The Imperial German Army- Opinions (1 Viewer)

[Currahee Chris]

Hey gang

Not looking to get into a scrap regarding Nazism and all that as I hope everyone knows how I feel about them. (obligatory disclaimer in regards to topics touching on 20th century German military threads {sm4})

Just curious what the forums opinion is of the Imperial German army and the way they fought WW1. Were they a more effective fighting force than the German army in WW2? I was watching one of my WW1 documentaries last night and it finished with the finale and the German surrender. They closed by saying that the German army had effectively held France and the BEF in check, defeated the Italians, and fought off the Russian to a standstill while never allowing a single foreign soldier to enter their lands. It made me wonder, with all of the spotlight being on the German army of WW2- with the Blitzkrieg, the airpower and slick armor, was the Imperial German military better trained and overall a better fighting force than their sons were in WW2?

I have my opinions and I think the militaries and political personalities of the Allies in WW1 were generally inferior to what they were in WW2, but still, not by much. I dunno, I'd be interested to hear what everyone thinks. It was definitely one of those points that made me pause and think. Certainly if Pershing had his way, eventually US Troops would have made their way into Germany but at what cost?

 

[theBaron]

It's a difficult comparison to make, because of the changes in warfare, both during the First World War, and between the First and Second. The requirements are different at each point in time. I think a better question is to ask how the Imperial Army managed to cope with the challenges it faced, as conditions changed.

As for holding off the British, French, and other Allies, across each front, the quality of the army enters into that question when we consider how long the Germans were able to hold out. In a war of attrition, the Germans were likely to lose eventually-even when we consider how they defeated the much more poorly organized and led Russians, and how they bled the French and British. If we hadn't entered the war-and it was not a foregone conclusion that we were going to-it is possible that they might have held out against the British and the French, like a pair of boxers in a long match, and both sides might have agreed to an armistice on the basis of exhaustion. Once we entered the war, the scales were tipped in the Allies' favor. The Germans simply could not have held out against the combined Allied armies. They were in complete collapse after the 1918 offensives, and it was only the Armistice that kept us from advancing into the German heartland under arms, as in 1944-1945. As it was, surrender and evacuation from France and Belgium meant that it wasn't necessary for us to invade, though the negotiated (dictated) settlement included occupation of key areas of western Germany. If they hadn't surrendered when they did. it's possible that we (the Allies) would have advanced to the Rhein, at least, or as far as necessary to force a surrender.

But during that time, the army evolved from one whose tactics were based on movement of large masses of men armed with rifles, to one that developed tactics tuned to the static warfare of the Western Front, especially assault tactics, and in the aftermath of the war, the Germans saw what mechanized forces could do, while neither the French nor the British did-even though German thinking was influenced by perceptive British and French military theorists who did think and write about how to use motorized armor.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Currahee Chris]

It's a difficult comparison to make, because of the changes in warfare, both during the First World War, and between the First and Second. The requirements are different at each point in time.

Cheers to that Brad- I was looking at comparing apples to apples but yeah,. I didn't really convey that. Looking at the Imperial GA during their heyday of WW1 and the Wehrmacht in WW2.

 

[DMNamiot]

Well as usual you ask a great question. I would say that the Imperial Army was very good and probably better trained than their enemies at least initially. One thing that they did very well as the war progressed was self examine tactics techniques and procedures and adjust accordingly, a glaring example of a misstep in this was their not taking mechanized war and the advent of the Tank seriously. Once they realized this mistake they did make some amazing adjustments to their artillery tactics and small arms to deal with tanks. Their Stormtrooper tactics are the obvious example and they also took a deep look at their opposing forces tactics and adjusted how they did things during the interwar period. They made amazing progress as a fighting force even with the massive limitations of the Versailles Treaty and evolved their infantry from
The squad level up into a machine gun centric system. This put them leaps and bounds ahead of all the future allies and enemies into the beginning of WWII. I would say that their biggest and smartest move was training and critical examination of the training events in order to be better wsrfighters.

Dave

 

[blaster]

A very interesting question and with good replies from all.

I will confine myself to making generalised statements about the period 1914-1918.

Did the Imperial German Army (IGA) improve from 1914 to 1918? In the infantry, with hundreds of young soldiers who walked into a hail of rifle fire at the beginning, only obvious tactical improvement was the sturmtrooper concept. In the artillery, they allowed the Allies to take over pre-abandoned trenches which were then pounded with pre-registered artillery. In the development of technology (tanks), almost zilch. Gas, no further comment.

Compare that with say, the BEF. Professional all the way and finally reduced and replaced with conscripted troops. These improved gradually with pre-arranged tactical advances especially in the artillery. I think the Brits learned to fight towards the end. they introduced the tank.

I think the French were just stubborn but did not improve in their performance throughout this period.

The Yanks were probably the best of the bunch. Brash and vigorous. I think that eventually, they could have led the invasion of Germany if the war had been prolonged.

Rgds Victor

 

[Al Fisher]

Well as usual you ask a great question. I would say that the Imperial Army was very good and probably better trained than their enemies at least initially. One thing that they did very well as the war progressed was self examine tactics techniques and procedures and adjust accordingly, a glaring example of a misstep in this was their not taking mechanized war and the advent of the Tank seriously. Once they realized this mistake they did make some amazing adjustments to their artillery tactics and small arms to deal with tanks. Their Stormtrooper tactics are the obvious example and they also took a deep look at their opposing forces tactics and adjusted how they did things during the interwar period. They made amazing progress as a fighting force even with the massive limitations of the Versailles Treaty and evolved their infantry from
The squad level up into a machine gun centric system. This put them leaps and bounds ahead of all the future allies and enemies into the beginning of WWII. I would say that their biggest and smartest move was training and critical examination of the training events in order to be better wsrfighters.

Dave

Hard to compare, isn't it1 Certainly, the "Old Contemptables" gave the Germans a run for their money early on. The Germans may have had better artillery as a whole, though the French 75 was probably the best gun in the world at the time. German motorized transport lagged far behind the Allies. However, I think the German staff was superior to those from other countries and , thus, made the difference.

Bosun Al

 

[DMNamiot]

I agree Al the initial fight between the professionals of Britain and Germany was a pretty good match up.