Which theatre

[32Bravo]

Scenario: You are conscripted to a force partaking in the actions of WWII.

Which force, and in which theatre, would you opt for, given the choice, and why?

[Drake]

Obviously the one with the highest probability of survival, though I don't know exactly which that would be :mrgreen:

[32Bravo]

Obviously the one with the highest probability of survival, though I don't know exactly which that would be :mrgreen:

Sounds reasonable - keep searching!

[overlord644]

G.W. Bush style, the Mexican front!

[32Bravo]

G.W. Bush style, the Mexican front!

Interesting.

Why Mexico?

[Nickdfresh]

Interesting.

Why Mexico?

That was a Texas National Guard joke. However, it should be noted that the TANG fought with distinction in the Italian theater (36thID)...

As for me, I guess I'd want to see Europe from the air, but since I have poor vision, I'd probably been stuck in the poor bloody infantry...

[32Bravo]

Thank you for that, Nick. Perhaps in-jokes ought to be explained in brackets or something?

Europe from the air?

Personally, having experienced a fair bit of jungle (which was truly remarkable) and a little desert, I think I'd opt for the Western Desert with the LRDG or something of that ilk.

[overlord644]

i dont know anything about his particular unit, but im pretty sure G. Bush spent Vietnam flying over the mexican border

[32Bravo]

i dont know anything about his particular unit, but im pretty sure G. Bush spent Vietnam flying over the mexican border

Aaahhh - now all is made clear!

Now, can you chaps please keep it down a little? I'm trying to get some sleep!

[Rising Sun*]

Scenario: You are conscripted to a force partaking in the actions of WWII.

Which force, and in which theatre, would you opt for, given the choice, and why?

The operating theatre, for the self-inflicted injury I'm going to have to avoid going anywhere I might really get hurt. :D

[32Bravo]

The operating theatre, for the self-inflicted injury I'm going to have to avoid going anywhere I might really get hurt. :D

That's interesting, I thought you'd have opted for the 'Old Vic'.

[Rising Sun*]

That's interesting, I thought you'd have opted for the 'Old Vic'.

Nah, in my town we have the Comedy and Princess theatres. I reckon if I went for the latter I might wiggle and waggle my woggle out of war.

More seriously, unless I could be a fighter pilot I woudn't be in the air force. Being a crew member without independent control, and worst of all a navigator or radio operator who might not have even a weapon, doesn't appeal.

Same with the navy.

The problem with both the air force and the navy is that when things go wrong the ground is a long way away.

So I've always preferred the army. You get hit, you're not likely to get killed falling a few feet or drowned trying to reach land.

If I'd been conscripted for the army here in WWII there weren't a lot of choices. Papua New Guinea initially, because conscription was only for the Australian Military Forces (militia) which couldn't serve outside Australian territory until that was changed towards the end of the war.

The 2nd (i.e WWII) Australian Imperial Force (AIF) was all volunteers and served in the Middle East before coming back to fight in Papua New Guinea and the islands.

The 1942-44 campaigns in Papua New Guinea and other islands were fought by both the militia and the AIF, side by side and often in integrated units.

If I was being honest about where I'd want to fight, I'd say it would be Papua New Guinea in 1942-43. It was an absolutely shithouse area to fight, and a shithouse enemy to fight, but it's where the fighting that mattered for Australia, and the land fighting that mattered for America along with the huge effort on Guadalcanal around the same time, took place. It's what started to roll the Japs back on land.

I don't pick it because it was glamorous etc, because it wasn't, but because anyone who served there, even in the many units that ran, still participated in a bloody good effort.

And if I got to pick what I could do, I'd be a machine or Bren gunner, because you could kill more of the bastards than the average rifleman. Failing that, a sniper, for the same reason.

[32Bravo]

Undrstood.

The Western Desert is were it began to turn around for Britiain. Also, I like the feel of the desert.

Who knows, I might even be influenced by stories from a couple of my uncles that served there in some obscure long range patrolling unit.

The idea of working indepedently behind the lines has always had its appeal, it adds a buzz when crossing the demarkation line.

The LRDG were pretty much self-contained as a unit and made a fantastic contribution to the campaign.

[Uyraell]

If I had to be in combat, definitely ETO. I'd prefer to be armoured, say Hobart's 79th or Patton's Third army.
Ideally though, given the way I think things through and analyze, I'd have been better employed in developing and testing armour. Which would mean things like, for eg, testing the M27 tank, or combat testing the M26 or A41 Centurion.
The idea of being in an infantry war is not particularly appealing, nor is naval or air warfare, as mere crew.

Regards, Uyraell.

[student-scaley]

9th Amroured Bde, Western Desert 1941, golden (although deadly) age for British armour. Having met some of the vets from my regiment it would have been an honour to have served with them there.

[Uyraell]

9th Amroured Bde, Western Desert 1941, golden (although deadly) age for British armour. Having met some of the vets from my regiment it would have been an honour to have served with them there.:shock:

I agree with "golden (though deadly)". In terms of armoured firepower the British basically had nothing worthy of the term, at that time. The Churchill tank was not yet in service in any numbers, and it was only a "safe bet" by virtue of its' thick armour. As with any British tank of 1941 its' main weapon was woefully inadequate, tragically outdated.

As with the Italian tanks, the term "iron coffins/iron crematoria" comes to mind very rapidly, when looking at British tanks in 1941.

I do not in any sense disparage the courage or fighting ability of the British soldiery. Patently, it took vast courage to go into combat in tanks that the crews knew were far from adequate to the tasks they were called upon to execute.

Regards, Uyraell.

[Dixie Devil]

Any campaign facing the Germans or Italians. At least the vast majority of German troops weren't fanatic to the point of being suicidal and fought within the limits of the Geneva Convention.

[Rising Sun*]

Any campaign facing the Germans or Italians. At least the vast majority of German troops weren't fanatic to the point of being suicidal and fought within the limits of the Geneva Convention.

Given a choice between facing Germans and Italians in North Africa, I'd go for the Italians. If only because their officers had much better cutlery, crockery, and napery when they surrendered. And great waiters, who knew where the wine was, and how to serve it. :D

The vast majority of Italians, at least in North Africa, weren't fanatical to the point of risking being shot and fought within the limits of their supply of white sheets. :D They're my kind of guys. ;)

[Dixie Devil]

Yes the Italians would be my first choice of people to face in combat but by the time the U.S. entered the war we weren't facing just Italians even in North Africa.

[Nickdfresh]

It should be noted that there were some circumstances where the Italians fought every bit as well as their German counterparts given their inferior weaponry. Notably in the mountainous areas where American and British armor and mobility were marginalized. Rick Atkins gives accounts of US and Italian soldiers exchanging rocks and truncheon blows after they had run out of ammo and grenades in the ridge lines and caves of Algeria, although they didn't usually go to the point of fighting to the death if they could avoid it..

[Rising Sun*]

It should be noted that there were some circumstances where the Italians fought every bit as well as their German counterparts given their inferior weaponry. Notably in the mountainous areas where American and British armor and mobility were marginalized. Rick Atkins gives accounts of US and Italian soldiers exchanging rocks and truncheon blows after they had run out of ammo and grenades in the ridge lines and caves of Algeria, although they didn't usually go to the point of fighting to the death if they could avoid it..


As I've said in other threads, the best Italian units were as good as any nation's best units in WWII.

But Italy didn't have a lot of such units.

[Nickdfresh]

As I've said in other threads, the best Italian units were as good as any nation's best units in WWII.

But Italy didn't have a lot of such units.

I think that fighting in enclosed fortifications and hilly terrain does something to buck-up soldiers' spirits and courage. Maybe because the battle is more personal and armies suffering from technological disadvantages can suddenly bring their enemies --enjoying a superiority in logistics, transport, and firepower-- down to their level...

I think this was a big part of the Japanese "third force" spiritual combat in WWII and one of the reasons they were so ferocious. I'm reading about Guadalcanal now, and it seems that when the marines landed initially near what would become Henderson Field, the Japanese Army and Korean laborers inexplicably fled so quickly that there was hot food, beer and Saki, and plenty of extra weapons and construction vehicles for the marines to later use. The later first major effort to evict the marines also was a complete disaster and the Japanese commanders realized, to their horror, that they could not overcome the US superiority in firepower in a straight up infantry attack in what they had previously dismissed as an American and Western weakness, or the over reliance on firepower. The US soldiers and marines also utilized their fortifications extremely well in a way they didn't initially on Bataan and were not able too on Wake Island. The Americans began derisively described the Japanese Army, previously thought almost invincible, as prone to "dramatic" gestures of battlefield futility, although extremely disciplined and courageous..

[jcompton]

I would opt for The North African Campaign with an armoured unit... maybe the 1st Armoured Division. Although I'm not a big fan of the desert, the cold European winter would have done me in long before the Germans could have a chance to.

[Deaf Smith]

Scenario: You are conscripted to a force partaking in the actions of WWII.

Which force, and in which theatre, would you opt for, given the choice, and why?


Cryptography. Any theatre (Hawaii or London would do fine though!)

Deaf

[Churchill]

High command in WWI, perhaps in place of Joffre. Because I wouldn't be shot at, and I could make decisions that could save peoples' lives... :mrgreen:

[Uyraell]

High command in WWI, perhaps in place of Joffre. Because I wouldn't be shot at, and I could make decisions that could save peoples' lives... :mrgreen:
You would equally be making decisions that cost people's lives.
I Cite Wilmott, who in "Crusade in Europe" cites/quotes Eisenhower (Admitted note: Ike's version does differ from Wilmott's in wording though the gist is the same): "In some ways, the man in combat has it easier, whereas staffs generally have to knowingly make decisions they are certain will result in the loss of lives. The only thing responsible staffs can do, is to (try to) minimise those losses."

Regards, Uyraell.

[Rising Sun*]

You would equally be making decisions that cost people's lives.
I Cite Wilmott, who in "Crusade in Europe" cites/quotes Eisenhower (Admitted note: Ike's version does differ from Wilmott's in wording though the gist is the same): "In some ways, the man in combat has it easier, whereas staffs generally have to knowingly make decisions they are certain will result in the loss of lives. The only thing responsible staffs can do, is to (try to) minimise those losses."

Regards, Uyraell.

If you're talking about the Australian war correspondent Chester Wilmot, how he ended up in Europe and how good he was at military evaluations (which is part of the reason he ended up in Europe after being effectively banned in Australia) is a great but sad story.

If anyone is interested I'll start a separate thread on it.

[Churchill]

You would equally be making decisions that cost people's lives.
I Cite Wilmott, who in "Crusade in Europe" cites/quotes Eisenhower (Admitted note: Ike's version does differ from Wilmott's in wording though the gist is the same): "In some ways, the man in combat has it easier, whereas staffs generally have to knowingly make decisions they are certain will result in the loss of lives. The only thing responsible staffs can do, is to (try to) minimise those losses."

Regards, Uyraell.

Ok, let me rephrase my last post's reasoning: I could make decisions that cost less people their lives, and accomplish my goals quicker.

[Uyraell]

If you're talking about the Australian war correspondent Chester Wilmot, how he ended up in Europe and how good he was at military evaluations (which is part of the reason he ended up in Europe after being effectively banned in Australia) is a great but sad story.

If anyone is interested I'll start a separate thread on it.
I am interested.
While I found Chester Wilmott's style a strange mix between colloquial and dry, it was also a hell of an interest book to read. "Crusade in Europe" was one I kept as a "handy reference" for years, until my collection was broken up.

Regards, Uyraell.

[Uyraell]

Ok, let me rephrase my last post's reasoning: I could make decisions that cost less people their lives, and accomplish my goals quicker.
Wisely said :D
Though I meant no ill.
The ex Servicemen I knew, some of whom had been in mid-level command (Wing Commander, in one case, Destroyer First Officer in another) Squadron Adjutant in another) expressed in various ways the citation I quoted earlier. That is a lesson I have never forgotten, though I'm of the view that modern perspectives tend to overlook it.

Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf gave a similar view as cited in his book, written after Gulf War 1.

Regards, Uyraell.