The History Guy: History Deserves to Be Remembered

[stevep]

Jun 18, 2021 14:27:25 GMT oscssw said:

May 26, 2021 18:34:50 GMT stevep said:

  Fortunately it ended when it did and that was before they could really get things going.  However the massive size of it was really always going to be unworkable once peace came.  True some people expected the war to continue into 1919 but even then relatively little of those new ships are likely to have entered service.

Got to agree it was fortunate the war ended on Nov 11, at 11AM 1918.  That said, it was a blood bath right up to the end.

The American Expeditionary Forces sustained more than 320,000 casualties in the First World War, including over 53,000 killed in action, over 63,000 non-combat related deaths, and 204,000 wounded.  Most of those losses occurred late in 1918.  The first US troops did not enter the trenches until October 1917 and that was a single Division, the First Infantry.

The real blood letting for US troops did not start until  St. Mihiel, beginning September 12, 1918, followed by the Battle of Argonne September 27 to October 6, 1918 with The Americans suffering 192,000 casualties in the battle including 26,277 killed.

Not much compared to the French and Brits but it all happened in a very short time. 

  oscssw,

  I think part of the problem might have been that the US was a rapidly assembled mass army with what few regulars they had pre-1917 greatly diluted going up against a Germany army that while gravely weakened had 4 years of experience on the western front.  As such they had markedly more firepower per man and a lot of experience of holding positions.  It was possibly fortunate for all the allies but especially the Americans that the Germans launched their last series of offensives in spring/summer 1918.  It not only drained their forces and morale considerably but also pulled them outside their powerful defences in the Hindenburg line.  True this was broken in August but that was against a weaker German army already on the retreat and possibly even the British army, which was probably the best in the world at that time might have failed and would certainly have taken heavier losses.

  I'm guess the bulk of those 63k non-combat losses were due to the flu pandemic, albeit many more occurred post-war?  Would have been some accidents and other diseases but otherwise can't see them being that high compared to actual combat losses.

  Steve

[oscssw]

Jun 18, 2021 15:39:35 GMT stevep said:

Jun 18, 2021 14:27:25 GMT oscssw said:

Got to agree it was fortunate the war ended on Nov 11, at 11AM 1918.  That said, it was a blood bath right up to the end.

The American Expeditionary Forces sustained more than 320,000 casualties in the First World War, including over 53,000 killed in action, over 63,000 non-combat related deaths, and 204,000 wounded.  Most of those losses occurred late in 1918.  The first US troops did not enter the trenches until October 1917 and that was a single Division, the First Infantry.

The real blood letting for US troops did not start until  St. Mihiel, beginning September 12, 1918, followed by the Battle of Argonne September 27 to October 6, 1918 with The Americans suffering 192,000 casualties in the battle including 26,277 killed.

Not much compared to the French and Brits but it all happened in a very short time. 

  oscssw ,

  I think part of the problem might have been that the US was a rapidly assembled mass army with what few regulars they had pre-1917 greatly diluted going up against a Germany army that while gravely weakened had 4 years of experience on the western front.  As such they had markedly more firepower per man and a lot of experience of holding positions.  It was possibly fortunate for all the allies but especially the Americans that the Germans launched their last series of offensives in spring/summer 1918.  It not only drained their forces and morale considerably but also pulled them outside their powerful defences in the Hindenburg line.  True this was broken in August but that was against a weaker German army already on the retreat and possibly even the British army, which was probably the best in the world at that time might have failed and would certainly have taken heavier losses.

  I'm guess the bulk of those 63k non-combat losses were due to the flu pandemic, albeit many more occurred post-war?  Would have been some accidents and other diseases but otherwise can't see them being that high compared to actual combat losses.

  Steve

You are correct about the Flu Steve driving up the non combat casualties.

On April 6,1917 the regular U.S. Army was a force of 127,151 soldiers. The National Guard (State Reserve/Militia) had 181,620 members. They were some what blooded by the punitive expedition into Mexico under Pershing.  What they mostly learned were hard logistic realities.

A concise but very good look at the US Army on the eve of US entry into the great war is the article

"World War I: Building the American military"

By Jim Garamone, DoD News, Defense Media Activity April 3, 2017

www.army.mil/article/185229/world_war_i_building_the_american_military

[stevep]

Jun 19, 2021 15:22:14 GMT oscssw said:

Jun 18, 2021 15:39:35 GMT stevep said:

  oscssw ,

  I think part of the problem might have been that the US was a rapidly assembled mass army with what few regulars they had pre-1917 greatly diluted going up against a Germany army that while gravely weakened had 4 years of experience on the western front.  As such they had markedly more firepower per man and a lot of experience of holding positions.  It was possibly fortunate for all the allies but especially the Americans that the Germans launched their last series of offensives in spring/summer 1918.  It not only drained their forces and morale considerably but also pulled them outside their powerful defences in the Hindenburg line.  True this was broken in August but that was against a weaker German army already on the retreat and possibly even the British army, which was probably the best in the world at that time might have failed and would certainly have taken heavier losses.

  I'm guess the bulk of those 63k non-combat losses were due to the flu pandemic, albeit many more occurred post-war?  Would have been some accidents and other diseases but otherwise can't see them being that high compared to actual combat losses.

  Steve

You are correct about the Flu Steve driving up the non combat casualties.

On April 6,1917 the regular U.S. Army was a force of 127,151 soldiers. The National Guard (State Reserve/Militia) had 181,620 members. They were some what blooded by the punitive expedition into Mexico under Pershing.  What they mostly learned were hard logistic realities.

A concise but very good look at the US Army on the eve of US entry into the great war is the article

"World War I: Building the American military"

By Jim Garamone, DoD News, Defense Media Activity April 3, 2017

www.army.mil/article/185229/world_war_i_building_the_american_military

  oscssw ,

  Interesting thanks.  There is a video from the Military History Lectures site that goes into a lot of detail on it.  Rather critical of things as you can probably tell from the title, Giant with Feet of Clay which is interesting but depressing on how difficult it is to assemble a mass army quickly in the modern age, when your a country without a large military establishment.

  Steve

[oscssw]

Jun 19, 2021 18:24:07 GMT stevep said:

Jun 19, 2021 15:22:14 GMT oscssw said:

You are correct about the Flu Steve driving up the non combat casualties.

On April 6,1917 the regular U.S. Army was a force of 127,151 soldiers. The National Guard (State Reserve/Militia) had 181,620 members. They were some what blooded by the punitive expedition into Mexico under Pershing.  What they mostly learned were hard logistic realities.

A concise but very good look at the US Army on the eve of US entry into the great war is the article

"World War I: Building the American military"

By Jim Garamone, DoD News, Defense Media Activity April 3, 2017

www.army.mil/article/185229/world_war_i_building_the_american_military

  oscssw ,

  Interesting thanks.  There is a video from the Military History Lectures site that goes into a lot of detail on it.  Rather critical of things as you can probably tell from the title, Giant with Feet of Clay which is interesting but depressing on how difficult it is to assemble a mass army quickly in the modern age, when your a country without a large military establishment.

  Steve

Great lecture Steve.   Looks like my Navy was a hell of a lot better prepared for WW I than was the Army.

[stevep]

Jun 19, 2021 20:13:29 GMT oscssw said:

Jun 19, 2021 18:24:07 GMT stevep said:

  oscssw ,

  Interesting thanks.  There is a video from the Military History Lectures site that goes into a lot of detail on it.  Rather critical of things as you can probably tell from the title, Giant with Feet of Clay which is interesting but depressing on how difficult it is to assemble a mass army quickly in the modern age, when your a country without a large military establishment.

  Steve

Great lecture Steve.   Looks like my Navy was a hell of a lot better prepared for WW I than was the Army.

  Well to be fair the USN was already in 1917 about the 3rd largest in the world - if it hadn't already overtaken the Imperial German navy in actual power since it continued laying down new ships during the early part of the war.  With the need to defend the Philippines colony and other interests in the western Pacific it also had some reasons and experience for operating far from home.  The US Army was - as the link I think you posted mentioned largely a constably for still in some part split around the west in isolated outposts left over from the Indian wars.  To enlarge it into a force capable to go head to head with Germany, even in part, was a massive effort and it really needed a larger core of experienced forces.  Britain which had a larger army in 1914 still had problems bringing the new volunteers and later conscripts up to capacity although in our case that was also affected by Britain trying to assemble such a mass army while also having the vast bulk of its regulars heavily engaged in the war.

  It does suggest that Wilson made an error in refusing to allow for any expansion, or even planning for such before he finally made the decision to declare war on Germany.  Even so if some forward planning for a possible expansion had occurred say from Nov 1916 [re-election] or even from mid 1916 there would have been huge problems. 

  The USN in comparision shipped a battle squadron to join the Grand Fleet at Scapa, which was fairly easy to do with the existing forces and put the bulk of its effort into expanding escort units to protect against the U boat threat.  Still a big task but much more manageable given its existing resources compared to what the army was called upon to do.

[lordroel]

Scuttling of the High Seas Fleet at Scapa Flow - episode - 97

[stevep]

Jun 21, 2021 13:34:13 GMT lordroel said:

Scuttling of the High Seas Fleet at Scapa Flow - episode - 97

  Interesting,  A few points I would disagree with as the Germans were still building new ships at the start of the war and on into it they didn't really give up the race in 1912.  Plus the actual challenge to Britain started prior to the Dreadnought which Jellicoe hoped would actually end it.  Similarly while the naval race was expensive it wasn't punitively so.  However generally accurate and useful information.  Didn't realise we denied the crews access to dentists.  That definitely sounds harsh under those conditions.

  The Baden, the saved BB, was actually useful in that it was used for armament tests a few years later which helped in the design of new ships, although unfortunately those ships were never built because of the Washington Treaty.

[lordroel]

History and QWERTY - episode - 98

[lordroel]

The Battle of Vouillé and the Map of Europe - episode - 99

[stevep]

Jun 25, 2021 12:24:21 GMT lordroel said:

The Battle of Vouillé and the Map of Europe - episode - 99

  Had heard of the war and knew that the Franks won but not how little was actually known about it.  As he says if it had gone the other way, both in terms of national boundaries and also religious ones things might have been vastly different.

  I do wish he hadn't put in that line about Constantine bringing Christianity to Europe. Constantine made it the politically dominant religion in the empire but it had been about to a growing degree for nearly 3 centuries.

[lordroel]

Escape from Auschwitz - episode - 100

[lordroel]

The 1900 Hoboken Docks Fire - episode - 101

[lordroel]

The Convoy and the U-Boat: SS J. L. Luckenbach, HMS Orama and SMU-62 - episode - 102

[stevep]

Jul 5, 2021 14:00:11 GMT lordroel said:

The Convoy and the U-Boat: SS J. L. Luckenbach, HMS Orama and SMU-62 - episode - 102

  Interesting and I like the ironic links at the end to the preceding video.

[lordroel]

Jul 5, 2021 15:33:50 GMT stevep said:

Jul 5, 2021 14:00:11 GMT lordroel said:

The Convoy and the U-Boat: SS J. L. Luckenbach, HMS Orama and SMU-62 - episode - 102

  Interesting and I like the ironic links at the end to the preceding video.

A four hour battle between a submarine and a merchant with hundreds of rounds fired and neither won, minus some holes in the merchant that is.