Talk:Army Ground Forces
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artillery
[edit]This bit: "Although also frequently out-gunned by their German counterparts, ..." sounds dubious to me, given the well-known German complaints about Allied artillery pounding them to bits in Normandy and later on. I guess it's talking about 1942 and 1943? If so, that should be made clear. -- Hongooi 14:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I changed it to "out-ranged" which is what I meant. Hawkeye7 12:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This article does not make it clear what the organization was for
[edit]The article alludes to it being a training organization restricted to the continental US, but elsewhere it says that it was one of only three parts of the US Army: USAAF, Army Service Forces, and Army Ground Forces. That would imply that ground combat units deployed overseas were also part of this organization. Or not??? If the USAAF include overseas combat units, then why didn't the USAGF? --rogerd (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- AAF, AGF and ASF were all supply and training organisations within the United States. Units deployed overseas came under the control of the theatre commanders. Of the three, AAF had the most influence because Arnold was also the Deputy Chief of Staff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks... Do you think we should clarify better in the article? --rogerd (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Both the AGF and ASF articles are on my "fix it" list. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- So let me ask this. When the Eighth Air Force was in the ETO, they were not part of the USAAF? Is that a true statement? --rogerd (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Once in ETO, it came under Cheney's command. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks... Do you think we should clarify better in the article? --rogerd (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Revert
[edit]User:Hawkeye7, I'm not sure your revert reason holds good: "This is a summary of the source, not an editorial. Did you read the source?" The source says "Despite the tremendous victories of the Russians, and despite control of the sea and air by the Western allies …" That is clearly not the same as "largely because the Soviet Union carried most of the burden of fighting the German Army on the Eastern Front". And the "Fortunately" which you declined to reinsert could definitely be considered editorial. —Simon Harley (Talk). 04:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- I have added an additional source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)