So I point out one deficiency in the German Army I'm all the sudden looking through my red, white, and blue lenses? Considering the slew of vehement insults to the US armed forces that seems to be a favorite pass time by the non-Americans on this site, you would think that you wouldn't get your prick in a knot over an opposing viewpoint. 

 

 For you, the WW2 started in 1939. I for one, could argue that your assertion that WW2 started in 1939 is a very Euro-centric one, because for the Chinese and Japanese the war began in 1937 with the Marco Polo bridge incident and subsequent Japanese invasion and occupation of Manchuria. If you don't believe it was war enough to merit the beginning of the second World War I would advise you to tell that to the Chinese, who suffered under Japanese atrocities that made the Einsatzgruppen look like school boys in comparison.

 

Before you assume I'm about to go on a patriotic rant why don't you look back at some of my former posts on the various WW2 discussions? Your accusation that I look at WW2 from 1943 onward is further proof of your Euro-centric "weltenschung" because the US was at war at the end of 1941. In the multitude of WW2 discussions on this site I have recognized the Eastern front as the most brutal of the war. I also give the credit to the Soviet Union for destroying 80% of the Germany army with a mere 1/3rd of their pre-war industrial base. I credit the British with their victories in the Battle of Britain, and for the North Africa campaign in general.

 

If you have a problem with what I'm saying, then by all means point it out and provide evidence to the contrary. That's what these forums are all about. Instead, you go off on a patriotic rant of your own. And most on these forums know that patriotic rants not only don't go anywhere, they tend to stir up emotions and is detrimental to any intelligent debate.

Early US defeats in North Africa were due to the inifficincies of a military that only 1 year earlier was smaller than that of Yugoslavia. Initial teething problems such as poor training, leadership, and no experience were inevitable. It was this, combined with the promised British air support that more often than not didn't show, explains far better the plight of the US Army than anything Rommel's artillery did.

What happened at Hurtgen forest was the pinnacle of US military incompetance at high levels combined with good old fashioned, determined and dug in German infantrymen defending a forest that the US Army knew little about. It would be akin to the Germans heading straight for the Maginot line in 1940. On a side note, Hurtgen contradicts the notion that Americans were not willing to engage their enemies in close combat. Many German veterans of the eastern front even said later that the fighting in Hurtgen was the most intense and brutal they saw in the war.

The impression I've gotten was that Germany had a major issue with logistics and supply in general, practically from the beginning of the war. They were attacking without the economic foundation needed to fully supply their combat units with medium tanks, let alone supply their supply chain with motorized transport.

 

The importance of logistics cannot be underestimated for any force, but it is especially critical for Artillery. Fire discipline can make up for shortages at the cost of reducing its firepower, but to get the most out of an artillery unit it needs a very robust and continuous supply of ammunition. Thus it seems to me that while the US Artillery was noted for its excellence in technology and technique, logistics played an enormous role in its capability as well.

Ker:

 

Thank you for yoru reply wherein you asked: "Dose anyone have that kind of information about German practice through Dunkirk.  Particularly paratroopers and snipers."

 

I use as a reference German Squad Tactics In WWII by Matthew Gajkowski. I think it is quite good. However there is a bewildering array of infantry TO&E's in the WWII German Armed Forces. As far as I can make out at the time of Dunkirk the most common German Rifle Squad (10-men) was organized on paper into a 3-man Machine Gun "Trup and a 5-man Rifle "Trup"with a Squad and Deputy Squad Leaders as follows:

 

Squad (Gruppen)Leader - machine pistol

 

MG Trup:

 

Machine Gunner - MG 34

Assistant Guner - pistol

Ammo Bearer - pistol

 

Rifle Trup:

 

5-Riflemen - K98

 

Deputy Squad Leader - K98

 

The German Parachute Squad was authorized 12-soliders with two Light Machine Guns. At the beginning of the war the German Paratroop Riflemen were armed with the K98 but later they were issed the FG42 assault rifle which fired the same 7.92 round as the K98 but with a automatic capability (wow). This provided the Parachute Rifle Squad with an enormous fire power capability as evidenced by their performance at, among other places, Monte Cassino.

 

The German Air Force controlled the Paratroopers. The German Army controlled the "Air Lnading" troops. I do not really understand the difference between the two organizations.

 

I know nothing about early German Snipers.

 

I will try to post on tactics later.

 

Regards;

 

Richard

Not sure entirely Herald, I believe that "Air Landing" referred to being air delivered, via JU-52, as "Get on the plane and get off the plane in Greece."  There was one Air landing Division, the 22nd IIRC, but it was never deployed in that role, or mayhap it was in 1940, but the Crete Operation involved not the 22nd Air Landing, but a Mountain Division.   In fact, it was felt that the Mountain Unit was a more than adequate substitute, for the single Air Landing Division, that might not be in the theatre that needed the air landing capacity.  In fact, the fact that a mountain division was used at Crete would suggest that in fact Air Landing did NOT refer to gliders, but rather to light infantry delivered to an air field by Aircraft.  The air field having been previously captured by paratroops.

"And only because Germany declared War on the US in 1941, still doesnt have anything to do with German Artillery. ".....You're right, it really doesn't have anything to do with German artillery.

 

.... "You again see the whole War just from your little American Perspective, from 1943 on.  The Second World War started in 1939, and not just with the American involvement in it.  By the point the first American Soldier fired the first shot on a German in WW2, the German Army had already lost 2 million men and 1/2 of its equipment. "

 

So what's your point in bringing that up, and my "little American perspective"? Does that have anything to do with German artillery?