The US Army did a big study into the German Army after WW2. (With some searching you can probably find it somewhere online but I am not willing to make the effort.) They basically were looking into what made them such an effective fighting force even when the odds were strongly against them so that they could implement what they learned into improving the training of future American soldiers. One of the conclusions that I remember (this is something like 25 years ago when I read this) was that the individual German soldier possessed more personal initiative than the average soldier of even the other Western Allies, or more specifically the GI. I am talking privates/corporals/sergeants, not officers. In their opinion, their training methods stressing camaraderie and teamwork rather than a very top-down officer to grunt, or noble to peasant-like relationship was one of the keys to developing more effective average soldiers. Many other armies' soldiers where almost helpless to act when/if communication with their superiors were cut off. This especially paid off in the dark late years of the war when things were often chaotic and desperate for the Heer and there arose a need for independent action at a squad to platoon level. Hazing type of events, or officer abuse of those under them, occurred far less often than say in the British Army because those types of activities were detrimental to the goal of forming cohesive units. In Oberst Hans von Luck's book, Panzer Commander, I remember him telling a prewar story of a one soldier in his barracks who habitually came late from partying in the nearby town. The whole unit suffered because of it. So in the middle of the night they basically beat the shit out of him and that was the last time that he returned late. This "we work as a team, we succeed as a team, and we fail as a team" mentality was deliberately stressed in training. It's origins, the US Army study found, were in the Hitler's Youth program (which was the model that they United States founded the Boy Scouts on) so it began even before boys were old enough to serve in the Wehrmacht.Grondel wrote: ↑Tue Nov 29, 2022 9:31 am
The Wehrmacht was not made of a bunch of superheroes. They were in general better trained and diciplined, yes, but the main difference is the subcommanders who enabled outstanding generals and commanders to do unbelievable things or accomplish manoeuvers that are unthinkable to most armies of that time.
sers,
Thomas
I have never served in the military of any country so I do not profess to have any first-hand knowledge, but the United States likes to claim they have the best trained troops in the world. I know they did implement some things that they learned in the study in the training of their own armed forces. Perhaps, Grondel, you can shed some light onto this topic? I have inferred previously from some of your posts that you served in the Bundeswehr. Does any of this resonate with your experiences? I am guessing that you may have participated in NATO training exercises with American and/or other NATO nations' troops?