Effectiveness of Late War Germans (LONGish Post)

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Oh god! I can't hold back. Don't get me started on that bloody idiot parading as some sort of naturalist on drugs.

The freakin Croc Hunter. Can someone answer me this... if, whenever he does repeated stupid things on, more than likely drugged animals, and says afterwards "don't do this at home"... WHY THE F#CK DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

Aaaahhhhh, I feel much better already.

Regards

Jim R.

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]

[Andreas]

Well, since this one is now up again, I am still waiting on the count of German units opposing 43rd Wessex, and an assessment of their quality by Mr. 'dregs'Roksovkiy, who not only has spelling troubles with the name of Marshal Rokosovski, but also with the distinction between 'German' and 'Nazi'. No doubt his erudite answer which he must be preparing now will lay to rest the common misconception that 4th Somerset Light Infantry fought any worthwhile opponents.

I am sure many of you join me in anticipation.

[Slapdragon]

[scene] "Croc-hunter-guy" is humping a Eastern Australian Salt-Water Crocodile wearing a Paul Hogan mask. [/scene]

"Boy, this is making this Croc really mad. I put the Crocadile Dundee mask on this old boy to calm him down, but it just seemed to enrage him. Now don't try this at home.." as "Croc-hunter-guy" starts to reach around the struggling reptile.

[Slapdragon]

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

Well, since this one is now up again, I am still waiting on the count of German units opposing 43rd Wessex, and an assessment of their quality by Mr. 'dregs'Roksovkiy, who not only has spelling troubles with the name of Marshal Rokosovski, but also with the distinction between 'German' and 'Nazi'. No doubt his erudite answer which he must be preparing now will lay to rest the common misconception that 4th Somerset Light Infantry fought any worthwhile opponents.

I am sure many of you join me in anticipation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One does wonder, with all the wankers that Germans supposedly had in line, how they managed to keep the allies pinned down in the Cotenin for so long. From that perspective I also am interested since I understood that the Germans had several first rate units in line right from the start of D-Day.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One does wonder, with all the wankers that Germans supposedly had in line, how they managed to keep the allies pinned down in the Cotenin for so long.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is certainly a paradox. How did so many dolts fend off the UK, USSR and USA for so long? Are we all familiar with QJM or JICM or even ATLAS for that matter? Or should such discussions be resolved by pointing out each others spelling errors.

What is this list of units the 43rd faced? Lets have a look at it Germanboy. Sounds like you have the goods on these folks. Who were they shooting at in 44 and 45.

[Andreas]

Jeff, I have off the top of my head a list of these units, and I am happy to debate their quality. For the time being though, I would just like to give the good Mr. 'Dregs' Roksovsky the opportunity to make his case, i.e. why Sydney Jary's statements are based on fighting 'dregs' and an anti-Nazi bias.

Unsurprisingly, I don't agree. But since my reading was called in question by Roksovsky, I think it should be on to him to show me his sources and what they say. I am happy to learn. But we both know that won't happen.

So really - I have had it up to here with some people who are totally clueless, and substitute an attitude and an opinion for learning and reading, butting in crap. To use a much-overused phrase, sometimes a 0-tolerance policy towards such idiocy is going to benefit the quality of discussion on this board in the long run.

[Andreas]

Some of my sources:

The fighting Wessex Wyvern, Delaforce's unit history of 43rd Wessex.

History of the DCLI, Major Godfrey, MC

History of the British Army in the 20th century, FM Lord Carver

AAR by German divisional commander

A bridge too far, Ryan

Overlord, Hastings

Black Rat/Red Fox by P. Delaforce

Those are just the ones I can come up with here, while at work.

[Skipper]

> How did so many dolts fend off the UK,

> USSR and USA for so long?

I am not from the "german dregs" school of thought, by all means, but did they? I mean, in the two years that are being discussed here (1943-45) soviet advances tempo was nearly as fast as Barbarossa. Western allies were not quite as fast, but still, quite a bit of ground was covered from that side as well.

[Roksovkiy]

So really - I have had it up to here with some people who are totally clueless, and substitute an attitude and an opinion for learning and reading, butting in crap. To use a much-overused phrase, sometimes a 0-tolerance policy towards such idiocy is going to benefit the quality of discussion on this board in the long run.

A superb and accurate description of yourself, affix the word 'wanker' and 'biased' at the end and it would have been perfect.

Try and read my original post first, then if you can, how it relates to your post. If you can manage that then there is nothing more to say.

[Spook]

Well, then, Rok, let's then iterate your comments that kicked off the matter between you & Andreas:

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

By June 1944 and onwards, the allies were predominantly fighting the dregs of the German army. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The generalization isn't invalid to pose. But it is unsubstantiated as to the proportions of "good," "average," or "bad" German troops for each of the major campaigns of NW Europe.

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

The personal accounts sound a lot like they were based on fighting volksturm units....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Volksturm" units did not as such exist by title until the end of 1944. As per Andreas's point, a significant bit of the 43rd's fighting was in 1944, from late June & onwards. And on Hill 112, the 43rd Division faced SS panzergrenadiers. Were those troops "dregs" at that time?

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

....and dare I say it ‘biased’ on a hatred of the Nazis.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jary's view of German rifleman quality is just that---a view as he thought to had seen it. Perhaps it's a generalization on Jary's part, but it suggests to me that Jary was simply comparing rifle marksmanship of what he personally saw, to what he expected as a standard from his own men. It hardly struck me as a "Nazi-hating" bent.

Further, Jary's discussion on how the Germans handled their MG's----with an eye for deployment & concealment----also doesn't suggest to me that he was contemptuous of the Germans on all tactical matters. A "Nazi-hater" probably might not have even acknowledged this.

Your generalized assessment of Jary is that he 1) didn't really run into any "good" German troops, and 2) he has an anti-Nazi bias. Thus, he is presumed by you as unreliable. Considering that Andreas, myself, & others here consider Jary as a credible source (leastways, I presently do), isn't it no surprise that a generalized branding of Jary as "unreliable" will be challenged?

If you think that Andreas handled you too rough, it was left to you to either substantiate your argument, or to disprove Andreas's points. You did neither, instead choosing simply to brand him an "Anglophile who prefers pro-Anglo fantasies in his historical wargames." You didn't prove that either, but not that you were going to.

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Andreas]

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

So really - I have had it up to here with some people who are totally clueless, and substitute an attitude and an opinion for learning and reading, butting in crap. To use a much-overused phrase, sometimes a 0-tolerance policy towards such idiocy is going to benefit the quality of discussion on this board in the long run.

A superb and accurate description of yourself, affix the word 'wanker' and 'biased' at the end and it would have been perfect.

Try and read my original post first, then if you can, how it relates to your post. If you can manage that then there is nothing more to say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah well, resorting to personal insults, the ultimate refuge of the intellectually challenged.

Oh well. By declining to put any sort of proof to your initial statement, I take it that:

1) You admit you were talking out of your ass. (no surprises there)

2) You do not even have the grace to publicly admit that. (no surprises there)

3) By implication, it is clear to me that you have no problem trampling on the memory of the German soldiers who fought hard for a lost cause (no surprises there, since to you they were all Nazis anyway) and on the memory of those soldiers who had to fight hard and give their lives to overcome them. Because that is what you really do.

Well done Roksovsky. You may insult me as you want, that just runs off me. Your stupidity and lack of knowledge is plain for everyone to see, more so with every post you make to this thread. I am just amazed that you do not desist.

Thanks Spook.

[killmore]

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

but also with the distinction between 'German' and 'Nazi'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me explain why a lot of East Europeans see all german troops as NAZIS.

The definition of Nazi Army unit would be any unit that executed/tortured civilians. In the East these atrocities were performed by most units not just SS. Thus most German WWII soldiers are viewed as Nazis.

Even in germany about 2 years ago there was a exhibition of pictures showing atrocities performed by German Army units (Wermaht and not SS)

(It was on the news because there were protesters claiming these photographs are falsified and atrocities were fault of just a couple of SS units)

There are a lot of documented Polish village massacres and SS was not involved. I am not even going to mention Bialorussia or Ukraine.

Compared to German troops Soviet troops are viewed in Poland much better. Sure they would eat a shoe polish or steal a watch but they would not kill or torture Polish civilians. In fact they were often helpfull.

(This opinion is aglomeration of opinions of 10 Polish people who lived through WWII)

Germans units showed more "restraint" in the West.

Soon enough all eye witnesses will die and we will be able claim anything we want...

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

more than likely drugged animals<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they aren't drugged. You can tell when you see him chase down an extremely quick and LARGE Taipan and grab it by the tail. No... No drugs. Just extreme stupidity.

Jeff

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: jshandorf ]

[jshandorf]

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

Let me explain why a lot of East Europeans see all german troops as NAZIS.

The definition of Nazi Army unit would be any unit that executed/tortured civilians. In the East these atrocities were performed by most units not just SS. Thus most German WWII soldiers are viewed as Nazis.

Even in germany about 2 years ago there was a exhibition of pictures showing atrocities performed by German Army units (Wermaht and not SS)

(It was on the news because there were protesters claiming these photographs are falsified and atrocities were fault of just a couple of SS units)

There are a lot of documented Polish village massacres and SS was not involved. I am not even going to mention Bialorussia or Ukraine.

Compared to German troops Soviet troops are viewed in Poland much better. Sure they would eat a shoe polish or steal a watch but they would not kill or torture Polish civilians. In fact they were often helpfull.

(This opinion is aglomeration of opinions of 10 Polish people who lived through WWII)

Germans units showed more "restraint" in the West.

Soon enough all eye witnesses will die and we will be able claim anything we want...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that I am condoning or justifying any WWII crime but the reprisals that Wehrmacht troops usually performed on Ukrainian citizens was because of the atrocities that the Ukrainian Partisans would commit against the Germans.

It was all one big vicious circle of violence. The Ukrainian and Russian partisan would kill each other AND civilians (for helping either side or the Germans for that matter) and kill the German soldiers. To quell the partisans the Germans would execute civilians or anybody they saw as a possible partisan. It was really sad since the civilians were always caught in the middle and suffered the most.

As I understand it most Wehrmacht troops ignored the general order from above to execute all Russian prisoners and Jews etc... But there were many incidents of regular Wehrmacht performing atrocities for one reason or another. Now don't get me wrong... There was the SS and the "Death Squads" that did practice mass murder on a wholesale level which is totally unforgivable but painting the Wehrmacht with some broad generalization is incorrect I believe.

The US had its fair share or atrocities in Vietnam and Korea for that matter but the US army isn't pictured as being murderers in general.

Jeff

[Skipper]

You might want to read some orders that were issued by OKH and Army Group commanders before the whole thing started. It does not support your theory that it was all started by partisans. Not at all.

However, this topic is a no-no on this forum. For a good reason, methinks.

[Michael Dorosh]

At least two anti-intellectuals in this thread, Germanboy. Don't waste your time. I'm still waiting for a discussion of Whitaker and Loring-Villa's interpretations of Dieppe...

[Andreas]

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

Let me explain why a lot of East Europeans see all german troops as NAZIS.

The definition of Nazi Army unit would be any unit that executed/tortured civilians. In the East these atrocities were performed by most units not just SS. Thus most German WWII soldiers are viewed as Nazis.

Even in germany about 2 years ago there was a exhibition of pictures showing atrocities performed by German Army units (Wermaht and not SS)

(It was on the news because there were protesters claiming these photographs are falsified and atrocities were fault of just a couple of SS units)

There are a lot of documented Polish village massacres and SS was not involved. I am not even going to mention Bialorussia or Ukraine.

Compared to German troops Soviet troops are viewed in Poland much better. Sure they would eat a shoe polish or steal a watch but they would not kill or torture Polish civilians. In fact they were often helpfull.

(This opinion is aglomeration of opinions of 10 Polish people who lived through WWII)

Germans units showed more "restraint" in the West.

Soon enough all eye witnesses will die and we will be able claim anything we want...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Killmore, you certainly don't get any argument on that from me. I understand that. That said, I also think that one should be careful throwing these words around - in Germany today calling someone a Nazi is a major insult. My grandfather was in Russia in WW2, as a soldier in Heeresgruppe Nord. He is not, and never was a Nazi. If left to himself, he would never have come up with the idea to go and invade Poland, France, and the Soviet-Union. Participating in these wars, not of his own volition (he was a conscripted soldier) does not make him a Nazi.

[Roksovkiy]

Posted by Germanboy

You are of course right regarding the validity of Jary's account, and it should also be remembered that 43rd Wessex was one of the best infantry divisions in the 2nd Army

Well according to Saunders book ‘Hill 112: Battles of the Odon-1944’, the Wessex suffered severe losses against the 9th and 10th SS divisions.

43rd Wessex Division lost more than 2,000 men in the first 36 hours of operation JUPITER to regain Hill 112. The Odon River was dammed with corpses. Extensive replacements managed to bring the Wessex back up strength after 2 weeks.

Jary seems to have ignored this experience of German troops.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

[QB]Posted by Germanboy

You are of course right regarding the validity of Jary's account, and it should also be remembered that 43rd Wessex was one of the best infantry divisions in the 2nd Army

Well according to Saunders book ‘Hill 112: Battles of the Odon-1944’, the Wessex suffered severe losses against the 9th and 10th SS divisions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How does that make them a bad division?

[Iron Chef Sakai]

ok most people are under the impression the ss was responsible for war atrocites all over, well, they were, and dont forget about the poor chechs, they actualy had one of their towns destroyed, razed and removed from the map, the waffen ss were not repsonsible for war atrocties, the ss were, big difference, the german army was to busy fighting to do all these things, what happend was that hitler had units move in behind the army who's only purpose was to subjegate quetion torute and slaughter people, i do not consider these people soldiers, they were not fighting at the front, the regualr german army was not even aware of the death camps, nor was the waffen ss, the werhmacht, and waffen ss were soldiers and comited no more war crimes then thier allied counterparts, it was the death squads that were put in place behind the front lines that were doing these things, not unlike the russian nkvd

[Iron Chef Sakai]

since this thread is titled the effectivness of late war germans, i think any army who can hold out for a year from a combined attack from the rest of the worlds army's and airforces is pretty effective. thats just common sense, but for the scholars or what not here, if you look at the causualties it will show that the germans were always on the winning end of that stat, be sure to look it up as soldiers only not with civillians involved sometimes they combine the 2 stats. late war german infantry had no air support, were always scrounging for basic things like ammo and fuel, even under the belaegured conditions at stalingrad in the cold and surrounded, the average lifespan of a russian soldier there was a mere 24 hours, thats scary

[Brian]

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

[scene] "Croc-hunter-guy" is humping a Eastern Australian Salt-Water Crocodile wearing a Paul Hogan mask. [/scene]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errr, there isn't any species called an "Eastern Australian Salt-Water Crocodile", Slappy.

There are two species of Crocodiles in Australia, the Salt Water (ranges across most of the Northern half of Australia and into SE Asia) and Fresh Water (John Stonesis), which is found primarily across the north and eastern third of the continent.

Fresh Water crocodiles can be distinguished from Salt Water ones by the longer, thinner snout and the number of teeth. They tend to eat fish. Although will attack humans if provoked, they avoid them if possible. Salt Water crocodiles will eat anything, including humans, particularly tourists.

Despite its name, Salt Water crocodiles are quite happy in fresh water. Fresh Water crocodiles however tend to prefer rivers and estaurine waters. Salt Water crocodiles have been sighted up to several hundred kilometres from land.

So Slappy, the next time you come to Oz, please do (not) go for a swim when you're up north.