PDA

View Full Version : combat efficiency



Hosenfield
10-17-2005, 05:22 AM
german combat efficiency decay, eastern front.

100%efficient 1941 (early operation barborossa victories with blitzkreig veterans)

82% efficient 1942 (lots of trouble at Stalingrad, Battle of Moscow. Loss of many Blitzkreig veterans)

87% efficient 1943 (new, more powerful weapons like the panther, panzer IV G, wide issue of MG42/MP40, STG43 is built. The kharkov vicotory,kursk offensive, tactically successful but strategic failure. The strategic initiative passes to the Soviets in the second half of the year.

72% efficient 1944 ( Massive losses by Soviet operation Bagration in the first half and soviet capture of Rumania later on)

63% efficient 1945 ( The war is lost. only old men and young boys left.)


Its interesting to point out that the german war machine essentially started dying after the first year, with all the professional veteren troops dying in Russia. the 1943 generation, while well trained, was not as well trained as the german soldiers of 1939-1941.

However, after kursk, training levels dropped immensly in early 1944 after successful soviet operations

The last year saw mostly badly trained old men and boys (in comparison to the 1st generation troops) men who were led by veteren officers. the german men of ages 20s to 30s were essentially either fighting or dead months, years ago.

Crab_to_be
10-17-2005, 05:57 AM
How is combat efficiency defined and calculated? This would allow us to compare various armies and see how good a measure it actually is.

alephh
10-19-2005, 11:12 AM
Interesting topic :-)

Some points:

Too many new divisions were formed, experienced divisions should have been reinforced more (men, material). There are several cases were new well trained and supplied german division was in trouble during their first battles in eastern front.

It would be interesting to see what was the real death rate of blitzkrieg veterans - considering that most of the losses were because injuries and men returned - for example frost bite lot of men out-of-service but later they returned.

Overall year 1942 wasn't that bad (In year 1941 quite large proportion of divisions didn't take part in heavy fighting). Lot of advance and victories - without Stalingrad 1942 would have been ok year - dispite not reaching all the oil fields. Even if it was not wise to attack city, Stalingrad was basically captured, siege was partly Italian/Rumanian weakness. Where did german _divisions_ fail in 1942?

1943 - Difficult to say when the new weapons started to affect on large scale - meaning, when the production of them reached high enough numbers.

What I have read german soldiers really "silently" knew that last "real" chance to stop soviet advance was hold the defence line behind big rivers. It must have been huge mental blow after positions behind these rivers were lost - for example in southern sector of the eastern front.

Gen. Sandworm
10-19-2005, 12:35 PM
How is combat efficiency defined and calculated? This would allow us to compare various armies and see how good a measure it actually is.

I agree.........coz IMO if you were 100% combat efficent you wouldnt loss a solider in conflict. I think it would be measure by amount of manpower thrown at a scenario and the outcome with respect to time.

FW-190 Pilot
10-19-2005, 03:45 PM
what if the german didnt attack stalingrad and concentrate on the oil field, but the russian did the same thing and cut their way of return by attacking poland?

Hosenfield
10-20-2005, 05:50 AM
the german army suffered much greater losses in 1942, then in anywhere else previously.

in the 1st SS leibstandarte adolf hiter, only 35 men of the orginal class of 22,000 survived the war...

Cuts
10-20-2005, 09:07 AM
the german army suffered much greater losses in 1942, then in anywhere else previously.

in the 1st SS leibstandarte adolf hiter, only 35 men of the orginal class of 22,000 survived the war...

That's a hell of a large class - they should have complained about the pupil/teacher ratio.