Superiority of German training ....

[FanOfGermanMilitaryMight]

While many theories have been expounded upon this subject, I for one am yet to come upon a satisfactory/comprehensive explanation as to why German training was consistently superior to that of the Allies.

In a sense, if we knew the exact reasons for German soldiers responding with the extraordinary skill and precision with which they did, under high-pressure situations, regardless of whether the men had experience or not, then half the problems the Americans and British face even today could be avoided.

For reasons not yet uncovered, the Germans have mastered the art of preparing their troops for every outcome through training alone, such that they are the most dependable forces to be found. Hard to say how this applies to modern-day conscript German forces.

With everyone else, theory and practice are different. With the Germans, theory is so masterful, that the practice is positively easy.

Suffice it to say that when you drive a Mercedes-Benz, you feel safe, no matter how lacking in driving skills you are. On the other hand, in a hundred years of automotive history, you still don't feel safe in the cars that other countries make.

[Achilles]

While many theories have been expounded upon this subject, I for one am yet to come upon a satisfactory/comprehensive explanation as to why German training was consistently superior to that of the Allies.

In a sense, if we knew the exact reasons for German soldiers responding with the extraordinary skill and precision with which they did, under high-pressure situations, regardless of whether the men had experience or not, then half the problems the Americans and British face even today could be avoided.

For reasons not yet uncovered, the Germans have mastered the art of preparing their troops for every outcome through training alone, such that they are the most dependable forces to be found. Hard to say how this applies to modern-day conscript German forces.

With everyone else, theory and practice are different. With the Germans, theory is so masterful, that the practice is positively easy.

Suffice it to say that when you drive a Mercedes-Benz, you feel safe, no matter how lacking in driving skills you are. On the other hand, in a hundred years of automotive history, you still don't feel safe in the cars that other countries make.

On pain of encouraging your avalanche of posts - I'm not sure what books you have been reading but your synopsis of German training and troop quality is simplistic in the extreme.

German soldiers responding with the extraordinary skill and precision with which they did, under high-pressure situations, regardless of whether the men had experience or not

This is patently not true...experienced troops nearly always give a good account of themselves German or not. And you can find many, many instances where inexperienced German troops did not perform at all well especially in the 1944-45 period.

With everyone else, theory and practice are different. With the Germans, theory is so masterful, that the practice is positively easy.

On could argue all day about this one - what theory are you referring to? Tactical, operational or strategic? At a tactical level the German theory was found wanting during night, urban, winter and forest fighting as well during basic defensive manoeuvres. These deficiencies were evident during the early months of the Russian campaign and it took experience (and casualties) before this was rectified.

Where the Germans did certainly stand out above their counterparts was their junior leadership and command philosophies but if you examine the basic training of the major armies in World War 2 they are remarkably similar. The German soldier was not inherently superior on a one to one basis to his opponents but was, for the most part, better led.

[FanOfGermanMilitaryMight]

Because Rommel too quoted Hindenburg I believe it was when he spoke to British soldiers, after one of their famous defeats. He said 'You have fought like lions, but you were led by donkeys'.

As for the similarity between Allied and German tactics, I would suggest that this is illusory at best. The Wehrmacht had to fight under extremely different conditions than those faced by the Allies. Hitler's obsession with making the situation more and more complicated mean't that though you could point to individual errors on the part of the Germans, these only occurred because of the far from ideal situation that Hitler had created for them, specifically his multi-front war which he consistently interfered with the generals' handling of.

Had Allied tactics been substituted for German tactics during the course of World War 2, Germany would have been defeated much earlier. The entire Blitzkrieg concept and as General Heinz Guderian liked to say, 'ticket to the last station', were way beyond anything the Allies had considered. Compare modern 'advances' in military theory such as America's 'masterful' 'shock and awe' tactics, which failed so miserably in Iraq.

I would say that German theory was far beyond that of the Allies in all departments and one should be careful not to interpret Hitler's interference as representing deficiencies of the Wehrmacht. And yes, experienced troops give a good account of themselves, but only compared to inexperienced troops. We can see this in Iraq, where the guerilla insurgency is running the Americans and Brits ragged. Contrast this with state of guerilla operations in wartime France. The Germans effectively quashed all guerilla tactics to the point that without D-Day the resistance would have amounted to absolutely nothing. The chaos in Iraq is testament to the inherent deficiencies of Allied 'experience'. Still prefer to drive a Mercedes-Benz, especially if Israelis are firing American anti-tank missiles at you .... If they're German anti-tank missiles, then say your prayers ....

[Achilles]

I believe you are getting your tactical, operational and strategic 'theories' mixed up. Talking about Hitler's decisions, individual solder's abilties and small unit tactics in the same breath is extremely confusing.

What has Hitler to do with tactical or even operational theories and practices? Hitler didn't meddle in the small unit training of his army or it's behaviour on the field. The Blitzkreig concept was far ahead of it's time in 1939/40...but it had inherent weaknesses that were all too evident in the Russian campaign. Read any British\American wartime handbook on German tactics and they repeatedly make a point that German attacks and tactics were predictable and could be countered by the right tactics. By 1944-45 the Germans were still trying to use the same tactics as 1940 - without air superiority and against a well drilled enemy it led to heavy losses in armour e.g. the destruction of the Panzer Brigades in Lorraine in 1944.

Your claim the Germans countered guerilla\partisans - well that I'm afraid is total rubbish. What about Yugoslavia?

Finally, the image of all British officers in WW1 being incompetent and lack lustre is a myth. Read some more up to date literature - Paddy Griffiths, Gary Sheffield - and the British Army of 1917-18 was a well trained and well oiled fighting force, certainly the equal of it's German opponents.

[mikerock]

I don't think that calling Blitzkrieg "far ahead of its time" to be very accurate. Tuhkachevskii was developing "Deep Battle" in the USSR during teh 30s, and that strategy was remarkably similar to Blitzkrieg.

[Freiritter]

I have to agree with Achilles' assessment of the German superiority in WWII was based on superior junior leadership and command philosophies. I'd like to add that the Germans drew upon experienced NCOs for new officer candidates for the most part. In fact, from what I gather, J.C. Fuller and Guderian had similar theories, so the Germans didn't have an innate superiority in battlefield theory, simply good leadership to carry them out. As for anti-guerrilla operations, I don't see where the Germans ever crushed a partisan movement. These groups are exceedingly difficult to root out and eliminate. I've read The Guns of August and I find that British generalship in WWI wasn't of a low caliber and I would think that the British generals in WWII were not any worse. True, the Soviets were developing a mobile warfare doctrine using armored/mechanized forces with airborne forces. ( German paratroops were established after the initial Soviet use of airborne forces in maneuvers in the mid 1930s. )

Cordially,

Freiritter

[FanOfGermanMilitaryMight]

Yes you're right, Hitler couldn't meddle with small unit tactics, but I thought we were agreed at least there that the Germans were unquestionably superior in that department, yet again showing what happened when Hitler DIDN'T meddle.

The inherent weaknesses of the Blitzkrieg in Operation Barbarossa were entirely anticipated by the German military command, hence their unwillingness to initiate the fight with Russia so soon. They wantedto address these weaknesses. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for those opposing Hitler, they were not given a choice regarding when to launch their operation.

So yes, the Blitzkrieg looked bad at times, but only because Hitler did his best to give the German army more than was humanly possible to handle. Left to themselves, the Generals would have executed the Blitzkrieg on Russia in tandem with other adjustments that would have rendered them invicible.

As for the American and British claim that the German were predictable. This is, interestingly enough, a testament to the stupidity of the Allies. As long as the Allies refused to get smart, the Germans weren't going to change their tactics, no matter how predictable they were. Even though the Allies considered the Germans predictable, they were so inept in dealing with them, that there never was any reason for the Germans to be unpredictable. I can surely imagine the Germans laughing their heads off at Allied idiocy, throughout World War 2.

As for the later stages of World War 2, these were the worst times for the Wehrmacht in terms of interference from Hitler. And yes, they suffered heavy losses, but only because Hitler had led them to defeat. In victory they would never have suffered much, unlike the Russians, who had to give up 20 million SOLDIERS alone to death, in order to gain victory over Germany with the assistance of Hitler.

Yugoslavia? Let's not forget where Yugoslavia ranked on Hitler's list of priorities. Given that the Russians were willing to have 20 million of their soldiers slaughtered in pursuit of victory, I submit that whatever went on in Yugoslavia was mostly secondary.

If the Germans had won the big war, Tito would have been swatted like a fly. Remember what Hitler said about Switzerland. Namely that he would send in the Berlin Fire Brigade to take over that country. If Hitler didn't care about something, then that tended to be very bad for the people in charge of that something, in this case Yugoslavia. Overall, Yugoslavia didn't contribute much, and even Russia left them alone after the war; such was their insignificance.

[Achilles]

I don't think that calling Blitzkrieg "far ahead of its time" to be very accurate. Tuhkachevskii was developing "Deep Battle" in the USSR during teh 30s, and that strategy was remarkably similar to Blitzkrieg.

Very true...perhaps I should have added 'and put into practice'.

[Achilles]

we were agreed at least there that the Germans were unquestionably superior in that department

Er, no we're not agreed that they were unquestionably superior. It depends on the time frame, the unit, the experience level etc etc

The inherent weaknesses of the Blitzkrieg in Operation Barbarossa were entirely anticipated by the German military command, hence their unwillingness to initiate the fight with Russia so soon. They wantedto address these weaknesses. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for those opposing Hitler, they were not given a choice regarding when to launch their operation.


So yes, the Blitzkrieg looked bad at times, but only because Hitler did his best to give the German army more than was humanly possible to handle. Left to themselves, the Generals would have executed the Blitzkrieg on Russia in tandem with other adjustments that would have rendered them invicible.

The claim that the German General Staff could have won the war if Hitler had not been 'interfering' has been dealt with many times on these boards. At certain points in campaigns Hitler's meddling did hinder the generals but it sometimes worked in their favour - Fall Gelb being a major example. And then there's Hitler's passion for new technology and support for the creation of the panzer force in the 1930s. A large part of the German hierachy in the 1930s were opposed to this...not in favour. Without Hitler I would say the 'Blitzkreig' tactcis would not have come to fruition.

As for the American and British claim that the German were predictable. This is, interestingly enough, a testament to the stupidity of the Allies. As long as the Allies refused to get smart, the Germans weren't going to change their tactics, no matter how predictable they were. Even though the Allies considered the Germans predictable, they were so inept in dealing with them, that there never was any reason for the Germans to be unpredictable. I can surely imagine the Germans laughing their heads off at Allied idiocy, throughout World War 2.

I don;'t think you understand...the Allies adapted their tactics and DID stop most major German attacks after the end of 1942 (witht the odd exception - Kasserine etc). It was the Germans who failed to adapt their tactics and to realise what worked in 1940 no longer worked in 1944-45. Pak fronts, air power, infantry that continued to fight once bypassed and armoured mobile reserves were the antidote to the standard German offensive tactics.

As for the later stages of World War 2, these were the worst times for the Wehrmacht in terms of interference from Hitler. And yes, they suffered heavy losses, but only because Hitler had led them to defeat. In victory they would never have suffered much, unlike the Russians, who had to give up 20 million SOLDIERS alone to death, in order to gain victory over Germany with the assistance of Hitler.

Yugoslavia? Let's not forget where Yugoslavia ranked on Hitler's list of priorities. Given that the Russians were willing to have 20 million of their soldiers slaughtered in pursuit of victory, I submit that whatever went on in Yugoslavia was mostly secondary.

It may well have been secondary in Hitler's mind but obviously not in the army's - September 1943 saw 14 divisons stationed in Yuogslavia. Decmber saw 20 divisions there. The numbers of divisions continued to rise but the partisans still grew stronger until they were capable of taking to the field and fighting conventionally.

[FanOfGermanMilitaryMight]

If Hitler considered Yugoslavia secondary, then it didn't matter how important the German army saw it as. The rise in divisions only demonstrates the fact that Hitler was unwilling to deal with that issue in time, and just as the success of the American war in Iraq is judged by the inordinately high price of oil today/inability to extract much oil from Iraq, so too the insignificance of the Yugoslavians with respect to the effect the Russians had on the Germans, is proof that the Yugoslavian weren't very powerful. Without the Russians and the Allies waging total war on Germany, the Yugoslavians would have been utterly destroyed. They only survived because Germany was pre-occupied with other more important matters, namely Russia.

With regard to Allied tactics, again I would say that due to the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Allies, every mistake Hitler made, had it's effect magnified. Hitler's belief in technology etc? He wanted to remilitarize, yes, but I'm sure the army enjoyed re-militarization too.

Hierarchical opposition to the creation of the panzer divisions? This was merely the time-honoured tradition of people in charge trying to stay in charge. The creation of panzer divisions outside of their control didn't make them too happy, but this wasnt about Hitler helping the military rather than the old guard resisting change. Men like Guderian had developed their philosophies long before the start of World War 2.

[Achilles]

I really shouldn't but here goes:

If Hitler considered Yugoslavia secondary, then it didn't matter how important the German army saw it as. The rise in divisions only demonstrates the fact that Hitler was unwilling to deal with that issue in time, and just as the success of the American war in Iraq is judged by the inordinately high price of oil today/inability to extract much oil from Iraq, so too the insignificance of the Yugoslavians with respect to the effect the Russians had on the Germans, is proof that the Yugoslavian weren't very powerful. Without the Russians and the Allies waging total war on Germany, the Yugoslavians would have been utterly destroyed. They only survived because Germany was pre-occupied with other more important matters, namely Russia.

Please stop bringing Iraq into everything...the fact remains 15 divisions rising to 25 divisions were needed in Yugoslavia. You claimed that the German defeated partisan movements and the US will be unable to. The fact the Germans needed 25 divisions proves your claim is incorrect. Those divisions could well have been used on the Eastern Front\Normandy and would have made a large difference. So to claim that Yugoslavia had no bearing on the war is false.

Hierarchical opposition to the creation of the panzer divisions? This was merely the time-honoured tradition of people in charge trying to stay in charge. The creation of panzer divisions outside of their control didn't make them too happy, but this wasnt about Hitler helping the military rather than the old guard resisting change. Men like Guderian had developed their philosophies long before the start of World War 2.

Guderain et al enjoyed the patronage of Hitler - without it their ideas would not have been accepted by the 'old guard'.

[FanOfGermanMilitaryMight]

25 divisions in Yugoslavia is nothing. After the commando raid on Saint Nazaire, a number of divisions were sent there, and people claimed that Saint Nazaire contributed significantly to the war. Nope, sorry. 20 million dead Russian soldiers contributed significantly to the war, not Marshal Tito and his amateurs. Do you seriously believe that Marshal Tito would have been successful were it not for Allied forces waging war on Germany? Secondly, do you really think that if Yugoslavia did not exist the Allies would have lost? i.e. did Marshal Tito save the Allies? I'm looking at the big picture ....

[FanOfGermanMilitaryMight]

The old guard always gives way to the new guard, they don't live forever ....

[Achilles]

Double Post

[Achilles]

25 divisions in Yugoslavia is nothing. After the commando raid on Saint Nazaire, a number of divisions were sent there, and people claimed that Saint Nazaire contributed significantly to the war. Nope, sorry. 20 million dead Russian soldiers contributed significantly to the war, not Marshal Tito and his amateurs. Do you seriously believe that Marshal Tito would have been successful were it not for Allied forces waging war on Germany? Secondly, do you really think that if Yugoslavia did not exist the Allies would have lost? i.e. did Marshal Tito save the Allies? I'm looking at the big picture ....

25 divisions nothing? It's an entire Army Group. Think of invading Russia without Army Group North. Saint Nazaire? That was a raid. No divisions were rushed there. Same goes for Dieppe. Both were countered with forces on hand.

Tito would have been defeated without the Allies? Well of course he would but is a what if. Germany would not have been able to fight in Russia if it didn't have Rumanian,Hungarian, Italian, Finnish allies. Another what if and competely irrelevant.

Others will step forward you think? I don't think so. Everyone is ignoring your spam posting. Try posting in the relevant forums.