German army-why so skilled?

Barkhorn -
Now I do believe that you are reading the wrong books - and taking the wrong facts as gospel.....

Niccar was writing about how when the first part of the 78 th Div landed at Calabria - the Germans were no where to be seen - they were high tailing it all the way back to the Bari area where they gave up the massive Foggia Airfields quite easily - but blowing up bridges and cratering highways - you ever been in that area ?

You blow down the side of a mountain onto the highway - it takes a while to clear a path for your men and lorries to carry on with an advance - the Canadians and 78th Div had problems there - then there was all the bridges blown up - so you have to wait until the engineers squeeze past with their Bailey Bridges - then build them before you carry on any advance - little things like that made Monty appear nonchalent - nothing else ... but then if you hate Monty for some personal reason or so - then that is fair game to say he was nonchalent ....

No quantity of your evidence can belie the facts - all the roads were torn up and all the bridges blown - not just one or two - ALL of them for miles and miles....their engineers were very efficient !

Niccar with the 78th Div gave the 1st paras a bloody nose at Termoli along with 16th Panzers when they had high tailed it from Salerno after they had a bloody nose from HMS Warspite and Valiant when they tried a counter attack on the 5th army - along with a mauled Herman Goering Div and 26th PG"s - but not the 29th P.G's.

The British 5th Div had marched up the west side of Calabria to contact the Americans - a day late - they had the same problems as Monty on the East side -
then the 5th div went over to the Termoli area to help out - then back to the Garigliano and Anzio - that's why we called them the "Globetrotters" - they were everywhere !

We never felt we were superior , just a bunch of civilians who had a tremendous task to do - and I still believe we did a damn good job of it. That's why you still speak English !

I for one don't think you are an "uniformative fool " - I just think that you are an uninformed very young person and all we are trying - sometimes painfully - to make you more aware of some facts from personal experiences and not from some slanted towards Hollywood books !
Cheers

 

Where are the american vets of ww2 on this site seems we need a say

I don't think there is any need of that, especially as you are discussing the 1940 campaign. The US Armed Forces weren't involved in that, were they?

Show some respect, chill out, or take a step back.

 

During the Italian campaign, no one seems to have mentioned the fact that the Allies never had the overall superiority in numbers, that was normally a pre requisite when attacking forces well dug in and defended.
I believe this ratio to be in the region of 3:1 in favour of the attacking forces.

Speak to any Veteran that fought in this campaign and consult books on the subject.
The fact is this ratio was never attained.

Having read the conditions in which men fought and died, on both sides, I am just glad that my father survived.

He told me that he had great respect for the average German soldier, especially their ability to camouflage. He never said thet the German soldier was better just good at their job, which has been stated by others on this thread.

Regards

Tom

 

I'm thrilled that my original question has got such a good discussion going. Niccar you will be glad to know that your real life experiences are actually related by D'este who points out in no uncertain manner that the Hermann Goering division basically disintegrated and ran away when it first came up against the Allies in Sicily, but that it did eventually get its act together.
Could any of you guys recommend a couple of good books on the Italian campaign. First a overview of the whole campaign and then one or two on specific battles. Thanks in anticipation.

Len

 

Len -
There have been many books on that campaign as you can imagine but good overviews are scarce - FM Lord Carver comes close but he uses the Official Canadian History a great deal - D'Este on Sicily is not bad but leaves a lot to be desired - Ellis on "Cassino" - The Hollow Victory is excellent - or Fred Majdelany - Douglas Orgil on the Gothic Line are some of my better reference books.
There is quite a choice - The Canadian - Stan Scislowski's " Not all of us were brave" is a fair read as he was in most of their battles with the Perth regiment of 5th Cdn Armoured Div. from Ortona on to the near finish when they went off to Belgium
Cheers

 

Just answer this friends... Why is it that we always build others up as being better than ourselves????? Its a National pass time.
In my opinion, the British Soldier "OR" Serviceman, would be a better description is the best in the world. Bar none.
Has it ever occurred to this site? to wonder what the Germans thought of Tommy? For I know from experience that we are looked on as formidable and fierce fighters. I also know that they would rather take on any other rather than Tommy. Despite their bluster. I know that there will be those that disagree,There are always those that think others are better than ourselves Daft? It surely is.....
Sapper

 

Let me give a simple one line example.
Who were the greatest air fighters, even though vastly out numbered in 1940? Who else but the British would withstand that onslaught?
Best in the world BAR NONE!
Sapper

 

Tom,
thanks for your prompt reply. I'll check out what the local library has before tackling ebay and Amazon.

Len

 

Owen -
and Major Beckett was just about of ammo and grenades at the time -some of the mules carrying the grenades went over the side - all that was left were rocks - he nearly threw them at the paras !
not many books bother to mention those litle details !
Cheers

 

...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...

As far as I am concerned from what I have read over the years, including some of the writings of the historians listed above in the quote, the Germans were definitely defeated by "overwhelming military might and not by either Allied generalship or the skill/morale of our troops on the frontline". John Ellis' Brute Force: Allied Strategy and Tactics in the Second World War, originally published in 1990 and which I heartily recommend on the subject, does well in clarifying and explaining this, and supports his conclusions with a welter of well-researched documentation and data. Ellis is objective, too, and points out the flaws and mistakes of the Wehrmacht and its command as much he does the Allies' errors in strategy and tactics. I can only say that Brute Force is an excellent book and that Ellis is an excellent writer. Whether one agrees with Ellis' conclusions or not, his book is well worth reading and a wealth of information.

 

"Through-out the entire day the forward companies fought with the utmost gallantry against the "90th Light" in the Wadis, and undoubtedly saved the situation. During the advance of 'D' company Captain Cameron had been severly wounded: Lt. Hamp, M.C. who took over from him, was killed soon after. This left Lt. Ainslie in cammand of some twenty odd men. A similar number of men of 'A' company were commanded by Lt Stewart. Captain Watson being unable to get back to them from HQ. Around mid-day, Lt Stewart was wounded by a Grenade and captured. Lt Stewart took command of both companies, by this time reduced to twenty men. CSM Macrae of 'D' company led 3 bayonet charges".
This was at Wadi Akarit, April 6th 1943.
My Father was one of the 12 remaining men of 'D' company that day. He said that not once did any German defenders ever stand up to a bayonet charge, regardless of their regiment, that includes paras, SS, OR ANYONE.
Are we still not as good as the German defenders? in improvising leadership etc.

 

Interesting exceprt, 51highland. May I ask where is the place Wadi Akarit located? Cause if it's Africa, I have to tell you that there were no SS troops involved in the African campaign.

 

I never claimed there were any SS troops in Africa. I said 90th Light division. Wadi Akarit is also known as Jebel Roumana. He faced SS and para's in NW Europe though, from France through to Germany.

 

Sorry, my fault. It's clear now.

 

I am finding it interesting to see how this thread is developing - its starting to turn into a "we're better than you" thread which may be a little off kilter in terms of the original discussion.

First of all every participating country can find acts of valor and I think we can all agree on that. However the discussion was prompted by the question "Why was the German Army so skilled"

First of all the question must be asked "Was it skilled"?. The answer to this has to be "Yes". The events of 1939 and 1940 are surely proof of this. Note to our English Brethren, this isnt "were the Germans better than us" its merely "Were they Skilled".

The Reichswehr followed by the Wehrmacht were training hard for the guts of 19 years. First under Von Seeckt and then under Hitler they were preparing for the time when they would be needed by Germany in whatever form that would take. Because of the limitations imposed by Versailles, the Reichswehr started from scratch so had a clean slate to work from. No outmoded attitudes carried over, a deep rooted bitterness ensured that mistakes made in the First World War were poured over. The German Officer Staff embraced new technologies (though with difficulty) and didnt grow complacent. The British and French armies stagnated from a development point of view and victory made them complacent. So already it can be seen that a gap was beginning to form. Also the victorious allies had grown sick of war, having seen a generation wiped out trying to defeat the Central Powers. So Military spending declined during the interwar period. All this helped Germany in 1939, 1940 and 1941 to amass great victories. It didnt always happen. The Battle of Britain showed the fallacies of the Luftwaffe against a determined and skilled foe, the Blitz showed the limitations of a tactical air force being deployed in a Strategic Role. Whilst the blitzkrieg could not bring the Soviet Union down (although it came close). But for the reasons above I would say that it gave the Wehrmacht an initial superiority over the Allied Armies.

I know that this isnt the full answer but I'm hoping its a start.

 

Hi Gotthard your comment on the question “the German army why so skilled”
made very good sense and for obvious reasons attempted to take the “were they better than us" “ out of the equation but personally I think the word skilled implies better I know that is not the case as I referred to the Oxford dictionary and it simply means trained of that there is no doubt so your conclusion was at the outbreak of war yes they were better trained that conceded everyone knows that in war the element of surprise wins battles so their blitzkrieg around Europe in the 39 and 40s was a steamroller to crack a nut in other words hollow victories that is my own opinion everyone knew their Stuka pilots honed their skills in Guernica in Spain against an undefended city in the late thirties which did not endear the Germans for obvious reason’s I know that there are a multitude of books written covering every battle
during the second world war and some even contradict one another so unless the author of any book was actually there I tend to disregard them so it is important to listen to any of the veterans on the forum who are willing to talk and draw your own conclusions bearing in mind that memory can play tricks specially after so many years

regards niccar

 

Hi Niccar and thanks for the response. My post was intended to show how the Germans had gained some advantage and used it to good effect in the early years. I still dont think it means "were they better". Again I state that the German Army was geared up for war in 1939 and 1940, their troops were better prepared, their formations were properly trained and in that respect were "more skilled". They werent braver than anyone else just "more ready". But that is why they were able to be so successful.

I do agree that it is important to listen to veterans Niccar but I would also like to point out that generalisations can sometimes be misleading. You made the point above that "Everyone knew their Stuka pilots honed their skills in Guernica in Spain against an undefended city". Now you are absolutely correct in stating that Guernica was a horrible attrocity which may have demonstrated the effects of bombing innocent civilians however it may interest you to note that, having checked 2 different sources, there were no Stukas in action that day. Guernica was hit by Heinkel He-111 bombers and He-51 biplanes in an attacking role whilst cover was provided by Me-109's overhead. If you are referring to the concept of "Dive Bombing" then I would also like to point out that the Germans built on the work already demonstrated by the Americans who produced the worlds first custom built Dive Bomber the F8C "Helldiver". The Stuka was designed using this as a basis.


Veterans experiences are to be cherished and can unearth a wealth of information that can be invaluable to the historian. However I respectfully cannot agree with you about disregarding the author of any book "who wasnt there". Whilst I have no doubt that some books contain inaccuracies, to me it is wrong to write off every book that is written about the war. There is information to be gleaned from all sources, the trick is to find out what is right and what isnt. We may have to "agree to disagree" on this point Niccar

 

I have to agree with GH, the original post asking why they were "so skilled" has been turned into a debate on "we're better than you". Any such question really should boil down to 'some of us were better than some of you' as every army I have ever worked with, and that included of course the British Army, consist of varying states of soldier from the very good to awful.

That aside, the original question was why the Germans were so skilled, I made my view very early on and I stand by my views. I hope that nobody feels that I am being disloyal, as I have to say you'll not find a more proud and more loyal Royal Engineer anywhere, and if you want to discuss that over a pint I don't have a problem with it at all.