US WW2 inferiority Complex 101...

[RMC]

I think there is a lot of mixing of apples and oranges in this thread and the other one. There is also the problem of using imprecise terms like "better." What does better mean? What is the frame of reference?

ASL (and SL) freely admitted to having an inherent pro-german bias in the design. They were the standard from which the other nationalities were compared. CM doesn't have this "feature." All units are modeled on the hard factors of hardware. The soft factors, morale, experience etc are generic and equally applicable to all nations. Green Germans break as easily as green Americans. ASL never had green Germans.

Anyway, the "German soldier/army is superior" idea is often misrepresented and construed to mean all kinds of things.

Someone in the closed thread posted a blurb from a War Department study that concluded that 100 Germans was worth about 125 allies or 200 Soviets. No one made any reference to that later in the thread because they were arguing about the A bomb and everything else.

I think that War Department study is important because it conveys a simple idea: that the average German soldier performed better than the average allied soldier. There were many factors for this. Some are addressed by Ambrose, Balkoski, Hastings and others. Leadership was one. The replacement system used by the Germans was one, perhaps the primary one. "The German Army's replacement policy was far more humane and produced better soldiers than the US system, but it was also less flexible." (Balkoski, Beyond the Beachhead) The repple depple system was perhaps the only choice available to the US based on the national strategy but it had its flaws. The replacements were often poorly trained when they arrived at units. They had no attachment to their units. The Germans arrived in groups and had known their unit of assignment well in advance and were trained by veterans from that unit in the ersatz bataillonen. Just based on that I think it reasonable to conclude that the average German soldier was better trained than his US counterpart and therefore performed better. John English's superb "On Infantry" deals with this as well, pointing out the weakness of the US infantry and its reliance on artillery and air support.

None of this means that the Wehrmacht in its totality was superior to the US army in its totality. I think it is clear that the US could field and equip an army that outclassed the Germans in size, mobility, firepower and over all capability. The US industrial base allowed it to equip units lavishly. The US logistical base greatly outclassed the Germans. In the Normandy Hedgerow fighting the US had two tanks waiting to be issued for every tank in a line unit. The Germans could never have accomplished that. It was these strategic areas that the US was decisively better than the Germans and one reason for the allied victory. The tactical areas where the US outclassed the Germans were artillery and the use of airpower.

Part of the problem in tactical level wargames like CM is that they are often unable to adequately model these strategic

advantages that were so integral to the allied success.

PS. before I get accused of bias, the man whom I most respected, my grandfather (RIP 97), was a US infantryman with the 85th ID in Italy. He fought against the gothic line in sept 44. You can read about him in the US Army in WWII series book "Three Battles: Arneville, ALutuzzo and Schmidt." His name was Walter Stronsnider, 1/C/338RCT.

[This message has been edited by RMC (edited 10-12-2000).]

[pzvg]

Aside from proving my point about objectivity, I haven't seen a convincing point made yet, Btw Cavscout, this "anti-US"

person happens to not only be American, but a vet, silly man.

Point, The American soldier's oft lauded "adaptability" consider this, If we did in fact, have the superior tactics and strategic genius some claim, then how did this become a factor?

Point, the German Army's main failing was that they never really developed small unit firepower, time and time again you see this in history, German units, some very veteran and highly trained, driven back by forces they should have defeated if they had had equivalent combat power.

Point, better logistics is a force multiplier, anyone care to explain how the North won the Civil War? after all, should have been a tie, both sides were Americans.

Point, Let's not hold up tenacity as a tactical virtue, fighting like mad to stay alive because the rotten tactical situation has left you cut off is not generally considered a "good" example of anything other than the ability to make a heroic last stand, and nobodies got a monopoly on that one, think the Greeks did it first (Thermopyla) sp?

All in all, it comes down to everybody made mistakes, and everybody had victories, In the end, with the might of half the world ranged against them, without the infrastructure to support them, and with a military shortsightedly equipped to fight a local war, Germany lost. Trying to embellish that is merely gilding the lily, and trying to make it a demonstration of national superiority is embarrassing.

BTW, I had a Grandfather on each side in that war, they got along better afterward than any of you seem to be able to.

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

Pzvg

"Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

[Hussar]

Part of the Allied so called inferiority complex I believe was caused by their inferior equipment (I'm referring to tanks here).It would be hard not to feel at a disadvantage when you know that you need 4 or 5 "Ronsons" to knock out one Tiger. How the Tankers kept their moral high under such odds I do not know. Imagine sitting in one of those things with a Tiger coming over the hill knowing that you had only a 50% chance of surviving.

[flyingcursor]

Cav, I didn't say I didn't care about the topic. It's an excellent topic. One I've given a lot of thought to. Unfortunatly on every forum I've been on these kinds of valid questions always degenerate when other people get angry.

Anyway I would like to read this book. Does anyone know how it compares to Overy or "Closing With the Enemy?"

As for the original topic. I never felt an inferiority complex toward the US. If I had believed everything I heard as a kid I would have thought the US single handedly won the war and Britian and USSR helped. Gladly I found out how false that was!

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

"Both sides agree not to bomb civilians" - Washington Post, Sept 3, 1939

[82nd Airborne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingcursor:

If I had believed everything I heard as a kid I would have thought the US single handedly won the war and Britian and USSR helped. Gladly I found out how false that was!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ain't that the truth!

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

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[82nd Airborne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC:

Anyway, the "German soldier/army is superior" idea is often misrepresented and construed to mean all kinds of things.

Someone in the closed thread posted a blurb from a War Department study that concluded that 100 Germans was worth about 125 allies or 200 Soviets. No one made any reference to that later in the thread because they were arguing about the A bomb and everything else.

I think that War Department study is important because it conveys a simple idea: that the average German soldier performed better than the average allied soldier. .

[This message has been edited by RMC (edited 10-12-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that baby got locked up before much comment could be made on this point. I've read a few War Dept studies that were quite insightful and seemed pretty objective too.

Valour and sacrifice as a given it does conclude that the US itself, at the time, felt itself slightly at a disadvantage to the Germans tactically and even more so in tanks(from another War Department study).

good post RMC

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

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[Jeff Duquette]

BTS:

I think If you read my post there is no attempt to mislead. Read the qualifier at the bottom of the list. Regarding a baptism of fire not qualifying a unit toward veteran status, brief interludes on the Eastern front certainly pulls these formations out of the realm of "Green". In essence what you are saying is that 2 of 18 formations I listed had no combat experience. In addition, the 2 formations of interest contained large cadres of veterans culled from other battle hardened formations. That hardly is misleading with respect to the original post by Aussie Smith indicating a 25…75 split. The fact is the vast majority of German formations doing the lion’s share of fighting in Normandy were veteran formations. These were the folks that held the line from initial invasion up till Falaise.

Again the point being, there were very few Commonwealth and American formations going into Normandy with even cursory combat experience. In addition Green American and Commonwealth formations did not have the advantage of drawing experienced cadres of NCO’s and Officers from veteran formations. The American and Commonwealth Armies in ETO learned their trades on the job against a German Army with 5 years of prior combat experience.

The topic at hand would certainly be interesting to discuss if we could move beyond the standard pissing contests, which seem to dominate this forum.

[Jeff Heidman]

I think people do not give enough credit to just how much better an experienced cadre made relatively inexperienced units.

It is the junior officers and NCOs who have the greatest effect on the individual soldiers ability and will to fight. If nothing else, the Germans showed time and again that you could take a group of inexperienced men, give them a cadre of experienced officers and NCOs, and after a nominal amount of training create a very respectable fighting force.

The problem with many American formations in Normandy was that not only the troops lacked experience, but the junior officers and NCOs lacked experience. The problem continued with the silly replacement system that sent many men who were of the very worst intelligence levels to the front with minimal training or familiarization.

US units that managed to remain cohesive for a decent period of time generally performed as well as or better than any similar sized units on any side.

The cadre system worked, and worked well. The decline of the Wehrmacht can be tracked to their inability to replace experienced junior officers and NCOs.

This brings up another point. The contribution of the Western Allies in the Battle of the Atlantic and the air war over Europe is often overlooked or de-emphasized because the numbers of men were relatively small compared to the masses fighting in the East. But this is representative of a lack of sophistication in many people appreciation of what wins wars, or more specifically, modern wars. It is not masses of men.

Every German U-Boat sunk resulted in the death of ~100 German men. Most people ignore this, because what is 100 men? Not even half a company of infantry.

But the reality is that those 100 men would not be 1/2 a company of infantry on the East front, they would be the cadre of a battalion or larger sized force. The men chosen for the Luftwaffe or the UBoat service were men who would have been junior (or senior) officers and NCOs in the Wehrmacht. Every death had a telling effect on the German war effort.

Of course, this ignores the number of tanks or aircraft you could build with the resources that go into a single submarine. Or the number of Soviet tanks not destroyed by every FW shot down over Germany, or the number of Soviet tanks that could have been destroyed by a million men manning heavy Flak guns in a vain effort to defend the Reich against American and British bombers. What effect would another 10K 88mm Flak guns have on the Eastern Front in 1943?

I do not disparage the Soviet contribution. I do think the Eastern Front was the decisive theater in the war. But I do NOT think that the Soviets could win without Western aid, and massive amounts of it at that. Without the Battle of the Atlantic, the Battle of Britain, the Africa campaigns, Italy, Sicily, etc., etc., I see a real possibility of a negotiated peace in Eastern Europe that leaves much of Russian and the Ukraine in German hands, and certainly all of Poland.

Jeff Heidman

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunter:

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bruce the quote is an response from Patton to a March 19, 1945 Time magazine article about US tank's being inferor to German tanks.

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

"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.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg:

Aside from proving my point about objectivity, I haven't seen a convincing point made yet, Btw Cavscout, this "anti-US"

person happens to not only be American, but a vet, silly man.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You will see only what you WANT to see. Anyways, why the continue personal insults? I seen several of these bards tossed my way and one must wonder if this is an indication of your lack of strength in your position.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Point, The American soldier's oft lauded "adaptability" consider this, If we did in fact, have the superior tactics and strategic genius some claim, then how did this become a factor?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Adaptability and flexibility are tactics, on both the tactical and strategic levels. That is why they are factors.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Point, the German Army's main failing was that they never really developed small unit firepower, time and time again you see this in history, German units, some very veteran and highly trained, driven back by forces they should have defeated if they had had equivalent combat power.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, then you agree that Allies who allowed for their small unit firepower were in fact strategicaly "superior" than their German counterparts? Not to mention, that if the Allies went in a DIFFERENT direction than the Germans on this level, they couldn't have copied it from the Germans.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Point, better logistics is a force multiplier, anyone care to explain how the North won the Civil War? after all, should have been a tie, both sides were Americans.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Many things are "force multipliers". Stratigic surprise as well as tactical surprise is. Better communications are as well. Combined air-ground support another.

Why when the Americans had these "force multipliers" is it proof that they were inferior soldiers yet when the Germans had them, as they did in the early war years, is it proof of the fighting prowess?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Point, Let's not hold up tenacity as a tactical virtue, fighting like mad to stay alive because the rotten tactical situation has left you cut off is not generally considered a "good" example of anything other than the ability to make a heroic last stand, and nobodies got a monopoly on that one, think the Greeks did it first (Thermopyla) sp?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is "effective" tenacity and the not so effective. Tenacity because you have more men to through into a meat-grinder is not reflective of anything more than having more men.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

All in all, it comes down to everybody made mistakes, and everybody had victories, In the end, with the might of half the world ranged against them, without the infrastructure to support them, and with a military shortsightedly equipped to fight a local war, Germany lost.

Trying to embellish that is merely gilding the lily, and trying to make it a demonstration of national superiority is embarrassing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is "embarrassing" is the continued "excuse" making for the failed German war effort. You have to use the "might of half the world ranged against them" or "without the infrastructure to support" as excuses. When these excuses are used one is implying that some how the Germans were better but were just "overwhelmed" by numbers.

[pzvg]

Of all the, CAV, You started the insult portion of the show by labeling anyone who disagreed with you, You further seem determined to argue that "I said black, you merely said dark"

Ok since you obviously need a loan to get a clue,

My position is no side was superior, the US had 4 freakin years of peace to prepare for the war, and their performance in North Africa and Italy shows that while they did learn fast they had a lot to learn, The German Army couldn't have "won" the second world war if the US had vanished off the planet, it would have taken longer, but they still did not have the infrastructure to support them. You may disagree with my points, Like I care junior, You're not only disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with just about every published work, and the service academies of most nations, I've heard of stubborn, but this takes the cake, I give, you're right, You and Patton, the idiot who only won by Soviet style sacrifice, of course HE wasn't afraid of a King Tiger, He don't have to go and stop it.

REMF crap. I got better things to do

PZVG, OUT

[PzKpfw 1]

Lets look at the similarities of US doctrine to German doctrine, both countries doctrines appear to have been heavily influenced by Clausewitz.

Reconnaissance

The US had 3 types of reconnaissance, distant, close, & battle. The Germans had 3 types, operational, tactical, & battle. US reconnaissance as with German reconnaissance practice, called for constant & intensive efforts, with forces large enough to provide protection & to be able to exploit any given situation with independence of action, and use of initiative at all levels of command.

Attacks

US doctrine had two types of attack, envelopment, with 2 types specified doble & turning, & penetration this basicly was again similar to German doctrine as in both the greatest possible force concentration was used to bring success Ie, narrow attack sectors with heavy support from tanks, artillery, & aviation with cordination of all arms in the sector.

Envelopments were again conduvted almost mirrioring German practice of manouver around the enemies flank to take objectives in the OPFOR rear. The US double envelopment was also similar to the German encirclement practice in that, both OPFOR flanks were attacked at the same time while supporting attacks forestalled OPFOR reactions by tieing down forces that could be used to react. With regard to penetrations here again both sides were almost identical as in looking to form a breach & then roll up the flanks of the penetration.

Pursuit

Here again US doctrine is almost identical to German practice of constant pressure, while useing mobile forces to cutt off the OPFOR line of retreat, in both the goal is the destruction of retreating OPFOR forces.

Defense

Here again both the German & US practice was almost identical with defences conducted in depth useing infantry in defined areas Ie, covering force, outpost, MLR, & reserve areas with use of mobile forces only to be used counter attacks to seal penetrations as both sides agreed armor was not suited for being emplaced in defenseive positions.

Much of the German defeats in the West can be attributed to their ignoreing of their own doctrine usualy due to command incompetance as was seen in the Vosges campaign where German errors allowed German units to be deployed in disregard to their defensive tenets, on terrain not exploited to the standards it was in the East. But whewn German doctrine was practised later in the Vosges, it was very successful Ie, the delaying operations through the passes, where small German unit tactics held off superior US forces for a period of time & blunted the pursuit this allowed large elements of the German forces to escape & form new lines.

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).]

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg:

Of all the, CAV, You started the insult portion of the show by labeling anyone who disagreed with you,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Show? Besides, I haven't "labeled" just anyone, or even everyone. I have labeled those who DESERVE a label.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You further seem determined to argue that "I said black, you merely said dark"

Ok since you obviously need a loan to get a clue,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You do know that personal insults don't reinforce your position but tend to show that it has weakness.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

My position is no side was superior,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obvious error as the war was not a draw.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

the US had 4 freakin years of peace to prepare for the war,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With Germany having the same luxury. Germany decided WHEN and WHERE to start the war. Germany COULD HAVE, as some had wanted, used more of its PEACE YEARS to prepare for war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

and their performance in North Africa and Italy shows that while they did learn fast they had a lot to learn,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this is different than German failures? All the nations learned from combat, why is it a negative for the Americans? In fact, it should be a big positive, because they were lacked the experiance of the others it is remarkable that they did so well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The German Army couldn't have "won" the second world war if the US had vanished off the planet, it would have taken longer, but they still did not have the infrastructure to support them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a false premiss. This neglects the American help that was provided to her allies before she entered the war. Taking out American erases the advantages she gave to the British in the Atlantic battle and the huge sums of material supplied to the Soviets.

It is entirely possible that Germany could have won WWII. Taking out America makes it probable in my opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

You may disagree with my points, Like I care junior, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YAY! You don't care. If you don't why bother debating?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

You're not only disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with just about every published work, and the service academies of most nations, I've heard of stubborn, but this takes the cake, I give, you're right, You and Patton, the idiot who only won by Soviet style sacrifice, of course HE wasn't afraid of a King Tiger, He don't have to go and stop it.

REMF crap. I got better things to do

PZVG, OUT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So if I show books that claim otherwise you would change your mind? So works by folks like Stolfi would be "new" to you?

Anyways, I take it you dislike Patton. Was it because of his "style" or because some Germans admired him?

I guess expecting someone named "pzvg" to not be biased towards Germans was a mistake.

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK... this has gone on long enough.

The original question, I feel, was asking about the tactical level of quality posessed by the US frontline forces. This discussion has, as it always does, spun out of control to "The Allies won the war, so they obviously were better". This is a BS argument. The Brits lost India. Was it because their troops were inferior and tactically inept compared to the Indian mobs they were mowing down? The ends do NOT in and of themselves explain how they were acheived.

The points about the differences between the German and US training systems explains the edge many German tactical units had over American ones. And comparing the averages together, I think there is more than enough evidence to back up this position. But the notion that US units were befuddled at every turn without heavy armor, artillery, and air support is simply untrue. The Germans also had plenty of units that folded up under pressure or were utterly incapable of going on the attack. If you read through the history of the Bulge you will find that the Germans actually had a pretty bad time whenever they met determined Allied resistance.

Much easier to shine when on the defensive, and since the Germans were on the defensive for much of the ETO campaign, they had a tactical advantage.

Anyway... this discussion always turns into a nasty argument. So I am going to close this one up now.

Steve