So are German forces "better" on average?

[Vark]

I think, as many historians have noted, that the Germans who had fought on the Eastern Front were all too aware of the whirlwind they were about to reap. This desperation to avoid the consequences of their brutal policy, toward the Russians, led to ideas about a Western alliance against Bolshevism. As for the Americans, the Germans made the fundamental mistake of under estimating their ability on the battlefield, more fool them.

So Blackcat, to update a the famous quote from Cicero "the sinews of war are infinite industrial capacity".

[Michael Emrys]

I mostly look this thru Finnish colored classes so i must admit that in some other nations things can be different, mainly in US which was totally different nation than some pesky undeveloped little swamp-land in Northern Europe in which most people still lived from farming and woodcutting.

Not quite true. I think that up until the early decades of the 20th. century, the majority of Americans lived on forms or in small rural communities and spent much of their lives outdoors. Also, the country had just gone through the Great Depression, during which a huge number of industrial jobs simply disappeared, and the only way some of those men could feed themselves and their families was to do farm work. So at the beginning of the war, the US was still a largely agrarian society and a lot of the young men who enlisted or were drafted came from small towns or off farms where hunting for game was a normal part of life. Furthermore, many men were employed in the logging and similar industries and of necessity were familiar with woodscraft.

Michael

[Guest]

I read a book about the 45th Infantry Division a few weeks ago. It was based on interviews so as a general source I'd look elsewhere, but the author managed to snag a fairly large number of veterans and the anecdotes (as separate from the historical rehashing) made for interesting reading.

Several of the interviewed pre-Anzio division members, though, made mention of the usefulness of their rural upbringing. A couple went so far as to mention that the addition of urban men to their ranks later in the war, while welcome, seemed to lower the standard of field craft and marksmanship in the division. They didn't mind much, especially at Anzio where warm bodies pulling triggers were at a premium, but the effect was apparently notable.

[JonS]

"the question is if you can win a large scale industrial war if you are not superior in material and manpower..."

Vietnam? Korea?

Well how many large scale industrial wars have there been?

Do both sides have to be large and industrial for it to count?

[RogCBrand]

When my dad was going to school in the 50's/60's, he, long with many of the students and teachers would have guns in their cars/trucks, so they could head out to hunt right after school. They all had the skills that would come in handy in the field during war, which I'm sure most urban guys had a hard time learning- sure you could teach a lot of that, but not all of them are going to be able to learn in a short time, and there's also a matter of learning something, but taking much longer to become skilled.

Of course, there are exceptions- look at Teddy Roosevelt, a wealthy man, raised in an urban environment, who headed out to the wilderness and seemed to take to it quickly- but I'm sure a lot of New York boys found it very tough transitioning to living in the field!

[YankeeDog]

When my dad was going to school in the 50's/60's, he, long with many of the students and teachers would have guns in their cars/trucks, so they could head out to hunt right after school. They all had the skills that would come in handy in the field during war, which I'm sure most urban guys had a hard time learning- sure you could teach a lot of that, but not all of them are going to be able to learn in a short time, and there's also a matter of learning something, but taking much longer to become skilled.

Of course, there are exceptions- look at Teddy Roosevelt, a wealthy man, raised in an urban environment, who headed out to the wilderness and seemed to take to it quickly- but I'm sure a lot of New York boys found it very tough transitioning to living in the field!

Interestingly, a high proportion of the straight-leg, front line, rifle-toting enlisted grunts in the U.S. Army in WWII were from an urban background; significantly higher than the percentage of draftees as a whole that were from urban areas. I don't have the stats immediately handy, but as I recall the statistical difference is pretty stark. You were much more likely to end up as a rifleman in a front line unit if you grew up in New York City or Philadelphia or Chicago than you were if you grew up in rural Kentucky or Nebraska. IIRC, something like 10% (or, on average, one GI per squad) was from the New York City Urban area alone. The proportion of urbanites in other formations, like Armored, or the Air Corps, is much lower.

Why? Well, if you grew up in rural America in the early 20th century, you were much more likely to have experience working with internal combustion engines, and especially agricultural trucks and tractors, which had large engines.

In contrast, Urban Americans in the early 20th century were much less likely to have extensive experience with ICEs. Pre-war, car ownership was uncommon amongst the urban lower classes.

The Army considered experience with I.C.Es a valuable commodity, so they were shunted into areas where they could use these skills, like Armored formations, and also to a lesser extent into the Air Corps.

As far as I know, there was no testing of draftees at induction for marksmanship. If you happened to be the best shot in your unit, you might be handed a scoped rifle and become the platoon's Designated Marksman, but that was about it for most of the war.

This is not to say that there weren't some "Good 'ol Boy" backwoods sure-shots in the U.S. infantry. There were. But if you walked into the enlistment office with good rifle skills and a working knowledge of trucks and tractors, you were much more likely to end up driving a tank or maintaining aircraft engines than you were firing a rifle. This gives you a pretty good idea of what draftee skills the U.S. Army placed the highest value upon.

Cheers,

YD

[RogCBrand]

Interestingly, a high proportion of the straight-leg, front line, rifle-toting enlisted grunts in the U.S. Army in WWII were from an urban background; significantly higher than the percentage of draftees as a whole that were from urban areas. I don't have the stats immediately handy, but as I recall the statistical difference is pretty stark. You were much more likely to end up as a rifleman in a front line unit if you grew up in New York City or Philadelphia or Chicago than you were if you grew up in rural Kentucky or Nebraska. IIRC, something like 10% (or, on average, one GI per squad) was from the New York City Urban area alone. The proportion of urbanites in other formations, like Armored, or the Air Corps, is much lower.

Why? Well, if you grew up in rural America in the early 20th century, you were much more likely to have experience working with internal combustion engines, and especially agricultural trucks and tractors, which had large engines.

In contrast, Urban Americans in the early 20th century were much less likely to have extensive experience with ICEs. Pre-war, car ownership was uncommon amongst the urban lower classes.

The Army considered experience with I.C.Es a valuable commodity, so they were shunted into areas where they could use these skills, like Armored formations, and also to a lesser extent into the Air Corps.

As far as I know, there was no testing of draftees at induction for marksmanship. If you happened to be the best shot in your unit, you might be handed a scoped rifle and become the platoon's Designated Marksman, but that was about it for most of the war.

This is not to say that there weren't some "Good 'ol Boy" backwoods sure-shots in the U.S. infantry. There were. But if you walked into the enlistment office with good rifle skills and a working knowledge of trucks and tractors, you were much more likely to end up driving a tank or maintaining aircraft engines than you were firing a rifle. This gives you a pretty good idea of what draftee skills the U.S. Army placed the highest value upon.

Cheers,

YD

YD, yeah, you make great points about the mechanical abilities of rural guys, and I remember reading a lot about how that really helped in America's being one of the most mechanized of the nations.

I don't think marksmanship was such a big concern- even among rural hunters, you weren't likely to find many Sergeant Yorks, who could turn their shooting skills into an exponential force multiplier! But I do think that those used to working outside, and hunting/camping, where they'd actually spend time in the cold, the rain, waiting patiently to get a kill, and knowing how to move quietly, etc., went far beyond marksmanship, to making a good soldier.

I'd have to think all those skills- and far more important, the comfort they had with dealing with those things, would make rural guys easier to adapt to dealing with battle, though of course, deer aren't shooting back at you, so adapting to the combat portion wasn't natural and all those other skills don't necessarily mean you'll become a good soldier, while some urban guys could be extremely brave and adapting to combat conditions would be more important than easily adapting to life in the field.

I think it's easier for today's urban guys to adapt, as even when out in the field, in most cases they are rather well equipped and have some modern conveniences that would blow the minds of WW2 soldiers!

[MikeyD]

About assigning farmboys to the motor pool, don't forget the old saying "Amateurs talk tactics while professionals talk logistics." Belton Cooper ('Death Traps' author) may or may not have had the makings of a great tanker but he was apparently an A-1 tank mechanic, which in the long run might be considerably more valuable.

[Praetori]

YD, yeah, you make great points about the mechanical abilities of rural guys, and I remember reading a lot about how that really helped in America's being one of the most mechanized of the nations.

I don't think marksmanship was such a big concern- even among rural hunters, you weren't likely to find many Sergeant Yorks, who could turn their shooting skills into an exponential force multiplier! But I do think that those used to working outside, and hunting/camping, where they'd actually spend time in the cold, the rain, waiting patiently to get a kill, and knowing how to move quietly, etc., went far beyond marksmanship, to making a good soldier.

I'd have to think all those skills- and far more important, the comfort they had with dealing with those things, would make rural guys easier to adapt to dealing with battle, though of course, deer aren't shooting back at you, so adapting to the combat portion wasn't natural and all those other skills don't necessarily mean you'll become a good soldier, while some urban guys could be extremely brave and adapting to combat conditions would be more important than easily adapting to life in the field.

I think it's easier for today's urban guys to adapt, as even when out in the field, in most cases they are rather well equipped and have some modern conveniences that would blow the minds of WW2 soldiers!

If I remember correctly it's also been said (by several sources, on top of my head I can think of Anthony Beevor right now though) that the countryside soldiers from less developed areas of the Soviet union were prone to panic when faced with the horrors of war, especially when faced with the high technology of that age like tanks, aircraft and artillery. That at least enough of them (to be noted) simply didn't care about the war in general, who fought for what or why, which resulted in desertions or surrenders.

Now if this would have held true for other nations as well is open for debate. One could argue that the Soviet union during the 30's was a bit more backwards than the US, especially if we compare states like Utah or Colorado to Georgia, Uzbekistan and eastern Siberia.

[RogCBrand]

If I remember correctly it's also been said (by several sources, on top of my head I can think of Anthony Beevor right now though) that the countryside soldiers from less developed areas of the Soviet union were prone to panic when faced with the horrors of war, especially when faced with the high technology of that age like tanks, aircraft and artillery. That at least enough of them (to be noted) simply didn't care about the war in general, who fought for what or why, which resulted in desertions or surrenders.

Now if this would have held true for other nations as well is open for debate. One could argue that the Soviet union during the 30's was a bit more backwards than the US, especially if we compare states like Utah or Colorado to Georgia, Uzbekistan and eastern Siberia.

Definitely! I'd imagine many millions of Russians were living in conditions not much different than in Czarist times! New landlord, same peasants! For many of them, it wouldn't have been much different than bringing someone from the 1800s into a modern war! And while they were the ones that needed the most training, the Soviets often relied on the idea that those that managed to survive would learn though managing to survive!

[RogCBrand]

About assigning farmboys to the motor pool, don't forget the old saying "Amateurs talk tactics while professionals talk logistics." Belton Cooper ('Death Traps' author) may or may not have had the makings of a great tanker but he was apparently an A-1 tank mechanic, which in the long run might be considerably more valuable.

Exactly! A King Tiger was an awe inspiring beast! But when it was broken down on the side of the road or out of fuel, it wasn't much good!

[JasonC]

I think you are all making it up. And that actual training and previous combat experience, not demographic anything, mattered, if anything did.

And it is quite likely none of it did matter very much. The average rifleman, let it not be forgotten, never shot anybody. A man facing an entire enemy army with nothing but a rifle was a pipsqueak with a pea shooter. A few snipers with scopes and special doctrines on their use were effective, though on a tiny scale. But three quarters of losses were inflicted by artillery and mortars, and machineguns accounted for most of the remainder. Individual riflemen were mostly just targets.

Not what the recruiting posters say, no doubt, but the reality of war in that era. Which was large scale industrial murder by a gigantic machinery of destruction, not a medieval joust between individual knights errant.

[RogCBrand]

I think you are all making it up. And that actual training and previous combat experience, not demographic anything, mattered, if anything did.

And it is quite likely none of it did matter very much. The average rifleman, let it not be forgotten, never shot anybody. A man facing an entire enemy army with nothing but a rifle was a pipsqueak with a pea shooter. A few snipers with scopes and special doctrines on their use were effective, though on a tiny scale. But three quarters of losses were inflicted by artillery and mortars, and machineguns accounted for most of the remainder. Individual riflemen were mostly just targets.

Not what the recruiting posters say, no doubt, but the reality of war in that era. Which was large scale industrial murder by a gigantic machinery of destruction, not a medieval joust between individual knights errant.

But you have to take into consideration the losses from environmental factors- frostbite, trench foot, etc. Those who were used to spending time outdoors, in harsh conditions, would have been far more likely to know how to properly take care of themselves during the extreme conditions, and just as important as it is for tanks and other mechanized equipment to be kept in running order, it's very important to keep men in running order- a crack shot that's lying in a hospital bed with his frozen foot amputated isn't going to do much good!

[LongLeftFlank]

I think you are all making it up.

Dude, why do you feel a need to start so many of your posts with a gratuitous put-down? Your ideas are perfectly capable of standing on their own merits. Grok some manners already.

[JasonC]

RoGCBrand - training by a professional officer corps is the only thing that even comes close to preparing men for the conditions they actually face in combat. Nothing else does. Imagining that anyone is ready for it because of their civilian background is imagining things. They aren't, nobody is. Nothing is like combat, except combat.

[RogCBrand]

RoGCBrand - training by a professional officer corps is the only thing that even comes close to preparing men for the conditions they actually face in combat. Nothing else does. Imagining that anyone is ready for it because of their civilian background is imagining things. They aren't, nobody is. Nothing is like combat, except combat.

Ah, but that would presume that training can make everyone equal, but that is not the case. After training, some soldiers are far better prepared than others.

I would, however, love to be able to see some figures on rural vs urban soldiers of each country, like in the cases of frost bite on the Eastern Front or Battle of the Bulge, or regarding marksmanship scores, or mechanical aptitude. I doubt there is anything like that out there, but I truly believe there is some effect- it may just be so marginal that it really doesn't make enough of a difference- and even if it had a more substantial role, I do believe that training would still be a far larger factor- but that it could still make some difference in the soldiers that are produced.

[Michael Emrys]

...the countryside soldiers from less developed areas of the Soviet union were prone to panic when faced with the horrors of war, especially when faced with the high technology of that age like tanks, aircraft and artillery. That at least enough of them (to be noted) simply didn't care about the war in general, who fought for what or why, which resulted in desertions or surrenders.

Now if this would have held true for other nations as well is open for debate.

It seems to have been true of Italy as well, at least according to one source I read. Apparently those raised in the south of the country had been educated to lower standards and consequently got shunted into the infantry. The technical branches like artillery and armor were populated mostly by northerners who had received more advanced schooling. One consequence was that while the artillery and armor often fought bravely and well, the infantry surrendered in droves.

No doubt the full explanation is more complex than that thumbnail description provides. I expect for one thing, the men in the technical branches had a better sense that there was something worth fighting for, whereas the grunts had no prospects that their fortunes were likely to be improved even by victory. All they wanted was to survive and get back to their homes and families, and the surest way to do that was to throw down their weapons and raise their hands.

Michael

[RogCBrand]

It seems to have been true of Italy as well, at least according to one source I read. Apparently those raised in the south of the country had been educated to lower standards and consequently got shunted into the infantry. The technical branches like artillery and armor were populated mostly by northerners who had received more advanced schooling. One consequence was that while the artillery and armor often fought bravely and well, the infantry surrendered in droves.

No doubt the full explanation is more complex than that thumbnail description provides. I expect for one thing, the men in the technical branches had a better sense that there was something worth fighting for, whereas the grunts had no prospects that their fortunes were likely to be improved even by victory. All they wanted was to survive and get back to their homes and families, and the surest way to do that was to throw down their weapons and raise their hands.

Michael

Not to mention, from all I've read, the common Italian infantryman shared the regular Soviet infantryman's fate of being led by officers who didn't really care much about their well being! In other armies, the private soldiers might not have always loved their officers, but their conditions were much better!

[LongLeftFlank]

Not to mention an abysmal logistics train and medevac. Not motivating either.

[Magpie_Oz]

I think you are all making it up. And that actual training and previous combat experience, not demographic anything, mattered, if anything did.

And it is quite likely none of it did matter very much. The average rifleman, let it not be forgotten, never shot anybody. A man facing an entire enemy army with nothing but a rifle was a pipsqueak with a pea shooter. A few snipers with scopes and special doctrines on their use were effective, though on a tiny scale. But three quarters of losses were inflicted by artillery and mortars, and machineguns accounted for most of the remainder. Individual riflemen were mostly just targets.

Not what the recruiting posters say, no doubt, but the reality of war in that era. Which was large scale industrial murder by a gigantic machinery of destruction, not a medieval joust between individual knights errant.

Hear hear, the debate of city v country is just rubbish and relies on achretypes and prejudices.

Are you suggesting that people in the country live in tents or under trees, eat out of tins, carry their home on their back and have people shooting at them?

In my experience, granted much later than WW2, people with prior experience with firearms were in a lot of cases a detriment as there is a whole bag of bad habits they have to unlearn.

I utterly reject that notion that the US forces had only brief training. Most of the initial US forces that landed in Normandy had been training for years, not months, for the landings. The 29th for example had been training in England since 1942.

[Peregrine]

The Russians were almost entirely a rural nation until Stalin implemented industrial programs to bridge the gap between them and the west.

So why didn't they do better than the Germans?

As has been said above they weren't trained as well, they were not equipped as well and were not lead well (at the start).

People are people no matter where they are from.

[ASL Veteran]

From "WW1 Source Book" in the section about the German army

"Despite increasing industrialization, most recruits continued to be drawn from rural communities or small towns (before the war only some 6 per cent were from industrial areas) as it was believed that countrymen were physically more suited to military service, more loyal and conservative than city dwellers and less susceptible to exposure to socialist or revolutionary propaganda. When the demands of war forced the enlistment of urban personnel, the traditional and very conservative attitude of the army was diluted, and some believed the unrest and mutinies of 1918 were attributable to these politically suspect city dwellers."

Just tossing it out there

[zukkov]

The Russians were almost entirely a rural nation until Stalin implemented industrial programs to bridge the gap between them and the west.

So why didn't they do better than the Germans?

As has been said above they weren't trained as well, they were not equipped as well and were not lead well (at the start).

People are people no matter where they are from.

yah, but they were given vodka rations! i mean how could free booze not make good soldiers?

[LongLeftFlank]

The Russians were almost entirely a rural nation until Stalin implemented industrial programs to bridge the gap between them and the west.

So why didn't they do better than the Germans?

As has been said above they weren't trained as well, they were not equipped as well and were not lead well (at the start).

So which side eventually raised its flag in the heart of the other's shattered capital again?

However, you do raise a valid point: even as Stalin was systematically starving, shooting and exiling a significant minority of the credentialled people who actually made his country function, and terrorizing the remainder into inaction, on the other hand the Soviet system was training up a gigantic cohort of young technologists and technocrats to replace them. This was the generation whose efforts saved the country and defeated the Germans, both on the battlefield and in the factories.

The one virtue of Communism that allowed it to persist even as long as it did was this fanatical focus on mass vocational and technical education, particularly for youngsters of proletarian and peasant stock. It shows just how powerful a meritocracy can be in unlocking the potential of a group, in spite of the fundamental futility of socialism as an economic and societal model. The Russians had long recognized the need to industrialize ASAP and, using German and French models, had already set up a good technical education system that the Communists inherited and expanded.

So as a result, for every Tukhachevsky or Tupolev who was shot or disgraced, there was a middle manager ready to replace him, often making up in energy what he lacked in experience. For example, if you look at the biographies of the famous Russian aircraft bureau chiefs (Mikoyan, Lavochkin, Ilyushin, Yakovlev, Petlyakov, Polikarpov, etc.), you see nearly all rising to prominence in the mid-1930s after being in entry level roles as late as 1930.

I'm not saying that was the only thing that accounts for the Russian miracle in WWII -- be curious to brainstorm some others with you lot -- but it was certainly a significant contributor.

[Magpie_Oz]

"the Russian miracle in WWII"

Check this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

Down the bottom there is a table that says it all.

For example:

Steel production in 1944

Germany 28.5 Million Tonnes, USSR 10.9 Million Tonnes

Tanks and SPG's production 1944 :

Germany 27,300 USSR 28 963

Workers 1944:

Germany 18mill USSR 9mill

Soviet industry was apparently 6 times more productive than the Germans half the work force with a third of the materials produced 6% more