Effectiveness of Late War Germans (LONGish Post)

[Iron Chef Sakai]

yikes, you need some help i think and no this isnt slap dragon, you should realy start reading more though, i used ot read on this stuff all the time, as well as "gasp" history that happend before 1939, so if it makes you feel smart or something that you have very limited or shall we say almost basic knowledge of ww2, well have a cookie and congratualte yourself there proffessor, hehe

[Michael Dorosh]

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

yikes, you need some help i think and no this isnt slap dragon, you should realy start reading more though, i used ot read on this stuff all the time, as well as "gasp" history that happend before 1939, so if it makes you feel smart or something that you have very limited or shall we say almost basic knowledge of ww2, well have a cookie and congratualte yourself there proffessor, hehe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree - my knowledge isn't even "basic." I'll wait for you to post your reading list so I can improve myself.

My fav cookies are Peek Freens Fruit Cremes (the red ones, not the orange ones). They will be at the reception.

nite, thweetie.

[Wisbech_lad]

Sakai? As in the town south of Osaka where they make some of the best kitchen knives in the world? Also some interesting imperial burial mounds?

I lived in Osaka for a while myself.

Yes, ubergerman cult was quite common in Japan I remember. The Japanese also like all tales of common soldiers fighting bravely in a cause he knows is not just out of a misplaced sense of duty. Lots of homoerotic overtones as well in the way Japanese WW2 books fetishised the elite band of SS brothers thing dying for a lost cause in cute uniforms and big tanks.

Of course, I may have it wrong and you are not a Japanese knife maker with a thing for blond boys in black. At least that would explain the spelling and defense of German allies against perfidous albion. You might just be a prat.

(edited for spelling of books, not booked)

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Wisbech_lad ]

[argie]

Wow!!!

And thought I had troubles with English before!

I found that I can't read English if is not properly separated in sentences.

Is that English, right? :cool:

[Iron Chef Sakai]

haha, no i'm american, have'nt you seen the show called iron chef? it's kind of funny, this is getitng out of hand, sounds like you 2 are just getting back form being on tour with the villiage people

[argie]

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

haha, no i'm american, have'nt you seen the show called iron chef? it's kind of funny, this is getitng out of hand, sounds like you 2 are just getting back form being on tour with the villiage people<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then, could you please write your English a bit better? We, non English speakers here will be very pleased. Thanks.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

ok point taken. i need to get my typing under control here.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Tero - you do know that the UK had the Territorial Army, which was something like the National Guard then? So the trained manpower was much larger than the professional army.

I am aware of their existence. But what was the ratio between territorials and totally untrained materiel in the British war time army ? They did make up a reserve but how long before the general populace was needed to be involved ? And how much of the pre-war trained materiel in the formations were lost early on ? Were there other than cadre and territorials in BEF 1939-40 for example ?

Many of the very well-performing units in 21st AG were old territorials.

What about the not-so-well performing units ?

AFAIK the VG divisions were not old men and boys but the result of a call-up of previously exempt units, who had a very short training cycle?

You are correct of course. I may have been a bit unclear with the terminology.

Both of which makes quite a few of your points incorrect.

Not necessarily. But they do undermine them some though

The previously exempt in VG had still received basic training but they had been exmpted because of war economy needs or ill-health.

As for the territorials: can you provide any numbers ? Were there enough of them to replace the losses in the standing army or could they be used to swell up the numbers alongside the standing army at the time of crisis ? And for how long before the untraine d materiel turned up at the front.

[Tero]

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

are you sure you are not confusing Volksgrenadier with Volkssturm?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly confusing but using an inappropriate generic term.

Back to the chambers.

[Michael Emrys]

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

Wow!!!

And thought I had troubles with English before!

I found that I can't read English if is not properly separated in sentences. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're not the only one, Argie.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is that English, right? :cool:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The issue is in doubt...

Michael

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

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

...the gemrans on the beach head...the battle was..a few thousand candians surrendering very fast not saying the canidans were bad soldiers,...they all would have been alughtered on the beach, literly, so i would say<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Astonishing dissertation on the Commonwealth OOB at Dieppe, Iron Chafe - are you at Sandhurst Academy next semester?

furthermore, this mouth breather stuff is fun Michael, maybe the candians at deeppie should havav tryyed it i feele libburated alreddy im gonna try doing the "ordur of baddle" at monte cassino in patented Iron Chafe mouth breather style next just wait. yeah yur rite to the Gemrans had intimate helmuts and the ywere tuff adn they shud of wun.

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

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

you should realy start reading more though, i used ot read on this stuff all the time, as well as "gasp" history that happend before...so if it makes you feel smart or something that you have very limited or shall we say almost basic knowledge of ww2, well have a cookie and congratualte yourself there proffessor, hehe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i nead to assembul a crakc teem uf miltary histrians to keep up you width yer possts everyone could lern a lot from the stuf that irin chafe teeches peepul so please guys dont underemsitate hiz knawledge of wwii okay thncks.

[Slapdragon]

Dorosh, how can you possibly say I am Iron head whatever. I cannot even figure out how to write like that. Next you will say I am Beazely.

[Andreas]

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

Originally posted by Germanboy:I am aware of their existence. But what was the ratio between territorials and totally untrained materiel in the British war time army ? They did make up a reserve but how long before the general populace was needed to be involved ? And how much of the pre-war trained materiel in the formations were lost early on ? Were there other than cadre and territorials in BEF 1939-40 for example ?

What about the not-so-well performing units ?

You are correct of course. I may have been a bit unclear with the terminology.

The previously exempt in VG had still received basic training but they had been exmpted because of war economy needs or ill-health.

As for the territorials: can you provide any numbers ? Were there enough of them to replace the losses in the standing army or could they be used to swell up the numbers alongside the standing army at the time of crisis ? And for how long before the untraine d materiel turned up at the front.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

tero - to be honest, I don't have a lot of answers to your questions. Just a few points. The territorial army was expanded in 1938/9, but that would not have been enough time to give them decent training. E.g. in the DCLI, there were 4 active battalions. One professional was wiped out in the desert, not due to its own fault. It was replaced by a territorial, one territorial was a security BN in the mediterranean, and one territorial entered Normandy with 43rd Wessex, 5th DCLI. Another BN did training of new men in the UK. East Riding Yeomanry (the Yeomanry was the auxiliary cavalry/tank/artillery force) on the other hand lost its first BN at Cassel, guarding the retreat from Dunkirk, and only ever had one more battalion, AFAIK. In general, I think most regiments had two active battalions, and these would provide the cadre to get the territorial battalions up to strength and training quickly. So the question you are asking is a bit like 'how long is a piece of string'? Menpower was not much of an issue, since a lot of men were rescued at Dunkirk. It really only became a problem about half-way through Normandy, and would stay a problem since.

The whole issue is a bit more complex, because what the active/territorial/conscript system did was to ensure that there would be training cadres for conscripts. The problem may well have been more with the quality of the training than with the quantity of the instructors. AFAIK all soldiers went through the full training circle before going to the continent. What that was worth is anyone's guess.

BTW - can someone shut down this iron buzz moron please? The noise to signla ration in here is deafening.

Did you order that book on British Army Training? I got it yesterday, very interesting, and it seems to reinforce Anthony's point that the UK went into Normandy with no doctrine. Well worth reading.

Regarding the VG divisions - a lot of these men were really specialised workers, in reasonably good condition (industrial/skilled workers would get extra rations, AFAIK).

[Slapdragon]

For the US Army, some of its best units were National Guard (45th Infantry for example) and in a complex research paper by Dupuy, delving into what units the Germans thought were the best at the front, the humble 88th Infantry Division, a conscript unit, was the best. TA soldiers could have been attending a country club function, or they could be getting really good training, one never knows. Volkstrum were only less effective because they were quickly put together to fill holes in the line, sometimes emptying factories and schools to fill out manpower. They can and did give good account of themselves with their limited equipment. Many Volkstrum were in fact veterans returned to industry, and thus not untrained, except as a whole unit.

[Andreas]

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

Sakai? As in the town south of Osaka where they make some of the best kitchen knives in the world? Also some interesting imperial burial mounds?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also had one of the worst food poisoning incidents (e coli in school food due to criminal negligence - it was slightly amusing to watch the authorities trying to blame it on anyone but them) in recent Japanese history (unless it got worse after I left).

Ryori no tetsujin the Japanese TV programme was atrocious, but this particular ryori no tetsujin is really a waste of space.

[Wisbech_lad]

It got worse after you left Germanboy. Snow Milk managed to poison thousands by not bothering to clean anything. Not bright.

Think I remember the Sakai school food case when I was there (95-97) Think they traced it to not washing salad that was watered with sewage.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

tero - to be honest, I don't have a lot of answers to your questions.

Shoot. I have been searching high and low and it would seem that these matters have not been covered from this angle.

The territorial army was expanded in 1938/9, but that would not have been enough time to give them decent training.

Were they called weekend warriors back then ?

E.g. in the DCLI, there were 4 active battalions.

Only 4 ?

In general, I think most regiments had two active battalions, and these would provide the cadre to get the territorial battalions up to strength and training quickly.

This fact would support my notion of the system not being overly agile in compensating for attrition while thumping up new formations.

So the question you are asking is a bit like 'how long is a piece of string'?

I also want the answer in both imperial and in metric format.

Menpower was not much of an issue, since a lot of men were rescued at Dunkirk.

Agreed. But the army was expanding at the same time so how much was this base of trained materiel "diluted" with untrained materiel ?

At the core of my premise is: how much better or worse was/is the system based on conscription compared to the system based on a core of professional soldiers supplemented by a limited force of part-time volunteers. How did these systems affect the performance of the different armies ? All the sources seem to focus on the tech-spec, which is easier to quantify.

Then again I really can not see how a British study could conclude the cosncription system is/was better.

It really only became a problem about half-way through Normandy, and would stay a problem since.

They were starting to experience the same problem the Germans were experiencing ?

The problem may well have been more with the quality of the training than with the quantity of the instructors. AFAIK all soldiers went through the full training circle before going to the continent. What that was worth is anyone's guess.

Did you order that book on British Army Training? I got it yesterday, very interesting, and it seems to reinforce Anthony's point that the UK went into Normandy with no doctrine. Well worth reading.

What training ?

According to the book the rank and file did not receive much realistic tactical training

I received a few weeks ago but I have managed to snatch time to read only 1/3 of the book so far.

Dumfounded is not powerful enough a term to describe my feelings.

Anthony's point is valid if we believe this book. Before reading the book I would have dismissed it as too incredible but now I am inclined to think differently.

Regarding the VG divisions - a lot of these men were really specialised workers, in reasonably good condition (industrial/skilled workers would get extra rations, AFAIK).

I wonder how much did them being called up tax the production quality. Or did it even make a difference any more at that point.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

For the US Army, some of its best units were National Guard (45th Infantry for example) and in a complex research paper by Dupuy, delving into what units the Germans thought were the best at the front, the humble 88th Infantry Division, a conscript unit, was the best.

Can you give any data on the US system as a whole ? How did the fresh conscripts get treated by the system dominated by professionals and National Guard volunteers ?

Also, what was the timetable of the expansion of the US military forces ? Did it start already in 1939 or only after Pearl Harbour ?

[Slapdragon]

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

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

[qb]For the US Army, some of its best units were National Guard (45th Infantry for example) and in a complex research paper by Dupuy, delving into what units the Germans thought were the best at the front, the humble 88th Infantry Division, a conscript unit, was the best.

Can you give any data on the US system as a whole ? How did the fresh conscripts get treated by the system dominated by professionals and National Guard volunteers ?

Also, what was the timetable of the expansion of the US military forces ? Did it start already in 1939 or only after Pearl Harbour ?[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is just it, the system was not dominated by National Guard and Professionals, because there was damn few of them once the war started. Maybe dominated from the point of view of the best assignments going to RA, but less than 1% of the troop strength was prewar professional by 1944.

Expansion of the Army started in 1940 with the first draft calls, troops being used to activate a dozen US National Guard divisions and a few Army Reserve formations, and to fill to strength the dozen or so active Army divisions. Then divisions began to be built from ground up, at first by transferring regulars as cadre, later, as is the case with the 88th, anyone who had a little bit of training was used to jump start division activation at the regimental level, and regiments assembled as they proved out.

[Andreas]

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

It got worse after you left Germanboy. Snow Milk managed to poison thousands by not bothering to clean anything. Not bright.

Think I remember the Sakai school food case when I was there (95-97) Think they traced it to not washing salad that was watered with sewage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, that's what I remembered. Also, not bright to prepare salad at 5am in the Japanese summer and leave it unrefrigerated until it is served at 12.30pm...

Were you on JET?

[Andreas]

tero - I think the comparison falls down when you argue that the German system was better, because it probably was not. Pre-war it was creaking due to the much too rapid expansion of the army (Masson, amongst others, in 'Die deutsche Armee' makes this point quite well). I doubt that my grandfather (conscript 1937-39) did get very good training, but I check with him.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

tero - I think the comparison falls down when you argue that the German system was better, because it probably was not.

I'm still working on it. I just think that the conscription theory works better than the "warrior tradition" one scientifically.

As for it being better or not: that is open to debate. To date I have not seen any sources besides Finnish ones that lists conscription as a criteria for the supposed better proficiency of an army over another(in the Finnish case the supposed better proficiency of the Finnish army over the Soviet Army).

And when we look at the broader picture the armies based on pre-war conscription seem to have faired better in the field against odds the armies based on professional gadre and limited reserve of volunteers could not take. Only after the numerical odds could be stacked higher in their favour did the professional armies start winning.

The Soviet and the Japanese armies are the ones that do not seem to fit this bill. But with enough research I think they too can be fitted in.

Pre-war it was creaking due to the much too rapid expansion of the army (Masson, amongst others, in 'Die deutsche Armee' makes this point quite well). I doubt that my grandfather (conscript 1937-39) did get very good training, but I check with him.

Good is a qualitative term that I think should be fielded with care in this context.

The pre-war training was given to a suit a doctrine. I think the "goodness" is dependant on the fact if doctrine survived first contact in actual combat conditions.

For the Finnish army the pre-war training delivered as the basic doctrine was proven sound even if the tools were inadequate (because of budget cuts). I am seaching the facts concerning this for the other armies.

The British Army Training in 1940-44 does reinforce my initial hunch that there is something in this line of questioning.

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Hakko Ichiu]

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

Ryori no tetsujin the Japanese TV programme was atrocious, but this particular ryori no tetsujin is really a waste of space.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't really appreciate Ryori no Tetsujin properly until you see the dubbed version. It's my 4-year-old's favorite show. OK, maybe it's tied with Croc Hunter for that honor.

[Stuka]

So maybe if the VG had of had the Croc Hunter at Dieppe instead of flat bicycles, perhaps they could have slaughtered more surrendering Canadians with or without Monty's help?

Tupperware-Container Sakai, can you help me out here?