You are misinformed about the relationship between officers andd the soldiers, there were so rare that kind of situation. Think , they were depended on each other on the front, and many of the officers were sons of pesants.
This sounds nice, but the reality wasn't so in many cases. Here is a report issued after the battle of Odessa that shows not only lack of training, but also lack of cohesion between lower ranks and commanding officers, because of the high casualties rate of the officers (also due to lack of training).
Making an analysis of the causes that enabled the 4th Army to score an important but lacking in brightness victory at Odessa, General Alexandru Gavrilescu, chief of Section 3 Operations in the Romanian General Headquarters, remarked that they were "many" and "less obvious than might seem at first sight". In the outlook of the Romanian military analyst the setbacks in the battle were particulary due to the insufficient personnel, training, organization, equipment, deficient command and carrying out of the plans.
As regards the structure of the troops, most of the military were over 30 and came from 12 contingents who had undergone fairly brief training because of many leaves accorded to save money in the period before the war which resulted in the fact that the fortified system of Odessa was attacked by an "infantry made up of individuals lacking the enthusiasm of youth which in so necessary in such operations".
Also as regards the personnel, the number of officers in active service was small (50 per cent were reserve officers). At the end of the battle some regiments were left with only 20 officers in active duty out of 43, from which only 5 had been there since the fights began. Besides, the number of NCOs in active duty was also small, many of them being replaced by enlisted sergents, which was felt in the command of subunits.
A negative impact had the great number of changes in the structure of units and the insufficient organization and equipment of units: the lack of artillery brigade commands at big units, to coordinate and direct the fire of artillery divisions "the lack of own transportation means, which put obstacles in the rapid movement of troops, according to the requirements of the dynamics of the battle; the insufficient comunications equipment and trained personnel to operate at the level of research companies; the lack of antiaircraft armament, particularly in the machinegun and heavy mortas companies in the infantry regiments.
Another factor which hindered the development of military actions was the poor training of the troops, due to the "reduction of the training period, of the time necesaiy for training in the use of modern armament, which arrived only on the eve of Romania's entering the war". In many situations, skill was acquired in the very battle field. So, no wonder that there was "fear of the combat cars", "restraint to make use of the hand grenades", "insufficient use of the terrain".
Source: Romania in World War II, ISOSIM, Bucharest 1997.