Steve… future plans, possible timetable?

[Zemke]

The finest German Army ever to take the field crossed the border into Russian June 22, 1941, after that, everything was a struggle to man units. If the Germans had such a surplus of man power, why did they need to change the TO&E of the infantry divisions from nine battalions to six? Army Group Center was fairly well manned in 1944, having been a relatively quite till Operation Bagration kicked off, but the Southern Army Group was bleed dry from almost continous combat after Kursk, and never really recovered.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,

The following quote comes from Soviet Blitzkrieg by Walter S Dunn Jr. page 58. The preamble to the quote is a detailed account of the replacements and manpower of two infantry divisions in Army Group Centre.

“The surplus of Germans over authorized strength probably prevailed over most to the divisions of Army Group Centre in June. The improvements in both divisions reflect a plentiful supply of men and weapons for the Eastern Front, rather than a shortage because of the diversion of men and material to France.”

This is not taken out of context; there are pages on the subject which imply/say the same thing.

How could this be? The answer I referred to in an earlier post. The German army’s own very full and detailed records do not correlate with the military histories written post war by German commanders. The Germans were able to fully rebuild most units with fully trained manpower right up to the second half of ’44. They were also increasingly well equipped.

Added to this overall force ratios were far less in favour the Soviets than German accounts imply. By early ’43 the Soviet frontline army had reached six million and was held at that level until the end of the war. Force ratios German to Soviet were less than 1:2 for most of ’43 and less than 1:2.5 for most of ’44. And that is only counting German troops and not any of their allies.

Again, very different from that which German officers would have you believe.

The accounts written by German officers need to be regarded as personal frontline accounts not accurate military histories.

If I had been through all the surviving German officers had experienced I am sure my account would also be very partial. It is called being human.

All the best,

Kip.

Yes, and what was the state of training of those men? As indicated, basic training had been slashed in half, as had the minimum induction age. I suppose new troops had less time in march/transfer battalions or feldersatz battalions where they got "on job training" (i.e. anti-partisan operations, etc.) before deploying to the division - or do these "over strength" divisions actually include the training and replacement formations located well behind the front?

[ December 17, 2007, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Sitting Duck:

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

...How many times can you re-fight the same old same old...[?]

Many, many, many, many, many times. </font>

[Guest]

I built myself a scen for TOAW. Basic little setup. That was, literally, years ago. Do I still play it?

Hell yes. Not to mention every paper wargame I've ever owned. (Criminy, anybody got a line on a copy of TacAir?)

I've always thought the beauty of wargames was that intense replayability.

[Ritter_85]

In my opinion, Wehrmacht were in its "best" shape in the years of 1941-1942 at the eastern front. After -43 the downfall started....No doubt it has started even earlier but -43 germans lost initiative to the Red Army and also their ability to perform any good operations. (because of their lack of good tank formations, the lack of fuel and poor quality of "fresh" reinforcements)

In fact, I think that German armies failed to win the war at eastern front because of lack of troops, material, time, and Hitlers huge obsession to affect even in company sized formations orders. Also small mistakes started from -41 piled up in a huge pile so it has major influence on the outcome of the war. Argues between High officers in Wehrmacht didnt help the situation. Or did the "fight" between Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by 76mm:

Carell?

Carell exaggering german strenght? Where?

The forum "experts" for the german army here seem not to know, that in 1944 the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe was at their biggest strenght in numbers. The most units, the best equipment produced in highest numbers.

Maybe the author Kip refers to, meant it that way.

[76mm]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Carell exaggering german strenght? Where?

Yeah, I guess Carell would have been more likely to underestimate the strength of the heroic, outnumbered German soldaten as they fought off the Soviet hordes.

Don't get me wrong, I have a few of Carell's books and enjoy them for what they are, but I don't regard him as a serious, objective historian.

Also, sadly, I also find this discussion about German troop strength in 1944 kind of interesting--this seems to be a pretty basic topic, and yet no apparent agreement. I've read a lot of books on the Russian Front, and always got the impression that most units were seriously understrength most of the time, but credible evidence to the contrary is always interesting.

[Ritter_85]

yes. they had the best material support (weapons, artillery, panzers) in 1944 but troop morale and quality were not the same as the weapons they used

Combined this with an massive Soviet Army pushing from East and Allied forces from West and South it was Huge job for Wehrmacht to hold as it hold against Red wave.

You guys know that Wehrmacht fought "unofficially" so hard against Soviet Union because they wanted Usa and British to take over Berlin before Stalins forces. Stupid allies didnt regognise that and didnt move in time to capture berlin. In general every German soldier wanted to surrender to Usa or british forces than soviet union but that nasty deal between Allied and Soviet union that every german soldier, who fought at eastern front and surrended to allied forces was to give back to soviet union.

[ December 18, 2007, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: Ritter_85 ]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

All interesting stuff…

In no particular order..

1) I have never understood this near worship of the German army of June’41, relative to the later German armies. I am sure the June ’41 army was very good relative to the opposition of the day. But remember most to the units had no more than a small amount of experience against very low quality and serially incompetent opposition. The idea that all other armies, Commonwealth, American and Soviet leapt ahead as they gained more experience but the Germans stagnated and even went backwards is not credible… in my view. The German army will also have got better at what is did as it gained more and more unit and corporate knowledge and experience. Until such time as it ran out of men…see below..

2) When it comes to numbers and manning all armies had severely written down units when in contact with the enemy. Just as much as the Germans. This is normal in high intensity warfare. The question is could the Germans rebuild their units as their foes could in rest periods. The answer is yes… until the second half of ’44. They did this every year very successfully up to and including the late ’43 intake which were integrated in to units in May/June ’44. Equipment quality and levels also greatly increased as the war went on.

3) We are now in a position to actually “know” what really happened in much of WWII on all fronts. To the extent that this will ever be possible . Why? Because in the ‘90s the last to the records that count from WWII were made public. This is one reason, but not the only one, why the Germans waited until the ‘90s to start their own massive, truly stunning, ten volume official history of WWII. The researchers, staff of the German equivalent to Sandhurst and such, had/have access to the records of all the major players including the Soviets. After years of research they concluded that there is a very close correlation between the records of all the armies Commonwealth, German and Soviet. Their armies own very full records, orders, casualties’ reports, after action reports, where and when information… all reinforce each other. As one would expect. But importantly they found the histories written by German officers post war are not an accurate picture of what happened.

It really is time to let go of the “there were more Russians than we had machine gun bullets” stuff that in some form all German officers memoirs seem to imply.

The German army was not a poorly equipped skeleton force until late ’44. When in the line they were written down as all other armies were. When out of the line they were rebuilt as other armies were until late ’44. Up to and including June’44.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Sgt Joch]

All good arguments Kip, but I don't believe the quality of the German Army was the same in '44 as in '41.

The '41 army was made up of a well trained peacetime army with ample military experience gained in '39-'40, but still not battle scarred. AFAIR, I believe the France '40 campaign only cost the German Army 10,000 casualties whereas the '41 russian campaign alone cost the Germans 750,000 casualties.

Although in '44 the German army was larger and had a greater quantity of weapons, the overall quality of the troops had gone down. Already at Kursk in '43, many german combat units could only come up to full strength by filling units with raw recruits stiffened by a cadre of combat veterans.

If you compare the overall force ratios on the Eastern Front in june '41 and june '44, it was not appreciably different, whereas the military results were totally different. That cannot be explained solely by an improvement in the Soviet forces.

[Lethaface]

To add to the nice litle discussion above. I dont own many books about the eastern front, nor claim to be a grog. Have been extra interested in Military hardware since young age though, and soon after especially the German WWII weapons have had my specific interest. So I did do some homework, but forgive me for any obvious wrong information I might hold for true.

I think both sides in this discussion hold a point. I can believe that what Kip say is true, that the June 44 Army was the strongest Army ever fielded by Germany. Especially in terms of hardware. It's not difficult for me to believe they fielded (some) fully equipped and not undersized armies. That it had more manpower as before. But those don't mean all of their divisions were at full strength. In contrary, after such heavy losses and loss of production capacity between 1941 and 1944 it's not possible to believe most of their units were at full strength.

I read the memoires of a dutch volunteer for the Waffen SS. He was employed from 1941 till 1945 at the eastern front serving in the Wiking division. He got wounded 3 times and served in Infantry and later as a radio man in a Panther (see also, however in dutch: Henk Kistemaker 5 SS Pantserdivisie Wiking ). He was at the end of his life when he wrote it, so not all is chronologically totally clear, but it does pose an interesting view inside the head on an Waffen SS soldier.

I'll use it to explain my views on this subject. From his memoires I read that after the second time he was wounded, he got called back for duty in the east. He was trained extensively in Germany and Poland at the end of 1943 and the earlier part of 1944. There was no mention of poorly trained troops send into combat. However he did tell about how in the beginning (for him 1941) the Waffen SS was a pure 100% volunteer army with very though criteria. Later these criteria started to loosen up, while in the end (1944-5?) even men were 'forced' to volunteer. Luftwaffe officers being added to Panzer divisions, etc. The new troops were thoroughly trained however according to this source.

When we look at morale however, I think there was a HUGE difference between 1941 and 1944. That goes for both Allies and Axis forces. In 1941 the Axis (germany only at that time) must have felt invincible, while in 1944 soldiers should at least have some worries about the end victory. Its the other way around for the allied forces. Even though news from the rest of the world will be kept from soldiers as much as possible. Fighting on 2 fronts and being stuck in Russia since 1941 apart from loosing Africa, can't be something to be positive about. So I can believe that even though Germany fielded it's strongest armies, in Hardware AND quality soldiers, in 1944, the gross of the German forces had suffered a heavy morale blow since 1941. They are already outnumbered in any form at both fronts. Morale is one of the most important things in War IMHO. In my opinion German morale in 1941 was much and much higher then in 1944.

On the Macro level the USSR hardware and strategic decisions became much better, while German became worse as Hitler took control of German forces more and more. This caused a tremendous amount of losses for German troops, often unnecesary. (stalingrad is a good example). Even though Germany still inflicted more losses then they took, I can understand that if the enemy outnumbers you twice, it seems as if there just "aren't enough MG rounds to take all of them". We also might take into account that the number of Soviet tanks, artillery and Aircraft was much greater then 2:1 when compared with German forces. In his memoires the SS'er talked about how it didn't matter if they destroyed 40 T34 as another 30 would show up the next day. Finally the overstretched supply lines can make it happen Germany's best army ever get's rolled over by masses of soviets. It did actually

Hence I can agree that the full potential of the German Army to accomplish victory's against enemy forces, is severely worse in 1944. The 1941 forces were much more fit to fulfill their task. As Germany still had the initiative they could use their newly invented 'blitz krieg' strategy were german forces used superior tactics and adequate hardware to overwhelm the enemy. Due to big mistakes at highest command level the blitz failed. A blitzkrieg cant take 3 years. I think even Hitler would have never wanted to fight a war of attrition against USSR or even USA, let alone both.

If you would place all 1941 armies with 1944 Hardware in 1944, I doubt that would have changed history. However putting 1944's hardware in 1941 might have make me type this in german.

I guess you could say that the Quality of German armies at the tactical level is highest in 1944, so the full equipped army created in 1944 was the best army of the war. But in 1941 German troops were mostly better equipped, trained and experienced as other troops of other nations. They had, unlike later, high morale and and were (till then) supported by excellent strategic decisions. THE 1941 German army was the best of the war.

So, I do agree with both

Something else;

One thing the Dutch Waffen SS soldier told over and over again, was the very bad quality of soviet T34 tank crew. First the T34 tanks looked like they were finished in a hurry, with armor plates skewedly welded to the tanks. This in contrast to the neatly welded/whatever German tanks. Soviet T34 crew behaved as like they had been picked up from any street, put in a tank and send to the front. He claimed many times they slaughtered a lot of T34's with minimal casulaties, even under 900m distance just because of ignorant behaviour among enemy tanks. I think the lack of radios might also explain this. He was most scared of enemy Pak's, especially the "Ratsjbum" (76,2 MM Divisional AT gun if im correct). Another thing he kept telling is that how amazed and (ironic) happy he was about how enemy aircraft would attack columns of vehicles from the side (hitting 1,2 vehicles max), instead of attacking its length (hitting many vehicles in the convoy). He really wondered why they did.

Forgive me for all those off topic characters, as Im dutch

Ok thats enough for now, im callin it a day.

[ December 18, 2007, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Lethaface ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 76mm:

Carell?

Carell exaggering german strenght? Where?

The forum "experts" for the german army here seem not to know, that in 1944 the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe was at their biggest strenght in numbers. The most units, the best equipment produced in highest numbers.

Maybe the author Kip refers to, meant it that way. </font>

[SgtMuhammed]

So what exactly are you trying to say Michael?

[Mord]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sitting Duck:

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

...How many times can you re-fight the same old same old...[?]

Many, many, many, many, many times. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mord:

.Hey punks, I liked chicks in high school,

Mord.

And your mom still doesn't know what wore the holes in the Sears catalogue, you vulgar little troll!

:mad:

But she will this weekend.

When I whisper the answer in her ear.

[Mord]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

And your mom still doesn't know what wore the holes in the Sears catalogue, you vulgar little troll!

:mad:

That was actually Dad...I was relegated to sneaking Kmart undie adds from the Sunday flyer...pecking order, bottom of the food chain, and all that.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

But she will this weekend.

When I whisper the answer in her ear.

Tell her my friggin' Christmas cookies were soggy again this year...It's either that damn dog of her's or my old man needs diapers...either way I expect some crunch!

Mord.

[Gpig]

eeewwww.

[kipanderson]

Michael, hi,

You seem to feel strongly about this for some reason .

Anyway… the class of 1926 where inducted in November ’43 when most will indeed have been 17. However their basic training, by which I take it you mean the training in Germany, lasted to the end of March ’44, not “8 weeks or less” … and there then followed three months of training in theatre. They were integrated into combat units in May/June ’44. So total training was from November ’43 to May/June ’44.

BTW… returning sick and wounded made up as many replacements as the annual intake.

All the best,

Kip.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Michael, hi,

You seem to feel strongly about this for some reason .

Anyway… the class of 1926 where inducted in November ’43 when most will indeed have been 17. However their basic training, by which I take it you mean the training in Germany, lasted to the end of March ’44, not “8 weeks or less” … and there then followed three months of training in theatre. They were integrated into combat units in May/June ’44. So total training was from November ’43 to May/June ’44.

BTW… returning sick and wounded made up as many replacements as the annual intake.

All the best,

Kip.

Source?

But now that I've gotten your attention...

It may be that I am off by a few months. From God, Honor, Fatherland by Spezzano and McGuirl:

By late 1944, basic training had been cut to eight weeks and recruits were then being harangued by so-called "National Socialist Leadership Officers.

This says "by", of course, and does not give a precise date. The book is also about GD, the premier Army division, who tended to get the cream of the crop and additional leeway, so if things were going badly for them, they were probably worse for others... FWIW, GD took a pounding in Romania in the spring of 1944 and were refitting in June 1944 so examining them probably wouldn't bear much fruit. I'll see what other sources I can come up with but I'm not convinced the state of training or equipment was all that high. I suppose it is moot, given that Army Group Centre's destruction was achieved with such mass, but it is interesting how the historical records diverge.

[ December 19, 2007, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]