Reading a special issue put out by World War II magazine to commemorate the 60th anniversary of D-Day. They’re focusing on late 1944–early 1945. So, the Wehrmacht is besieged by the Soviets and Americans and Brits, and not much is working well for them. But at least so far the descriptions of the German resistance characterize it as “fierce,” “disciplined,” “hard-fought.” When the Germans fail or retreat, it’s through lack of men and materiel and seems to reflect some ongoing command and control and effort to retreat in order. (Ardennes, Remagen, etc.), not because they’re cutting and running. Even the Volksturm militia and Hitler Youth units are described as doing some serious damage with attacks on the Russian tank corps., though obviously this was a suicidally-doomed approach in the long run.
What do historians/war buffs regard as some examples of poor, or disorganized, or less-than-spirited, performance by the German armed forces? Other than in the last week or so, were there any instances of widespread desertion, dereliction, or just plain crappy fighting, by regular German troops? How about conscripts from non-German conquered territories?
I’ve never heard troop performance faulted so much as Hitler’s military decisions. There was massive desertion in the last few weeks (particularly by those on the east who wanted to be captured by Americans/Brits rather than Russians) but the only less than enthusiastic reviews I’ve read of the troops before the end was eminent are of those in the Einsatz Grupen and other groups whose especial purpose was to kill civilians.
Yes, there are plenty of mentions of poor strategic planning (well, at least poor from the standpoint of someone not bent on bringing the entire country down with him), and I can’t help but wonder how the commanders executed their duties when they were under constant threat of being relieved of command, or killed, if they didn’t achieve various counterproductive or impossible tasks (such as not retreating behind the Rhine even when it was clear that there was no defensible position to the west of the river).
Yes, apparently, whether as actual combat-designated units, or paramilitaries, is not entirely clear to me:
“During the Samland operation [near Koenigsberg] the remaining Tigers of Panzerabteilung 502 roamed the battlefield, backed up by squads of infantry or Hitler Youths armed with antitank Panzerfausts . . . . Soviet armor support had suffered grievous losses at the hands of Volkssturm and Hitler Youth tank-killer squads. Ernst Tiburzy, the commander of one such unit [not clear which organization], received the Knight’s Cross for the single-handed destruction of nine Soviet tanks.”
By the end of the war, the Germans were throwing everybody they could at the enemy.
In terms of bad units, you might have some luck looking at penal units. A small number of German units (and a larger number of Soviet ones) during the war were “penal units”…they were made up of soldiers who were disciplinary problems; brawlers, people who couldn’t take orders, deserters, people with anti-war sentiments, and they were pretty much used as cannon fodder. I’d imagine they probably didn’t fight as well.
Even during the Battle of The Bulge, it was noted that the SS units did not display the same level of Elan as they had in the past and for which they were famous. US soldiers reported that the germans were not quite as aggressive or hard-charging as in earlier battles. This has been explained as the result of less thoroughly trained troops and the general realization of defeat. The germans were attacking more out of a sense of duty and less out of the expectation of victory. Therefore, they were less likely to put out 110% effort like they had in the past.