Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Wehrmacht

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Wehrmacht

    This ought to start a good discussion. Hopefully it won't disentigrate into a flame war.

    The following is from "A Genuis For War, The German Army and General Staff, 1807-1945," by Colonel T.N. Dupuy.

    "On a man for man basis, the German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."

    True or not?

    It has been suggested, by some, that the average British and American soldiers were not so much superior soldiers as they were good machine operators; machine operators who, from rifleman to pilot, won by outnumbering the enemy and delivering a greater total tonnage of ordinance upon the enemy.

    True or not?
    Last edited by Rifleman; 20 Aug 06,, 13:16.

  • #2
    don't know... it is true they eventually got outnumbered and outflanked... but I don't think anyone has any evidence to contradict(or accept) those claims... however... the interesting thing would be if the authors of that book provided some evidence for those statements...
    Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
    -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

    Comment


    • #3
      Wehrmacht combat efficency

      Originally posted by Rifleman
      This ought to start a good discussion. Hopefully it won't disentigrate into a flame war.

      The following is from "A Genuis For War, The German Army and General Staff, 1807-1945," by Colonel T.N. Dupuy.

      "On a man for man basis, the German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred form the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."

      True or not?

      It has been suggested, by some, that the average British and American soldiers were not so much superior soldiers as they good machine operators; machine operators who, from rifleman to pilot, won by outnumbering the enemy and delivering a greater total tonnage of ordinance upon the enemy.

      True or not?
      I believe so for at least two reasons. First was their habit of always forming a reserve. No matter how thin the line or difficult the task they always took some troops out of the line for a reserve. This meant that at the critical point they could influence the outcome of a battle. In every battle there is some crucial point for the attacker and or defender. Ignoring whatever else is going on even it it meant destruction of some units and concentrating at the crucial point meant that they would take sometimes severe casualties but would win the battle.

      German unit organization facilitated this. Every regiment had a company of picked pioneer troops under the direct command of the regimental commander. This personal reserve was always available for instant use without having to detach it from some subordinate unit. Interestingly when German regiments were reorganised from 3 to 2 battalions due to manpower losses they still kept the regimental pioneer company. In this same manner infantry divisions had a Fusilier or recon battalion under the direct control of the divisional commander.
      Second would be the importance given to small unit leaders. Only after serving a year with the troops would soldiers go to officer candidate school. After a minimum six month course they could be promoted to Feldwebel and after a year course to Leutnant. A "new" German officer would already have up to 3 years experience with basic and advanced training, a year in the front line and then a year in officers school. This in comparison to the US Armys "90 day wonders". They kept this up despite incredible pressure for more small unit leaders.
      The Germans kept units in the line longer than the allies did. Rather than keep feeding them replacements, when a unit had been ground down to a nub it would be taken out of the line rested, and filled up with fresh manpower. This meant there was always a cadre of experienced men who had taken everything that could be thrown at them to train the new men.
      A typical order would be to to transfer all of the officers and NCOs to a replacement unit and have the remnants absorbed by a parent unit. The replacement unit would be brought up to strength with new manpower(including returning casualties, men returning from leave, etc.) and then assume the previous units identity. In this way units that were "wiped out" would be brought back to life.
      .
      Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
      (Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Rifleman
        This ought to start a good discussion. Hopefully it won't disentigrate into a flame war.

        The following is from "A Genuis For War, The German Army and General Staff, 1807-1945," by Colonel T.N. Dupuy.

        "On a man for man basis, the German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred form the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."

        True or not?
        Not. Dupuy got it wrong and his numbers have been well-refuted.

        It has been suggested, by some, that the average British and American soldiers were not so much superior soldiers as they good machine operators; machine operators who, from rifleman to pilot, won by outnumbering the enemy and delivering a greater total tonnage of ordinance upon the enemy.

        True or not?
        Not. The American soldier learned his job and became as or more effective as the German. And the American army clearly surpassed the German Army in terms of logistics, strategic planning, and general skill.

        Hence the destruction of the German army.

        -dale

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dalem
          The American soldier learned his job and became as or more effective as the German. And the American army clearly surpassed the German Army in terms of logistics, strategic planning, and general skill.
          The destruction of the German army had more to do with American Industrial strength...
          Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
          -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

          Comment


          • #6
            The American soldier did not fight like the Russian soldier.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
              The American soldier did not fight like the Russian soldier.
              why compare them with Russian troops... I don't think any other country fought like the Russian soldiers (who were very ill-trained conscripts and they were a lot of the times forced to charge enemy positions to the last man or risk getting mowed down by your own side if you retreated...)
              Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
              -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

              Comment


              • #8
                The German troops had the benefits of superior experience, generally better weapons, and generally superior tactics than the Allies, at least during the opening stages of Barbarossa and the beginning of the Normandy campaign. Man for man, the Landsers were usually a match for any other soldier in the world (especially some of the elite Wehrmacht divisions and the lower numbered SS divisions, due to their better materiel, spirit, and training), and it was usually Allied heavy weapons and air power that negated this fact. Hitler himself put a stranglehold on Wehrmacht tactics with his nonsensical "no retreat" policy.
                "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

                Comment


                • #9
                  Not. Dupuy got it wrong and his numbers have been well-refuted.

                  May you please present the evidence?
                  "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Tactics and doctrine

                    Originally posted by leibstandarte10
                    The German troops had the benefits of superior experience, generally better weapons, and generally superior tactics than the Allies, at least during the opening stages of Barbarossa and the beginning of the Normandy campaign. Man for man, the Landsers were usually a match for any other soldier in the world (especially some of the elite Wehrmacht divisions and the lower numbered SS divisions, due to their better materiel, spirit, and training), and it was usually Allied heavy weapons and air power that negated this fact. Hitler himself put a stranglehold on Wehrmacht tactics with his nonsensical "no retreat" policy.
                    Superior experience, sure. German small unit leaders had generally more experience and training than their Allied equivalents. Superior weapons? It is generally agreed the Germans had better (but not enough) tanks. What makes German tanks superior? The gun. But what else? The most numerous German tank was the PZIV. Besides the gun not a really superior tank. What other weapons? Heavy mortars? AT rockets? Machine guns? Assuredly Their automatic weapons and their deployment surpass the Allies.
                    Often overlooked was the crushingly superior American artillery. The Americans set the standard for arty fire control and tactics for WWII. German infantry could usually concentrate enough firepower to overcome their opponents. By the same token any German attack would be smothered by American artillery fire.
                    With a much smaller population and much greater needs the quality of German manpower suffered comparatively. What is amazing is how well they used what they had. The Wehrmacht did so well because of superior small unit tactics and doctrine.
                    The Germans believed that the battalion was the highest level that a commander could directly influence the battle. For this reason officer training at all levels stressed battalion level (and lower) tactics above all else. All German officers were expected to be competent and superior battalion commanders first and regimental and division commanders second. This paid huge benefits in initiative and being able to take advantage of changing situation.
                    Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
                    (Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Very true on all counts.

                      German artillery generally suffered in comparison to the sheer volume of artillery available to the Americans and Russians. Also, German gun and howitzer design was rather second-rate to comparable Allied designs, one of the few areas that the Germans lagged behind in.

                      On all fronts from about mid-1943 onward, the Luftwaffe was hard-pressed to provide effective support for the Wehrmacht as German planes were simply swamped by huge numbers of well-designed planes flown by increasingly competent pilots. Although they fought and died very bravely, battle experience, skill and courage simply couldn't make up for the huge numerical inferiority.

                      That last statement also goes for the Wehrmacht.
                      "The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Tronic
                        why compare them with Russian troops... I don't think any other country fought like the Russian soldiers (who were very ill-trained conscripts and they were a lot of the times forced to charge enemy positions to the last man or risk getting mowed down by your own side if you retreated...)
                        Because the Russians truly fought an industrial war while the Americans, especially Patton, was giving lessons to the Germans on how to manouver.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                          Because the Russians truly fought an industrial war while the Americans, especially Patton, was giving lessons to the Germans on how to manouver.
                          As a former fire team leader I don't think I should comment too much about maneuver warfare. The quality of the average soldier interests me though.

                          I used to think that, historically, America was a nation of great riflemen. I now know that isn't so, even though America has produced some great riflemen.

                          Americans didn't invent the rifle but the concept of great rifle marksmanship really came into being on the American frontier. American was also fielding units of riflemen well before any British regiment ever put on a green jacket or knew what a Baker rifle was.

                          If you research things a little closer though, you find out that the great riflemen were always a minority. The Continental Congress authorized ten companies of riflemen during the American Revolution, but that's just ten companies among all the companies of the musket armed Continental Line.

                          For every Alvin York or Sam Woodfill there have been hundreds of others that were simply trained to equipment familiarity. Was WWII any different? Did the average soldier really get the most out of his M-1 marksmanship wise? I'd say no.

                          There's more to good soldiering than marksmanship, but weapons proficincy is fundemental. Thoughts?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Tronic
                            The destruction of the German army had more to do with American Industrial strength...
                            True but Germany was hardly an economic pygmy.

                            Germany would eventually have the resources of Europe under her boot, but screwed up in 2 fatal ways:

                            1. Unlike - for example - the Soviets and the British, Germany did not completely mobilize her economy until very late in the war. Some postwar estimates showed that perhaps 50% of it's capacity was used in the war effort.

                            2. Germany also frittered away her production muscle with small numbers of "super" weapons, and with a staggering array of differing makes and models of war machines:
                            Something like 425 different models and variants of aircraft at one point and by the middle of the war the Wehrmacht had 151 different makes of trucks and 150 different motorcycles.
                            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Rifleman
                              There's more to good soldiering than marksmanship, but weapons proficincy is fundemental. Thoughts?
                              Easily explained on the German part, those who ain't good were dead.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X