Was German Military Training Superior to Allied?

KampfgruppeMeyer · Post by **KampfgruppeMeyer** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:05 am

Was German Military Training Superior to Allied? I think that German training was the best, especially Waffen-SS. Do you agree, disagree, if so why, or why not?

I think that History proves that the germans, while severely outnumbered, inflicted a ratio of casualties on larger forces than any other force in history, can you prove me wrong?

Achilles · Post by **Achilles** » Sat Aug 23, 2003 1:19 pm

I think history proves you completely wrong. Just look at the respective casualty figures for the belligerents. I think even on the Eastern Front it works out at 1:1.3 - and that doesn't include casualties suffered by German allied forces.

Hardly inflicting the highest 'ratio of casualties on larger forces than any other force in history'.

Darrin · Post by **Darrin** » Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:00 am

Achilles wrote:I think history proves you completely wrong. Just look at the respective casualty figures for the belligerents. I think even on the Eastern Front it works out at 1:1.3 - and that doesn't include casualties suffered by German allied forces.

Hardly inflicting the highest 'ratio of casualties on larger forces than any other force in history'.

Well your numbers seem out of wack with reality. During 1943 as an exapmle across the whole eastern front for the whole year the rus total per cas (wia+kia+mia) were over 4.5 times the ger. Despite the rus having an adv in personal numbers of almost 2.5 time over the gers. So each ger soilder was roughly 4.5 times 2.5 or roughly ten times better than the rus soilder even in 43. Now this is not the whole story not even for the easetern front just for 43 but it gives a good impresin of relative combat eff.

Now while I´m sure the ger were better than the rest in WWII I´m not so sure about all histroy. I am not that familar and don´t know how you could really trust numbers from 1000s of years ago. They also had less of an adv agsint the west than the east.

KampfgruppeMeyer · Post by **KampfgruppeMeyer** » Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:24 am

thanks for claring that up darrin. this other guy must not have taken into account that the Germans were totally outnumbered.

Achilles · Post by **Achilles** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:39 am

How old are you two? You can't measure whether a soldier is better than another simply by dicking around with casualty ratios. I though our 'professional' soldier KGMeyer would have known this.

The force correlation varied throughout the war - for instance at the start of the invasion the Germans held a 1:1.4 advantage. The only time the ratio goes over 2.5 is after September 1944 when the Romanians switch sides. I'm talking forces at the front not total mobilised.

While estimates of Soviet casualties vary they are generally assumed to be around 9 - 11 million losses. German 3.25 million with around 20% of German casualties are on the Western Front. But remember the Soviet casualties include the (estimated up to) 3 million PoWs who died in German captivity. Which brings us to another question - are prisoners included in the 'casualties' or not? are wounded included? I feel this shows the pointlessness of talking about casualty ratios and 'my army is better than yours'. If we don't include prisoners (as the initial post seems to be aiming at tactical training) then the ratio is a maximum of 2.5:1 if we allow for other Axis casualties.

And when talking about 'my army is better than your army discussions' I don't believe you can take a blanket view over five years of war. Over 20% of Soviet casualties came about in the first six months of the war when the Wehrmacht was plainly far superior to its opponent. Contrast this to the Oder-Vistula operation in 1945 when the casualty ratio was 4:1 in favour of the Soviets. So was the Soviet army four times better than its German opponent in this period? Of course not. If you discount the first and last six months of the war (when the Soviets and Germans fought at a massive disadvantage respectively) then the casualty ratios are far, far closer than 4.5:1.

For what it's worth of course the German army was better than its opponents. That was due to better training. But please don't give me this hero worshipping twaddle.

KampfgruppeMeyer · Post by **KampfgruppeMeyer** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 10:00 am

yikes, didn't mean to upset you

Achilles · Post by **Achilles** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:40 pm

You haven't...but there is more to an army's worth than the superiority of it's infantry over it's opponents.

For example - which army in the Second World War had the best artillery arm, in terms of procedures and effectiveness. It certainly wasn't the Germans (arguably the British very closely followed by the US). Which army had the best organised logistical arm? Easy - the US.

2311Marine · Post by **2311Marine** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:17 pm

If I could wiegh-in here. I think I understand Achilles point. However, I was watching History Interational this weekend and they had a program on that stated on average, the Germans inflicted 50% more causaulties on thier enemies.

I think the Germans started out heads and tails above the Allies from 1939 ( I mean you don't conquer all of Con. Europe being ill prepared or untrained ) until 43 or 44. By that time British and American Command and Staff got the concept of fire and maneuver warfare. The Russians I don't feel go fire and maneuver but stuck with the bulldozer effect.

Cheers

2311Marine · Post by **2311Marine** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 2:18 pm

I also wanted to say that once Hitler had taken over the most minor details of frontline deployment (42-45), the Germans lost that ability to manuever and give ground when needed.

Also, technology I don't think was handled very smoothly. Those new weapons were ariving too late to stem the tide. Some weapons like the ME262 and Hitlers insistance wanted it to be turned into a fighterbomber. Which I think was unfortunate.

CHEERS

KampfgruppeMeyer · Post by **KampfgruppeMeyer** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 2:37 pm

2311Marine wrote: Some weapons like the ME262 and Hitlers insistance wanted it to be turned into a fighterbomber. Which I think was unfortunate.

CHEERS

guess it depends on which side you were rootin for.......lol

Achilles · Post by **Achilles** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 2:50 pm

they had a program on that stated on average, the Germans inflicted 50% more causaulties on thier enemies

Exactly my point - this is a ratio of 1:1.5 not 1:4.5.

Tom Houlihan · Post by **Tom Houlihan** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 3:00 pm

Not that anyone places great reliance on facts put out by the History Channel!

2311Marine · Post by **2311Marine** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 3:10 pm

No worries, I am rooting for the home team!! lol

What I meant was that it was an excellent fighter and it was used for a role it was not designed for. The Fighter Pilots like Galland were furious at this use.

It was fortunate for us, but I doubt it would have changed any out comes.

TOM: History Channel is not that bad. Its good for that quick fix...lol

Cheers

oleg · Post by **oleg** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 6:31 pm

2311Marine wrote:If I could wiegh-in here. I think I understand Achilles point. However, I was watching History Interational this weekend and they had a program on that stated on average, the Germans inflicted 50% more causaulties on thier enemies.

I think the Germans started out heads and tails above the Allies from 1939 ( I mean you don't conquer all of Con. Europe being ill prepared or untrained ) until 43 or 44. By that time British and American Command and Staff got the concept of fire and maneuver warfare. The Russians I don't feel go fire and maneuver but stuck with the bulldozer effect.

Cheers

can you be so kind as to define "the bulldozer effect."? since 1944 EF campaign was all about fire and maneuver: Bagration, Lvov-Sandomirez ( average advance tempo for tank units – 60km/day), Yassi-Kishenev. If anything Soviets had theory in place early than Germans, they also got to practice it first –admittedly on the smaller scale, against Japanese in 1939.

P.S Hi KGM –missed me?

r. burns · Post by **r. burns** » Mon Aug 25, 2003 6:56 pm

From Numbers, Predictions & War by Col. T.N. Dupuy

"The Allies mobilized approximately 40.4 million troops against 12.5 million Germans. Allied military losses against Germany were about 23 million (most of these Russians); German casualties were 10.1 million. This means that one in four Allied soldiers inflicted a casualty on the Germans, while each German averaged nearly two Allied casualties. When we correct the German score effectiveness rate to allow for defensive posture, it is still 1.42 casualties inflicted by each mobilized German, a rate more than five times as great as that of the Allies."

The most interesting part was when the numbers were tallied, the Germans inflicted 50% more casualties than they took on both offense and defense