Superior?

This is coolbert:

Back to the "myths" of the Great War [WW1], continuing with critique of the opinions of Professor Niall.

These two "myths" stand out! The suggestion is being made, as part of "myth", that the allied armies were superior to the German Imperial Army during WW1? This is so?

9. "That the British and the French had the better armies (Ferguson claims the German Army was superior)"

10. "That the Allies were more efficient at killing Germans (Ferguson argues that the Germans were more efficient at killing the Allies)"

These "myths" are surprising? Rather - - the consensus has been among the historians - - at least to my knowledge - - that the German has been LONG considered to have had the battlefield advantage over the allies during the Great War. Germany not victorious in the end, but NOT because of a lack of skill, daring, devotion to duty or ability on the part of the German troop or their leadership!!

The American military historian and researcher Trevor Dupuy is most emphatic in his assertion that according to his analysis, during World War One and World War Two also, the German ranked as the superior soldier - - 120 Englishmen or 120 Americans being needed to defeat 100 Germans!!

[this to be properly understood when evaluating combat involving units of brigade size or greater!!]

From Dupuy and his book, "Understanding War":

"The analyses show that in their previous conflict (World War I), the German were better in ground combat than the Allies by a factor of about 1.2 . . . the German Combat Effectiveness Value (CEV) relative to the allies was 1.2 . . . in other words, 100 Germans in combat units were roughly equivalent to 120 Allies in combat units. The factor tuned out to be almost identical in World War II."

"In World Wars I and II the Germans - - on the average - - had a CEV of about 1.2 with respect to the Western Allies and about 2.50 with respect to the Russians. In other words, 100 Germans in combat units were the equivalent of about 120 British or American troops in combat units, and equivalent to 250 Russians in combat units."

"an unexpected phenomenon . . . initial analysis of World War II [WW2] data showed that the Germans were consistently better in that war than the Americans and the British, whether they were attacking or defending, whether they were winning or losing . . . analysis of data from World War I [WW1] battles demonstrated that the phenomenon of German combat effectiveness superiority in ground combat in World War II had been matched by a comparable superiority in that earlier war [WW1]"

Again - - it should emphasized that when Dupuy speaks of 100 Germans organized into COMBAT UNITS being the equivalent of 120 Englishmen or Americans organized into COMBAT UNITS, we are speaking only of units organized at BRIGADE strength or greater. A brigade usually consisting of about 5,000 troops.

That the German was the superior combatant in both WW1 and WW2 is attributable to: [in general consensus]

* The German officers were more aggressive and dynamic.
* German military equipment, their combat doctrine, their tactics were more suited to the environment and circumstances.
* The German combat personnel performed team tasks better.

Regarding Trevor Dupuy - - his analysis, his methods and data are suspected in some circles, criticism as part of the process a given, whatever the subject.

And "an unexpected phenomenon"! This was not a case of Dupuy first hypothesizing and then finding the data to "fit" the hypothesis. Dupuy is telling us that this is so?

Professor Niall is correct in his perception that the German gave the superior performance on the battlefield during WW1? At least Trevor Dupuy would agree. And that is saying a lot?

coolbert.