Photograph courtesy of David Foster/Flickr
I got into this because I just wrote a post on the Battle of the Bulge, and because I just watched Saving Private Ryan for the 119th time. When I was a kid, you could not have made a movie like that even if it had been technically possible, because it showed some uncomfortable truths about the war that were not mentioned in the 1940s or into the 1950s. The first American film that showed GIs in a less than flattering light was a movie called Attack, which ran in 1956, and which holds up very well today.
Back when I was a kid and the war was recent news, everyone knew that no one outfought the American G.I. This was gospel, and anyone who said different was liable to be beaten. All our soldiers were brave, and all our officers were competent. Today we know better.
Seventy years after the guns fell silent, just about every military historian rates the German army, not the American, as the best. This is a flawed process because an army is not a constant. Halfway through the war, most of the brave, able leaders from regimental on down through squad level were killed or invalided out, and the replacements did not measure up. This was true of all armies. Nor were all armies of uniform quality. Our airborne divisions were as fine as any soldiers, but we also had some divisions that collapsed entirely in their first engagement.
I believe it was Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall who said that 100 German infantrymen were worth 125 American or British soldiers, or 150 Russians. (I’m relying on memory for this, and my memory is a flawed engine, so if anyone knows different, sound off like you got a pair.) They were better led, had better weapons, and generally got more out of those weapons than anyone else. Had the Wehrmacht not had a maniac in charge, heaven knows what it could have done.
The Germans benefited from a highly professional officer corps (a brand-new Leutnant had enough knowledge, at least in theory, to command a battalion) and a cadre of NCOs that had been in the service since World War I and had loads of combat experience. It’s been pointed out that the best of the Allied three- and four-star generals were as good as their German counterparts, but that the Germans had a great many colonels and major generals (no brigadier generals) who were far superior to their Allied counterparts, some of whom were pretty bad.
The British had a saying: “Until you’ve fought the Germans, you don’t know what war is like.”
One other service deserves mention: Max Hastings, one of the best of our World War II scholars and writers, says that the United States Navy in the Pacific, after it shook out its incompetent officers, became the single most proficient killing machine of the entire conflict in either theater. It virtually annihilated the Imperial Japanese Navy and the Japanese merchant fleet. Part of this was, of course, due to the fact that we out-produced the Japanese ship and aircraft builders by some insane margin, but still and all, the sailors did a very good job.
It’s all very interesting to discuss, but as I said, be glad you weren’t in it.
I saw "Saving Private Ryan" once and that was enough for me. Well made, but there's just nothing enjoyable about watching violence, like that, for me. My heart goes out to anyone who's had to experience trauma like that.
My father was in the 8th Army Air Force in a B-24, my father-in-law was in a tank with Patton and I had several uncles in the Marines and Navy in the Pacific. All would agree that "War is Hell" or worse. My father-in-law had no delusions about German tanks - they were much better machines and the crews/officers were well trained and disciplined. My father had 2 bombers shot up so badly they were scrapped when they got back to England. The third time they only made it to Sweden and were interred. The men in the Pacific did not think that the Japanese were pushovers. They all pointed to mostly good officers on our side and that the USA could out produce and deliver equipment and other supplies to our men than could our enemies.
I agree that Max Hastings is one of the best historians of the period. If nothing else he wrote the truth. After his book "Overlord" came out-saying basically just what you said above, he was severely taken to task by critics in the UK. They didn't say he was wrong in his facts, just that he was too laudatory towards the German army. It was severe enough that in his next book "Armageddon", he had to spend several paragraphs apologizing and vilifying all Germans of the period. PC is alive and well in the history community too.
Raining Hell is a good book about naval warfare in the Pacific Theater.
DEP: I agree with your reasons for why the German army was good. The same things that made the US Army great were much like why the krauts were good, but the US Army got better as the war in Europe continued. That is not the case with the German forces. Yes, they were poorly lead at the end of the war and yes their great leader was crazy. Just as the Confederate army was better at the beginning of the Civil War, it wasn't the better force when the war ended. If you're looking at the armies when their part of the war started, the Germans had much more prep time for getting into battle than the US Army in terms of when their respective countries went on a road to war. Last but not least and for your own sake, don't tell the last of the Greatest Generation that our army was not as good as the Germans.
Even the Roman Empire couldn't conquer Germania. The Wehrmacht is nothing to mess with, if avoidable. It held it's own during the Great War, and even when it was weaker during WWII, it gave us Hell. A proud military history, regardless of the maniac behind the wheel during World War II.
I don't think I would have enjoyed island-hopping in the Pacific Theater either. The Japanese are quite tough during wartime, too.
To Fordman 155: Try this test yourself. Ask any member of the Greatest Generation what would have happened if we had fought the Germans on our own, without the Russians.
Fordman: With that many lives lost, nobody won. That said, the Germans lost, and that's the important part. Someday soon hopefully, our species will learn to settle our disagreements without bloodshed.
Krauts. A great lesson in pride goeth before the fall. Our 10th Mountain Division kicked their asses.
To DavidPetzel: I did ask the question. To a man the answer was the German army was good, but we were a little better.
Mr. Petzal, would you at all be able to elaborate on the finer differences of squad tactics between the Germans and the Americans?
As I understand in the German military the rifle (Kar98) supported the squad gun (MG42), while in the American military the squad weapon (usually BAR) supported the rifle (M1 Garand).
I've also heard that the military vested so much confidence in the Garand's semi-auto capabilities that we under utilized the .30 cal belt fed machine gun. Am I right on any of this or have I been mis-informed?
As for the Russians, my own personal opinion is that us allying ourselves with them would be like siding with an Islamic Republic rather than caliphate supporting terrorist organization to fight ISIS. You don't work with them because they're any better (and the Russians weren't), but because you both share a mutual threat and because they are less of a threat than the other bad guys. But as soon as your mutual threat is gone you and your former ally start swinging punches. Which is exactly what happened between us and the raping, murdering communists.
Our cooperation worked, but the Soviets have certainly scarred the planet, cost more lives, and caused more suffering than the Third Reich. A shame we had a commy loving and trusting (censored) in office instead of someone who was willing to work with them but still hated them, like Churchill.
I personally find it an offensive trend in military history to lionize the krauts as better grunts than our own. There's some kind of germanness, if you will, behind that kind of baloney thinking. We fought the krauts and the japanese at the same time and gave them all hell, and our boys were relentless unto death and their replacements were too. Not a whole lot between fact & fiction when you watch a movie like Fury. Most of our killers like Brad Pitt's character, however, left the battlefield dead or badly wounded, neither talking... much. However, I just got done reading the battalion history (Remount Blue, written by David Brower) for the 3rd Battalion, 86th Mountain Infantry, 10th Mountain Division from Riva Ridge to the surrender of Nazi forces in Italy, all 1945. Got it from the Denver Public Library. There weren't any krauts finer than them boys. Krauts had crack troops but so did we. We tend to remember crack troops better in history, but not all krauts were.
To Fordman155: And how did they account for the fact that of every 10 German soldiers killed in the war, 8 were killed by the Red Army?
Let me put a good word in for what during the BIG War was called the 5th Service. It is the Merchant Marine. Nearly ten thousand mariners died due to combat actions. Over 700 ships were sunk. Hundreds right off of the East Coast by German U Boats. These brave men kept the lifeline going before the war to Britain and during the war to the continent and across the Pacific. God Bless these men. Without them we might not have been able to project our strength across the globe and defeat the Satanic forces we were fighting.
Back in the day when I was a young Staff Sergeant in Germany a scant 19 years after the war, all the Wehrmacht vets down at the local gasthaus would tell you they fought the Russians on the Eastern Front. I wondered if most were just saying that to be PC and not rile American GIs or if we killed all those who fought us! Years later, I learned the enormous manpower thrown at and lost to the Russians. I even had a few drinking pals that had SS tattoos.
On a happier note, I was never able to buy a beer in Luxembourg or Belgium if anyone in the establishment knew I was an American GI passing through.
Funny how times change...
I think Shindlers List and Private Ryan should be a required watch of every High School Student. The Millennial Generation (Born 1980-2000) have not a clue what kind of soldier it took to Storm Normandy, Chase Rommel around Africa, or take Iwo Jima. Those were men like the US will likely never know again. War is different now and for the better, and we all owe some gratitude to the men that came before us.
Now some basic training would straighten out a lot of these kids that did not get the guidance (and love) they needed growing up. Our society will pay dearly for the neglect and selfishness of those that did not raise their kids right.
You can't generalize and say whether the Germans or Americans were better or worse. Most American ground troops didn't face the Germans until D-Day or after, this when the Germans had been fighting for almost 5 years. The bigger divide is between green and inexperienced troops against veterans, a case where a casualty of war was the characteristic bloodying of American troops in initial engagements before they got the hang of it. Many American units had two years of rigorous training before they were committed, a luxury that wasn't afforded to the Germans we faced who were rushed into combat after only weeks of learning the craft. If you want to learn about crack American troops in WWII, look beyond paratroopers and learn about American divisions that were manned in large part by ASTP soldiers (bright recruits whose training was said by some to be more rigorous than West Point). One example was the 100th Infantry Division and their performance can be set against any outfit in any theater on either side.
Hornd, I was born in 1980 and I don't count myself as a millennial. My grandfather served in the navy in the pacific, his brother served in the navy and was at Normandy for d-day. My father served in the marines I also served in the marine corps. I'm oldest grandson on one side of the family and the youngest on the other side. And I'm only one to serve my country. There has been a terrible failure with today's youth. I'm not sure how it happened. But it scares me to think what lie ahead. I only hope I can be half as good as the old timers.
Pages
Mr. Petzal, I love your writing, I truly do. But I find the premise of this article goofy as he11. Who gives a rats behind "who had the best troops" as if that had anything at all to do with WWII. Here's the BLUF: we fought for what was good and true and right. They fought for a friggin madman with an evil agenda. We won, they lost. End of story.
Another thing, the Greatest Generation guys were fantastic, no doubt. But, for the last 24 years I've worked side-by-side with the most dedicated service members this nation has EVER produced. Many of them have served downrange 3-8 tours, and despite the negative media about suicide rates, MOST of them are as resilient as they come. This is an all volunteer Army that knew the stakes ahead of time and came to serve anyway. Not too many generations can say the same. The men and women serving our nation today are, by and large, the best fighting force this nation has ever seen. We would do well to quit looking to past generations for our heroes and observe the 1% keeping us safe every frickin day.
A couple of points. First, the Germans and the Japanese both were darned good. But that said, we had the tougher job. It was our job in Europe and the Pacific to root the enemy out of defensive positions, and anyone who knows will tell you that it is easier to defend a position than to attack it. Ask Robert E. Lee; the only two battles he lost were Antietam and Gettysburg. Second, we had a way to win. When the Germans or Japanese had a super pilot, sniper, etc. they would keep him in the field, usually until he was killed. When the Americans identified a real ace they would pull him off the line and make him an INSTRUCTOR, and make one ace into a lot of aces. So by the end of the war we were gold, and they were dross. Just sayin'. Americans had a way of doing things in those days; pity we seem to have forgotten how to win.
There is a lot of unnecessary outrage going on here, ranging from accusations of racism to Nazi loving. The Nazis had good troops; you don't conquer almost all of western Europe in a year with bad troops. Yet that some of us admit that fact, and that even military historians admit it, is taken as an insult to America by a few of us, and Petzal as some sort of turncoat. Well, here I go. Some times, bad people make good soldiers. Some times good troops fight for bad causes. The Mongols under Genghis Khan were good. So were Attila's Huns. The Vikings conquered every place they could sail or row a longboat to. And the Confederates in our own Civil War, who can list slavery among the things they were fighting to preserve, made the Army of the Potomac look like amateurs for the first three years of the war. One of America's strengths used to be that we were not too proud, or too politically bound, to learn a better way of doing things from anyone, even our enemy. You don't have to admire someone to admit he's better than you at something.
when I watched Saving Private Ryan the one thing that come to mind,rather quickly was that the movie people actually captured what war or maybe simply put what a real fire fight is like. The feelings all came back to me and I was all over that movie seat. I cannot image what those troops encounter when it was time to saddle up and hit the beach. The war in Viet Nam where I served was different in lots of ways from what the veterans of WWII saw. But when it is time to saddle up it is the same thing.
DEP: I agree with your reasons for why the German army was good. The same things that made the US Army great were much like why the krauts were good, but the US Army got better as the war in Europe continued. That is not the case with the German forces. Yes, they were poorly lead at the end of the war and yes their great leader was crazy. Just as the Confederate army was better at the beginning of the Civil War, it wasn't the better force when the war ended. If you're looking at the armies when their part of the war started, the Germans had much more prep time for getting into battle than the US Army in terms of when their respective countries went on a road to war. Last but not least and for your own sake, don't tell the last of the Greatest Generation that our army was not as good as the Germans.
OK texas first. Just because somebody disagrees with you and has some sort of facts to back it up doesn't mean that they're a "nazi lover" or secretly wished the nazis had won. The facts are the facts. As myself and others have said, you can't take a very small army (ours), jam it full of civilians and instantly have a war-winning force. It took quite a while for us to get everything shook out and find out what works. That's quite a bit different than dissing the vets from that war or any other. You're name calling and bullying doesn't intimidate me and I don't care if you don't like what I say. Oh yes, and screaming "semper fi" in every post doesn't necessarily mean you're right. So, if I've offended anybody but you I apologize but that's the way I feel.
A good sign for any army is when it maintains cohesion under extreme stress, and the German Army of WWI and WWII did this to the end of hostility[s]. That's a sign of Leadership from the Officer Corps and from the NCO Cadre. Watching the film reels of surrendered German troops please notice they all marched in formation to surrender led by their officers and NCO's.
OK Harold and jcmesq, I apologize for my harsh comments. I am not in a place emotionally to engage this subject with any subtlety or stomach for the dialectic. I think my chest-thumping is an attempt at making myself feel less vulnerable than my godawful combat experiences in war and subsequent personal loss have made me. I should never have even commented on Petzal's blog here. We'll try again someday, but I do admire the luxury to remain so cool-headed and detached on what to me is a visceral topic.
texasfirst: Strike my harsh comments, too. I had no idea you have had such experience and loss in your life, otherwise I would have been more understanding and less rude. When someone approaches a topic full-bore from one side that certainly has some latitude to it, I start going full-bore to the contrary, as well, sometimes with no tact.
I consider myself a gentleman, yet not a pushover. And I think you would agree that there are times when anyone has to fight.
I am completely pro-U.S.A./patriotic, as well. I have blood relatives who have given military service to this country throughout the decades, since its inception. Yet regardless of my initial patriotism, sometimes intellectual endeavors have to be approached with more reason, allowing for the truth.
Thank you for your military service to this country, something I have not had to personally do. And subsequently, I have not suffered any mental or physical trauma, that could be associated with that service. And I can see where mental trauma at times can be a lot worse than any physical injury ever could be. At least you are strong enough to endure, and make a comment like the above.
No hard feelings, Bro. Carry-on!
To DavidPetzel: I did ask the question. To a man the answer was the German army was good, but we were a little better.
When looking at my experiences, I truly know nothing concerning this subject. My brother often speaks of the ETO as a sideshow for the Germans, if that is so (and I'm not so sure about that), then the Nazis brought that on themselves. I do know that the USA had to commit a HUGE amount of men and resources (ships and sailors) to getting all that to wherever we or the stuff (Russia, Med, all over the effing globe) had to go, something the the Germans (a little in the Med and Africa) and Red Army did not have to contend with. did anyone here forget that we had the CBI to contend with as well? Imagine if the Marines were not tied down in the Pacific, and they could have handled the Sicily/Italy invasions? Sicily may have been bypassed, and Anzio would have been an amphibious rout of the Nazis, instead of a wasteful disaster. When my dad was in the US Army, he became friends with a former German Wehrmacht soldier. He told dad that what made the American GI so dangerous is that they couldn't predict what the kid from Alabama, or Flatbush, or Terra Haute, or Buffalo, or Deadwood or Bangor would do.
I had an uncle who fought in the Battle of the Bulge. The Germans may have been better. They were probably better trained. After all, they had been building up for war for nearly a decade before the war began. They may have been better equipped, too - but their resources were limited. They ran into an army that had a lot of fight in it, though. Farm boys like my uncle were full of fight, but didn't want to be there.
Back in the day when I was a young Staff Sergeant in Germany a scant 19 years after the war, all the Wehrmacht vets down at the local gasthaus would tell you they fought the Russians on the Eastern Front. I wondered if most were just saying that to be PC and not rile American GIs or if we killed all those who fought us! Years later, I learned the enormous manpower thrown at and lost to the Russians. I even had a few drinking pals that had SS tattoos.
On a happier note, I was never able to buy a beer in Luxembourg or Belgium if anyone in the establishment knew I was an American GI passing through.
Funny how times change...
The absence of leadership currently in the White House is a wreck and bad for any of our friends. Our enemies will likely get in all they can before Barry and his crew leave. I think most of the current military/naval leadership can't wait for Barry to leave although there are some I know of who like his policies. There will always be career officers who align themselves with a political movement or party despite officially being neutral in politics. Overall I think there is good support from the general population for our armed forces. Pockets of liberals will be dry for defense spending and no one is surprised to read that. They want peace with freedom but won't put out the effort to keep the freedom so we can enjoy the peace.
There has been some talk recently about lowering the standards for infantry service so that women can advance through the ranks on an equal footing with the men.
Oy vey!
I think Shindlers List and Private Ryan should be a required watch of every High School Student. The Millennial Generation (Born 1980-2000) have not a clue what kind of soldier it took to Storm Normandy, Chase Rommel around Africa, or take Iwo Jima. Those were men like the US will likely never know again. War is different now and for the better, and we all owe some gratitude to the men that came before us.
Now some basic training would straighten out a lot of these kids that did not get the guidance (and love) they needed growing up. Our society will pay dearly for the neglect and selfishness of those that did not raise their kids right.
Hornd, I was born in 1980 and I don't count myself as a millennial. My grandfather served in the navy in the pacific, his brother served in the navy and was at Normandy for d-day. My father served in the marines I also served in the marine corps. I'm oldest grandson on one side of the family and the youngest on the other side. And I'm only one to serve my country. There has been a terrible failure with today's youth. I'm not sure how it happened. But it scares me to think what lie ahead. I only hope I can be half as good as the old timers.
When the Odds Were Even: The Vosges Mountains Campaign, October 1944-January 1945
by Keith Bonn, is an excellent book. In fact, when the odds were even, we won, hands down.
I've heard and read from time to time the notion that the German army was the finest in the field in WWII. Perhaps -- although bear in mind that they were preparing for war for the better part of a decade before it started -- Japan as well -- while the democracies did not. When the war started both the German and Japanese militaries were at peak readiness -- at least when compared to the Allies. Rick Atkinson's trilogy on the US Army in North Africa, Italy, and western Europe does a superb job of telling the story of how we learned, often through bitter experience, how to win. He includes a quote from Winston Churchill, who in speaking admiringly of FDR and America in general, marveled at a nation that with one hand was propelling the Allied juggernaut across western Europe, and with the other defeating the Empire of Japan. There were many reasons for our success, but I think one of those was, in the end, we became better at killing the enemy than he did killing us. So put me on the dissenting side of the premise that the Germans were better than us, and I may have to take a swing at you Dave Petzal if we ever meet.
I don't think I would have enjoyed island-hopping in the Pacific Theater either. The Japanese are quite tough during wartime, too.