Validity of the reputations of the Russian and German militaries during WWII

Status
Not open for further replies.

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Reading the accounts of NZ soilders who fought the Germans in Crete, their opinion was that while the german soilder fought well as a unit under a leader whether it be a sargent or officer, as individuals they lacked the inniative of their NZ counterpart. I wonder if the same could be said of the soviets
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Reading the accounts of NZ soilders who fought the Germans in Crete, their opinion was that while the german soilder fought well as a unit under a leader whether it be a sargent or officer, as individuals they lacked the inniative of their NZ counterpart. I wonder if the same could be said of the soviets

that i think is a complete lie, the German soldier was a extremely professional well diciplined and well trained individual

the way in which the german army was trained was revolutionary for its time, if a commanders died in battle the person below his rank was trained to take his place, the organisation of the Germans was second to none

the German soldier of WWII was probably amongst the best soldiers of a any army at the time or probably since

during the Galipoli Campaign in WWI the Ottoman Turks machine gunners who had German made machine guns were trained by German officers, when Anzac landed they thought Ottoman army was not going to be so tough and good tatics, instead Ottoman Turks fired thier shots in accurate short bursts waiting until the very last minute holding with nerves of steel, they were also very flexible, able to adopt to changing situation

that is why they still remember that day, its called Anzac Day
 
Last edited:

delft

Brigadier
I remember reading that German officers were trained to take on the task not only of an officer one rank above his but also of two ranks above his. I don't know if that was just in WWII but also in WWI. And of course after heavy losses this system will break down but it is a lot better than not training for the higher tasks.
 

Lezt

Junior Member
A really good insight into the red army is to read:
The Bloody Triangle: The Defeat of Soviet Armor in the Ukraine, June 1941 by Victor Kamenir

It is a rare glimpse into the organization and operation of the red army units on a day to day (okay, not exactly day to day, but sequential) documentation of the German invasion on the soviet perspective viewed from the eyes of several red army commanders.
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
that i think is a complete lie, the German soldier was a extremely professional well diciplined and well trained individual

the way in which the german army was trained was revolutionary for its time, if a commanders died in battle the person below his rank was trained to take his place, the organisation of the Germans was second to none

the German soldier of WWII was probably amongst the best soldiers of a any army at the time or probably since

during the Galipoli Campaign in WWI the Ottoman Turks machine gunners who had German made machine guns were trained by German officers, when Anzac landed they thought Ottoman army was not going to be so tough and good tatics, instead Ottoman Turks fired thier shots in accurate short bursts waiting until the very last minute holding with nerves of steel, they were also very flexible, able to adopt to changing situation

Errrr. I was referring to Crete as the defending force was commanded by a NZ General

Anyway you can take a man and spend X amount of time training him to fight and think as a individual, to many NZ and Australian troops individulism was second nature and when they found themselves without officers or NCO's, they excelled.

It usually due to the surroundings one lived and was brought up in. Many Germans of the airbourne division paid tribute to this character of the Austalian and Nz fighting man who with the British and berefit of any decent weaponry of any kind,(left behind in Greece) gave the German airbourne divisions which were the elite such a mauling, they were never used to spear head any attack again.
Not bad for a miltary force mostly made up of partimers volunteers and conscripts eh. . Unlike the Germans many of these troops never had the same level of training.

You can read stories of Rommel praising the tenacity of the ANZACS in the middle east campaigns in such books by Australian historian Mark Johnston " That Magnificent 9th: An illustrated history of the 9th Australian Division and Fighting the Enemy": "Australian Soldiers and their Adversaries in World War II".

"Australians were the best fighters. he added that the New Zealand Maori soldiers were probably the finest in the world but thank god there wasnt many of them. When asked would he have an army of Australians, Rommel replied no, you could only have a division as it would take the rest of the army to keep them under control.

He was aware that the 9th division was all volunteers, big men who were brawlers and thugs at home and liked to use the bayonet, which to the average German was a very frightening situation to be in. They were very unruly, the sort of men you put in prison in peacetime..

continue reading for other bits n piecesother bits n pieces

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!




p58 The Desert Fox reportedly said he would have liked a division of Australian troops under him.... rated NZders as his finest opponents.........A German infantry major described the Australians as incredibly tough fighters at Tobruk, superior to the Germans in the use of camouflage and individual weapons, particularly as snipers........(and so it goes on.




Or in Alamein - - War Without Hate" by John Bierman and Colin Smith. It has a few more quotes about the 9th Division, The 9th was considered by Allied commander Montgomery as his "secret weapon" and pinned his hopes of victory in the 2nd Battle of El Alamein on them. I believe he said "We could not have won the battle (El Alamein) in twelve days without the magnificent 9th Australian Division." (Denny Neave, Denny Neave and Craig Smith. Aussie soldier prisoners of war. Big Sky Publishing. p. 276.)










that is why they still remember that day, its called Anzac Day

And some regard it as the founding of the NZ nation and continuously sold that idea.

I dont want to be disrespectful to the dead,but imo there are other highlights in our history we could have chosen, why a battle in some far away land?

Are you aware that India took part in the Gallipoli landings and suffered far more casulties than us? Im not aware of them celebrating the "Gallipoli landings" in the same manner as we do.

---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

I remember reading that German officers were trained to take on the task not only of an officer one rank above his but also of two ranks above his. I don't know if that was just in WWII but also in WWI. And of course after heavy losses this system will break down but it is a lot better than not training for the higher tasks.

Actually I would have thought that that would be the most common thing to do.I know in our navy the man below was just as capable of doing the job as his superior.However I dont know whether that was something that evolved post WW2
 
Last edited:

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Are you aware that India took part in the Gallipoli landings and suffered far more casulties than us? Im not aware of them celebrating the "Gallipoli landings" in the same manner as we do.

---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------



Do not make comments that are untrue, they didnt

The reason why it is called Anzac day is to remember the dead soldiers of NZ and Aussies, Yes India did take part but they didn't suffer anywhere near the casualties the Anzac forces suffered, and India did not fight as a country they fought under British mandate which is not the same thing
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
removed

---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

Do not make comments that are untrue, they didnt

The reason why it is called Anzac day is to remember the dead soldiers of NZ and Aussies, Yes India did take part but they didn't suffer anywhere near the casualties the Anzac forces suffered, and India did not fight as a country they fought under British mandate which is not the same thing

Well I got that impression when a member of the Indian diplomatic staff was interviewed after attending the "Anzac Day" commemoration.. last year.I can only suggest that he must have been referring to the overall Indian casulties in WW1 (108.000) when compared to that of N.Z.(73.000)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

However I cant see why India cant commemorate its war dead, even though it was in the service of another country.
 
Last edited:

richardrli

New Member
Registered Member
Bladerunner, if it was true that the average German soldier was in any way "afraid" of hand to hand combat involving bayonets then I think that probably reflects poorly on them as (I dare say!) somewhat cowardly, rather than any specialness on the Australians and NZer's part. Armies of that era still emphasized a lot on the bayonet didn't they?
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Bladerunner, if it was true that the average German soldier was in any way "afraid" of hand to hand combat involving bayonets then I think that probably reflects poorly on them as (I dare say!) somewhat cowardly, rather than any specialness on the Australians and NZer's part. Armies of that era still emphasized a lot on the bayonet didn't they?

I don't think it has anything to do with cowardice at all. IMO A blood curdling bayonet charge would be psychologically unsettling. Being hit by a projectile fired at from some distance was preferable to being stabbed by a bayonet .That's probably why it was a favourite tactic of the Aussie 9th Div. Meanwhile the Maori traditional way of fighting was through the use of thrusting jabs, and thus he was in his element under hand to hand combat conditions.
Each side had elite fighting units which an opposite side would face with some unease. The German regular army's "Gross Deutschland Division". for example. As its name suggests, was made up of men recruited from all over Germany and each had to meet a strict selection criteria and fought fanatically to the bitter end on the Russian front. Or the "Waffen SS" with their no quarter asked or given approach, one could expect a high casualty rate as well. However IMO for "Asif Iqbal" to suggest that Germany had the best fighting soldiers is a very bold call to make.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top