How many Armies did the NAZI's Field at once

[gunny]

Just a best guess is all I'm looking for here. I've been playing some Grand Strategy games where each counter represents Corps and/or Armies. Some of these games get pretty crowded, and I have to wonder if the counters would not more realistically represent Divisions and Corps.

thanks

[ratster]

Approx 20-25 armies of varying size and consistency.

[The_MadMan]

How many man does that represent?

[Belisarius]

ORIGINAL: The_MadMan

How many man does that represent?

Depending on year, a rough estimate is about 2,500,000 - 3,000,000+ in the field units.

Quick breakdown, give or take a few

1 division: 10,000-15,000
1 corps: 2-3 divisions plus/minus elements
1 army: 2-4 corps

add to that a whole range of "Kampfgruppen" of everythin from company to corps size

[Tullius]

Sorry, i was wrong.

[The_MadMan]

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

ORIGINAL: The_MadMan

How many man does that represent?

Depending on year, a rough estimate is about 2,500,000 - 3,000,000+ in the field units.

Quick breakdown, give or take a few

1 division: 10,000-15,000
1 corps: 2-3 divisions plus/minus elements
1 army: 2-4 corps

add to that a whole range of "Kampfgruppen" of everythin from company to corps size

Thanx mate, that's a lot of manpower!

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: The_MadMan

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

ORIGINAL: The_MadMan

How many man does that represent?

Depending on year, a rough estimate is about 2,500,000 - 3,000,000+ in the field units.

Quick breakdown, give or take a few

1 division: 10,000-15,000
1 corps: 2-3 divisions plus/minus elements
1 army: 2-4 corps

add to that a whole range of "Kampfgruppen" of everythin from company to corps size

Thanx mate, that's a lot of manpower!

It was an achievement for the Germans (and one of the reasons the war lasted six years) that they got more of their manpower pool engaged than did other allied nations. She mobilised three times more men than the United Kingdom for example. Although she had a larger population it was nothing like three times larger. By the end of the war she'd mobilised almost 18 million men. Army strength peaked at around 6.5 million.

She raised 38 Panzer Divisions, 29 Mot or Pzgr divisions, 5 Cavalry Divisions, 280 Infantry divisions, 17 Light divisions, 13 Mountain divisions, 11 Airborne divisions and there were 21 of the shockingly wasteful Luftwaffe Field Divisions.

From memory, I seem to remember Donitz raised a Naval Infantry Division in early 45 for the defence of the Oder as well. Large numbers of other Naval and Luftwaffe personnel were also drafted into the Army/Waffen SS at some point during the war. This did present a number of problems, though. Their insistence on raising new formations rather than rebuilding old ones diluted the quality to varying degrees, starved the front line formations of men and equipment and was one of the principal reasons why so much use was made of the Kampfgruppe.

It was largely made possible by slave labour.

Regards,
IronDuke

[max_h]

Code: Select all

 	workers					                wehrmacht			
 	Germans								
 year	Men	Women	total	PoWs/slave labour total workers	called in sold.	casualities	active	total active
 1939	24,5	14,6	39,1	0,3	       39,4	        1,4	        -	        1,4	40,8
 1940	20,4	14,4	34,8	1,2	       36	        5,7	        0,1	        5,6	41,6
 1941	19	14,1	33,1	3	       36,1	        7,4	        0,2	        7,2	43,3
 1942	16,9	14,4	31,3	4,2	       35,5	        9,4	        0,8	        8,6	44,1
 1943	15,5	14,8	30,3	6,3	       36,6	        11,2	        1,7	        9,5	46,1
 1944	14,2	14,8	29	7,1	       36,1	        12,4	        3,3	        9,1	45,2
 

[IronDuke_slith]

Max,

Excellent figures. They illustrate the drift from German to slave labour over the course of the war. 10 000 000 fewer men working in industry in 1944 tells its own story. Thanks for posting them for us.

regards,
IronDuke

[The_MadMan]

All those divisions, how many of them were at full strength? In other words, how did those divisions compare to Allied divisions?
It still is an huge achievement but as Max_H's figures say, it was at the expense of workers. Slave labourers do not produce goods with the same quality was german workers did.

[max_h]

ORIGINAL: The_MadMan

All those divisions, how many of them were at full strength? In other words, how did those divisions compare to Allied divisions?
It still is an huge achievement but as Max_H's figures say, it was at the expense of workers. Slave labourers do not produce goods with the same quality was german workers did.

id those divisions compare to Allied divisions?
It still is an huge achievement but as Max_H's figures say, it was at the expense of workers. Slave labourers do not produce goods with the same quality was german workers did.

_____________________________

in 44? hardly one...

note that the german industry was only changed to war economy with Speer/Total war. the max. output was reached in 44.

[Belisarius]

ORIGINAL: The_MadMan

All those divisions, how many of them were at full strength? In other words, how did those divisions compare to Allied divisions?
It still is an huge achievement but as Max_H's figures say, it was at the expense of workers. Slave labourers do not produce goods with the same quality was german workers did.

Very difficult to have a comprehensive answer to, max_h wraps it up pretty good for '44.

As for comparing German and Allied divisions - well, it depends on what you're looking at. A reasonably good strength regular Wehrmacht Infantry Division would be a match for most British, Canadian or U.S. counterparts in '44. Just looking at manpower doesn't give a complete picture. The US divisions were much bigger than the German, especially for infantry. A German ID rarely had more than 8,000 fighting troops and average for the west front seem to have been 5,000-6,000. But they were on the defense and that requires less troops, so a small German ID presents a challenge for an Allied opponent twice their size.

If we take the East front into consideration, it's even more difficult. From mid '44 onward, the Russian divisions were better than the German when it comes to experience and tactics, because by then they had learned and adopted the tactics the Germans used in the first three years of fighting. Still, the East divisions had (generally) better human material than the West ones, and that was noticeable for the Allies when they ran into East veterans transferred to that front.

It goes on and on...I haven't even started on issues like supply, leadership or morale...

[The_MadMan]

Thanx for the reply, it really is amazing that they held on for so long. But on the other hand, they could have hold on a lot longer if Hitler did not give all those dumb "to the last bullet" orders.