U.S. army during World war 1 - Historum

**sturm** · May 23rd, 2012, 01:51 AM

My question here is how prepared exactly was the US army for war in Europe at 1917 in terms of equipment, moral, manpower, command ?
If we compare the military equipment of the US army at that time, with the equipment of the other countries (both Central Powers and Entante) are they as good?

**bartieboy** · May 23rd, 2012, 02:41 AM

Well the US expoditionary force is not really my area but from my understanding they were primarily equipped with French guns (some French artillery stayed in use up to the 1940's)
But it is assumeable that the French held back the best of their machine guns and artillery.

**Kevinmeath** · May 23rd, 2012, 02:43 AM

The USA had the same problem as the British in 1914, quite simply it wasn't prepared for war.

**bartieboy** · May 23rd, 2012, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevinmeath

The USA had the same problem as the British in 1914, quite simply it wasn't prepared for war.

Yet like the BEF it was very usefull.

Baltis · May 23rd, 2012, 03:39 AM

Actually, the US Army wasn't particularly useful until a year after they declared war. The state of our military as late as 1917 was deplorable. Almost nonexistent. No, we had not kept up with equipment and technology either. In spite of the airplane being invented first in the US, we didn't even have training aircraft. Borrowed our planes from France. Likewise, no tanks. Very few guns for the infantry.

Manpower came easy and the French and British tried very hard to get US troops integrated into their armies as replacements. We refused and made them wait until May 1918 before entering the battle as a single cohesive force. In the US we tell history in a very favorable light. As if we carried the day because we made them wait on the added troops. I have often wondered if that was actually the right thing to do. The French and British almost lost the war waiting on the US to declare its army ready to deploy.

VM1138 · May 23rd, 2012, 05:46 AM

The US military was modernizing over the years leading up to World War I. They weren't totally unprepared, but they weren't prepared, either.

The Navy was probably in the best position, as it had been the primary focus of military development since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. The Army was neglected a bit and hadn't changed all that much since the Spanish-American War.

I think the biggest problem was supplying and training the sheer numbers of men that needed to be raised and sent to Europe.

**tjadams** · May 23rd, 2012, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sturm

My question here is how prepared exactly was the US army for war in Europe at 1917 in terms of equipment, moral, manpower, command ?
If we compare the military equipment of the US army at that time, with the equipment of the other countries (both Central Powers and Entante) are they as good?

I'll just echo what others have written.
No peacetime nation is fully prepared to wage war, it takes time to get
the wheels and cogs of war going. Major General Pershing wanted to make sure that US troops were properly trained after he took
over for AEF commander General Frederick Funston.

When the raw and green US troops arrived in Europe, they were given
French and British weapons since in the rush to get into action, the heavy US weapons were left behind.
Eventually enough transport ships would bring all the US supplies needed.
General Pershing held fast to the use of US troops and their deployment and
at least a million US troops were sent to fight in WWI. A very nice and timely infusion for the Allies.

**pikeshot1600** · May 23rd, 2012, 06:43 AM

As far as heavy weapons, the US army didn't have much. There were two types of field pieces of modern vintage, and no heavy artillery that was not emplaced in coastal fortifications.

There was the M1902 3" (7.6cm) field gun, of which there were only about 600. The French 75 was available in large numbers and with ammunition manufacturing close at hand.

There was also a 4.7" (12.0cm) medium gun of which there were very few.

The guns themselves were fine, there were just not anywhere near enough of them.

Larrey · May 23rd, 2012, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bartieboy

Well the US expoditionary force is not really my area but from my understanding they were primarily equipped with French guns (some French artillery stayed in use up to the 1940's)
But it is assumeable that the French held back the best of their machine guns and artillery.

Well, not really. The AEF got the same gear as the French army. The premium was on heavier artillery, because that was a limited commodity for all armies (one they could never get enough of) where the UK provided a relatively large amount of the heavier guns the Americans used. A special bone of contention is the evaluation of the relative crappyness of the French "Chauchat" LMG, in the French original and the conversion for US use, with a difference in ammunition. Otherwise the US seems to have been provided with the same planes, tanks and trucks as the French were using, in roughly the same numbers. The French by 1918 had more gear than men.

**bartieboy** · May 23rd, 2012, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larrey

Well, not really. The AEF got the same gear as the French army. The premium was on heavier artillery, because that was a limited commodity for all armies (one they could never get enough of) where the UK provided a relatively large amount of the heavier guns the Americans used. A special bone of contention is the evaluation of the relative crappyness of the French "Chauchat" LMG, in the French original and the conversion for US use, with a difference in ammunition. Otherwise the US seems to have been provided with the same planes, tanks and trucks as the French were using, in roughly the same numbers. The French by 1918 had more gear than men.

Interesting, I didn't know that...
Where did you read this?