Trench Foot

[books1924]

By mid-December 1944 trench foor or immersion foot was decimating the ranks of American combat soldiers in France. I escaped it, but the hospitals were full and commanders were concerned about the reduction in effective strength of infantry units. We were told to be sure to have a clean and dry pair of socks with us at all times, and Patton ordered that commanders were to ensure that this was the case and also that feet were to be dried after crossing a river or stream and after a period of rain. This was patent foolishness in terms of our ability to do this and still be combat ready. I have heard that trench foot was not so rampamt in German ranks, and wonder what the reasons are. I have tried to look into this without success. I have heard that the German soldier was issued a kind of ointment for the feet that protected against both wet and cold. I also have read that the incidence of trench foot on the Russian front was not that serious despite the adverse weather conditions. Does anyone have some info for me on this? Thanks.

[Reb]

Books

I've read that the Germans had lots of problems on the OstFront in 1941 due to the fact their boots were exactly the right size so they couldn't wear extra socks.

Also heard contradictory Info suggesting Germans wore foot rags instead of socks - apparently better. No idea as to veracity of that.

btw - I rarely salute 'yankees' but I'll always salute a member
of the Yankee Division!

cheers
Reb

[PaulJ]

Sure, I'll post on this.

In a nutshell, contrary to your characterization of Patton's directives, orders to take care of your feet were not "patent foolishness." They are how disciplined troops keep themselves combat effective.

This is usually discussed in terms of the British Army in the First World War, but studies have actually been done comparing training levels to trench foot rates. The results are clear -- disciplined troops only get trench foot at very low incidence rates. This has nothing to do with magic ointments or anything else like that. It has to do with the discipline of sergeants making sure that their soldiers change socks and take care of their feet at every opportunity. Every opportunity. Even though its a pain to do.

Simple as that.

[Reb]

Paul

The badly flawed American replacement policy had a terrible effect on discipline - heavy casualties among jr officers and NCOs plus literally hundreds of replacements coming into infantry battalions while still on the line led to all kinds of problems.

When men aren't properly assimilated there is no discipline - because there is no team cohesion which discipline requires. Only officers are dumb enough to believe that simply giving an order means something is therefore going to happen. The NCOs on the other hand have a clue - but when they are all casualties you have a heap of scared, bewildered kids in green, commanded by 90 day wonders who are just as scared and bewildered - And well, for one thing you get trench foot! (which was as I recall, a charge able offense in the Heer)

I sometimes wonder how we won that war given the replacement policy - and not sending men back to their original unit when wounded and recovered. I know damn well I'd have gone awol. Some of our units had well over 100% casualties in the line outfits so you begin to see just how badly that policy was able to impact a unit.

For an example of well American troops were able to do despite that bizaare policy see John Toland's somewhat dated "Battle: the Story of the Bulge" for his discription of the 26th Yankee Division in action.

cheers
Reb

[Nibelung]

Just a dumb question; whoose boots were better? American or german? Cause i'we read stories, that the germans often took US boots from the dead (the 101st in the battle of the bulge).

best,
Nibelung

[Reb]

The quality of German boots had deteroriated along with everything else.

Yet Maj. McCowan who was a prisoner of SS Col. Peiper noted that the German troops (LAH guys) all seemed to have new boots. I'm not certain whether 'new' meant 'good' in this case.

So perhaps its in the eye (or the foot) of the beholder.

cheers
Reb

[PaulJ]

Reb,

Quite so too all your (substantive) comments. Precisely my point -- trench foot is a symptom of weak discipline (in the US Army's case more-or-less for all of the reasons you describe).

... trench foot! (which was as I recall, a charge able offense in the Heer)

And -- in principal at least -- in the British and Commonwealth armies as a "self-inflicted wound". I know that our troops were threatened with charges for self-inflicted wounds for trench-foot, but I don't know of any cases of actual charges being laid.

But Reb, why the gratutitous line:

Only officers are dumb enough to believe that simply giving an order means something is therefore going to happen.

[r. burns]

The Germans had a similar problem in Russia with frostbite. If you failed to take the proper steps to prevent it you could be charged with negligence...even though your summer outfit and tattered boots couldn't prevent it . The idea was to get the men to change their socks and take care of their feet and hands. Frostbite was a killer and it contributed (along with diet) to more casualties than the russians in the first year

[Tom Houlihan]

But Reb, why the gratutitous line:

Only officers are dumb enough to believe that simply giving an order means something is therefore going to happen.

Unfortunately, all too often many of the younger officers seem to believe it! That is the problem. I have dealt with too many "I'm a Lieutenant, you are not" types not to agree with Reb on that one.

Now, don't get me wrong, I didn't make a habit of disobeying officers. Except one, but that's a different thread. Too many of them don't have the experience to give orders that can actually be carried out. They get a bright idea, and think that if they just bark out an order or two, it'll get taken care of. One can only hope that the platoon sergeant or company first sergeant gets a chance to 'school' the lads.

[Reb]

Paul

Tom nailed it. As to gratuitous - perhaps, but its fun to give officers the needle - even after all these years!

Once my pals in a armoured crew were pissing off the side of the vehicle and a new, self important young officer yelled at them to desist. The boys grinned at him and said 'do as you like, sir, but we're stayin' up here - mines you know!'

Suffice to say our young LT got the hint.

We were ordered once not to carry personal weapons and I remember an officer who was astonished that I'd kept mypistol regardless. I told him that there was no debate - on ops I make my own decisions re firepower.

Like Tom mentioned - my CO would send new officers out with me and my partner or come along with us, but he would get them used to smelling powder before he trusted them with other people's lives. In a big war - there just isn't always enough time to do that.

And there is the question of 'commissioned vs promoted' which as probably been discussed before. I of course, vote for 'promoted' (the German method) but then what soldier gets a vote!

cheers
Reb

[phylo_roadking]

After the decimation of British ranks by Trenchfoot in the Great War it became a daily duty under King's Regulations for an officer to inspect the feet of his men. Early prevention is ALWAYS better than cure.

As for foot rags..the Russians used boots that were all ONE size apparently, and didnt wear socks. Instead they foled a triangular felt cloth in three around the foot and inserted it into the boot. These boots were a prized war booty item for german soldiers when the weather got cold.
As for not being able to wear extra socks....for ten years as a motorcyclist ive worn ex-GREPO jackboots in ALL weathers, and if worn to size yep they dont accomodate extra socks.

Phylo