Jump to content

So are German forces "better" on average?


Recommended Posts

In WWI, the British and Canadians took that regionalization down to the battalion and company level (most notably in the Kitchener "Pals" battalions), for similar reasons. Result: entire towns and villages bereft of their young men in a single afternoon.

By WWII, the regimental formations certainly kept their regional orientation (which would extend to the peacetime cadres mostly living in and around the garrison), but the levies would be drawn from all over the region. Am I remembering correctly?

I can't talk about the Canadians but with with British Infantry and Cavalry Regiments, if you switch Region for County, you have it about spot on.

The British County Regiment system was and, even today, still is a vital part of unit cohesion and fighting strength. The squaddy first of all fights for his mates (his section) but he will be very conscius of his regiment's identity, history and traditions. It is the Regiment that was there before him and will be there after he is gone, it is the thing that is bigger and longer lasting than him but which he is part of and contrbutes to. It all sounds a bit mystic, perhaps, but it works.

The local identity of Regiments holds true in peace time but it certainly got a bit stretched in WWII. For example, my father, son of a professional soldier, was born and brought up in the City of London - so he joined the Royal Fusiliers (the old 7th of foot, the City of London Regiment) in 1939. His brother was called up a few months later and was sent to the Green Howards - a Yorkshire Regiment. So it was never as clean cut and straightforward as it might seem (nothing in the British army ever is) and after about August 1944, when the manpower shortage really began to bite, the system seems to have completely broken down and remained broken until the war ended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Another factor:

All german soldiers took part in basic infantry training, and if i remember correctly this was not usuall these days. A tank driver had the same basic training then a infantry NCO, were in other armies this was not the case and they only had tank driver training.

Is this correct ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, and I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

The major problem with the popular-history is that the hardest battles, often involving fanatical SS formations or other elite troops as German FSJ, Airborne, Rangers and whatnot has been covered a lot more in press, publications, movies and whatnot. Thereby setting the standard.

Much of the explanations for the allied defeat in the early 40's was, at the time, revolving more around superior German equipment and tactics and less about poor performance, bad luck and incompetence in the allied forces (giving birth to the Blitzkrieg term invented by contemporary British and French "experts"). Couple this with the numerical differences between the forces on the eastern front and the myth is born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is, did anyone say the opposite ?

Well, my original question was: if you playtested CMBN with US and German forces in a specific tactical situation like a combined arms meeting engagement where the odds were about even and then swapped in Allied forces for German, and vice versa, would you expect the Germans to perform about the same or slightly better on average? Or a lot better because, you know, Nazis are badass....

And what would be likely reasons for the disparity, in a general way? -- the specific answers (e.g. "better machine guns" or "more riflemen per squad") will be strictly situation dependent of course.

We'll know more once we get our mitts on the actual game and I look forward to testing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The major problem with the popular-history is that the hardest battles, often involving fanatical SS formations or other elite troops as German FSJ, Airborne, Rangers and whatnot has been covered a lot more in press, publications, movies and whatnot. Thereby setting the standard.

Much of the explanations for the allied defeat in the early 40's was, at the time, revolving more around superior German equipment and tactics and less about poor performance, bad luck and incompetence in the allied forces (giving birth to the Blitzkrieg term invented by contemporary British and French "experts"). Couple this with the numerical differences between the forces on the eastern front and the myth is born.

Fair points. Of course in the May 1940 campaign you also have to factor in the complete uselessness of the Frogs and the willingness of Lord Gort (the Brit Commander) to re-fight 1914-1918 rather than the war he was in. None the less your last sentence says it, "and the myth is born".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of the explanations for the allied defeat in the early 40's was, at the time, revolving more around superior German equipment and tactics and less about poor performance, bad luck and incompetence in the allied forces (giving birth to the Blitzkrieg term invented by contemporary British and French "experts"). Couple this with the numerical differences between the forces on the eastern front and the myth is born.

As I have said before, one of the reasons the Germans look so good in the early war days is that they were either fighting second rate powers like Poland, Norway, or Yugoslavia or against major powers such as France, Britain, and the early USSR who had not yet had time to pull their acts together. Once they began to come up against serious opposition, as they did late in 1942, they began to lose their luster.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair points. Of course in the May 1940 campaign you also have to factor in the complete uselessness of the Frogs and the willingness of Lord Gort (the Brit Commander) to re-fight 1914-1918 rather than the war he was in. None the less your last sentence says it, "and the myth is born".

Don't be too hard on the French. Their fatal weaknesses lay in the command structure, not so much in the army per se. The poilus were comparably well equipped to the Germans and British, and not lacking in fighting spirit at least until the shock of the German breakthroughs set in (not inexcusably: remember, the best fighting forces of the French army were cut off and largely destroyed in Belgium within two weeks. The Brits were in quite a funk after Dunkirk. Similar reverses at Stalingrad shocked the Germans into near paralysis too for about a week, although Manstein and others kept their heads).

The fatal weakness of the French command structure was neither defeatism, corruption nor incompetence, but inflexibility; they overthought and overplanned everything with the utmost rigour, but were then at a near total loss to adapt when their plans did not survive contact with the enemy. The French pedagogical method is very similar: you don't set pen to paper until you have outlined and composed your thesis in full -- editing on the typewriter is an Anglo-Saxon vice.

The Maginot Line was indeed a marvel of military technology, and achieved its main objective -- to deny the Germans an opportunity to break into Alsace-Lorraine and force them to attack through Belgium again, which was thought to be favourable country for defense (and would also allow the expected multi-year slugout to take place mainly off French soil).

Which is why the deployment plans called for the bulk of the French armies to be railed quickly to the Meuse. The British signed off on that strategy, which indeed made sense in light of the understanding of the time. But it also allowed the Germans to defeat the Allied armies irremediably within 2 weeks before they even broke into Metropolitan France.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be too hard on the French.

Tricky, considering I am English and, not only that, I have recently finished reading the marvellous book, "!000 Years of Annoying the French" (only about six quid on amazon, an absolute hoot and it puts the realtionship between the two countries nicely into context).

Anyway, you are riight and my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote that comment about the uselessness of the Frogs. They did as well as could be expected, of them, in the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not in the beginning, and that's when they got totally crushed. Well, except for the paratroopers at Bastogne that held out. But they were elite troops that could match the Germans.

The allies then turned the battle around when the weather cleared, allowing massive air attacks against the Germans, and massive reinforcements (Pattons army). Also, the Germans started running out of fuel and other supplies.

I would hesitate to describe the rout of overextended, green divisions and a cavalry screen as a notable feat of arms.

You do realize that the regular American divisions on the flanks held their ground, grinding ineffectual German attacks to pieces, wrecking the opposing forces, and reducing the German advance to a pale mockery of the plan? largely because of the efforts of line infantry, artillery, TDs, and engineers?

And you are aware that the defense of Bastonge started with regular old armored troops? Not just those elite paras?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Simple answer: Yes.

Long answer: Maybe

(Because in the scope of Battalion level the German troops are favored).

Let me explain my reasoning.

The allied mean force did not have the operational level experience nor the amount of training (on average) that a mean German unit had at that time. The allied forces had a massive quantitative and technical superiority (bar some rare weapon-types such as the STG44 or Panzer V and VI) in almost every other area which a "fair odds" CMBN battle does not portray.

Most of the allied divisions were built with serious integrated support which meant that frontline battalions could have some serious firepower normally not assigned to the battalions themselves.

The German units had a lot more of the supportive elements already attached on a platoon level which I suspect is reflected in the QB purchase screen.

I have no idea how the points are weighted in CMBN purchase screen. But if a German and a US battalion are of equal cost I'd be surprised. For the same amount of points the allied player should be able to buy extra support elements such as arty, armor and airsupport while the German player might get some extra experience.

If Normandy would have even approached a "even odds" campaign the allies would not have gone through with it in the first place. They made sure that the odds were stacked against the Germans before committing (which was the sensible thing to do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you were trying to design a scenario as "realistic" as possible and wanted to select a "typical" infantry forces (lets forget panzers for the moment), your general sense is that the Germans should be Veterans and the GIs (non-Airborne) should be Regulars? And if that made things unbalanced, one could make the German infantry 20% understrength.

I'd personally make the German 81mm mortar support dirt cheap too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents worth...

The Americans had the overall tactical edge for all of the Western European theater. Sure, in some ways they were short on the technical side, but I'd take 300 mediocre tanks in working order over 100 that range from mediocre to great. Bad AT Guns for the Americans? Who cares since they were on the attack most of the time and had TONS of AFVs to plug gaps. MG34/42 were superior in the light role, decently better in heavy. But the firepower from a US Rifle Squad dwarfs a German's Rifle Squad (PzGrens do a bit better since they have 2x LMGs).

Anyway, in reading about battles it seems the bigger factors were experience, terrain, and leadership. When the Germans had an edge over the Americans in 2 out of 3, the Americans generally fared worse. Since the Germans were on the defensive they often had terrain in their favor, so they simply needed to have a force that had better experience and/or leadership than the Americans they were doing battle with. As the war went on this became harder and harder for the Germans to pull off. Especially as higher up leadership on the German side became increasingly inflexible due to unreasonable expectations and the preverbal "do it or you get the firing squad" mentality.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you were trying to design a scenario as "realistic" as possible and wanted to select a "typical" infantry forces (lets forget panzers for the moment), your general sense is that the Germans should be Veterans and the GIs (non-Airborne) should be Regulars? And if that made things unbalanced, one could make the German infantry 20% understrength.

I'd personally make the German 81mm mortar support dirt cheap too.

edit: Steve sums it up pretty good.

In theory both a German and an American battalion had integrated mortars. German battalions should additionally have integrated 12cm mortars (although most were issued 8cms since there was a lack of 12cms on the western front).

Regarding experience my opinion is just that, an opinion and not a fact:

Green-Regular would be appropriate for US forces as the majority had little or no combat experience (although some formations could be considered veterans from N.Africa and Italy). German formations in Normandie would go from green-veteran or better (young conscripts and very seasoned ost-front fighters served).

Overall morale was pretty good in both forces but varied enormously from division to division (where some were almost fanatical while others were prone to surrender). It also depends a lot on the timeframe.

The same could be said about fitness both sides had units which at times were totally exhausted as well as fully rested and supplied ones.

Now I don't think a scenario with a fully staffed and manned German battalion would be completely realistic as a lot of the forces were battlegroups formed from scraps and pieces available from the sometimes badly mauled divisions sent on "vacation" from the east (which then endured air attacks, resistance ambushes and the odd paratrooper contingent on their way to the frontlines).

The US side on the other hand could land almost fully manned, equipped and supplied divisions from D-Day+1 which would make a scenario with a full US battalion pretty realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point not yet brought up -- especially after July 20 it was even more hazardous to your health to question orders or betray any form of defeatism, including failure.

So for mid-1944 German "motivators" of desperation and delusion we may add fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point not yet brought up -- especially after July 20 it was even more hazardous to your health to question orders or betray any form of defeatism, including failure.

So for mid-1944 German "motivators" of desperation and delusion we may add fear.

In 1941 officers in the Heer could talk openly about getting rid of Hitler without fear. In late July 1944 not so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've decided to take this issue, which has been alluded to many times, right up front.

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?

Put in CMBN terms, if you replayed Bois de Baugin or a simpler test scenario that alternately placed equivalent (I didn't say equal) US and German forces in each others' positions, would you achieve broadly similar results on average?

BFC has said repeatedly they don't model national characteristics (e.g. the "coolness under fire" or "quicker to break / quicker to rally" stuff of ASL notoriety).

But let me make a provocative prediction: I think CMBN German regular forces will prove to hold a slight but noticeable edge in June-Sept 1944, ceteris paribus, and that is consistent with the historical reality of the time. I believe the exact reasons why will be situation-specific, but consistent. I look forward to testing this hypothesis in the game.

Oh, and I have no way of proving or disproving the historical reality decisively, and neither does anyone else. We can quote examples back and forth ad infinitum of course.

A loaded question if ever I saw one, hope nobody in this room is drinking or this could get ugly.

To be honest, the variables are too great for any real answer to come from this but it sure is fun to contemplate and see how folks develop an opinion. Interesting to see the hard factor data (unit firepower etc) vs soft factors (unit integrity and experience) being juxtaposed. Not sure if anyone can come up with a situation of "regular units" to support or disprove your theory, but curious to see.

Just to throw out a different example - take a look at the US assault on Carentan. Airborne troopers on both sides, Germans defending. The Germans were elite with combat experience, the Americans highly trained and motivated but new to combat. The US prevailed. Granted the 6th FJR fought very hard and had resupply issues, but there will always be mitigating factors for either side. Very high potential for a campaign game there especially with the addition of the 17th SS and 2nd Armored Divisions.

June/July 1944 is a difficult period to be able to equate the two forces. Allied forces were generally new formations with a scattering of experienced units. By the time that you could really consider the US Army a seasoned force, the Allies had broken the back of the Wehrmacht and you then find the opposite, poorly trained German units hastily committed to battle. For example the Axis Lorraine offensives against veteran US and French units resulting in the German debacles at Arracourt and Dompaire.

I know this is outside the scope of your original question but as the topic of the Ardennes has already come up.. I have an Uncle who served with the 99th ID. A green division placed on the line directly in the path of of the Northern German pincer fought with distinction alongside the 2nd ID. The battle of the Twin Villages kind of put to rest the myth of SS superiority for anyone still believing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not in the beginning, and that's when they got totally crushed. Well, except for the paratroopers at Bastogne that held out. But they were elite troops that could match the Germans.

The allies then turned the battle around when the weather cleared, allowing massive air attacks against the Germans, and massive reinforcements (Pattons army). Also, the Germans started running out of fuel and other supplies.

It sounds like you need to go back and spend a bit more time studying the fighting in the Ardennes. The reality was that for several days many small US units stood, fought and if necessary died totally disrupting the German schedule and allowing the US army to take advantage of it's superior mobility. During this period these men had no air support and artillery was not something that could be relied on as in many cases it was having to displace.

Suggest you read a detailed account of the Battle of St Vith. It doesn't get the recognition that Bastogne does but was of at least equal importance. Also try reading detailed accounts of the battles along Skyline drive.

To say that "they got totally crushed" is a disservice to the sacrifice of these brave men It also ignores the cost to the German units to overcome their positions and the impact they had on the overall battle..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sburke: "Hey, you! That's right, you stupid Kraut bastards! That's right. Say hello to Ford, and General F**kin' Motors! You stupid fascist pigs. Look at you! You have horses! What were you thinking?" -Pfc Webster in Band of Brothers"

Says it all, really. The German's in Normandy had the best defensive positions outside of Italy. How long did they hold? Well Really never. They continually lost ground... yes, certainly yard by yard for well over a month. And what did they get for it? Shattered Infantry divisions. American Artillery was always available and soon German big guns were dead or dry. Allied air superiority was absolute and the weather favored their use. German talent for leadership, Veteran NCO's and troops motivated by allied bombing back home cannot be dismissed. Neither can the rapidly developing war fighting ability of GI Joe. Every time he looked around he saw masses of material support and new units being fed into the lines. Every time he looked up he could smile at air flotillas heading into Germany while fighter bombers nearby sought out their prey. He never doubted the outcome. Logistics... the true arbitrator of victory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents worth...

The Americans had the overall tactical edge for all of the Western European theater. Sure, in some ways they were short on the technical side, but I'd take 300 mediocre tanks in working order over 100 that range from mediocre to great. Bad AT Guns for the Americans? Who cares since they were on the attack most of the time and had TONS of AFVs to plug gaps. MG34/42 were superior in the light role, decently better in heavy. But the firepower from a US Rifle Squad dwarfs a German's Rifle Squad (PzGrens do a bit better since they have 2x LMGs).

Anyway, in reading about battles it seems the bigger factors were experience, terrain, and leadership. When the Germans had an edge over the Americans in 2 out of 3, the Americans generally fared worse. Since the Germans were on the defensive they often had terrain in their favor, so they simply needed to have a force that had better experience and/or leadership than the Americans they were doing battle with. As the war went on this became harder and harder for the Germans to pull off. Especially as higher up leadership on the German side became increasingly inflexible due to unreasonable expectations and the preverbal "do it or you get the firing squad" mentality.

Steve

You know it really makes you wonder whether a more focused research program in Germany would have produced a few more practical, high reliability weapons in quantity for the Heer. It is fun to speculate for instance, if the G43 semi-auto rifle (or alternative) had seen intensive development and overtaken the old warhorse Mauser bolt-action say in 1941 or 42, what kind of firepower would the typical German squad or platoon have at its disposal then? Quite a lot I would surmise from the lessons of the Garand on the US. Anyway, it has been a fun discussion guys.

Hey, we are down to a month now, right? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling the Western allies didn't do better because their top leadership just wasn't very good. As far as comparing the allied forces to German, it's kind of apples and oranges, they had different advantages and disadvantages, the fight was just too uneven to be able to compare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is fun to speculate for instance, if the G43 semi-auto rifle (or alternative) had seen intensive development and overtaken the old warhorse Mauser bolt-action say in 1941 or 42, what kind of firepower would the typical German squad or platoon have at its disposal then? Quite a lot I would surmise from the lessons of the Garand on the US.

Perhaps. I don't see—and I trust you didn't mean to say—that an increase of firepower at the squad level would have been in and of itself decisive in changing the course of the war. There were just so many ways in which Germany was out-produced by the Allies that if it doesn't win the war in the first two years pretty much all hope is lost for them. In ways that we haven't even begun to touch on, going to war was a HUGE gamble for Germany.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the feeling the Western allies didn't do better because their top leadership just wasn't very good.

Exactly right. The Allies didn't do better because their top leadership was very good, they did better because their top leadership was freaking outstanding. Roosevelt and Marshall, and Churchill and Brooke, along with the Combined Chiefs of Staff, made an outstanding contribution to the Allied war effort. Far, far more effective than anything the Axis powers were able to come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...