German army-why so skilled?

Discussion in 'General' started by Len Trim, Oct 15, 2008.

  1. Len Trim

    Len Trim Senior Member

    I nearly wrote why so good, but I do not want bogged down in a moral debate. What I want to know is why was the German army so skilled at what it did? Whether I am reading D'este, Keegan, Hastings, Montefiore, Neillands etc. etc. Whether I am reading about North Africa, Sicily, Arnhem, Rhine Crossing I get the distinct impression that the Germans were beaten by overwhelming military might and not by either Allied generalship or the skill/morale of our troops on the frontline. Sorry if this rubs any of our much revered veterans up the wrong way and I know none of this refers to the Eastern Front, but you get my drift.


    Len
     
  2. marcus69x

    marcus69x I love WW2 meah!!!

    Probably coz they knew they'd be shot if they lost. :D

    They certainly knew what they were doing. To have conquered so much land against other countries, they obviously must have been trained well. Not to mention that a lot of their equipment was top notch for the time.
     
  3. Paul Reed

    Paul Reed Ubique

    Quite a few historians have or are busy debunking this as a myth. Losses in the German army in 1944/45 would inevitably mean that it would be impossible to maintain 'standards'. You might find work by the likes of Terry Copp of interest.
     
  4. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    One of the main reasons for the German military of the time being very effective was that all the armed forces were trained to a high standard. Not just those in the Infantry but all arms and services.

    This meant that when a unit did get a mauling they could very quickly absorb replacements who needed very little extra training to get them working as a unit. This was shown to great effect around Arnhem where small and effective ad hoch units were formed, at very short despite them sometimes being made up of a mixture of Army, Navy and Luftwaffe.

    In contrast, British and American units were trained for their role. Non-infantry units although capable of fighting in their own right, concentrated less on Company tactics and above and more on section tactics. There were even differences in the way different battalions did things leading to a need for anybody joining a unit to have to train in their unit SOPs before becoming an effective member of that unit.

    Maybe because of their stereotypical adherence to following things by the book, the Germans were all trained the same.
     
  5. Len Trim

    Len Trim Senior Member

    Thanks for that recommendation Paul. I have to admit to not having heard of the guy. The book
    Normandy: The Real Story of How Ordinary Soldiers Defeated Hitler
    sounds just the thing.OnceI finish a 800 page biography on Ernest Bevin, our Foreign Secretary 1945-1951 (the things History teachers have to read) I'll get onto it.


    Len
     
  6. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    Quite a few historians have or are busy debunking this as a myth. Losses in the German army in 1944/45 would inevitably mean that it would be impossible to maintain 'standards'. You might find work by the likes of Terry Copp of interest.

    I do agree that over time the 'standard' did drop, but they still stuck to training a standard basic training that didn't consist of endless 'square bashing' but a comprehensive military grounding regardless of them being army, navy or air force.
     
  7. Len Trim

    Len Trim Senior Member

    Thanks plant pilot. The German armies high level of training of all arms and services certainly showed during the battles for Sicily. Of course there were panzer grenadiers there and paratroopers but as you say lots of adhoc units who were thrown into battle groups and in many places fought the allies to a near standstill and then evacuated the island in an orderly fashion taking huge amounts of their equipment with them despite our best efforts.
    I guess what I am wondering though is it something innate to the nation (is that racist it's not meant to be). Look how well the Germans fought in WW1 and then again only twenty years later. Contrary to my early military manuals AKA Commando Comics the Germans seem to have shown much more imagination and initiative than most Allied troops and quite junior officers seem to have taken independent decisions based on the developing battle. Are some nations more militaristic than others I suppose is the basic question.


    Len
     
  8. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    Are some nations more militaristic than others I suppose is the basic question.

    Remember that Germany was only brought together as an independent country in the late 19th Century. Before then it was a group of feudal states, many of which had a long and proud tradition of soldiering, most notable of them the Prussians.

    They had a very strong Officer Corps sometimes going back generations as did many of their NCOs. With good Officers and good NCOs you can build an effective army from the agricultural and industrial workers of the time. That may not be as true today given the number of office workers in today's societies.
    :unsure:
     
  9. deadb_tch

    deadb_tch the deadliest b#tch ever

    Guys, I am reading now memoirs of german tankman - "Tigers Im Schlamm" (Otto Carius) and somewhere in book he talks widely about why have been they capable fighting with ratio 1:5 to soviet side.. And he says that not the love to fuhrer or nazi party helped 'em, and not even the hard training sessions (during the war he was re-trained at least 3 times) - the main thing is that german soldier was always obeying order, no matter what it costs.
     
  10. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Its A myth. I have seen the British soldier at his best and then they want some beating. For it the same fighting man that built the British Empire from nothing.
    Sapper
     
  11. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Len -
    There is no question that the German soldier was better trained in most aspects than the British or American soldiers - part of the problem was the constant cry of the N.C.O.'s of "you are not paid to think", but follow your leaders - then the leaders were killed !
    The Battle for Sicily was the classic example of disagreement at the top levels - nothing to do with the squaddies - Tedder - Cunningham - Alexander - failed to do their jobs - Eisenhower didn't know what his job was - result chaos...

    Three German Generals -Kesselring - Hube and Baade stitched them all up - and continued to do so all through the Italian campaign - with a new team of Kesselring - Von Etterlin and Veitinghoff !

    Mind you they also had the 1st para div who never quit...and the 26th Pz and 29th PG's....one man could hold a whole company - and did !
    Cheers.
     
  12. deadb_tch

    deadb_tch the deadliest b#tch ever

    Its A myth. I have seen the British soldier at his best and then they want some beating. For it the same fighting man that built the British Empire from nothing.


    I am not claiming it to be absolute truth :) - just in addition to other opinions. :cowboy_125:
     
  13. kfz

    kfz Very Senior Member

    Dont forget the German Army started preparing for the war a lot earlier. It makes a big difference if you ready, trained and your soldiers and populace has stomach for training. I dont beleive that pre war training or preperation was any near as good on the allies side.

    Kev
     
  14. Smudger Jnr

    Smudger Jnr Our Man in Berlin

    As Kfz has already said, germany was gearing up for confrontations and war from the time Hitler took over power in 1933.
    Their training for the Luftwaffe and Mechanised units was carried out in Russia behind closed doors.
    All this whilst Britain and the other western countries were trying to recover from the 1st World war and all the upheavel that was caused.
    The watchword was pacifism and no more wars.

    It was only the farsightedness of a few politicians that money was allocated to the services after all the cutbacks.

    Yes, initially the German forces were well trained and equipped and each man knew what his role was and that of others in case the officers did not make it.
    A typical example being the glider landings at Fort Aben Emael when the commanding officers glider crash landed in Germany on route.
    Nco's carried on the attack with great success.

    I do not think that there is any doubt that the British and Commonwealth soldiers were trained adequately, but it took time to catch up both training wise and weapons production.

    The British army never relied on horse drawn equipment as did the German Army.

    I think if you ask'd most German soldiers who fought in WW2 they held a healthy respect for their British and commonwealth opposite numbers.

    I know my father had a healthy respect of the German soldiers in Italy.

    If you didn't you then perhaps paid for it sooner or later.

    It is also down to good leadership, regardless of which army you are talking about.

    Tom
     
  15. James S

    James S Very Senior Member

    Cape Matapan - Cunningham really played it very well.
    Malta - held out and the defence of the Island by air and seas denied the Axis advancement in North Africa.
    In terms of working together as one team the Allies had a lot to learn , by Overlord they had learnt it pretty well.
    The Allies made mistakes , without doubt they did and Kesselring played his hand opf cards very well in Italty right up to the last.
    Italy was made for defending - had Patton landed at Anzio it would have been very different.
    By '44 the British and the Germans had much in common - they were running out of manpower , especially experienced officers and NCO's.
    One German commander said that the Americans had the equipment but lacked the experience and that the British had the experience and lack equipment. ( May have been Rommel).
    Certainly the German soldier in the openning 2-3 years of the war was well trained and what has been said of their officer Corp I would agree with , its senior commanders however lacked the ability to deal with a man like Hitler.
     
  16. Rich Payne

    Rich Payne Rivet Counter Patron 1940 Obsessive

    In the introduction to "Battlefields of The Second World War", Richard Holmes states "We should not be surprised that the citizens of countries where the state, in principle, served the people tended to be at a disadvantage in a war with those who believed the opposite...Compounded by deficiencies in doctrine, training and equipment though they were, the relative military shortcomings of the British and American armies also faithfully reflected the better values of their societies, and we cannot wish for it to have been otherwise."

    I can't disagree with his conclusions.

    Rich
     
  17. sapper

    sapper WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    There are many hundreds of experts and advisors that over sixty years on are only too willing to give their opinion...Never having heard a gun fired or seen real action.
    The fact is that the British are basically a Citizens army. But having seen action they become the best fighting man there is. That is my personal opinion.
    Sapper
     
    Owen likes this.
  18. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    The fact is that the British are basically a Citizens army. But having seen action they become the best fighting man there is. That is my personal opinion.
    Sapper


    I agree with you there Brian.
    Good old Tommy Atkins takes some beating.
    The Germans were brought up for war, what with the Hitler Youth and other such organisations pre-WW2.
    Pre-WW1 there was conscription in Germany, hence a massive pool of well trained Reserves.
    The British had a small Regular Army that was the Empire's Police Force, it had some growing pains but became the best in the world by 1918 and had to do it all over again 21 years later.
     
  19. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    While agreeing with both Sapper and Owen about the British having a "Citizen's army"
    it should be noted that by the time of Beda Fomm in late '41 - the British Regular Army was long gone and in the distant past, and the ranks were filling up with 18 year old conscripts and that took a while to become a great army as the 8th Army was from El Alamein onwards -not that were all that shabby before then - this was then supplanted by infusing most of the 1st Army into the Italian campaign and having sent their well tried XXX Corps to show the others how to do it -

    If one looks at the 8th Army in Italy - only the Kiwi's and Indian Divisions were desert fighters along with a very small input of the Polish chaps.

    The other main difference was the quality of leadership - the main excuse was that Britain lost their main leaders in the WW1 - but then - so did Germany !
    Cheers

    So basically it was a bunch of Citizens in all three campaigns of Italy - NWEurope and Burma
     
  20. Len Trim

    Len Trim Senior Member

    Thanks for all the really interesting input guys. I like the quote from Richard Holmes. I'll have to add that particular book to my ever growing list.

    Len
     

Share This Page