Arising from this https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/t...ts-reported-near-ukraine.304396/post-11660548 and also from the changing views of history over the years.
When I was growing up, accepted wisdom (nowadays regarded as a declinist view) was that the Wehrmacht/German army was better on a man for man basis than other forces involved in WW2, esp British army, with the Brits especially just being a bit weak all round.
Some of this was perhaps based on the work of Col TN Dupuy and M van Crefeld etc., some of self-propagandisisng memoirs of German officers keen to preserve reputations, and some perhaps on the memory of the strategic earthquake of May-June 1940. Historians like Max Hastings and Antony Beevor probably helped contribute to this view, along with other academics like John Ellis.
The current crop of historians (James Holland etc) refute this declinist idea, and take the line that the Germans were a bit rubbish at everything. In particular, they dispute any idea of a "man for man" difference between forces, and in fact suggest the Britsih and American armies were far superior in terms of individual expertise and capability than the Germans, although use NWE 1944-45 as the main evidence base.
I'm interested to hear views on this from the panel- I guess there is a lot of subject matter expertise that may help explain if. and why, the evidence Dupuy & van Crefeld had accepetd as truth in the 1970s-80s is now considered invalid.
When I was growing up, accepted wisdom (nowadays regarded as a declinist view) was that the Wehrmacht/German army was better on a man for man basis than other forces involved in WW2, esp British army, with the Brits especially just being a bit weak all round.
Some of this was perhaps based on the work of Col TN Dupuy and M van Crefeld etc., some of self-propagandisisng memoirs of German officers keen to preserve reputations, and some perhaps on the memory of the strategic earthquake of May-June 1940. Historians like Max Hastings and Antony Beevor probably helped contribute to this view, along with other academics like John Ellis.
The current crop of historians (James Holland etc) refute this declinist idea, and take the line that the Germans were a bit rubbish at everything. In particular, they dispute any idea of a "man for man" difference between forces, and in fact suggest the Britsih and American armies were far superior in terms of individual expertise and capability than the Germans, although use NWE 1944-45 as the main evidence base.
I'm interested to hear views on this from the panel- I guess there is a lot of subject matter expertise that may help explain if. and why, the evidence Dupuy & van Crefeld had accepetd as truth in the 1970s-80s is now considered invalid.