German Divisions By Front in World War II

[Canadian_95_RTS]

Found this website a little while ago, not sure if it has been posted before but I figure it's worth sharing. I found it to be kinda neat.

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nat...-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii

 

[Ming]

Interesting. I do remember way back in the dark ages of this forum when arguments were advanced that at the time of the Ardennes offensive the number of German forces was close to equal between east and west.

Something which seemed fishy but I wasn't equipped to Check out on my own at the time.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Found this website a little while ago, not sure if it has been posted before but I figure it's worth sharing. I found it to be kinda neat.

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nat...-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii

I have posted this a few times (although I think a link breaks forum rules?). However, one of the challenges is that German Divisions were rarely full strength at this time of the war and that the actual disposition of personnel, resources, equipment, supplies is far more complicated than is possible to outline. A division is the organisational structure, it is really the men that counted.

 

[DoomBunny]

Put into a graph, for anybody interested.

Summer 1944 was not a good time to be a German. Winter 1942-3 and Summer 1943 are close seconds for booking your leave and spending a few weeks in Switzerland.

 

[Jopa79]

Found this website a little while ago, not sure if it has been posted before but I figure it's worth sharing. I found it to be kinda neat.

http://www.axishistory.com/axis-nat...-of-german-divisions-by-front-in-world-war-ii

This listing is inaccurate considering the German presence in Finland at least. According the list there were no German divisions after Oct 1944 in the Finnish Fronts, but in reality the Germans were active in Finland until the end of the Lapland War in Apr 1945.

But this is the publisher's error. Otherwise interesting, thanks for sharing!

 

[Canadian_95_RTS]

Put into a graph, for anybody interested.

Summer 1944 was not a good time to be a German. Winter 1942-3 and Summer 1943 are close seconds for booking your leave and spending a few weeks in Switzerland.

Do you mind if I post this graph in the OT thread? It's pretty cool.

 

[Easy-Kill]

This listing is inaccurate considering the German presence in Finland at least. According the list there were no German divisions after Oct 1944 in the Finnish Fronts, but in reality the Germans were active in Finland until the end of the Lapland War in Apr 1945.

But this is the publisher's error. Otherwise interesting, thanks for sharing!

If you read through the list, that number appears to be added to the Norway tally, which jumps from 11 to 18 in just a month.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Do you mind if I post this graph in the OT thread? It's pretty cool.

Technically it is owned by paradox now, so you can do whatever you like!

 

[Jopa79]

If you read through the list, that number appears to be added to the Norway tally, which jumps from 11 to 18 in just a month.

Good point, you might be right.

 

[DoomBunny]

Do you mind if I post this graph in the OT thread? It's pretty cool.

Go ahead, it's hardly my magnum opus.

This listing is inaccurate considering the German presence in Finland at least. According the list there were no German divisions after Oct 1944 in the Finnish Fronts, but in reality the Germans were active in Finland until the end of the Lapland War in Apr 1945.

But this is the publisher's error. Otherwise interesting, thanks for sharing!

Those are probably considered as being in Norway.

 

[Eusebio]

I never understood why Germany wasted so much manpower on garrisoning the most obscure parts of occupied Europe. The other day I was reading that they kept 40,000 men on Corsica including battle-tested units which had served in North Africa!

 

[Jopa79]

I never understood why Germany wasted so much manpower on garrisoning the most obscure parts of occupied Europe. The other day I was reading that they kept 40,000 men on Corsica including battle-tested units which had served in North Africa!

Well, the German manpower present in Norway and Finland was strongly tied to the precious metal raw materials in Sweden and the Petsamo Nickel Deposit in Finland. As well the heavy German presence in these countries represented a serious threat to the Soviet Union and the Murmansk-Moscow railroad, which was very important route in transporting the Allied relief, supply and reinforcements for the Soviets. Also the Finnish Front is must to be seen as a part of the Eastern Front in WW2 and the Germans never stopped giving the pressure to the Finns in assaulting to the city of Leningrad.

The German garrison in Corsica may have something to do with the Allied base in the Malta Island. The Allied base in the island was a serious threat for the Axis supply lines in the Mediterranean for Italian African Army and for the German Afrika Corps.

 

[DoomBunny]

I never understood why Germany wasted so much manpower on garrisoning the most obscure parts of occupied Europe. The other day I was reading that they kept 40,000 men on Corsica including battle-tested units which had served in North Africa!

Norway is because it is a large country, with a long coastline, which has poor infastructure; you needed many of those divisions to simply keep the place protected against invasion. An element of it was paranoia, but at the same time it can't be quickly reinforced, so some increased level of garrisoning was necessary. Its importance for iron and heavy water, etc... is also a key factor, along with Allied fake landing proposals.

The Balkans are largely due to intense guerilla activity (Tito's partisans in particular were a constant head-ache, and by 1944 were running round with tanks, artillery, and even air support, pretty much liberating the country by themselves). Other than that you again have Allied false landing proposals, along with some actual landings in the Greek islands (largely a peripheral and wasteful campaign, but one requiring defence nonetheless).

Corsica was IIRC garrisoned heavily only during the initial stages of the Sicilian/Italian Campaign when it was thought the Allies might go that way. IIRC the unit used was largely the Reichsfuehrer-SS Brigade (later Division) which was from what I remember spare at the point in time that it seemed likely the Allied might go that way.

It's all basically a case of having to keep areas reasonably under control, or defend them against an Allied opponent who has superior strategic mobility and the capability of striking along several lines of advance.

 

[The-Doc]

I'd imagine in the case of Corsica it was to deny it as a potential airbase for use in an invasion of Italy or Southern France. And of course since Germany had increasingly degraded abilities to shuffle troops and material about, especially at sea, there they stayed.

 

[Henry IX]

It's all basically a case of having to keep areas reasonably under control, or defend them against an Allied opponent who has superior strategic mobility and the capability of striking along several lines of advance.

The cost of being on the strategic defensive, without any real option for seizing the offence. The Japanese had exactly the same problem after 1942 - massive numbers of soldiers having to garrison unimportant islands and left to rot by the American advance. Indeed, one of the major criticism of the attacks on the Japanese holdings in the South Pacific was that they were unnecessary. Simply cutting their supply lines and leaving them to rot was sufficient.

The bind the Germans and Japanese found themselves in was that any place they defended heavily could be ignored and any place they left un- or poorly garrisoned could be quickly and cheaply seized from them.