Germans vs. West/Germans vs. East

[coe]

I am puzzled. Even when the Allies did not

have air superiority or material superiority,

it seems that German successes never approached that against the Russians late

in the war when the Russians were beginning

to get air superiority and had massed

artillery themselves. Despite the Russian

advantages, the Germans were able to inflict

heavy losses while suffering little themselves at times (on the order of hundresds of tanks, etc.).

However, one doesn't see any examples of this

against the allies, no divisions ever surrounded and captured, only battaliions...

was it a different approach the Allies used?

[PanzerShark]

Well, there were ofcourse numerous factors why certain things went different.

1)In Russia the Germans were "advancing" not defending.

2)Instead of "only" the east, Germany had to defend 360 degrees...meaning splitting up armies.

3)Very different scenery and weather in Europe.

4)Less industry, less equipment (Axis)

5)Younger soldiers and maybe less "elite" ones.

There are actually a million factors that could cause this. Although it's both WW2, i think you can say that the "Eastern" and "Western" front are two totally different wars.

[ARCHANGEL]

A partial answer might be in that the Russians were willing to accept much higher casualties. They had the population to sustain it too.

I was involved in a "combat-in-the-cities" program for the US Army in the seventies...the research indicated many examples of the Russian's loosing most of a given battalion on a given block or complex...they would just bring up another battalion to replace the one with heavy losses for the next block.

I remember one instance where all but a very few survived an assault on a "factory".

The Germans had mastered trading "space for time"...it was called the "archipelago" defense when I learned to do it, tho I can't saw what the German Army called it.

[Stoffel]

The eastern front was in comparison with the western front ideal for pincerattacks.

The highly mobile German units used the large open spaces very well.

In most cases Russian units could be surrounded and destroyed.Another fact was that Western Europe has a lot of cities and villages that can cause difficulties for mobile warfare.Especially in the first months of the Russian campain many Soviet divisions were destroyed in that manner,In some cases entire armies were defeated.

[Major Tom]

Well, entire Western Allied formations were destroyed by the Germans.

1940, Belgian, Dutch, Norwegan, French Armies, 51st Highland Division, 12th Infantry Division, 31st Infantry Brigade

1941, 2nd Armoured Division, 5th South African Brigade

1942, 2nd South African Division

1943, 1st Armoured Division "virtually" destroyed

1944, 1st Airborne Division, a few American divisions were "virtually" destroyed in the Ardennes offensive

The main reason for the massive losses by BOTH sides on the Eastern Front

1. Scale of armies much larger (3+ million men each side). Bigger operations = larger average casualties.

2. The bulk of eachother's armies was relatively immobile. Whoever was attacking was bound to get many prisoners and isolated enemy pockets

3. MUCH more room to manuver.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ah, but the Germans were going TOWARDS the coast, which is the best way to cut defenders up into pieces. Also the armies of the west in 1940 were no match for the Germans. If the 1941 Soviet units were bottled up in the West they would have been crushed just as easily. The vast expanses of Russia gave the defender time and infinite possibilities for retreat.

As for German whole unit losses in the West during 1944, there were many. While I can't think of any that were 100% (other than ones defending fortified coastal cities), I can think of a few score that were effectively wiped out. Most of the "static" divisions along the Normandy coast ceased to exist by the end of the Normandy campagin. Bigger still, the 5th Panzer Armee and 7th Armee were effectively destroyed in Normandy. The 12th SS, for example, started out at almost 20,000 strong and was reduced to an effective fighting force of something like 300+ with no heavy weapons. 100% destruction? Nope, but it might as well have been.

The Western Allies ground up the Germans pretty well. In fact, the Western Allies chewed up and spat out most of the German armor available in 1944, not the Soviets. Quick list of units near anhilated by the Western Allies off the top of my head:

1st PD, 2nd PD, 9th PD, 10th PD, 12th PD, 17th PzG SS divisions were all crippled or near wiped out after being tossed in at full strength. 1st, 2nd, 21st, 116th, and Lehr WH Panzer divisions were all laid waste as well as several others I can't think of. And infantry... oh boy, more than I can count. The Para divisions that fought in the West were also effectively wiped out in Normandy and later in the forest fighting.

If you think the Germans had a basically easy time of it in the West, think again Some vets even prefered the Eastern Front because they thought they had a chance to survive. Now that is saying something!

Steve

[Guest GriffinCheng]

I think the Allied air power over Western Europe accounts for the German crippling loss.

Griffin @ work.

[dalem]

Griffin-

Even when the Western Allies' Air was grounded or not a major factor, the Germans still suffered harshly.

Bottom line is that the Western Allies were more than a match on the ground for the Germans after '43.

-dale

[Guest GriffinCheng]

Got it. Wittman was killed by a Canadian Firefly, wasn't it?

Griffin @ work

[tss]

Despite the Russian advantages, the Germans were able to inflict heavy losses while suffering little themselves at times (on the order of hundresds of tanks, etc.).

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Here are some examples from 1944 where the German losses were _much_ heavier than Soviet losses: (German data comes from 'Ostrfont 1944' via my unreliable memory, Soviet data from 'Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses')

Crimean campaign:

- German: 75000 KIA or POW

- Soviet: 17754 KIA or POW

Operation Bagration

- German: 350000 KIA or POW

- Soviet: 178507 KIA or POW

Rumanian campaign:

- German: 275000 KIA or POW

- Soviet: 13197 KIA or POW

In each of the above campaigns Soviets also had a sizable number of WIAs but most of them would return to fight after some months while German POWs would be out of the fight for rest of the war.

In the late-war campaigns Soviet losses during breakthrough battles were very heavy but after they managed to break through their casualty rates fell and German casualties increased. The highly unbalanced figures of the Rumanian campaign can be explained by the fact that the Soviets broke through a Rumanian Army Corps that wasn't interested in offering anything but a token resistance.

- Tommi

[coe]

German losses were indeed heavy on the Russian front - and this may have been due to the Chancellor himself demanding that every piece of ground be held to the last round.

I was referring to Allied armies around 1943-1945. It seems German attacks always

got bogged down and that they never seemed

to successfully cut off large Allied formations and compel them to surrender. (all though the Russian concept of "formation" is a bit different). While the west may have had more villages, etc., the west also had better roads.

What is even more puzzling is that German losses at Normandy seem to greater than Allied losses - I'm not sure if this includes Falaise. I wonder how this would be IF you balanced the airpower and naval guns a bit (imagine contested skies - Allies could still bomb but they would have to watch out themselves, and that naval guns weren't always availabe). Was airpower really that

responsible?

When I look to the Russian front I see better

russian tanks (compared to the west), large amounts of artillery, and localized air superiority in 1944.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Do not forget artillery. Shell fragments were, and still are, responsible for the highest precentage of casualties. The Allies, especially the US, had kick ass artillery. While the Soviets had massed guns for operational use, their tactical use left much to be desired. This probably led to a lot of unnecessary casualties in the West by veterans from the East that simply didn't know how to keep from getting whacked. German veterans specifically mention the Hell that was brought about by Western Artillery compared to combat in the East.

The German losses in Normandy aren't puzzling at all. The normal way things go is...

Massive attack, defender holds -> casualties even or in favor of defender

Massive attack, defender falls back in order -> casualties most likely slightly in favor of attacker

Massive attack, defender is routed, cut off from retreat, or otherwise in chaos -> casualties very much in the attacker's favor.

What is important to keep in mind when checking out casualties is WHAT you are looking at. Looking at a battle within a campaign will often give you totally different preceptions than when looking at the campaign as a whole.

In the East the Soviets tended to get ground up in the initial stages. If they didn't manage to break through to any large degree the Germans usually came out ahead. But when the Soviets DID break through... just check out Tommi's figures for an idea. The Germans at Bagration lost more, while inflicting FAR less, than either Normandy or Stalingrad. Same holds true in the West, with an interesting exception...

When the Allies didn't succeed in a breakthrough, they generally inflicted heavy losses on the Germans. Artillery and air support are probably the two big reasons. So think of it this way. Every time the two sides clashed in a major operation, the Allies came close to breaking even in terms of casualties even if the operation did not achieve its primary objectives. Once they did brake through the Germans suffered HUGE casualties because air, artillery, and plentiful mobile formations with good roads made it pretty easy to cut off large formations.

Also keep in mind that a cut off German unit was more likely to surrender to the Western Allies while it was more likely to attempt a fighting retreat in the East. This freed up more Allied combat troops to go get more retreating Germans while also reducing Allied casualties. In the East it was often a fight to the bitter end and that meant more resources being invested and lost fighting small groups scattered to the four winds.

The reason why the Germans never got large Western formations (i.e. Regimental or larger) to surrender in whole is due to the superiority of Allied air and artillery forces for one, mobile reserves for another, and general feeling that it should be the Germans who should be surrendering. In the East the Germans managed to get Soviet soldiers to defect in sizable numbers even during the last month or two of the war. Also, the Germans only launched two large offensives in the West. The first (Avranches) was a total disaster fom the start and the second (Bulge) turned into one. The Allies suffered their heaviest losses in the initial stage of the Bulge, but the terrain and weather did not allow for easy surrounding of big formations. Had the offensive been on flat ground it might have been different all other things being equal.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-08-2000).]

[Gespenster]

I disagree Dalem, The Allied Air power was very rarely grounded for long periods of time after 1943, and when it was (Around the time of the Battle of the Bulge) The German ground troops mades huge strides and crushed many Allied units that were unprepared and suprised by the size and ferocity of the German Counter-Offensive. While I will agree with you on the fact that the Allied troops were stiff competition for the Wehrmacht, I do not agree that they were "more than a match" ... The Allied Air Superiority was a HUGE factor. During Operation Overlord, had the Panzer Reserves been released quickly enough and arrived in the Normandy area by say, DDay +1, Overlord "could have" been a very ugly situation indeed. (Although thank God it wasn't). The fact is, that once the Allied Armies were able to break out of the Bocage country around Normandy, they made huge gains for a variety of reasons ... Air Superiority, size of force, and supply being three major factors. And since Germany's forces were split between two fronts (With the vast majority being in the East) They were simply unable to defend against the Allied onslaught of men and materials. It simply did not matter by this point how great or well trained an Army was, same as in the East ... When you are overwhelmed, your options are very limited. And yet depite all these factors, the Wehrmacht was still able to prolong the complete collapse of Germany for another 11 months, considering the odds, that is an impressive statistic. Sorry for the long post ...

~G

P.S. BTW, Griffin ... It was a British Typhoon Dive Bomber which destroyed Wittman's Tiger in the Falaise Pocket, in August of 44.

------------------

"It is well that War is so terrible, lest we grow to fond of it"

Robert E. Lee

[Gespenster]

"Also keep in mind that a cut off German unit was more likely to surrender to the Western Allies while it was more likely to attempt a fighting retreat in the East. This freed up more Allied combat troops to go get more retreating Germans while also reducing Allied casualties. In the East it was often a fight to the bitter end and that meant more resources being invested and lost fighting small groups scattered to the four winds."

Excellent point Steve ...

~G

------------------

"It is well that War is so terrible, lest we grow to fond of it"

Robert E. Lee

[PanzerLeader]

I completely agree with Gespenster about the Western Front, in the year 1944 the Germans mainly lost because of the Allied air superiority. Their tanks were superior, and infantry veterans of the EF were much more valuable than your regular GI...After the Ardennes offensive the German Army on the ground wasn't a match anymore for the Allies. Too many losses.

As for the Russkies' high losses, I think it's normal for a kolkhoz farmer in a T34 to lose a tank duel against Wittman in a Tiger

[Guest Big Time Software]

The very interesting thing about warfare is that the same pricniples, effects, etc. come out when you look at each specific level of combat.

Take a battle at CM's scale. If the attacker has overwhelming odds the defender tends to get run over without doing much damage to the attacker. Now look at operational level on the Western front and you see the same thing in several places. But if the odds are closer the attacker has only a small window of opportunity to break the defender or face high losses.

Back to CM scale with a see saw battle going full force. Each side started out roughly able to do its assigned task (attacking or defending), but the Gods of War decide that one side is going to have better luck and quickly the tide swings in favor of that side. Even the demo shows this off very well.

Think of how many battles you have played where you felt things were going great, and the next few turns you lose nearly everything. Or vice versa, you are down to that last StuG in Chance Encounter and then in 4 turns nail all 5 Shermans and stop the US infantry cold. This underlines not only luck but also changing odds as battles progress. If you start out with 2:1 it can very quickly become 1:1, and if you are attacking this is VERY bad

This is what happened to the Germans in the Bulge. They initially had a huge advantage in terms of numbers. But various aspects of the battle slowly negated the advantage until things stalled out. The odds then changed in favor of the Allies, and because the Germans had run out of gas (literally ) and were otherwise spent, the Allied counter attack was devistating because those forces were fresh and very well supplied. Every day after the first the Allies got stronger and stronger and the Germans kept getting weaker until the point was reached where it switched, and then all Hell broke loose.

Steve

[Gary T]

"In fact, the Western Allies chewed up and spat out most of the German armor available in 1944, not the Soviets."

Steve,

Are you truly being serious? Even if you don't take the first 6 months of 1944 into consideration I would still argue that more German armour was deployed (and destroyed) in the East in the last six months 1944. There were twice as many Panzer Divisions deployed in the East as the West in June 1944 (and a number of these were at full strength after being refitted). In the struggle to hold the series of Soviet offensives in the summer of 1944 (from Bagration onwards) nearly all of these were severely mauled. The divisions may not have been destroted as completely as in the West but I would still say more losses occured in the East.

[Guest GriffinCheng]

I read some Japanese military comics (cannot remember the author's name). One is on Wittman and the other on Peiper. When they arrived to the Western Front in '44, they felt it was a one-sided battle (spell slaughter) against Allied bombers.

The others by the same author : one is about Zbv 800 in the EF and the other is a compilation of various combat stories during WW2 to Vietnam.

I am not sure but if my poor memory still serves me well, Wittman's Tiger was hit in the turret ring in which all the crews were killed during the battle with Canadians. I am not sure about if it is possible for a fighter bomber to make that happen.

Griffin @ work

[This message has been edited by GriffinCheng (edited 03-08-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Gary, you will find nobody here that thinks that without the Soviets the war would have been lost more than me. The Soviets, or should I say Hitler's and OHW/OKH's blunders, won the war before the Western Allies set foot in Normandy.

As for my claim about the destruction of armor in the West vs. the East in the last 6 monts... time to crack open a few books Yes, the Allies totalled the cream of the German Panzer crop in Normandy and then again in the Bulge.

I'm looking at the German Order of Battle for June 22, 1944 (Bagration). I count the Germans having 15 Panzer and 8 PzGren divisions directly allocated and in AG/OKH reserves. Army Group Center, whose 3rd Panzer Armee had exactly one PzGren division I might add, only had ONE Pz and 4 PzGren divisions involved in the massive bloodletting of the initial Bagration offensive. The infantry suffered horrendously because of this. This was the problem, much of the German armor was with AGs North and South Ukraine due to brilliant deception and OKH blunders. They missed the hammer blow and although beat up after were not slaughtered like the infantry divisions. In fact, starting within the first week of the offensive the German level of armor increased rapidly each day for AG Center. Yes this came at the expense of other fronts, but at the end of July AG Center had about 6 times the quantity of armor available as it did on June 22nd. However, the number of Pz and PzGren divisions in the East remained fairly constant, the emphasis was simply shifted.

Meanwhile, on the Western Front there were 11 Panzer and 2 PzGren divisions before the breakout. This might look to be 2:1, but unlike the divisions in the East, all were at or near full strength. Some, the SS and Lehr, were OVER strength. And while the East had more total divisions, most of the extra were PzGren divisions which had smaller numbers of AFVs than Pz divs. But the important thing to look at is losses, not starting strength.

The fact is that by the time the summer campaign season ended nearly all the armored formations in the West had been effectively wiped out, while in the East they were still largely effective strength (though many were badly mauled). The most powerfull divisions in the entire German Army of 1944 left Falaise with a handful of AFVs and horribly reduced headcounts (12th SS practically speaking ceased to exist). Looking at some stats here, August 23rd returns show that the 9th SS had the most tanks at 22, while 3 other PzDs had ZERO, two had 10, one 12, and another 15. Pz Lehr registerd 9 tanks left on the 6th of August. These losses did not happen in the East on such a scale.

And the same thing happened atain in the Bulge. Full strength armored divisions, representing the cream of the crop, went into combat and came out crushed and without the vast majority of the armor they went in with.

Infantry is a WHOLE 'nother story The Soviets cleaned up during the second half of 1944. And without infantry... you don't have a chance of holding out. But for armor? Allies did the big damage to the Germans in 1944. Overall though, the Soviets were the ones that crushed the German Army as a whole.

Steve

[Guest KwazyDog]

Which is why I (or should I say we, hehe) am really looking forward to CM 2

[tss]

Steve wrote:

German veterans specifically mention the Hell that was brought about by Western Artillery compared to combat in the East.

Now the interesting fact would be to know when these veterans were transferred to West as the Soviet artillery got progressively better during the war.

I agree that Western allies had better tactical use of artillery but nobody else could achieve as devastating operational barrages as Soviets.

Off my mind I can't tell any occasion in '44 or later where the Soviets failed to break through the front line of defence with their first try (not counting recon probes that were often batallion-strong) after an artillery preparation. Of course, after the massive breakthrough barrage Soviet guns were relatively slow to advance so their artillery support was weaker.

- Tommi

[Gespenster]

Griffin, we were both incorrect ... You were indeed correct when you said it was a Firefly that took out Wittman's Tiger ... And I was correct when I said the British knocked him out .... Touche!

"The British had only one tank—the Sherman Firefly—that could take out the German heavy armor. Maybe Wittmann was playing the odds that his enemy didn't have their superweapon with them. But the British did have it, and positioned the Firefly carefully as they waited for their vulnerable prey. As Wittmann came within lethal range, all of the British tanks opened fire at once. The Firefly fired a couple of rounds and backed up. The Germans couldn't locate the Firefly, but knew something was taking out their tanks. In seconds, three Tiger tanks were gone. Wittmann was the only one left, unaware and without his team. The Tiger Ace was alone. As he desperately contemplated his options, the Firefly struck one final time, taking his tank,his life, and the life of his crew. Thus ending the career of the most talented German tank commander of World War II."

~G

------------------

"It is well that War is so terrible, lest we grow to fond of it"

Robert E. Lee

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tommi, no question about it, Soviet operational barrages were massively destructive. But the Allies were capable of the same thing, but on a smaller scale (and the Western Front was smaller to begin with). But how often did a WH soldier have to face such a bombardment on either front? The average event would be the tactical application of artillery. And as you understand, nobody was as good as the Western Allies in that regard. The difference between being able to form up for an attack effectively unharrassed vs. pounded into the ground is huge. It was so bad on the Western Front that special precautions had to be taken to prevent wholesale tactical slaughter. Rember what happened to the officers of the 1st SS Pz Korps that were meeting in that farmhouse? That sort of thing.

So while I agree with you that no veteran that had managed to survive an operational use of Soviet artillery would be particullarly phased by the operational use of artillery (and bombers in some cases) in the West, I really do think they would have something to say about day to day fear of artillery being worse in the West.

The way I think of it is like this. Which would you fear more on a daily basis?

1. A guy that tosses 20 rocks at you and maybe only hits you once.

2. A guy that tosses 5 rocks at you and most likely hits you at least once.

I'd fear #2 more

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-09-2000).]

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>While I will agree with you on the fact that the Allied troops were stiff competition for the Wehrmacht, I do not agree that they were "more than a match" ... The Allied Air Superiority was a HUGE factor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gespenster-

One doesn't preclude the other. When Air power could keep the odds tilted to the Allies' side, the German Army was defeated time and time again. When weather or local conditions had the odds more even or even in the German Army's favor, the German Army was defeated, time and time again.

-dale

[This message has been edited by dalem (edited 03-09-2000).]

[Gespenster]

Dale, What history books are you reading from? As I stated in my earlier post, the weather was very rarely in the Germans favor, yet you say when it was ... the German Army was still defeated time and time again ... This must explain The Kasserine Pass, and the massive losses that the Allied Army's suffered during the early stages of the Bulge ... when the Allied planes were grounded ... yet, only when the weather cleared and the planes could fly once again (around Xmas 1944) ... Were the Allied Armies back on the Offensive (Lack of fuel probably helped the Allies a little as well) Another example of fighting where the Allied planes were not a factor occured in the Hürtgen Forest in November of '44, and again in February of '45, Where The U.S. 28th Inf Div (and others) suffered crippling losses ... While your enthusiasm for the Allied Armies is admirable, The facts are still the facts ... In every area of the Western Theatre when there was a lack of Allied Air Superiority, As a whole (Perhaps with a few small exceptions ... i.e. Bastonge) the Allied Armies had a very hard time fighting head to head against German forces ... I'm sorry to burst your bubble on the invincibilty of the Allied Ground forces, but you just cannot say that they were better trained or more motivated than thier German counterparts.

~G

------------------

"It is well that War is so terrible, lest we grow to fond of it"

Robert E. Lee