WWII from axis perspective

BMbikerider · Aug 26, 2019

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

I lost a family friend a few years ago. He was a sergeant navigator in Lancaster Bombers from 115 Squadron RAF and was shot down over Berlin in January 1944. As a sergeant he was sent to POW camp in Poland that held airmen who were no officers. His bomb aimer/nose gunner on that night was a Flying Officer - a commissioned officer from the Canadian RAF where all aircrew were Commissioned officers who was sent to an 'Oflag', otherwise known as a POW camp for officers. They never met again, as he died in captivity a short while afterwards. The pilot was a Flight Sergeant, one rank above a sergeant and was the commander.

Below is a link to the story of the raid when he was shot down and afterwards. It is worth reading. He was about 92 when he died from a stroke (his 3rd) I knew him for about 25 years and he could be described as one of life's gentlemen.

www.brockhamhistory.org/wartime/wartime-personal-stories/maurice-booth

tomkatf · Aug 26, 2019

alanrockwood said:
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."

Re: the 100 vs 120 stat. There was also an organizational factor in this. The standard German squad included one of their excellent and deadly MG34 or MG43 machine guns, which that squad was built around. The US (BAR) and British (BREN) squad automatic weapon was an automatic rifle, which was inferior compared to the German machine gun. US organization of infantry "heavy weapons" i.e machine guns and light mortars, still followed the WW I practice of having a heavy weapons platoon at the company level and doling out these weapons when an infantry company or it's elements needed support. Somewhat countered by the M-1 semi-automatic rifle as the US infantryman's basic weapon, as compared to the German or British soldier's bolt action basic rifle. But in the infantryman's fight, the machine gun was king. My dad was an infantry officer and fought in WW II(Pacific), Korea and Vietnam.

MattKing · Aug 26, 2019

My father was RCAF during WWII, but he spent his war years mostly on the ground in the Queen Charlottes (now Haida Gwai) on the west coast of Canada, as a radio and radio direction finder (~radar) operator.
He liked to tell the story of going into a Canadian Legion in Sydney, BC and sitting down with a few other veterans and Legion members of similar age. Not surprisingly, the question of where each of the veterans served came up. As the question went around the table, it came to one old soldier who answered that he served in a German unit (quite possibly on the Russian front). Apparently, after a moment of quiet, everybody agreed to drink to the proposition that it was much better to be sitting around drinking a beer together than to be shooting at each other!

Sirius Glass · Aug 26, 2019

AgX said:
...

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.

American World War II movies have Germans speaking with a strong guttural accent, but when I watch the same movies in France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Netherlands, and Greece, the Germans are suddenly capable of speaking every language without an accent. How do they do that? Hmmm, something must be lost in the translations.

Sirius Glass · Aug 26, 2019

alanrockwood said:
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.

Sherman tanks were also easily punctured by cannon or tank rounds. Not good for the occupants.

Sirius Glass · Aug 26, 2019

alanrockwood said:
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."

Those studies completely ignore the fact that US soldiers could and would show initiative without orders, whereas both German and Russian troops would not take initiative without orders. Spontaneous initiative turned many battles.

benjiboy · Aug 26, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
Re: the 100 vs 120 stat. There was also an organizational factor in this. The standard German squad included one of their excellent and deadly MG34 or MG43 machine guns, which that squad was built around. The US (BAR) and British (BREN) squad automatic weapon was an automatic rifle, which was inferior compared to the German machine gun. US organization of infantry "heavy weapons" i.e machine guns and light mortars, still followed the WW I practice of having a heavy weapons platoon at the company level and doling out these weapons when an infantry company or it's elements needed support. Somewhat countered by the M-1 semi-automatic rifle as the US infantryman's basic weapon, as compared to the German or British soldier's bolt action basic rifle. But in the infantryman's fight, the machine gun was king. My dad was an infantry officer and fought in WW II(Pacific), Korea and Vietnam.

I have been a student of military history for most of my life and I consider the German Wehrmacht in WW2 to be the finest army of the modern era, who performed some incredible feats of arms, that I often wonder how the allies would have performed if the situation was reversed considering the allies had far superior resources In manpower manufacturing capacity and gasoline resources.How well would the allies have defended Normandy if they had been outnumbered at least five to one and the enemy had vast air superiority as was the case with the Wehrmacht?.

Arklatexian · 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.

Many, if not most of the German soldiers captured by the Russians never saw "home" again. Most of the ones "repatriated" after the war were ill. The rest "disappeared". At least that is what I was told by several people in Germany during several visits there. The first time I went to Germany, I was spotted as an "auslander" because I had "what we called, a flattop haircut". European men, at that time wore their hair longer than we did. On my first trip, my wife and I were walking down the street when a small child saw me and yelled to his mother:"mutti, an auslander"! Even the little children could spot "us"..........Regards!

Dan Fromm · Aug 26, 2019

benjiboy said:
I have been a student of military history for most of my life and I consider the German Wehrmacht in WW2 to be the finest army of the modern era, who performed some incredible feats of arms, that I often wonder how the allies would have performed if the situation was reversed considering the allies had far superior resources In manpower manufacturing capacity and gasoline resources.How well would the allies have defended Normandy if they had been outnumbered at least five to one and the enemy had vast air superiority as was the case with the Wehrmacht?.

Amphetamines helped them.

Arklatexian · Aug 26, 2019

benjiboy said:
I have been a student of military history for most of my life and I consider the German Wehrmacht in WW2 to be the finest army of the modern era, who performed some incredible feats of arms, that I often wonder how the allies would have performed if the situation was reversed considering the allies had far superior resources In manpower manufacturing capacity and gasoline resources.How well would the allies have defended Normandy if they had been outnumbered at least five to one and the enemy had vast air superiority as was the case with the Wehrmacht?.

On the other hand, I wonder how the Wehrmacht would have performed in two wars like the US did rather than on three "fronts" (Russia, Italy, and France/Belgium/Netherlands. The U.S. fought in the European War AND at the same time fought in the Pacific War. While our "Wehrmacht" fought in some battles of the Pacific War, the U.S. Marines and Navy did much of the fighting (and dying) in that war which did not end until we used the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki thereby saving at least one million U.S. and probably the same number of Japanese casultities.........Regards!

Arklatexian · Aug 26, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
American World War II movies have Germans speaking with a strong guttural accent, but when I watch the same movies in France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Netherlands, and Greece, the Germans are suddenly capable of speaking every language without an accent. How do they do that? Hmmm, something must be lost in the translations.

More than a few Hollywood Directors came from Germany and German speaking areas of other nations. Many/most were Jewish refugees from Naziasm. Maybe they had the actors use the "guttural" speech!. Besides, have you ever tried to speak Spanish with a "strong Gutteral accent?" Spanish comes from the "front" of the mouth while "guttural" comes from deep in the throat, but you knew that........Regards!

BMbikerider · Aug 26, 2019

tomkatf said:
Re: the 100 vs 120 stat. There was also an organizational factor in this. The standard German squad included one of their excellent and deadly MG34 or MG43 machine guns, which that squad was built around. The US (BAR) and British (BREN) squad automatic weapon was an automatic rifle, which was inferior compared to the German machine gun. US organization of infantry "heavy weapons" i.e machine guns and light mortars, still followed the WW I practice of having a heavy weapons platoon at the company level and doling out these weapons when an infantry company or it's elements needed support. Somewhat countered by the M-1 semi-automatic rifle as the US infantryman's basic weapon, as compared to the German or British soldier's bolt action basic rifle. But in the infantryman's fight, the machine gun was king. My dad was an infantry officer and fought in WW II(Pacific), Korea and Vietnam.

The British Bren Gun was not the same as a BAR. it was a purpose built light machine gun firing .303 ammunition (the same as the Lee Enfield standard British Infantry weapon) with an effective range of over 500 meters. It had a 30 round curved magazine which was it's Achilles heel as 30 rounds do not last very long. It was a very accurate weapon that fire single shots or in bursts. Especially when used with the bipod support When firing burst the weapon was stable and the spread of fire didn't wander off the intended target and much as some. I have never fired an original Bren gun, but have spent many hours on the ranges with the NATO ammunition version and can vouch for the accuracy. At 500m on single shot, with a correctly sighted weapon, it is possible to get a 2-3 inch grouping with ease.

This was developed to use a standard NATO 7.62mm, round but with the same or similar 30 round magazine. It was later developed even further into the standard Infantry light machine gun with a belt feed of the same ammunition. It is very similar in appearance to the American M50.

BMbikerider · Aug 26, 2019

Arklatexian said:
More than a few Hollywood Directors came from Germany and German speaking areas of other nations. Many/most were Jewish refugees from Naziasm. Maybe they had the actors use the "guttural" speech!. Besides, have you ever tried to speak Spanish with a "strong Gutteral accent?" Spanish comes from the "front" of the mouth while "guttural" comes from deep in the throat, but you knew that........Regards!

Or possible a 'voice over'.

benjiboy · Aug 26, 2019

BMbikerider said:
The British Bren Gun was not the same as a BAR. it was a purpose built light machine gun firing .303 ammunition (the same as the Lee Enfield standard British Infantry weapon) with an effective range of over 500 meters. It had a 30 round curved magazine which was it's Achilles heel as 30 rounds do not last very long. It was a very accurate weapon that fire single shots or in bursts. Especially when used with the bipod support When firing burst the weapon was stable and the spread of fire didn't wander off the intended target and much as some. I have never fired an original Bren gun, but have spent many hours on the ranges with the NATO ammunition version and can vouch for the accuracy. At 500m on single shot, with a correctly sighted weapon, it is possible to get a 2-3 inch grouping with ease.

This was developed to use a standard NATO 7.62mm, round but with the same or similar 30 round magazine. It was later developed even further into the standard Infantry light machine gun with a belt feed of the same ammunition. It is very similar in appearance to the American M50.

I have used the Bren Gun extensively and was a small arms instructor on the Bren, the Lee Enfield No 4 rifle and the Sterling Submachine Gun in the Royal Marines and if the Bren had a fault, (and my father who served for 6 years as an infantryman in WW2 used to agree with me) was it was too accurate for a machine gun they should spray the fall of shot a little. I have also fired a B.A.R and found them impossible to control handheld on automatic fire, how Bonnie Parker (who was only 4ft 10") of Bonnie and Clyde fame managed to shoot one standing up I have no idea. The big claim to fame for U.S gangsters with the B.A.R was it would penetrate car doors with its 30.03 rounds.

Dan Fromm · Aug 26, 2019

AgX said:
-) not everyone was at the eastern front

Yes indeed. I spent 1970 in Germany, got to know two veterans whose were POWs in the US. One, a violin maker in Saarbruecken, ended up in a POW camp in New Mexico, where the Red Cross found instruments so that he and three of his friends could play quartets. The other, a violinist in Kammerorchester Zweibruecken, finished his war as a prisoner working on a fox farm in upstate New York.

Ben, I doubt that Bonnie and Clyde had B.A.R.s. Thompson submachine guns, "Tommy guns," were much more likely.

alanrockwood · Aug 26, 2019

benjiboy said:
...I have also fired a B.A.R and found them impossible to control handheld on automatic fire, how Bonnie Parker (who was only 4ft 10") of Bonnie and Clyde fame managed to shoot one standing up I have no idea. The big claim to fame for U.S gangsters with the B.A.R was it would penetrate car doors with its 30.03 rounds.

That's an interesting observation. My father was a U.S. Marine in World War II, and he told me that the Marine's held the BAR in high regard. He said that his fellow Marine's would claim that you could shoot the BAR while it was touching your nose and not get hurt, i.e. had light recoil. If so (and the claim is probably an exageration) it is probably due to a combination of the weapon's great weight and semi-auto mechanism that tends to tame recoil somewhat.

My father's favorite weapon was the M1 carbine because it was light and easy to handle and shoot. Of course, it is also relatively low-power. Interestingly, after WW II the major powers all eventually shifted to lower power rounds than the full-power military rounds they used in WW I and WW II. The Germans and the Russians lead the way in adopting lower power rounds while the war was going on or very shortly thereafter, at least to some extent, and the Americans and other major powers followed a few years later. That was the birth of the assault rifle.

Kino · Aug 26, 2019

Dan Fromm said:
Ben, I doubt that Bonnie and Clyde had B.A.R.s. Thompson submachine guns, "Tommy guns," were much more likely.

Clyde Barrow's weapon of choice WAS the Browning BAR. FACT.

Dan Fromm · Aug 26, 2019

Kino said:
Clyde Barrow's weapon of choice WAS the Browning BAR. FACT.

Thanks for the correction.

Kino · Aug 26, 2019

Dan Fromm said:
Thanks for the correction.

Sorry if I sounded terse; my father had a couple of cousins who robbed banks Oklahoma and we were well-regaled in stories of all the "usual" bandits of that time. Southern Oklahoma was a notorious hideout for Depression Era bank robbers and gangsters...

In fact, my Grandmother lived in Oil City, Oklahoma until she died in the late 1970's. Dorthea Lange passed through there during the great depression and took at least one photograph of the area.

The family still argues IF photo might be of a relative, or not...

AgX · Aug 26, 2019

Arklatexian said:
Many, if not most of the German soldiers captured by the Russians never saw "home" again. Most of the ones "repatriated" after the war were ill. The rest "disappeared". At least that is what I was told by several people in Germany during several visits there.

Well, 1/3 of the german POWs in soviet captivity did non came back. The last who could return, were allowed to as late as 1955.

But you were not told that 2/3 of soviet POW in german captivity did not return.
This is 30x the rate of death of other POWs in german captivity.

Sirius Glass · Aug 26, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
American World War II movies have Germans speaking with a strong guttural accent, but when I watch the same movies in France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Netherlands, and Greece, the Germans are suddenly capable of speaking every language without an accent. How do they do that? Hmmm, something must be lost in the translations.

For those who missed my intent: In the US Germans always have heavy accents, but when the movies are dubbed elsewhere the accents disappears. Curious.

The point about Spanish being spoken in the front of the mouth versus German being guttural is well taken.

AgX · Aug 26, 2019

Back to those photos:

I am curious about what booklets the clerk is working on. It is no Soldbuch.
They seem to be made of stacks of punched paper, bound by a clip. That seems why he is stacking the books in opposite orientation.

benjiboy · Aug 27, 2019

alanrockwood said:
That's an interesting observation. My father was a U.S. Marine in World War II, and he told me that the Marine's held the BAR in high regard. He said that his fellow Marine's would claim that you could shoot the BAR while it was touching your nose and not get hurt, i.e. had light recoil. If so (and the claim is probably an exageration) it is probably due to a combination of the weapon's great weight and semi-auto mechanism that tends to tame recoil somewhat.

My father's favourite weapon was the M1 carbine because it was light and easy to handle and shoot. Of course, it is also relatively low-power. Interestingly, after WW II the major powers all eventually shifted to lower power rounds than the full-power military rounds they used in WW I and WW II. The Germans and the Russians lead the way in adopting lower power rounds while the war was going on or very shortly thereafter, at least to some extent, and the Americans and other major powers followed a few years later. That was the birth of the assault rifle.

The B.AR. was the first assault rifle it was designed in W.W1 to enable American infantry to advance over open ground firing one round every time their left foot hit the ground..the other the weapon the U.S brought to W.W.1 that was unknown in European warfare was the Winchester repeating shotgun.
P.S. Bonnie Parker did use a B.A.R in several shootouts, they gave gangsters a big advantage because must U.S police forces had nothing so powerful.

Anon Ymous · Aug 27, 2019

benjiboy said:
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.

The US and British produced many thousands of heavy 4 engine bombers. The Soviets on the other had produced very few and used mostly outdated heavy bombers during the same period. They weren't very interested in strategic bombing.

alanrockwood · Aug 27, 2019

benjiboy said:
The B.AR. was the first assault rifle it was designed in W.W1 to enable American infantry to advance over open ground firing one round every time their left foot hit the ground...

I suppose the BAR could be considered an assault rifle because it was capable of fully automatic fire. However, it differs from the usual concept of an assault rifle because it fired a full-power military cartridge (.30-06), whereas in the usual concept of an assault weapon the cartridge is of medium power (e.g. 7.62x39mm).

By the way, the BAR was designed by one of our local boys here in Utah, John Moses Browning. Mr. Browning was probably history's most accomplished, successful, and versatile designer of firearms, having designed an astonishing array of successful firearms for military, police, and civilian use. Quite a few of his designs are of iconic status.

WWII from axis perspective

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency