Quote:
Originally Posted by Pips
"General John J. Pershing believed in the superiority of American 'guts' over barbed wire, machine guns, massed artillery, and poison gas".
Shades of General Haig and just about every other Allied (and German)general of the period. Had nothing been learned over four years of slaughter? 
|
Hi Pip,
Yes, there were concerns raised by both the British and French commands about the state of American preparedness and staff work prior to their entering the theatre of combat. Some replacements were made on the staff re supply but the basic command stayed the same. Both the British and French, particularly the French, expressed concern regarding the situation, with the suggestion being given that US troops should be exposed to combat alongside French and Commonwealth veterans in order for them to learn more modern methods of trench fighting. By and large these offers were refused for the reasons you outlined.
Also while it is easy to extrapolate casualty rates etc, the differing battle environments, fighting conditions, German personnel present, etc can make such extrapolations somewhat limited in their worth for historical analysis. It may well have been the case that if the Americans were present at either of the two mentioned battles, given the state of their preparation in 1917-1918 etc. their casualties may have even have been worse than the French or British at Verdun and The Somme. But at the end of the day, it is playing around with figures.
Things had been learned, particularly by the French and Germans but it still didn't stop high casualty figures. The German March Offensive with its somewhat radical departure from previous doctrines, lost more men for the Germans than it did for the Entente armies.
Cheers
Neil