Why, in spite of their sheer material superiority, did the Americans lose the Battle of Kasserine Pass?

>>17807956 (OP)
Mental weakness of rookie soldiers. They weren’t prepared for what they were facing even though they had material superiority across the board.

>>17807956 (OP)
>Lloyd "talk like a schoolboy" Fredendall vs. fucking Rommel at the peak of his career

Lost cause from the start.

>>17807956 (OP)
They didn't read rommel's book

>>17807956 (OP)
The German Wehrmacht was simply a better military force with generally more capable officers/ NCOs and wasn't quite as spent as they were in the later years of the war. The U.S army in particular has/had several issues, namely that competent and effective lower level leaders were immediately taken off the frontline and put into desk jobs at the logistical level. This is also a strength of sorts but what is undeniably a weakness is the inexperienced and untested nature of the higher level leaders. Most German officers at the time were veterans of the first world war and heavy fighting in both the west and east during the second, U.S army officers were veterans of west point. Throughout the war the Germans would generally kill 2 of our soldiers for every 1 we killed of theirs, this is while we retained almost complete air superiority and the initiative strategically and tactically. This is an issue that really has haunted the U.S army in every major conflict its participated in since the ACW, as America's military tradition died with the south.

>>17808185
>The German Wehrmacht
Thanks for the clarification, cheers

>>17808185
>Throughout the war the Germans would generally kill 2 of our soldiers for every 1 we killed of theirs
Source required.

Because it was the first time ever US soldiers were in North Africa.
People need to find their feet before they can run

>>17808437

>>17807956 (OP)
>>17807957
>>17808185
>>17808439
Reminder,
>Senior U.S. commanders were strongly opposed to proposed landings in North-West Africa. After the western Allied Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) met in London on 30 July 1942 General George Marshall and Admiral Ernest King declined to approve the plan. Marshall and other U.S. generals advocated the invasion of northern Europe later that year, which the British rejected.[53][54] After Prime Minister Winston Churchill pressed for a landing in French North Africa in 1942, Marshall suggested instead to President Franklin D. Roosevelt that the U.S. abandon the Germany first strategy and take the offensive in the Pacific. Roosevelt said it would do nothing to help Russia. With Marshall unable to persuade the British to change their minds, President Roosevelt gave a direct order that Operation Torch was to have precedence over other operations and was to take place at the earliest possible date, one of only two direct orders he gave to military commanders during the war.
Americans were sacrificed on the altar for Churchill and for the treasonous Soviet-symphatizing FDR administration.

Deliberate and typical Kraut propoganda/misinformation above.

>>17808613
Damn George Marshall worked for the Nazis? That would be explosive! That would be like Soviet spies in the FDR administration or something! Imagine that...

>>17807956 (OP)
why don't you go read the wikipedia summary for this? why do people seriously engage with basic shit like this?

>>17808499
Considering how anti-communist the U.S. was back then, how did no one figure out FDR was a Soviet sympathizer. Did some people in the administration know but chose to let it slide?

>>17808789
>Did some people in the administration know but chose to let it slide
They knew but they were also Soviet-sympathizers

>>17807956 (OP)
>Why, in spite of their sheer material superiority, did the Americans lose the Battle of Kasserine Pass?
Because they were green, cocky, and catastrophically unprepared. The Americans strutted into North Africa with shiny gear and zero sense, underestimating Rommel and overestimating their own competence. Their command was fragmented, their tactics were laughable, and their troops were tactically infantile. Kasserine wasn’t a battle; it was a slap across the face of American hubris by a battle-hardened Wehrmacht that didn’t give a damn about Hollywood optimism or logistical spreadsheets.

>>17809044
>underestimating Rommel and overestimating their own competence.

They literally didnt lol.
The whole motivation for Operation Torch was to gain combat experience before taking on the full might of the Wehrmacht on continental Europe.
Better to start against a third-rate Vishy forces and Rommels DAK which could be mitigated by the fact that Germany was far more ill-equipt and strategically inferior to operate overseas than the vast British and American machine could, but they never fooled themselves that US officers and men were inexperienced while the German officers and men were tactically superior.

>>17808427
Saying the German military could have referred to many formations, such as the volkssturm, or the SS, or the Wehrmacht. I specified for a reason.

>>17808437
It is well known that in direct combat with the U.S, Germany maintained an advantageous kill ratio usually. They lost more soldiers overall as they were fighting at least 3 other major powers on multiple fronts, but in engagements with the U.S they had the edge.

>>17809078
Calling Torch a training exercise would kind of be a disservice to what the operation would achieve and the nature of its planning. The case of the war in 1942 especially had the allies on the backfoot, it was a commonly held belief until midway and later Stalingrad that the Axis was nigh invincible on the battlefield, morale was in the shitter basically. The U.K would be making last ditch service rifles well into 1943 and the allies as whole didn't get the strategic initiative in any theater until 1944.

>>17808499
>Americans were sacrificed on the altar for Churchill and for the treasonous Soviet-symphatizing FDR administration.

Operation Torch was proposed by the British specifically because it was less ambitious than Operation Sledgehammer and thus carried a drastically lower risk of catastrophic failure. Considering the American failure at Kasserine Pass and the British-Canadian failure in the Dieppe Raid, it was the right decision.

>>17809928
No one is calling Torch a training exercise you paraphrasing faggot, but opening in North Africa was still better for gaining experience than to commit immediately into Europe. Vishy soldiers had much lower quality and morale, with very light resistance against the amphibious landing, and the allied men could take advantage of DAK being at disadvantage overseas since RN and US navy could cut their supply line, and Rommel had to make makeshift defences when he moved into French Algeria/Tunis that same month. If you wanted a first go at the Germans to get a taste of their tactics and capability, this was the best place to do it.

>>17810098
Again it feels like you are giving too much credit to the planners and too little credit the actual success which the operation would later bring about. As is the case with many Allied operations success came but not because of the mettle of their planning or talent of their soldiery.