Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
The problem of the US was that the initial (production line) training was very basic and that of replacements was even less. This was a significant problem it itself.
Was and is -- we have gotten no smarter...
Big difference in approach to that of the US.
Sadly, our approach is driven by a personnel system that is designed and operated to serve itself and its operators. It does a very poor job of supporting the Army.

It simply wants to produce Round Pegs, small Round Pegs, that will fit in any hole regardless of the size or shape that is an optimum fit for the hole in question. It is not solely the fault of the Personnel folks; the Army leadership and, more importantly, the Congress support, even demand, that approach. Sad...

It is noteworthy that two of the most successful Divisions in the US Army in World War II, the 3d Infantry and the 82d Airborne both ordinarily refused to accept any replacements other than Privates and Second Lieutenants, both ran excellent training programs all through the war and both were great at promoting from within -- the 82d often declined even 2LTs. There were other good Divisions -- the 88th comes to mind, pure wartime raise and fill with a large number of draftees but they generally excelled because they had exceptionally talented Commanders, not because the 'system' was designed to properly support them.