Reassessment of Italian Combat Prowess

[JasonC]

Therefore, concrete is better than balsa wood, and balpeen hammers are not better than claw hammers.

There isn't actually anything that the 1940 allies are better at than the 1944 allies, so being "better against them" is not a functional but a scalar distinction - it is being weaker. They are not independent dimensions of excellence, but points along the same scale - and the Germans of 1940 are closer to "powerless" on that scale than the Germans of 1944.

[ASL Veteran]

I think we all need to face the facts here. I think this video sums up the German army in 1940

This here sums up the German army in 1944

[Michael Emrys]

Therefore, concrete is better than balsa wood...

Not if you want to build a flying model airplane. Unless, maybe if it's supposed to be a Kamikaze.

Michael

[JonS]

the Germans of 1940 are closer to "powerless" on that scale than the Germans of 1944.

That would explain why in 1944 they overran Poland, Denmark, Norway, Frence, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, and Greece.

[JasonC]

The Germans of 1940 beat the Allies of 1940.

The Germans of 1944 lost to the Allies of 1944.

The Allies of 1944 would have creamed the Germans of 1940.

The Allies of 1944 would have creamed the Allies of 1940, if that fight were possible.

The Germans of 1944 would have beaten the Germans of 1940, if that fight were possible.

Therefore, there is an entire transitive strict ordering on the 4 of them, and it is -

1940 Allies < 1940 Germans < 1944 Germans < 1944 Allies.

And the statements "the Allies of 1944 had improved over the allies of 1940",

"the allies improve by more over 1940 to 1944 than the Germans improved",

--- are true.

But the statement "the Germans become weaker over the period 1940 to 1944" is at best ambiguous, and as stated is false. At best ambiguous if reduced to the second true statement above, which is clearer and superior to it in every way. Actually false because it "misses" the 5th original statement above, and gets its direction wrong.

References to tools or specific purposes are attempts to imply there is specialization in these relations and they cannot be arranged into a single partial order - but that implication is false.

And why is the whole subject dragged to such length? I mean besides the determined perversity of some forum members.. Because the correct statement in the matter involves admitting that a particular false idol, the German armed forces of 1940, achieved what it achieved through having weak opponents - the weakest in the entire true ordering above - not through any special ability or virtue of its own. And some people are higher invested in that idol, or in the broader (largely imaginary) theses about military ability wrapped up with it.

"Choose opponents very carefully, to include only the unready", is not sufficiently flattering to that idol or those theses.

Meanwhile the true lesson of the entire series is that wars among great powers are not fought with initial "stock" forces, but with whole production and reinforcement stream "flows". That war is not a quality test of initial readiness, but a weighing machine (and a continental scale industrial accident and crime, come to that). That mobilization and production and sustainment matter more than imaginary prowess; that tactics propose but economics disposes, and the like. These true lessons are resisted not because they are not true, but because they are unromantic or do not fit heroic myths about modern war.

So, to JonS' last, what explains the failure of the Germans of 1944 is the Allies of 1944, and what explains the success of the Germans of 1940 is the Allies of 1940. The Germans of 1944 would even more easily have beaten that weaker set of opponents. Though in case nobody has noticed, they lost the war because they fought too many enemies and did not mobilize or improve nearly as much as those enemies did. In other words, because they sucked at the long war of attrition they actually had to fight, as opposed to the short wars against weaklings their misguided imaginations suggested to them they might get away with fighting, instead.

[ASL Veteran]

The Germans of 1940 beat the Allies of 1940.

Quite obviously true

The Germans of 1944 lost to the Allies of 1944.

True

The Allies of 1944 would have creamed the Germans of 1940.

Sure, if they are driving around in Sherman tanks. The British soldiers of 1944 probably would have performed better than the British soldiers of 1940 if given the same equipment as the soldiers of 1940. As far as infantry equipment goes it largely is unchanged. Whether that experience TO&E and training component would have been dramatically different enough to 'cream' the Germans of 1940 is debateable though. I'm of the opinion that if you simply took the soldiers of 1944 and placed them in 1944 TO&E units with 1940 equipment the result would have largely been the same.

The Allies of 1944 would have creamed the Allies of 1940, if that fight were possible.

It probably would have been a tough fight, but yeah, the 1944 edition of the Allies probably would have come out on top if given 1940 equipment. Especially since I think the American military probably reached it's peak of effectiveness in 1944. Although I'm not sure how well 1940 American tanks would have performed against 1940 French tanks. Quite possibly the result wouldn't go the American's way.

The Germans of 1944 would have beaten the Germans of 1940, if that fight were possible.

I'm not so sure about that. If both sides had 1940 equipment I'm pretty confident that the 1940 edition would have come out on top.

Therefore, there is an entire transitive strict ordering on the 4 of them, and it is -

Only if technology is the cornerstone of your analysis. Of course, a simple technological analysis doesn't require much brain power to figure out does it? So you are right back at Panthers are better than Pz IIs again which is hardly enlightening.

[Apocal]

I'm not so sure about that. If both sides had 1940 equipment I'm pretty confident that the 1940 edition would have come out on top.

What makes you think that four years of actually fighting had somehow made them worse at it? Did they take their lessons learned and do the exact opposite thing?

[ASL Veteran]

What makes you think that four years of actually fighting had somehow made them worse at it? Did they take their lessons learned and do the exact opposite thing?

Because the Germans of 1944 weren't all steely eyed veterans who had fought for 5 years and were confident of victory. Sure, there were a few sprinkled about in various formations, but for the most part German formations were staffed with troops drafted into the ranks in 1943 or 1944. The level of motivation and training wasn't even close in 1944 than it was in 1940.

What makes you think that a bunch of Kriegsmarine transfers looking to desert at the first opportunity would perform better in combat than troops who had been in the peacetime military for five years, had a little combat experience, and were highly trained and motivated?

[ASL Veteran]

This is for your benefit Apocal because I'm under the impression that you don't have a good handle on what the German army of of 1944 consisted of

"The shortage of German officers remained chronic throughout the war, despite efforts to speed up the commissioning process. Other battalion and staff functions, such as supply, signal, medical, intelligence, maintenance, and administrative were staffed by noncommissioned officers who had attended special schools to qualify them for these assignments. A surgeon was also authorized, but was not technically considered part of the battalions leadership staff, although he held officer’s rank.

There are numerous examples that depict how rapidly these battalions lost their combat effectiveness when key leaders were killed or wounded at the initial stages of an attack. Although each battalion still had several officers distributed throughout the line companies who could technically fill the shoes of their fallen commanders, these men often lacked tactical acumen or the necessary experience required to handle large units. Unless the division concerned could quickly assign a Hauptmann or Major from its Fuhrerreserve (leader’s reserve) to take over such a leaderless battalion, the record shows that these units tended to disintigrate rapidly, often resulting in mass surrenders even when only lightly attacked by Allied units. This tendency only worsened as the war drew toward its end."

Even in the first half of 1944 the majority of your German infantry divisions on the Eastern Front were, on average, at somewhere between 30% and 60% strength. The German divisions in France were mostly the best of the best because Hitler felt that if he could defeat the invasion he would have time to then deal with the Soviets afterwards since he thought it would be unlikely for the Allies to attempt a second invasion very quickly after the first one failed. So yeah, you would have some very experienced soldiers in the mix and those individuals were very effective. Once that one individual went down though, those Luftwaffe Flak NCOs with their little infantryman's leadership handbook just weren't up to the challenge. So German units in 1944 tended to be very fragile. In contrast, the 1940 edition German army would continue to function effectively if a key leader went down.

So, if you are under the illusion that every German unit in 1944 was fully staffed with steely eyed veterans who had been in combat since 1939 then you are fooling yourself and you need to do a little research. The Germans of 1944 didn't forget how to fight. The Germans of 1944 had units that had a few men who were highly experienced and effective who were trying to keep a much more numerous group of barely trained draftees who may or may not be very motivated from getting themselves killed before the war ended.

[LukeFF]

But the reason why they had so few capable pilots was lack of fuel for training.

It was more to do with the fact that the Germans were losing pilots at a far faster rate than they could adequately replace them, but yes, fuel shortages did play a role as well.

[Apocal]

So, if you are under the illusion that every German unit in 1944 was fully staffed with steely eyed veterans who had been in combat since 1939 then you are fooling yourself and you need to do a little research. The Germans of 1944 didn't forget how to fight. The Germans of 1944 had units that had a few men who were highly experienced and effective who were trying to keep a much more numerous group of barely trained draftees who may or may not be very motivated from getting themselves killed before the war ended.

I'm not under that impression. I am under the impression that most of the battalion commander's and higher, along with their staffs had combat experience of some form, had the benefit of lessons learned all the prior years of fighting and had a better appreciation of how modern combat functioned.

[JasonC]

The men don't teleport to new equipment.

The 1944 men get Panthers and Tigers and Me-262s. The 1940 men get Panzer 38s and Me-109s.

It is not even remotely complicated - the German army of early 1944 was stronger - much, much stronger - than the German army of 1940. It got its backside kicked anyway, not because it had become weaker, but because it was no longer facing the little sisters of the poor, but actual armed opponents who knew what they were doing, with acres of modern equipment etc.

Notice how fiercely the proposition is resisted? Anything, any straw, will be grasped for, before admitting that the Germans of 1940 were not supermen, but weaker than the late war Germans, and weaker by miles than the late war Allies.

[JonS]

Notice how fiercely the proposition is resisted?

No, I don't notice that. Probably because it isn't being resisted at all. "The Germans had shinier toys in 1944, and if they'd have been facing their opponents of 1940 those toys would've been really cool" is so trite it isn't really worth engaging with. "The Allies got better, faster" is exactly the rate-of-change point I and everyone else has been making. Where's the resistance, again?

I do note, however, how fiercely and furiously you're throwing up strawmen. As someone once said; why is the whole subject dragged to such length? I mean besides the determined perversity of a forum member.

Here, something to make you feel better:

Oh Jason. You are so smart and we are so dumb. Please tell us something we already know in condescending tones so we may feel the smart!

[ASL Veteran]

I'm not under that impression. I am under the impression that most of the battalion commander's and higher, along with their staffs had combat experience of some form, had the benefit of lessons learned all the prior years of fighting and had a better appreciation of how modern combat functioned.

I'll give you that - in most cases that's probably true, although probably not in every case. Due to the officer shortages the various staffs were being trimmed pretty ruthlessly though so the amount of support that the top guy got was diminished by 1944 relative to 1940. Many of the battalion commanders and up of 1940 would have had combat experience in WW1 though too (along with Poland of course), so I'm not certain how much of a difference that would have made. Certainly there was no evidence pre 1942 of any general lack of intelligence or tactical acumen in the German officer corp. I would put the command differences as close to even or maybe a slight edge to the 1944 officer corp. After all, many of these guys were the same guys throughout and I'm not sure how different their command styles got as the war progressed. That would be an interesting area to look into though - I wonder if any books are out there that explores that topic?

[ASL Veteran]

The men don't teleport to new equipment.

The 1944 men get Panthers and Tigers and Me-262s. The 1940 men get Panzer 38s and Me-109s.

It is not even remotely complicated - the German army of early 1944 was stronger - much, much stronger - than the German army of 1940. It got its backside kicked anyway, not because it had become weaker, but because it was no longer facing the little sisters of the poor, but actual armed opponents who knew what they were doing, with acres of modern equipment etc.

Notice how fiercely the proposition is resisted? Anything, any straw, will be grasped for, before admitting that the Germans of 1940 were not supermen, but weaker than the late war Germans, and weaker by miles than the late war Allies.

Alright Jason, if it makes you happy then I'll be the first one to admit that Germans driving around in Panther tanks are much more capable at killing the enemy than Germans driving around in Pz I tanks. There I said it. Now I would just like to thank you for enlightening me on this opaque subject. I never would have realized that the Panther tank was more deadly on the battlefield than the Pz I if you hadn't come onto this forum and proposed that very thing. I now bow to your superior wisdom and thank you profusely for bringing your vast intellect to bear on this controversial and complicated subject.

[BigDog944]

Alright Jason, if it makes you happy then I'll be the first one to admit that Germans driving around in Panther tanks are much more capable at killing the enemy than Germans driving around in Pz I tanks. There I said it. Now I would just like to thank you for enlightening me on this opaque subject. I never would have realized that the Panther tank was more deadly on the battlefield than the Pz I if you hadn't come onto this forum and proposed that very thing. I now bow to your superior wisdom and thank you profusely for bringing your vast intellect to bear on this controversial and complicated subject.

Seems not everyone has a taste for academic precision. I was following Jason's points and the funny thing is nothing he wrote can be disagreed with. Can't fault the logic? Fault the logician, I guess.

Can you guys get back to talking about Italians now?

[JonS]

Oh, there's plenty that Jason writes that can be disagreed with. His heavily statistically-based analysis does produce some interesting overviews, and that stuff is usually pretty well researched and founded. But too often he then tries to extrapolate theatre-wide phenomena down to the tactical or minor tactical level, as if they function exactly the same way, with a methodology that could generously be described as "a wave of the hand." Ungenerously it might be described as "utter bollocks."

[Sequoia]

By Big Dogs request, I will return to the Italians. There's been mention of post-surrender Italian Facist forces possibly being included in a Gamepack. Where they ever a front-line force of note that would be worth including in a future product?

[dieseltaylor]

Apocal

I'm not under that impression. I am under the impression that most of the battalion commander's and higher, along with their staffs had combat experience of some form, had the benefit of lessons learned all the prior years of fighting and had a better appreciation of how modern combat functioned.

Your post reminded me that in both German and Allied cases the experience gained previously was not necessarily useful. There was a German Panzer unit arriving from Russia got their arses kicked in Normandy and all the lessons that the Desert Rats had from swanning in the desert were no use in mainland Europe. But more to the point their misunderstandings proved to be expensive before re-learning.

[BigDog944]

By Big Dogs request, I will return to the Italians. There's been mention of post-surrender Italian Facist forces possibly being included in a Gamepack. Where they ever a front-line force of note that would be worth including in a future product?

This page: http://weaponsandwarfare.com/?p=611

seems to say so, second to last paragraph. Southern units filled some spots in the line when some Allied divisions were transferred to France. Seems the northern fascist Italians only saw duty in an anti-partisan role.

[JonS]

post-surrender Italian Facist forces possibly being included in a Gamepack. Where they ever a front-line force

I believe so*

of note

That's purely a matter of opinion and perspective

that would be worth including in a future product?

Again, that's down to opinion and perspective. I think they'd be interesting to include, but personally don't much care either way. There's a lot of other forces that I'd like to see included before the Axis Italians got towards the top of my list

Jon

* see the index entries for 'Italian Forces, with Allied Armies in Italy' and 'Italian Forces, under German command' here. There's also Appendices VI, VII, and IX for where the Allied and Axis Italian forces were allocated.

[JonS]

Seems the northern fascist Italians only saw duty in an anti-partisan role.

I think they may have been involved in the December counterattack against the 92nd(US)Div.

[JonS]

There was a German Panzer unit arriving from Russia got their arses kicked in Normandy

Yup. II SS Pz Korps (with 9th and 10th SS Pz Divs). They arrived just in time to stuff EPSOM, but stuffed themselves in the process.

[Sequoia]

I think they'd be interesting to include, but personally don't much care either way. There's a lot of other forces that I'd like to see included before the Axis Italians got towards the top of my list

Oh, I would agree, but I was curious as Steve had alluded to the late war Facist in this post:

Thanks for the enthusiasm Some quick answers...

We wanted to do Free French for Gustav Line, but it was just one too many things to do. There is only so much we can afford to put into a single release and the Free French required more work than the others, so it got put aside for now. As did the Indians, South Africans, Waffen SS, and Italian Fascist forces.

Trying to pack everything imaginable into any one release is physically impractical. First, it would cost a lot more up front. That reduces player options to buy x and not spend money on y. Second, it would mean much longer periods of time between releases. It doesn't take us much less time to put everything in one release as it would several, so it's not like one big release gains you anything. Would you guys rather wait 12 months to get 10 forces at once or get five forces now and get the others 6 months later? And yes, I already know the answer to that

Packs are designed to fill in the gaps that a single Module can't plug. It's a good system given development realities.

Steve

Personally for me, Italian Partisans using some of the features of CMSF would be more interesting and different, but we're likely to have all the Partiasin fighting we would want when Bagration comes out.

[Sublime]

Thats a cryptic post by Steve. I definitely expect Waffen SS at some point, but by the same token I doubt we'll ever see say Indians or South Africans included in a module. I could be wrong but the current CMx2 trends make me think we'll see US/Brit and CW/Canadian/Red Army/Partisans (the last two in Ost obviously) vs Waffen/Heer/Fallschirms/Luftwaffe/and maybe Axis minors. Dont get me wrong I welcome anything they wanna add that was really there at the time.