Question

[Florin]

PS for Dragos:

...And about the advance of Leibstandarte SS, it is mentioned in "Blitzkrieg", by Len Deighton.

[Florin]

[quote]..... the bulk of the division (artillery, services) are unlikely to advance at such speed, even motorized and without enemy resistance.[/quote]

So that guy Rene stated that it happened on June 19.
This is one of the longest day of the year. They had time to drive 14 hours at 20 km/hour, and to take about 3...4 hours of stops.
The season was dry, and the roads of France were among the best of Europe.
The biggest problem was refueling, but the German crews had the habit to stop at the French gasoline stations and refuel from them.

[Chandernagore]

[quote][quote]The 5th Panzer Division, under the command of general Rommel, advanced 275 kilometers in one day, in France, in May 1940.[/quote]
Never read of this. However it seems to me that there were some advanced reconnaissance elements to have advanced such distance, the bulk of the division (artillery, services) are unlikely to advance at such speed, even motorized and without enemy resistance.[/quote]

I have to agree with this. A division moving 150+ miles in one day is more likely to be on an autobahn around Frankfurth than advancing in enemy territory. And the LAH in 40 was nothing special, with an NCO cadre more remarkable for it's political indoctrination than command expertise, it was substandard comparatively to the average wermacht motorized division.

[Jeff_S]

I think Florin agrees with me -- at least occasionally -- which I will take as a compliment

I only referred to Thermopylae as an example of a battle where high quality troops made a difference. But Florin's comment got me thinking. While the arms and armor of the Spartan hoplite were better than the Persian's best troop, they used basically the same equipment as other Greek hoplites. Also, the Spartan force at Thermopylae was not elite by Spartan standards. It's just that their average soldier would be elite by the standards of other armies. In Florin's words an elite army as a whole. This was my main point: that good average troop quality is preferable to having several forces of different quality but with the same mission.

One example of this is the British soldier during the Napoleonic era. Small in numbers but with a troop quality equal to many countries Guards (or at least close). I should not limit this to just the Napoleonic Era -- as Florin notes, it was true in the Falklands/ Malvinas conflict too. I must point out that it was more than just the SAS involved in retaking the Falklands -- Royal Marines, the Parachute Regiment, Gurkhas, and other regular units of the British Army were there there too (not to ignore the naval and air forces either).

[quote] Like the Tiger I's and the Tiger II's, generously offered to few units of Waffen SS, and not so generously to the armored divisions of the Wehrmacht. [/quote]

My understanding is that the Wehrmacht's Tigers were organized in independent tank battalions (at the army level?). This is exactly how I like to use scarce weapons -- concentrated, but in the same chain of command as the regular troops. Better still -- concentrate on 1-2 good tanks and build more of them (for the Germans, Panzer IV with 75mm/40 gun and the Panther in my humble opinion). What not to do is what the Germans did historically. Consider how many types of infantry divisions they had by late in the war: regular infantry, SS infantry, Fallschirmjager (special mission early in the war, yes, but basically infantry after the losses in Crete), mountain (another with a special mission), Luftwaffe field divisions (break these up, send their soldiers as replacements to the understrength Werhrmacht divisions), light, jaeger, security, fortress, Volksgrenadier... Some of these even had their own chains of command above the division level :shock: Better to have one chain of command, and let the corps and army commanders know the capabilities of the units they command.

Florin is right about the Praetorians not being an operational Roman unit. (Although I would call them "heavily political, scheming, Emperor-makers" rather than just police) A better example would have been Caesar's Legion X during the time of the Gallic Wars. I stand corrected :oops:

I agree about not including the Soviet "Guard" units as truly elite. Wasn't this given out more as a reward for success in action -- or just for political reasons -- rather than designating a unit with special selected soldiers, training, and/or equipment? I'm sure some of this forum's readers can set me straight :question:

As to how well the different services of the US military work together, the answer is: usually they work together well at the lower levels. Yes, there is competion in Washington for $$$ and missions. Yes, when if the services mix at the same bar after work, the insults may fly. :drunk: But the services attend each other's schools and have many chances to work together. Officers need to have joint assignments to get promoted. Just because the Army points out that "the US has not won a war since the Air Force became a separate service (1947)" does not mean they don't love them.

I will not touch the comment about why the US lost in Vietnam. That subject is just an invitation for crazy Americans to post their theories. It can wait until Victor and Dragos decide to administer "vietnamwar.ro", and I am not expecting this any time soon.

Cheers, Jeff

[Victor]

Well I am back from the sunny shores of the Black Sea and can finally post a reply.

The Romanian army has some special forces, created only recently, apparently with US and Israeli expertise, but unfortunately not many details are known to the public about them. The closest think until now to Special Forces were the scouts, who are trained by all sections of the army (mountain troops, paratroopers, marines etc) and some special operations paratrooper battalions (who I suspect were transformed into special forces units recently).

As for elite forces, there are the mountain troops (who have a esprit de corps of their own), the paratroopers and the marines (Romanian marines are mostly trained to fight in the Danube Delta, not to be sent to far away places).

[Florin]

QUOTE

....A division moving 150+ miles in one day is more likely to be on an autobahn around Frankfurth than advancing in enemy territory...

As I mentioned here, on June 19th the French government already asked for armistice, even though not officially accepted by Germany in that moment. The French troops were far from having the willing to fight to the last man, and the French civilian population maybe was scared, but anyway in no mood for active resistance in June 1940. Technically, it was possible. Please read my short previous note.

[Florin]

QUOTE

.... And the LAH in 40 was nothing special, with an NCO cadre more remarkable for it's political indoctrination than command expertise, it was substandard comparatively to the average wermacht motorized division.

From "Blitzkrieg", by Len Deighton, page 196:

"...the motorized SS-Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler .... was put in to follow the route of 9.Pz.Div. In the face of this determined force, the French moved back along the route to Rosendaal and Antwerp."

Well, they seem good enough enough even in 1940... Maybe you'll write now that I should not compare them with the French. 8)

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Well, they seem good enough enough even in 1940... Maybe you'll write now that I should not compare them with the French.

Absolutely :-)

[udar]

Romanian army have,create in cold war period,a scouts special batalion,who was more appropiate by Speznatz mission than SAS or SEAL.It was use for long range reconnaissance mission, diversions, captured military leaders or take him down, for counter terorist mission exist a special unit from SRI.Now is create a new special unit,probably more apropiate by NATO special units profile.As an elite force,ofcourse all sed is the best,but i agree with Victor,the mountain troops,the paratroopers and the marines ar the elite of our army.