Pathetic State of the German Army on the W. Front

[WolfLord]

I'm just finishing up Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin's (member of German Gen. Staff during WW2) excellent book, "Panzer Battles".

Within, I found a few bits of startling information concerning the German situation in the West during Oct.-Nov. 1944 such as:

"Those of us who had come from the Russian Front, where the German formations were still in tolerable fighting order, were shocked at the condition of our Western armies. The losses in material had been colossal; for example, Nineteenth Army had possessed 1,480 guns, and lost 1,316 in the withdrawal fron S. France."

"Some panzer brigades had never even done any squadron training, which explains our enormous losses in tanks"

"At the beginning of November our line was far stronger than before. Yet there was nothing really solid or dependable about our front. Under the impact of day and night bombing the supply system worked spasmodically and ammunition was woefully short. We had hardly any assault guns, and some divisions had none at all. We had a considerable quantity of field artillery, but much of it consisted of captured guns with only a few rounds of ammunition. We had 140 tanks of all types; 100 of these were alloted to First Army."

I assume the quote immediately above was refering to Army Group G alone, but nevertheless this is still surprising. This makes one feel really special when playing the Germans that you are issued tanks in Quick Battles I guess the game would not be much fun from the German side if the historical situation was taken into account when generating a QB.

[Dr. Brian]

Wolf,

You hit it right on the head. A lot of the "toys" we paly with were not available. They were in pretty sad shape.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Warmaker]

That's why I like playing the Germans in WWII games. Late war battles are always tough and you gotta be on top of your tactics. I always cringe on the thought of stopping an Allied armored assault without any armor or even ATG's. Rely on your Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks to bleed the Allies for every yard gained, esp. in built up terrain!

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

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

[Guest Mikey D]

There was a substantial gap between closing the Falaise pocket in August(?) and the start of the Bulge in Dec. where the Allies mostly watched in frustration as their fuel & ammo suppliy lines stretched longer and longer, and the Axis retreated under perpetual air assault. Real war oftentimes doesn't much resemble 'glorious battle'.

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian:

Wolf,

You hit it right on the head. A lot of the "toys" we paly with were not available. They were in pretty sad shape.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

During Normandy alot of the toys were still running around. The buildup and execution of Wacht am Rehein and Nordwind, plus the issue of StuGs and Hetzers to Infantry/Volkgrenadier Div Anti-tank Batts ment that even more toys were running around.

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

Absolutely Shatter, you have been completely misunderstood. When Andreas, Chuppy and Peter posted pictures of themselves at the IWM I took the earliest opportunity to complement Chuppy on how hot he looked in that T-shirt. Of course the next time an appropriate thread about the front bogey wheel on the Matilda II came up I skillfully insinuated a subtle remark about what a spunk PeterNZ was and a redhead too!

But alas, shatter, everyone thought I was a dickhead as well.

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

Muddying the waters as usual.

by Simon Fox

Mr T says "I pity the foo!"

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-08-2001).]

[Grisha]

Mellenthin's book is based on his own memory, not archival material, but what he says concerning troop quality between the German army on the Russian front and western front is quite true. Up until mid 1944 the German army in France was basically a reserve deployment. The best troops were all originally from the Russian front.

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

Best regards,

Greg Leon Guerrero

[Major Tom]

Actually, the German army was fiarly capable in Normandy. If it was allowed to be used more inteligently without interference from Hitler, the breakout might not have happened as early as it did, and, the German forces would have retreated in fairly good order to the Seine. The reason that they were pushed back to the German boarder was that Hitler ordered that Patton's breakout be cut by throwing all of the Panzer Divisions against well entrenched and supported US Infantry Divisions. They were attacking in terrain where the US previously blunted all of their previous attempts, why would German attempts have gone any better? This lost Germany's ability to maintain a stable front for an orderly retreat. The retreat from Falise may have saved much of the German army, but, it never really recovered from Normandy.

[Wayne]

I've read von Mellenthin's book, although it has been quite some time, and I believe the part you refer to was when he arrived after the collapse of the Normandy lines and the Allied pursuit across France. The German Army on the Western Front was in a pathetic condition and had the Allies been able to supply their motorized divisions the war could have been over before Christmas. But the German Army had officers, like von Mellenthin, who had experience pulling together the disjointed remnants of their divisions and setting up rather effective defensive lines, given enough time. This was experience gained by long years of fighting a defensive war on the Eastern Front against a much larger armed force.

In this one instance, what von Mellenthin said was true, but it did'nt last for long. In November when Patton opened his offensive to take the Saar region and blast a hole in the German defenses, he ran into formidable opposition. Not until after the Battle of the Bulge did the Germans suffer a wholesale collapse for their Army.

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

Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.

[Major Tom]

The majority of the formations that took part in the defence of the German border were primarily new troops. I remember watching a movie on the Battle of the Bulge with one veteran tank commander commenting on his fellow tankers. The majority were, what he called young and inexperienced. He was 19.

Normandy cost Germany its fiarly large and effective army. The one on the German border was a shadow of its former self. Almost 2000 Tanks were lost in Normandy, a significantly large number. Most of these were lost in the last few engagements, where the Germans attacked when they should have retreated. If this would have happened, the Allies would have been delayed in their advance on Germany, and/or the German forces during their winter counterattack would have more material resources to rely upon (with more war material being saved from destruction at Normandy).

The counterattack in the late stages of the Normandy campaign put the Panzers in exactly the wrong place if they were to aid in the orderly withdrawl of the Infantry forces. What resulted was that many men were saved, but, their equipment was lost. And a significant number of the human casualties came from the tank units, which would show in later engagements. In engagements after Normandy the Germans were perpetually and severely outgunned, and Divisions never got even close to their official TOE. An army without weapons isn't much of an army.

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-08-2001).]

[Guest Rob/1]

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

I'm just finishing up Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin's (member of German Gen. Staff during WW2) excellent book, "Panzer Battles".

Within, I found a few bits of startling information concerning the German situation in the West during Oct.-Nov. 1944 such as:

"Those of us who had come from the Russian Front, where the German formations were still in tolerable fighting order, were shocked at the condition of our Western armies. The losses in material had been colossal; for example, Nineteenth Army had possessed 1,480 guns, and lost 1,316 in the withdrawal fron S. France."

"Some panzer brigades had never even done any squadron training, which explains our enormous losses in tanks"

"At the beginning of November our line was far stronger than before. Yet there was nothing really solid or dependable about our front. Under the impact of day and night bombing the supply system worked spasmodically and ammunition was woefully short. We had hardly any assault guns, and some divisions had none at all. We had a considerable quantity of field artillery, but much of it consisted of captured guns with only a few rounds of ammunition. We had 140 tanks of all types; 100 of these were alloted to First Army."

I assume the quote immediately above was refering to Army Group G alone, but nevertheless this is still surprising. This makes one feel really special when playing the Germans that you are issued tanks in Quick Battles I guess the game would not be much fun from the German side if the historical situation was taken into account when generating a QB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just think guys if the Germans had not be fighting on the esastern front (were the Germans lost 125 divisions) if all those troops had been on the western front...scrary thougt eh?

[Jasper]

"Cross-Channel Attack"

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/7-4/7-4_cont.htm

I found it interesting that Germany began to expect an invasion and by '44 the quality of the France occupation forces was substantially improved over what it was in '43.

[WolfLord]

Yes, Hitler was a waste of air that served only to repeatedly throw monkey wrenches into sound strategies from capable generals. Anyway, I still can't see how any sort of German Offensive could be viable at this stage of the war due to massive air superiority enjoyed by the Allies. Tanks don't like planes...which resulted in later (failed) offensives being conducted in bad weather or at night. Rommel and gang should have been successful at blowing Hitler to bits in 1944 and surrendered right after Normandy. Countless lives (American, German, British, etc.) and property could have been saved. What a waste...

[Bastables]

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

Yes, Hitler was a waste of air that served only to repeatedly throw monkey wrenches into sound strategies from capable generals. Anyway, I still can't see how any sort of German Offensive could be viable at this stage of the war due to massive air superiority enjoyed by the Allies. Tanks don't like planes...which resulted in later (failed) offensives being conducted in bad weather or at night. Rommel and gang should have been successful at blowing Hitler to bits in 1944 and surrendered right after Normandy. Countless lives (American, German, British, etc.) and property could have been saved. What a waste...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm WW2 Airpower wa not that good at killing tanks, much better at killing the trains, spare parts and fuel that keeps the Panzers running. And killing the arty and infantry that are part of a well balanced attacking force.

[WolfLord]

If you look at a one on one scenario, then aerial tank busting in WW2 may be seen as somewhat ineffective. However, you also have to remember that for every tank the Germans possessed, there were about 4-6 allied tankbusting planes. This sort of saturation effect makes anything effective. Moreover, if the Ardennes Offensive was to be successful, it HAD to take place in inclement weather (which it did early on). However, when those clouds cleared German tanks started running into problems from MASSIVE air to ground sorties.

[Bastables]

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

If you look at a one on one scenario, then aerial tank busting in WW2 may be seen as somewhat ineffective. However, you also have to remember that for every tank the Germans possessed, there were about 4-6 allied tankbusting planes. This sort of saturation effect makes anything effective. Moreover, if the Ardennes Offensive was to be successful, it HAD to take place in inclement weather (which it did early on). However, when those clouds cleared German tanks started running into problems from MASSIVE air to ground sorties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again those massive air to ground sorties did not kill many tanks. Take a look at this page and see how poor Aircraft are at killing tanks. http://home.swipnet.se/normandy/articles/article.html Five planes vs. one tank, hmm with that sort of reasoning one could point out that 1941 German infantry coy should be able to handle individual T-34s and KVs with unmitigated success, they didn’t due to the inability of any of the Infantry companies weapons at killing the aforementioned tanks. Planes were poorly armed to take on tanks 2cm cannons were too weak, rockets were horrifically inaccurate and the same goes for iron bombs. By the time Allied TAC got stuck in during the Bulge the German attack had already stalled due to American infantry and poor German logistics.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-10-2001).]

[massimorocca]

And remember the foolish attitude of Hitler to send the better equipment and replacement to the "new" division and not the veteran.

But Normandy was another thing. There are here at last 3 of the stronger tank divisions, Bayerlein's Panzerlehr, Wisch's Leibstandardte and Witt's Hitlerjugend with the most advanced weapons (see the great "Steel Inferno" by Michael Reynolds)

Cheers

[Panther131]

Yes...It is amazin to imagine, if Hitler and the Germans had eliminated and defeated the russians when they had the chance. The world would be a much different place. Especially Europe. Germany would have owned it all. The U.S. May have entered the war against germany at all or tried landings at normandy if germany controlled all of europe. Especially since Germany had the chance to beat off the Russians in mid 1941.

[This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-10-2001).]

[M. Bates]

How many chances do you want to give the Germans?

They shot themselves in the foot so many times that by the end of the war, they didn't have a leg to stand on.

My gut feeling is that any of the Allied armies would have made a better job than the Germans of conquering Western Russia. I have no statistics or anything to back up that argument of course.

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

How many chances do you want to give the Germans?

They shot themselves in the foot so many times that by the end of the war, they didn't have a leg to stand on.

My gut feeling is that any of the Allied armies would have made a better job than the Germans of conquering Western Russia. I have no statistics or anything to back up that argument of course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why make such a claim?

[Major Tom]

The Allies would only have succeeded in Russia due to their ability to replace material losses better than the Germans. I don't think that they could have exerpeinced the same human losses without demanding some sort of truce. Remember, the Germans lost more troops in operation Barbarossa than the US lost in the entire war. The Allies didn't have that feeling of self sacrifice that the Germans or Russians had. Why would we sacrifice 1 000 000 of our people just to invade Russia?

[Guest wwb_99]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Why would we sacrifice 1 000 000 of our people just to invade Russia?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because its there.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Jasper]

"Again those massive air to ground sorties did not kill many tanks. "

That's correct. However even the Germans didn't dispute how crippling air strikes were. How to explain?

Well it turns out, and if someone wants me to I'll go find the study, that the principle effects were physiological. Many tank crews would abandon their vehicles during an air stike. Many more abandoned vehicles were found, after the studied air strikes, than those hit by rockets or gunfire, something like 3:1 or higher. So even though the chances were slim, I guess even a small chance of a tank crew being burned alive would be enough motivation for them to clear out!

We gamers figure the chances of being hit by something dangerous while outside of the vehicle is less than the chance of the whole crew being brewed up. Imagine the flames BTS would get should they add the 'abandon vehicle due to terror' subroutine.

[Jeff Heidman]

The real effect of air power was not destroying tanks, but destroying the soft-skinned vehicles the tanks relied upon to bring them ammunition and fuel.

The reality is that in WW2 it was very hard to actually hit a tank with a bomb or rocket. Guns were a little easier, but the Western Allies did not really arm their aircraft with high caliber AT guns.

CM almsot certainly overstates the ability of close air support to take out armor directly.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-10-2001).]

[WolfLord]

"They shot themselves in the foot so many times that by the end of the war, they didn't have a leg to stand on."

This was due to Hitler shifting all military say-so to himself. When you have a strategic idiot like Adolf running your military problems are unavoidable. For example:

1)Underestimating Britian's resolve and attacking Poland in 1939. 5 years too early.

2) Hitler wavering when the Germans were in sight of Moscow...he just HAD to eliminate that juicy Russian army group around Kiev. Doing this cost the Germans the ability to cripple Russian industry even though the Germans captured an ungodly amount of prisoners.

3)Bailing the Italians out of their endless fiascos.

4)Attacking Stalingrad instead of pushing on to the oil fields in the Caucases. This was sheer idiocy on Hitler's part. The Germans had the means to severly cripple Russian fuel supplies at this point. Germany had NO chance of winning the war afterwards.

5) Last but not least...the Ardennes Offensive...an inexcusable blunder. This was a sheer waste of men and material that would have been better used at keeping the raping and pillaging Russians out of Germany's Eastern Provinces.

Oh yeah, you can tack fighting a 2 front war up there also. Added note...German military production TRIPLED (this is straight from Speer himself) in 1944, but due to lack of fuel most of it never saw action.

As far as the point about the allies having greater success in Russia...they had nowhere near the resolve and determination the Germans did. Please understand, I am not defending Germany...merely pointing out differences and what ifs.

[Polar]

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

Originally posted by WolfLord:

If you look at a one on one scenario, then aerial tank busting in WW2 may be seen as somewhat ineffective. However, you also have to remember that for every tank the Germans possessed, there were about 4-6 allied tankbusting planes. This sort of saturation effect makes anything effective. Moreover, if the Ardennes Offensive was to be successful, it HAD to take place in inclement weather (which it did early on). However, when those clouds cleared German tanks started running into problems from MASSIVE air to ground sorties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again those massive air to ground sorties did not kill many tanks. Take a look at this page and see how poor Aircraft are at killing tanks. http://home.swipnet.se/normandy/articles/article.html Five planes vs. one tank, hmm with that sort of reasoning one could point out that 1941 German infantry coy should be able to handle individual T-34s and KVs with unmitigated success, they didn’t due to the inability of any of the Infantry companies weapons at killing the aforementioned tanks. Planes were poorly armed to take on tanks 2cm cannons were too weak, rockets were horrifically inaccurate and the same goes for iron bombs. By the time Allied TAC got stuck in during the Bulge the German attack had already stalled due to American infantry and poor German logistics.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-10-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Bastables... I responded to this article in the CAS thread. Their are many oddities in what the writer said in that article.

Given the German bent of that whole web page, I think that guy was creating statistics here.

As I said before, CAS support was a small portion of the Allied air effort... most was geared toward bombing and escorting bombers. Having said that, he want's us to believe that just the Americans lost 1700+ planes in CAS JUST during the Normandy campaign?????? Hell, Britain lost under 10,000 planes in the whole bloody war, and that counts The BOB.

Furthermore, What this guy says is that The Americans lost 1700+ planes in CAS with only 9 tanks to show for it??? So essentially for every 200 planes we lost in CAS, one tank was destroyed. Quite bluntly, bull ****e.

This site smacks of "college term paper". I'll have to track down his references... but I'd bet cash that he is missreading or missrepresenting these figures in hopes that his Professor won't check him on it.

Joe

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-10-2001).]