WWII: For those who thought it was nice, but too short...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens

Watchman: If you study the fight for Murmansk then you can come up with a lot of reasons why the Germans were not able to reach it, even if they used troops which were considered by them elite: The Gebirgsjaeger.

---

Eh, I wasn't talking about the wild goose chase towards Murmansk. That was around as stupid and futile as strategies now come. The sheer impossibility of supplying anything like a decent offensive in those trackless Artcic fells (which the Finns didn't even bother to patrol at winter) made the cause a lost one from the start. Must've been a swell job COing that operation, especially given how pleasant and reasonable slave-driver of a boss we all know Hitler to have been.

I was talking about those around what, half a million or so German troops in Finland most of whom were not trading potshots with Soviet patrols in Lappland but getting stuck for years in the endless forests of the northern half of the country that was detailed as their theater of operations. By what I know of it they made by far less progress against the Soviets than the Finns on their own sector more to the south, and mostly got an endless supply of mosquito bites to show for their troubles...
Finnish accounts of their adaptability to the conditions AFAIK aren't the most flattering either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

And there I would have to say yes, as most of their heavy defeats came as a result of poor planning and even backstabbery from higher up, rather than poor performance by the infantrymen themselves.

---

:inquisitive: ...and how many armies are there for whom this could not be cited as an excuse, anyway ? Even ill-trained and reluctant conscripts can perform pretty well in the proper conditions after all...

The American defeat at Kasserine, that was definately the quality of the troops that failed there.

The initial failure of certain units to form a cohesive defence at the beginning of the Ardennes Offenssive (two the American divisions simply bled away into the darkness).

Various Italian defeats (though they were largely also because of their inept officers)...

A whole lot of Japanese island defences, where the troops failed to perform as would be expected.

The German defence of the Rhine when it was crossed. Again the troops themselves were not up to the task.

There are plenty of instances where the infantry itself was not capable enough, there the troops performed rather poorly. Especially the latter, when the Americans sailed across in small boats. Of course it could be argued that the Germans had nothing left at that time, but the point is the capability of the troops, and it was bad.

I don't see where such individual cases could be used to construe a legitimate argument for general low(er) troop quality. Or would you claim the Germans never had similar incidents ?

Plus it could be argued the problem was not so much the soldiers themselves, since it is hardly the fault of the unit if it is stationed at an entirely unsuitable location with insufficient whatevers (training, orders, supplies, motivation, intelligence...) - it's the job of the officers to sort out that sort of thing and not assume the grunts can work miracles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stig

It's hard to call Hitler an elected leader, yes he was choosen by the majority of the people, but would they vote for him if he would have said:
If you vote for me, I will kill all the Jews

No they wouldn't have done that, that came after Hitler was elected.

---

Yet Hitler did get elected even though he did say that. Having the largest force in the country DOES help a lot. Anyway, all he needed was von Hindenburg's approval to become chancellor. The elections do NOT win you an office in Weimar, it just gives you more power: to pass laws or change constitution if you have enough.

Quote:

---

"Totenkopf panzer divisions with Knights crosses and edelweisses".

---

Totenkopf SS were used in concentration camps, not in the frontline.

Quote:

---

Of course they are forgetting that had it not been for Hitler the war would probably have been very different and Germany would most likely not have a large nor a well equipped and trained army to use if they were to participate.

---

Even during the time of Stresemann, there were secret military camps in Russia for aircraft and tanks, where some people like Guderian studied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

I don't see where such individual cases could be used to construe a legitimate argument for general low(er) troop quality. Or would you claim the Germans never had similar incidents ?

Plus it could be argued the problem was not so much the soldiers themselves, since it is hardly the fault of the unit if it is stationed at an entirely unsuitable location with insufficient whatevers (training, orders, supplies, motivation, intelligence...) - it's the job of the officers to sort out that sort of thing and not assume the grunts can work miracles.

---

Did you not notice that there was a German case?

The point was was even if led well enough and had good positions, the troops could not handle the situation. Not that that means they should have in all cases, but sometimes certain troops didn't have the quality of others.

My point was that the Germans, as long as they had their regulars filling the army, were overall the best troops. Better trained, better led and a long tradition of such warfare (don't underestimate the impact that could have on the people). The Germans laid a lot of emphasis on small scale leadership and training. Hence the troops when engaged on equal terms, on a tactical level, were expected to win (this was actually part of the Allied planning a number of times).
Why didn't the Germans win? Numbers and materiel... A good soldier is only worth anything if he makes it to the front, and quite often he didn't later in the war. The reaming guys then had to take up his slack, an suffer a decrease in combatefficiency. A screw without end.

The cases of Kasserine, the Japanese islands and the crossing of the Rhine was not cases of bad planning. Well Kasserine did have such a problem, but that related more to the reaction after the initial defeats. There a superior American force was crushed by a lesser German force in a position they could have held if they had been good enough. In fact a unit further back actually held on to their positions and repelled the Germans. However there was little the American leaders could have done. They could not foresee the attack, and they could hardly have avoided the Germans as Kaserine was a very important pass for both sides. It had to be held by lots of troops. So they had to pit their superior numbers against the Germans in favourable terrain... seems pretty nice.

In the crossings of the Rhine the Gemrans simply didn't have enough good units left. So they used the lesser units in the front and the better ones to plug the gaps when they happened. In this case however, the lesser units failed to hold their positions under favourable conditions. At one point the Americans sailed across under their noses, suffering very few losses. What could the German leadership have done there? Not much really. Of course in losses there are always thigns that could have been done diffeerntly, but there was nothing in either case that stands out as bad leadership (though in case of Kasserine there was later on in the engagement, but initially the American disposition was fine).
Of course you cannot truly fault such large bodies of people... But that doesn't change the fact that there were different levels of ability. War isn't some hippiecamp where everybody is equal and all winners.

The first guy is in my mind a total idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

The first guy is in my mind a total idiot.

---

Amen. Though there are a few good points to his article he does come across as something of a whiny ejit with far too high an opinion of himself. :no: