I have to disagree with the previous post about Trevor Dupuy's quantitative analysis of German performance in selected WWII engagements. Colonel Dupuy used about 80 engagements to demonstrate his (QJMA), these engagements spanned actions from Salerno, Volturno, Anzio, Rome, Lemans to Metz and the Saar Campaigns. He broke down the results into both Attack and Defensive actions by both sides. The Germans outperformed the Allies in both situations. Colonel Dupuy used engagements that featured relative cohesiveness for both sides. The previous post intimates that the author failed to include actions that heavily favored the Allies, why should he, the whole point he is trying to make is that given relatively equal footing the Germans outperformed the Allies. Colonel Dupuy also quantifies the perfermance values of individual divisions from the American, British and German armies with the Germans rating 23% higher. Colonel Dupuy is a highly regarded military historian with ties to West Point, he gives an excellent argument for the German performance being superior due to the nature and intent of the General Staff. Of course there will always be the ugly roaring of the nationalistic head whenever anyone claims 'our boys' aren't as good. Colonel Dupuy wasn't trying to demonstrate the superiority of the German soldier, he was merely attempting to prove the impact of the German General Staff on the effectiveness of the German fighting force as a whole. I would be very interested in the 'quantitative' findings of Colonel Dupuys detractors....
