Karl Heidenreich wrote: ... Still, the Germans had a much better, the best, army of WWII, acknowledge so by the same officers of the army that fought it.
On the first day, an entire German battalion of 500 men was held up for 10 hours at the small village of Lanzerath, through which passed a key route through the Losheim Gap. To preserve the quantity of armor available, the infantry of the 9th Fallschirmjaeger Regiment, 3rd Fallschirmjaeger Division, had been ordered to clear the village first. A single 18-man Intelligence and Reconnaissance Platoon from the 99th Infantry Division along with four Forward Air Controllers held up the battalion of about 500 German paratroopers until sunset, about 4:00 p.m, causing 92 casualties among the Germans.
or this?
The 99th Infantry Division as a whole, outnumbered five to one, inflicted casualties in the ratio of eighteen to one. The division lost about 20% of its effective strength, including 465 killed and 2,524 evacuated due to wounds, injuries, fatigue, or trench foot. German losses were much higher. In the northern sector opposite the 99th, this included more than 4,000 deaths and the destruction of sixty tanks and big guns
You don't know when to stay put? I have proof that your "When the Odds were Even" cheap propaganda is a hoax without proper research but you evade it. Do you think forum readers are that blind? That they will ignore that your so called "support" is cheaper than Mein Kamph?
You bring two small examples, OK. I have brought a series that confirm a tendency:
There are others, of course, but I am sure lwd will come with his argumentative stuff because he don't know when to stop being kicked, so I wil not waste no body's else time. It will do him good to read the review on his "source"
After all... the US only fought some 11 nonths against 1 million Germans. The Germans fought 5.4 million western allies plus some 6 million russians at two fronts.
Regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill
Karl Heidenreich wrote: ... Still, the Germans had a much better, the best, army of WWII, acknowledge so by the same officers of the army that fought it.
On the first day, an entire German battalion of 500 men was held up for 10 hours at the small village of Lanzerath, through which passed a key route through the Losheim Gap. To preserve the quantity of armor available, the infantry of the 9th Fallschirmjaeger Regiment, 3rd Fallschirmjaeger Division, had been ordered to clear the village first. A single 18-man Intelligence and Reconnaissance Platoon from the 99th Infantry Division along with four Forward Air Controllers held up the battalion of about 500 German paratroopers until sunset, about 4:00 p.m, causing 92 casualties among the Germans.
or this?
The 99th Infantry Division as a whole, outnumbered five to one, inflicted casualties in the ratio of eighteen to one. The division lost about 20% of its effective strength, including 465 killed and 2,524 evacuated due to wounds, injuries, fatigue, or trench foot. German losses were much higher. In the northern sector opposite the 99th, this included more than 4,000 deaths and the destruction of sixty tanks and big guns
These incidents illustrate the advantages that the defender always has over an attacker. Since the German Army was almost always on the defensive from 1943 onward, it typically showed a better exchange rate, but on those occasions when the German Army attacked this advantage disappeared.
These incident illustrate the advantages that the defender always has over an attacker. Since the German Army was almost always on the defensive from 1943 onward, it typically showed a better exchange rate, but on those occasions when the German Army attacked this advantage disappeared.
Typicall allied propaganda. Who had tactical air supremacy? Who have un challenged logistic lines? Who have strategic and tactical numerical superiority? PLEASE READ before making flawed statements. Please see the list of operations and combats I post above and they are a mix of everything, offensives and defensive, be my guest. The same can be said of the British Army at Alamein... uh?
If that's so then why is it that in the Germans, in a 1:1 ratio against France didn't experience this situation? Or at Gazala? Uh?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill
Typicall allied propaganda...Please see the list of operations and combats I post above and they are a mix of everything, offensives and defensive, be my guest...
Selections from the wikipedia articles listed above:
First Alamein:
Commonwealth (defenders)
13,250 casualties[1]
--------------------------------
Axis (attackers)
17,000 casualties[nb 1]
OUTCOME:
Tactical inconclusive.
Strategic British victory
Market Garden:
Allies (attackers) : 41,628 troops; 1 armoured division; 2 infantry divisons; 1 armoured brigade (according to Cornelius Ryan some 20,000 vehicles of XXX Corps)
Germans (defenders): unknown. But it is known that 10th SS Division only accounted for 3,000 men and that Bittrich's Corps do not had more than 7,000 men altogether. Student forces were about 20,000 men with 25 tanks and tank destroyers
OUTCOME:
Stated as "Allied Operational Failure", an euphemism for German victory
However casualties listed by dunmuro are acurate:
Allies: 15,326- 17,000 casualties with 88 tanks and 144 transport planes
Germans: 6,315-13,300 with 30 tanks and SP guns and 159 aircraft
Totalize:
Allies: 3 infantry divisions; 2 armoured divisions; 2 armoured brigades
Germans: 3 infantry divisions; 1 SS Pz division; 1 heavy tank batallion
In paper the SS Pz and the Heavy tank battalion sounds a lot, but in reality we are talking of 50 tanks. According to Michael Reynolds canadians lost 80 tanks and the Polish armoured division lost 66 tanks. Germans lost 45.
Overlord:
Allies: 1,452,000 by July 23rd - 2,052,299 by August 21st; there are no data on armor. More than 10,000 planes
Germans: 380,000 by July 23rd - 1,000,000 according to Schulmann
OUTCOME:
Allied victory
Let's remember that at that same time the Germans were facing the more important Operation Bagration from the Soviets that dwarfs the western allied strategic diversion:
Soviets: 2,331,700 men (EXCLUDING REINFORCEMENTS) + 79,000 Polish (poor bastards); 2,715 tanks; 1,335 assault tanks; 24,262 guns; 5,327 aircraft
Germans: 849,000 men (of which only 486,493 men were "frontline strenght"); 118 tanks; 377 assault guns; 2,589 guns: 602 aircraft
OUTCOME:
Soviet Victory
Casualties:
Soviets: 770,888 (including sick)
Germans: 749,102 overall including captured
Prague Offensive:
Soviets: 2,000,000 men
Germans: 90,000 men
OUTCOME:
Soviet and allies victory
But above the all previously mentioned list we have the greatest battles ever fought in WWII in the Main Theater of Operations, that is, the German-Soviet Front.
Casualties:
Soviets (allies of the US): 277,190 overall plus 1,250 tanks and SP guns; 542 planes
German: 20,000 overall; 49 planes (soviets lost 11 planes per every German one)
Third Battle of Kharkov:
Soviets (defending): 346,000 men
Germans (attacknig): 70,000 men (5:1 in favor of soviets defenders)
Overall Kursk:
Soviets (defending heavily prepared positions and then attacking): 863,303 men; 6,064 tanks and SP guns; 1,626 planes; 5,244 guns
Germans (attacking and then defending non prepared positions): 203,000 men; 720 tanks and SP guns; 681 planes; guns unknown
For the Prokhorovka combat, the greatest tank battle in History we have:
German forces: II PZ Corps (three Waffen SS divisions)
Soviet forces: 1st Tank Army; 69th Army; 5th Guards Tank Army; 5th Guard Mechanized Corps; 5th Guards Army
I don't have time right now to go over this in detail but for exampke, for the 3rd battle of Kharkhov:
Comparison of forces
Between 13 January and 3 April 1943, an estimated 500,000 Red Army soldiers took part in what was known as the Voronezh–Kharkov Offensive.[1] In all, an estimated 6,100,000 Soviet soldiers were committed to the area, with another 659,000 out of action with wounds. In comparison, the Germans could account for 2,200,000 personnel on the Eastern Front, with another 100,000 deployed in Norway.[citation needed] As a result, the Soviets deployed around twice as many personnel as the Wehrmacht in early February.[30] However, as a result of their over-extension and the casualties they had taken during their offensive, at the beginning of Manstein's counterattack the Germans could achieve a tactical superiority in numbers, including the number of tanks present—for example, Manstein's 350 tanks outnumbered Soviet armor almost seven to one at the point of contact.[28]
Maybe you don't know this, but by when the specific action you are mentioning, the Third Kharkov, the soviets still had the post Stalingrad counter offensive ongoing and they had their units advancing against the germans in various points of the front. This is where Manstein made plain evident his genius (and which is why he is labeled as the greatest field commander of WWII for this particular action) and devised this plan that got the commies with their feet cold. It was a stroke of genius, of course. In the worst of cases it was a soviet operational failure to challenge Manstein until it was too late.
This was a very complex manouver and battle, something that has no parallel in the Western Front.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill
Glantz, Nipe, van Creveld, and Dupuy are IMO worth consulting regarding the question of overall troop quality. The argument of Dupuy is founded on research which he claims to show a German man-for-man superiority factor of approximately 1.5 to 1 versus their US and British counterparts >irrespective< of tactical posture.
On thing to keep in mind about the American army that landed at Normandy - The majority of US troops committed to the ETO in 1944/45 had never seen prior combat. Their solid performance on the ground as essentially green troops testifies to the basic quality of the men, the thoroughness of their training, and, in the case of the infantry, the excellence of their weapons and equipment and fighting doctrine. This is meant to take absolutely nothing away from the US armored divisions which, at great sacrifice, performed prodigies of valor fighting in tanks specifically designed to the standards of a faulty operational doctrine.
The following books is also useful to illustrate the matter -
"Tank tactics: from Normandy to Lorraine" By Roman Johann Jarymowycz ( previewable @ books.google.com )
I think the historical record pretty much speaks for itself.
B
Last edited by Byron Angel on Sun May 22, 2011 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glantz, Nipe, van Creveld, and Dupuy are IMO worth consulting regarding the question of overall troop quality. The argument of Dupuy is founded on research which he claims to show a German man-for-man superiority factor of approximately 1.5 to 1 versus their US and British counterparts >irrespective< of tactical posture.
On thing to keep in mind about the American army that landed at Normandy - The majority of US troops committed to the ETO in 1944/45 had never seen prior combat. Their solid performance on the ground as essentially green troops testifies to the basic quality of the men, the thoroughness of their training, and, in the case of the infantry, the excellence of their weapons and equipment and fighting doctrine. This is meant to take absolutely nothing away from the US armored divisions which, at great sacrifice, performed prodigies of valor fighting in tanks specifically designed to the standards of a faulty operational doctrine.
B
I think your assesment is correct.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill
I think the historical record pretty much speaks for itself.
B
Thanks a lot for this link. I already downloaded as a pdf and will start reading it right away as those from Glantz and Willbeck's. This where you get the correct information and criteria.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Sir Winston Churchill
I think the historical record pretty much speaks for itself.
B
Thanks a lot for this link. I already downloaded as a pdf and will start reading it right away as those from Glantz and Willbeck's. This where you get the correct information and criteria.
- - -
Karl, you may also be interested in the following resource which I just edited into the email you cite above -
The following books is also useful to illustrate the matter -
"Tank tactics: from Normandy to Lorraine" By Roman Johann Jarymowycz ( previewable @ books.google.com )