Was Otto Carius fair in his assessment of American forces vs. Russians?

score:12

Accepted answer

You'll hear stuff like this from time to time, but really it is more just reflecting the US way of war. The Germans fought on the cheap, and they wanted to win fast, so they mixed it up. The US had the philosophy that there was always plenty of artillery or air support or tanks on call, so when resistance was hit, why not expend some shells before going in? The effectiveness was not in doubt, since despite all his sneering Otto was still the one inside the pocket. And if he had tried to drive out, he likely would have found the dominant Allied air support blowing his tank away without an infantryman having to lift a finger.

Upvote:-1

At a low level I doubt there would have been much difference between the average American/British/Russian/German soldier by early 1945 due to the simple fact that casualty rates were so high for all armies that they were scrounging up whoever could hold a rifle and point it in generally the right direction.

Really the primary difference between Eastern and Western fronts was that the former was more generally no-holds barred. If the other guy is pretty confident that you aren't taking prisoners he will fight that much harder...

Working your way up the chain the average US officer commanding a formation larger than say a battalion was likely less apt than his Russian or British counterpart, but that can be explained by the fact that in Europe the US Army didn't suffer from very many significant defeats after the unfortunate events at Kasserine Pass in 1943. Without the kind of "evolutionary pressure" that pushes the likes of a Montgomery and Zhukov to the top you can't expect excellence.

Upvote:0

This is one man's subjective view, albeit a professional's. And the guy was riding in a Tiger tank with an 88mm gun (or was it a "Jagdtiger" with a 128mm main gun?). And then he might just have faced infantry or inexperienced fresh units. At the beginning of the war in the Soviet Union, the Germans captured hundreds of thousands of soldiers, until the Red Army adapted it's tactics and training.

Upvote:11

"The poorer the infantry, the more artillery it needs; the American infantry needs all it can get." French General Koechlin-Schwartz, speaking to U.S. General George S. Patton on two occasions. "The Patton Papers, 1940-1945"; George Smith Patton, Martin Blumenson; Houghton Mifflin (1972); pp.520-521

American troops were inexperienced and poor, especially in comparison with the German veterans who survived the Eastern front. What's so surprising here?

Additionally, as mentioned by @Oldcat, American forces had sufficient air support and artillery making infantry skills less critical.

On the other hand, Russian soldiers (and, to a lesser degree, officers, and, to even lesser degree, generals), were quite good, and better yet by the end of the war. They were second only to the German ones, and only until 1943 (1944?)

This seems to be obscured by the perceived poor performance of the Red Army against the Finns (remember, SU won the war despite the apauling conditions favoring the defenders) and horrible defeats that Red Army suffered at the hands of Wehrmacht in 1941-1942 (when the Wehrmacht was in the prime of its shape, battle hardened, experienced, supplied by almost the whole Europe).

See also my answer to another question.

More post

Search Posts

Related post