Re: Re: [WW] Quality of Soldiers in World War II

[mock@springmail.com]

True - I under-specified my comments.  If my memory serves, the information I referenced comes from Stephen Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers," (an excellent book, by the way), which was about the campaigns following D-Day and thus primarily dealt with the German Army in a defensive mode.

Regards,
Chris


On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Soothsprayer <hercubadger@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>
However, I recently found out that's a myth - they
were, as Michael already mentioned, simply average
(although small-unit initiative was encouraged). The
reason they inflicted more casualties is that they
were almost always dug in, fighting in defensive
fortifications, while the Allied troops were always
assaulting said fortifications, which meant that the
Allies needed 2-3 times the manpower to dislodge the
Germans. 
>>>

Not entirely true for the start of the war rather than
the end. The Germans certainly weren’t always on the
defensive (just ask the Russians or the French) and
their initial assault tactics and combined arms
approach were revolutionary for the time. 

Before the Eastern Front had dried up much of the
available skilled manpower (the exceptional troops
rather than the mediocre) and Allied bombing had made
an utter mess of logistics, I would have placed the
German infantry soldier as in the upper ranks of skill
and ability. They were very well trained, well
equipped, and dedicated to their cause.