German rifleman
- Thread starter kestak
- Start date
- Status
HorseSoldier
Member
Even when casualties were caused by rifle fire, I bet there would have been a tendency to attribute them to MG34 or (especially) MG42 fire, since those things were a lot more attention grabbing if they were involved in a fire fight.
MrDig
Member
My Dad was there with the 34th Infantry Division (Red Bulls) 151st F.A. Bn. He was Fire Control and later a Forward Observer. The fact that he survived is amazing, being a Forward Observer and Surviving is Miraculous.
He got to meet up with his brother who was in the 15th Air Force shortly after Rome was liberated. My other Uncle was on a Destroyer in the South Pacific and saw brutal action as well. My Grandmother had all three of her able bodied sons come home. I asked her about it once and she said "I prayed every morning and every night for them, what else could I do? I guess he (God) listened"
It is incredible that she had 2 of 3 sons who saw a lot of action. Only 5% of the US military saw action in WWII. It was the first "really modern" war where support was more important than fighting.
In that book I read also that 80% of WWII US casualties was NOT imputed to bullets or explosion but to sickness and accidents. In fact, more civilian workers died from work related accident for the war effort in US than all US military direct combat deaths....fascinating.
In that book I read also that 80% of WWII US casualties was NOT imputed to bullets or explosion but to sickness and accidents. In fact, more civilian workers died from work related accident for the war effort in US than all US military direct combat deaths....fascinating.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
According to John Ellis' incredible book The Sharp End, there were many more casualties due to sickness/disease and non-combat injury than there were casualties due to enemy action.
Heck, take away all the guns and bombs and then send several million men to go live together for months or years at a time in holes in the ground with very little sanitation and poor food, through all seasons, and in climates ranging from the Alps to equatorial Pacific swamps, and I wonder how many would survive?
Heck, take away all the guns and bombs and then send several million men to go live together for months or years at a time in holes in the ground with very little sanitation and poor food, through all seasons, and in climates ranging from the Alps to equatorial Pacific swamps, and I wonder how many would survive?
Cosmoline
Member
Watching the movies it's easy to assume was one faceless "German Soldier" during WWII, and that he had exactly the same training as everyone else. This goes along with the notion that Germany started the war in 39 with the same huge mechanized force it ended the war with. Of course in reality there was an ongoing evolution, and training had to adapt to circumstances. As the war grew and grew, training had to be shortened and streamlined to accommodate the needs of the military. Also the recruit quality declined. And the growing number of allied armies on the German side swelled the lines with some very poorly trained soldiers. And of course entire divisions and even army groups of finely-trained veterans were thrown away on the eastern front. So the quality of the German forces you were up against depended a great deal on the time and place you fought them.
On average, though, they were quite well trained and able to shoot what they aimed at.
This really needs to be said more often. The artillery was the unsung hero of our part of the war. It was innovative, maneuverable and incredibly effective. Yet so many folks are hung up on the 88 that you'd think only the Germans even had shells. By 44 and 45 the Germans had some nice toys, but we were a lot more modern in the ways that mattered.
On average, though, they were quite well trained and able to shoot what they aimed at.
This really needs to be said more often. The artillery was the unsung hero of our part of the war. It was innovative, maneuverable and incredibly effective. Yet so many folks are hung up on the 88 that you'd think only the Germans even had shells. By 44 and 45 the Germans had some nice toys, but we were a lot more modern in the ways that mattered.
Last edited:
kBob
Member
During the 1970's I got to spend a hour on a german militaryrifle range with a german WWII sharp shooter. The host unit kept the far right lane open for sportsmen and such and between the classes I was doing for German and French troops on the M-16A1 he was on line shooting. He was in the war in Europe from start to finish.
He had comments about the reactions of the forces he faced, and through the course of the war he faced about "everyone".
I will always remember his comment when I asked who he shot "Poles, French, Russians, British and their colonies men and ....maybe your uncle."
He told me he hated sniping against Americans most for two reasons. First every body would begin shooting as fast as posible at any likley sniper hide with fairly accurate fire immediately after he took his first shot. WHen I told him that one of our generals insited that fewer than one in seven men shot in battle he laughed and said that general was never with any Americans he shot at. This made movement after the shot something that had to be planned for. Second he said that much quicker than anyone in WWII Americans would have sometype of indirect fire hitting as often as not danged close and dang quick. Sometimes it was little mortars and sometimes it was 155mm in direct support but it was always on hand quickly. He commneted that after the US invasion in France when the German Army was using something like designated marksmen rather than fully trained snipers that he had a hard time convincing young new guys with a ZF-41 on their rifles to shoot the guy with the radio FIRST and if posible hit the radio. He said way to many failed to listen to his advice that two shots were usually all that should be made from one hide and that a third should be considereed only for a very high value target or if necessary to clear a way out. He said those that tried for a forth shot seldom made it back to their rally points.
I know it was no scientific survey, but there is something to be said for talking to a guy and swapping rifles with him for a bit. Nicest K98k I ever saw. He said the M16A1 seemed a passable machine pistol and wondered why we no longer used rifles as they had served us so well.........
-kBob
He had comments about the reactions of the forces he faced, and through the course of the war he faced about "everyone".
I will always remember his comment when I asked who he shot "Poles, French, Russians, British and their colonies men and ....maybe your uncle."
He told me he hated sniping against Americans most for two reasons. First every body would begin shooting as fast as posible at any likley sniper hide with fairly accurate fire immediately after he took his first shot. WHen I told him that one of our generals insited that fewer than one in seven men shot in battle he laughed and said that general was never with any Americans he shot at. This made movement after the shot something that had to be planned for. Second he said that much quicker than anyone in WWII Americans would have sometype of indirect fire hitting as often as not danged close and dang quick. Sometimes it was little mortars and sometimes it was 155mm in direct support but it was always on hand quickly. He commneted that after the US invasion in France when the German Army was using something like designated marksmen rather than fully trained snipers that he had a hard time convincing young new guys with a ZF-41 on their rifles to shoot the guy with the radio FIRST and if posible hit the radio. He said way to many failed to listen to his advice that two shots were usually all that should be made from one hide and that a third should be considereed only for a very high value target or if necessary to clear a way out. He said those that tried for a forth shot seldom made it back to their rally points.
I know it was no scientific survey, but there is something to be said for talking to a guy and swapping rifles with him for a bit. Nicest K98k I ever saw. He said the M16A1 seemed a passable machine pistol and wondered why we no longer used rifles as they had served us so well.........
-kBob
silicosys4
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2012
- Messages
- 3,691
If it hasn't been brought up already...
By the time the Allies made it onto the beach, the Germans had been pretty well dusted off by the Russians, on the eastern front. We by far and large did not see what the german army was at its peak, we saw what the german army was after being pared of a great deal of its experienced troops, and much of its equipment. So I can see why our infantry did not find their counterparts as effective as they themselves were seen.
By the time the Allies made it onto the beach, the Germans had been pretty well dusted off by the Russians, on the eastern front. We by far and large did not see what the german army was at its peak, we saw what the german army was after being pared of a great deal of its experienced troops, and much of its equipment. So I can see why our infantry did not find their counterparts as effective as they themselves were seen.
Readyrod
Member
That's what got my dad. They sent him to hospital in Jamaica to recover.
I was reading a book once about fighter pilots and the American pilot said that every once in a while they would come up against one of those German veterans and he said they would just scatter. Apparently some of those pilots were scary good. Also read Saburo Sakai's book, that guy was good too.
Met a Vietnam vet in Africa once and he said that the radioman was the most important guy in the squad. When he was a sergeant he carried the radio but in a hidden kind of way so as not to get shot by the snipers.
max popenker
Member
my point exactly
by 1943, German had much better equipment (tanks, planes, artillery) than in 1939 or 1941, but quality of their manpower declined severely
I think Float Pilot said it first - we just out produced the enemy in WWII
I read a book some years ago about German tanks, and a quote from it has stuck with me. It was from a German Tanker being taken prisoner after being knocked out of action. He told his captors "My tank can take out 10 of yours...............but you always bring 12 of them".
I read a book some years ago about German tanks, and a quote from it has stuck with me. It was from a German Tanker being taken prisoner after being knocked out of action. He told his captors "My tank can take out 10 of yours...............but you always bring 12 of them".
eastbank
Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2009
- Messages
- 5,021
i don,t know if its true or not,but in a movie a german officer is looking at a package from america sent to a GI by his mother and it was a cake and the german said some thing in effect we can,t get enough supplies,but the americans are sending cakes. the war is lost. eastbank.
After Babarossa, never more that 20% of the German land forces were devoted to the west. As Churchill stated, the Russians clawed the guts out of the Nazis.
Check the combat death disparity of east versus west. The Russians were willing to accept massive casualties in a war of attrition and in that, the Nazis were doomed the instant they crossed the Russian border.
Check the combat death disparity of east versus west. The Russians were willing to accept massive casualties in a war of attrition and in that, the Nazis were doomed the instant they crossed the Russian border.
siglite
Member
This is a very interesting perspective, and sounds about right of US tactics in response to sniper fire, from everything I've read.
VancMike
Member
My uncle was a tank commander in N. Africa and Italy; he lost an arm about 2 weeks into Salerno.
He said US armor tactics used tanks as infantry support, while German tactics called for just the opposite: large and numerous tank assaults, with infantry as support. US tanks initially, then, had smaller caliber main guns. The result was a high casualty/mortality rate among US tankers, but more (theoretically) protection for infantry. Allied air power was the difference.
Italy had surrendered only a few days before the Salerno invasion. My uncle said many Italian soldiers were rounded up by the Nazis and forced ahead of German forces. Said it made accuracy very important: one would aim for the 3rd soldier back; the front two were Italians under duress.
He said US armor tactics used tanks as infantry support, while German tactics called for just the opposite: large and numerous tank assaults, with infantry as support. US tanks initially, then, had smaller caliber main guns. The result was a high casualty/mortality rate among US tankers, but more (theoretically) protection for infantry. Allied air power was the difference.
Italy had surrendered only a few days before the Salerno invasion. My uncle said many Italian soldiers were rounded up by the Nazis and forced ahead of German forces. Said it made accuracy very important: one would aim for the 3rd soldier back; the front two were Italians under duress.
finnwolf64
Member
"Anyone has any idea if the German soldier was a lousy shot with a rifle" - is a rather naive statement to make about the WWII conflict in where some 50 million people lost their lives.
At the beginning of WWII Germany had one of the best trained military forces in the world. By the end of the war when the German army was defeated, its ranks had thinned & they were using young boys & old men as replacements, who were not trained to the levels of veteran troops.
I have 6 uncles that fought in WWII, most with the Allies -(British/Commonwealth forces), but uncle Herb was a sniper for the German Army. He would strongly disagree with your comment about German soldiers been lousy shots with a rifle. A long time after the war, uncle Herb took up target shooting & competed at state level in Australia.
At the beginning of WWII Germany had one of the best trained military forces in the world. By the end of the war when the German army was defeated, its ranks had thinned & they were using young boys & old men as replacements, who were not trained to the levels of veteran troops.
I have 6 uncles that fought in WWII, most with the Allies -(British/Commonwealth forces), but uncle Herb was a sniper for the German Army. He would strongly disagree with your comment about German soldiers been lousy shots with a rifle. A long time after the war, uncle Herb took up target shooting & competed at state level in Australia.
Readyrod
Member
At the macro level it was all about production. I read in "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" that in 1943 the Allies produced 62 billion dollars worth of armaments whereas the Axis only produced 18 billion. The Germans may have had better tanks etc but they just couldn't outproduce the allies.
kBob
Member
ANother old German vet I was with several times that served with the SS as an Infantryman had a favorite joke he used on every new GI he met.
He would ask: "Who was the greatest American General?"
After a slew of guesses by the GI while the rest of us rolled our eyes he would shout out "GENERAL MOTORS!"
ANother I met told of being in RUssia in late 1943 and encountering an American made truck with one of his buddies standing in front of it shaking his head and saying "The Americans are supplying the Russians. The war is over and we have lost."
I was discussing the StG-44 with a german vet that used one in combat and when I commented that the premire assault rifle gave the german soldier a huge advantage over most Soviet enemy he commented "If I give you the best gun today and throw you in a room in which are a dozen angry babboons you may well shoot and kill ten baboons or even eleven, but one or two of them will eat well and you will be the first thing eaten. That is what fighting in the east was like."
Many times I thought it humorous that four out of five German vets I talked to claimed to have only fought in the east. Until I found out what the actual numbers were like I assumed they were just trying not to admit to the GI in front of them that they might have killed his Uncle.
I was told that asking about the war was not polite.....by Americans and German women. Not one guy I spoke too seemed put off by my questions and most seemed to enjoy finding someone they COULD talk to about it.
Once on an agressor detail at Heilbron (SP?)I was cowering under a tree watching one Likley avenue of approach to the hill that the test group was to take. A German and his son came out to cut wood near by and I hunkered down to be unseen. After they had loaded the wagon (I thought it odd that germans cut fire wood short in the field and stacked it cross wise on the wagons) the father first and then the son walked straight over to me. I got a good talking to about my techneque and told how to best stand the cool chill in the air. He then explained that he had three years in the east as a teacher and told of a situation much like mine he had been in ( one man Combat Out Post so a large alert force could be an call for several such spots) WHen he walked off his son stayed a moment and commented that he had just heard more about his fathers war experiences in the last five minutes than in the last seventeen years. His dad was hapy and had a spring in his step as he walked away.
-kBob
He would ask: "Who was the greatest American General?"
After a slew of guesses by the GI while the rest of us rolled our eyes he would shout out "GENERAL MOTORS!"
ANother I met told of being in RUssia in late 1943 and encountering an American made truck with one of his buddies standing in front of it shaking his head and saying "The Americans are supplying the Russians. The war is over and we have lost."
I was discussing the StG-44 with a german vet that used one in combat and when I commented that the premire assault rifle gave the german soldier a huge advantage over most Soviet enemy he commented "If I give you the best gun today and throw you in a room in which are a dozen angry babboons you may well shoot and kill ten baboons or even eleven, but one or two of them will eat well and you will be the first thing eaten. That is what fighting in the east was like."
Many times I thought it humorous that four out of five German vets I talked to claimed to have only fought in the east. Until I found out what the actual numbers were like I assumed they were just trying not to admit to the GI in front of them that they might have killed his Uncle.
I was told that asking about the war was not polite.....by Americans and German women. Not one guy I spoke too seemed put off by my questions and most seemed to enjoy finding someone they COULD talk to about it.
Once on an agressor detail at Heilbron (SP?)I was cowering under a tree watching one Likley avenue of approach to the hill that the test group was to take. A German and his son came out to cut wood near by and I hunkered down to be unseen. After they had loaded the wagon (I thought it odd that germans cut fire wood short in the field and stacked it cross wise on the wagons) the father first and then the son walked straight over to me. I got a good talking to about my techneque and told how to best stand the cool chill in the air. He then explained that he had three years in the east as a teacher and told of a situation much like mine he had been in ( one man Combat Out Post so a large alert force could be an call for several such spots) WHen he walked off his son stayed a moment and commented that he had just heard more about his fathers war experiences in the last five minutes than in the last seventeen years. His dad was hapy and had a spring in his step as he walked away.
-kBob
R.W.Dale
Member
It took me awhile to realize it as we are steeped in this largely whitewashed west centric view of wwII. But in the European theater our involvement really had more to do with keeping the Russians from running the show up to the English channel than it did defeating the Germans.
I believe this is correct. Certainly by late 1943 at the latest the German High Command realized they could not defeat the USSR, and it was around this time that von Runstedt suggested to Hitler that he order an immediate withdrawal to the borders as they existed prior to the 1941 launch of Operation Barbarossa. Likewise the Western Allies knew that once Stalin defeated Germany there was nothing to stop the Soviets from taking all of Western Europe, with the exceptions of Britain and Italy.
Many of the German troops the Allies faced in France were a pitiful bunch compared to those who had made up the German Army in 1939-43, and many of them would not even have been selected for military service in the first couple of years of the war. They still came much closer to stopping us dead in our tracks than many would care to admit.
cleardiddion
Member
Fascinating, fascinating thread.
I'll have to keep up with this one.
I'll have to keep up with this one.
- Status
