Command vs Staff Experience

[King]

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca
Dont forget that axis leadership was combat orientated, while UK US was administrative orientated.

Ike got to command Day without ever commanding men in action, but he could shuffle paper like a SOB, in contrast a paper warrior in the german camp, remained a paper shufler in perituity.

Hanny

There are leader traits which might simulate what you want. Also many of the senior German leadership did spend time on the Staff. Guderian for example saw little or no combat (I don't remember which) in World War I.

 

[King]

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca


You dont get to be a staffer(or any other officer for that matter0 without doing grunt work first in the german army, H guderian had a distinguished war record, Lt in 1906 in communications, winning Iron cross first and second class, at marne and Verdun, his experience in cumications helped him instill rapid manouver of the fledgling panzertruppen, which was one of the reasons he got into the staff side.

hanny

Well piont of order as far as I know Guderian served at the front but he never commanded any combat troops in WWI. If we go back you said that

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

Ike got to command Day without ever commanding men in action

Guderian got to rise pretty high without commanding men in action either. Additionally the US army was pretty short of men who had commanded anything in action, never mind men. You may feel that I am being a bit pedantic, but I feel it is an important detail. If we think of Manstien he was wounded in Poland in Novenber 1914, and served as a Staff officer during the rest of War. He continued to serve as a staff officer right the way up untill 1940 when he was given an army Corps to command. I don't think that is serious combat experience again.

 

[King]

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca



I think you need to read a biography of the man, he was in mil school in his teens, he went straight into the army into a light inf div as 2nd LT, ended the war as a Lt, won 2 iron crosses in ww1 that each require combat service on a number of occaisions(3-5 iirc) that display courage beyond that normal excpected of a german soldier, as i mentioned he saw personel combat at marne and Verdun, between the wars he served as a maj on staff, then as a div commnder of a pz div, this was not a desk jockey, the german system didnt produce administrional crossovers into combat command, if you were in supply, you stayed in supply.

I have Guderians autobiography, he devots just a single paragraph to his WWI service. He served untill 1917 as a communications officer, then as a staff officer. He never lead men in combat untill WWII. That is not say he wasn't a good officer, I just pointing out a fact.

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

Again, the germans didnt commision officers who had not served in combat, and while im at it, the US(during wartime) commisioned an officer after 90 days training, 75% of its 890,000 officer came straight from civilian life, the germans promoted those who showed potential from the ranks under observation, then they trained them for the next step in the ladder, while they served in their original unit, eventually they went to the general staff, but they all knew how to do the jobs below them, because they had actually done them in practice, which was a pre requiste for staff work in the german system.

In the Uk in late 41 6700 captains were sent to reclassification boards, 327 were demoted, 4,134 were dismissed from service, 2,250 promoted upwards or into admin, why?, because with the expansion of the army it was time to exaimine who was up to the job of leading men, the german system already knew who was up to the job.

In 42 the battle schools, moddeled on SS training methods were adopted for the UK infantry.

The SU trained 350,000 officers in 41, 564,000 in 42, for a period of a year, many had to be retrained due to a change of doctrine, why?, because the existing system didnt produce enough right men to do the job, they eventually found enough after passing over 2,000,000 through training schools, after, they saw that the man could cut it in wartime, then they retrained him.

The general staff sytstem that germany had was radicly different from all others, its purpose was to prepare peactime plans for war, its second was co ordination of all armed services( air/sea/land), closely allied to that was supervision, in the event of underachievment of lower echelons they would step in the event of changed circanstance or poor performence by commanders. Lastly was the operational readiness, such things as training and doctrine in light of new weapons and ideas, conduct manouvers. No one else had this system at this level of expertise, and its members were fundamental to the early victorys the germans achieved, through a superior methodolgy of training and intprtation of operational aims capabiltys.

I agree that the Germans produced better officers, and I agree that the Germnas had better men. They trained their men longer. I also agree that the allies had some real problems with their officers. Allan Brook complains that the men who would of been good senior officers in WWII all died in WWI. I think that you are being too simplistic in your reasoning, seeing combat does not neccessarly make you a good officer, just look at Cunningham. In my opinion the Germnas were better at spotting ability and were more willing to promot on ability.

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

Manstein you do a diservice, he saw action on both east and west fronts, starting as an ensign in 06, he rose through the ranks, was bumped to capt when wouded in russia, and then offered a staff posistion on AG south, before later going to general staff, while at AG south he again saw action, later still he led a div in the take over sudetanland.

Hanny

Am I? Manstien was a talented officer I never said otherwise. All I claim was that it was not his ability to lead men in the field that caused him to stand out. He never lead men into combat from November 1914-1940 (According to his autobiography he was COS to Rundstendt's army during the occupation of the Sudentanland). That does not make him a bad officer and does not make the Germans wrong to promot him, again though combat experience was not all.

 

[King]

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

I assume your refering to panzer leader?

like i said, get a decent biography, not a single paragraph in a work devoted to other matters.

Eh Yes I am referring to panzer leader, but now is not the time to get a decent biography.

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

read what the criteria for awarding an iron cross was.

I found this.

The Iron Cross was awarded not only for bravery in the face of the enemy, but also for successful war planning and general merit. In addition, it was awarded for outstanding leadership skills and many officers received the award for the achievements of the men under their command.

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

read the citations for his iron crosses.

That I can't find.

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

Fact, he commanded men in up close and personal combat in ww1. but you dont have to take my word, just read up on the man.

Fact, staffers wear 2 hats in the german army,read up what frontline service he saw as a staffer, to go with his years at the front.

I have read up on the man. He commanded a communication unit in WWI, at the Marne and Verdun. It operated very close to the front and he saw some fighting. Are you saying that this si the same as commanding a comabt unit?

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

They produced different officers, those focused on combat performence, because that was how they needed to fight, better on a man to man comparison, the allies went along a different route, with greater focus on logistics, administration etc, only playing catch on combat ability,when shown that by not doing so could cost them the war.

Ike was a product of how the US wanted to fight the war, rommel the way the germans wanted to fight the war, 2 very different views, requiring different emphasis on training and abilitys.

I guess if you follow a man into a shooting war, only to find him an incompetant or a coward, and think now its a bit late to find that out, then thats as simplistic as it needs to be. Germany, by and large, didnt have that problem.

As a contraversal opinion here Rommel was not that great a commander. However now on to the serious point of the discussion here. The allies won the war, one of the reasons the allies won the war was because they could field far more equipment than the Germans (even if it was inferior and nor as well lead) ithis won the war for the allies. In fact whoever much people admire the germna army it might be good at winning campiagns but it was not good at winning wars. From the stand point of World War II the allied way of fighting war was better.

The Germans too had thier problems due to the expansion of their amry but because the expanded earlier they had over come these problems by 1940. Halder would comment that the Germna army did not prefrom well in Poland and they spent the Winter of 1939/1940 correcting these mistakes. The western allies expanded later and thus did not correct these problems till later, will soviets had to suffer 2 summers of near disaster till they had correct their problems (even with the experience of the winter war).

In the leading a company well does not make you a good battalion commander, leading a battalion well does not make you a good division commander etc.. The Germans did have poor commanders who made mistakes, I just think of the commander of 21 Panzer Division in Normandy as an example of this.

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

No german made it beyond 2nd Lt if he did not show ability to commmand men in combat was the point put to you. illustrated by the 2 you mentioned, who rose to high command.

Look again and see which inf div he commanded, as 2nd hat.

You dont seem to get what im driving at. No german officer rose to high command without having already shown that he could lead men in combat, at a number of levels, the allies didnt follow that school of thought. Unless yo can name a german logistical/admin officer who alsocommanded in the field that is.

Hanny

In the end who many allied logistcal/admin officers also commaded int he field? Einsehower was a staff officer much like Manstien and Guderian was, except he never saw combat in World War I. Appart form 8 months on the American Battle Monuments Commission he was not in an adminstrative posisition. Einsenhower was a different style of commander and his ideas of broad front advance where not blitzkreig ideas but he was ideal for the role he was to play, a coalition commander.

 

[King]

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

Feuchtinger has upset you how?.

Hanny

I'll leave the rest till later and let von Luck do the talking

"General Edgar Feuchtinger, an artilleryman, had no combat experience [in World War II], and none at all of panzer units. He had become known in Germany as the organizer of the military part of the so-called Reichsparteitage, the national Party rallies, and through that was very familiar with Hitler and the Party apparatus.

Feuctinger was a live and let live person. He was fond of all the good things of life, for which Paris was a natural attraction. Knowing that he had no combat experience or knowledge of tank warfare, Feuchtinger had to delegate most things, that is, leave the execution of orders to us experienced commanders."

Also

"Although I too hold to the saying de mortuis nil nisi bene (“of the dead say nothing but good”), when I think of our brave men, who fought so brilliantly, and of the thousands of dead, wounded, and missing…I cannot help reproaching Feuchtinger with having done us all poor service. "

I man who ended up getting courtmarshed for not being at his headquarters on the night of 5/6 June as well. It was alleged he was sleeping with whore that night instead. Not exactly the finest hour in the German army's choice of promotions no?

 

[King]

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca


Agreeing that ike was a poltical general, not a battlefield comander, who felt constrained by logistical limitations, in no way helps you here. there is no way, at all, that a commander of ikes record would have been tasked with a major op, let alone the second front, had the roles been reversed.

That may be true, but in the end Ike won. So how bad could he have been?

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

Courtmartialled in 45, 7 months after the event, and he never was relieved from command till then, pardoned and returned service, a victim of the mass flying courtmartials of that period, some 15,000 or which resulted in a firing squad, due primarily to lack of trust, not competence. Asv it turns out they were right, he made the choice that the war was over and surrenderd.

Competence, you do know more div and up commanders were not at their post, that at their post, on the night of and prior to d day?, they were not so because 84 corps orderd them to attend a confrence. Thats why he, alone with scores of others were not at their HQs, and when at 12:45 the paras landed hearelding the start of d day, within 15 mins Feuchtinger had verbally orderd the alert and partial commitment of 21 Pz, acording to the standing orders the div worked under when an enemy force entered its area of operations. So actually, not a bad choice at all, as it appears being with a whore in no way hinderd his judgement or delayed his reactions, not to mention leaving where he could be reached at all times, at a moments notice, back at HQ.

Between 1:00 and 2:OO Feutinger was in telephone comunication with Gen Richter, who commanded 716 div, who he was under in the event of invasion command wise, by 2:OO the situation changed, from early reports, and the whole of 21 Pz was commited, pending the aproval of OKW, this did not come, meanwhile the committed 2 battns of 21 Pz fought on, by 5:30 he knew that 6 airborne where at Ranville and Bois de Bavent in div strength, he telphoned &th Army to obtain permision to attack and was refused, he went to Spiedel at AGB and was refused, because OKW had the final say and no one would take responsobility, when AA that would protect his PZ began to get trashed by allied air as false dawn broke, at 6:3O Feuchtinger, on his own responsobility, without confirmation from OKW, orederd in his div.

Let me give you another version of events, you'll probably not believe them but what the hell. The 21 Pz division had been given special limited release orders to attack enemy paratroopers with the entire division. The regmental commanders did not know of these but found out after the war from the Chief of Staff of Army Group B. The paratroopers were detected and confirmed by about 2AM. The troops did not move becausse the could not get in touch with their commander. The commander did not move when he finally arrived at his headquarters till order too by General Marks (I think he was the corps commander in Normandy). By which time the airborne troops had considated their posistion and repulsed the first attack. It is the opinion of the commander of 125Pz regement that they had a good chance of defeating the 6 airborne division if they had been ordered to move immedatly.

After Normandy and the disaster of False the commander of 21PZ division left the remenants of the division to be commanded by a colonel and disapeared West. A while later he was to be Courtmartialled for his failure at Normandy. It is the opinion of the people who served under him that he was saved by his polical connections.

Even after being pardoned his combat record was not brilliant, he disobeyed orders and ran away.

ANother version the division is realsed by Army group B at 4:30 and then the orders are changed by General Marks at 9:00. However in every account I have read the division is not moved on the commanders own intaitive, and every account people are scathing of Feuchtinger.

I have never seen anything like your version, where did you find it?

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

How does the "whore" illustrate anything of even passing relavence?, or do you also disparage officers for being with their wives on the night of d day as well.

By 12:00 he was in the field, at the front, co ordinating with 12SS for further operations.

Nothing at all I just threw it in. The rumours going round the 21Pz division was that he was returning from Berlin that evening which was why he could be reached in Paris.

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

Assuming you accept that CO tell you where to go, and leave the how of it to the subordinates, a standard trademark of the whermacht.

So YES, a shinning example of the german command system, you point was?

Hanny

Why do the Germans think he was crap then?

 

[King]

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca
Ill asume you want to change the debate because your out of counters.

No you were the one who argued that in war the best thing in combat experience nothing else mattered. Surely in war victory is all that matters.

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

Fact
I have the times for every batt orders commiting them to action, so i know what of i speak, i even know the locations of the units of the div, so i at least know that some are 30 miles from the para landings, as well as the standing orders the div elements worked under.

Fact
Since i can also use a search engine i know exactly where your info comes from.

Fact
You need better sources.

I do own Panzer Commander by Hanse von Luck does that count as not using a serach engine?

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

Fact.
12:45 paras landed east of mountbourg, captured and identified and integegated by LT Col Hoffman, CO of 3 batt 919 Gr reg, 21 Pz. This was because he personally led the attack that brought them in, from 6 dakotas that dropped them onto his posistion.

Fact.
Lucks KG (containing 125 PZGR)went to the coast, at sword beach, not against the paras, thats a fact. Your opinion of his opinion of a what if i went the other direction and did something else is noted.

Fact

Feuchtinger wanted to drive into the drop zones immediatly, he issued those orders, to all inf and armoured battns and awaited aproval from the chain of command, meanwhile those elements not engaged,sat waiting to move off once ready.

Fact.
Marcks, along with Friedrech Hayn(intel officer for 84 corps),with Chief of staff Friedriech von Criegen, were preparing to leave for the kriegspiel, from St-Lo, at 0111 he was telephoned by CO of 716 div,tellinh him of the para landings and that pre planned counter measures were in operation, shortly after the CO of 709 came through with paras id from 101 US at a number of locals, in div strength, at 0145 he confered with Feuchtinger, authorised limited counter measures because he could not release orders through from OKW for the whole div. Rommel who had that authority was home on leave, with his wife, hey that sounds familiar. Marcks made his way to the front an assumed command of a batt(192) that drove into Sword, reaching the coast and splitting the beachhead for a time.

So it was Marcks who ordered the 21 Pz into action?

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

opinions, i can tell you facts.

Are you saying he had no politcal connections then and that nothing could save him from a courtmartiall?

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

Opinion

Its hard to have a brillant record, in the space of how many days between pardoning and surrender?, or did you expect him to parachute into buckingham palace and take the royal family hostage and dictate a peace.

So are you sayign he did run away and did not disobey orders?

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

Fact
The division was actually subordinated to 716 Infantry division for tactical purposes -- with the proviso that orders were subject to the approval of Heeresgruppe B. Richter, commanding 716 ID, ordered Feuchtinger to move against the 6th Airborne drop, east of the Orne, at 0120 on 6 June. He did so, alerting the division at 0200 (the panzers were on a night excercise with dummy ammo). Live ammo was issued beginning at 0400 when the units had reached their alert areas, and an OPORD was issued at about 0630 and executed at 0900. Then, just as they were engaged with the Paras, General Marcks, commanding LXXXIV Korps, countermanded the order and sent the division (less 4./Panzer Regiment 22) to cross the Orne and attack at SWORD.

I thought it was only one battalion was on a night exercise and had dummy ammo.

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

I wrote it, unlike your posts i dont just cut and paste from the net, any idiot can use a search engine on Feuchtinger and get your posts. It comes i suppose from knowing what all the info means, and where it all is in the first place.

What i cant find i use a researcher for, im rather fond of the Dupoy institue, as i have a close relationship with some of its members, so i get help for reciprical public records from UK sources, you might like further details, Rich will post you anything, usually from microfilm, from the entire german 3o tons of documents taken at wars end, along with the US records, declassified that is for ww2, eto is his speciality.
andersontdi@aol.com

fee services runs $30/hour, with a one hour minimum, plus copying costs @ $0.15/page, plus expenses, which are normally just travel tiem and parking fees totaling $6.45. Total cost, again dependent on the number of pages copied, would at a minimum be $40.

You do recall i was a lecturer for mil Hist at Sandhurst/Camberly, still lecture for the TA at Land Command HQ?, so my version comes from the war dairys, 84 corps and of 21Pz Div for the times used, compared to the history of 3 Division "Iron Division" for comparison to Uk acounts, Liddel hart center for mil history for the post war interegations and interviews of Feuchtinger, the german Bundasarchive for court martial record, Paul Carrel in Invasion there comming for a german perspective of feuchtinger, along with the most detailed acounts down to coy level for 21 pz, Carlo DEst Decision in Normandy for an allied perspective of the same events. lastly what i already know, before going to look it up, such as remebering that the allies were using double daylight saving for their times, while german acounts do not, and making sure i know what im talking about when i post.

And a few other minor works.

Oh, youl find a similar version in all the good acounts, the ones you dont appear to have read/understood.

Now you know I am poor student so there is no way I can affoard to fork out $40, and no Iyou have never told me that you were a lecturer at Sandhurst, or that you are a lecturer for the TA. Is this vital? Anyway my limited budget does extend to some books and do not only cut and paste from internet sites.

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

Absolute nonsense, he with his 2 in command and chief of staff where together at Bois de Boulogne in paris, for the planned kriegspiel, you really want me to believe that the location of the 3 top men of the div was not known back at Div?, they got the telephone number by a rumour as well i take it?, you do know his div HQ was at Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives, from which the 3 went to paris together with a driver? or not it appears, as Berlin is not Saint-Pierre...

Well i can throw this in as a coincidence, as Goodward broke on Von Lucks unit he was at home with his wife, does that make him no better than Feuchtinger?, who at least was under orders, not taking leave at the hieght of the invasion.

Speaking of coincidence, what bearing does it have on his military competence?

According to von Luck he wasn't married, but I guess his memory was getting to him when he came to write is memoirs? However I did not say they were in Berlin, getting back from Berlin in time is quite frankly impossible, what I said was that they were returning from Berlin and going to the war game which was why it took time to reach them. The other thing I said is that this was the rumour going round the 21 Pz division, which would you not say would be a bit damaging for a commanders standing in front of his men?

Originally posted by Hannibal Barca

No that is your opinion, which has no stock with me in this debate. Feuchtinger combat performence is a complete mystery to you, but not to me.

I see your out of facts, and using opinion only, where will you go next?

Perhaps youl eventualy find an individual who performs poorly, and use that as a bench mark all the others against, to prove that german training methods produced less capable officers.

Hanny

It is not my opinion I have never met the man, it was Hans von Lucks opion which I site. However if go back through the debate I did point out that the German officers were generally better than the allied ones I never said otherwise, what I did say though was that soemtimes even the Germnas get it wrong and promot the wrong guy. Do you remember?

 

[King]

Originally posted by Gryphon
I assume that you know where you post right now, try to remember that too

Just a friendly reminder, I doubt that Aetius will do any further comments in theis thread..

/Gryphon acting mod during the weekend

I am in the History forum, State sent me a PM with a little reminder.