U.S. Army vs German Army

No. I want your 10 examples of just exactly what lying is going on when "claiming that the US army [was] inferior in fighting power to the German army and specifically what my lies are. Don't give me more strawmen dodges on SUBJECTS WHICH NO ONE IS ARGUING HERE. Then I suggest you substantiate my affiliation with Stormfront.

 

Really? I suggest it is more a writing and reasoning problem at your end. What is anyone supposed to take "there is no such thing as "the German soldier " or the "American " soldier"" to mean? It certainly would be a shock to the Landsers and GIs of that war.

 

Your incomprehension of your own writing is telling. You said "If someone (probably a Stormfront recruit ) is claiming that the US army is inferior in fighting power to the German army (translation : the individual German soldier is better than the individual American soldier )while the truth is that it was the opposite,the truth is not an amalgamation ( a compromise ) between the opposing positions: the truth is that the first claim in the usual lie one can expect from that direction, and there is no compromise possible between a lie and the truth ."

Let me parse it out for you. Someone, who is probably a Stormfront recruit, is lying when they claim the US Army fighting power was inferior to that of the German Army in World War II.

I have claimed such...at least by the reductio ab adsurdum world you seem to live in. Thus, I must be a liar and probably a Stormfront recruit.

 

I was talking about the OP : were you the OP ? I don't think so and you disagreed with the OP .

 

Yes, yes. I agree with that. That is the overall finality of this argument. By the end of the war the U.S. soldier equalled/eclipsed the German soldier. Training and combat experience evened it out. However, the was not the case during '39-'42.

 

I suggest you re-read what I wrote. I disagree with the OP's manner and commented on his "sources". I said zero about his opinion.

 

I would also suggest you put more thought into your posts.

 

"The German soldier" did not exist, neither did "the American soldier" : all American soldiers and all German soldiers differed from each other .

Talking about the" German/ American soldier" is generalizing .

Even someone as Frieser (who can not be suspected of a negative judgement of the WM ) is admitting this ,when he said that in may 1940 45 % of the men of the Heer were older than 40 (which means that 55 % were younger than 40 ) and that 50 % had just a few weeks of training (which implies that 50% had more than a few weeks of training ) : the conclusion is that "the German soldier" did not exist in 1940,it was the same for "the American soldier " .

 

Thank you, I appreciate the comment.

There most certainly are. There are many reasons for this that range from cultural differences, to training, to motivation, to leadership, to esprit, to tradition, to tactical and operational doctrine, to discipline, institutional culture, selection and categorization of enlistees/inductees, etc.

In 1940 the Germans had been able to train their forces to a high level of individual proficiency. These individually proficient soldiers had been provided with ample time to train within their units and build unit cohesion and competency. In the military the team or unit is greater than the sum of its individual parts. This unit or team can only reach optimal capability if it trains together and builds familiarity. The German was motivated to put in greater effort by the fact that they were engaged in or soon to be engaged in a shooting war. You'd be surprised how much more attention to detail and effort in learning and mastering skills and tasks accompanies the realization that you're about to enter combat, that is a real motivation. Leadership can inspire confidence and the desire to excel or the obverse, it can sap initiative and destroy the individual desire to excel. Troops feeling they are well led and well fought will go to extraordinary levels to achieve their goal. Troops that are ill led, feel abused, ill used will and poorly fought only do the minimum required. They are beaten before the first shot is fired. Esprit, nothing builds this like success in combat. Tactical and operational doctrine, if you are trained in an ineffectual method of fighting, based upon archaic or flawed precepts you are fighting at a disadvantage. Your doctrine trains your mind how to arrive at solutions to problems, it is the framework upon which your decisions on what to do and how to act are based. In combat when decisions need to be made almost instinctively, with little time for deliberation, doctrine which has been drilled into your head drives your thought processes. Many times this is counter-intuitive to the way we as people are hard wired to act and your subconscious mind needs to over-rule your instinctive reactions. This is another area where training and discipline are crucial, you must have practiced the actions so many times that they become almost second nature and can be performed with little or no conscious thought, similar to the concept of muscle memory, and you must have the discipline to keep your mind focused on thinking tactically.
The American soldier in 1940, by and large, was there because he had been drafted and compelled to be there. He figured he'd do his two years and be out to go back to the civilian world. There was even a law that he could not be deployed outside the western hemisphere or US territories. We were not at war, were assured by our political leaders that US "sons and fathers" would not be sent off to fight and die in foreign wars" and combat was not imminent. He did his job, the majority only as much as was required and no more. He didn't take seriously learning his job intimately because he really didn't think he'd ever have to apply said knowledge. He engaged in unit training based upon outdated doctrine and archaic tactical concepts. Unit training that lacked intensity, frequency, urgency and duration, because of lack of resources and lack of motivation. Our National Guard units were predominately more like social clubs where leadership positions were assigned due to the individuals civilian prominence, familiarity with those in command or social connections and not on military knowledge and competency. The personal motivation for the individual was not there, we had not been attacked and weren't interested in fighting. He had no reason to embrace the unit identity, esprit and traditions of the unit he was assigned to because he was just there temporarily, a civilian in uniform, doing his time until he could resume his normal life.

I could go on and on but won't because I'm not writing a book. I just want to provide you with enough information that you can understand there are differences.

 

Oh no: it was already so in 1943 when the American soldier defeated the Germans in North Africa (Kassereene was an exception), in Sicily, in Italy .

it could not be the case during 1939/1942 as both did not fight against each other .

I find it also questionable to use training and combat experience : the US replacements had no combat experience. Weapons were more important, much more . When in the North of the Ardennes 6 SS PzArmy was stopped by the 1st (? ) US ID , the cause was not that the SS had less training /combat experience, but that the GI's had the weapons needed to destroy tanks, if they had only rifles, they could not stop tanks .

 

Excellent summary and info.

I wonder if it will render the discussion closed?

 

Ugh. Your sticking with this notion eh? You gotta give me something. This point is not valid LJAd.

 

Frieser would not agree with you :he said that in may 1940 a third of the German army divisions were not suitable for offensive operations .

 

Tell that to Western Europe

 

You can only compare opposing armies .= armies who are fighting against each other, because only war is proving/indicating the qualities /defaults of an army . That's why I gave the exemple of the Canadians . An other exemple : how can one compare the Swedish and Finnish army ?

One can even not compare allied armies : US, Britain and the SU fought against the Germans, but not against each other, thus one can not compare their respective "fighting power " (if such a thing exists ).

 

Again. Drawing conclusions based on history. The study of historical record. That is completely valid.

 

Wow. If you're going to use specific actions as examples, you should at least get the basic details correct. It was the 30th Division and a motley collection of task forces thrown together from various units that stopped the advance in the Ardennes northern thrust - 6th Panzer Army.

 

"Quality " (which can not be measured and thus not be used ) was not something that caused, or even influenced the success of Fall Gelb (neither was it the presence of a brilliant general :brilliant generals finish in Elba or St Helena ): the German success was caused by German quantitative superiority .

 

That's why I used the query .

 

SO how did the Americans win the battle of the bulge if they were so inferior. Were the Americans who stormed Omaha that inferior. The US lost one battle to the Germans and while they did not have the experience the Germans did they quickly learned and adapted.