Victor wrote:Then, Patzinak, we have to agree that we disagree. Call it an engineer's bias, but accounting and management are not what I consider "technical skills". They don't require the same amount of expertise and experience and a part of the problems were because of dishonesty, rather than incompetence in accounting and administration.
There were two problems plaguing the Romanian supply system:
- dependence on the German supply system
- poor organization, corruption and petty interests of own logistics personnel
The first meant that German supply trains usually had priority and that the problems encountered by the Germans (different railway gauge, lack of rolling stock, poor roads) were also valid for the Romanians. The second was the Romanian contribution to an already grim situation. Many made profits out of selling the soldiers rations on the black market Pick up Paul Moraru's Armata lui Stalin vazuta de romani, Ed. Militara, 2006, which, despite the title, contains many reports on the state of mind and problems of the common Romanian soldier. The difference in attitude and morale between well-fed soldiers and those with reduced rations was big.
Other problems from the same league:
- not enough proper proper clothing, either due to corruption or lack of resources
- cigarettes, same situation with the food rations
- beatings by the officers
- delays in obtaining vacations
- too much time on the front line, while others could buy their way out of serving in the army
Most of these were not the result of lack of technical skills, but of lack of common sense, a problem very common in today's Romania, which has a higher literacy rate and much more inhabitants with "technical" skills (including accountants).
Romanian soldiers did not require much to make them happy (a feature observed also during WW1). When the soldiers were fed well, clothed properly, treated like human beings and went home on leave when they were supposed to, they would fight well, despite other problems regarding equipment. if you really want to discuss the character of the Romanian Army, these should be a part of it.
Correct, so far. Any army haved ( and most probably have ) some good parts, and some bad parts, and have diferent units with diferent value. Ofcourse, per total, one armies are better then others. The fighting skills or romanian soldiers was diferent from units to units, with ones on top, like mountain hunters, where the level of "camaradery" and training was way above other units, to some other units with less time of training, and less "war material". As well, the enviroment of such mountain troops acting, and even the background and selection of their members make them more adaptable, more agile, more inventive and inovative and put them in the "league" of the best troops of WW II ( they defeated after august 1944 the german gebirgjagers too ). They was not just the ones who reached the fartest point in East, but the ones who provided cover for Axis troops when retreated, and especialy when evacuated Crimeea, beeing over most of german or soviet units as combat qualities in mountain terrain. But, as Victor pointed, some drawbacks existed, especialy to other troops, related more to technicall skills or degree of cantity and quality of weapons they haved, but to quality of training or logistics too. However, as "pure" combat qualities the romanian soldiers ( and especialy ones from elite units ) was very good ( not long ago, Napoleon himself sayied after he meet with a romanian regiment called "dayma" by frenchs, in north of Italy, that if he haved couple regiments like that, in couple days he conquered Viena ), but lowered in part by poor cantity and quality of weapons they haved, and by some poor tactics and conceptions, some outdated for that time period, or inadequated.