sparten

Sir,
How exactly do you justify the existence of Army Groups within theater? The use in WWII is especially confusing, the main combatants all had different uses for them.

The Germans (especially in Russia) seemed to think them as fighting different wars, during Barbarossa IIRC Army Group North was responsible for the Baltic, with Army Group Center to go to Moscow, and Army Group South to go on to the Ukraine and Crimea.

The Allies in the Med seemed to use the concept of Army Groups as simply a unified command for the allied armies, but in ETO the various Army Groups seemed to be merely oversized armies with a different name.

The Soviets used their Army Groups as independent commands, I believe they had their own air contigents. This is the only justification I have ever seen for their use.

It cannot be merely to control a large force, would say Ike have not been able to control all the armies under his command, without adding a second layer of command? There were countless examples of generals controlling multiple armies in history, WWI, Sherman Atlanta Campaign, etc.
After all a regt is still one if it has three comapanys, or eight.

__________________
"Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell