Effectiveness of Romanian Troops
-
- Member
- Posts: 412
- Joined: 31 Aug 2003, 23:47
- Location: Michigan
Effectiveness of Romanian Troops
Does anyone have any quote/statements/documents from World War Two-era, not modern writers, that give some idea of the combat effectiveness of Romanian troops
- Eden Zhang
- Member
- Posts: 1196
- Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 10:54
- Location: XXX
I do not have any official qoutes or statements, but I do remember a few things I read from Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad book.
Apparently, Romania's army was quite a poorly trained, mostly German armed pesant army. There was quite a lot of animosity between the officers and the soldiers. As such they were quite bad when it came to fighting the Russians and they would usually be one of the first to surrender.
Apparently, Romania's army was quite a poorly trained, mostly German armed pesant army. There was quite a lot of animosity between the officers and the soldiers. As such they were quite bad when it came to fighting the Russians and they would usually be one of the first to surrender.
This is I am afraid one of the myths spreaded by people like Beevor who are basically German-American centered in thinking and know nothing and don't care to learn about the fighting abilities of other participants of the war.
Hope someone more resourceful and knowledgeable on this subject can give you an unbiased reply based on real facts. Or you can find out the facts youself by going to this website Romanian Armed Forces in the Second World War or this forum Romanian Armed Forces in WW2 forum.
Best Regards!
Hope someone more resourceful and knowledgeable on this subject can give you an unbiased reply based on real facts. Or you can find out the facts youself by going to this website Romanian Armed Forces in the Second World War or this forum Romanian Armed Forces in WW2 forum.
Best Regards!
He re is an older discussion that might help you:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=3073
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=3073
-
- Member
- Posts: 412
- Joined: 31 Aug 2003, 23:47
- Location: Michigan
- David Lehmann
- Member
- Posts: 2863
- Joined: 01 Apr 2002, 11:50
- Location: France
Beside my interest for the armies of Germany, France and Finland I also really like the Romanian and Hungarian armies. The Romanian Cavalry and mountain troops can IMHO be classified in very good troops. For example during the end stage of the assault on Sevastopol, the 1st Romanian mountain division fought bravely. This unit was then between the 54. and 30. AK and took more than 10000 soviet POWs.
Manstein didn't judge the Romanian soldiers bad, according to him they did what they could with what they had. They had also no problem being led by German higher HQ because they were not interested in too much "national pride" that would have decreased the efficiency on the field. This fact is probably to be credited to Marshal Antonescu.
Nevertheless Manstein noted several points and/or drawbacks :
- the Romanian soldiers are brave and resistant
- the training is really insufficient, especially in close combat, and not at all adapted to modern warfare --> therefore sometimes high losses and also bad moral after that
- the NCO formation was really insufficient
- there were initially German minorities in the Romanian army but due to a national feeling these soldiers were not often promoted to higher ranks and they tried to join the German army
- corporal punishment of the troops was still in use
- the link between the soldiers and the officers was really weak in comparison of the cohesion of the German army
- the armament was often obsolete or insufficient especially for the AT means ... but one could ask why the German army didn't provide them better weapons perhaps ?
- there was also the idea that the Romanian troops had too much respect for the soviet troops in comparison to the German consideration for the soviets
Despite several facts, Manstein thought they fought well
Regards,
David
PS : just have a look on e-bay, nice Romanian troops photo
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie ... 3264257502
Manstein didn't judge the Romanian soldiers bad, according to him they did what they could with what they had. They had also no problem being led by German higher HQ because they were not interested in too much "national pride" that would have decreased the efficiency on the field. This fact is probably to be credited to Marshal Antonescu.
Nevertheless Manstein noted several points and/or drawbacks :
- the Romanian soldiers are brave and resistant
- the training is really insufficient, especially in close combat, and not at all adapted to modern warfare --> therefore sometimes high losses and also bad moral after that
- the NCO formation was really insufficient
- there were initially German minorities in the Romanian army but due to a national feeling these soldiers were not often promoted to higher ranks and they tried to join the German army
- corporal punishment of the troops was still in use
- the link between the soldiers and the officers was really weak in comparison of the cohesion of the German army
- the armament was often obsolete or insufficient especially for the AT means ... but one could ask why the German army didn't provide them better weapons perhaps ?
- there was also the idea that the Romanian troops had too much respect for the soviet troops in comparison to the German consideration for the soviets
Despite several facts, Manstein thought they fought well
Regards,
David
PS : just have a look on e-bay, nice Romanian troops photo
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie ... 3264257502
- hauptmannn
- Member
- Posts: 1103
- Joined: 12 Jul 2003, 15:15
- Location: France
The Germans themselves needed those weapons, their task is not to equip all their allies with their own weapons. The Germans provided equipment to hungarians, romanians, finland, italy, etc- the armament was often obsolete or insufficient especially for the AT means ... but one could ask why the German army didn't provide them better weapons perhaps ?
- David Lehmann
- Member
- Posts: 2863
- Joined: 01 Apr 2002, 11:50
- Location: France
Although the generally Manstein is objective, he made many mistakes throughout his book regarding Romanian troops.
This is not true actually. The German ethnics preferred to join the Wehrmacht or Waffen SS, because of the better equipment, training conditions, pay etc. There were two German generals in the Romanian army during WWII and many other superior officers.Panzermayer wrote: there were initially German minorities in the Romanian army but due to a national feeling these soldiers were not often promoted to higher ranks and they tried to join the German army
On the contrary, many veterans have not a very good opinion on the Soviets.Panzermayer wrote: there was also the idea that the Romanian troops had too much respect for the soviet troops in comparison to the German consideration for the soviets
The equipment was paid for. It was not delivered for free.hauptmannn wrote: The Germans themselves needed those weapons, their task is not to equip all their allies with their own weapons. The Germans provided equipment to hungarians, romanians, finland, italy, etc
Unfortunately, the Germans were pretty cheap when they had to sell a license to their allies.
-
- Member
- Posts: 412
- Joined: 31 Aug 2003, 23:47
- Location: Michigan
Orok wrote: Hi Victor,
Can you give us the names and brief bios of the two?
Thanks and best regards!
Look down on the first page:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=7625
Carol [Karl] Schmidt and Hugo Schwab.
Gen. Hugo Schwab comitted suicide in hiscar in August 1944 when he was closed to being arrested by Soviet troops. A pretty sad and terrific episode, given the conditions it took place.
-
- Member
- Posts: 411
- Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
- Location: Romania
The average quality of the Romanian army was indeed poor, not because of "poor" training, but because of insufficient training. The core of the Romanian army - tanks, mountain jagers, etc. (all specialised troops) was initially high - then dropped due to losses. During 1940 to 41, Marschall Antonescu practically doubled the number of the military, heavily relying on conscripts of little higher quality than russian conscripts. This move was criticized even by Hitler, who recommended Antonescu to further reduce his military and create an all-professional korps. Lack of modern equipment also impeded Romanian troops in their quest for victories but their morale helped a lot. In the battle for Odessa, most of the Romanian units deployed in the field lost up to 50% of their infantry strength and they didn't panicked or ran away. Apart from the Germans, I would like to know another nation to hold a similar record... not to speak about fellow Italian colleagues on the Russian front, whose "retreating equipment" consisted not of a rifle, but of a guitar instead...