infantry

[coe]

Ok here's my questions. Historically there were claims that German infantry wasn't quite as good as British infantry. What kind of factors was this opinion based on.

Also historically how did German infantry match up against American infantry of similar training and battle experience? (I figure watchin all the war movies doesn't explain much - indeed if they were true, then the Germans would have lost on Dec. 8, 1941.

Conan

[Michael Dorosh]

What do you mean by "good"?

You would be hard pressed to prove that any nationality had soldiers that were more brave than any other nation.

Did you want to focus on specifics?

[coe]

I can't remember what account it was but it was from a German view, that I guess there was an opinion that British infantry seemed to be better at combat (whereas German armour use was better) I'm not sure what was meant by good therefore hence why I am asking. I'm not sure if that meant that a German soldier all things being equal would rather fight a British soldier than a russian or American.

Btw, nice talking with you again Mike, it's been a while since I've been on the forum.

Conan

[Macphail]

Here are some things i know.

Ever since the the battle of vimmy ridge, the germans were afraid of Canadian infantry. We kicked them out of one the most built up defensive points on the western front in one night, and in months of fighting before that, no one could.

Although the Canadian army is under equiped, and under financed, we have some of the best trained, toughest, and bravest soldiers.

When i play CMAK, I usually choose the germans, because they had the best boots, and coolest uniforms. Hugo Boss designed all the uniforms for the German armed forces.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by KG_Steiner:

Here are some things i know.

Ever since the the battle of vimmy ridge, the germans were afraid of Canadian infantry. We kicked them out of one the most built up defensive points on the western front in one night, and in months of fighting before that, no one could.

Although the Canadian army is under equiped, and under financed, we have some of the best trained, toughest, and bravest soldiers.

When i play CMAK, I usually choose the germans, because they had the best boots, and coolest uniforms. Hugo Boss designed all the uniforms for the German armed forces.

Feh.

For one thing, Vimy Ridge took three days to clear, though the bulk of the ridge was cleared on schedule - in daylight, not at night. In true British tradition, "we" attacked at dawn.

And 50% of the guys who went up the Ridge had in fact been born in the British Isles, even if they called themselves "Canadians."

As for best trained soldiers, today - when is the last time Canada exercised as much as a brigade? Our regular force infantry battalions are seeing their skills eroded month by month, and the armoured corps is preparing as I type this to hand over the last of the fully tracked tanks, after which, we will have no more. But I digress, this isn't the General Forum.

Hugo Boss must have been dead by 1944, though, since the Germans started dressing just like "us" by then - short ankle boots, canvas gaiters, waist length "Ike" jackets patterned after our battledress, and cotton webbing infantry equipment all made Fritzie look very much like Tommy, cept his stuff was green. By 1944 the only way you could get "cool" boots was to have a friend who lost his leg and gave them to you on his way to the hospital. The jackboots also sucked, frankly, since they had no ankle support. The Germans called them "vein breakers" and vets will tell you that varicose veins resulted from wearing those gnarly looking Dice Shakers.

Oh, I'll digress again to say that as far as individual equipment, the Canadian Army has probably the best in the world; certainly our small arms are world class (and having held a sample of the C7A2 this summer, can tell you they will only get better), individual clothing is the envy of the world, and even our grub isn't too bad.

Not so sure the Germans "feared us" after 1918, though certainly they respected us. Even the commanders at Dieppe noted that "Canadian soldiers fought...where they were able to fight at all...well and bravely." Albert Kesselring noted that on Sicily, the First Canadian Division performed as though they had received special mountain training (which, of course, they had).

Still haven't attributed the sobriquet "Tommy SS" which is reputed to have been applied to Canadians in Normandy out of deference to their ferocity, but if anyone can point out a creditable source for that, you may fire when ready Mister Gridsley.

In short - don't believe everything you read about the gallant Canadian Army, where every maple-leaf hugging beaver-kisser is a natural soldier simply because he was born north of the 48th parallel on the North American continent. We took a lot of knocks learning and relearning stuff from July 1943 to February 1945, when we really started coming into our own.

[Pinetree]

In short - don't believe everything you read about the gallant Canadian Army, where every maple-leaf hugging beaver-kisser is a natural soldier simply because he was born north of the 48th parallel on the North American continent. We took a lot of knocks learning and relearning stuff from July 1943 to February 1945, when we really started coming into our own.

Good comment,applies to Kiwis and Aussies as well,just read a good book recently that dispelled the myth that the ANZAC troops in WW1 were natural fighters, blah ,blah and that we learnt the hard way.But the book did rate Gen. Currie and the Canadian Corps highly.

edit: the book: The ANZAC Experience by Christopher Pugsley.

[dieseltaylor]

I am surprised at the lead comment - as I understand it the German soldiers were very disciplined and motivated. The NCO's were first rate and this was a strong area in which even small groups , sans officers, were tough nuts.

The German MG's were first rate , but I believe the grenades were not as good as the Allied. The squad AT weapons were very good late war --- but then they needed to be : )

What sources were saying that the German infantry was not generally good?

[Redwolf]

If you read enough narratives you always come across the author mentioning that whoever he fought against was surprisingly tough and capable, man by man and squad by squad. For all sides. End of story.

Higher units and officers are a different matter, some nations cultivated "cultural" nonsense a little too long.

[YankeeDog]

This is such a difficult thing to generalize about. . .

I do think that, especially by late war, there was much more variation in the quality of German soldiers from unit to unit than there was for the American or Commonwealth, and even to a lesser extent for the Russians, too. You had everything from depleted but very experienced SS units with superior training and equipment like the Liebstandarte, to "Stomach" formations made up of poor health specimens who were often also poorly trained and poorly equipped. I imagine that if you were an Allied groundpounder, your impression of the quality the Wehrmacht probably depended a lot on which units you were pitted against. For example, those who came ashore at Utah on D-Day had a radically different impression of "Festung Europa" and the soldiers manning it than those who came ashore at Omaha.

Not to say that there weren't substantial variations in the quality of Allied units, too -- I imagine Germans facing the 101st at Bagstone had a much higher opinion of American infantry than those who first engaged American infantry in NA.

This is pure speculation, but looking at things from the other side, assuming there was more a higher level of fear/respect for Commonwealth soldiers by Germans, I wonder if the reason might have something to do with differences in philosophy about and training for infantry combat.

From what I've read, even in WWII the Brits still placed more emphasis in their infantry training on closing with the enemy and finishing things with "cold steel." In contrast, I think the Americans came into WWII still believing to an extent in the "Frontier Rifleman" myth -- that the enemy could be eliminated by accurate, aimed rifle fire from the well-trained marksmen soldier, a myth that dates back to the Revolutionary war and was certainly reinforced by events such as Sgt. York's exploits in WWI.

Anyway, from the perspective of the German Landser, I can see how the British propensity to close to bayonet range and finish things off mano a mano might tend to instill a bit more fear and respect. Not necessarily more effective, mind you, but such bravery would certainly instill a certain level of respect.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

From what I've read, even in WWII the Brits still placed more emphasis in their infantry training on closing with the enemy and finishing things with "cold steel." YD

Quite the opposite, actually, in the most general of terms - they used artillery as much as possible, even if sending bayonets forward was more likely to do the job. The CW was very careful about conserving manpower and very willing to use HE instead of men. The Brits disbanded an entire division in Normandy (the 59th Staffordshire) due to lack of reinforcements (IIRC, and possibly poor battle performance also), and the Canadians took the politically disastrous step of sending conscripts into battle due to their own infantry shortages (brought on more by mismanagement than lack of manpower).

Given the excellent artillery system the CW formations had, they could do this. The use of heavy bombers in a tactical role was also something the CW enjoyed, though not as often as ground commanders may have liked.

You are correct, though, in that there were some costly infantry battles. I think about Black Friday, 13 October 1944, when the Canadian Black Watch attacked over 1200 yards of open beet fields at Woensdrecht to assault German troops dug in on a railway embankment. Imagine if heavy bombers had gone in ahead of them. They didn't, and the Canadians suffered intense casualties - one company of 90 men was reduced to four, and all four company commanders were hit. It smacked a little of the Somme.

But I think perhaps episodes like these may colour the perceptions too much - certainly Strome Galloway remarks about lack of aggressiveness in small unit actions, particularly patrols based on his experiences in Italy.

[ September 15, 2004, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Redwolf]

The Western Allies usually tried to mix good soldiers and bad or inexperienced ones to create a good number of "even" divisions.

The late-war Germans concentrated good soldiers in few formations and had a large number of unit with mostly lousy soldiers, with a few experienced (but not neccessarily good as in brave or smart) NCOs or officers thrown in.

The Soviets formed unit more ad hoc, with a pretty much random mix in many formations (which comes close to the deliberate mixing of the Western allies).

[YankeeDog]

I think we're talking about different scales, Michael. I don't dispute that Brit doctrine and practice called for heavy use of Artillery and conservation of manpower, especially mid-war on.

However, it is still my understanding is that once the artillery was done and it came down to infantryman vs. infantryman, in such small-unit level (Company and under), the Brits did emphasisze closing with the enemy somewhat more than other nationalities.

As effective and praiseworthy as it was, I don't think being on the receiving end of massive, accurate artillery strikes is the kind of thing that tends to instill fear and respect for *individual soldiers* on the others side -- artillery is kind of a faceless, inhuman killer.

OTOH, the Germans remaining in their foxholes after such artillery strikes might be quite impressed by the Tommies charging in to "mop up", bayonets fixed -- it's a very personal kind of combat.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

At the section level, I will agree, though the bayonet was rarely used; grenades and tommy guns were generally the weapon of choice. The tactics were indeed centred on moving the riflemen forward - the Bren Gun was there to cover the riflemen as they got close. The Germans did it the other way around, and riflemen were expected to support the squad's machinegun.

From that perspective, I agree with you - though I would not place much emphasis on the literal use of the bayonet as it really wasn't much of a factor. Without being flip, I think that bayonet fighting was a bit "too" personal for many of the combatants - and bayonet fighting may have even disappeared from the training syllabus by during the war IIRC.

Incidentally, the Germans stopped putting bayonet lugs on their rifles by 1945, to preserve materials, but probably also they felt them unnecessary.

[MikeyD]

I notice Americans aren't being mentioned in the conversation. From what I read, the American army suffered from one flaw, that was dribbling raw replacements into the front line over time as opposed to pulling out depleted units for proper retraining and reequipment. That's where the old line from the movies 'Never make friends with the new guy'" comes in. The green replacements tended to have a remarkably short service life compared to the few remaining veterans. American veteran infantry was as tough as any of the rest of them, they were just diluted by a constant influx of raw replacements.

[David I]

DieselTaylor,

Yes the German Army was very motivated! In NW Europe alone, between June 6, 1944 and December 31, 1944 the Germans executed (hung or shot) FIVE THOUSAND men for desertion! :eek: That'll keep you in your foxhole!

Mike Dorsch - That was a real pretty presentation! Could you throw in some charts next time?

David I

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I notice Americans aren't being mentioned in the conversation. From what I read, the American army suffered from one flaw, that was dribbling raw replacements into the front line over time as opposed to pulling out depleted units for proper retraining and reequipment. That's where the old line from the movies 'Never make friends with the new guy'" comes in. The green replacements tended to have a remarkably short service life compared to the few remaining veterans. American veteran infantry was as tough as any of the rest of them, they were just diluted by a constant influx of raw replacements.

This is basically a correct description of what they did.

However, as for the judgement, it has never been established whether this method is actually better or worse.

A larger unit with all new personnel will have difficulties in combat, independently of how much training they got through.

So it goes back to the same question: do you want some of your units elite and the rest so-so, or do you want units to be even?

Apart from the obvious fact that the Americans won the war , the Germans did have elite divisons.

But on the Eastern front they never were where the action was after they went on the defense, the Russians were always able to deceive them.

On the Western Front the German elite divisions clashed with the Eastern side of the Normandy bridgehead real good, and in the Ardennes offensive they were striking on their own initiative. But the Cobra outbreak had only one elite outfit in front of them, Panzer Lehr, with not enough depth to survive the airpower demonstration.

[ September 16, 2004, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by YankeeDog:

From what I've read, even in WWII the Brits still placed more emphasis in their infantry training on closing with the enemy and finishing things with "cold steel." YD

Quite the opposite, actually, in the most general of terms - they used artillery as much as possible, even if sending bayonets forward was more likely to do the job. The CW was very careful about conserving manpower and very willing to use HE instead of men. The Brits disbanded an entire division in Normandy (the 59th Staffordshire) due to lack of reinforcements (IIRC, and possibly poor battle performance also), and the Canadians took the politically disastrous step of sending conscripts into battle due to their own infantry shortages (brought on more by mismanagement than lack of manpower).</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD:

I notice Americans aren't being mentioned in the conversation. From what I read, the American army suffered from one flaw, that was dribbling raw replacements into the front line over time as opposed to pulling out depleted units for proper retraining and reequipment. That's where the old line from the movies 'Never make friends with the new guy'" comes in. The green replacements tended to have a remarkably short service life compared to the few remaining veterans. American veteran infantry was as tough as any of the rest of them, they were just diluted by a constant influx of raw replacements.

This is basically a correct description of what they did.

However, as for the judgement, it has never been established whether this method is actually better or worse. </font>

[dieseltaylor]

David I

"Yes the German Army was very motivated! In NW Europe alone, between June 6, 1944 and December 31, 1944 the Germans executed (hung or shot) FIVE THOUSAND men for desertion! That'll keep you in your foxhole! "

I agree it is a form of encouragement. I was thinking over the war as a whole - things obviosly changed when your were dredging the manpower barrel. Also at that stage the final outcome of the war was never really in doubt and the material discrepancy so great that it was a different scenario from the rest of the war. What I find so surprising is that more German units did not surrender [ on the Western Front ] as it would have got the Allies to Berlin faster than the USSR ..... go figure ..... ah yes executions.

A very sad sad thing. Shot for being having a strategic foresight let alone cowardice, battle fatigue, mental breakdowns .... makes me depressed.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

What I find so surprising is that more German units did not surrender [ on the Western Front ]

Different times. Given a police state, warrior class, and deeply ingrained values of honour and loyalty, not to mention a constant stream of periodicals, literature and movies depicting warfare as heroic struggle rather than grim slaughter, it is not surprising at all.

[Macphail]

Feh.

You are obviously far more well informed than I. I defer to your superiority. Should you meet me on the field of battle, however, you should put your ego back in its box, or it could prove to be your achilles heel.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by KG_Steiner:

Feh.

You are obviously far more well informed than I. I defer to your superiority. Should you meet me on the field of battle, however, you should put your ego back in its box, or it could prove to be your achilles heel.

I don't base my self worth on how well I can play a video game. Since you do, I concede in advance. You win.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The Brits disbanded an entire division in Normandy (the 59th Staffordshire) due to lack of reinforcements (IIRC, and possibly poor battle performance also),

And they disbanded more units later. But the 59th was picked to be disbanded before 6th June as was another inf div and three armd bdes. They knew going in to Normandy that they simply didn't have anywhere near enough inf replacements. It had nothing to do with discipline or performance of the 59th - in fact, if it were down to that there were several other divs which would have gotten the axe first. 59th was the 'junior' div, so off it went.* (see: D'Este Decision in Normandy)

The US Repple Depples were widely condemned because of the way they were poorly run, badly manned, and generally made men feel like they were expendable pieces to just waiting to be fitted into the machine. Most other nations at least tried to put human face on their replacement units, to give the men a sense of identity, and to provide training while there. The problems in the RDs were widely known, and a number of improvements in late 1944 saw their performance improve greatly. (see: Doubler, Closing with the Enemy)

Regards

JonS

* the 59th had closed its doors by the end of August. 27th Armd Bde also disappeared in August. 50th Div was disbanded in November. In addition, a number of infantry and armoured regiments went by the wayside.

[Macphail]

i was just trying to add to the thread, put a word in for the canadians, as i have alot of freinds either in the service now, or used to be. not quite sure why you have used this as an excuse to belittle me, but you are obviously a very learned man, and it seems beneath you. it was not my intention to incur your wrath, but you obviously think im some kind of idiot. this is the internet, and as you know, arguing here is just about the most pointless exercise known to man. a sorry would be nice, but if not, well, there is no recourse.

have a nice day dorosh.

[tar]

Great item on the battle of Woensdrecht, Michael!

All that's needed now is a link to the CM scenario of that fight...At least it ought to be one that the AI can win on defense

-Tom.

FWIW, my father-in-law's outfit appeared on the right side of the attack graphic (SSR).