The German Army...

pattle said:

I don't want to take sides here but the way you are speaking to DonL is bloody shocking, you are supposed to be a moderator but yet you resort to personal insults and have also contradicted yourself in a number of areas. Just because you are a moderator it does not give you the right to speak to people as though they are dirt and act like a tyrant.

Click to expand...

1. I am talking to him the way I am because I have done so in a civil manner on dozens of occasions, and have been ignored by him over and over. I am tired of the same people over and over derailing threads and then ignoring repeated requests by the staff to knock it off. Do you like repeating yourself to someone for years on end? Probably not. I bet you would lose your cool as well.

2. I am sorry that you feel the way you do. I am human like everyone else. As I stated above, I get tired of the same people bickering and arguing which derails from threads.

3. I have used no personal insults to anyone. Go back and read the posts carefully. I did not call him any personal names or anything that. If you are referring to my bone headed comment, it was meant in jest. (Note to yourself: He said he was not boneheaded, I called him a bone head and put the little wink smiley after it, letting him know it was in jest. Next time I can put [In Jest][/In Jest] tags behind it for you if you wish). Other than that, please go and show me where I personally insulted him. (do so in a PM, I am tired of this thread being detracted). You won't because I did not personally insult him.

4. I do not act like a tyrant. I think you will find that I am probably one of the more lax moderators here. It is pretty hard to get me going. I have probably banned less people, and give the most opportunities for people to correct the childish behavior. I am just tired of the same people over and over derailing threads, and then ignoring repeated attempts (all of them civil) to get them to act like adults and stay on topic.

5. I treat others as they treat people themselves.

6. Go back to 4. I don't act like a tyrant.

7. Probably the most important thing. If you have a problem with me or any other moderator, contact us directly in a PM, and we can try and work it out.

8. If you do not like it here, the door is open. I don't wish to see people leave. I believe that each and every person on this forum is what makes it great (even DonL and parsifal), but I will not twist someone's arm and make them stay if they do not like me, or any of the other staff.

9. If you wish to continue this discussion, go back and see number 7. There is a PM function.

10. For the last time, lets get back on topic. (Okay this one is more important than number 7...) We don't need anyone else from the peanut gallery derailing an already derailed thread. There is a ton of good stuff to be discussed on this topic, if people would just do so. Is it too much to ask????

As far as pm's go certain things need to be said openly and not behind closed doors. I believe I have made my point and I do not wish to spend anymore time on it, but if you feel the need to have the last word then be my guest.

pattle said:

As far as pm's go certain things need to be said openly and not behind closed doors. I believe I have made my point and I do not wish to spend anymore time on it, but if you feel the need to have the last word then be my guest.

Click to expand...

No you can have the last word since it will obviously make you feel better, and hopefully you will allow this topic to finally get back on track. Somehow I doubt that.

Signed

Forum Tyrant

Mr. Blonde: Boy that was really exciting. I bet you're a big Lee Marvin fan aren't ya. Yeah me too. I love that guy. My heart's beatin' so fast I'm about to have a heart attack.

Ok, beer's up and NFL on the picture box, where's the bacon!!??





Sorry.....wrong thread!

I was the reason for this disruption to the thread, and I apologize for that. not for what ive said, or the positions ive taken. . But i dont like to see any members losing their tempers, and threads coming apart at the seams because of opinions expressed.

I am not going to get involved in this stuff any more than i am, but Adler is doing a very difficult job and us guys should not interfere. If you have issues with what hes saying, the appropriate way of doing that is via PM.

As far as objecting to what i say, you can PM me, or, do as i have done, add those people you dont wish to have a conversation with to your ignore list. That way, you dont ever have to read what they want to say. This is a free forum, and people are entitled to a great deal of freedom. There are some basic rules though, which I shall give my advice on free and gratus

1) Dont argue with the mods. Its a sure way to get banned, and a sure way to get a thread closed down.

2) Put your opinions down as you see them. If you are going to disagree with another members post, keep it constructive, back up your rebuttal with facts or sources

3) Dont resort to personal insults and try to keep away from inflamatory language.

4) The material you post should have some relevance to what is being discussed. if the topics stray too far, the mods will pull us into line. We should try to self manage relevance, but its almost an everyday occurrence that discussions end up straying a bit.....

5) If you dont like the posts being made by another member, either dont read them, dont visit the thread, or use the Ignore function to hide that members' comments.

I strongly advise we get back to the discussion if we want to save this thread.

Edit:
Lucky is around and as the thread starter could say if he is happy or not with what we are discussing. For me that has some weight, especially as he is a friend of mine.

No pasifal, you are not the reason in this case. You made a post that was relevant, nothing else.

Now can this can get back on topic? This is a prime example of how bickering ruins threads, ans why we sometimes blow our tops.

I don't mind at all, if the discussion moves along to later in the war. Always interesting to about other armies doctrines (is that the right word here?), in teachings, practices etc., etc..
Don't mind should it spill over to the navies or air forces either...as the Japanese navy air force and army air force had the same successes early in the war as well....much thanks to the zero, but I'm sure that the time in school, helped as well...

Bickering wink or whatever you want to call it, will always be around, shame to see good people getting banned over it...there's always a chance that a discussion get heated...

As far as the Japanese go, your "time in school" comment is appropriate as even if of not all pilots/crews had experience in China the Organization's did and for a number of years. That was experience that stood them in good stead at the beginning of the war but may have helped contribute to their reversal of fortune as the Chinese air force wasn't very good and allowed the Japanese to believe that "modern" warplanes didn't need protection (armor/self sealing tanks) and that light armament was sufficient ( most/all Chinese aircraft lacking both armor and self-sealing tanks except perhaps for some Russian supplied aircraft?).

The Chinese did get a few of those I-16's, didn't they?

I can dislike too.

(Yes my disliking was in fun, don't get any panties in a bunch pattle...)

Lucky, no one is getting banned. We just need the topic on track and the same people to stop detracting.

Last time to repeat it. Lets get this topic. We are all friends, lets keep it that way.

Lucky13 said:

What was it that made the German Army so successful in the Beginning of WWII, was it their training, education, officer schools etc.?
How did these factors compare between the fighting armies?
What education did the NCO's and higher ranking officers receive?
Was it much of a difference between Army, Navy and Air Force?

Not interested in the 'political education' here, just the pure military one...

Click to expand...

From my point of view germany was successfull in the early years because the military had a plan and were professional in its execution. In later years the political leaders gave the military un achievable targets. in the end it could be fair to say Adolf went nutz. I havnt read one word about his intervention being positive to the outcome after 1940.

Lucky13 said:

The Chinese did get a few of those I-16's, didn't they?

Click to expand...

Yes, about 250 of them. Don't recall the type, but they were up-amed with additional set of 7.62mm MG

They also had the I-15, numbering about 345 (347?) I'll have to look the numbers up for an exact head-count...

*Edit* I-16 type 10, I-15 was 347
All these were to the Chinese Nationalist Air Force

pbehn said:

From my point of view germany was successfull in the early years because the military had a plan and were professional in its execution. In later years the political leaders gave the military un achievable targets. in the end it could be fair to say Adolf went nutz. I havnt read one word about his intervention being positive to the outcome after 1940.

Click to expand...

In other words, uncle Adolf should have kept his fingers out of the biscuit tin!
Less unachievable goals and listened to his generals, things might have gone well, a wee bit longer...

pbehn said:

From my point of view germany was successfull in the early years because the military had a plan and were professional in its execution. In later years the political leaders gave the military un achievable targets. in the end it could be fair to say Adolf went nutz. I havnt read one word about his intervention being positive to the outcome after 1940.

Click to expand...

Germany was successful in its early campaigns for a whole range of reason. Strategically they were able to surpise theior enemy, and not just once. They had a doctrine superior to anybodys, and not just blitzkrieg. They had technology more developed and ready for war, and for a number of years retained that lead. They had a large, well trained and well motivated army. They had leadership both military and political (pretty much the same person) in tune with the national capabilities.

But things did go wrong. Their naval strategy was flawed. Their military leaders were not good at front wide or combined arms operations point of view beyond the immediate operational needs of their own command. A classic example would be Rommels refusal to return the airborne assets after the fall of tobruk. The agreement had been to return these assets to maintain the blockade of Malta. instead, bedazzlewd by the pull of the pyramids, he appealed over the headsof his superiors directly to Hitler, and got the assets retained under his command. After Tobruk, he didnt get much more of value, and lost a lot, as the Malta djeni jumped out of its box and monstered his command. I think his defeat was inevitable before Tobruk, but if Malta had remained suppressed, he may have been able to hold out longer, or even achieve some evacuation of his troops before the gates slammed shut.

Like all armies, the germans had their strenfths, and their weaknesses. They were essentially a continental army, and this gave them great strengths and advantages, but it also made them less good at other operations. Late in the war they attempted several ampbibious operations....with conspicuous lack of success.

I read somewhere that one difference between the German army and the Allies was a restriction on freedom of movement for a commander - from a General on down to a Sgt. In other words, sometimes combat situations require the top-ranking soldier to act and not wait for orders, but the Wehrmacht did not allow this type of decision making, viz-a-viz June 6, 1944 and waiting for Hitler to release the panzers.

Is this true?

I thought that regimental officers and men were encouraged to take advantage of any chances that appeared on the battlefield but at senior level, in particular when Hitler and Himmler became involved in making combat decisions everything came to a stop.

sometimes the Germans could react very quickly. Using Rommel again, in north Africa, it was his ability to adapt quickly and flexibly to a fluid situation that made him so dangerous.

On the other hand, after the issue of the "No Retreat" maxim in November 1941, the Germans became increasingly constricted in their ability to undertake orderly tactical withdrawals. There were some very significant exceptions, such as during Mansteins time in command of AGS, but then there were some first class disasters as well. Guderian was dismissed for retreating, as were a whole range of other prominent commanders. Stalingrad was another example of this sort of thing at work.

The majority of the blame for this can be laid at the feet of Hitler, but not entirely. The heer dropped training and studies in retreat before the war, with the result that retreats tended to become headlong routs with greater costs in men and machnes than was necessary. Hitler also tended to forbid the prepration of defensive lines behind the front, because as the war progressed, he tended to not trust his commanders, and was of the opinion that prepared positions was defeatist and encouraged retreats when they were not necessary.

After 1943, the main part of the German army was no longer capable of true mobile warfare, either in attack or defence, due to the loss of transport in their main army. The mechanised formations retained mobility, but they were given no rest because they were constantly having to work as fire brigades to try and save what they could in terms of the Infantry, which were constantly being overtaken and then defeated in isolation.

If the Germans had retained enough transport to retain mobility, and had adopted more flexible defence plans, from '42 when the writing clearly was on the wall, instead of going nuts and attacking when they lacked the strength (something supported by the remaining senior commanders including the super defender Halder. Bock, and Richthofen also supported the offensive, though few supported the diversion of effort into Stalingrad) to do so effectively, they probably could have achieved a better outcome than they did, at least on the eastern front. By 1945, even the Russians werre running out of men, all the Germans had to do was increaser the cost of the Soviet offensives, whilst reducing their opwn costs. not a simple task, but they hardly could have done worse strategically given the inability for the heer to use their greatest strength of 1939-42, namely the operational ,mobility of their army.

The Campaign against the Soviet Union was the rock that smashed the creme of the German Heer. The failure to correctly estimate the logistical demands of such a massive campaign combined with Hitler's meddling in military operations and strategy were at the heart of the army's decline and eventual defeat. The campaign in Russia was like a huge black hole that sucked in so much material and resources that it affected the German Military's ability to wage war on all fronts.

Njaco said:

I read somewhere that one difference between the German army and the Allies was a restriction on freedom of movement for a commander - from a General on down to a Sgt. In other words, sometimes combat situations require the top-ranking soldier to act and not wait for orders, but the Wehrmacht did not allow this type of decision making, viz-a-viz June 6, 1944 and waiting for Hitler to release the panzers.

Is this true?

Click to expand...

Actually in the beginning of the war I believe the opposite was true. At least on the "small" unit level. Lower level leaders were encouraged to take action quickly and NOT wait for orders for higher up. It helped keep up the momentum of attacks and allowed for quick response and flexibility in defense. Like many other things though the well trained and experienced pre and early war NCOs and low level officers suffered a disproportionate amount of causality's and the "system" could not supply enough replacements especially while trying to expand the army.

I read someplace years ago ( could have been a Jim Dunnigan Game extra) that a German NCO week long tactics course had the students given one problem every hour, they had 5 min to come up with a plan and then several of the plans (but not all) were discussed before the next problem was presented. This went on for a week. In contrast a British NCO week long tactics school and one problem in the morning and one in the afternoon (after lunch) with an hour being given to come up with a plan and then the discussion. In a Week the German NCO was presented with 3-4 times the number of problems and while his plans may not have been as carefully thought out there was a definite emphasis on the speed of coming up with some sort of plan.