US Army vs Wehrmacht efficiency comparison

[EwaldvonKleist]

In the Gary Grigsby War in the West sub forum, some members including me started a discussion about the efficiency of the german Wehrmacht compared to other armies of the time in general and US Army in particular. We decided to move the thread here so we don’t need to hijack other discussions. Link to the old thread: tm.asp?m=4076323&mpage=2
<<<I really miss a history sub forum!>>>
Well, now to the discussion. My thesis is, that the German Wehrmacht was more combat efficient than nearly every other army in WW2.
But before i explain my point of view:
My definition of efficiency: Efficiency=(Outcome)/(Invested resources).
Please be friendly in this thread so we can have an interesting discussion based on facts alone.
Please try to give evidence for your arguments. Links on books of websites are fine, so everyone can get the information first hand.
So lets start: My general source is Martin van Crefeld and his study „Kampfkraft“/ „Fighting power“.
Clearifications:
C1) An army always has resources of all kinds given and the way the army is organized decides how much fighting power it can made of it.

C2) When talking about efficiency of an army, I mean tactical to operational level. Especially importance hast he tactical level. For definnitions read this Pdf: http://operationbarbarossa.net/wp-conte ... rms-11.pdf
So the way how ressource efficient an army is, is on tactical to close to 100% and on operational level to a high percentage decided by the army organization.


According to my primary source Crefeld, the German army outperforms the US Army and other armies in many aspects when it comes to converting ressources to combat value. I just want to outline some aspects:

A1) Use of the so called Auftragstaktik (Chapter 5):
German Army emphasized since Moltke (1800-1891) the system of the „Auftragstaktik“ or „order tactics“ in english. It means that the leader only gives his subordinates orders what to do, but not how to do.
The US army in contrast saw the war more as a playground for management, so the high command tries to give orders how to do something too. According to Crefeld, the US Army followed the principle of the management scientist Tylor conscious or unconscious in a way which did not suit to WW2 or war in general.

A2) Regional recruiting (Chapter 6)
Wehrmacht formed units with soldiers of same origins, so the soldiers had a similar culture, dialect etc. This increased unit cohesion
US Army mixed soldiers from all regions, leading to difficulties through different cultures.

A3) Replacement System (Chapter 6)
German army made sure that the man who fight together know each other very good by creating and refilling fighting en bloc.
US army saw soldiers more as a stream of water. When the bottle is empty somewhere, you can just refill it.
The US Army system caused lower fighting morale. I will write a bit more about this in the end of this post, so take a breath.

A4) Centralisation (Chapter 7)
German army was very decentralized and trusted the subordinates a lot when it comes to choose the right leader for a task. Trying to press something in numbers to allow mechanized data handling (IBM machines...) was hardly done.
US Army was again focused on management and centralisation.
German system was better to find the man who not runs away when enemy is shooting.

A5) Vacation, medals and Health system (Chapter 8 and 9)
Germans had a better system of vacation and rest, while US soldiers had to fight mostly all the time (Homeland far away....). By refilling units like a bottle, there was also hardly a time when a unit was not in use. This resulted in higher US Army attrition, especially mentally.
German medal system was better, especially the time between the well done job and the medal was shorter compared to US Army.
Germans were good in getting injured/mentally ill men back into service, of course with more rude ways to treat them sometimes. Together with lower attrition losses, they had less permanent non-dead losses in relation to the intensity of fighting.

A6) Officers (Chapter 10 and 11)
German officers had more intense contact to their subordinates/soldiers. Germans often preferred good personalities over the most intelligent guys for low level command. Therefore, the relation among Officers and soldiers was much better in german army (even high commanders were also still seen as soldiers, no strict separation between officers and soldiers). Therefore, german soldiers respected their leaders more.
To repeat it: German army emphasized the skill of actually leading a group of people, not being the best in doing math. They saw war as a matter of character, not intelligence!!!
Again german army preferred a subjective view, the US Army tried to press everything in numbers. when it came to choosing the right leaders.

A7) Complaints
German Wehrmacht had a better system to deal with complaints and were more willing to punish leaders as well as the common soldier. Especially the implementation in the praxis was better than in US Army.
Crefeld of courses points out some weaknesses of the Wehrmacht and strengths of US Army. If you want more details about a special point just ask.
So all in all the german Army adapted much better to the physical, social and mental needs of the soldier, formed groups of better cohesion and also choose the leaders better. Therefore i really doubt the argument that US Army had better corps spirit than other armies because the organisation of the army worked against this. Please give evidence for better US Army corps spirit if you want to convince me!!!
This said, i think that the german army was better to form a group of soldiers, so with the same weapons, a given number of soldiers in the german system generates more fighting power than the same number in the US system.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Btw., i don't question that the US Army had advantages too. However, german Wehrmacht was more efficient all in all i think.
I should add that the discussion emerged from a discussion about german leader ratings beeing higher than allied leader ratin in Grigsby War in the West.

[sIg3b]

This has been endlessly debated, and I guess my viewpoint (which is completely cynical, you have been warned!) is going to equally offend both sides. [:)]

Let´s start with the part that offends the pc crowd: OF COURSE, even as late as 1944, man for man, the combat effectiveness of the Wehrmacht was *considerably* higher compared to the Western Armies, and especially US.

And now, as promised [:)] , the part that offends the fans of the Wehrmacht: The 3 main reasons were this:

1) They had started the whole thing, and surviving officers were much more experienced, of course, than Americans who joined much later.

2) German culture emphasized war much more than Western. In the Western countries war was considered a necessary evil at best. Early 20th century Germany considered war admirable in itself. It is obviously questionable if this is a good thing, but it was good for their fighting spirit.

3) The firing squad. Calling it quits meant death. This did of course wonders to motivation. Americans never shot anybody for cowardice, which was probably preferable from the viewpoint of the individual, though.

[Lecivius]

The US did shoot 1 individual for cowardice. Just FYI.

The US Army was built on the German model. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Only a fool ignores that which works.

As for being offensive, not sure why [&:] The topic is the efficiency of various military's.

[EwaldvonKleist]

@Tesuj:
Unluckily i have no similiar material to compare british army with Wehrmacht, but brits were equally long in the war. Sources or book tips about this are highly appreciated.
1) Well, on the other hand they had to replace a lot of losses, also of officers. The germans lacked officers over the whole war!!! (Source: Creveld)
2) Yes, but many germans were sceptical about WW2. Hitler feared a revolution similiar to the one that ended WW1 for germany all the time and refused to go for total war from 1940 on. Only a small minority of the germans was really fanatic in WW2. Source, in german only unfortunately: https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/der-zwe ... leben.html Its a high quality source of museum, so no nazi site or made by revisionists.
3) Yes, they executed many more men. But also other ways of punishment were better organized than in US Army and especially their was a better way for the common soldier to complain about his superiors.

The important point is: The germans did not fight better because they liked fighting so much (soldiers maybe had higher reputation in germany than elsewhere), but because Wehrmacht better adapted to the mental, social and physical needs and created units of better cohesion and made sure the soldiers and their leaders know each other good before sent to battle. In addition, they were better in choosing leaders and had better war theorie/doctrine. This is IMO the main reason why it was more efficient than US Army.
War euphorie and fanatism soon disappears when a protestant has to fight with a catholic who to speaks a different dialect and they first met yesterday and who has a high IQ but does not know how to interact with people, are commanded by an officer who they know since yesterday too and tortures them but they have no way to complain about it.
This was exactly what Wehrmacht tried to avoid and US Army often did wrong.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Unluckily i have no similiar material to compare british army with Wehrmacht

warspite1

Well that's lucky - we are better off out of these conversations as we never come out very well. Essentially people spend weeks arguing the toss and then at the end everyone* agrees that Monty was total rubbish.

[:D]

* Well some of us don't but we are in the minority.....

[TulliusDetritus]

Achilles defeated one-on-one many enemies = Achilles was a great efficient warrior. That is an objective opinion.

I'm afraid your hypotheses need to be proven in the first place (and yet you demand evidence). You affirm (the example is mine) that 2 guys from Bavaria will be more efficient in combat than 1 guy from Bavaria + 1 guy from Saxony. Or the lack of proper rest. Well, if you were correct, the US Submarines based in Fremantle should have been less efficient than their comrades resting in Pearl Harbor. Lack of good, proper installations in Western Australia that is. Was that the case?

Unlike the Achilles thing, Theses are subjective opinions, not established facts.

And I think you might be right by the way. I just don't buy the variables you mention.

[EwaldvonKleist]

I will reply to you Tullius Detritus tomorrow, dont have further time this evening. Your bavaria example is a part of what i mean, but as said more to this tomorrow.
@monty
My point is not about the top leaders like montgomery. My point is about army organisation (i am aware this was not meant serious i just want to make sure everyone got this right) or different expressed about institutionalization of fighting power in an army.

[Twotribes]

So efficient was Germany they lost to less efficient armies.

[Jagdtiger14]

Monty really was total rubbish. Now that we got that out of the way...

Ewaldvonkleist: I pretty much agree with your points, but you also should look at it from the reverse. The US didn't have to be as efficient...nor the Soviets. As for the US, how much of a loss is it wasting or losing ammo, tanks, etc...as it relates to their war economy/production/population compared to the loss of a Tiger or Panther to Germany and its production?

My point is that Germany had to be efficient while the US didn't. The US economy was about 4 times the German economy. Even if the US did not get into a shooting war with Germany...just the production alone and giving it to Britain/USSR would have won the war.

What I really never understood about Germany is why did they fly their pilots to death? The US sent their best pilots back home, raise war bonds, and most importantly train new pilots. Erich Hartmann should have trained new Erich Hartmanns.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-american ... ld-war-ii/

Example: US aircraft production (1941-1945):
Bombers 49,123
Fighters 63,933
Cargo 14,710
Total 127,766

That's 150% of German aircraft production for the same time period. And it gets much much worse when you factor in shipbuilding, tanks, etc... With these numbers, no need to be efficient.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

So efficient was Germany they lost to less efficient armies.

Yeah, overwhelming odds had nothing to do with it.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Monty really was total rubbish. Now that we got that out of the way...

What I really never understood about Germany is why did they fly their pilots to death? The US sent their best pilots back home, raise war bonds, and most importantly train new pilots. Eric Hartman should have trained new Eric Hartmans.

They didn't have enough fuel to train pilots adequately after 1943. Plus the Luftwaffe had Goering making decisions.

+1 on Monty. He fought as if it was WWI. He would have been great instead of Haig.

[Jagdtiger14]

All British commanders in WWII were deeply flawed, but if I had to pick one of them, it would be Mountbatten (not withstanding Dieppe). Either him or Col. Crittendon.

US commanders were so much better all the way around.

I hear you concerning Goering, and fuel too...but what about up to 1943? Imagine Hartmann and Marseille teaching new pilots, wow!

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

So efficient was Germany they lost to less efficient armies.

Yeah, overwhelming odds had nothing to do with it.

Overwhelming? Hardly we only fielded 100 divisions for the entire war.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

All British commanders in WWII were deeply flawed,

warspite1

You cannot help yourself can you? - you really are a twat. No really - I thought you were some kind of troll but its finally dawned on me....

You really are the most stupid person I have ever met on the internet. Whatever the subject you just repeat the same formula over and over again - sweeping, and monumentally dumb statements that see only one side. And always the same pathetic delivery:

"What I don't get it is...." which is then followed by some inane, moronic question that a ten year old could answer - assuming of course that he was stupid enough to actually ask the "question" in the first place.

"What I really never understood about Germany is why did they fly their pilots to death?" Did you really ask that? You did didn't you? You did its in black and white - what a twat.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Imagine Hartmann and Marseille teaching new pilots, wow!

warspite1

Yeah gee that'd be like real swell and the Germans would go on and win the war and everything cos that'd be neat!!

Yeah imagine [8|] Like that is going to make any difference to the big picture. You are an idiot and a fantasist.

[Jagdtiger14]

Wow Warspite! Please, continue!!![:D] How's your blood pressure?[X(]

As for the Germans training new pilots with the likes of Hartmann, you are the one taking it like I thought it was a swell and neat thing (nice of you to project a negative connotation on what you somehow know my thinking is). No, I think it would have been terrible for the Allies, but the better move for Germany to have made. Duh!

I guess wondering about the "what if" makes me a fantasist...ok!

Of all the things you called me, twat (twice!) registers highest on the insult scale, I like it! I think you can do better though...you are a very thoughtful and intelligent person...although with a bit of Witzelsucht.

[Omat]

Hello

Maybe Books from Historical Evaluation & Research Organization (HERO) should be interesting. They determine the Military performance of axis and allied units.

They come to the conclusion that german units perform round 20 % better than axis. Units which where quite good for the allied side where e.g.

1st US Armoured Division (about 23 % better than other allied Units)
88th US Infantry Division

A unit which performed not very well was the 56th UK Infantry Division.


Omat

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Wow Warspite! Please, continue!!![:D] How's your blood pressure?[X(]

As for the Germans training new pilots with the likes of Hartmann, you are the one taking it like I thought it was a swell and neat thing (nice of you to project a negative connotation on what you somehow know my thinking is). No, I think it would have been terrible for the Allies, but the better move for Germany to have made. Duh!

I guess wondering about the "what if" makes me a fantasist...ok!

Of all the things you called me, twat (twice!) registers highest on the insult scale, I like it! I think you can do better though...you are a very thoughtful and intelligent person...although with a bit of Witzelsucht.

warspite1

BP doing fine thank-you for asking. Its always calm when "conversing" with you as at least with you I get a sense of intellectual superiority I don't normally find elsewhere - well except when I'm judging the village idiots competition of course.

Insults? no I think twat covers all the bases. But maybe I'm being unfair, maybe you are as you come across, a 10-year old kid, in which case I apologise. But for the avoidance of doubt, if you are an adult that holds the emarrassingly simple, and often offensive, views that you do, then lets be clear - you are a twat.

Example:

The Gallipolii thread where you stated something to the effect that the British "wiped their asses with the ANZACs" or something equally unpleasant. It was then pointed out to you by means of myself, Aussie posters and a respected Aussie website just how wrong your view was. So what did you do? Well you could have gone away and read some - you know, educate yourself.

No, that's not for you. Instead, you came back a few months later and started on the UK and the Commonwealth troops in WWII. Again, what you spouted was totally offensive, totally without foundation, and totally ridiculous - a bit like when you suggested the Bismarck should have been towed back to the UK and that in being towed back at about 3 knots, the towing destroyers would be invulnerable to U-boat attack.

[Jagdtiger14]

I'm glad you feel well.[:)]

I don't think I ever said this to you or anyone...so here it is: I recognize you, Warspite1 as my intellectual superior (for all I know probably more than just history and WiF[:-]). I have so much to learn from you! There, its now out on record, phew! That was tough and sooo embarrassing!

Now that that's over with, perhaps I could be your internet Yes Man and Minion if you would have me? I could follow your posts with +1's or even +1,000's! I'll even stop calling Lulu, Lulu and embrace his style and root for him. I'm probably not up to that yet in your eyes...but with your steady hand guiding me...I know I could do it! What do you say?[:D]

FYI: I am an adult...so that looks really bad for me then. Sorry...I really don't want to be a disappointment or a twat.[:(]