WWII from axis perspective

BMbikerider · Aug 25, 2019

John51 said:
The airforce has the officers go do the fighting while the rank and file stay at base.

Not always. In the RAF during the war the lowest rank for aircrew was sergeant and that included pilots. The pilot was always in command of the aircraft. Commissioned Officers also flew in the same aircraft possibly as Navigators, flight engineers, bomb aimers or even as air gunners. So the non commissioned ranks also faced the flak as well as the officers.

mshchem · Aug 25, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
But ever see an officer service aircraft? Fix and aircraft problem? The officers should respect the enlisted personnel.

The smartest guys in WWII air corps were the navigator and the crew chief that serviced the plane.

War is insane

AgX · Aug 25, 2019

BMbikerider said:
Not always. In the RAF during the war the lowest rank for aircrew was sergeant and that included pilots. The pilot was always in command of the aircraft. Commissioned Officers also flew in the same aircraft possibly as Navigators, flight engineers, bomb aimers or even as air gunners. So the non commissioned ranks also faced the flak as well as the officers.

A pilot as chief of the ship could have been lower in rank than one of his subordinates?

Dan Fromm · Aug 25, 2019

mshchem said:
The smartest guys in WWII air corps were the navigator and the crew chief that serviced the plane.

Are you sure? I ask because one of my uncles was trained as a navigator after he washed out of flight school. Not clear that he was smarter than his flight school classmates who got their wings.

Yes, WW II.

mshchem · Aug 25, 2019

Dan Fromm said:
Are you sure? I ask because one of my uncles was trained as a navigator after he washed out of flight school. Not clear that he was smarter than his flight school classmates who got their wings.

Yes, WW II.

They probably needed navigators more then pilots .

Dan Fromm · Aug 25, 2019

mshchem said:
They probably needed navigators more then pilots .

I'm not sure.

My uncle never saw combat, navigated transport ferry flights from the US to Europe. Not many aircraft lost there.

In the European theater bomber losses were horrific, and bombers certainly carried more pilots than navigators. Fighters also had carried pilots than navigators and fighter losses were significant.

Sirius Glass · Aug 25, 2019

In the 60's when I traveled Europe by train, I was obviously an American since I was wearing jeans, unsolicited I was approached by middle aged German men would volunteer that they fought during World War II but on the Eastern Front. I have never understood why the allies had such a hard time since everyone was on the Eastern Front.

alanrockwood · Aug 25, 2019

mshchem said:
...So very sad, from an American perspective we were always fighting our own relatives in a sense. I have German, Irish, English, and a mix of European ancestors. US soldiers often had 1st cousins in Italy and Germany during the fighting.

One American pilot, Werner Goering, bombed the city in Germany where his grandmother lived.

If the name "Goering" rings a bell, yes, Werner was related to THAT Goering, or perhaps not. The actual relationship is somewhat in dispute, but Werner thought that Hermann was his uncle, and in pre-war days Werner corresponded with Hermann, and as far as each knew at the time they had an uncle/nephew relationship.

During the war my grandmother rented a room in Salt Lake City from one of the Goering family. As you can imagine, the FBI had the place under surveillance.

AgX · Aug 25, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
I have never understood why the allies had such a hard time since everyone was on the Eastern Front.

-) not everyone was at the eastern front
-) US leadership in general was more saving on soldiers' life than soviet

Mr Flibble · Aug 26, 2019

The soldiers with the rifles/snowball fight are Luftwaffe Feld Division or Luftschutz troops. So either Infantry or FLAK gunners, stationed in France. And yes, they were sometimes equipped with captured weapons like the French Lebel rifles.
Yes, the Luftwaffe had ground infantry units (The German Military in WW2 was weird that way), they were eventually dissolved into the Wehrmacht in 1943 (Regular Army).

-) US leadership in general was more saving on soldiers' life than soviet

Agreed, with a few notable exceptions, like Hurtgen Forest. That wasn't called "The Death Factory" for nothing.

spark · Aug 26, 2019

The German WW2 Air Force included paratroopers and POW camp guards. Also, Germany was always short of basic equipment so it was common for secondary units to be equipped with captured weapons. This became a nightmare for supply but the Germans started the war on the premise they’d win quickly and live off occupied territories.
These pics remind me of my dad’s of postwar Japan. Guys away from home in a strange place.

alanrockwood · Aug 26, 2019

The following might be of some interest: A number of studies have been done to estimate the relative effectiveness of German soldiers compared to American soldiers. A typical result is the conclusion that 100 German soldiers were about as effective as 120 American, British, or French soldiers. (https://www.ihr.org/other/bestsoldiers) The link just provided also estimated that 100 German soldiers were about as effective as 200 Russian soldiers.

The article I referenced discussed a number of possible reasons for the differences, but quality of equipment and training were big factors. Cultural differences may have also played a role. I think that quality of leadership was probably also a factor.

Somewhat related to this, I have read that what the Americans excelled at was artillary operations and logistics. The Americans and British were also much better at strategic bombing.

Industrial might and manpower advantages ended up being extremely important in tipping the outcome toward the Allies.

As William Tecumseh Sherman is quoting as saying "War is Hell."

Anon Ymous · Aug 26, 2019

alanrockwood said:
... I think that quality of leadership was probably also a factor...

Considering the Great Purge in the 1930's, this is probably true. This purge targeted, among others, the leadership of the Red Army.

alanrockwood said:
... The Americans and British were also much better at strategic bombing...

The Americans and British were practically the only ones having strategic bombers.

railwayman3 · Aug 26, 2019

My grandfather was a coal miner in the UK during the WW2 (too old for the regular forces, and I believe that some, if not all, miners were not "called-up"). There was a large POW camp a few miles from his house, and, after April 1945, the prisoners were trusted to work in local agriculture, etc., pending repatriation. A number regularly attended the Church where my grandparents worshipped, and became quite friendly, keeping up correspondence after their return to Germany. Several admitted that they had been quite content to have been captured, they felt that they might then have some chance of surviving the war and would be properly treated. Sadly, a lot of this history and information has now been lost, and it is good to see some original pictures taken by the ordinary men, rather than just news photos and film.

alanrockwood · Aug 26, 2019

Among war history buffs there is often discussion of the Tiger tank vs. the T-34 and Sherman tanks. I am no expert, but I have formed an opinion based on my limited reading about the Sherman vs. the Tiger. First of all, for the most part it didn't often come down to Sherman vs. Tiger. The two tanks were designed and mostly used for different purposes. If it did come to tank-on-tank combat, the Tiger could typically destroy about 5 Shermans for the loss of one Tiger. However, Shermans were built in such huge numbers that a 5:1 ratio was not good enough.

Another thing is that the Sherman was easy to manufacture, easy to ship, and easy to repair, as well as being reliable in the field. The Tiger had none of those qualities. This provided an enormous logistical advantage for the Sherman.

dutchsteammachine · Aug 26, 2019

benjiboy · Aug 26, 2019

AgX said:
I assume mschem meant flying members of the Luftwaffe. But I do not know their minimum rank, likely for a pure gunner.[/QUOTE

AgX said:
US losses in Europoe 291,000
US losses in the Pacific 116,00

Here quite some figures widely unknown !!
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tote_des_Zweiten_Weltkrieges#/media/Datei:World_War_II_Casualties.svg

These fig

AgX said:
The guys shown are of the lowest rank of all, thus definitely no airmen.

I saw

AgX said:
The guys shown are of the lowest rank of all, thus definitely no airmen.

I saw one or two gefreiters ( privates first class ) but most of them were fliegers aircraftmen 2nd class).

i

Mr Flibble · Aug 26, 2019

Taking this off on a tangent a bit.....

alanrockwood said:
First of all, for the most part it didn't often come down to Sherman vs. Tiger.

Steven Zaloga's researched this and came up with only 3 or 4 occassions that American Tankers actually went up against Tiger 1 tanks in the North-Western Europe. (Not counting other Allies engagements and other theaters of war, like North Africa, Sicily and Italy).

Another thing is that the Sherman was easy to manufacture, easy to ship, and easy to repair, as well as being reliable in the field. The Tiger had none of those qualities. This provided an enormous logistical advantage for the Sherman.

The Shermans didn't stand up to German tanks in sense of Armor or Guns, but they had way more reliability and indurance.
It had to be, for sake of logistics. If you have to fight a war across an ocean, 6000 miles away.
And the crew casualty rate of Shermans was about 1 in 5 for every Sherman knocked out. (with roughly a 1500 actual fatalites for the entire ETO campaign, out of 50000 men who served in the US Armored Forces)
Certainly with the introduction of the M4A3 Sherman with 'wet ammo storage' the survivability went up considerably.

If you're interested in the Sherman's performance during WW2, I can suggest reading Armored Thunderbolt by S. Zaloga,
And watching Nicholas Moran "The Chieftain's Hatch" presentation on the Myths of American Armor in WW2

Sirius Glass · Aug 26, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
In the 60's when I traveled Europe by train, I was obviously an American since I was wearing jeans, unsolicited I was approached by middle aged German men would volunteer that they fought during World War II but on the Eastern Front. I have never understood why the allies had such a hard time since everyone was on the Eastern Front.

AgX said:
-) not everyone was at the eastern front
-) US leadership in general was more saving on soldiers' life than soviet

WTF?!? Are you saying that some of those men were lying to me? OMG!!

AgX · Aug 26, 2019

All I saw was one pair of wings at collars with no further dsigns and no signs at all thr shoulder flaps. From that I deduced the all are lowest rank.
(At 3rd sight it seems one guy has two pairs of wings at his collar.)

AgX · Aug 26, 2019

alanrockwood said:
The article I referenced discussed a number of possible reasons for the differences, but quality of equipment and training were big factors. Cultural differences may have also played a role. I think that quality of leadership was probably also a factor.

Within the 7 years preceeeding the start of the war a vast paramilitary training program started within the Hiltler Youth, reaching a great lot of teenage boys. I assume this vastly benefitted the forming of non-commissioned officers.

In addition the Wehrmacht, starting (in numbers) from scrap in the 30s, was younger amd more modern than the soviet forces.

Also the soviet forces suffered from "political cleansing" at the late 30s. However the succession of rather young officers cannot simply be seen as disadvantage when the same time it is regarded as benefit for the young Wehrmacht...

In quite some anglo-american movies etc. the Nazis are depicted as elder men. This does not reflect that the Nazi period was a great career opportunity for masses of well-educated male academics finding a job and very early promotion at authorities.

benjiboy · Aug 26, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
WTF?!? Are you saying that some of those

Sirius Glass said:

WTF?!? Are you saying that some of those men were lying to me? OMG!!

Click to expand...

Germany had about 176 divisions in Russia in WW2 and only around 73 in the rest of the world, these figures changed from year to year but there were over three million German troops in the Soviet Union, and two-thirds of them never got back to Germany.

benjiboy · Aug 26, 2019

Anon Ymous said:
Considering the Great Purge in the 1930's, this is probably true. This purge targeted, among others, the leadership of the Red Army.

That's true the Americans and British were practically the only ones having strategic bombers.

the Americans, British and Russians were the only airforces who had heavy bombers, all the German bombers were dive bombers, fighter bombers and medium bombers because most of the Luftwaffe senior officers had been fighter pilots in WW1, and didn't appreciate the importance of strategic bombing.

Photo Engineer · Aug 26, 2019

AgX said:
All I saw was one pair of wings at collars with no further dsigns and no signs at all thr shoulder flaps. From that I deduced the all are lowest rank.
(At 3rd sight it seems one guy has two pairs of wings at his collar.)

In the top photo, the middle individual has one stripe on his sleeve. Quite coincidentally, he resembles me to a great degree at that age.

PE

AgX · Aug 26, 2019

Yes, and he got that angle at his arm.
(I admit I am not accustomed to be alert on ranks insignia...)

Thus: two pairs of wings plus that angle: only 2nd lowest in rank

WWII from axis perspective

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency