Montly German Manpower Strength in the Western Front

[Guaporense]

an other point:is Hyperwar reliable ?
Hyperwar gives for july 980095 for the ground and service troops in the UK,while I have :ground forces 161621 and service troops 244603,a total of 406224
My source:Rich relations (by David Reynolds):wich gives as source:Rupp.2:p.288

I think British forces would be bigger than 400,000 men.

Second to Zetterling, the numerical superiority of the Western Allies in the front was 3 to 1 in December 1944. My estimate here was 2.5 to 1. So, I can have overestimated the number of Germans or underestimated the number of Allies.

However, my sources tell me that the Wehrmacht had 3.6 million men in the field army in December-January 1945, since Glantz's When Titans Clashed, 22.2% of the German division equivalents were in the western front in jan 45, that would give 800,000 men, or less than my estimate.

[ljadw]

Well, you data is about ration strength. It's not exactly what I would like.

Um, no, your reading comprehension still appears to be faulty...some of the data (M-H and MGFA) is given as ration strength. The rest are mostly derived from Iststaerke.

Yep. I was incomplete to say that. However, your data was a small brick in my house of knowledge. So thanks.

Correction (G was forgetting a word :SMALL) :it should be :
Your data was a small brick in my SMALL house of knowledge

[Cannonade]

Well, you data is about ration strength. It's not exactly what I would like.

Um, no, your reading comprehension still appears to be faulty...some of the data (M-H and MGFA) is given as ration strength. The rest are mostly derived from Iststaerke.

Yep. I was incomplete to say that. However, your data was a small brick in my house of knowledge. So thanks.

Correction (G was forgetting a word :SMALL) :it should be :
Your data was a small brick in my SMALL house of knowledge

I now see that I have intruded on what appears to be a discussion limited to two primary participants. Please excuse me for the intrusion.

Cannonade

[ljadw]

I have precise monthly data on American strength, however, I don't know if I should include service troops under their operational ground force strengths. I think not, since these service troops were very numerous, while German service personnel were included but they consisted of around 16% of total personnel weren't included in combat units.

I have point data in British Empire ground forces personnel on only 3 dates:

25 July - 640,000
31 October 1944 - 804,868
16 June 1945 - 958,848

I can extrapolate for the other dates. While American ground forces personnel strength is:

July ------------ 749,476
25 July -------- 812,000
August -------- 838,108
September ---- 928,042
October ------- 1,095,682
November ----- 1,337,981
December ----- 1,410,514
January ------- 1,484,330
February ------ 1,585,242
March --------- 1,644,986

While British Empire extrapolated data is:


July ------------ 600,000
25 July -------- 640,000
August -------- 670,000
September ---- 725,000
October ------- 780,000
31 October ---- 804,900
November ----- 820,000
December ----- 850,000
January ------- 880,000
February ------ 910,000
March --------- 940,000

With gives an Allied strength minus French as:

July ------------ 1,349,476
August -------- 1,508,108
September ---- 1,653,042
October ------- 1,875,682
November ----- 2,157,981
December ----- 2,260,514
January ------- 2,364,330
February ------ 2,495,242
March --------- 2,584,986

G's figures for the US strength in july are wrong (as one could expect):749476 is for the UK AND the continent
Ruppenthal gives the figure for the strength in the UK:161621,thus on the continent 587855 .
Some economists should try to read

[Cannonade]

G's figures for the US strength in july are wrong (as one could expect):749476 is for the UK AND the continent Ruppenthal gives the figure for the strength in the UK:161621,thus on the continent 587855 .
Some economists should try to read

ljadw,

You are incorrect. This exposes the danger of citing a source without having actually examined it.

Ruppenthal tells us the total US strength for Field Forces in the UK and on the continent as of 31 July 1944 was 725,259. Of these, 161,621 were in UK and 563,638 were on the continent. He goes on to indicate there was an additional 118,286 officers and men attached to the GFRS in the theater, but does not tell us how many were in the UK, or on the continent. He also provides us with the figures for Air Forces, COMZ, and Non-Operating personnel. (Ruppenthal, Vol. II, p.288, Table 9.)

Cannonade

[ljadw]

G's figures for the US strength in july are wrong (as one could expect):749476 is for the UK AND the continent Ruppenthal gives the figure for the strength in the UK:161621,thus on the continent 587855 .
Some economists should try to read

ljadw,

You are incorrect. This exposes the danger of citing a source without having actually examined it.

Ruppenthal tells us the total US strength for Field Forces in the UK and on the continent as of 31 July 1944 was 725,259. Of these, 161,621 were in UK and 563,638 were on the continent. He goes on to indicate there was an additional 118,286 officers and men attached to the GFRS in the theater, but does not tell us how many were in the UK, or on the continent. He also provides us with the figures for Air Forces, COMZ, and Non-Operating personnel. (Ruppenthal, Vol. II, p.288, Table 9.)

Cannonade

hm,Reynolds in 'Rich relations ' gives nothing for GFRS on 31 july and indicates "breakdown unavailable",thus it should be logical to limit one to the figure of 587855,especially as Guaporense states that his figure is for ground forces only ,thus no GFRS,Air Forces,COMZ and Non-Operating personnel (mainly hospital patients ),the figure of 749476 must include a lot of them and must be wrong .And even if one add the GFRS figure to the figure of 563638,one is not having 749476

[Andy H]

The phrase "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." is well known and as Wikipedia puts it

is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point

.

There are two POV here, one built upon hard facts that stand the test of time and academic rigour and the other built upon weak extrapolation, inverse logic and unfounded doubt.

Can I implore upon those who wish to base their arguements upon the latter criteria, to show some respect to those who base their arguements on the former. Also can everyone have the decency to argue the post and not the person, no matter how tempting that may seem. Equally can all sides please respond to the questions put to them without that response taking the form of a question itself.

Regards

Andy H

[ljadw]

Well, you data is about ration strength. It's not exactly what I would like.

Um, no, your reading comprehension still appears to be faulty...some of the data (M-H and MGFA) is given as ration strength. The rest are mostly derived from Iststaerke.

Yep. I was incomplete to say that. However, your data was a small brick in my house of knowledge. So thanks.

Guaporense,on request from Andy H,I shall not say what I find of "your data was a small brick in my house of knowledge"
I can only say that my house of knowledge is only a small brick in comparison to the knowledge of Rich

[Cannonade]

G's figures for the US strength in july are wrong (as one could expect):749476 is for the UK AND the continent Ruppenthal gives the figure for the strength in the UK:161621,thus on the continent 587855 .
Some economists should try to read

ljadw,

You are incorrect. This exposes the danger of citing a source without having actually examined it.

Ruppenthal tells us the total US strength for Field Forces in the UK and on the continent as of 31 July 1944 was 725,259. Of these, 161,621 were in UK and 563,638 were on the continent. He goes on to indicate there was an additional 118,286 officers and men attached to the GFRS in the theater, but does not tell us how many were in the UK, or on the continent. He also provides us with the figures for Air Forces, COMZ, and Non-Operating personnel. (Ruppenthal, Vol. II, p.288, Table 9.)

Cannonade

hm,Reynolds in 'Rich relations ' gives nothing for GFRS on 31 july and indicates "breakdown unavailable",thus it should be logical to limit one to the figure of 587855,especially as Guaporense states that his figure is for ground forces only ,thus no GFRS,Air Forces,COMZ and Non-Operating personnel (mainly hospital patients ),the figure of 749476 must include a lot of them and must be wrong .And even if one add the GFRS figure to the figure of 563638,one is not having 749476

As Reynolds' "Rich Relations" is derivative of Ruppenthal, and the latter is based on the original Progress Reports of the ETOUSA, June 1944 - May 1945, along with additional reports of similar nature, critical reasoning and historical methodology requires us to rely on Ruppenthal within the author's set parameters. In other words, it is illogical to argue in favor of Reynolds' figures when they deviate from those in the very book he cites as his source.

Ruppenthal plainly states the figures in Table 9 are based on unaudited reports utilized for command purposes. In effect he is saying this is the tabulated data used for operational planning, as well as day to day operations in the theater. While Ruppenthal allows the numbers were not exact, they were sufficiently accurate for the stated purpose, and were used as previously mentioned. In short, "Progress Reports" contain the figures used on a daily basis by American commanders to fight the Germans. From a historical point of view, these may not be the exact numbers, but they are of considerable importance for the reasons stated above. As a result, any serious attempt to establish the periodic force levels in the ETOUSA must take Ruppenthal's Table 9 under serious consideration.

Thus, the application of simple math to obtain "logical" figures is a waste of time when confronted by superior sources attended to with finely-tuned critical reasoning, and the careful application of historical methodology.

Cannonade

[Kelvin]

I have this data for the number of divisions:

Of course, the low point on manpower slice was not probably November 1944 but September 1944. But I don't have point data in this date.

So total Heer, SS and Luftwaffe ground forces strength in the western front was:

June ----------- 880,039
July ------------ 895,137
August --------- 908,064
September ---- 784,064
October ------- 796,630
November ---- 806,960
December ----- 906,680
January -------- 974,307
February ------ 865,980
March --------- 945,936

I think that's a decent estimate.

Hi, Guaporense, the data mentioned above was first day of each month ? And where it quoted from ? figures is so detailed.

[Michate]

Strategische Lage im Frühjahr 1944, Jodl, Vortrag 5.5.1944, (referenced to BAMA, N69/18) gives a figure of 1,873,000 as of 5 May 1944 (probably for circa 30 April/1 May 1944). That indicates a two-month growth of roughly 229,000 to 327,000. Given there were no major withdrawals of troops in May, or losses, and some accessions, it seems likely the strength as of 1 June was somewhere in the range of 1.9-million...and likely considerably more.

One of the reason for the discrepancy of Jodl's figure and the ration strength figures may be that Jodl's figure probbaly includes civilian construction workers working on the Atlantic Wall - some 260,000 (including 26,000 Germans) in spring 1944, some 160,000 (including 16,000 Germans) in early July 1944. Numbers according to Wolf Dieter Ose, "Entscheidung im Westen".

Otherwise, concerning the German figures the large number of air force personnel has to be mentioned, probably including some personnel employed for the "Reichsverteidigung" air defense, but also a lot of surplus personnel, which was later, in autumn 44 and winter 45, gradually transferred into the army.