Re: RE 17th Airborne at market Garden
- From: grahams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Stephen Graham)
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:18:37 +0000 (UTC)
In article <dhegna$v78$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
David Thornley <thornley@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>If the US Army had had 300 divisions, as some
>planners were thinking early on, there'd be plenty of room for
>experimental divisions. As it was, the US had (IIRC) 94 divisions,
>counting both Army and Marines.
An interesting tidbit is that when the US Army was planning for 187
divisions, they included 7 airborne divisions (and 46 armored). But
the reduction to 90 divisions only result in a reduction to 5 airborne
divisions (and 16 armored).
>Therefore, in any discussion of raising divisions, I start with
>the idea that the US Army needed infantry and armored divisions
>primarily, and everything else secondarily.
And it's arguable as to whether all those armored divisions were
necessary, or if more standard infantry divisions and tank battalions
would have been best.