So are German forces "better" on average?

[GhostRider3/3]

It is interesting to see peoples views here on the German war machine. Interesting... I guess I have the utmost respect for the German Soldat for a few reasons. Germany was not the Largest country in Europe by no means, however it took on albiet a weak but numerically strong in manpower Poland, Pascifist Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, France (Who supposedly had the strongest Military at the time). France as far as aviation was just turning out 1st rate aircraft in 1940. UK although stretched had a first class Military. All defeated by lack of leadership on part of the Allies. Hell France was almost in a civil war because of the communists. Spain had her Civil war. Russia Numerically superior was an obvious mistake. Russia was a Huge mistake... However given casualty numbers I think the Germans inflicted more on its enemies.. but they still lost. Hell give them credit though, they were taking on 2 of the Largest Industial Machines on the Planet... take one away, and ask then could they have won then? That said the fighting Spirit of the Allies never broke either, all fought for what they thought was right, and for the man next to him.

As a former Marine it basically comes down to the man next to you. You fight hard because you dont want to see the man next to you get chewed up, but it happens and combat is hell.

Semper Fi 3/3

[OBJ]

Basically, in mid 1944 France, would you expect the Germans to win more company-battalion scale (i.e. CM scale) fights in which the odds are roughly even?

Actually, this was the question.

Given a choice between units led by combat vets with panthers and MG 42s, and trained but unblooded troops with Shermans and BARs, numbers being equal, who would you chose?

Recently re-read "Busting the Bocage" by Doubler and read for the first time "Tank Tactics from Normandy to Lorraine" by Jarymowycz.

Not that these are definitive sources, but hard not to come away with the impression the Germans were generally tactically superior when the Americans waded into the bocage and the Commonwealth battered themselves against Caen.

[GhostRider3/3]

Also lets say the Allies did not have Air Superiority, but maybe Par. The outcome in Normandy I think could have been different. Air Power was a HUGE factor in Normandy, that crippled German movement and logistics...not to mention alot of Armor that could have been used vs the Allies. In that case I would give the advantage to the Germans.

[JSj]

Also lets say the Allies did not have Air Superiority, but maybe Par. The outcome in Normandy I think could have been different. Air Power was a HUGE factor in Normandy, that crippled German movement and logistics...not to mention alot of Armor that could have been used vs the Allies. In that case I would give the advantage to the Germans.

Probably, all else being equal. But had the allies not had air superiority, they would have had to compensate for that by other means. They relied upon airpower, superiority in numbers and firepower because their resources meant they could do that. Without that superiority they would have had to spend a lot more effort improving their tactics and training.

[Magpie_Oz]

Nah, still can't see it myself.

Despite all of the supposed advantages that the Germans had they still only inflicted parity casualties on the Allies, who where engaged in a number of high risk operations like airborne assaults, amphibious landings, attacking bocage and attacking the elite panzers.

Sure they had difficulty in manoeuvre and supply because of the air supremacy of the Allies but we have seen else where that the impact was somewhat overrated and the Allies did lose huge numbers of aircrew to German AA.

Veteran commanders ? Not really the British particularly had many experienced commanders but also within the US ranks were many veterans of Italy.

MG42, good gun for sure but its superiority really came out in the MMG/HMG role and in reality at the squad level it was not a huge amount different to the bren, the US BAR bears no comparison.

Panthers - debate continues but the results where of the 2k German tanks in Normandy 100 odd survived.

Don't forget too that any German company or battalion in France in mid-1944 would be suffering the privations mentioned above so for my money the answer is without a doubt "NO" and history supports this.

[dieseltaylor]

Linked too earlier but I thought as it was highly relevant to what made German soldiers better than some other countries. Better in this respect being killing more. As long range understanding of the geo-political situation vis a vis Stalin you could say the Italians were smarter soldiers.

5 April 2011 Last updated at 00:31 The evidence that backs up World War II stereotypes

By Stephen Evans BBC News, Berlin

We all know the cliches of World War II - that the German military was ruthless and brutal, for example, and Italian soldiers gave up without a fight. But sometimes cliches are true. New evidence published this month in Germany indicates that the stereotypes were not mere propaganda but accurate pictures of reality.

The evidence comes from recorded conversations between prisoners of war in bugged cells. The British had special camps near London for prisoners from Germany and Italy and the Americans had similar camps in Virginia and in San Francisco for Japanese prisoners.

All had been selected because they were thought to have useful information, and informers were inserted among them to prompt them to talk.

The transcripts of those conversations, buried in British and American archives, reveal the private voices of prisoners talking to each other. They show very different attitudes towards fighting - and dying.

One of the authors, Professor Sonke Neitzel, cites, for example, a captured Italian admiral who tells a fellow prisoner that "everyone was running away and I couldn't defend Sicily". Then he adds tellingly, "I had the idea of running away as well".

Professor Neitzel says no German officer would ever have said that.

He told the BBC that the attitude of the Italian soldiers revealed in the transcripts was that they thought their state was corrupt and that their leadership was corrupt, so their view was: "Why should we, small soldiers, risk our lives for this corruption?"

Accordingly, Professor Neitzel said, "they decided it might be better not to fight to the last shell. So they surrendered very soon".

Professor Neitzel says attitudes to the state and authority determined what a soldier did at the "point of surrender". Italians were most likely to surrender and the Japanese least. The German attitude, as revealed in the conversations, was: "I fought well but I lost so now I go into British captivity".

In contrast, the Japanese attitude was one of deep shame to have been captured, a shame which British and American intelligence exploited. Professor Neitzel described the interrogators' technique: "They would say: 'If you don't tell me military secrets, I will tell your family you are here in this camp'. They would respond: 'I'll tell you everything, but don't tell my family'."

Professor Neitzel told the BBC he doesn't believe any nation had soldiers, who were "naturally" more brutal than any other. The Allies, he said, took no prisoners in the early days of the Normandy landings. But the transcripts reveal a picture of brutality that is uncomfortable for Germans today.

This, Professor Neitzel thinks, may stem from the great certainty about the worth of their cause, that the German soldiers revealed in their private conversations.

"German society had a special attitude to military behaviour which was, 'Never be weak'. You have to obey orders, so German counter- insurgency depended on extreme violence at the beginning in the belief that this would save German blood in the long term. Only winning matters."

In the transcripts, ordinary German soldiers relate how they raped and then killed their female victims, for example.They tell of the casual way in which they killed civilians, in one case simply shooting a man to get his bike. The accounts express joy at the death of civilians. A pilot tells of a raid on Ashford in Kent in south-eastern England: "There was an event on the market square, crowds of people, speeches being given. We really sprayed them! That was fun!"

In another transcript a submariner boasts of how a ship carrying children had been sunk.

Another captured pilot told of a raid on Eastbourne on the coast of the South of England. He spotted a castle where a party was taking place: "We attacked and really stuck it to them. Now that, my dear friend, was a lot of fun."

Professor Neitzel's work is published as Soldaten - Soldiers - with the sub-title, Transcripts of Fighting, Killing and Dying.

He and his fellow author, Harald Welzer, examined more than 150,000 pages of transcripts of recordings made secretly by their British and American captors, and now stored in the British Public Records Office in Kew in London and in the National Archives of the United States.

[Magpie_Oz]

I don't see how dubious anecdotes of prisoners bragging about how many they have killed equates to greater combat prowess of their respective armies.

Quite the opposite in fact, killing of civilians and raping of women points to ill discipline and a lack of professionalism.

[JSj]

Nah, still can't see it myself.

Despite all of the supposed advantages that the Germans had they still only inflicted parity casualties on the Allies,

What "all supposed advantages" are that? The better German tactics and training was more than compensated for by the allies many advantages, like total air superiority, massive naval gunfire support, and great numerical advantage.

Also, a lot of the German casualties were among the non-german Russian and other foreign troops, which naturally had quite a low fighting potential.

[Magpie_Oz]

What "all supposed advantages" are that? The better German tactics and training was more than compensated for by the allies many advantages, like total air superiority, massive naval gunfire support, and great numerical advantage.

Also, a lot of the German casualties were among the non-german Russian and other foreign troops, which naturally had quite a low fighting potential.

The supposed advantages are those elusive things to which we are referred. Tactical superiority, better training, better leadership all of which I see no evidence of.

Sure the NGS and Air support was a factor no doubt I would not say the numerical advantage was great, it was about 1mill v 2.5 mill not really the minimum 1 to 3 one usually wants for a win.

So if the majority of the casualties were with the non-German forces, what were the Germans doing ? Of the 4 Divisions in the Normandy area at the time of the landings 2 were second rate invalid Germans and "Ost battalions" the other 2 were veteran divisions, more regular Germans forces arrived later. Sure there were numbers of garrison troops at the beaches themselves but without doubt the fight was carried by the regular German forces in the bocage and Caen.

The final tally was about 200k German casualties v 240k Allied casualties and an additional 210k Germans taken captive, which is around 40% losses.

In my view the infantry v infantry battle was on a par and the results show this, in fact the Germans should have inflicted great casualties on the Allies as they had the advantage of terrain and defence.

Even if we reject this notion, in a Coy to Bn level engagement in France in Mid-1944 the German side would be ravaged by airpower, NGS and lack supplies where the Allied side would be well supplied and supported so the Allied side would be expected to prevail.

Either way the answer to the question is NO

[JSj]

Until August, the allies landed about 2 million men. The Germans used a total of around 600,000 men during the fighting in Normandy. Of course, far from all of these were the infantrymen and tankers that were doing the most of the fighting, but it shows how great the numerical advantage was. With this, plus the total air superiority, much greater amounts of artillery, and massive naval gunfire support, and the allies still were not able to win quickly and easily, and they did not inflict more casualties on the Germans than they took themselves, something that would be expected from these many advantages.

[Wodin]

The German army in '44 was lets face it a dying Army...the Russians had to take them on at the height of their powers...and the Russians ground them down..so when we hit France we were fighting an Army who's best days where behind it...so in effect you had the Americans and British both pretty green fighting against a German Army which was having to dreg up all kinds to fill boots...so I expect apart from a few select units both sides wouldn't have been regarded as top fighting Armies...The Allied weight in Arms rather rather than a better soldier wiped all before them...

I'm sure if we had met a German Army still at '42 standard things would have been alot worse...if we had got off the beaches.

So in the end I expect it was a pretty even match soldier for soldier...the Industrial weight of America wiped all before it...

as for this thing about certain soldiers of a particular Amry commiting all sorts of crimes...come on now...all sides killed prisoners..all sides would have raped...all sides commited atrocities...War does terrible things to men....and due to the nature of WW2 and consrciption I expect alot of bad apples would have joined up...infact I've read a fair few accounts of real bad men winning top medals...and it says not every Medal winner is a nice guy...far from it..

[dieseltaylor]

Regarding dubious anecdotes. I have no doubt there may have been bull****ting going on but I cannot rubbish what the book is based on as being totally meaningless.

My reading does suggest that the German soldiers were more lethal than Allied soldiers, or Western Allies at any rate. It is actually surprising given the average soldiers reluctance to actually shoot to kill that no one has done a survey to see if in fact the German squads WERE more effective because more of the soldiers shot to kill rather than suppress as Allied soldiers were wont to do.

This may be social conditioning, or as a result of fighting on the Russian front, or the be tough ethos. Possibly the reason why the Anzacs, Finns, Canadians, fill in other favoured group,were thought tough was because they actually had that higher number of men shooting to kill.

And of course quality NCO's do make a very large difference to platoon cohesion. The German apprenticeship method may well have translated very successfully to the Army.

SO if anyone has handy the links to this kind of data ...

[MengJiao]

Nah, still can't see it myself.

Despite all of the supposed advantages that the Germans had they still only inflicted parity casualties on the Allies, who where engaged in a number of high risk operations like airborne assaults, amphibious landings, attacking bocage and attacking the elite panzers.

Sure they had difficulty in manoeuvre and supply because of the air supremacy of the Allies but we have seen else where that the impact was somewhat overrated and the Allies did lose huge numbers of aircrew to German AA.

Veteran commanders ? Not really the British particularly had many experienced commanders but also within the US ranks were many veterans of Italy.

MG42, good gun for sure but its superiority really came out in the MMG/HMG role and in reality at the squad level it was not a huge amount different to the bren, the US BAR bears no comparison.

Panthers - debate continues but the results where of the 2k German tanks in Normandy 100 odd survived.

Don't forget too that any German company or battalion in France in mid-1944 would be suffering the privations mentioned above so for my money the answer is without a doubt "NO" and history supports this.

The German forces in Normandy seem to have been pretty spotty in terms of how good they were tactically. Even mid-range American Divisions like the 30th could stand up in isolation against major German forces for days during the German counterattack after Cobra. And as for casualties, its hard to say since at the end of the fighting in Normandy in September, the German forces seem to have lost 90% of their equipment and at least 50% of their men due to an over-indulgence in ill-advised strategic disasters.

[MengJiao]

This may be social conditioning, or as a result of fighting on the Russian front, or the be tough ethos. Possibly the reason why the Anzacs, Finns, Canadians, fill in other favoured group,were thought tough was because they actually had that higher number of men shooting to kill.

I think being tough may be a bit overrated. I once asked a man who was the intelligence officier (G2?) for an American armored division (the 4th, maybe?)

in France in 1944 how he thought the US beat the Germans. He said, "We had gas and we always knew where they were." So you can be as tough as you want, but if you're out of gas and not sure where the enemy are while the enemy has gas and knows where you are...you may be in trouble.

[Vark]

Perhaps they lost because they were a totalitarian regime, that had tactically learned from the Great war but the lessons had not permeated any higher. Also, if a democratic country can whether the initial violence, meeted out by a totalitarian neighbour, then it's intrinsic superiority will rapidly even the odds. Look at photos of the M4/B-17 production lines going 24 hours a day and you get the picture.

[Secondbrooks]

This may be social conditioning, or as a result of fighting on the Russian front, or the be tough ethos. Possibly the reason why the Anzacs, Finns, Canadians, fill in other favoured group,were thought tough was because they actually had that higher number of men shooting to kill.

I'd say that for Finns it's mostly their terrain where they fought, which was same nature in where Finnish army had trained for last few decades and where Finnish men had lived their lives. Germans or Soviets both fared much worse in Finnish terrain both as military units and as individual soldiers, they didn't get close to Finnish skillz even after several years of operating in that terrain.

I'd say that this is big factor atleast with Finns... And factor which very often seems to be forgotten here.. Bocage was foreign terrain type for US so potentially that would be one thing in which German units and soldiers could be better in quality, but were most German units familiar with bocage?

[dieseltaylor]

Bocage would be less strange to the Germans than the Americans as Germany also has areas of small fields and similar size buildings etc. However I do not buy terrain as the basic point. Terrain can multiply a unit effectiveness but you have to take the initial effectiveness of a platoon first.

What are the fundamental requirements of a platoon. Good training in tactics and weapons, fire disciple etc. Those one imagines go for all troops. The next layer after that is the mental attitude to the job in hand. If you really believe that killing a guy is more important than suppressing them then you are already making a more potent unit.

Looking at the equipement I wonder if the German NG's greater rate of fire provided the suppressive action whilst the riflemen went after the kills. A Bren was certainly not in the same league for suppression. i am theorising here hoping someone has a handy book on small arms tactics compared in the bocage .....

[Secondbrooks]

Bocage would be less strange to the Germans than the Americans as Germany also has areas of small fields and similar size buildings etc. However I do not buy terrain as the basic point. Terrain can multiply a unit effectiveness but you have to take the initial effectiveness of a platoon first.

What are the fundamental requirements of a platoon. Good training in tactics and weapons, fire disciple etc. Those one imagines go for all troops. The next layer after that is the mental attitude to the job in hand. If you really believe that killing a guy is more important than suppressing them then you are already making a more potent unit.

Looking at the equipement I wonder if the German NG's greater rate of fire provided the suppressive action whilst the riflemen went after the kills. A Bren was certainly not in the same league for suppression. i am theorising here hoping someone has a handy book on small arms tactics compared in the bocage .....

Maybe you don't buy it because you don't understand what i mean? It's factor just as anything else. Ability and equipment to function in particular terrain and weather is one key feature of quality and it's directly related to individual and unit effectiveness. I have book written before ww2 discussing also this factor to quite small degree. Let's just say that whole officer training in common European military academies was in many parts wrong if one expected to fight in terrain which Finland had. WW2 showed that writer of that book wasn't wrong.

Finnish units were better in quality than Soviet or Germans when it came to backwood tactics, skills, mentality and so on. When terrain was more typical Northern European, Finnish quality over Germans and Soviets naturally diminished (it were these areas where Finns usually had their arse kicked by Soviets).

There's lots of example how German and Soviet training/equipment simply didn't work in Finland because it was terrain type which required special training which both Germans and Soviets were lacking.

Yeah this goes bit extreme for bocage as both sides were pretty fresh with it, Germans had just few years of experience at most compared to US. But Germans still were mostly trained, organized, equipped for typical Northern European terrain.

[Vark]

Knowledge of terrain is much underated as a force multiplier but is evident from many encounters. In Crete an FJ company was picked off by Cretan farmers, often using flintlock muskets from a previous century, how, they knew the terrain the Germans did not. It would be nice if the original deployment map, for an attacker with poor recon, was only an approximation, only to be gradually detailed as units 'explore' it.

DT, the German doctrine was for the LMG to shoot the 'assault' element onto the objective, or conversely to pin the enemy assault element. The MG-42's big advantage, in close terrain, was that, due to its high ROF, it could engage fleeting targets with devastating firepower. The Bren was a fine weapon but unfortunately too accurate, so dispersion of rounds was minimal, reducing its suppressive effect. Of course, engaging point targets a good gunner was lethal, many could squeeze off three round bursts as accurately as a rifle.

[zukkov]

one thing i haven't seen mentioned in this thread. maybe i missed it. anyway, i was wondering how much training the german defenders did with regards to fighting in the bocage country. did they run manuevers? seems to me if they trained extensively for the terrain they would be fighting in should the allies land there, that's your answer. it's not like they didn't have plenty of time to prepare for that contingency. if not, then they were making it up as they went along just like the allies were.

[Robin]

I recall my grandfather, who served in both wars, mentioning that as far as Canadians went, there were few who would underestimate a German soldier, but the reason for so doing might surprise all of you who are trying to find an empirical/doctrinaire/material basis for evaluation...

The 'better soldier in the field' wasn't one who followed orders nor followed a particular philosophy, but rather was able to improvise quickly and reliably, in all situations. The Germans, by dint perhaps of their training methods and experience (and shortages of equipment) improvised extremely well, in just about all circumstances that he could recall.

A frequent point of sightseeing of German defence works after liberation in Italy and in France, was how they had managed to create something with very little inherently at hand.

This, sad to say, was contrasted sharply with HIS view of US forces. He felt that having so much material means at their disposal, rendered American troops somewhat 'soft'. To the Canadian army, "capturing that hill" meant devising somewhat of a set of stunts/schemes, working together, to capture a hill. From what he told us (long ago)..."taking that hill" to the US army meant 'blow the crap out of it'.

This not offered as proof, merely anecdotal evidence that perhaps the German Army might be considered as somewhat more of a crafty foe in the field for precisely the reason that:

-regardless of the philosophy of their 'nation state' and politics, they found themselves embroiled in a conflict that had them face a variety of enemies with different means and resources, on no less than three fronts simultaneously, and managed to fight for 'parity' for a long time, and this in the face of great air superiority....

I think the thought experiment of "what would happen if all things were equal" is obtuse. Offered herein is the simple question: "what other army of the time would have lasted as long and fostered as much success?"

Quality of workmanship and militarism have long been "characteristics" of the German people. Deny that and you're an idiot, plain and simple. I don't see them as 'supermen'. In fact, the slavish devotion to class and societal hierarchy in Germany in some respects is why WW2 occurred. Nothing superior about that.

Really, I think we'd have done well to poll veterans of ww2, not armchair philosophers and technicians. My .02

[ChrisND]

[quote=Robin;1250486

This, sad to say, was contrasted sharply with HIS view of US forces. He felt that having so much material means at their disposal, rendered American troops somewhat 'soft'. To the Canadian army, "capturing that hill" meant devising somewhat of a set of stunts/schemes, working together, to capture a hill. From what he told us (long ago)..."taking that hill" to the US army meant 'blow the crap out of it'.

Maybe I'm crazy and soft, but I would think that "blow the crap out of it", if the means are available, would be the better solution.

[Sergei]

Maybe I'm crazy and soft, but I would think that "blow the crap out of it", if the means are available, would be the better solution.

Dare I say that you sound a lot like the Allied masterminds who we may thank for the destruction of the abbey of Monte Cassino and its historical treasures? Hint: it wasn't a great tactical success...

[sburke]

Dare I say that you sound a lot like the Allied masterminds who we may thank for the destruction of the abbey of Monte Cassino and its historical treasures? Hint: it wasn't a great tactical success...

However in this case it wasn't the Americans who were the primary driving force for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino#Destruction_of_the_abbey

Yeah probably a fluke. Keyes and Clark probably disagreed just to be disagreeable. :-P

[MikeyD]

He felt that having so much material means at their disposal, rendered American troops somewhat 'soft'.

I've heard that repeated over and over from decades of former adversaries writing their memoires about 'fighting the Americans'. Tied to their logistics chain, their road networds, their technology and their creature comforts. One N. Vietnamese soldier described it like fighting an elephant. They're big, easy to track, easy to avoid, easy to harrass, but if they manage to catch you they'll stomp you flat.