German Combat Doctrine of WW II

[ev]

German Combat Doctrine of WW II was rooted in the experiences and advanes of WW I. Around 1917 the Germans implemented new combat doctrines for Attack and Defense. These new doctrines were way ahead of the allied combat doctrines. Unfortunately for the Allies they failed to grasp their importance until hammered during the first half of WW II.

Most historical work on WW II focuses on the Wermacht's attack capabilities. And, unfortunately, pays undue attention to the tank, and, misses the broader picture, of which the tank was but one part.

During WWI, the warring nations dig their armies in trenches. The attacker would bombard these trenches for several hours, or days, and then mount a massive infantry attack in the hope that enough men would survive the killing ground to take the enemy trenches.

As a general rule, many defenders did die during the initial bombardment, but enough survived to cause very heavy casualties on the attacker. It was usually a slaughter fest for both the defender and the attacker.

The Germans realized there was a better way to defend and to attack.

First, let's talk defense. The Germans were able to mount these amazing attacks because they realized they did not need that many men to hold the line, and hence could concentrate their best fire power in a decisive point. The Germans had a pretty sophisticated defense doctrine. I encourage you to read the following article:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Wray/wray.asp#ted

In 1917 the German's developed the new defensive doctrine which they called Elastic Defense. The Germans wanted to keep their main defensive line outside enemy sight so enemy artillery could not home on thier possitions. So they would place their main line of defense in a reverse slope or behind woods or villages. And, in order to keep spotter off their main defensive line, they would set up a front line screen mainly responsible for stopping spotters and reconn parties. The first line would fall back along protected, prearranged paths as soon as the main attack started.

The main defensive line (the second line) was not meant to be impregnable. Instead, local commanders were suppose to counter attack to close in gaps as they were openned. When a breach was openned, German artillery would pin down the attacker, while Allied artillery was ineffective at pinning down the counter attackers because of their reverse slope possitions.

The Elastic Defense proved very effective during WW I. During WWII the Russian front was so vast it was impossible to cover the whole front with a continuous line of men, let alone a double line. But in Italy, Normandy, and the Hurtgen Forest, the Allied troops suffered heavy losses when facing this type of defense.

As for the attack, we have talked a lot about it in other posts. German Blitzkrieg was not about the tank, was about combining the mobilite of the combustion engine (tank, halftracks, trucks, and planes) with the storm troop tactics of WW I.

During WW I the Germans realized it was suicidal to keep on sending men into no man's land to be slaughtered by machineguns. They realized that enough Allied men survived artillery bombardments to mow down attacking waves by the thousands. But they also realized that those men survived the bombardment because they laid low as the bombs were falling around them. The idea: to attack the enemy trenches while the bombs were falling on the enemy.

It sounds suicidal. But it was not. The bombardment had two phases. The first phase covered the front line. During the second phase, bombs would stop falling in prearragend spots or gaps. Bombs would fall behind and on the sides of those prearranged spots. The defenders, not knowing what was going on, would keep their heads down. And the storm troopers would advance through these prearranged gaps in the German bombardment. It worked.

Storm Troop Tactics called for artillery to suppress, not to kill the enemy. Artillery suppressed the enemy so the storm trooper could close in for the kill.

The German would adpot these same tactics to the armored formations of WW II. In the attack, artillery or planes would suppress enemy fire while tanks and infantry mounted on halftracks closed in. On defense, armored units would act as the fire brigades, counter attacking any breach in the main defense line.

Of course, these fluid tactics required better communication procedures, batter ways of giving orders, more sophisticated relationships between commanders and junior officers, etc. And, of course the allied did learn as the war progressed and managed to close the gap. But, at the beginning of the war the Combat Doctrine and Command Structure of the German Army was vastly superior to that of any other country it fought during WWII.

[SoDak]

Originally posted by ev:

German Combat Doctrine of WW II was rooted in the experiences and advanes of WW I. Around 1917 the Germans implemented new combat doctrines for Attack and Defense. These new doctrines were way ahead of the allied combat doctrines. Unfortunately for the Allies they failed to grasp their importance until hammered during the first half of WW II.

Most historical work on WW II focuses on the Wermacht's attack capabilities. And, unfortunately, pays undue attention to the tank, and, misses the broader picture, of which the tank was but one part.

During WWI, the warring nations dig their armies in trenches. The attacker would bombard these trenches for several hours, or days, and then mount a massive infantry attack in the hope that enough men would survive the killing ground to take the enemy trenches.

As a general rule, many defenders did die during the initial bombardment, but enough survived to cause very heavy casualties on the attacker. It was usually a slaughter fest for both the defender and the attacker.

The Germans realized there was a better way to defend and to attack.

First, let's talk defense. The Germans were able to mount these amazing attacks because they realized they did not need that many men to hold the line, and hence could concentrate their best fire power in a decisive point. The Germans had a pretty sophisticated defense doctrine. I encourage you to read the following article:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Wray/wray.asp#ted

In 1917 the German's developed the new defensive doctrine which they called Elastic Defense. The Germans wanted to keep their main defensive line outside enemy sight so enemy artillery could not home on thier possitions. So they would place their main line of defense in a reverse slope or behind woods or villages. And, in order to keep spotter off their main defensive line, they would set up a front line screen mainly responsible for stopping spotters and reconn parties. The first line would fall back along protected, prearranged paths as soon as the main attack started.

The main defensive line (the second line) was not meant to be impregnable. Instead, local commanders were suppose to counter attack to close in gaps as they were openned. When a breach was openned, German artillery would pin down the attacker, while Allied artillery was ineffective at pinning down the counter attackers because of their reverse slope possitions.

The Elastic Defense proved very effective during WW I. During WWII the Russian front was so vast it was impossible to cover the whole front with a continuous line of men, let alone a double line. But in Italy, Normandy, and the Hurtgen Forest, the Allied troops suffered heavy losses when facing this type of defense.

As for the attack, we have talked a lot about it in other posts. German Blitzkrieg was not about the tank, was about combining the mobilite of the combustion engine (tank, halftracks, trucks, and planes) with the storm troop tactics of WW I.

During WW I the Germans realized it was suicidal to keep on sending men into no man's land to be slaughtered by machineguns. They realized that enough Allied men survived artillery bombardments to mow down attacking waves by the thousands. But they also realized that those men survived the bombardment because they laid low as the bombs were falling around them. The idea: to attack the enemy trenches while the bombs were falling on the enemy.

It sounds suicidal. But it was not. The bombardment had two phases. The first phase covered the front line. During the second phase, bombs would stop falling in prearragend spots or gaps. Bombs would fall behind and on the sides of those prearranged spots. The defenders, not knowing what was going on, would keep their heads down. And the storm troopers would advance through these prearranged gaps in the German bombardment. It worked.

Storm Troop Tactics called for artillery to suppress, not to kill the enemy. Artillery suppressed the enemy so the storm trooper could close in for the kill.

The German would adpot these same tactics to the armored formations of WW II. In the attack, artillery or planes would suppress enemy fire while tanks and infantry mounted on halftracks closed in. On defense, armored units would act as the fire brigades, counter attacking any breach in the main defense line.

Of course, these fluid tactics required better communication procedures, batter ways of giving orders, more sophisticated relationships between commanders and junior officers, etc. And, of course the allied did learn as the war progressed and managed to close the gap. But, at the beginning of the war the Combat Doctrine and Command Structure of the German Army was vastly superior to that of any other country it fought during WWII.

And yet, they still got their ass kicked.......twice.

[ev]

Originally posted by SoDak:

And yet, they still got their ass kicked.......twice.

...this goes to show that best tactics may come to nothing if the srategy is bad enough. Hitler wasted an incredibly good army in aimless pursuits. Hitler never had a strategy to defeat Russia. Think about it:

Hitler's plan called for the encirclement and destruction of Russian armies. Barbarosas first objectiive was to destroy the Russian armies. The secondary objective was to take Lenningrad and Moscow.

Hitler's was Napoleon's strategy: defeat the Tsar's army and you have defeated Russia. Well, back then the Tsar had only one army. And, any way, the strategy failed misserable for Napoleon.

Second, Napoleon had such a hard time destroying the Tsar's army because Napoleon was never able to surround it. So the Russian soldiers often lived to fight another day.

Hitler did not learn from Napoleon's mistakes. Hitler's army encircled millions of men in multiple engagements. But the Panzer Forces were too small, and did not have enough tracked vehicles (relying too much on trucks to carry most of the Panzer Grenadiers) to keep a tight lid on the encircled armies. Many Russian soldiers left their equipment behind and slipped through the German lines to fight another day. Much like Napoleon's, Hitler's army was given a task it could not perform.

But more important, the defeat of so many Russian armies did not represent any strategic advance. The Russians kept on recruiting more men to make good their losses. And the heavy losses did not diminish the Russians will to fight.

Hitler's secondary objective were the capture of Leningrad and Moscow. Again, there is no reason to believe that the capture of those two cities would have resulted in the collapse of the Russian government. Hitler had no strategy for victory. Whatever tactical advantages the German's had, they were useless without a sound strategic plan for victory.

[SoDak]

Originally posted by ev:

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

And yet, they still got their ass kicked.......twice.

...this goes to show that best tactics may come to nothing if the srategy is bad enough. Hitler wasted an incredibly good army in aimless pursuits. Hitler never had a strategy to defeat Russia. Think about it:

Hitler's plan called for the encirclement and destruction of Russian armies. Barbarosas first objectiive was to destroy the Russian armies. The secondary objective was to take Lenningrad and Moscow.

Hitler's was Napoleon's strategy: defeat the Tsar's army and you have defeated Russia. Well, back then the Tsar had only one army. And, any way, the strategy failed misserable for Napoleon.

Second, Napoleon had such a hard time destroying the Tsar's army because Napoleon was never able to surround it. So the Russian soldiers often lived to fight another day.

Hitler did not learn from Napoleon's mistakes. Hitler's army encircled millions of men in multiple engagements. But the Panzer Forces were too small, and did not have enough tracked vehicles (relying too much on trucks to carry most of the Panzer Grenadiers) to keep a tight lid on the encircled armies. Many Russian soldiers left their equipment behind and slipped through the German lines to fight another day. Much like Napoleon's, Hitler's army was given a task it could not perform.

But more important, the defeat of so many Russian armies did not represent any strategic advance. The Russians kept on recruiting more men to make good their losses. And the heavy losses did not diminish the Russians will to fight.

Hitler's secondary objective were the capture of Leningrad and Moscow. Again, there is no reason to believe that the capture of those two cities would have resulted in the collapse of the Russian government. Hitler had no strategy for victory. Whatever tactical advantages the German's had, they were useless without a sound strategic plan for victory. </font>

[Retributar]

Well im myself no fan of German Nazism...but aside that...i am personally very impressed with the high calibre of the German Armed Forces in WW2...i would associate their calibre and professionalism to that of the Roman Legions.

[SoDak]

Originally posted by Retributar:

Well im myself no fan of German Nazism...but aside that...i am personally very impressed with the high calibre of the German Armed Forces in WW2...i would associate their calibre and professionalism to that of the Roman Legions.

Another myth believer. Allies(you know, the guys who actually kicked the "superior" German military ?) were just as high, if not higher, calibre.

But since they didn't have snazzy uniforms, weapons, whatever, they don't count I guess, eh ?

[ July 09, 2004, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: SoDak ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

SoDak

If the Germans were not better than everyone else, than why, after the war, did everyone copy them?

Even some of the recent US military reorganizations, are doing nothing more than implementing things the Germany military did in WWII.

And I am referring to the "run of the mill" German Army units, not Waffen SS units.

[SoDak]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

SoDak

If the Germans were not better than everyone else, than why, after the war, did everyone copy them?

Even some of the recent US military reorganizations, are doing nothing more than implementing things the Germany military did in WWII.

And I am referring to the "run of the mill" German Army units, not Waffen SS units.

Care to supply some links for this assertion ? I'm really interested in your "claim" that recent US military reorgs are based on German items from WW2, but the "everyone copied them" is a good one too.

[SeaMonkey]

SoDak, have you ever read "Hitler's Last Gamble"? If not, perhaps you should find a copy at half-price books or something. In the back of the book with the bibliography there is an interesting evaluation of a number of things related to WW2, among them a detailed conclusion of ratings for the combat soldiers of all major participating countries.

[SoDak]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

SoDak, have you ever read "Hitler's Last Gamble"? If not, perhaps you should find a copy at half-price books or something. In the back of the book with the bibliography there is an interesting evaluation of a number of things related to WW2, among them a detailed conclusion of ratings for the combat soldiers of all major participating countries.

And who came up with these ratings ? The author ? Sounds pretty subjective then, if so. Why would I want to read another starry eyed/ignore the facts account of the German military ? I can get a Paul Carrell book for that.

For that matter, which "Hitlers Last Gamble" book ? There's many of them with that in the title.

Bottom line is there's a lot of myth buildup about the German military of the war, and they being supermen, while everyone else were tactical morons, is one of the most common.

Poor ol' Allies. Getting circles run around them by the superior German military.....yeah, right.

[SeaMonkey]

Just sighting a reference of information, a small piece to a big puzzle, not concluding it is the end all of "the truth". Your opinion is respected for whatever its worth, just remember that opinions change as perspectives widen and knowledge brings wisdom.

[SoDak]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Just sighting a reference of information, a small piece to a big puzzle, not concluding it is the end all of "the truth". Your opinion is respected for whatever its worth, just remember that opinions change as perspectives widen and knowledge brings wisdom.

Yep, and anyone who believes the German military was superior needs to widen their perspective

[SeaMonkey]

Don't tell me Sodak, tell Trevor N. Dupuy, author of "The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History" and David L. Bongard with Richard C. Anderson Jr. who have studied and read books, coauthored books on military affairs collectively for the past 74 years. How old are you? Graduate of US Military Academy at WP, veteran of the Burma campaign in WW2, former professor of military science at Harvard and former director of the military history program at Ohio State. Where did you say you graduated from and what were your credentials? Shall I go on. OK, Bongard is a graduate of Ohio Univ. and has a M.A. from Univ. of Maryland and Anderson is a military analyst and a graduate of George Mason Univ, where he majored in history.

Now that we have that straightened out, the concluding statement from the aforementioned gentlemen goes like this (after assessing multi encounters from the Battle of the Bulge): "man for man the typical German soldier was not smarter, braver, or more highly motivated than was the American soldier. But their leaders were, for the most part, more professional." I might add the reason they were more professional is they were born from a superior military system.

[Edwin P.]

An excellent point, better leaders lead to better training, better equipment, better morale, better small unit and operational level tactics and better results in battle.

In Russia's war in Afghanistan Soviet units with better leaders had performanc levels and casualty rates orders of magnitude better than those of less well lead units.

Military Review - A Journal of the US Army War College

[Retributar]

SORRY SoDak...Crash And Burn!...Crash And Burn!.

[SoDak]

Originally posted by Retributar:

SORRY SoDak...Crash And Burn!...Crash And Burn!.

Lol, sure buddy. I'm so upset What a loser; that important to you eh ? That says a lot in itself.

Since another German Military star gazer, Seamonkey, posted some authors, how about John Keegan ? (btw in answer to your age question, I'm way past the age of being easily impressionable, something I'd bet you're not, or at least, should be.)

He's said the same thing; German military were overrated, etc.

I find your comments about the superior German military system amusing. Almost verbatim what the Germans themselves said at the time, which tells me everything I need to know about your level of knowledge on the subject.

I wonder if they still said that in the bunker ?

Take your pick of sources. For that matter, keep listening to your copy of Panzerleid as you play cm. No skin off my back; you want to be a niave German star gazer, your choice. <shrug>

[ July 10, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: SoDak ]

[SeaMonkey]

No German stargazers here, but that is an interesting perspective, let's look back at the Earth from the stars' position. A small country on the European continent, without a lot of natural resources or a large population, needs the combined strength of the most powerful, populated, abundant natural resource nations of the Earth to bring about her demise and collectively it took them approx. 5 years, ok 4/US 3. And that after they had done it once before, 20 years earlier. Naahhh,... your right Sodak..."Don't mean nothin"

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

I blame their industrial capacity and the Versailles treaty.

[SoDak]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

No German stargazers here, but that is an interesting perspective, let's look back at the Earth from the stars' position. A small country on the European continent, without a lot of natural resources or a large population, needs the combined strength of the most powerful, populated, abundant natural resource nations of the Earth to bring about her demise and collectively it took them approx. 5 years, ok 4/US 3. And that after they had done it once before, 20 years earlier. Naahhh,... your right Sodak..."Don't mean nothin"

Lol, wow. I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere, who knows what though.

Haven't seen that kind of, cough, logic, since I was in my teens.

[Retributar]

This is all Higly Amusing...Im Laughing My Gut's Out...Please Don't Stop!.

SoDak... Have you ever listened to the Original 'Panzerleid' ...it's absolutely horrible...it's worse than listening to Scottish-Bagpipes!. Infact all of that WW2 German stormtrooper music is torture to the ears!...so, i don't think i-will be listening to it!...no thank-you!.

I did mention the German Army of WW2 NOT WW1 as being of an unusual higher cadre'/professionalism & calibre reminiscent of the Roman Legions...now to add to that ... as well as Napoleons Armee, Alexander the Great's Army, the Spanish Conquistadore's , The Mongol's, the Hun's and in the present day the Israeli Armed forces.

All of these particular time-period units had something very-special going for them that is not usually noticeable with a normal regular army. That was my point...and not because im some Nazi-Lover!.

[ July 11, 2004, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Comrade Trapp]

SoDak

Will you please be so kind to enlighten us on why the Allies lost the Battle of France in 1940? Since according to you, it didn't have anything to do with the German Army's superior tactics in the area of armored warfare combined with close air support never before seen in the history of warfare.

So please, enlighten us.

[Roosevelt45(the 2nd)]

Reasons why Blitzkrieg in W-Europe and Poland succeeded :

-it was a new, revolutionary technique, never used before, the allies didn't expect this kind of attack and in those days had no means to stop it.

-Western democracies had been sleeping for years,French war factories were terribly behind on technology compared to the German ones.And the British armed their troops with wooden guns used in plays(the home guard) due to metal shortage.

-Von Manstein's brilliant idea to attack trough the Ardennes.

-the constant changes in command by the French.

If anyone want to correct one of these or add one please do so but explain why.

[Panzeh]

The Ardennes idea wasn't brilliant. It was sheer luck that the original plan was lost. The only reason Hitler switched plans was because his only other plan was Manstein's, and he hadn't time to formulate plans.

The original German plan was to slash through Belgium ala the Schlieffen plan. Instead of hitting the French at the gap between the strong mobile forces and the Maginot line, they would have been hitting the aforementioned strong mobile forces.

There would be no 'blitzkrieg'.

[Comrade Trapp]

The original German plan was to slash through Belgium ala the Schlieffen plan. Instead of hitting the French at the gap between the strong mobile forces and the Maginot line, they would have been hitting the aforementioned strong mobile forces.

There would be no 'blitzkrieg'.

Granted, but I'm sure their tactics did play a pretty big part in their victory over the Allies.

[SoDak]

Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:

SoDak

Will you please be so kind to enlighten us on why the Allies lost the Battle of France in 1940? Since according to you, it didn't have anything to do with the German Army's superior tactics in the area of armored warfare combined with close air support never before seen in the history of warfare.

So please, enlighten us.

Lol, you're too much smartass. The 1940 French ? Give me a break; they couldn't be more than a speed bump to anyone in the chaotic state they were in, the entire war for that matter. Vichy ring a bell ?

BEF ? Hardly even a bump, due to their size.

But if you're so knowledgeable, you knew that already, right ?

Yeah, the Germans did great....in Poland, Low Countries, Norway, France, Balkans......wow, impressive

But hey, I couldn't care less if you agree or not, but nice try

I know the truth must be frustrating(or why the anger ?); thats what happens when bubbles burst.