Aussie Smith Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 LOL Lindan Well said but lets hope Cav is just highly patriotic........ You know guys the only way to really know is to borrow HG Wells time machine and go back to 1944 and have a look ourselves...I think we'd all be sick to our guts at the truth of real warfare - I've been in enough training exercises to know that you behave and react a whole lot differently the first time someone points a gun at you. What I'm trying (poorly) to say is that I take my hat off to any of the soldiers who fought in any of the wars - it is bravery insurmountable to know the enemy is out there but still go over the top. The Germans in 1944 had been in this situation for years now and had learnt and adapted to a level of professionalism that even today is marvelled at. The average US soldier hadn't even seen combat and therefore it is testimony to the him that he braved his fears and did the job,learnt off a smart enemy, copied his tactics and in the end beat him. This is in itself the highest level of praise and one we still teach at our military academy. In the end whoever was better really doesn't matter - that the world is now a better place for the end result is the thing that we should all be thankful for. Craig [This message has been edited by Aussie Smith (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lindan: Mr. CavScout: I don't know what your problem is, but I've never seen a person who is so blatantly ignorant. I'm German and as you perhaps know, the Germans defeated the Poles in '39. Many German accounts I read stated that the Poles were tough and brave fighters who gave the Wehrmacht a run for the money on many occasions. If I were like you I'd just say that they couldn't have been any good because they lost. This is so very primitive that I'm lost for words. Rant off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Being brave doesn't make you good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Smith: LOL Lindan Well said but lets hope Cav is just highly patriotic........<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, just more objective than the "Deutschland über Alles!" group. Saying the Allies, or the Americans, were better is blasphemy. Saying the Germans were is so-called "common sense". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Smith Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Cav Maybe you should get out into the sun more often mate I really don't think anyone is objecting to the statement that the US Army was good - cause they were. But your attitude to them goes beyond professional observation to the point of yourself being as objective as an US election. Lets just agree to disagree on this one huh so we can move on. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 12, 2000 Author Share Posted October 12, 2000 Craig, I'm missing something here why are you sorry?. I apreciate everyones reply's, What I'm looking for here & prolly wont find is how well did the US troops stand up tacticly & operationaly, in your opinions backed up with some data. I have seen infrences that some feel the US troops are getting the shortend by the uber German cliche from Cav etc, and I have encountered it on other boards, & was hopeing we could get a good discussion going on doctrinal performance etc, maybe see where Cav & Scout are comeing from. BTW My use of Bonns book was to provide a start point on this subjuct with others adding their material etc. This topic was not started to bring up who did this or that , burt to study this IMHO often overlooked aspect of the war. As you all know most works we grew up with have always portrayed the Germans as better then the other nations tacticly & operationaly & my problem with totaly accepting this veiw, its not reflected in the latewr battles etc. Anyway looking forward to more input. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the feild". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
virtualfreak Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Ok let me clear something up when i said that Japan didnt want to get involved in the war. What I ment was that the head japaness adirmal (I forgot his name) warned the leaders of japan that Quote" I believe that all we have done is awoken a dragon and that he is now bent on revenge" P.S. I probally should have made this clearer earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kverdon Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Willhamer, "Japan could of avoided war, but fortunately Yamamoto was a poor strategist" I think you should rethink that statement. The fact of the matter is that Yamamoto was a pretty good strategist. He had served as Naval Attache' in Washington in the 20's and knew all too well the industrial might of the United States. He argued against war with the United States and referred to this country as a "Sleeping Giant". He also told his superiors that if he started a war with the United States he would be able to run free for six months and that if the war was not over by that time they should consider making peace. His whole strategy was aimed at that goal, the big win. This explains the bold move of Pearl Harbor and later at Midway. He had to risk it all because he knew the consequences of a prolonged war. His statement was pretty much right on. The attack on Pearl Harbor was on Dec,7 1941 and the turning point of the war against Japan occurred almost exactly 6mos. later at Midway (June 4, 1942). Another point is that if you think that he was a bad strategist, then why did we go so far out on a limb, risk a lot and go to such extremes to assassinate him? best, Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
virtualfreak Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 One example that the Americans did fight heroicly in WW2 is the battle of the Bulge. German high command expected St.Vith to fall on the first day of the attack. St.Vith didn't fall into German hands until Dec 21st and only due to Massive German numerical superiority. Just something to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Sosaboski Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Lindan, I appreciate your comments on the Poles. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Just posting to avoid make sure my American butt beat this to the lock-up. Outnumbered, but still able to accomplish my mission. Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Smith: Cav Maybe you should get out into the sun more often mate I really don't think anyone is objecting to the statement that the US Army was good - cause they were. But your attitude to them goes beyond professional observation to the point of yourself being as objective as an US election. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow... I guess you have no anti-US bias... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Lets just agree to disagree on this one huh so we can move on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let me ask you, how "professional" the anti-US crowd has been? First the German army was better because they were "veterans" with X number of years of experiance. When one points out the the actual battlefield results, the pro-Germans quickly change to "Well, they were scrapping the bottom of the barrel". Which is it? Where they vets or were they poor conscripts? If I hear "take away the American air-power and see what you get" I think I'll puke! What exactly would the Germans have done without the Luftwaffe in their early campaigns? Why would we take away an American advanatge but leave German success with theirs? It simply smacks of hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Fox Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 I'm certainly no expert but I tend to agree with PZkpfw1 for two reasons. 1.His post clearly stated that he was talking about US forces and he gives at least one source for discussion and 2.I do agree that CM (the best I've seen inover 30 years in this hobby like many other wargames does tend to overrate German capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Fox: I do agree that CM (the best I've seen inover 30 years in this hobby like many other wargames does tend to overrate German capabilities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I keep hearing that. All some are asking is "how", and "where". If something is modeled incorrectly (we have the recent example of the recon vehicle spotting), what is it, what's wrong, and how would you quantify the alleged fix? Getting pouty about sides is just stupid. I think at least a few agree that some German tanks have taken a hit with the mantlet armor not being factored (much more knowledgeable folk than I supplied documentation with their case). I don't hear these emotional accusations about that. What other factors on units and AFVs have you unearthed that are documentably in error? BTS has shown itself willing to listen. It's amazing that the obviously massive amount of research that went into CMBO is being challenged on the basis of some people's "feelings". BTS has listened, whenever a rational case has been made for a change. They have, on occasion, made changes, when their criteria for relevance and accuracy have been met. There are undoubtedly some inaccuracies, some judgement calls and abstractions, on which some documentation could be brought to bear. Where is it? Forget the pouty feelings stuff, and do a thousandth part of the research that has already been demonstrated in the finished product to make your case. Or, if the units are accurate but the force mixes bother you, create your own scenarios to taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Smith Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Craig, I'm missing something here why are you sorry?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> John, mate cause I generally agree with your position on most things - and I hate taking an opposing view to blokes I respect <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wow... I guess you have no anti-US bias...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Was that really necessary Cav? No I don't as if you look at recent history Australia and the US have been a tight nit unit - you've probably even trained with Aussie exchange officers - (we fought in Nam (my Dad with 1st RAR) with you guys when no one else did remember!) and as I've been to the States twice on holidays its poor form that you label me with that remark. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let me ask you, how "professional" the anti-US crowd has been? First the German army was better because they were "veterans" with X number of years of experience. When one points out the the actual battlefield results, the pro-Germans quickly change to "Well, they were scrapping the bottom of the barrel". Which is it? Where they vets or were they poor conscripts? If I hear "take away the American air-power and see what you get" I think I'll puke! What exactly would the Germans have done without the Luftwaffe in their early campaigns? Why would we take away an American advanatge but leave German success with theirs? It simply smacks of hypocrisy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> About as professional as most of the pro "rose coloured glasses" US crowd. As to the Vet/conscript point well I'd say the German Army in 1944 in the west was about 25% (NCO's/Officers) Vet 75% other (green/raw/old/young). About air-power hmmm interesting point you raise but we've got to remember that the Luftwaffe was primarily a tactical air force whereas the Allies dominated both Strategic and Tactical levels of air combat - to an extent where the Axis powers could never match - so there is some relevance in relation to the air power conundrum. Craig [This message has been edited by Aussie Smith (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Smith: Was that really necessary Cav? No I don't as if you look at recent history Australia and the US have been a tight nit unit - you've probably even trained with Aussie exchange officers - (we fought in Nam (my Dad with 1st RAR) with you guys when no one else did remember!) and as I've been to the States twice on holidays its poor form that you label me with that remark.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Was it? You said to me, "Maybe you should get out into the sun more often mate I really don't think anyone is objecting to the statement that the US Army was good - cause they were. But your attitude to them goes beyond professional observation to the point of yourself being as objective as an US election. Are saying that "But your attitude to them goes beyond professional observation to the point of yourself being as objective as an US election" was not an insult? And then you think I was wrong in responding <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>About as professional as most of the pro "rose coloured glasses" US crowd. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really? I don't see the "pro-US" back-steping at every turn to explain a US defeat. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As to the Vet/conscript point well I'd say the German Army in 1944 in the west was about 25% (NCO's/Officers) Vet 75% other (green/raw/old/young).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Would the pro-German side give the US the same leeway,in regards with Veterans in a unit, when the US was defeated? If not, why should the Germans be "excused" because of it? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> About air-power hmmm interesting point you raise but we've got to remember that the Luftwaffe was primarily a tactical air force whereas the Allies dominated both Strategic and Tactical levels of air combat - to an extent where the Axis powers could never match - so there is some relevance in relation to the air power conundrum. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This simply points to a better strategic vision of the Allied commanders. Why should they be penalized for this? The Axis powers had the chance to build a bomber force but they made the mistake that it wouldn't be needed. The Allied and Axis powers faced similar decisions. Why should we penalize them for making better choices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Smith Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Cav - you missed the smiley at the end of that comment about getting out... I was trying (obviously unsucessfully) to lighten the mood. This is a cyclic argument - we'll not change each others view and if it gets personal we'll get nowhere - so I'll say adieu from this thread as its getting a little bit too frustrating arguing over and over the same ground. C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aussie Smith: Cav - you missed the smiley at the end of that comment about getting out... I was trying (obviously unsucessfully) to lighten the mood.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then why not say, "Hey, I was joking!"? Instead you say, "Was that really necessary Cav?" and then give me a history lesson. Didn't sound like a joke to me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This is a cyclic argument - we'll not change each others view and if it gets personal we'll get nowhere - so I'll say adieu from this thread as its getting a little bit too frustrating arguing over and over the same ground. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The only "cyclic" is the pro-German side not answering simple questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As to the Vet/conscript point well I'd say the German Army in 1944 in the west was about 25% (NCO's/Officers) Vet 75% other (green/raw/old/young).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I’d be curious as to where you are deriving these figures. Regarding German formations in the West that actually did the lion’s share of the fighting, you are basically looking at the cream of the German Armies fighting formations available in 1944. These to include: 1st SS Panzer Division 2nd SS Panzer Division 9th SS Panzer Division 10th SS Panzer Division 12th SS Panzer Division 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division The Panzer Lehr Division 2nd Panzer Division 9th Panzer Division 11th Panzer Division 21st Panzer Division 116th Panzer Division 3rd Fallschirmjager Division 5th Fallschirmjager Division 6th Fallschirmjager Regiment (This list excludes numerous veteran infantry formations such as the 91st Air Landing Division, 352nd Infantry Division, 84th Infantry Division etc. etc.) With only a few exceptions, all the above were veteran formations. Even the newly formed Hitler Jugend Division contained a large core of veteran NCO’s and Officers from the Leibstandarte Division, hardened from several years of Eastern Front Combat. One the opposite side of the coin, A relatively large proportion of Commonwealth Formations that went into France were green. And Virtually all of the American Divisions going into France with the exception of the 1st ID, 4th ID, and portions of the 82nd Airborne Division were green. Almost no battle experienced junior grade officers or NCO’s were available to be spread amongst American Formations going into France. There seems to be a perception that the Allied Armies in Europe faced a lot of sad sack German Units in 1944, and that the real war was being fought in the East. I reckon we can debate all day as to the relative contributions the Soviets and Allies made to the defeat of Nazi Germany, and the difficulties each front faced. However, it’s often best just to go straight to the source...from the supreme generalissimo himself: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fuehrer Headquarters 3 November 1943 Directive No. 51 “For the last two and one-half years the bitter and costly struggle against Bolshevism has made the utmost demands upon the bulk of our military resources and energies. This commitment was in keeping with the seriousness of the danger, and the over-all situation. The situation has since changed. The threat from the East remains, but an even greater danger looms in the West: the Anglo-American landing! In the East, the vastness of the space will, as a last resort, permit a loss of territory even on a major scale, without suffering a mortal blow to Germany's chance for survival. Not so in the West. If the enemy here succeeds in penetrating our defenses on a wide front, consequences of staggering proportions will follow within a short time. All signs point to an offensive against the Western Front of Europe no later than spring, and perhaps earlier.” The Fuehrer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: The biggest crime against American fighting prowess in world war 2 was ASL/SL assigning American squads a morale of 6 when everyone else in Europe (other than the Italians) had a morale of 7<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> but the U.S. didn't suffer desperation morale, and they had 6 firepower and 6 range... andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 12, 2000 Author Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff has a good point, the 30 or so German Divs, involved in Normandy were among the best in the German forces. The diference (going OT here) was, was the ammount of German Divisions the East tied down, one can only speculate on the impact 165 German Divisions might have had on opossing the landings. As well as the impact Bagration had on German reinforcment plans in the West. I'd also point this out concerning the Fuher's 'Ostfront must make due on its own' remarks, in the end it did not hold up, events on the EF forced reaction Ie, Bagration, Poland etc, in the end the Germans were again reinforcing the East by pulling Divisions out of the West especialy diring the Vistula - Order drive. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the feild". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Jeff has a good point, the 30 or so German Divs, involved in Normandy were among the best in the German forces. The diference (going OT here) was, was the ammount of German Divisions the East tied down, one can only speculate on the impact 165 German Divisions might have had on opossing the landings. As well as the impact Bagration had on German reinforcment in the West. I'd also point this out concerning the Fuher's 'Ostfront must make due on its own' remarks, in the end begining after the Ardennes failure, the Germans were again reinforcing the East by pulling Divisions out of the West. Regards, John Waters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now John, lets be clear. 165 divisions is not quite accurate. Yes, there were 165 divisions on paper. But with the German propensity to leave formations intact until they pretty much dissappeared, those 165 divisions were largely under strength, and not just a little under strength. Many of them would be grossly understrength, to the tune of only 20-30% effectives. Further, the leg divisions would have little or no artillery or AT assets, not to mention would be completely foot powered. Sure, there were 165 paper divisions, but they were not worth the apper they were reported on. Which is not to say that they were not significant, but they were not as overwhelming as one might imagine from the number. This was the case for both the Germans and Soviets. With the exception of the units currently engaged in an attack or active defense, both sides would brutally strip "static" fronts to reinforce active fronts. The divisions remaining on the static fronts were often just shells, although the Soviet shells would at least be backed up by massive (by German standards) amounts of artillery. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 12, 2000 Author Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Now John, lets be clear. 165 divisions is not quite accurate. Yes, there were 165 divisions on paper. But with the German propensity to leave formations intact until they pretty much dissappeared, those 165 divisions were largely under strength, and not just a little under strength. Many of them would be grossly understrength, to the tune of only 20-30% effectives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff I thought I was being clear, I said 'one can only speculate on the impact'. Anyway this is straying way off topic again . Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the feild". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 12, 2000 Author Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: I didn't read the book myself. I can't directly comment and expect it to be correct in my own eyes. What I can say is that I suspect that even though the German and US forces were about equal at some point, the Germans could have been tired, poorly fed, and bitter with the prolonged fighting. The US troops however were fresh and many. Well, just my 2 cents. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actualy the Germans occupied prepared positions in textbook defensive terrain including incorperateing parts of the maginot line fortifications, in fact no Army until the US 7th ever forced its way through the Vosage passes, in Europes history. The Germans had stockpiles of food, ammunition, houseing, excelent Artillery & spotting resources, etc. The weather precluded any TAC Air supt, and the US troops fought in terrible weather with no shelters or even hot food, German positions that were meant to hold out a year fell in weeks, while German troops suffered around 3 times IIRC the casualty rate of the US forces. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the feild". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 John, Can you explain to me the context and background to that quote from Patton? How is it that they were so keen to see TigerIIs opposing them? Thanks, Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 OK, let's keep this one civil or "snap!" goes the padlock As for the basic question... It can be said that the US Army was a all around good fighting force. One thing that it did was learn, and learn quickly. Various senior and junior level German officers (Kesslering for one) commented on this and dreaded it at the same time. If the Germans managed to pull a stunt it was sure to become countered sooner rather than later. There are plenty of examples of this, the hedgerows being the best one. By the end of the war the US Army's forward air control and artillery coordination was better than the Germans ever had. Partly through technology, partly through circumstance (i.e. little Luftwaffe and coordinated artillery firing back), and partly through applying lessons learned QUICKLY. For a good overview of the postive and negatives of the US Army in the ETO, check out Doubler's most excellent work "Closing With The Enemy". One of the best books out there. As for the German "veterans" in Normandy, the list above is very misleading. There were plenty of "veteran" formations, but very few contained large percentages of veteran troops. These ones in particular were listed: 9th SS Panzer Division 10th SS Panzer Division 12th SS Panzer Division 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division While the 9th and 10th SS had a very quick baptisim of fire on the Eastern Front before being moved to the West, they were not what I would call "veteran" formations. 12th and 17th SS certainly were not. Yes, they had large numbers of experienced NCOs and officers, but the vast majority of the men were barely out of basic training before they were tossed into battle. Heck, the 17th SS never fought against anybody but the Western Allies. My point here is that while the Germans had many veterans in France, the units as a whole were not veteran. Some, like the 17th SS, even contained large numbers of Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine draftees. In the end... the German military formations must be respected. They certainly deserve that respect. But they were defeated, at the tactical level, time and time again. Their strength lay in not falling to pieces after such losses and somehow managing to still pack a nasty counter punch. But as the war dragged on, the attacks grew fewer and smaller, then the counter attacks went the same route. Even "successes", like in the Huertgenwald and Aachen, were too bloody and for nothing. OK, enough rambling Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts