World War II reality and resonance
An excerpt from Max Hastings' superb Armageddon: The Battle for Germany, 1944-1945 (pp. 28-29 of the paperback):
...Many times Churchill was driven to despair by the difficulty of identifying British commanders capable of matching those of the Wehrmacht. "Have you not got a single general...who can win battles" the prime minister cried out to Brooke early in 1942. The U.S. Army produced at least five outstanding corps commanders, whereas the British and Canadians boasted only two officers at corps level--Horrocks and Simonds--who could be considered competent. Lieutenant-General Sir Richard O'Connor, commanding VIII corps, did nothing for his staff's confidence in him when he observed cheerfully in Holland one day: "Whatever balls-up I make, chaps, I know you'll see me through." At divisional level too, the Americans were better served than the British, but it is hard to argue that either ally's general officers matched those of Germany. Exceptional professional skills, coupled with absolute ruthlessness rendered many German--and Russian--generals repugnant human beings but formidable warriors. The democracies recruited their generals from societies in which military achievement was deemed a doubtful boon; if not an embarrassment. The American and British armies in the Second World War paid a high price for the privilege of the profoundly anti-militaristic ethos of their nations.
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 7:33 p.m.
9 Comments:
That sounds like idiocy.
agree with chris
This is laughable. American forces never lost a battle on European soil, and almost always inflicted higher casualties on these supposedly tough, grim, super-duper-troopers they were fighting... who towed 2/3rds of all their supplies and artillery with horses, as though it were the Napoleonic Wars; who fought against semi-autos with obsolete bolt-action rifles; who never came up with a decent heavy bomber or a tank that wouldn't break down; who were saddled with commanders who were chosen for political loyalty and kept their high positions through debacle after debacle. Looked at objectively that war was a one-sided slaughter. They stood no chance.
Sixty years on, some people are still taking enemy propaganda at face value. God only knows why.
"This is laughable. American forces never lost a battle on European soil..."
Rivenshield, the US Army did a pretty good job of imitating a major defeat in the first couple of weeks of the Battle of the Bulge. Thousands and thousands of dead GIs; tens of thousands of wounded; whole US Army divisions chewed up.
Of course, the US Army went on to win the Battle of the Bulge, but one must objectively class the first couple of weeks as a catastrophe for the US Army.
As far as "...fought against semi-autos with obsolete bolt-action rifles;", the M-1 rifle made a distinctive PING! noise on automatically ejecting the empty clip after the 8th round was fired. The Germans with their updated bolt-action Mausers quickly learned to react immediately when hearing that PING!, which resulted in a lot of dead GIs. And as far as a hypothetical one-on-one match-up of a Sherman versus a Tiger under almost any terrain or tactical scenario, don't put your money on the Sherman.
As far as the quality of Wehrmact general officers, my opinion is that the major German defeats were caused by Hitler's stubborn and obsessive intransigence. Hitler did not comprehend the modern nature of blitzkrieg, the progenitor of fire-and-maneuver warfare. His fanatical demanding of never retreating an inch hobbled the effectiveness of the German Army, causing them to endure many major defeats, Stalingrad arguably being the worst. IMO, if Hitler had let the professional generals run the Eastern campaign, they would have captured Moscow in that first year but would not have endured the catastrophe of Stalingrad.
Anyhow, that's my two cents worth.
chris and jim: A couple of books you might look at:
A Genius for War: The German Army and General Staff, 1807-1945,
by Trevor Nevitt Dupuy (Author)
Fighting Power,
by Martin van Creveld.
Lots more here and here ("Review Essay:
Did Nazis Fight Better Than Democrats? Historical Writing on the Combat Performance of the Allied Soldier in Normandy")
Mark
Ottawa
Some thoughts:
America lost many battles against German forces ... but she lost no campaign. It all comes down to a matter of definition and how small you want to define an action as a "battle".
The fact is, that WW2 was an industrual war and the allies out "industrialized" the Germans and Japanese. Even when the entire supply of Sherman tanks which had been slated to last the war were chewed up in the months immediately after D-day, the allies had almost unlimited replacements. Even after the entire invasion force had been virtually destoyed in the bocage ... there was a new flood of troops waiting to fill the ranks.
The United States for the most part relied on air and artilery superiority; but when faced man to man on the micro-scale, US soldiers performed as good as any ... at least they didn't stop for tea every day like the Canucks.
It's hard to argue who fought better ... who had better commanders and NCO's etc. Germany had her share of brilliant commanders but relied on outstanding NCOs who turned many battles around. The same can be said of America ... but we must keep in mind that America had unlimited resources at her disposal when compared to Germany.
My summary ... the discussion is irrelevant because the Germans and Allies faced each other with completely different circumstances governing their strategies. The Germans fought with limited resources and mobility ... but were on the defense which gave them an advantage. The Americans fought with enormous resources at their disposal ... but were on the offense ... which as we know, is a costly venture against an even moderately capable foe.
Furthermore, we could compare Hitlers foolhardy dictates to the American replacement system ... both of which cost an incredible number of lives. Or, we could compare Patton's subborn refusal to mass produce the Pershing tank prior to D-day to Hitlers refusal to manufacture me262 fighters, choosing instead the hearvier bomber versions.
Unless you've got the knowledge and backup to write a multiple volume series of books on the topic ... comparisons that make definitives are for blowhards. And even after you write your volumes ... somebody will chew them up.
Cheers!
Paul: Good points, esp. about the very poor American replacement system. I still think it remains true that, simply as an army, the Germans {Wehrmacht and Waffen SS, not Luftwaffe field divisions) during almost the whole of the war were noticeably more effective than anyone else.
The same can be said also about WW I, but that's another debate :).
Mark
Ottawa
A Taxpayer: Initially, in Normandy, the Allies faced as many Poles and Russian front cast-offs as crack German units. You are correct in that. But, they had to deal with powerful defensive positions and the bocage. Geography was strongly on the side of the Germans.
American forces relied heavily on artilery and airpower and thus used a completely different form of offensive warfare than the Germans (plus they had no offensive armour assets to speak of). When they couldn't use artilery and air, and when facing superior odds, like at the Bulge, they proved themselves equal to the task once initial shock wore off.
The Bulge, more than anything, demonstrates that American troops could fight defensive action as subbornly as any other military. They faced a German offensive that was equal to anything the Russians ever had to deal with ... in fact, in terms for Tiger and Panther tanks, they took on more than any Russian defense ever had to ... Kursk was largely a Mk111 and IV battle because most Panthers broke down before the action. The Bulge, had many tiger, panther and late MkIVs.
The Bulge, considering the nature of the German attack, ended up being an incredible defensive operation on the part of the Yanks, despite the horrific initial losses.
I just finished reading Seven Days in January; it's about Operation Nordwind from the German perspective. The SS were amazed at how many losses the Americans were taking ... yet kept subbornly attacking. As well, Zoepf, the writer and member of the SS Mountain Div., writes that American adherence to Geneva rules, despite the brutal and confined battle in Wingen, was amazing.
In Norwind, the SS faced many green US troops who couldn't use air and artilery to advantage because too many American POWs were within Wingen. The Americans, fought a brutal house to house clearing operation which pitted Army against SS ... who had the defensive advantage. Despite initial bumbling, the Americans fought like agressively and learned quickly.
Again, I think it's hard to compare a materialy rich force like the Americans to a horse drawn, but tank and anti-tank superior force, like the Germans ... who had the defensive advantage in geographic regions that were a nightmare for offensive operations.
I don't count the Russians in this debate, because they did not use much strategy ... they used massed artillery, armour, and infantry assaults on a mind numbing scale. They wasted human life on a scale hard to fathom. They were barbarians using strategies that took no heed for their own. Russian operations were logistical feats ... little else.
More from Mr Hastings, pp. 185-187 (things I have read in several other good sources):
"The U.S. army suffered severely in north-west Europe from the grave policy error it had made earlier in the war, of according a low priority to manning infantry formations and providing replacements for their casualties...The U.S. Army's belief that quality personnel were wasted in ground combat units is readily demonstrated by the manner in which it allocated recruits after educational testing...The educational standard of men shipped to combat arms ranked far below that of those posted to administrative branches...Many riflemen in the U.S. Army felt themselves abandoned by God and by their own country. Charles Felix's unit was outraged to read in "Stars & Stripes" that that men sentenced to imprisonment for rear-area disciplinary offences were being offered a transfer to the infantry as an alternative. "So that's what they really think of us!"..To put the matter plainly, infantry--the core of every army's fighting power--reposed at the bottom of the U.S. War Department's barrel...
...The British Army gained some benefit from the fact that, unlike its ally, its best foot regiments possessed a prestige which allowed them to recruit quality manpower. However, overall British policy towards infantry was no more imaginative than that of the Pentagon. In a withering memorandum to the War Office, a British divisional commander deplored the fact that many high-ranking officers regarded the infantry "as a legitimate dumping ground for the lowest forms of military life.'
...
It remains insufficiently understood that that, while overall casualty rates on the Western Front in the Second World War were vastly lower that those of the First World War, a rifleman's prospect of surviving the entire campaign unwounded were not much better than those of his father in Flanders..."
That last para is something far too little recognized today. A much longer tail but no better at the teeth.
Mark
Ottawa
Post a Comment
<< Home