The German Soldier I.

This is coolbert:

The observation has been made by a number of authorities that the German soldier in BOTH World Wars, performed in a BETTER manner and was consistently SUPERIOR to their opposition. The German soldier always was able to kill more of the enemy than themselves were killed. This is just true.

Here is an extract from a World War One [WW1] web site that answers the question of "Were Germans better soldiers?" [this extract says YES] and lists some cogent reasons as to why this was so.

When the words BETTER and SUPERIOR are used, please understand we are talking here about unit actions. NOT the actions necessarily of the individual soldier. We are talking about being better and superior at unit sizes of brigade [5,000 troops] and larger. Troops performing as units and executing TEAM TASKS, lead by inspired leadership.

From the web extract:

"Why were allied casualties on the so much higher than German casualties, despite the Germans being outnumbered most of the time? Were Germans better soldiers?"

"The short answer is yes, the Germans were better soldiers: better trained in the areas that mattered, and better equipped."

"Because the Germans had taken most of Belgium and part of France, the Allies were politically compelled to attack, while the Germans could attack or defend based on military factors alone."

[of the defensive, it can of course be said, "defense is the stronger form of combat". Easier to do, produces more results with less.]

"Another consequence of this compulsion to attack [on the part of the allies] was that, while the Germans could fortify their efforts into making their line as impregnable as possible, the allies always viewed their trenches as temporary places to stay before the next big push. As a result, German trenches were of much better quality."

[not only is defense the stronger form of combat, but as Dupuy's verity of combat # 6 states": "Defenders' chances of success are directly proportional to fortification strength."]

"There were other factors as well:"

"Uniforms and helmets: In 1914 the German uniform was "field gray" [feldgrau] one of the most difficult colors to see. The British wore Khaki, which wasn't bad, but the French still had their 19th century uniform of blue with bright red (the most visible color in existence) pants! Also, unlike the Germans who attacked in 1914 wearing the famous spiked helmets, most British soldiers did not get helmets until early 1915, while the French did not get helmets until late 1915"

"Weapons: German divisions had nearly twice as many machine guns as did those of the Allies. Both sides rapidly increased the number of machine guns throughout the war, but the Germans maintained this lead."

[what is also left out is that the French in particular were at a serious disadvantage with regard to artillery vis-a-vis the German at the start of the war!! The main artillery as used by the French was the famous 75 mm gun. An excellent artillery piece, fast firing and highly mobile. It was developed with MOBILE warfare in mind. The German counter-part to the French 75 mm gun was a 105 mm howitzer. A much large artillery piece, and much better suited for the trench warfare that developed in the aftermath of the opening months of the war. THE FRENCH IN PARTICULAR WERE JUST OUTGUNNED!!]

"Training: A great irony of both world wars is that the generals of the autocratic German state trusted its soldiers far more than the generals of the democratic allies. German lieutenants and even regular soldiers were expected to show initiative and, make important decisions, and quickly exploit opportunities that presented themselves."

[this is not so much a function of training as it is a function of DOCTRINE! German DOCTRINE emphasized that lower echelon commanders had leave to make important decisions based upon their estimate of the situation [the military loves that phrase]. NOT slavish adherence to a pre-arranged plan. [the plan is the base from which all change is made - - Israeli General.]]

"doctrine"

"(DOD) Fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application."

It should also be noted that when facing LESSER opponents [Russian and Italian] in other theatres of the war, the German on the offensive did succeed in a manner not seen on the western front. At the start of the war, large scale defeat and annihilation of an entire Russian Army occurred at Tannenberg . In 1917, both at Riga and Caporetto the German attacker did achieve a breakthrough. Using aggressive infiltration tactics [Hutier tactics] the German was able to achieve results in keeping with what the General Staffs of the major powers all hoped for, but never seemed to see happen!

[it was at Caporetto that Irwin Rommel first made a name for himself. Became a household word in Germany first for exploits on the Italian front in WW1!! Mostly through the exercise of initiative and exploitation of a situation as a leader!]

Overwhelming numbers used by the allied forces and internal breakdown on the "home front" doomed the German to defeat in WW1. NOT for lack of soldiery skills however, was the war lost!!

coolbert.