Effectiveness of Late War Germans (LONGish Post)

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi all

Just came across this interesting article on one of my Miniatures Rules Yahoo Group.

I quote it verbatim as some food for thought

(maybe this should be in General Forum though ?):-

"Subject: WW2 German infantry effectiveness

Hi guys

I recently came across the following article in a British Army house

magazine and I thought it might be of interest to the members of this

forum.

I casts some interesting light on the performance (or lack thereof)

of German infantry units during the later part of WW2. It should be

noted however that the author, Sydney Jary, is writing from personal

wartime experience, having fought against the Germans as an infantry

officer. His book "18 Platoon" is an excellent account of life in a

British infantry battalion in Normandy and the subsequent advance

into Germany.

I thought that his comments might add a bit to the recent debate on

small arms effectiveness, covering as it does the contentious areas

of WW2 German effectiveness and the effectiveness of modern small

arms fire.

A Matter of Vulnerabilities: German Infantry Weaknesses in WWII

Sydney Jary MC

In the course of working up material with Carbuncle for f 'The Wrap?'

(p 30), we identified some matters which did not fit with the main

thrust of that article but which we felt deserved an airing, as they

have a relevance going beyond their immediate context. They represent

realities from WWII experience which are very much in tune with the

manoeuvrist approach.

Key Dependencies

Many years ago, when I was writing 18 Platoon, I said that: 'in many

attacks the prisoners we took outnumbered our attacking force and

German units who would continue to resist at close quarters were few

indeed'. Stupidly I did not expand on this statement. Recently, while

dozing after Sunday lunch, my mind wandered around the extraordinary

change in the fighting performance of most of the German infantry

that occurred during the closing stages of a battle. German platoons,

companies and battalions which, early in the battle, had fought with

heartless ferocity, would surrender in aimless droves. This

phenomenon happened frequently. Why was this?

After pondering on this matter a factor, common to my experience in

many battles, emerged. The German infantry lost heart once we had

knocked out their MG42 detachments. There was undoubtedly an over

reliance on their MGs both in the attack and, more obviously, in

defence. I suspect that this was the consequence of the training they

received which certainly dated back to the Somme in 1916 and probably

before - certainly it was noted on many occasions in the 1918 battles

that ordinary German infantry did not seem to know how to use their

rifles. In 1944-45 their riflemen, not including their snipers, were

generally poor shots. They seemed to be primarily carriers of cases

and more cases of linked ammunition for their MGs.

Eliminating the MG42 was our first priority and, due to the gun's

high rate of firepower - has it ever been exceeded? - and well sited

mutually supporting positions, it could rarely be achieved by

physical assault, even using fire and movement. To knock them out we

required HE, fired directly by supporting armour or, indirectly by

Dennis Clarke or Bramley Hancock, our beloved F00s. It took me until

our assault on Mont Pincon on 6th August to realise what game the

Germans were playing. Clearly they did not like close combat and

chose to keep us at arm's length with a display of massive MG

firepower. Without HE support it was almost always impossible to get

close enough to assault with rifle and bayonet. Our infantry platoons

could not match the firepower of the MG42. This was recognised to

some extent in the training pamphlets of the time; The Infantry

Company 1942 states that two British platoons were required to win a

firefight against one German - and this was before the MG42 was on

general issue. Of one thing I am certain, a platoon armed with SA8O

and LSW would be stopped by MG42s well out of range of their own

platoon weapons.

But remember, there was always the perennial problem of locating well

camouflaged MG's. The Germans were very good indeed at concealment

and their tracer rounds, igniting two hundred yards from the muzzle

of the gun, assisted this. For instance, during the early stages of

our assault on Mont Pincon we were engaged by about a dozen MG 42s:

to this day I have no idea of their position. German reliance on the

MG was by no means restricted to defence. In the attack they rarely

finished with an assault with rifle and bayonet preferring to deluge

the opposition with a powerful display of MG firepower supplemented

by machine pistols and stick grenades.

A Matter of Balance

I tend to view past battles fought by my platoon as an artist would

judge his paintings or a composer his compositions. My favourites

are, first, the infiltration through the back lanes of Vernonnet

during Operation NEPTUNE, 43rd (Wessex) Division's assault crossing

of the Seine at Vernon in late August 1944. The next is an advance to

contact - and in contact too - from Cleve to Bedburg on 12 February

1945 in Operation VERITABLE.

They had much in common: both were essentially light infantry fast

infiltration operations. Both were unsupported by artillery or

armour. And, both were highly successful. The third, Mont Pincon, was

different in that we had effective artillery support and a spirited

modicum of armour. All three had a very important tactic in common,

which was infiltration leading to surprise, and catching the

opposition off-balance. In my view, the Germans did not generally

expect to be surprised by British tactics and as a result were that

much more vulnerable when it did happen.

'If at first you don't succeed, try something sneaky' is a maxim that

should appeal to a Light Infantry Platoon Commander. It always

requires brains, more often than not considerable sweat, but it does

save blood.

In recent years I have had a great deal of experience with today's

Army, particularly the Infantry and I find as little interest shown

in infiltration as there was in my time. My 18 Platoon became masters

of the tactic. In Vernonnet my Company penetrated to the escarpment

behind the town, outflanked the opposition and took all the

battalion's objectives. At Bedburg the platoon, as point platoon of

129 Brigade, advanced four miles, overran a company of

Fallschirmjager, killing thirteen and taking fifty seven prisoners.

We were twenty-two strong. This enabled the battalion to take ground

which allowed 43rd (Wessex) Division to wheel behind the Reichswald

Forest towards Goch.

At Mont PinCon on 6th August 1944, having been brought to a grinding

halt by overwhelming fire from MG42s, after dark the whole battalion

infiltrated through the German positions, thus becoming king of the

castle.

Admittedly infiltration is not for beginners, but it sits comfortably

within the concept of mission command - which itself is not for

beginners. It does seem to this old soldier that skill at

infiltration should be second nature to our light unarmoured infantry

battalions. In the kind of peace support operations now so

fashionable, it may well provide decisive results at low cost in

numbers required and, so importantly, in casualties too."

Cheers

[Michael Emrys]

Great story. Thanks for posting it. It did seem to wander off the stated topic, which was that in the last three or four months of the war, the Germans had lost some of their fight (N.B. this is intended to apply to the Western Front only; the Eastern Front was an entirely different kettle of fish). One way to depict this in CM is to use a lot of Volksturm troops in battles set in that period. Another is to set the experience level of the troops at green or conscript. Finally a question: is it possible in the design of scenarios to start troops off with a morale hit, either individual units or the global morale?

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

The main point I came away with was the importance of the lMG to the German infantry section (squad). Excellent and most useful resource, Sgt Steiner, thanks for posting it!

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

(...)One way to depict this in CM is to use a lot of Volksturm troops in battles set in that period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

keep in mind that when the article talks about August then Volkssturm is not an option.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sgt Steiner:

Our infantry platoons could not match the firepower of the MG42.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

apparently they forgot to use the tripods for their Brens.

now it dawns on me: WW II could have been over in fall ("autumn") 1944 if those british infantry platoons hadn't forgotten their bren-tripods stashed away in the trucks.

[JonS]

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

apparently they forgot to use the tripods for their Brens.

now it dawns on me: WW II could have been over in fall ("autumn") 1944 if those british infantry platoons hadn't forgotten their bren-tripods stashed away in the trucks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Twat No one except you and Slapnuts thinks the tripod should give Bren a boost in firepower such as to make it the equivalent of the MG42.

Oh, and by jiggering around with the dates you can get VS whenever you want (same method works to get NGS after July)

{Similes included to make post polite}

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Simon Fox]

I love Sydney Jary. 18 Platoon is a must read.

His points are an interesting extension of the comments he made in 18 Platoon.

What is of interest to me (and has been a long time) is that in CMBO battles seldom pan out the way he describes. In CM the German player seems to hold fire and use their close quarters firepower to good effect rather than exploiting the squad LMG. In contrast the Brit or Commonwealth player needs to hang back and would never want to get to close quarters. Maybe when MGs are fixed up a bit German players may be more prone to use historical defensive tactics of pinning an attack with MGs and calling down a mortar concentration. Jary's unit fought all types including SS, regulars and FJs so his comments do not pertain only to standard German infantry. Not sure how BTS model German fear of the bayonet, please fix or do somefink!

His comments on the difficulty of locating MGs in country with good cover confirm my own impression that it is a little too easy to spot what is firing at you in CM. I have just read an account of some aussies in the jungle where they couldn't locate a MG (at night) even though they were close enough to be burnt by sparks from the muzzle.

Back in yer box Hofbauer and take your tripod envy with you.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

that was some nice vintage ww2 brittish propganda there, as we all know the german ifantry could not have been better trained then their superior brittish counter parts.....haha, give me a break, and as far as germans in world war 1 not being able to use their rifles? more bunk, the germans surpassed all nations in both wars in soldiery, the german infantry on the western front in late war, well to say the least was under maned, during the normandy invasion their was a mere 12 divisions on the whole western front, and 350 divisions on the eastern front, so i would say the german soldiers on the western fron did very well, i mean monty said he could take caen in what 3 days because the germans were out numbered and running extremly low on supplies? well he was right, but 3 days turned into weeks of fighting. that is one of many examples. and as far as the wehrmacht over relying on theior machineguns....well they do help, i wonder how any army would fare without them, but since we're on the subject of nations armries relying on things, did the british soldier forget to add how much the british army relied on the canadians, australians and soldiers of their holdings all over the world, not even counting the americans, russians, polish, and even french? the french take alot of heat for losing big to germany in 1940, but the brittish expeditionary force wich was in france and lost bad, was 2/3 of the british army? they retreated to the beaches of dunkirk and later retreated back to england, luckily for us, the germans had the best infantry in the world thu out the entire war

[Michael Emrys]

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

posted 10-15-2001 09:23 PM                  

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

quote:

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

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

(...)One way to depict this in CM is to use a lot of Volksturm troops in battles set in that period.

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

keep in mind that when the article talks about August then Volkssturm is not an option.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would refer you to the heading of this thread, which specifically mentions late war Germans (in case you are having trouble reading tonight).

Michael

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

...during the normandy invasion their was a mere 12 divisions on the whole western front...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure whether it is even worth while to respond to this post, but just for the record, my sources state that there were 58 German divisions in France and the Low Countries at the time of Overlord. That is of course exclusive of the forces in Denmark and Norway at the time.

Michael

[Iron Chef Sakai]

the problem with these threads are that people find one biased source, aka a lone british soldiers assumptions and base it as fact, i was also refering to late war german infantry effectiveness. ok this will make it simple for you. overlord commenced on june 6th 1944, they landed in france, the combined might of the british, american,and canadian armies, with divisions of french and polish, they were in france, all they had to do was march to berlin, now if late war german infantry was like this british soldier said it was, they would have been able to do it, wich they did not come close to berlin, now the germans were simultaneously fighting the worlds largest army on the eastern front, the war lasted until 1945, find me another country who could withstand that assualt for a quarter of that time undermanned under fuled and under equpiped, and without an airforce, i would also like ot add that if germany turned its eastern forces to the west in a moment of insanity, france would have been re occupied in a hurry, my point is that it took that combined world to defeat germany, from begining to end, none of the 3 major powers of the allies would have been able ot do it on thier own or simply missing one of the allies, it had to take all 3, so if the wolrds largest army needed 2 major powers to survive and finaly beat germany, i think that says alot for their late war infantry, it is a fact that begining to end the germans had by far the best infantry of the entire war

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

the problem with these threads are that people find one biased source, aka a lone british soldiers assumptions and base it as fact, i was also refering to late war german infantry effectiveness. ok this will make it simple for you. overlord commenced on june 6th 1944, they landed in france, the combined might of the british, american,and canadian armies, with divisions of french and polish, they were in france, all they had to do was march to berlin, now if late war german infantry was like this british soldier said it was, they would have been able to do it, wich they did not come close to berlin, now the germans were simultaneously fighting the worlds largest army on the eastern front, the war lasted until 1945, find me another country who could withstand that assualt for a quarter of that time undermanned under fuled and under equpiped, and without an airforce, i would also like ot add that if germany turned its eastern forces to the west in a moment of insanity, france would have been re occupied in a hurry, my point is that it took that combined world to defeat germany, from begining to end, none of the 3 major powers of the allies would have been able ot do it on thier own or simply missing one of the allies, it had to take all 3, so if the wolrds largest army needed 2 major powers to survive and finaly beat germany, i think that says alot for their late war infantry, it is a fact that begining to end the germans had by far the best infantry of the entire war<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to have mistaken this thread for the Peng thread. They're not particularly fond of serious historical discussion in there so you should fit in pretty well.

[Michael Dorosh]

well i just love it when mouthbreathing semiretards post here in one big long sentence not bothering to break it into paragraphs and then showing complete ignorance as to what historical discussions are really all about and oh yeah they don't use punctuation or capitalization or other standard conventions of communicating in the english language in its written form either and their speling is ussuall atroshious to boot making their posts unreadable even looking past their embarrassing lack of knowledge regarding both historical matters and the process of historical research itself but at least they have cutesy forum handles so i guess that makes it all ok

[Michael Emrys]

Wow, Michael, you got all that out without having to stop for breath. I'm impressed! You're in better shape than your photograph suggests.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

But seriously Iron Chef, while it is nice to worship the Germans, you do realize that they were only able to maintain their army through the use of millions of slave laborers, that they routinely sold out their allies (the Italians in North Africa, for example, or the Rumanians in Russia) in the same ways you accuse the British of, executed thousands of their own troops to maintain discipline (by way of contrast, exactly 1 Canadian and 1 American were executed for cowardice in WW II), and ultimately fought for a nation that had dedicated itself to the wholesale extermination of between 10 and 12 million innocent people?

[Stuka]

WOOT!

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

well i just love it when mouthbreathing semiretards post here in one big long sentence not bothering to break it into paragraphs and then showing complete ignorance as to what historical discussions are really all about and oh yeah they don't use punctuation or capitalization or other standard conventions of communicating in the english language in its written form either and their speling is ussuall atroshious to boot making their posts unreadable even looking past their embarrassing lack of knowledge regarding both historical matters and the process of historical research itself but at least they have cutesy forum handles so i guess that makes it all ok<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bloody hell Dorosh! Those nasty lessons are starting to pay dividends

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erroneous Chef Sakai:

simple<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A good read Sgt Steiner. Always nice to hear from a primary source. Although Tin Chafed Saké has demonstrated his overwhelming erudition with such dizzying precision that I'm left wondering why one would even bother to interview veterans when a scholar of his calibre is amongst us...

[phurbadorje]

'by way of contrast, exactly 1 Canadian and 1 American were executed for cowardice in WW II'

not that it bears much on this discussion per se,but in pattons memoirs he says a lot more 'unofficial' executions for battlefield cowardice did in fact take place,and he approved of it too.i can look it up if anyone cares...

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi Simon et al

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Not sure how BTS model German fear of the bayonet, please fix or do somefink!

His comments on the difficulty of locating MGs in country with good cover confirm my own impression that it is a little too easy to spot what is firing at you in CM.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well they "dont like it up 'em" according to Pvt Jones so who am I to argue

I to noted the 'spotting' issue Jary mentions which is something several battle accounts make mention of. Maybe a tad hard to quanitify for purposes of CMBO ?

Cheers

[M Hofbauer]

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

Oh, and by jiggering around with the dates you can get VS whenever you want (same method works to get NGS after July)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

in *CM*, yes, but I was talking about *reality*.

VS right up there with Overlord is a bug I pointed out long ago.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

'by way of contrast, exactly 1 Canadian and 1 American were executed for cowardice in WW II'

not that it bears much on this discussion per se,but in pattons memoirs he says a lot more 'unofficial' executions for battlefield cowardice did in fact take place,and he approved of it too.i can look it up if anyone cares...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would be interested in seeing this - I kind of think you're in error, but if you can provide a page number in WAR AS I KNEW IT I can look it up also.

[Triumvir]

I'd suggest a not-so-simple but more faithful abstraction; allowing the player to set different engagement ranges for each weapon in the squad, as well as tracking individual ammo usages for each weapon.

Steel Panthers, from the original onwards allowed you to selectively fire weapons and kept track of individual ammo counts; why not do the same for CM II? (Not CMBB, btw)

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

You seem to have mistaken this thread for the Peng thread. They're not particularly fond of serious historical discussion in there so you should fit in pretty well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Watasi no kioku tasika naraba, but Sakai-san already attempted to steal air from the lawful denizens of the MBT and was summarily dealt with in the appropriate manner.

[edited for consistency in transliteration]

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Hakko Ichiu ]

[Andreas]

Excellent post Sgt. Steiner. Makes me want to buy the book, but unfortunately it seems to be no longer available. Bugger.

Regarding the superiority of the Germans - well, whoever claims that should best crawl back under the stone he/it came from and continue it there. A couple of AARs from 43rd Wessex operations should lay that to rest:

Steadyness under fire: the award goes to 5th DCLI on Hill 112

Highest damage for lowest casualties: the award goes to (again) 5th DCLI at Les Plessis Grimault (1 KIA for 2 German Coys and 2 Koenigstiger bagged)

Most tragic performance: the award goes to 4th Dorset crossing with over 400 men to divert German attention from the rescue attempts of 1st Airborn at Driel. AFAIK they were all KIA or MIA/POW.

Most heroic no hope last stand: 1st East Riding Yeo protecting the Dunkerque bridgehead. Late May 1940 at Cassel.

Doggedness: the award goes to 2nd DCLI at Incontro Monastery, Italy, 1944. Any Canadian unit involved in the fights to clear the Schelde may ask for a recount.

This is just based on my reading, by no means exhaustive and mostly off the top of my head. It makes no claim to fairness, and is arrived at the same way all other award lists are arrived at. Other people's list will be very different. So there. What's with all these Cornish guys featuring?

Onen hag ol.

[RMC]

Ok, so the German infantry was ****e, their tanks couldn't hit anything, they waited too long to go to full war production and they were all around bad guys. How did they last so long with all those good guys arrayed against them? It can't be all Monty's fault now can it?

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: RMC ]