View Single Post
  #28  
Old 10-13-2010, 08:56 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,906
Default

While I agree that the WWII Army was able to keep its divisions at effective strength, the cost, physically and mentally was excessive. While the Army Air Forces were able to rotate bomber crews home after 25 missions, the infantryman was never allowed that, his lot was to endure from the beginning to the end of the war, unless he suffered a crippling injury, or had earned a high enough decoration to be be shipped home to help drum up the war effort. The replacement system that was used was a complete and utter waste of manpower, instead of the replacements being used as labor to load/unload supplies, or left twiddling their thumbs in some repple-depot, they should have been run through a training program to teach them how to survive and fight on a battlefield. Then sent to their division and introduced into the infantry regiments, allowing time for them to enter their platoons and become part of the units. That the US Army used the replacement system in the manner that they did, was a utter disgrace. And nothing was learned. The same system was used again in Korea and again in Vietnam.

Just for a historical trivia, a single rifle company of the 3rd Infantry Division, during the period from 1942-1945 suffered a 200% turnover in personnel, of the 1942 grunts, only two were left on VE-day, the supply sergeant and Audie Murphy, the most decorated soldier of WWII.
Reply With Quote