsense. Please stop spreading these myths. Which seems to be your goal, here. Have a great day!
      - panick21_ 1y ago
        I have no idea what you are saying. What I am saying is the current stand of historical research on the topic. What you are saying is a bunch of stuff we teach to high schoolers that hasn't been updated since the 60s. And I'm not 'fighting' with you, I just wanted to inform you and people that might be reading this.
  - jleyank 1y ago
    Part of the problem was that the US Civil War was derided as a second-rate war in a colonial country. It demonstrated the power of the defence over the offence, and the sheer magnitude of war that an industrialized nation could create. Most people figured WW I would have ended by Christmas. Oops.
    - InTheArena 1y ago
      It is one of the greatest military, cognitive dissonances of all time that European generals recognized how brilliant Grant was, and failed to understand every single one of the principles by which he eventually overcame the confederacy. It’s mind-boggling. I’ve always thought that it was crazy how much of a straight line there was between the trenches around Richmond and the trenches of World War II.
      - arduanika 1y ago
        I believe you mean the trenches of WWI not WWII. But yes. There's a theory that Longstreet saw it all coming, too, but was unable to get the point through to Lee. That is, he saw that trench warfare was going to be the future. But yeah. The European general staffs were modeling all their train timetables on the fast Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
        Spooky23 1y ago
        Lee was over his head. Grant saw that you have to kill everyone or kill their ability to kill, or both. Lee was looking for the illusive decisive victory to create a political end to the war. In fairness, the Confederates had an incentive to not see this, as an agrarian slave state cannot out produce a nascent industrial state.
    - jltsiren 1y ago
      The Franco-Prussian War demonstrated the opposite a few years later. Prussia was able to use field artillery effectively to support infantry attacks. The overall scale of fighting was similar to the US Civil War, but the war was much shorter and the individual battles larger. If there was a war European WWI leaders had ignored, it was the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. By then, technology had advanced enough that the teachings of the Franco-Prussian War were no longer valid, and defense was again stronger than offense.
  - shakow 1y ago
    > Maybe the Americans were better Belleau wood is the “chocolate box” of the US army. > I heard that Pershing refused to follow British and French tactics. Yeah, “these guys being at it for 4 years don't understand anything, let's show them how to do it” – proceed to get decimated in a couple days.
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    "Donkeys leading lions" was a myth. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/were-british-first-world-war-soldiers-really-lions-led-by-donkeys https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/were-british-first-world-war-...

Spooky23 1y ago

A lot of criminal incompetence was erased by the ultimate victory. The insanity of the bombing campaign is one, others include the defective torpedoes that plagued the Navy for the first couple of years and killed countless sailors and airmen, and the homicidal policy of shipping in replacements to frontline units that were decimated multiple times.

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
WWI: “Hold my beer.” The big issue with WWI, seemed to be staggeringly incompetent generals. This appears to have been on all sides. Maybe the Americans were better, but that just may be because they didn’t have time to get bogged down. I heard that Pershing refused to follow British and French tactics. I assume that this was because many generals were trained on Napoleonic-Era tactics, that didn’t do well, against machine guns and semiauto rifles.
- tekla 1y ago
  This is an incredible misunderstanding of WW1. While there were some generals that were a bit too resistant to changing strategy when it might have seemed reasonable, the fact of the matter is, is that this was the 1910s. Everyone was trying to solve the problem of trying to figure out how to fight, and no one could keep up with how fast warfare was changing. Armchair generals watching people die in almost real time from drone footage in Europe did not exist in 1915.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
    I’m not sure it’s a “misunderstanding.” Maybe calling them “incompetent,” isn’t fair, but they made a shitton of terrible strategic and tactical blunders, that resulted in millions of casualties. Why they made those decisions sounds like exactly what you’re talking about.
- panick21_ 1y ago
  That WW1 is special is mostly a myth. The reason we have this view of WW1 is that after WW1 in the 20s many normal people in the 20s started writing about the horrors of war and that combined with the strong anti-war sentiment lead to the view we have now. Claiming that generals like Haig was an incompetent butcher. The whole 'lions led by donkeys' myth. However non of that is actually true. Or not anymore true then in any other war. For example, there is stark contrast to right after the war, where Haig was considered a hero and most soldiers in their post-WW1 writing liked him. In terms of causality rates, WW1 isn't that special, high intensity combat in modern war isn't that different, from Crimea to WW2. If you have warfare at that level, even if you are successful, you have massive causalities. The Somme for example wasn't that different from the Normandy campaign in WW2. These generals had to deal with armies of literally million of people and they didn't even have wireless communications. How do you command 500 men in a coordinated attack without communication? The Americans had to go threw the same learning curve as the others, but they started right away fighting against an enemy that was mostly veterans. Americans could have learned better, but it also has to be said that Pershing by command from the president was not allowed to fully integrate his troupes with that of the French army. > I assume that this was because many generals were trained on Napoleonic-Era tactics This is complete and utter nonsense. Please stop spreading these myths. This all just Post-WW1 anti-war politics propaganda. > against machine guns and semiauto rifles This is again a myth. Semiauto rifles practically didn't exist in the beginning of WW1. And machine guns had existed for a while and were not that effective. The big killer on the battle field is the fast shooting artillery. Massive innovations in that had happened in the 30 years before WW1.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
    Eh. Certainly not worth fighting over. > This is complete and utter nonsense. Please stop spreading these myths. Which seems to be your goal, here. Have a great day!
    - panick21_ 1y ago
      I have no idea what you are saying. What I am saying is the current stand of historical research on the topic. What you are saying is a bunch of stuff we teach to high schoolers that hasn't been updated since the 60s. And I'm not 'fighting' with you, I just wanted to inform you and people that might be reading this.
- jleyank 1y ago
  Part of the problem was that the US Civil War was derided as a second-rate war in a colonial country. It demonstrated the power of the defence over the offence, and the sheer magnitude of war that an industrialized nation could create. Most people figured WW I would have ended by Christmas. Oops.
  - InTheArena 1y ago
    It is one of the greatest military, cognitive dissonances of all time that European generals recognized how brilliant Grant was, and failed to understand every single one of the principles by which he eventually overcame the confederacy. It’s mind-boggling. I’ve always thought that it was crazy how much of a straight line there was between the trenches around Richmond and the trenches of World War II.
    - arduanika 1y ago
      I believe you mean the trenches of WWI not WWII. But yes. There's a theory that Longstreet saw it all coming, too, but was unable to get the point through to Lee. That is, he saw that trench warfare was going to be the future. But yeah. The European general staffs were modeling all their train timetables on the fast Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
      - Spooky23 1y ago
        Lee was over his head. Grant saw that you have to kill everyone or kill their ability to kill, or both. Lee was looking for the illusive decisive victory to create a political end to the war. In fairness, the Confederates had an incentive to not see this, as an agrarian slave state cannot out produce a nascent industrial state.
  - jltsiren 1y ago
    The Franco-Prussian War demonstrated the opposite a few years later. Prussia was able to use field artillery effectively to support infantry attacks. The overall scale of fighting was similar to the US Civil War, but the war was much shorter and the individual battles larger. If there was a war European WWI leaders had ignored, it was the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. By then, technology had advanced enough that the teachings of the Franco-Prussian War were no longer valid, and defense was again stronger than offense.
- shakow 1y ago
  > Maybe the Americans were better Belleau wood is the “chocolate box” of the US army. > I heard that Pershing refused to follow British and French tactics. Yeah, “these guys being at it for 4 years don't understand anything, let's show them how to do it” – proceed to get decimated in a couple days.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  "Donkeys leading lions" was a myth. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/were-british-first-world-war-soldiers-really-lions-led-by-donkeys https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/were-british-first-world-war-...