Thread: German static divisions in Normandy supposedly had very poor personnel. While true to some extend but as always it's a bit more complicated. Cross-Channel Attack (1951) made a serious attempt for a balanced view. Arguably better than much what has been written since! 
The book seems to be key in spreading the message that 'the average age of the 709ID was 36'. This is commonly presented as fact when in fact it was based on anecdotal evidence: An officer explaining the failure of his division.
His claim made it into German records as well 🙄
His claim made it into German records as well 🙄
Fact: the maximum average age of the combat elements in static divisions was set at 36.
And yes, support elements could raise that to over 36. But that’s just theory…
Are there reasons to believe that actually happened in the 709ID? Not really. 🧐
And yes, support elements could raise that to over 36. But that’s just theory…
Are there reasons to believe that actually happened in the 709ID? Not really. 🧐
In Oct. 1943 78% of the combat troops had been born in 1906-24 (NCO/men). Their av. age? 30,8.
Another 9% born in 1925. 7% was born in 1905 or earlier. Ages of 6% are unknown.
And don’t blame the officers: small numbers and average age of 35
Another 9% born in 1925. 7% was born in 1905 or earlier. Ages of 6% are unknown.
And don’t blame the officers: small numbers and average age of 35
All of this is in line with the other static divisions in the west with an average age of 30-31 (NCO/men).
So 8 months before the invasion we are short 5-6 years to reach the 36 average. You need an influx of older men to make up that deficit.
So 8 months before the invasion we are short 5-6 years to reach the 36 average. You need an influx of older men to make up that deficit.
Instead much of the influx was young: towards the end of 1943 the goal for static divisions became an average of 20% men born in 1925. (1926 may have filled part of that number).
With that amount of youngsters it becomes mathematically difficult to raise the average age to 36 🧐
With that amount of youngsters it becomes mathematically difficult to raise the average age to 36 🧐
Let’s throw in some (not very scientific) statistics everyone can understand. We don’t have much detail for 1944, but we do have PW statistics which provide an interesting glimpse. Let's work from those
These are the PWs captured up to 30 June (when the Cotentin had been cleared by US forces). The most obvious is the massive presence of men born in 1925-26, making them 17-19 yo. This group amounts to about 19% of all PWs.
A problem is that we don’t know what units these men belonged to. To what extend were they in the static divisions? Where they Heer? Luftwaffe? RAD? SS? So how do we interpret this? Difficult!
At least we know the age groups of the Feldheer around this time and this provides an idea of what to expect if the forces in Normandy matched the average
Also, we do know that the *British* forces and Americans faced different units. Except for the 17SS (about 60% 1925+) and 3FJD the Americans did not face supposed *elite* divisions. So does that make a difference for the PWs in the sectors? Not really:
A few things stick out:
-1925-1926 is greatly overrepresented. In both sectors
-a lot of years are close to the Feldheer numbers
-the main deficit is the 1910-1920 period, but the WW1 generations (esp. 1915-1918) are small to begin with
-1925-1926 is greatly overrepresented. In both sectors
-a lot of years are close to the Feldheer numbers
-the main deficit is the 1910-1920 period, but the WW1 generations (esp. 1915-1918) are small to begin with
If we remove the 1925+ and 1906- age groups as outliers and calculate the differences between the expected and actual values things become a bit clearer: there is a clear drop in the 1912-1921 group and some older groups are over overrepresented.
However, a , say, 30% difference between actual and expected does not mean much if we are talking about a group with a low expected percentage to begin with. If we also weigh the categories, things become more balanced:
This gives a better idea of where the most serious differences were
Yet, when we add the 1906- and 1925+ back into the mix and again weigh the relative importance of each group, it becomes clear that nearly all groups are underrepresented among PWs. Even most of the older ones! Only 1925-1926 are really far away from what can be expected.
Now these numbers are just PW numbers. We don’t know how the different branches are represented, let alone individual units. Men KIA, WIA (evac) and survivors are not included of course.
The Feldheer numbers also do not tell us how age groups were divided over various units. 🧐
The Feldheer numbers also do not tell us how age groups were divided over various units. 🧐
Still, it is interesting that the numbers for the US and Br sector are still close, especially since the capture of Cherbourg involved rear area troops which might be expected to have been older.
Ultimately it is not far fetched to argue that instead of overly old, the troops captured in the first weeks were actually rather young compared to the Feldheer average. If only we knew exactly which units they belonged to....
If you enjoyed this thread and like to see more you can support me through ko-fi.com/niels_1944
@threadreaderapp
unroll
unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
