Battles That The Americans And British...

What battles did Britain and America fight in together? This doesn't include operations where the units were seperated. Anzio comes to mind, but I'm unsure.

 

Even at Anzio, the British and Americans fought as separate divisions.

In one sense, the Brirish and Americans fought "together" in the final stages of the campaign in North Africa, in sicily, in Italy and in North West Europe and there was integration of the command structure at top level. However, below this each army maintained its separate structure and right up to corps and army level they fought in their own sectors under their own generals.

Apart from the logistical nightmare which would have arisen in attempting to keep a more integrated structure supplied, the differenced in doctrine and practice between the US and British armies were significant enough for any closer integration to be something to avoid.

One example of where the two armies fought closely together in practice, though is the US 82nd and 101st Airborne and British XXX Corps during Market Garden, but this was a fairly short duration operation.

 

British and American troops also fought together at Kasserine (with unhappy results for both sides), and at the Bulge (with better results), in Burma, and in the clearing of the Scheldt Estuary, where 104th US Infantry Division was assigned to 1 British Corps of 1st Canadian Army. US troops also were assigned to the British-led Operation Varsity and Operation Plunder, the Rhine Crossing. 82nd Airborne, after clearing the Ruhr, was also assigned to 2nd Army, which was short of men by this time, and drove with them all the way to the Elbe in North Germany. It wasn't the first time 82nd operated with the Brits...they were under 30 Corps after Market-Garden for some time, and Horrocks finally forced Gavin to issue his men a rum ration.

 

Originally posted by Kiwiwriter@Mar 14 2005, 02:46 PM
Horrocks finally forced Gavin to issue his men a rum ration.
[post=32176]Quoted post[/post]

So I expect the 82nd thought Horrocks was a pretty good bloke!

 

Yes we fought with the "Yanks" near VIre, treated us like lords..nothing was too good for us, and they made us very welcome ineed, lovely men.

While in that area, I had the dubious pleasure of capturing an American in the German Army. I wonder what happened to him? That was at the back of the Falaise pocket near Vire..... but that is another story.
Sapper

 

There seems to be an idea abroad that Yanks and the British were not compatible....Rubbish! those we met we got on with just great.
Sapper

 

Originally posted by sapper@Mar 14 2005, 08:23 PM
There seems to be an idea abroad that Yanks and the British were not compatible....Rubbish! those we met we got on with just great.
Sapper
[post=32196]Quoted post[/post]

The two armies were not compatible in many respects. In addition to the obvious differences in logistics requirements, ammunition in particular, there were differences in things like artillery command, control and observation methods which meant that the two armies could not readily fully integrate inthe field.

Obviously members of the two aries met and got on with each other, but this is not the same, for instance, as being able to supply Americans with .30-06 ammunition from British depots - there would have been none to issue.

 

Well said Sapper. It does'nt matter wether the Brits and Yanks fought together or as seperate units, they both did the job and the allies won the war!!! Actually for Brits read commonwealth and other forces.

 

Originally posted by angie999+Mar 15 2005, 07:58 AM-->(angie999 @ Mar 15 2005, 07:58 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-sapper@Mar 14 2005, 08:23 PM
There seems to be an idea abroad that Yanks and the British were not compatible....Rubbish! those we met we got on with just great.
Sapper
[post=32196]Quoted post[/post]

The two armies were not compatible in many respects. In addition to the obvious differences in logistics requirements, ammunition in particular, there were differences in things like artillery command, control and observation methods which meant that the two armies could not readily fully integrate inthe field.

Obviously members of the two aries met and got on with each other, but this is not the same, for instance, as being able to supply Americans with .30-06 ammunition from British depots - there would have been none to issue.
[post=32211]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
Gen mark Clarke is quoted as saying that he envied the german commanders in Italy as they had one army, one set of rations and ammo to work with. While he has 19 different nationalities and 22 different sets of rations because of religious requirements!

 

We did use USA ammo for our artillery. later we had to return to the 25 pounders as the USA could not keep up with the demand for the shells. As for not using each others miitary supplies that begs the question what about the Shermans?
Sapper

 

Originally posted by sapper@Mar 15 2005, 10:14 AM
We did use USA ammo for our artillery. later we had to return to the 25 pounders as the USA could not keep up with the demand for the shells. As for not using each others miitary supplies that begs the question what about the Shermans?
Sapper
[post=32219]Quoted post[/post]
Depends on the supplies. A lot of the equipment the British 2nd Army used was American -- Sherman tanks, halftracks, jeeps, deuce-and-a-half trucks, for example. I don't know about communications gear. However, artillery (the 25-lbr and 17-lbr) were usually British manufacture (including Canada), as were the Bren Carriers, Churchill and Cromwell tanks, specialized AVRE vehicles, Quads to tow the 25-lbrs., and armored cars. the British provided their own rifles, machine-guns, and so on -- the Lee-Enfield, Sten, Vickers, Bren, and so on. I don't know for a certainty about mortars. Grenades were the Mills, and the Americans used a derivative of that. The jerrican was a knockoff of the German gas tank, as the name suggests. Sapper can, should, and will correct me on any mistakes.

 

Originally posted by sapper@Mar 15 2005, 02:14 PM
We did use USA ammo for our artillery. later we had to return to the 25 pounders as the USA could not keep up with the demand for the shells. As for not using each others miitary supplies that begs the question what about the Shermans?
Sapper
[post=32219]Quoted post[/post]

The British bought M4 Shermans and in that sense they were our's not their's and, yes, in Italy for instance British gunners used American 155mm guns, but these were the exception. The British supply chain would obviously hold stocks for items accepted into service.

British troops did not use M1 Garand rifles and, therefore, British depots would not hold .30-06 rifle ammunition.

The USAAF bought Spitfires and, therefore, held spares and ammunition for them, but because they were in their service.

The fact is that most items were not held and used in common, unlike for instance later under NATO, where 7.62mm (.308 Winchester) became the standard rifle calibre, with interchangeable ammunition.

 

HI Kiwi. I would like to tell you the Middlesex Reg, the heavy mortar and machine gun support used their own, I have come under fire from them, after returning from a trip behind enemy lines near Vire, But Angie seems intent on contradicting me... so I wont!
Sapper

 

Sapper, I have the deepest respect for what you did 60 years ago, but that does not mean that I have to automatically accept without reservation everything you say.

Some of the rest of us do know what we are talking about, both from our own experience (and I would venture to suggest that my own knowledge for instance of land service ammunition from long professional experience and training is probably greater than your's), reading over many years, battelfield visits, etc. So when we suggest an alternative point of view please do not assume that we have simply accepted some alternative "Hollywood" reality.

I will continue to say what I think whether you like it or not, but please note that I am not looking to pick a fight with you or get personal.

 

I think we have to differentiate between heart and head here. It is interesting to look at the differences between the the US and British armies and accept them as they were, but they were'nt incompatible. War by it's very nature is an unknown quantity and it must have been difficult for, say Patton and Montgomery to work within the framework of the Allies. But the Brits needed the Yanks and the Yanks needed the Brits and together they fought and beat the Axis. That is where the heart is. Please forget Hollywood.
So it's donuts at dawn!

 

I'm interested in knowing more about Burma so can you tell me where in Burma the British and Americans fought together. The only American fighting unit in Burma I believed was 'Merrill's Marauders' or 5307 Composite Unit (provisional). Only for a short time the Chindits and the Marauders were at the siege of Myitkyina.

 

Do not forget New Zealanders served with Americans in the Solomons Campaign .
They performed with great bravery in the Army, Air Force and Navy.
They were incorrectly called The 3rd Division but were actually officially titled 2NZEF Pacific Division.
The fact that the cowardly, mentally unstable, incompotant Dug out Doug MacArthur was only interested in his place in history meant that many deeds the New Zealanders performed were either ignored or credited to Americans meant the Kiwis never recieved full recognition.
By the way this is not a slur on the thousands of very brave Americans who fought in that campaign. In fact I host some of the survivors who return here as I am very near one of their main training camps of WW2. The comments of the Marines who have been here about MacArthur make mine seem very restrained and printable. The Marines also speak very highly about the Kiwis who served with them and are surprised they do not get greater recognition in New Zealand compared to the units that fought in the Middle East, Africa etc.

 

Many of the New Zealand veterans I met at events were veterans of the Solomons campaign, either as airmen or in 3rd (Pacific) Division. That division was disbanded due to manpower needs back home. It was either disband the 2nd Division in Italy or the Pacific Division. The Pacific Division was disbanded.

 

Sorry Kiwiwriter but it was not a choice of disbanding 2NZEF in Italy or 2NZEF Pacific Division,
( never the 3rd IN ANY OFFICIAL WAY). It was a decision to move the troops where they were needed most. The Americans were winning the Pacific war and so troops from the Pacific Division were sent to Italy where the 2NZEF were in desperate need of new troops as the New Zealanders suffered more casualties after Casino than ever before.
The man power problem back here was never an issue as women were doing most of the jobs, so well in fact that New Zealand had one of the best run War Economies of all the Allies

 

Originally posted by sappernz@Mar 19 2005, 01:15 AM
Sorry Kiwiwriter but it was not a choice of disbanding 2NZEF in Italy or 2NZEF Pacific Division,
( never the 3rd IN ANY OFFICIAL WAY). It was a decision to move the troops where they were needed most. The Americans were winning the Pacific war and so troops from the Pacific Division were sent to Italy where the 2NZEF were in desperate need of new troops as the New Zealanders suffered more casualties after Casino than ever before.
The man power problem back here was never an issue as women were doing most of the jobs, so well in fact that New Zealand had one of the best run War Economies of all the Allies
[post=32288]Quoted post[/post]
Well, I read that in the official history, but not recently, so I'll have to go back and re-read that chapter again. Once again, Dave Lippman, the "traitor," the "plagiarist," the "incompetent," the "impostor," the man who should have his site "banned from the internet," screws it up again! Dave's on a roll! :angry: