German forces on the Eastern Front how where they organised?

[Grunto IV]

try:

http://www.feldgrau.com/

andy

[Triumvir]

I think the constant thread through WWII on the German side is how constantly the Peter Principle got violated. Sepp Dietrich, Walther Model, Hermann Goering, Erhardt Milch, Wilhelm Keitel, Erwin Rommel... the list goes on and on and on. Not forgetting the ultimate Peter himself, of course.

I think this had mostly to do with the "warrior" mentality that the Germans had. Warriors are promoted on their ability to fight and inspire personal devotion. But native talent can only take you so far, and worst of all, is unreliable.

Contrast this to the "manager" mentality that pervaded the Allies. While individual leaders were mediocre, in aggregate through consistently superior management of logistics, the pointy-hairs wore the warriors down.

This explains why there are so many people rooting for the Germans; there's a charisma there that none of the Allied leaders except Patton had -- and Patton famously had the same logistical problems as his opponents, but had a better support system that compensated for it.

Too many cooks spoil the broth, just as too few do.

But the ultimate WWII leader still remains Bill Slim, whose constant attention to detail in supply and steady pressure wore down his warrior opponents. I don't think any other leader was as well loved -- not revered -- as Slim. There's a damn good reason why he turned Defeat into Victory.

[Andreas]

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

I think this had mostly to do with the "warrior" mentality that the Germans had. Warriors are promoted on their ability to fight and inspire personal devotion. But native talent can only take you so far, and worst of all, is unreliable.

Contrast this to the "manager" mentality that pervaded the Allies. While individual leaders were mediocre, in aggregate through consistently superior management of logistics, the pointy-hairs wore the warriors down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that is a bit silly, don't you think? Replace Germans with Hitler and I agree. The German army did not have a warrior mentality. Rommel was a minor figure (despite his Pour Le Merite) until Hitler noticed him. Someone like Dietrich would never have gotten anywhere in the regular army.

The German army invented the modern staff system, now in use everywhere, at a time when the Duke of Cambridge was still thinking that buying commissions was a good way to select Her Majesty's officers. In Germany, only specially trained officers who graduated from the staff academy could get into command positions. Barbara Tuchman in 'The Guns of August' (I think) has a nice bit about the importance of the training and the role of the Chief of Staff, when she discusses Tannenberg.

So I totally disagree with this statement on the warrior admiration by 'the Germans', especially since 'the Allies' can be said to have had the same admiration for warriors, if one wants to be silly. Patton and Clarke made the headlines, Truscott did not, despite doing a better job than either of the other ones.

German officers pre-Hitler were promoted on skill and ability. Many were drawn from a fairly small part of society still (Prussian landed gentry), but within that, they were selected on the basis of what they could do.

[Triumvir]

My apologies; I should have said the German leadership (i.e. Hitler). You are of course right in that the German army pre WWI led the way in the establishment of a staff. Moltke's greatest achievement was in the scheduling of railways for mobilisation, thereby ensuring a superiority in manpower over the French (both Moltkes, actually, though the second one less so -- still, there exists doubt over whether an extra three divisions would have done that much extra."

As for headlines, it's what your boss thinks that counts... 8)

I'm well aware of the "Genius for War" system; and I agree with your comments. My statements should be taken in terms of authority deciding who to promote.

As for Dietrich... one of the reasons he was so fiercely loyal till Hitler shamed his bodyguard (is it really true that 1SS sent him a used chamberpot with cuff-titles at the bottom?) was that he well knew that he would not have reached his position without Hitler's intervention.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Triumvir: Contrast this to the "manager" mentality that pervaded the Allies. While individual leaders were mediocre, in aggregate through consistently superior management of logistics, the pointy-hairs wore the warriors down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For all its strategic and tactical complexities, modern war above all is a matter of logistics. The days are long gone when armies could survive by foraging. The Normandy invasion has been called, with little exaggeration, one of the most monumental military undertaking ever attempted. Thousands of vehicles, tens of thousands of men, millions of tons of supplies, all assembled, loaded, transported, and unloaded in a sequence choreographed as precisely as a ballet, though in infinitely more difficult circumstances. And as we now know, it barely succeeded. Within months of the invasion, Allied armies were brought virtually to a halt by the logistical crisis produced by their expanding operations. Not until early 1945 could they resume the offensive that would end the war confident of adequate logistical support.

All this simply reinforces the old military maxim that amateurs study tactics, while professionals study logistics.

[Triumvir]

Oh, I quite agree. Even as far back as the 1860s logistics was king. Railroads smashed the Confederacy in 1864-5, the Austrians in 1866 and the French in 1870-1.

Having seen for myself just how much supplies a single unit has, I'm well aware that pointy hair trumps bulging thews. Those who complain about how much tail there is to teeth in modern armies have never experienced what it's like to be the teeth; having hot food every night does _wonders_ for your endurance.

[Guest Babra]

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

[QB]The American doller is higher then the Canadian one...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try http://www.chapters.ca

No exchange rate. Service isn't as good as it could be (or should be), but at least it's homegrown.

[Andreas]

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

Oh, I quite agree. Even as far back as the 1860s logistics was king. Railroads smashed the Confederacy in 1864-5, the Austrians in 1866 and the French in 1870-1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why until a few years ago east-west rail connections in Germany were atrocious. I think there were conditions in the Versailles treaty laying down that Germany could not build east-west railway lines. Motorways are also much better north-south than east west.

I totally agree that the person calling the shots (in the case of the Wehrmacht, Hitler) has the power to impose his prejudices on the institution.

[Jeff Duquette]

I reckon Dietrich was a good example of someone rising well above his ultimate threshold of incompetence. However he seemed well loved by his lads. In addition he had the sense as well as the balls to disobey Hitler and extract the SS Panzer Korps from certain encirclement at Kharkov in the spring of 43. His 15 minutes of fame\brilliance.

[Grisha]

Have to agree with Jeff here, winning at war has long been a matter of logistics. Sure a battle can be turned by a sudden rally that takes hold and spreads, but more often than not it's the planning that goes into not only extended combat operations, but also redeployment, supplies, replacements/reinforcements, air-ground liaison, intelliegence/reconnaissance, and I'm still probably missing a few. Generals are really managers of all this. While they make their own key commands for specific parts of a combat operation, it's usually the task of the General Staff to make sure that it all gets done. One way of looking at it is that a General is a small units commander - of his staff. The type of staff he possesses and how that staff responds to their General is the crux of the whole matter.

[gunnergoz]

I like to say that heroics can win battles, but logistics wins -and loses- wars.