Jump to content

Why the Germans?


Recommended Posts

Trot off and read some accounts by people who fought against them, it might give you a clue. They might not have won a war and as Tony says the praise might get a bit overdone sometimes, but as he also says they nonetheless took some beating at the operational level. Even when taking on half the world virtually single handed.

 

BillB

I think it is on a dedication page of Russ Weigley's Eisenhower's Lts there appears quoted passage of the British Army: "One cannot claim to have seen modern warfare until one has fought the German Army" or words to that effect.

 

Back to the thread:

Tradition counts. It dates from Prussian victories under Frederick II [the Great], reinforced by Bluecher & Company and the 1813-15 campaigns in Germany, France and Belgium, then the striking series of victories in the three wars of German Unification, 1864-71 [well, not so striking 1864!].

 

While WWI did not bring final victory, the Germans did the heavy lifting for the Central Powers and the performance of their armies [aided by the postwar myth that they were never defeated in the field, "just stabbed in the back by the liberals" -- a popular rightwing notion that seems international] means that the army of 1939 is poised to fignt and win. It then goes on to accomplish just that, until late 1942.

Edited by Ken Estes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It has been a long time since I read infantry attacks but most of what I remember has Rommel fighting against the French in the first part of the war and against the Italians for most of the rest of the war. When I first read it I was looking for new tactical insight and found what he was writing about was the same thing I was trained for at Ft. Benning in 1978.

 

Well i havnt actualy read infantry attacks, but i was collectivly qouting Paddy Griffith's British art of attack 1916-18 and British army's experience (which has several authors, its more a collection of essays).

 

The only thing i would say is that i found this http://www.amazon.com/Attacks-ROMMEL-Erwin...l/dp/0960273603 which puts him in line with your memory. So perhaps rommel was judging from battle reports. Or more likely i forgot exactly what the passage said!

 

Or perhaps alternativly they Rommell and British high command held similar views, Rommell always sought to outflank his opponents and British high command always sought to re open mobile warfare and out manouver the German army. Perhaps that it what they claimed and i misrememberd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The germans lost every war due to being overwhelmed on any level.

 

It doesn't matter if you have 5000 or 6000 Panthers for which you have no fuel when the enemy has 20000 tanks , produces more in a month than you in 6 and has unlimited fuel and support.

 

The allies get a lot of praise for their performance against the germans in the west , but IMO they sucked badly.They enjoyed such a superiority on all accounts that it was something like US vs. Iraq in 2003.Yet , they needed almost 9 months to advance as much.

 

Taking Ardennes as an example of allied performance is equally dumb IMO , the germans stopped because they remained without fuel.The americans were to busy saving their south pole to even fire back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been a long time since I read infantry attacks but most of what I remember has Rommel fighting against the French in the first part of the war and against the Italians for most of the rest of the war. When I first read it I was looking for new tactical insight and found what he was writing about was the same thing I was trained for at Ft. Benning in 1978.

 

They were teaching reconnaissance-pull doctrine and mission orders at Benning in 1978???

 

I was still being taught 5 paragraph orders by the USMC in 1992.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The germans lost every war due to being overwhelmed on any level.

 

It doesn't matter if you have 5000 or 6000 Panthers for which you have no fuel when the enemy has 20000 tanks , produces more in a month than you in 6 and has unlimited fuel and support.

 

The allies get a lot of praise for their performance against the germans in the west , but IMO they sucked badly.They enjoyed such a superiority on all accounts that it was something like US vs. Iraq in 2003.Yet , they needed almost 9 months to advance as much.

 

Taking Ardennes as an example of allied performance is equally dumb IMO , the germans stopped because they remained without fuel.The americans were to busy saving their south pole to even fire back.

 

Unlimited fuel and ammo did you say! i suppose you have a source for that? You see because around septembe the Allied army's only had enough supplies for one big push. doesnt tend to happen with unlimited supllies?

 

And how did the allies suck badly in italy or normandy where they managed to inflict casulties at a rate of what 2-1 over all? And im pretty sure the Germans were not equiped that badly i mean they managed counter attacks on the 6th june and were attempting more later. Im not sure how many armoured counter attacks iraq managed on the first day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlimited fuel and ammo did you say! i suppose you have a source for that? You see because around septembe the Allied army's only had enough supplies for one big push. doesnt tend to happen with unlimited supllies?

 

Actually, the situation changed dramatically in the fall of 1944 with the clearing of the Scheldt Estuary and the opening of the port of Antwerp. By Feb 1945, the Allies truly were swimming in supplies. Even prior to that, the availability of fuel, ammunition, spare parts, maintenance support, etc to the Allies, far outstripped that available to the Germans in 1944.

 

The Germans may have repulsed Market Garden, but they did so with horribly understrength units. The problem for the Allies was that paratroopers are no match even for understrength armored formations, and the Germans were fighting a defensive battle against XXX Corps in conditions which heavily favored the defender--"Okay, the Germans won the coin toss. XXX Corps, you get to drive on this single-lane elevated road, single file, while the germans hide in the woods and shoot anti-tank guns at you the entire length of your trip..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the situation changed dramatically in the fall of 1944 with the clearing of the Scheldt Estuary and the opening of the port of Antwerp. By Feb 1945, the Allies truly were swimming in supplies. Even prior to that, the availability of fuel, ammunition, spare parts, maintenance support, etc to the Allies, far outstripped that available to the Germans in 1944.

 

yes you are right, but i just dont think it was unlimited in terms of delivery at least. There would still be logistical constraints and there would be a certain maximum inherent within that. The allies may have produced more ammo than they needed but thats not quite the same thing as unlimited. Especialy as intense fighting would still lead to shortages in the short term.

 

I just dont buy the "allies only won cuz they built teh sherman", it may have been a big factor but the strategic strength of allied command was the reason. The free flowing supllies was a symptom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the episodes of "Band of Brothers" shows the incident where a platoon led by Dick Winters took out was it 2 companies of Waffen SS? In Holland.

Yup, if you add that to the fight at Brecourt Manor and Carentan that's three examples from just one unit. Now of course you could play devil's advocate and point out that the 101st Airborne were not you run of the mill Allied unit, but that was not in the original discussion parameter. Plus there are plenty of examples from the "run of the mill" too. :)

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The allies get a lot of praise for their performance against the germans in the west , but IMO they sucked badly.They enjoyed such a superiority on all accounts that it was something like US vs. Iraq in 2003.Yet , they needed almost 9 months to advance as much.

 

Taking Ardennes as an example of allied performance is equally dumb IMO , the germans stopped because they remained without fuel.The americans were to busy saving their south pole to even fire back.

Thanks for that, Savantu. If that's the best you can do, how about just leaving the adults to talk. :rolleyes:

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats not true, in ww1(i assume you are talking about the 1918 offensive) never actualy broke the British line and it's debatable what it would have acheived as at that time there trianing and equipment were not up to the standard of the British army. Who managed to break through the German line as a matter of course (arguably from the somme).

Although the German army did develop the Storm trooper tactics (originaly from pioneer battalions i belive), but they only did this for a vey small proportion of the army, most infantry divisions had changed little tacticly from 1914 (except for the tight columns, and in one case i have read, attempting to fire bolt actions from the hip!) the German army remained very rigid and unflexible throughout much of ww1.

 

Remember Rommel was an infantry commander in ww1, his book "infantry attacks" was based on his understanding of British infantry attacks as he saw them(or at least so i have read.).

 

Thats not to say that the German army did not have it good side's in ww1, but alot of the German army's early succsess can be attributed to there mobilisation time rather than ability.

Good post, well put FWIW.

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The germans lost every war due to being overwhelmed on any level.

 

It doesn't matter if you have 5000 or 6000 Panthers for which you have no fuel when the enemy has 20000 tanks , produces more in a month than you in 6 and has unlimited fuel and support.

 

The allies get a lot of praise for their performance against the germans in the west , but IMO they sucked badly.They enjoyed such a superiority on all accounts that it was something like US vs. Iraq in 2003.Yet , they needed almost 9 months to advance as much.

 

Taking Ardennes as an example of allied performance is equally dumb IMO , the germans stopped because they remained without fuel.The americans were to busy saving their south pole to even fire back.

 

 

Try reading some non-fiction some day. My copy of Mansoor's "GI Offensive in Europe" is boxed up somewhere, but he has ammunition expenditure figures for the 28th Inf. Division in the Bulge on Dec. 16--the amount of ammunition they used was absolutely astronomical, and shows a very determined defense being waged. Perhaps someone else with a copy of Mansoor's book can post the figures and educate poor savantu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Win or lose, in the end people only remember you for the cool toys.

Sad, but so very, very true.... :(

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The allies get a lot of praise for their performance against the germans in the west , but IMO they sucked badly.They enjoyed such a superiority on all accounts that it was something like US vs. Iraq in 2003.Yet , they needed almost 9 months to advance as much.

 

Maybe they didn't advance so much because they didn't want to pave their path to Berlin with countless bodies inmassive frontal attacks?

Besides, the supply was critically restricted until the Antwerpes harbor got opened.

 

Taking Ardennes as an example of allied performance is equally dumb IMO , the germans stopped because they remained without fuel.The americans were to busy saving their south pole to even fire back.

Really? Maybe you should find out something against defense of Bastogne or St Vith. Or about that group of stubborn engineers that delayed KG Peiper for quite some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post, well put FWIW.

 

BillB

 

thankyou, although i think i cocked up a little on the infantry attacks part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thankyou, although i think i cocked up a little on the infantry attacks part.

Mebbe, but more than near enough for government work, IMHO. :D

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mebbe, but more than near enough for government work, IMHO. :D

 

BillB

 

sounds about right, a friend of mine works at abbey wood and has done soo for 4 years. He still hasnt managed to find out what his job actualy is.

 

and im not kidding he actualy doesnt know what he is supposed to do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, if you add that to the fight at Brecourt Manor and Carentan that's three examples from just one unit. Now of course you could play devil's advocate and point out that the 101st Airborne were not you run of the mill Allied unit, but that was not in the original discussion parameter. Plus there are plenty of examples from the "run of the mill" too. :)

But I don't think that really was the original discussion parameter. Along the way somebody posted that superior numbers of Germans had *never* been defeated in WWII; any such absolute statement is ridiculous for a conflict the size of WWII.

 

I however think it remains fairly obvious that *in general* the Germans were better man for man in land warfare effectiveness at the sub-strategic level, especially taking WWII as a whole not just the end. Only looking through a nationalist, pro US/Brit and especially Soviet, lens, can avoid that conclusion IMHO. As Tony Evans noted, and the absolute statement above demonstrated, that superiority can certainly be exaggerated, though.

 

The admittedly limited and controversial quantification by Dupuy, 25% superiority to the western Allies even in '43-'44, clearly implies and in fact explicitly includes, examples that were the other way around. Regardless of whether one accepts his number it should be uncontroversial to state that *if* his number is correct, individual divisions in a given large army varied in effectivness by considerably more than 12.5% from the mean so a 25% average advantage would not rule out cases where Allied divisions were better than German ones; also pretty clearly true in cases.

 

On some references quoted, I can't believe anybody is seriously proposing "Band of Brothers" as objective measure of the effectiveness of the 101st Airborne. That's a valuable subjective work about what it was like from the 101st's side. But, for example the German units left behind investing Bastogne had arguably inferior combat power to the 101st and strong supporting units in Bastogne. The American hold out was a psyshological achievement, other forces in similar situations have surrendered assuming their situation was hopeless (as popular accounts depict Bastogne, because it's probably what the defenders would have concluded if morally weaker). But, Bastogne was not in objective reality a miracle of tactical achievement by inferior arms. Once you get to the level of this platoon or company defeated superior forces...of course, but doesn't refute the thesis as reasonably stated.

 

Also "Infantry Attacks" was at least in part Rommel's interwar advertisement for himself; it had a quite positive effect on his career. Also great book, but AFAIK nobody has correlated in detail to accounts from the other side; one partial exception is "Rommel at Caporetto" (IA depicts basically only success, first against the French, then extensively against the Romanians, then the Italians at Caporetto, and at least the last was pretty real in general). I don't think claims of general tactical level superiority of the Germans in WWII would use "Infanrty Attacks" as proof per se.

 

Joe

Edited by JOE BRENNAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking Ardennes as an example of allied performance is equally dumb IMO , the germans stopped because they remained without fuel.The americans were to busy saving their south pole to even fire back.

 

History begins at home. I live about an hour east of Indiantown Gap, PA, USA. You might want to investigate the origin of the term "the bloody bucket"...there are still a few of them around and I've had the distinct pleasure of gathering some first person accounts...they tend to blur Hurtgen with Ardennes... one has to wonder why.

 

You needn't apologize to me, but the south pole comment probably deserves a correction in light of the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the thread:

Tradition counts. It dates from Prussian victories under Frederick II [the Great], reinforced by Bluecher & Company and the 1813-15 campaigns in Germany, France and Belgium, then the striking series of victories in the three wars of German Unification, 1864-71 [well, not so striking 1864!].

 

You're dead on there. Look at it this way: Prussia was a central European nation with a puny army and no defencible borders, yet survived. Poland was a central European nation with a relatively large army and no defencible borders. Why was Poland partitioned into nonexistence and not Prussia? It surely wasn't the food...

 

<TN PSA>Robert Citino's The German Way of War (Amazon Link) was writted with this thread in mind. Very readable book.</TN PSA>

Edited by FlyingCanOpener
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On some references quoted, I can't believe anybody is seriously proposing "Band of Brothers" as objective measure of the effectiveness of the 101st Airborne.

 

Yawn. Believe what you want. Someone suggested that superior numbers of Germans had never been defeated by the Allies. There are 3 instances of real-life engagements portrayed in BoB which demonstrate that statement to be a fallacy. Sorry that reference doesn't meet your high standards. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i havnt actualy read infantry attacks, but i was collectivly qouting Paddy Griffith's British art of attack 1916-18 and British army's experience (which has several authors, its more a collection of essays).

During WW1, Rommel got the Pour le Merite (AKA Blue Max) in Italy, when he led mountain infantry on a daring offensive that penetrated Italian defenses. He took many more prisoners than he had troops, IIRC. His experiences there formed the basis of his tactics ever after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking Ardennes as an example of allied performance is equally dumb IMO , the germans stopped because they remained without fuel.The americans were to busy saving their south pole to even fire back.

BS. The Germans remained without fuel because the line north of St. Vith held (until Monty pulled them back). The 422nd and 423rd Infantry of 106ID were captured because they held their positions until surrounded. Most of the GIs couldn't understand why the surrender order was given.

 

The only combat units forced back were the 28th ID, who were overextended and heavily outnumbered and still managed to throw the German schedule off. The people running were mostly rear echelon troops that never even saw a German, and they came back when they found out what was going on.

 

Same as Kasserine. US troops were removed from their units and spread out in impossible positions by a micro-managing British general. They got overrun as anybody would do. The rear area troops hi-tailed it, the combat troops fought until overwhelmed. And the US troops came back and kicked the Axis back as much as the British commanders (Anderson, Monty, and Alexander were running things) would let them.

 

No US troops in WW2 ever ran as far as fast as the Gazala Gallop. Or many other examples.

 

Please note, Fredendahl was thoroughly disgusting, but II Corps positions were dictated by Anderson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're dead on there. Look at it this way: Prussia was a central European nation with a puny army and no defencible borders, yet survived. Poland was a central European nation with a relatively large army and no defencible borders. Why was Poland partitioned into nonexistence and not Prussia? It surely wasn't the food...

 

<TN PSA>Robert Citino's The German Way of War (Amazon Link) was writted with this thread in mind. Very readable book.</TN PSA>

 

Maybe the Polish fate was due to a wretched Government system in which every Sejm seat has veto power, and could be easily tempted to vote against the interests of Poland?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While everyone can point out anecdotes attempting to make their case, the average German units was superior to the average allied unit.

 

Reasons include:

 

1. Superior staff officer training.

 

2. Willingness to allow subordinate commanders "on the spot" to exercise full initiative (Hitler being the exception).

 

3. Standardization of doctrine so that ad hoc units could easily work together.

 

4. Exceptional NCO training. Remember that most German companies had two officers, the Hauptman and one Leutnant who was deputy, XO, AND 1st platoon leader. All other platoon leaders were NCO.

 

5. Replacement system which included pulling units out of line to integrate replacements.

 

 

 

It kept them going through six years of being outnumbered and "outmaterieled".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...