"WWII Belongs to the Infantry" Topic

You were asked – TMP link

Historian Roger J. Spiller once wrote:

The war on the ground was predominantly the infantryman's war. Despite notable advances in the equipment and techniques of armored warfare, this war belonged to the GI.

Do you agree?

83% said "yes, I agree"
10% said "no, I do not agree"

Artillery was the real killer but where Spiller is dead on is that boots on the ground on what was enemy territory is how wars are won.

Yes, Grunts take and hold ground with the support of Tanks, FA and CAS … But in most cases FA kills more than any other means. I don't know if that still holds true today with all the more accurate airstrikes though ?

I agree. However many gamers want air support and an armoured platoon to support their on table platoon of 30 men.

The artillery is the bigest killer but not in battle but over the long periods inbetween battles with the supprise shelling of soft targets.

I guess WW1 and onwards was the replacement of disease as the biggest killer. Certainly at least at the start of the Japanese campaign in Malaya disease was the biggest cause of the reduction of the force for the Brits.

Infantry definitely the decisive arm. When you have run out of infantry able and willing to attack/defend then you cannot continue to do either.

It's an unpleasant reality but somebody has to close with and destroy the enemy if you are to win.

As to who or what kills the infantry? Artillery and mortars did most of that.

However many gamers want air support and an armoured platoon to support their on table platoon of 30 men.

As a Plt Ldr I did too ! And on a rare occasion … we got it !

I guess WW1 and onwards was the replacement of disease as the biggest killer. Certainly at least at the start of the Japanese campaign in Malaya disease was the biggest cause of the reduction of the force for the Brits.

It was not until WWII in e.g. the US and UK forces. That generally losses were due to direct combat. As opposed to e.g. IJFs, many, many more died of non-combat means. E.g. like on Guadalcanal, more IJFs died of starvation than direct combat overall.

As to who or what kills the infantry? Artillery and mortars did most of that.

Infantrymen spend a lot of time trying to get something solid between them and incoming flying objects. E.g. bullets, bombs, etc., etc. …

It's my impression that artillery did most of the killing and infantry did most of the dying -- a good reason to pay attention in math class!

I do not agree. It was a combined arms war. Not only the traditional but also with contributions by the army air corps.

I guess WW1 and onwards was the replacement of disease as the biggest killer.

Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05, actually, was the first time that there were more combat casualties than illness casualties.

that artillery did most of the killing and infantry did most of the dying

The figure I saw/was told, etc. was that in any war the Infantry take @ 75% of the losses.

Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05, actually, was the first time that there were more combat casualties than illness casualties.

That I did not know. To contrast, during the Spanish-American War in 1898. 93% of the US losses were not due to combat. But disease, etc.

@Legion- I was a tanker and we were lucky when we got a platoon of grunts to support US! One mech battalion to split between armor battalions meant that the grunts were few and far between in my brigade..

Yep I know, my Mech Co was very frequently attached to a Tank Bn. We would sometimes get missions that would take 2 or 3 Inf Cos. to do affectively !

I many cases, one of my Mech Plts was cross-attached to an Armor Co. And I'd get a Tank Plt in exchange. When I was a Co Cdr in a Mech Hvy Bde, with 2 Mech Bns and 1 Tank Bn at Benning.

In the ROK I was with a Mech Bn in the 2ID. The Div was short some Combat Bns. 1st Bde was a Tank Bde with 2 Tank Bns & 1 Mech Bn.
2d Bde was 2 Leg/Light Inf Bns.
3d Bde had 1 Mech Bn, where is was assigned, and 1 Light Inf Bn. So Tanks and PCs were at a premium. But in some cases we would get ROK Inf & Tanks attached to make up the differences. 3d Bde also had an Armored CAV Bn, a Div asset, attached to us too. As we were the forward deployed Bde. Just South of the DMZ … When we were not deployed on the "Z" directly.

Of course the Nokos didn't have the Armor/Mech assets the USSR/WP did in Europe. And the terrain of the ROK was not really considered good tank terrain. But as you know we made it work.

Spaatz, Harris et al, believed all ground troops were irrelevant right to the end. The theory being that if all the manpower and resources devoted to boots on the ground went to the Air Force then the war would be won without them. The theory has been decried but to be fair, it was never fully tested.
Maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong…

Pretty sure they are wrong … you can only take & hold ground with Infantry and tanks, etc. But being a former Infantryman … I could be biased.

The theory has been decried but to be fair, it was never fully tested.

Maybe an aspect of the US war in SE Asia could be somewhat of an example. The US had massive amounts of airborne firepower. And many air strikes/ops run and huge numbers of bombs dropped. Causing something like 1 million enemy losses. Along with a lot of infrastructure, flora and fauna destroyed.

No disrespect to the Infantry of WWII, but they were part of a combined arms team. Naval and Aviation assets were just as often the decisive arm. Armored units and artillery were not insignificant. I cannot quote the sourch, but I think the Germans feared U.S. artillery and airpower more then our infantry.

Very true … And as we see/know combined arms is the way modern warfare works, so to speak. As I said, Grunts take and hold ground with the support of Tanks, FA and CAS …

The US Army has even moved the Armor School from Ft. Knox, KY to Ft. Benning, GA. Which is the home of the Infantry School. It is now referred to as something like the "Maneuver Center". So this is a real move to the predilection, etc., of the Combined Arms doctrine, etc.

Along with the that today, Helicopter Gunships are considered by some another "maneuver arm".

But in some terrain locales like in the PTO/CBI, Infantry was the overwhelming majority of forces on the ground, supported by direct and indirect fire assets. I.e. FA, CAS and Naval firepower. Including guns on the warships as well as LCI(R)s, etc. And AFVs deployed were very few generally compared to the ETO.

Of course beside the terrain limiting AFV use in those regions in many cases. The IJFs had very little AFVs in their TO&Es/OOBs. Compared to the Allies. And those were generally of "low" quality/effectiveness compared much of the Armor the Allies fielded. Hence, giving the M4 Sherman the nickname "the Panther of the Pacific" …