Hi Sid. As an aside, why is it so difficult for you to use the quote function on this site? It is quite functional and easy and has the salubrious effect of actually alerting those you are responding to that you in fact have responded to them. It also clarifies who says what to whom about that, which also makes clear responses so much easier than trying to parse out whose bold/italics applies where.
I cannot be held responsible if you misinterpret, ".....relatively light loss to themselves" as "a total of 156,556 casualties was insignificant".
And I cannot be held responsible for your misinterpretation, since I did no such thing. You stated the Welle 1. divisions did this that and the other thing with "relatively light loss to themselves". I am simply curious if "a total of 156,556 casualties was insignificant", but if the semantics bother you I will rephrase...do you mean a total of 156,556 casualties was "relatively light loss to themselves"?
You also post accurately, "Yet you implications is that the 1. Welle divisions suffered relatively light casualties." Not implication. I am saying that directly. What the Germans had failed to do over four years in WWI at the cost of about 1,493,000 dead and missing, they had achieved in six weeks in 1940 for about 46,000 dead and missing. This was about the same as the average monthly deaths suffered by the German Army on the Western Front for four years in WWI.
I am so glad that part of my response met your standards for accuracy, but what does the results achieved have to do with whether or not the "1. Welle divisions suffered relatively light casualties"?
You ask, "So then you agree an average of 2,000 per month was not actually "light", just "light" compared to the annihilation of most of their enemies armies? A large portion of which surrendered?" Again, I posted "relatively light", not "light".
Then I will rephrase again. So then you agree an average of 2,000 per month was not actually "relatively light"?
Secondly, I have the Germans deploying at least 93 divisions in the West. This would give average divisional losses of more like 1,600, including those inflicted by the British, Belgians and Dutch and those suffered by corps and army troops.
Perhaps you could have read what I wrote? I specifically said, "By my rough count 33 of the divisions of HG-A and B were 1. Welle, most in the front line. Add ten Panzer divisions. Out of 72 divisions engaged - more or less." Most of the other 21 divisions in the West were assigned to HG-C and did little other than hold the Rhine and engaged in an experimental attack on a Maginot ouvrage at the end of the campaign.
A disproportional share of German casualties in 1940 was probably borne by the Welle I divisions, as they were leading the charge, so 1,600 or even 2,000 casualties is probably a significant underestimate for them and an overestimate for Welle III-VIII divisions.
And here I thought you just said the loss was "relatively light"? Which was it, a "disproportional share" of 156,556 casualties among 33 divisions or "relatively light"?
BTW, the 4 divisions of the 6. Welle were still forming and played no role in France. The 13 divisions of the 7. Welle were in Norway, were still forming, or were in reserve and never committed. Only 3 of the 10 8. Welle divisions were engaged and they at the tail end of the campaign.
I would certainly include the prisoners amongst the dividends bought by the losses of the campaign, along with the indefinite occupation of territory and the creation of strategic depth, and access to industries and resources for the duration.
Yes, but we are not talking about the dividend, but the cost.
You post, ".....the 1. Welle divisions were created from the Reichsheer". They were created by expanding the Reichsheer's seven infantry divisions to 24 and then 36. This was done by expanding its 100,000 man regular cadre and introducing 2-year conscription for up to 500,000 men annually.
Indeed, and by the end of 1934, the 7 Reichwehr infantry divisions were 21 and the 3 cavalry divisions were replaced by 3 Panzer divisions. By the end of 1935, only 3 more 1. Welle infantry divisions were created, but so was the structure of the 51 divisions of th 2.-4. Welle. In 1936, 12 more 1. Welle divisions were formed, ending the development of the "German" 1. Welle divisions.
The Austrian divisions were based on a 30,000-man regular army and were expanded by similar measures after the Anschluss. The same with 46th Infantry division in Sudetenland and in late 1939 60th Infantry Division from Danzig. (I think 50th Infantry Division fits in there somewhere, as well.)
Indeed, which is what I said. The Austrian Bundesheer consisted of 7 infantry divisions and 1 infantry brigade, mostly cadre strength, and 1 Schnell division. After the Anschluss, the Schnell division became 9. Panzer-Division and the rest formed 44. and 45. Infanterie-Division. They too were counted as 1. Welle. Yes, 46. Infanterie-Division was formed from Sudeteners in Karlsbad after the acquisition of the Sudetenland, IIRC the personnel were mostly Sudenten Freikorps. The 60. Infanterie-Division was formed from the Danzig Landespolizei. 50. Infanterie-Division was formed from Grenzkommandant Küstrin. They were allotted to the 1. Welle also.
Sorry if you thought I was giving the Sudeteners, Danzigers, and Küstriners short shrift, I wasn't aware that level of detail was neccessary when what I was pointing out was that the 1. Welle was not just "three or four years worth of 2-year conscripts".
If I remember correctly, by September 1939 two year-groups of conscripts had been stood down after completing their service, a third was within a month of completing its service and a fourth was just under halfway through its service. The fifth intake was due on 1 October.
Its a bit complicated by the RAD requirement. Before entering armed service most already six to nine months in the RAD. It was further complicated by the partial mobilization for the occupation of Czechoslovakia.
I think, ”By 1 September, about 78% of its personnel were active regulars” should probably read “active conscripts” or something similar.
Okay, 78% of the personnel were active regulars with at least 1 to 2 years of service. Another 12% were Klasse I reservists from JG13-17, who were fully trained and had served for at least one year. Another 6% were Klasse II reservists from JG00-12, who had received 2 to 3 months of training. The remaining 4% were older Landwehr (typically in their 40s) with Great War training and experience. No they were not all "conscripts", active or otherwise, since prewar about two-thirds were volunteers (about 2.4 million of 3.7 million), and officers, non-commissioned officers, and Beamte tended to stay in service longer.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018