No "troop quality" stat?

[PoorOldSpike]

One thing I've never felt comfortable with in PC2 is the lack of a "troop quality" statistic, how do other members feel about it?
For example at the start of the Barbarossa Campaign the regular German and Russian infantry have exactly the same stats, namely Soft attack 11, Hard attack 7, Ground defense 8, Initiative 4.
How can this be?
I mean, historically the Germans have just conquered western Europe so their morale, skill and experience should therefore be much higher than the Russians right from the start, and should be reflected in a "troop quality rating" which the game doesn't seem to have, or am I missing something?

[adiekmann]

One thing I've never felt comfortable with in PC2 is the lack of a "troop quality" statistic, how do other members feel about it?
For example at the start of the Barbarossa Campaign the regular German and Russian infantry have exactly the same stats, namely Soft attack 11, Hard attack 7, Ground defense 8, Initiative 4.
How can this be?
I mean, historically the Germans have just conquered western Europe so their morale, skill and experience should therefore be much higher than the Russians right from the start, and should be reflected in a "troop quality rating" which the game doesn't seem to have, or am I missing something?

Yes, I thought so from the very beginning when the vanilla game was launched. PC1 did represent basic differences in quality between various nation's infantry. No difference between British and German Infantry? Okay, I can accept that. But Italian, Yugoslavian, Greek, etc. vs. German?? I never could understand that. Yes, your exp level will make a big difference, but some sort of base stat difference I think in some cases (like those mentioned above) should have been represented.

[Tassadar]

I'd say such a thing does exist to some degree, it's just not always implemented equally and when it is, it's for game balance reasons than actual historical stats. But even some, it still sometimes manages to hit facts spot on. For example Italian infantry has 6 ground defense compared to 8 of German infantry and one less point of initiative. This makes sense in a way seeing how Italian divisions were equipped with less artillery, mortars and had less men overall than German ones. So even with distinctive stats on tank/recon/artillery units in the game, it would still make sense that Italian infantry is a bit weaker overall.

Also, while there were many issues with Soviet troops in 1941. morale was not one of them - the fact they were overrun was due to element of surprise, lack of communication, organizational chaos and inability to mount a proper defensive line for a long time.

Next point - experience itself is reflected in the game directly, so I'd say that element is done perfectly fine and one star difference is actually quite a significant boost.

Finally, some scenarios like Raseiniai reflect the situation in one more way - by having Soviet troop start the first turn partially suppressed. I actually like this mechanic and perhaps having more scripted events that trigger and can introduce suppression (both for the allied troops or for the German depending on the mission) would help introduce some of that element.

[Scrapulous]

Finally, some scenarios like Raseiniai reflect the situation in one more way - by having Soviet troop start the first turn partially suppressed. I actually like this mechanic and perhaps having more scripted events that trigger and can introduce suppression (both for the allied troops or for the German depending on the mission) would help introduce some of that element.

I think there are also some scenarios in the DLC where some units start at less than full strength. I seem to recall my scout planes witnessing some reinforcement on turn 1.

I haven't paid much attention to infantry stats, but I do know that there is some meaningful variation in cavalry stats:

Code: Select all

Unit            Ammo    H Att   G Def
ES Cavalry      4       3       6
IT Cavalry      6       7       6
Kavallerie      4       7       8

Spanish cavalry definitely gets the short end of the stick, but as somebody who makes heavy use of German cavalry, I am pretty jealous of the ample Italian ammunition.

[PoorOldSpike]

Thanks guys, I just checked through the Ger and Russ units at the start of Barbarossa (Army Group Centre front) and see that the campaign designer (bless his little cotton socks) has given all the German air and land units 2 experience stars each, but no stars for the Russians, which nicely reflects the better German troop quality.
The regular infantry of both sides still have identical 11 / 7 / 8/ 4 stats, but the two German stars should give them quite an edge..
So when playing any scenario we should definitely check which side has or hasn't got stars so that we can plan our strategy accordingly.

Incidentally we can of course assign commander traits at the start of scens to improve our boys performance, for example-
The Operational Initiative trait gives us an initiative bonus for the whole game which means our boys have a better chance of firing first.
The Battle Academy trait means we gain experience (stars) 25% faster than the default.

(PS- however all units of both sides in the random mission generator always begin with no stars)

[Vorskl]

One thing I've never felt comfortable with in PC2 is the lack of a "troop quality" statistic, how do other members feel about it?
For example at the start of the Barbarossa Campaign the regular German and Russian infantry have exactly the same stats, namely Soft attack 11, Hard attack 7, Ground defense 8, Initiative 4.
How can this be?
I mean, historically the Germans have just conquered western Europe so their morale, skill and experience should therefore be much higher than the Russians right from the start, and should be reflected in a "troop quality rating" which the game doesn't seem to have, or am I missing something?

Dont open the Pandora box of the unit stat balance:) The argument about infantry statistics is that if you compare the original 1940/41 "war schedules" (dont know what's the correct term in English describing what each unit should have), a Soviet infantry division should have a BETTER stat than a German one - while almost identical in the size, a Soviet unit had a much higher number of semi-automated SVT riffles and TWO arty regiments vs ONE in the German division. The Soviet divisions up to around the the Battle of Moscow were 'the original' staffed with army professionals, not conscripts ones.

By the way, the bulk of infantry losses was not in the 'border battles' but in the massive encirclements at Uman, Kiev, Bryansk and Vyazma, which means that superior panzer tactics of deep encirclements played the decisive role (works both way - the Army Group Center was surrounded and decimated in just 1.5 weeks in 1944)

[adiekmann]

One thing I've never felt comfortable with in PC2 is the lack of a "troop quality" statistic, how do other members feel about it?
For example at the start of the Barbarossa Campaign the regular German and Russian infantry have exactly the same stats, namely Soft attack 11, Hard attack 7, Ground defense 8, Initiative 4.
How can this be?
I mean, historically the Germans have just conquered western Europe so their morale, skill and experience should therefore be much higher than the Russians right from the start, and should be reflected in a "troop quality rating" which the game doesn't seem to have, or am I missing something?

a Soviet infantry division should have a BETTER stat than a German one - while almost identical in the size, a Soviet unit had a much higher number of semi-automated SVT riffles and TWO arty regiments vs ONE in the German division.

But how many battalions of artillery were in the Soviet divisions? German Infantry divisions had at least three, panzer divisions two (until the reorganization before Barbarossa). Besides, PC2 has artillery represented separately as independent units, not considered part of your infantry unit. While your point about small arms weapons is true (how many photos have you seen with German infantry carrying Russian submachine guns?), the MG 34/42 was a beast of a machine gun and German units were given a fair number of those, per German doctrine.

But really, my point is there should be a difference in stats regardless of experience/stars. Do you think a US Marine who has never seen combat is only the equal to an infantryman from...I don't know, Algeria? If both have not seen combat, the US Marine is trained at a much higher level. Yes, their weapons matter too, but that isn't enough, IMO.

I doubt that the average Bundeswehr solider is of the same quality as average Wehrmacht solider of 1941. And by that I mean training, discipline and the rest not obviously weapons and other tech. This probably evened out later in the war in training, motivation, and the rest between Soviet and German troops for a number of reasons as the war progressed.

Therefore, I still think PC1 got it right.

[PoorOldSpike]

...a Soviet infantry division should have a BETTER stat than a German one - while almost identical in the size, a Soviet unit had a much higher number of semi-automated SVT riffles and TWO arty regiments vs ONE in the German division..

Ah, but experience should be factored into a units stats too, for example in 1941 most Russian units hadn't seen combat before and were therefore green, whereas most German units were combat veterans, having honed their skills in the battles of Poland and France.

[Magni]

I doubt that the average Bundeswehr solider is of the same quality as average Wehrmacht solider of 1941. And by that I mean training, discipline and the rest not obviously weapons and other tech. This probably evened out later in the war in training, motivation, and the rest between Soviet and German troops for a number of reasons as the war progressed.

What? The modern-day volunteer who has to fulfill basic health and background requirements way above any WW2-era conscripted soldier simply to be accepted for service, and is enjoying some 80 years of advancement in training procedures in an era in which armies value quality over quantity to a much higher degree is somehow supposed to be worse trained than said WW2 conscript? That's some thick rose-colored glasses you need to be wearing to actually believe that.

[Vorskl]

But how many battalions of artillery were in the Soviet divisions? German Infantry divisions had at least three, panzer divisions two (until the reorganization before Barbarossa). Besides, PC2 has artillery represented separately as independent units, not considered part of your infantry unit. While your point about small arms weapons is true (how many photos have you seen with German infantry carrying Russian submachine guns?), the MG 34/42 was a beast of a machine gun and German units were given a fair number of those, per German doctrine.

But really, my point is there should be a difference in stats regardless of experience/stars. Do you think a US Marine who has never seen combat is only the equal to an infantryman from...I don't know, Algeria? If both have not seen combat, the US Marine is trained at a much higher level. Yes, their weapons matter too, but that isn't enough, IMO.

I doubt that the average Bundeswehr solider is of the same quality as average Wehrmacht solider of 1941. And by that I mean training, discipline and the rest not obviously weapons and other tech. This probably evened out later in the war in training, motivation, and the rest between Soviet and German troops for a number of reasons as the war progressed.

Therefore, I still think PC1 got it right.

Please elaborate on 'PC1 got it right'?
Also, what's your view on which size does a unit represent - a platoon? A regiment?
The core issue with PC2 is that battles are massively different in scale - from tiny Arras to huge 'Blau' being the same map. That makes any stat-related conversation practically meaningless as it's not clear which size are we talking about. For example, Soviet infantry SMG is the company size at most (there were no SMG battalions, company was the largest). But a company-size unit in any DLC1941 Soviet map makes no sense (too small). Same goes for everyone's favorite 'Tigers' - a battalion was their largest unit size.

[scorehouse]

i wish there were a larger variety of infantry units. Tank Destroyer units, Special Defensive Machine gun heavily entrenched and camouflaged units, Minelaying units as in the Order of Battle. also wish we had a Srat bomber hero, a Paratrooper hero and the setting for the 25% discount on Aircraft and Artillery like the Infantry and Panzer General options.

[adiekmann]

But how many battalions of artillery were in the Soviet divisions? German Infantry divisions had at least three, panzer divisions two (until the reorganization before Barbarossa). Besides, PC2 has artillery represented separately as independent units, not considered part of your infantry unit. While your point about small arms weapons is true (how many photos have you seen with German infantry carrying Russian submachine guns?), the MG 34/42 was a beast of a machine gun and German units were given a fair number of those, per German doctrine.

But really, my point is there should be a difference in stats regardless of experience/stars. Do you think a US Marine who has never seen combat is only the equal to an infantryman from...I don't know, Algeria? If both have not seen combat, the US Marine is trained at a much higher level. Yes, their weapons matter too, but that isn't enough, IMO.

I doubt that the average Bundeswehr solider is of the same quality as average Wehrmacht solider of 1941. And by that I mean training, discipline and the rest not obviously weapons and other tech. This probably evened out later in the war in training, motivation, and the rest between Soviet and German troops for a number of reasons as the war progressed.

Therefore, I still think PC1 got it right.

Please elaborate on 'PC1 got it right'?

I don't know how familiar you are with the first Panzer Corps, but most infantry units had different SA/HA/GD/etc. Some were very close, like British inf and German inf. But French were weaker and standard Italian infantry (not Bersaglieri) were almost worthless with a SA/HA of only 1, very low initiative (but I don't remember exactly what it was and I don't have PC1 installed on my PC right now), and lower GD.

Also, what's your view on which size does a unit represent - a platoon? A regiment?

I think it is (mostly) clear that units in the game represent either regiments or battalions. If you hold a gun to my head and force me to pick just one, I'd say battalion/abteilungen. Now, it is not really a perfect match of course for a number of reasons. If all infantry units are battalions then your core is historically REALLY mismatched and underrepresented in terms of infantry units. Some players even more so than others with their "I only use 5 pioniere units and that's it. The rest is all tanks and artillery and aircraft." But if you then say "infantry units are regiments" then pioniere's presence in the game doesn't match real world examples to say 'all units are _______' in size. Every division had a pioniere battalion when you look up German unit composition. Bridging units on the other hand weren't even an entire company in size, but since they are represented in the game...well, you see my point. They do not all match. There simply cannot be one universal answer to this quesiton. If you want to say they are all battalion in size, well, then you just won Stalingrad with what would equate to a single division. So, once again, it is impossible for anyone to say they are ANY one particular size. This discussion as to what size the units represent is very old and dates back to Panzer General. Bottom line, it is a game, not a historical reenactment.

The core issue with PC2 is that battles are massively different in scale - from tiny Arras to huge 'Blau' being the same map. Again...this is an old bone of contention that I remember from the original Panzer General to which it is not really possible IMO to make it uniform across the board. I mean you could, but at what cost? It would be very limiting in the end when push comes to shove, and I do not have the desire to expand on this at all. But let me leave you with this thought: If you were building an entire campaign, how would you cover all the various battles that you would be interested in representing? Every game has limitations to map size to name just one. Panzer General II even had a limit to how many units total could be placed or used at any one time on a given map or it would cause the game to crash. So, in short, there are a ton of different elements that would have to be juggled to force a "one hex = x km" type of uniform map design. And even then...how do you represent some of these various engagements that vary so much in size and scope? Some would require gigantic game maps and I already have seen some mention to limits in map size for PC2. I suppose the best answer to this would be to break the really large engagements into several smaller ones that would be separate scenarios, but now AO41 would be 40 scenarios long. So every answer leads to another problem... That makes any stat-related conversation practically meaningless as it's not clear which size are we talking about. ...Yet we do so with tank units. For example, Soviet infantry SMG is the company size at most (there were no SMG battalions, company was the largest). But a company-size unit in any DLC1941 Soviet map makes no sense (too small). Same goes for everyone's favorite 'Tigers' - a battalion was their largest unit size. Yes, that's true and part of my point that I made above. Furthermore, not all armies organized their units the same way or size. British armoured division were made of 'armoured brigades' which were like German 'panzer regiments' though named differently. Normally, on paper, you would think a 'brigade' is bigger than a regiment, but not as applied to tank divisions in the German and British armies during WW2.

[Scrapulous]

I don't know how familiar you are with the first Panzer Corps, but most infantry units had different SA/HA/GD/etc. Some were very close, like British inf and German inf. But French were weaker and standard Italian infantry (not Bersaglieri) were almost worthless with a SA/HA of only 1, very low initiative (but I don't remember exactly what it was and I don't have PC1 installed on my PC right now), and lower GD.

Wow, I forgot about the Italian infantry being so bad in PC1. I would argue that giving them a hard attack and soft attack of one each is an example of the pitfalls of this approach.

[adiekmann]

I don't know how familiar you are with the first Panzer Corps, but most infantry units had different SA/HA/GD/etc. Some were very close, like British inf and German inf. But French were weaker and standard Italian infantry (not Bersaglieri) were almost worthless with a SA/HA of only 1, very low initiative (but I don't remember exactly what it was and I don't have PC1 installed on my PC right now), and lower GD.

Wow, I forgot about the Italian infantry being so bad in PC1. I would argue that giving them a hard attack and soft attack of one each is an example of the pitfalls of this approach.

Yes, we all know the bad wrap the Italian army got in WW2, but I thought that was even a bit too weak.

[PoorOldSpike]

for interest's sake I've just looked at the infantry stats at the start of each Campaign as set by the designer.
(Note these are for regular line infantry only, but stats may sometimes vary for other inf types, eg Engs/Paras/Mountain/Guards etc)
I've highlighted experience stars in red.
-----------------------------------------------

POLAND 1939
Wehr Infantry- Soft 11, Hard 7, Grd def 8, Initiative 4, Exp stars 0
Polish Infantry- 11 7 6 3 0

The higher German ground def strength and initiative presumably reflects the fact that the Germans were a more militaristic-minded nation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BARBAROSSA 1941 (North/Centre/and South)
Wehr infantry-11 7 8 4 2
Russ Regular- 11 7 8 4 0
Romanian line infantry- 11 7 6 3 0
(The Romanians are only found in the Southern campaign)

Although the Gers and Russians have identical strengths, the Germans have 2 valuable stars gained from their experience in Poland and France.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NORTH AFRICA 1943
Wehr Infantry-11 7 8 4 2
GB Infantry- 11 7 8 4 1
Italian infantry-11 6 7 3 0

The Germans retain their 2 stars from Poland and France, and the Brits get 1 star from France
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

KURSK 1943
Wehr infantry- 13 11 10 4 (almost half get 3 stars, but the rest get 0 stars)
Russ Regular- 13 11 10 4 (most get 1 star, the rest 0)

The Germans still have the edge star-wise, but by this stage of the war are having to pad out their ranks with inexperienced units
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITALY 1943
Wehr Inf-13 11 10 4 3
GB Inf- 13 11 10 4 3
US Inf- 13 11 10 4 2
Italian inf-13 11 8 3 0

The Gers, Brits and USA are equal strength-wise, but the Americans only have 2 stars because they're relative newcomers to WW2.
The Italian stats are low as usual because their hearts were never really in the war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

General summary- I think the PC2 devs have done a good job with the stats.
Incidentally notice how the Initiative rating varies from nation to nation, we tend to overlook it despite its importance in determining who usually fires first, (the higher the number the better the chance)

[adiekmann]

I doubt that the average Bundeswehr solider is of the same quality as average Wehrmacht solider of 1941. And by that I mean training, discipline and the rest not obviously weapons and other tech. This probably evened out later in the war in training, motivation, and the rest between Soviet and German troops for a number of reasons as the war progressed.

What? The modern-day volunteer who has to fulfill basic health and background requirements way above any WW2-era conscripted soldier simply to be accepted for service, and is enjoying some 80 years of advancement in training procedures in an era in which armies value quality over quantity to a much higher degree is somehow supposed to be worse trained than said WW2 conscript? That's some thick rose-colored glasses you need to be wearing to actually believe that.

I think you who have your facts mixed up. First of all, the "average Bundeswehr solider" is NOT a volunteer. Don't confuse it with a US servicemen which are all-volunteer since Vietnam. Second, do you have any idea of the details of what even basic training of German soldiers was like during the Third Reich? Your comment above strongly suggests "No!" In fact, after the war, the US Army did a full study of why the average German soldier possessed so much personal initiative during the war, even late after it was clear that they were going to lose, compared to those of their own and other nations. Among other things, the short answer is TRAINING. They then implemented those into their own (without the Nazi craziness of course). That's why some claim that the US has the best trained troops (not talking about elite branches; just regular) in the world today.

Lastly, and this is why I said aside from weapons and other advancements from the past 80 years, they were better trained. A big part of that includes discipline, team work, etc.

[Magni]

I think you who have your facts mixed up. First of all, the "average Bundeswehr solider" is NOT a volunteer. Don't confuse it with a US servicemen which are all-volunteer since Vietnam. Second, do you have any idea of the details of what even basic training of German soldiers was like during the Third Reich? Your comment above strongly suggests "No!" In fact, after the war, the US Army did a full study of why the average German soldier possessed so much personal initiative during the war, even late after it was clear that they were going to lose, compared to those of their own and other nations. Among other things, the short answer is TRAINING. They then implemented those into their own (without the Nazi craziness of course). That's why some claim that the US has the best trained troops (not talking about elite branches; just regular) in the world today.

Lastly, and this is why I said aside from weapons and other advancements from the past 80 years, they were better trained. A big part of that includes discipline, team work, etc.

Um yes, yes he is? In fact, the Bundeswehr is a pure volunteer army. Conscription has been discontinued entirely since 2011, and even before that it was more of a still-on-the-books formality than practical reality since at latest the early 90's. If someone was in the Bundeswehr in the last 30+ years, it was entirely because they wanted to be there.

And why yes, I do have a decent idea of the details of what basic training was like during the Third Reich. And newsflash, it was quite a bit shorter and less comprehensive than that of the Bundeswehr, or most modern-day armies, even ignoring how training methods and equipment have improved by leaps and bounds since then, meaning you can expect much better results from the same length of training.

And hey, guess who trained the Bundeswehr when it was formed in the 50's? Oh yeah, pretty much the same guys that trained the Wehrmacht, except now they had years of extra experience to improve things further with, and more reason to concentrate on quality over quantity. And another few decades worth of further improvement and evolution from that is what gets you the modern curriculum. PS: Auftragstaktik and increased personal initiative with it was pretty notable back in WWII. It isn't today, mostly because it's become completely mundane and to be expected from any halfway-decently trained soldier across the world. There was nothing "better" about the Wehrmacht's training when compared to the standard of ANY current first-world military. The window has moved. What was impressive training in 1940 would rate if at all as outright inadequate today.

(Also, anyone who claims the US has the best-trained regulars today is just comically ignorant; the US spends comparably less effort on the basic grunts than many other NATO militaries to be able to uphold troop levels and commitments.)

[adiekmann]

I think you who have your facts mixed up. First of all, the "average Bundeswehr solider" is NOT a volunteer. Don't confuse it with a US servicemen which are all-volunteer since Vietnam. Second, do you have any idea of the details of what even basic training of German soldiers was like during the Third Reich? Your comment above strongly suggests "No!" In fact, after the war, the US Army did a full study of why the average German soldier possessed so much personal initiative during the war, even late after it was clear that they were going to lose, compared to those of their own and other nations. Among other things, the short answer is TRAINING. They then implemented those into their own (without the Nazi craziness of course). That's why some claim that the US has the best trained troops (not talking about elite branches; just regular) in the world today.

Lastly, and this is why I said aside from weapons and other advancements from the past 80 years, they were better trained. A big part of that includes discipline, team work, etc.

Um yes, yes he is? In fact, the Bundeswehr is a pure volunteer army. Conscription has been discontinued entirely since 2011, and even before that it was more of a still-on-the-books formality than practical reality since at latest the early 90's. If someone was in the Bundeswehr in the last 30+ years, it was entirely because they wanted to be there.



And why yes, I do have a decent idea of the details of what basic training was like during the Third Reich. And newsflash, it was quite a bit shorter and less comprehensive than that of the Bundeswehr, or most modern-day armies, even ignoring how training methods and equipment have improved by leaps and bounds since then, meaning you can expect much better results from the same length of training.

And hey, guess who trained the Bundeswehr when it was formed in the 50's? Oh yeah, pretty much the same guys that trained the Wehrmacht, except now they had years of extra experience to improve things further with, and more reason to concentrate on quality over quantity. And another few decades worth of further improvement and evolution from that is what gets you the modern curriculum. PS: Auftragstaktik and increased personal initiative with it was pretty notable back in WWII. It isn't today, mostly because it's become completely mundane and to be expected from any halfway-decently trained soldier across the world. There was nothing "better" about the Wehrmacht's training when compared to the standard of ANY current first-world military. The window has moved. What was impressive training in 1940 would rate if at all as outright inadequate today.

(Also, anyone who claims the US has the best-trained regulars today is just comically ignorant; the US spends comparably less effort on the basic grunts than many other NATO militaries to be able to uphold troop levels and commitments.)

Good answer, and no, I am not being sarcastic. I do not live in Germany and haven't even been to Europe since 2002. I was also unaware that they ended mandatory military service in 2011. I already learned something.

However, at any rate, this whole discussion really isn't about "today's soldier vs. one from WW2."
We got sidetracked here. It really is about the German soldier from that time period being better trained that most of his contemporaries of other nations, particularly in the early years of the war. That I still stand by and is the reason why I feel they should have stronger stats than they do rather than the universal SA/HA values represented in PC2.

Nonetheless, I have read scholarly (military history and from other fields like sociology) books in the past that detailed the training and differences that motivated and made the average German soldier fight so hard. It was at the time attributed to false explanations like "they all were fanatical Nazis" or "it's just in the German character." In fact, close examination revealed things like the influence of the mandatory participation in the Hitler Youth and German focus on building camaraderie and individual initiative/independence in action. As a result, hazing and other such practices were far less common in the German army than in say the British Army. One such source that I remember reading about this is Hans von Luck's book, Panzer Commander. These are things I read decades ago, but I can think of at least two other sources that discussed this topic in them as well. So, I am not shooting from the hip here. I can actually back it up with print sources.

[Scrapulous]

Nonetheless, I have read scholarly (military history and from other fields like sociology) books in the past that detailed the training and differences that motivated and made the average German soldier fight so hard. It was at the time attributed to false explanations like "they all were fanatical Nazis" or "it's just in the German character." In fact, close examination revealed things like the influence of the mandatory participation in the Hitler Youth and German focus on building camaraderie and individual initiative/independence in action. As a result, hazing and other such practices were far less common in the German army than in say the British Army. One such source that I remember reading about this is Hans von Luck's book, Panzer Commander. These are things I read decades ago, but I can think of at least two other sources that discussed this topic in them as well. So, I am not shooting from the hip here. I can actually back it up with print sources.

I don't know enough about training now or at the time to have a meaningful opinion. But: the professor who taught my World War II class had himself served in the war, so the class was an interesting blend of lecture from scholarly sources, his own primary sources (like French resistance propaganda about the "boche"), and personal anecdote. One of the things that he mentioned as a differentiator between the German soldier and the American soldier was that Americans were assigned to units without regard to their point of origin, while German soldiers were assigned to squads with people from the same town, village, or neighborhood that they came from. The intent, he said, was to continue social bonds from civilian life into military life; the thinking being that a soldier is less likely to let his squadmates down if they are also his friends and neighbors from back home. I have no idea if this is true, or if it works, or if it would contribute enough difference to call a soldier "better trained," but I thought it was interesting enough to remember over the decades since I heard the story.

I enjoyed the von Luck book. I mostly like war memoirs, even if I can't always convince myself to take them exactly at face value.

[Bee1976]

There are many reasons why the "Wehrmacht" soldiers performed like they did. The army size was raised fast since 33 and yes they were well trained (most of them and before the war), but that big size army caused some troubles aswell. We had to read some soldier diaries during my school time in history class, and yes some of the soldiers were simply conviced that they are doing the right thing. Protecting their homeland, and so on.
Many years of toxic propaganda did their job.
Later in the war it was fear of the enemy on the eastern front, there was a phrase like "better dead than prisoner of the red army" for example. And dont forget pervitin aka "Panzerschokolade" aka "Crystal Meth". The Wehrmacht ordered 35 Million Pills just for the france campaign in 1940.


Sorry, i dont think my english is good enough to explain this well....but i wanted to point out that there is not that one "single" reason, this is a mix of reasons. The "movement war" was something new for the allies, Rommel performed that to a next level. Army structure might be another point.