Superior troops or bad stats?

But what u can expect from 15y old boy r 55y old Soldier,when u compare them to 20-25 year army? Kids r just a kids,i dont need to speak more,old guys got their sight weaker,not enought strenght and stamina,not so mobile as young r. German army in France was just a shadow from German army in Russia at war start,when they get 80% of all losses.

 

Nobody could ever seriously argue against that. But on the same line of reasoning, if the USSR was the same size as France then the same rule applies.

 

Child Soldiers (15 years and younger) have been fighting for centuries in all sort of wars and i never heared any complaints about them except they are obviously too young (altough i wonder if there is a right age to fight a war??).

I know about a few oldtimers who would still kick many 20-25 year old butt...

But it's simple a bullet shot by a youngster or an elderly can simple kill!

 

the german youth were heavily indoctrinated and when enlisted were already highly skilled in squad tactics, orientering etc and highly motivated towards the riech

The hitler youth division fighting in Normandy is good example of this where the privates fought superbly under the control of experience older NCO's

In modern warfare age is no barrier to skill or usefulness due to the simplicity of firearms and the fact that years of practice or adult strength are not needed to wield them like medieval hand to hand weapons

FNG

 

A major difference was that the Germans organised their infantry units around their squad LMG's. The German's placed far more emphasise on firepower than Allied units did, and German platoons carried almost twice as much ammo as Allied units did, nearly all for their LMG's (note that in photo's of late war German infantry nearly all of them seem to be carrying LMG ammo on their person ).

 

sinissa:
There is a reason they draft 18yr olds kids and not 50yr olds.
The kids are more impressionable, and can be molded much easier than we 'ol guys who are set in our ways.
We would be questioning our drill-instructors constantly... whereas the 18yr old youngster simply salutes and says "YES SIR!"


Tim

 

They did have more LMG's, and better ones, in their platoon level units. But the LMG's fitted the same ammo as their rifle which is why they lugged so much of it around on belts and in boxes.

FNG

 

I cant buy many of this explanations they just lost all crack troops on east,so basicly there is not much high quality troops to fight on west (we dont count Seveloth, hes perfomance was excelent)

 

.

I've read of a stiffening of the Germans around the later part of 44 as they were defending their homeland rather than some foreign patch , while the allied troops were getting the " victor shakes " .....not getting killed when the war is won and soon over
also shades of WW1 the germans had developped modern company based defence tactics using MG 42 , assault guns and shoulder fired AT with the odd
armor in overreach

.

 

By 1944 when the Allies had flooded through France German replacements were of 2 types:

1) All those not yet called up - the old, the young, the infirm.

2) All those Navy and Air Force personnel who were currently sitting on their hands watching the Allied superiority in their area and hoping they didn't get sent out to fight.

Obviously group 1 provided them with lower-quality troops, but group 2 gave fit, trained and still idealistic young men who gave extremely good service.

redcoat -

I take your point. However, being mostly on the defensive does tend to allow you to cause more casualties than you receive. Stats are a tricky area. For example, given the stats and your excellent point about unit firepower, you can easily conclude that German soldiers were no better than anybody else, they just had access to a better doctrine.

 

The troops used in the West even in late 1944 were generally considered to be the elite of the German armed forces. For example, the OOB for the Ardennes Offensive invluced the 1st and 2nd SS Panzer Divisions, the 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend", the Heer's own 2nd Panzer Division and Panzer Lehr Division, two Fallschirmjäger divisions, the 26th Volksgrenadier Division, the Führer Begleit Brigade and the Führer Grenadier Brigade. Most of these units gave an excellent account of themselves during the operation.

 

To be honest, that is exactly my conclusion. German troops were no 'better' than anybody else, they just had a more effective infantry combat doctrine,

 

I have to agree. The German Army was the only one in WW2 that I'm aware of that could form ad hoc units for a specific combat situation and have that unit not only fight, but usually fight well. In the US Army, on the other hand, ad hoc units normally fell apart as soon as they came under fir. They weren't cowards, mind; they were just in with a group of total strangers and commanded by officers and noncoms they didn't know, and American troops don't fight well in situations like that, historically speaking. Team SNAFU in the Battle of the Bulge is the exception that proves the rule.

 

Older people also outve shape.

 

.

Younger soldiers have not much sense that what they see happening is " real "
I mean there is no deep emphatic feeling , what they see is external , it is somebody else !
Older soldiers are very much aware that the guy having his guts blown is himself but for a very fragile statistical margin ,
every fight is like playing Russian roulette , with variable odds

That's why old soldiers in combat are so superstitious ,
you only survive not because your good or smart , just lucky
....and luck is a fickle bitch :roll:

,