"American Special Forces WW2 Quiz" Topic
22 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 | 23 Feb 2018 12:13 p.m. PST |
"The elite units of the Airborne, Rangers and 1st Special Service Forces were used to spearhead difficult attacks and stalemates throughout the war. This quiz is a broad history and a look at some major campaigns…." Main page link Best of luck!. Amicalement Armand
|
langobard | 24 Feb 2018 2:58 a.m. PST |
|
Uparmored | 24 Feb 2018 3:46 a.m. PST |
|
ZULUPAUL | 24 Feb 2018 4:20 a.m. PST |
|
ColCampbell | 24 Feb 2018 8:13 a.m. PST |
13 of 15, but I disputed the rationale behind the answer to #2. Jim |
Zinkala | 24 Feb 2018 9:51 a.m. PST |
13/15 and the naming of the rangers was one of them too. I'm sure I read somewhere that the US was a unit like the commandos but didn't want to copy the british name. |
Legion 4 | 24 Feb 2018 10:45 a.m. PST |
|
Tango01 | 24 Feb 2018 10:56 a.m. PST |
Happy you enjoyed it boys!. (smile) Come on Legion 4!… be brave!… (smile)
Mine was 12/15…. Amicalement Armand
|
Legion 4 | 27 Feb 2018 4:29 p.m. PST |
I only missed 1 … so 14/15 … |
Mark 1 | 27 Feb 2018 5:26 p.m. PST |
I managed 15/15, but … There were some good questions. Huertgen Forrest, Ardennes/Bulge, Pointe-du-Hoc were pretty spot-on. But I think several of the questions are just trivia questions rather than base-of-knowledge questions. Like the last question: 15. Which elite force was first to enter Berchtesgaden…?
I know that only because I watched Band of Brothers (more than once!). Really kind of a trivia question rather than anything that explores one's understanding of WW2 history. And I kind of object to some of the questions. I think the questions are sometimes phrased in ways to encourage particular answers. Sometimes these "encouraged" answers are the right ones, sometimes they are wrong answers. So I don't claim any better knowledge than others here. Maybe I'm just getting better at "gaming" the system on these kinds of quizzes. And then there was this one:
9. D-Day: Utah beach was far less 'bloody' than Omaha due to the 82nd Airborne taking this town and the 101st holding surrounding causeways, preventing German reinforcements from reaching the beachheads. Really? Was THAT the reason Utah was less bloody? Odd, because I don't recall reading much about how it was reinforcements reaching the beachheads that made Omaha so bloody. Seems to me that Omaha was bloodier than Utah because of the defenses AT the beach, as well as the mix-ups of the first waves of boats, and the failure of the DD Shermans. Doesn't mean that isolating the beaches wasn't a positive contribution, but if we are asking why one was bloody and the other wasn't, it was not because of reinforcements. At least not to my readings… -Mark (aka: Mk 1)
|
Skarper | 28 Feb 2018 6:02 a.m. PST |
13/15 I second guessed the one about the naming of the Rangers…should have gone with my initial feeling. The other fail was on the 555th PIR. Hadn't heard of them so learned something there. OK quiz. I agree about no.9… From what I understand reinforcements could never have reached the beaches in time to interfere with the landings, but could have prevented the invaders from making any headway inland. Omaha was a fiasco for other reasons as Mark 1 says. To be honest, the Airborne didn't make much difference given the German response was so slow. Of course, they couldn't have known that in advance so the Airborne role was still important. Just I think this quiz is bigging them up a little. No need really to do that IMO. |
rhacelt | 28 Feb 2018 6:31 a.m. PST |
I also went 13/15. I also missed number two. I had always heard they were named for Rogers Rangers and it had nothing to do with the British Comando's name. |
Legion 4 | 28 Feb 2018 9:18 a.m. PST |
I too thought the US Rangers were aptly named after Roger's Rangers employed during the French & Indian War before the AWI. Even if Roger was a "Tory" so to speak during the AWI. In my old Ranger Handbook somewhere(?), IIRC, there were @ 10 of "Rogers' Rules" or something like that. Frankly I like the US "commandoes" being call Rangers as it has more "history"/legacy behind it. But I do like the term name Commando, but we know basically why the Brits choose that based on their experiences in the Boar Wars, IIRC … But the modern term "Commando" is more "generic" for those types of "Special Troops" today … To be honest, the Airborne didn't make much difference given the German response was so slow. Of course, they couldn't have known that in advance so the Airborne role was still important. Just I think this quiz is bigging them up a little. Well regardless of the German slow response, etc., having 3 Divs(2 US & 1 UK) of troops behind your lines during an invasion will still prove "problematic", IMO. And frankly I think it is arguable whether the Germans could have stopped the Allied Landings at Normandy at all in the long run. They just didn't really have the assets, etc., to stop the massive amounts of the Allies on the Sea, Air and ground. Of course I'm "very" biased about the 101 ABN Div, anyway. |
Tango01 | 28 Feb 2018 11:34 a.m. PST |
Well done my good friend!. (smile) Amicalement Armand
|
Mark 1 | 28 Feb 2018 12:31 p.m. PST |
I too thought the US Rangers were aptly named after Roger's Rangers employed during the French & Indian War before the AWI. …Frankly I like the US "commandoes" being call Rangers as it has more "history"/legacy behind it.
This is closer to my understanding. And this question is a good example of the "gaming" of the quizzing process I was describing. It may well be that the first concept was to call them Commandos, as the British had done. Maybe. And maybe someone raised objection and suggested they should not be given the same name as the British special forces. But that only explains why they the term Commandos was NOT adopted, not why the term Rangers WAS adopted. Rangers was adopted because it had a US-centric historical context. But I could guess, from the quiz, the answer they wanted. It was the wrong answer (in my view), but it was the answer they wanted. But I do like the term name Commando, but we know basically why the Brits choose that based on their experiences in the Boar Wars, IIRC … But the modern term "Commando" is more "generic" for those types of "Special Troops" today …
My understanding, admittedly imperfect, is that the term Commando was first a reference only to the formation size / formation type. It wasn't a battalion, it wasn't a regiment, it wasn't a company. So what was it? It was an independent command, or in the local vernacular (for some reason), it was a commando. Over time and popular usage, it came to refer to the type of unit, the type of soldier. They were Commandos. Anyone who was highly trained and tasked to go in behind enemy lines and disrupt operations through intensive combat and demolition might now be called a Commando. Because you wouldn't want to call that kind of soldier a Battalion, now would you? -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Legion 4 | 28 Feb 2018 4:23 p.m. PST |
Yes, I see your points there. The term "Troop" in the US Army, is a formation size. I.e. a Cavalry Troop which is about the size of an Infantry Company. As is the term Battery for FA. But also the name Troop refers to an individual soldier, aka Trooper. IIRC, the Boer insurgent groups the UK combatted during those two wars. The term "Commando" referred to a command of troops, insurgents, etc., under the leadership of a commander, leader, etc. Hence a group of Boer guerillas/insurgents was a formation. The Boers speaking German, IIRC, "Kommando" means Command. As we see that used in WWII German military terms also. But IIRC, the UK troops started to call the Boer groups of guerillas, etc., a Commando. Based on hearing the term from the Boers. But of course I was not there in any event so I'm going on what I read or saw from various sources … You hear then US media today calling any Spec Ops types as Commandos at times. Including SF, DELTA, SEALs, etc., … I.e. highly trained troops who carry out "special" higher risk missions/ops, etc. Operations requiring more training than the standard line trooper, etc., … |
andysyk | 03 Mar 2018 6:55 a.m. PST |
Commando was chosen by the British as a direct reference to the Boer units and their fighting tactics, not because of a unit size. Its well documented in Commando histories. The US Rangers were named so by General Truscott "because the name Commandos rightfully belonged to the British , and we sought a name more typically American." Although it is as noted above a little ironic as Rogers Rangers were well part of the British establishment in the FIW and the AWI Ranging units also Loyalist. Also of course Commando rightfully belonged to the Boers. |
Legion 4 | 03 Mar 2018 7:20 a.m. PST |
Yes, as the Boers were unconventional fighters, as we know and in many cases they had a predilection for raids. Hence the term "Commando" became to mean a "tactic"/doctrine … based on the Boer operations. And yes, the US Rangers name was based on Roger's unit and yes, they were on the side of the "Redcoats". During the AWI. But yes during the FWI, they used the American Indian "tactics" against them, so to speak. Using the woods for cover & concealment. Wearing green or brown, etc. More tactical colors to blend in with the local foliage, etc. As we know armies at time wore non-tactical/non-camo colors, e.g. red, blue, white, etc., for a variety of reasons. And maneuvered in formations of "blocks" of troops, etc., again for a number of reasons. Roger's Rangers used the terrain and did not move in "blocks", etc. Just like the Indians. Who didn't fight like the European armies did. Generally the standard formations and moving in those "blocks" of troops in the open mostly. Remained very much in used thru most of the mid-19th Century generally, e.g. the ACW, etc. Again, for a number of reasons. |
Fred Cartwright | 03 Mar 2018 10:38 a.m. PST |
Yes I was duped by the Rogers Rangers reference, but as Mark says the choice of Rangers is a different question to the reason for not choosing commando. Does anyone know the origin of the phrase "going commando" to refer to not wearing underpants? |
Legion 4 | 03 Mar 2018 10:49 a.m. PST |
As far as "going Commando", maybe because it's "daring" not to wear underwear ! We didn't wear undershorts in the jungle because the elastic will give you a rash, etc., in the heat & humidity, etc. We'd "go Commando" in those hot, humid temps of the US South as well … E.g. Ft. Benning, GA, Ft. Campbell, KY, Ft. Bragg, NC, etc., etc. We even went Commando in the desert too at the NTC ! |
Andy ONeill | 03 Mar 2018 11:59 a.m. PST |
Sort of daring maybe, but more $lut like. Going commando originated in england, 1940 or so. Picadilly commandoes was a euphemism for street prostitute, who were reputed to wear no underwear. |
Legion 4 | 03 Mar 2018 5:15 p.m. PST |
Oh ! How scandalous !!!! |
|