NRA members: Who will you be voting for?

[Mule]

Frenchie needs to make his God damned mind up. One minute he's more American than Mickey Mantle & the next he's an aloof continental critic. You must've already torn your hymen with all the fence straddling you do, eh Frenchie?

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

To say that we would still be drinking warm beer and tea without the french is utterly ridiculous. Have you taken a look at the breadth and scale of the British empire lately?

That's irrelevant to our war of independence in the 18th century.

Originally Posted by m21sniper

But beyond that, American independence was inevitable. The US defeated the british on land using almost entirely American men and materiel my friend. The biggest contribution of france in the entire war was in blockading the british at Yorktown so that Cornwallis could not escape.

Men, money, and the fleet that crushed the British fleet at Yorktown. Washington was facing defections, mutiny, no money, and a Congress that left him hanging.

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Forcing an early end to the war. Washington actually wanted to attack NY anyway...it was Rochambeau that convinced him to go South. The rest is history.

Washington agreed to go south, because that was the only place he could win, given France's willingness to fight there and not in NY.

Originally Posted by m21sniper

But make no mistake, the British were already defeated, whether Cornwallis escaped from Yorktown or not. The real struggle and moments of doubt had occured- and been overcome- long before the french had managed to provide much in the way of materiel or manpower support at all. It was the early dark years, the years that the US faced alone, that even made the rest possible.

Opinion, with no basis in fact or reality.

Originally Posted by m21sniper

It was only after the stunning AMERICAN victory at Saratoga that the french began to become openly and majorly involved.

It was only after Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war against the US that we become openly and majorly involved in WWII. France is on Germany's border and had to face an army that was vastly superior in every way. They were no match for the Nazis, and crumbled quickly. What would you expect?

Originally Posted by m21sniper

John Adams commented that the Comte de Vergennes "means to keep his hand under our chin to keep us from drowning, but not to lift our head out of the water."

A very astute assessment, by all accounts.

The Comte was one voice. As I said, the motives are irrelevant. They did help us and we won our independence as a result.

Originally Posted by m21sniper

France did what it did for france, not for America. Which is why the US broke the alliance with france and signed a separate peace with the British.

BTW, were it not for the US victory in the revolution, there would have been no subsequent french revolution, certainly at least not when or how it historically happened. So by your logic one could say they'd still be eating cake if it weren't for us. Of course that's very abstract, and quite silly.

It would be much easier- and more accurate- to say that without the help of the US in WWII the whole of Europe and a good chunk of Asia would be eating weinerschnitzel.

Cluelessness, yeah, that's it.

You're assertions are opinions, not borne out by the facts. But feel free to be a hater. It just shows how clueless you are.

[RPKESQ]

[QUOTE=tabs;4042018]RPKQ...why so snippy with me..it was U who mentioned that we, Americans didn't know our world history.

Basically the USA did bail out the Europeans (FRENCH) with the Germans TWICE in the last century.

1. In 1917 the French Army muntinied because of heavy casulaties on the Western front due to inept military leadership. Not hat the Brits were any better btw. The french army went completely on the defensive and could nolonger be counted on to go on offensive. They were exhausted.

The coming of the fresh US troops pushed the exhausted Germans into captualation before they completey collapsed.

2. The Germans over ran France in May of 1940 in about 6 weeks, even though the French had a larger army with more tanks.and aeroplanes It was the US led Allies in June of 1944 that retook France from the Germans.

3. It was US capital and military protection after WW2 that has allowed France to remerge as second tier power.
[QUOTE]

Sorry Tabs if I came across as snippy. That's not what I meant. You made some sweeping statements that were not 100% accurate, although mostly accurate. That was meant to be the crux of my reply. Also in your statements above I will address your points as numbered.

1) Yes the French were exhausted due to some very poor command. And large sections of the French army did mutiny. But no capitulation. They only refused to attack unless the leadership was changed. They still defended and held the Germans as they had done from the beginning. The leadership was replaced and the French army then continued to attack.

This part is totally wrong: "The coming of the fresh US troops pushed the exhausted Germans into capitulation before they completely collapsed". No such thing happened. After America joined the war, it was many months of training in France before the Americans could actually fight; all the while the French and British were on their own. They were armed with Springfield 1903s and Colt
1911s, but everything else was French. French artillery, French aircraft, French transport, etc. and though the Americans acquitted themselves very well in combat, they never were the deciding factor in the war. It was the British who with trial and error, learning from their mistakes (better than anyone else on the Allied side) developed the combined arms approach to become the best army in the field by the end of WWI. British innovations in artillery, airpower, armored warfare and battlefield communication won the last big battles on the Western front in that war. Also a major, major factor was the blockade of Germany by the Royal Navy.
So to recap, we did not save the French in WWI; if anybody did it was the British. But it was the dogged defense of the French from the beginning which protected their country from being overrun by the Germans.
I challenge anyone to prove the Americans were a deciding factor on the battlefield as to the outcome in WWI. It simply wasn't the case.

2) France had a larger army and better tanks than the German in 1940. She again was saddled with poor leadership. During the battle of France many French units were wiped out by superior German tactics. Not by any French cowardice by rank and file soldiers. After the Germans split the Allies (British mostly to the north and the main French armies to the South, the real problems began. In the North the British, just like the French could not hold the Germans back. Time and time again the superior German combined arms tactics overcame the Allied defenders. Soon they were reduced to a small area around Dunkirk. The British hastily set up an evacuation (full on retreat) by ship back to England. Some French made it on the evacuation ships, but most died defending the evacuation beaches or were captured.

To the South the French fought on until the French government capitulated and surrendered to the still advancing Germans. Many French soldiers died in combat, all were opposed to the capitulation but some followed orders and laid down their weapons. Some never surrendered and hide to become the Resistance and some fled to England and set up the French Government in Exile which continued the battle from England. Apart from some leadership lack of courage, I see no example of any mass cowardice from the French army. All of you expert military historians please post the evidence to the contrary. I'll wait.

What America fails as a nation to do is to give credit to the real deciding armies in WWII in the European theater. 4 out of 5 German casualties were inflicted by the Russians. The Russians bled Germany white. Yes we supplied much needed supplies to the Russians, but they did the dirty work. No combat on the Western front was of the same level of dirty, brutal, nasty killing that was done on the Eastern front. It was the worst combat ever experienced in the history of warfare. The figures are staggering, beyond comprehension, and belittle any battle on the Western front in every measure. Deaths, wounded, tanks, aircraft, artillery rounds and pieces, territory seized and lost prisoners, civilian deaths, etc. America has never experience anything remotely like it.
Secondly, the British military deserves special praise. The stood alone for a considerable time, blunting all that Germany could throw at them. Although they did not win the war by themselves by any means, their steadfast refusal to defend their little island gave the Americans time to prepare, design, produce, stage and launch the Normandy Invasion. This would not have been possible without the British Isle as a launching point.
So to say that the Americans saved France again (or just in WWII) is not very accurate. With out the Eastern front battles and without the British Homeland America had no way to saved France and did not do the majority of the fighting anyhow. Also thousands of French people died providing the intelligence required for D-Day, all forgotten by most Americans. Again, please post the evidence to support that America was the deciding factor in saving France. You won't find any modern (last 20 years) military historians to support that view. This myth came about from evidence than was kept secret or downplayed to the public until after the 1980s and 90s. And so millions of Americans keep repeating the same old-wives tails of how America saved the world. This is not the stance of military historians even from the US military.
Now don't misunderstand me. I am proud of what the USA has done in both World Wars, but I don't need to repeat lies or myths to inflate our accomplishments. The simple facts are worth the pride all by themselves.

3) This is mostly true. Although France has excelled in nuclear research for many years (Madame Curie anyone?). And France has always cooperated with NATO, even after withdrawing from it. No France has not always "rubber stamped" American decisions, but American decisions have not always been correct either (Iraq anyone?).

[RPKESQ]

[QUOTE=m21sniper;4042049]I am sure i know more about the history of warfare than 10 of you put together frenchie.
[QUOTE]

Well sniper, let's put that redneck good 'ol boy boast to the test.

Please post evidence from any of the peer reviewed military history journals from the last 20 years to prove the various opinions you have posted. And to make it more interesting let's put some money where your mouth is.

How about $1500 US (only 955.658 Euro!) that you cannot prove that the US intervention in WWI saved France, or that the Colonies would have won the Revolutionary War without intervention from France. Or would you like to try for how American was the major deciding factor in winning WWII in Europe, which in turn saved France.

Got the balls?

[m21sniper]

You really wish to dispute that it was the Arrival of US forces that sealed the defeat of the Germans in WWI?

Or that it was US lend-lease (and direct USN involvement as well as several squadrons of US volunteer pilots) that kept the British in the fight in WWII until a truly massive US force had been built up in the UK, and that it was a massively supported and led US invasion force that free'd the continent?

Or that the Americans had proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they could fight against the British and win several major battles with no french assistance during the revolution?

Which one of these (plainly obvious) facts are you disputing frog?

BTW, without US lend-lease, the Soviets were cooked too. And honestly, did you expect them to "Liberate" you, in any case? You a big fan of May Day cuz?

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

You're assertions are opinions, not borne out by the facts. But feel free to be a hater. It just shows how clueless you are.

Quite the opposite, your understanding of these matters is akin to that of a small, poorly informed child.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

You really wish to dispute that it was the Arrival of US forces that sealed the defeat of the Germans in WWI?

Or that it was US lend-lease that kept the Russians and British in the fight until a truly massive US force had been built up in the UK, and that it was a massively supported and led US invasion force that free'd the continent?

Or that the Americans had proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they could fight against the british and win several major battles with no french assistance?

Which one of these (plainly obvious) facts are you disputing frog?

My challenge was clear. The win conditions for you are clear. Let's not try to weasel out by rewording the challenge with sloppy word play.

Man up or shut up.

[m21sniper]

Your "challenge" was akin to your NRA challenge, an attempt by a weasely degenerate gambler to buy himself out of a pinch.

Very typical for a frenchman, i suppose.

If you really want to debate these things, i would gladly direct you to a military board that i co-founded. There are current and former field grade officers and NCO's from numerous NATO armies and all branches of service that post there (peers), that would love to educate you (review). At least one is an instructor at West Point.

In fact, there are huge threads on all these topics there already.

worldaffairsboard.com

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

Your "challenge" was akin to your NRA challenge, an attempt by a weasely degenerate gambler to get himself out of a pinch.

Very typical for a frenchman, i suppose.

If you really want to debate these things, i would gladly direct you to a military board that i co-founded. There are current and former field grade officers from numerous NATO armies and all branches of service that post there, that would love to educate you. At least one is an instructor at West Point.

In fact, there are 50 page threads on all these topics there already.

worldaffairsboard.com

Again you continue to weasel; read the challenge again (maybe it would help if you move your lips while you are reading) and respond with a simple yes or no (sometime in this century).

If you don't understand why historians insist on peer reviewed publications then you know very little about proper historical research. I hope you are intelligent to realize than military members have about as much credibility in this situation as a ward nurse would have in an opinion concerning neurosurgery. You did not know that? Then you may accuse me of taking candy from a baby.

After all, you and the others engage in these mutual circle jerks, spouting this nonsense as if it was fact. You should have total confidence in your ability to win (remember: “I am sure i know more about the history of warfare than 10 of you put together frenchie”). And you run a blog! Ohh, so impressive!


I’ve got to go now, but I will check back later tomorrow. Stop wasting time with sorry attempts at rewording. It is stated quite clearly. You with all your military history expertise should be able to rub enough gray cells together and make a decision. No verbiage beyond “yes, I accept the challenge” or “no, I do not accept the challenge” is required.

Money talks, BS walks; yes or no?

[m21sniper]

It's not a blog, it's an internationally populated military oriented forum, with members from dozens of countries, many of them military, some very high ranking. East and West. Russians, Indians, Americans, British, Canadians, Aussies. Some S. Africans even...

You know, military historian types.

I actually don't even post there any longer, but if you want a straight shooting view from some actual experts on the topics of military subjects, it's as good a place to go as exists on the web.

All the points i mentioned here are very widely held and historically grounded beliefs, and the sentiments can be found to be echoed by numerous reputable sites on the web. I offered you a forum full of real world military professionals to air out your theories, however i am not interested in your bet.

I view gambling to be a serious character flaw, actually.

PS: I 'reword' ie edit all my posts if i think they can be improved with more proper wording, to correct spelling, intent or clarity. Or to join numerous posts into one, or if i just have more i feel like adding. (i just did it again! )

I suggest you learn to deal with it frenchie.

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

It's not a blog, it's an internationally populated military oriented forum, with members from dozens of countries, many of them military, some very high ranking. East and West. Russians, Indians, Americans, British, Canadians, Aussies. Some S. Africans even...

You know, military historian types.

I actually don't even post there any longer, but if you want a straight shooting view from some actual experts on the topics of military subjects, it's as good a place to go as exists on the web.

All the points i mentioned here are very widely held and historically grounded beliefs, and the sentiments can be found to be echoed by numerous reputable sites on the web. I offered you a forum full of real world military professionals to air out your theories, however i am not interested in your bet.

I view gambling to be a serious character flaw, actually.

PS: I 'reword' ie edit all my posts if i think they can be improved with more proper wording, to correct spelling, intent or clarity. Or to join numerous posts into one, or if i just have more i feel like adding. (i just did it again! )

I suggest you learn to deal with it frenchie.

Yes or no, weasel. Try wearing your big girl panties and make a clear stand.

[m21sniper]

Are you blind?

[RPKESQ]

So, I see all the big blowhards have faded away like cockroaches in the light. Tobra, joeska, m21sniper, all got bigger internet balls than in real life. When called out on their statements, they just fold faster than than GM's stock price. What a surprise!

Obviously, they have all learned well from snowedman.

[Normy]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

I am a NRA Life Member and I will be voting for Obama.
The US has faltered and failed on several levels that affect everyone of us. Republicans have not reduced the size of government or reduced the cost of government since before Regean. They have not responded to a much changed world situation in a manner that reduces our vunrability to outside threats. They have screwed up Afganistan and caused a needless war in Iraq. They have attacked our personal freedoms relentlessly during the two Bush terms. They have repeatedly broken US laws and have not been supported by the SCOTUS (most of whom they appointed). They (Bush jr's group) have lost the support of most of our allies. Our economy is in the toilet, our dollar has sunk to record lows, our "plan" to remain solvent is non-existant. No initiative in energy independence, no recognition that the world is not black or white (like during the Cold War) and that we cannot go it alone, no proper allocation or plan to safegaurd our ports and cargo facilities, no future.
Yes some of you need to be educated as to the reality of todays world and our failing position in it. A one issue voter is a voter with a very narrow world-view. That is never a very good idea.
Obama does not have to be very good to be better Bush or Bush II (Mac-same).

Obama '08, and yes I am a member of the NRA.

-As stated quite astutely above. I'll add that this is a SECULAR country, and it is more likely to stay true to what our founding fathers wanted with Obama and a completely Democratic legislative branch in power.

N!

[K. Roman]

My favorite thread this year. Keep it up!

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

So, I see all the big blowhards have faded away like cockroaches in the light. Tobra, joeska, m21sniper, all got bigger internet balls than in real life. When called out on their statements, they just fold faster than than GM's stock price. What a surprise!

Obviously, they have all learned well from snowedman.

I simply don't gamble.

I personally view not gambling to be a positive character trait. Much as frenchman consider a propensity to surrender to be one as well.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by RPKESQ

Although France has excelled in nuclear research for many years (Madame Curie anyone?)

LOL....U are one dumb fk....Madame Curie was Polish.

[tabs]

[QUOTE=RPKESQ;4042962][QUOTE=tabs;4042018]RPKQ...why so snippy with me..it was U who mentioned that we, Americans didn't know our world history.

Basically the USA did bail out the Europeans (FRENCH) with the Germans TWICE in the last century.

1. In 1917 the French Army mutinied because of heavy casualties on the Western front due to inept military leadership. Not hat the Brits were any better btw. The french army went completely on the defensive and could no longer be counted on to go on offensive. They were exhausted.

The coming of the fresh US troops pushed the exhausted Germans into capitualation before they completely collapsed.

2. The Germans over ran France in May of 1940 in about 6 weeks, even though the French had a larger army with more tanks.and aeroplanes It was the US led Allies in June of 1944 that retook France from the Germans.

3. It was US capital and military protection after WW2 that has allowed France to reemerge as second tier power.

Sorry Tabs if I came across as snippy. That's not what I meant. You made some sweeping statements that were not 100% accurate, although mostly accurate. That was meant to be the crux of my reply. Also in your statements above I will address your points as numbered.

1) Yes the French were exhausted due to some very poor command. And large sections of the French army did mutiny. But no capitulation. They only refused to attack unless the leadership was changed. They still defended and held the Germans as they had done from the beginning. The leadership was replaced and the French army then continued to attack.

This part is totally wrong: "The coming of the fresh US troops pushed the exhausted Germans into capitulation before they completely collapsed". No such thing happened. After America joined the war, it was many months of training in France before the Americans could actually fight; all the while the French and British were on their own. They were armed with Springfield 1903s and Colt
1911s, but everything else was French. French artillery, French aircraft, French transport, etc. and though the Americans acquitted themselves very well in combat, they never were the deciding factor in the war. It was the British who with trial and error, learning from their mistakes (better than anyone else on the Allied side) developed the combined arms approach to become the best army in the field by the end of WWI. British innovations in artillery, airpower, armored warfare and battlefield communication won the last big battles on the Western front in that war. Also a major, major factor was the blockade of Germany by the Royal Navy.
So to recap, we did not save the French in WWI; if anybody did it was the British. But it was the dogged defense of the French from the beginning which protected their country from being overrun by the Germans.
I challenge anyone to prove the Americans were a deciding factor on the battlefield as to the outcome in WWI. It simply wasn't the case.

2) France had a larger army and better tanks than the German in 1940. She again was saddled with poor leadership. During the battle of France many French units were wiped out by superior German tactics. Not by any French cowardice by rank and file soldiers. After the Germans split the Allies (British mostly to the north and the main French armies to the South, the real problems began. In the North the British, just like the French could not hold the Germans back. Time and time again the superior German combined arms tactics overcame the Allied defenders. Soon they were reduced to a small area around Dunkirk. The British hastily set up an evacuation (full on retreat) by ship back to England. Some French made it on the evacuation ships, but most died defending the evacuation beaches or were captured.

To the South the French fought on until the French government capitulated and surrendered to the still advancing Germans. Many French soldiers died in combat, all were opposed to the capitulation but some followed orders and laid down their weapons. Some never surrendered and hide to become the Resistance and some fled to England and set up the French Government in Exile which continued the battle from England. Apart from some leadership lack of courage, I see no example of any mass cowardice from the French army. All of you expert military historians please post the evidence to the contrary. I'll wait.

What America fails as a nation to do is to give credit to the real deciding armies in WWII in the European theater. 4 out of 5 German casualties were inflicted by the Russians. The Russians bled Germany white. Yes we supplied much needed supplies to the Russians, but they did the dirty work. No combat on the Western front was of the same level of dirty, brutal, nasty killing that was done on the Eastern front. It was the worst combat ever experienced in the history of warfare. The figures are staggering, beyond comprehension, and belittle any battle on the Western front in every measure. Deaths, wounded, tanks, aircraft, artillery rounds and pieces, territory seized and lost prisoners, civilian deaths, etc. America has never experience anything remotely like it.
Secondly, the British military deserves special praise. The stood alone for a considerable time, blunting all that Germany could throw at them. Although they did not win the war by themselves by any means, their steadfast refusal to defend their little island gave the Americans time to prepare, design, produce, stage and launch the Normandy Invasion. This would not have been possible without the British Isle as a launching point.
So to say that the Americans saved France again (or just in WWII) is not very accurate. With out the Eastern front battles and without the British Homeland America had no way to saved France and did not do the majority of the fighting anyhow. Also thousands of French people died providing the intelligence required for D-Day, all forgotten by most Americans. Again, please post the evidence to support that America was the deciding factor in saving France. You won't find any modern (last 20 years) military historians to support that view. This myth came about from evidence than was kept secret or downplayed to the public until after the 1980s and 90s. And so millions of Americans keep repeating the same old-wives tails of how America saved the world. This is not the stance of military historians even from the US military.
Now don't misunderstand me. I am proud of what the USA has done in both World Wars, but I don't need to repeat lies or myths to inflate our accomplishments. The simple facts are worth the pride all by themselves.

3) This is mostly true. Although France has excelled in nuclear research for many years (Madame Curie anyone?). And France has always cooperated with NATO, even after withdrawing from it. No France has not always "rubber stamped" American decisions, but American decisions have not always been correct either (Iraq anyone?).

It was the American who finally punched a hole through the German lines that could not be repaired in the Meuse Argonne in the fall of 1918 that broke the Germans back. They then sued for an Armistice. Why do U think the Germans launched their last great gamble in the West in March 1918 with a million men freed from the Russian front..they wanted to win the war before the Americans showed up in any sizable numbers. They knew that if they didn't win then and there it was all over.

Exactly who do you think was providing armaments and logistical supplies to France, Russia and Britain during WW1. You ever hear of Pattern 14 Enfields, Mosin Nagnants, Colt New Service revolvers etc. Who do you think sold the food to GB in 2 WW's. Supplied the oil, gasoline, HE, ammunition, and steel.

In WW2 who basically GAVE GB 50 old Destroyers. So that they could provide convoy escort. Who in the fall of 1941 was guaranteeing convoys bound for GB escort protection halfway across the Atlantic. Which nation finally broke the back of the UnterseeBoots in the Atlantic.

If it were not for the US and Lend Lease..providing aeroplanes and trucks Stalin would not have been able to make as many T-34's to defeat the Germans.

It was the industrial base of the USA that BEAT both the Germans and Japanese in WW2. In WW1 it was the constant supply of war material that the US provided to the Brits, French and Ities that helped run Germany into the ground.


So don't give me this revisionist cr@pola history routine.

The Eastern Front in WW2...what do you know about the Eastern Front...Do you know which Reinhard Heydrich Pre-war scheme had blow back that helped cause the Germans to ultimately lose the war?

What do you know about the Elephant?

[RPKESQ]

Originally Posted by tabs

LOL....U are one dumb fk....Madame Curie was Polish.

U are one really big dumb F*UK! Try doing a little more in-depth research before posting.

As per Wiki:

Marie Curie (born Maria Skłodowska; also known as Maria Skłodowska–Curie; November 7, 1867 – July 4, 1934) was a physicist and chemist of Polish upbringing and, subsequently, French citizenship. She was a pioneer in the field of radioactivity, the only person honored with Nobel Prizes in two different sciences, and the first female professor at the University of Paris.

She was born in Warsaw, Vistula Country, Russian Empire, and lived there until she was 24. In 1891 she followed her elder sister Bronisława to study in Paris, where she obtained her higher degrees and conducted her scientific work. She founded the Curie Institutes in Paris and Warsaw.


So let's see. She Obtained her higher degrees in France, did the majority of her work in France, became a French citizen and founded her famous institute in France (and Poland). In any other country, like America, we would say she is French. How many American scientists were foreign born?

Really Tabs, thought you were better than this!

[RPKESQ]

Apparently much more than you do, Tabs.

Read my statements again and pay attention. Here is what a simple and quick search can provide.

Part 1

WWI
“The AEF was given French artillery guns (the 75 and 155mm) while the British provided mortars, machine guns, steel helmets and some uniforms.
The lack of speed with which the AEF was sent to Europe was later criticised by David Lloyd George. The 1st Division AEF landed in France in June 1917. The 2nd Division did not arrive until September and by October 31st, 1917, the AEF only numbered 6,064 officers and 80,969 men. In roughly the same time span in 1914, the BEF had got 354,750 men into the field. Nine months after America declared war, there were 175,000 American troops in Western Europe. In the same time span of nine months from 1914 to 1915, Britain had put 659,104 men into the various theatres of war. Therefore, in 1917, despite her strength on paper, America played little part in the war activities of that year.
Pershing also wanted the AEF to be perfectly ready for combat. He did not want what Haig and Pétain wanted - that American forces should be used to fill in where the Allies were weak. Pershing wanted an independent fighting unit that was well-trained and self-contained. Therefore, when the Germans launched their great offensive of March 1918, there was only one American division in the Allied lines - with three divisions in training areas. The series of German offensives from March to July 1918 posed great dangers to the French and British armies. Paris was threatened and on two occasions, the British were nearly driven into the Channel on two occasions. But in all of these attacks, the Americans played little part.
However, the German spring offensive had made Pershing realise that he needed to change his course of action. In June it was agreed that American troops would be sent to France from America without space-occupying equipment that could be provided by the French and British once the Americans were in France. In June and July 1918, America sent over 584,000 men. The American merchant marine could not cope with such numbers - so the British merchant marine was used as well. The German army could not hope to match such numbers that arrived in a very short space of time.
On July 18th, 1918, the French launched a major attack against the Germans from the Forest of Villers-Cotterêts. This attack included two American divisions - a total of 54,000 men. By August 1918, there were nearly 1,500,000 American troops in France. Germany could only muster 300,000 youths. The Allies were planning for a major attack in 1919 that would be led by 100 American divisions. Faced with such odds, the Germans had no choice but to look for a way out of fighting. This led to the armistice in November 1918 that itself led to the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919.”
From: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/america-military-power.htm

“The United States was the world's number one industrial power, but the army lacked modern weaponry, including tanks, poison gas, aircraft, heavy artillery, and trench mortars. War mobilization, 1917–18, failed to remedy this deficiency: the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) largely fought with foreign weapons.
On 28 May, 14 months after the United States entered the war, a reinforced U.S. regiment (about 4,000 men) captured the village of Cantigny. Several days later, the Second Division (which included a Marine brigade) took up a defensive position west of Château‐Thierry and engaged the advancing Germans.

Pershing rebuffed efforts by Allied soldiers to share their increasingly sophisticated tactical techniques with his forces. Revisionists have been critical of his emphasis on riflemen, the American frontier spirit, and open field tactics, arguing that he did not comprehend how science and the machine age had revolutionized warfare.

After gaining reluctant approval from Foch for the formation of an independent American force, the U.S. First Army, Pershing went forward with plans to eliminate the threatening salient of St. Mihiel, as a prelude to his Metz offensive. The Battle of St. Mihiel (12–16 September 1918) proved to be an impressive but misleading U.S. victory because German forces were in the process of withdrawing to a new and shorter defensive line when the Americans attacked and cut off the salient.

The pressing demands of coalition warfare, however, forced Pershing to delay preparations for his 1919 Metz campaign. Complying with Foch's strategy, he reluctantly shifted most of his troops some sixty miles northward to the Meuse‐Argonne sector, where he was expected to participate in simultaneous and converging Allied attacks against the large German salient. Logistical chaos, flawed tactics, and inexperienced men and officers contributed to a disastrous start to the Meuse‐Argonne offensive (26 September–11 November 1918). Pershing hoped to advance ten miles on the first day; his front, however, had moved just thirty‐four miles by the armistice six weeks later, much of the ground gained only during the last phase of the offensive when Germany had exhausted its reserves. “
From : http://www.answers.com/topic/world-war-i-1914-18-military-and-diplomatic-course

The manpower reserves of the US resulted in a shortening of the war. On the battlefield US soldiers played virtually no role in 1917 and little until June and July 1918 , which was after the Germans had mostly used up their reserves from the Eastern Front. The British Naval blockade was starving Germany at home and at the front. The American presence in June and July of 1918 and after convinced the Germans to sue for peace before they collapsed from losses inflicted by the French and British and before the Germans starved from the British Naval Blockade. In 51 months of war the French and British fought alone for 47 of those months on the battlefield of the Western front. They dealt with the full force of the Germans and at the worst held on. In several large battles they bested the Germans. Hardly a history of cowardice by the French or one of major US battlefield action.