Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
British historian Andrew Roberts, in his book about the relations among Churchill, Roosevelt, Brooke, and Marshall entitled "Masters and Commanders", makes the following statement on page 581 in his concluding chapter: "However unpalatable it might be to admit it, the statistics allow no doubt: soldier for soldier the German fighting man and his generals outpreformed Britons, Americans and Russians both offensively and defensively by a significant factor virtually throughout the Second World War."
Obviously Roberts does not mean German ground forces never lost a battle, nor does he mean that the old men and teenage boys in the Volksturm towards the end outfought their enemies.
Here is my personal take on the matter. (That is, the following arguments are mine, not the author's). When we consider the tenacity of the German response to the Normandy invasion in the face of total allied air superiority, then I think the "soldier for soldier" phrase becomes clear. Also, consider the remarkable offensive which was the Battle of the Bulge, conducted despite the German heartland and production capacity having been decimated by massive allied bombing. Consider Von Paulus's Sixth Army at Stalingrad, fighting at the end of their long and tenuous supply line; suppose Hitler had allowed then to conduct a fighting retreat? Many of them would have lived to continue fighting and the Soviet task would have been that much more difficult. Instead, Hitler's idiotic intransigence rebounded to the benefit of the allies. Consider that the Germans were able to contain the Anglo-American bridgehead at Anzio in Italy for a long time before being ground down by advances from the south which eventually linked up with that bridgehead.
I come down on the side of agreeing with historian Andrew Roberts. Opinions of other posters are hereby solicited.
I don't know how accurate the "man for man" phrase is. Individually, there are too many variables to measure. The common German soldier was certainly well trained, very adaptable, and by 1942 they had an army of experienced and battle tested soldiers.
But the difference, really, is that the German Army had better infantry tactics. While the other European powers were still using WW1 tactics, Germany had moved on to small very mobile fire teams, focusing on the light machine gun (and the German MG was the best of the era) as the base of fire. Combine that with it's ability to combine arms (air, tanks, infantry). In other words, they found the winning formula. These methods worked in the first half of war, on the battlefields of western europe. It did not work as well in the open Steppes of the Eastern front. And by the time of D-day the allied forces had adapted and, yes, the German's had lost it's best troops.
Still, the Allies found that the German fire team had a weakness - flanking. US troops used the rifle as the base of fire and the light machine gun (BAR) as support. The M1 was an excellent weapon. US troops were training to fire and advance, and flank. That combined with artillery was able to turn the tide.
You mention the Battle of the Bulge and that, in turn, was a weakness in American tactics, at least in the initial phase of the operation - the requirments of massive logistical supply to support the front lines.
Agree that "man for man" is a tough way to measure. But you have to consider they went through Poland, Belgium and a then highly regarded France like a hot knife through butter. Then they defeated Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece, and overran much of the Soviet Union and North Africa. They came within an ace of defeating Russia straight out.
Then, despite being worn down by all of this, they held off a combination of England, Russia and America for years. All this without any reliable allies.
Here is the map of Nazi Germany at it's peak, and it's shocking how much they did practically alone.
I thni it really depends if you look on the force itself with weapons;tactics to judge who was best.Certainly they wre at least at first the best trained and equipped.Actually the majpr mistakes start pretty quickly at the top to include startig WWII four years too early then the pause to the french coast by infantry and armour.In the end the cest army is the one that can accomplish their misson and sustain their force which takes alot into account.That includes training and experience as we even see today.The geramns failed to take advatage of mnay of their early advatages but that is war.
No to "man for man" the best. There were outstanding soldiers in very capable units in every army in WWII.
Something which is never mentioned is that the weapons and tactics which caused the most casualties to Allied troops in Western Europe were developed due to German combat losses and weaknesses derived from the Eastern Front. I mean the extensive use of mines, mortars, machine guns, panzerfaust and anti-tank guns. These were designed to provide force multipliers to offset the large expanse of frontage and limited manpower. Regarding armor, most german armor in the west was Pzkpfw IV and assault guns which were not superior to allied armor but had the advantage of holding a concealed defensive position before striking. (The Mark V and newer were designed to defeat Soviet heavy tanks hence the seeming superiority vs. Allied medium tanks.) All of the above plus being on the defensive provided the Germans with greater means to inflict combat once battle was joined. I think the advantage of terrain gave the Germans the image many authors cite regarding being better man to man.
Well trained German armor held the Allies in Normandy for many weeks but later as the degree of expertised declined among the Germans and that of the Allies increased it was the reverse. Example being the tank battle around Arrancourt in late 1944.
There are many examples were Allied soldiers routed the Germans at the company/battalion level without the often German excuse of extensive firepower and it really was one of training and combat experience providing the edge. A mean rifleman to rifleman.
Recommend reading When The Odds Were Even regarding combat in the Vosges.
No to "man for man" the best. There were outstanding soldiers in very capable units in every army in WWII.
Something which is never mentioned is that the weapons and tactics which caused the most casualties to Allied troops in Western Europe were developed due to German combat losses and weaknesses derived from the Eastern Front. I mean the extensive use of mines, mortars, machine guns, panzerfaust and anti-tank guns. These were designed to provide force multipliers to offset the large expanse of frontage and limited manpower. Regarding armor, most german armor in the west was Pzkpfw IV and assault guns which were not superior to allied armor but had the advantage of holding a concealed defensive position before striking. (The Mark V and newer were designed to defeat Soviet heavy tanks hence the seeming superiority vs. Allied medium tanks.) All of the above plus being on the defensive provided the Germans with greater means to inflict combat once battle was joined. I think the advantage of terrain gave the Germans the image many authors cite regarding being better man to man.
Well trained German armor held the Allies in Normandy for many weeks but later as the degree of expertised declined among the Germans and that of the Allies increased it was the reverse. Example being the tank battle around Arrancourt in late 1944.
There are many examples were Allied soldiers routed the Germans at the company/battalion level without the often German excuse of extensive firepower and it really was one of training and combat experience providing the edge. A mean rifleman to rifleman.
Recommend reading When The Odds Were Even regarding combat in the Vosges.
I recall another book regarding a Canadian infantryman in Italy who commented that combat had whittled his platoon down to sixteen men or so but they were the hardest men imaginable and were able to defeat.... same would be the case in any army's infantry platoon that maintained morale despite heavy casualties. Well all know the reverse as shown in that often quoted British battalion in Normandy could and did happen as well. You know from Hastings' Overlord and other books. Something, something Duke of Wellington..etc.
1. "For the sake of historical truth I must verify that only the Greeks, of all the adversaries who confronted us, fought with bold courage and highest disregard of death.." - Adolf Hitler (speech he gave at Reichstag, 4 May 1941)
2. "The word heroism I am afraid does not render the least of those acts of self-sacrifice of the Greeks, which were the defining factor in the victorious outcome of the common struggle of the nations, during WWII, for the human freedom and dignity. If it were not for the bravery of the Greeks and their courage, the outcome of WW II would be undetermined." - Winston Churchill (speech to British Parliament, 24 April 1941)
3. "Until now we used to say that the Greeks fight like heroes. Now we shall say: The heroes fight like Greeks."- Winston Churchill (From a speech he delivered from the BBC in the first days of the Greco-Italian war)
4. "I am sorry because I am getting old and I shall not live long to thank the Greek People, whose resistance decided WW II." - Joseph Stalin (From a speech of his broadcast by the Moscow radio station on 31 January 1943 after the victory of Stalingrad and the capitulation of German 6th Army Field Marshal Von Paulus)
5. "If the Russian people managed to raise resistance at the doors of Moscow to halt and reverse the German torrent, they owe it to the Greek People, who delayed the German divisions during the time they could bring us to our knees." - Georgy Constantinovich Zhoukov (Field Marshal of the Soviet Army: Quote from his memoirs on WWII)
6. "Regardless of what the future historians shall say, what we can say now, is that Greece gave Mussolini an unforgettable lesson, that she was the motive for the revolution in Yugoslavia, that she held the Germans in the mainland and in Crete for six weeks, that she upset the chronological order of all German High Command's plans and thus brought a general reversal of the entire course of the war and we won."- Sir Robert Antony Eden (Minister of War and the Exterior of Britain 1940-1945, Prime Minister of Britain 1955-1957 - Paraphrased from a speech of his to the British Parliament on 24/09/1942)
7. "It would not be an exaggeration to say that Greece upset the plans of Germany in their entirety forcing her to postpone the attack on Russia for six weeks. We wonder what would have been Soviet Union's position without Greece." - Sir Harold Leofric George Alexander (British Field Marshal during WWII -Paraphrased from a speech of his to the British parliament on 28 October 1941)
8. "I am unable to give the proper breadth of gratitude I feel for the heroic resistance of the People and the leaders of Greece." - Charles de Gaul (From a speech of his to the French Parliament after the end of WWII).
9. "Greece is the symbol of the tortured, bloodied but live Europe. Never a defeat was so honorable for those who suffered it." - Maurice Schumann Minister of the exterior of France 1969-1973, member of the French Academy 1974 (From a message of his he addressed from the BBC of London to the enslaved peoples of Europe on 28 April 1941, the day Hitler occupied Athens after a 6-month war against Mussolini and six weeks against Hitler).
10. "You fought unarmed and won, small against big. We owe you gratitude, because you gave us time to defend ourselves. As Russians and as people we thank you." - Moscow, Radio Station When Hitler attacked the U.S.S.R
11. "The war with Greece proved that nothing is firm in the military and that surprises always await us."- Benito Mussolini (From speech he delivered on 10/5/1941)
12. "On the 28th of October 1940 Greece was given a deadline of three hours to decide on war or peace but even if a three day or three week or three year were given, the response would have been the same. The Greeks taught dignity throughout the centuries. When the entire world had lost all hope, the Greek people dared to question the invincibility of the German monster raising against it the proud spirit of freedom." - Franklin D Roosevelt, US President 1933 - 1945
13. "The heroic struggle of the Greek people... Against Germany 's attack, after she so thunderously defeated the Italians in their attempt to invade the Greek soil, filled the hearts of the American people with enthusiasm and moved their compassion." - Franklin D Roosevelt, US President 1933 - 1945
14. **** On 10 April 1941, after the Greek capitulation to Germany, the northern forts of Greece surrendered. The Germans express their admirations to Greek soldiers, declared that they were honored and proud to have as their adversary such an Army and request that the Greek commandant inspect the German army in a demonstration of honor and recognition! The German flag was raised only after the complete withdrawal of the Greek Army ****
15. A German officer of the air force declared to the commander of the Eastern Macedonia division group, Lieutenant General Dedes, that the Greek Arm was the first army on which the Stuka fighter planes did not cause panic. "Your soldiers" he said, "instead of fleeing frantically, as they did in France and Poland, were shooting at us from their positions."
Finns. Got invaded by the Soviet Union and stood fast, at great cost. Tremendously creative, tough, devious, ruthless and inflicted awful casualties despite being badly outnumbered. Man for man, matchless. The valor of Japanese, the discipline of Germans, the creativeness of Americans, the stolid calm of British and Canadians, the ruthlessness of Gurkhas.
The Finns defense of their homeland was legendary, not only on land, but they produced a number of air aces. One Finnish airman, Eino Juutilainen was credited with downing 94 planes in the 1939-1940 winter war and WWII. They had to be very resourceful, receiving little western help, with the exception of Sweden. They didn't invent the Molotov cocktail, but they greatly improved on the petrol version used earlier in the Spanish Civil War. The following link gives more detail:
www.uralico.com/finn/iv.htm (broken link)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
