PDA

View Full Version : Combat Performance of Varying Localities in WW2 by Subrace?



OneEnglishNorman
Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006, 08:32 PM
I think this question best suits the USSR and Germany rather than the English-speaking countries.....

Following on from what Agrippa and others have said about some body types are better for warfare, higher attrition for some, better cold adaption, etc...

Is there any evidence - anecdotal or otherwise - which points to better/different combat performance of different localities within the same country.

For example: Siberian troops versus N.W. Russian troops.

Or Bavarians/Austrians vs Northern Germans.

I do not know to what extent the German Army had localised units - were they recruited on a local basis, at least in the regular Army?

Jäger
Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006, 08:42 PM
The answer to such a question is nearly impossible, between 65-90% of all (!) casualties were inflicted by shrapnell, something no one can dodge or even see comming, be him a Dinarid, Nordid or whatever. Just think of the american/british airstrikes.

If anything than it would be the leading commanders who made an impact on the war, then again no one could say if the bavarian/austrian officers weren't e.g. the Nordid/Dinarid types of that region, etc.
And again performing good or bad in combat situations depends on so many factors that without really detailed data it is worthless.

It could be possible to compare individuals of the war, and see whether they belong to a certain racial type but anything else is far beyond research if you ask me.

I am willing to learn though :)

OneEnglishNorman
Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006, 09:04 PM
If anything than it would be the leading commanders who made an impact on the war, then again no one could say if the bavarian/austrian officers weren't e.g. the Nordid/Dinarid types of that region, etc.
And again performing good or bad in combat situations depends on so many factors that without really detailed data it is worthless.
Good point. There was the German commander of native Africans (in Africa) who "ran rings" around the British.

I suppose even if one region had a particular reputation, that would be more to do with military tradition in that area, before even thinking about the physical types.

Patrioten
Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006, 10:01 PM
One could look at it from a general standpoint though, look at those who recieved medals etc. for extraordinary actions in combat and what more, see if there are some numbers sticking out. It would have to be looked at from a strictly regional standpoint though i guess, if there were regions that were particularly successful in terms of producing extraordinary soldiers. If this was what you meant.

Jäger
Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006, 11:35 PM
It would have to be looked at from a strictly regional standpoint though i guess, if there were regions that were particularly successful in terms of producing extraordinary soldiers. If this was what you meant.
That would not enlighten us from a racial point of view, and as far as i understood that was the question. Racial in the the sense of borader anthropology, of course there might be a region which has a genetic linage due to mutation and evolution apart from "general" anthropology.

Nicola_Canadian
Thursday, August 3rd, 2006, 02:05 AM
For example: Siberian troops versus N.W. Russian troops.

Are you aware that in Russia soldiers (as a rule) serve far away from home? So if one is born in NW Russia, he may be (and usually is) serving in say Siberia and vice versa...

As for the racial types - Russians in NW and Siberia and anywhere else are all the same - East Nordid, all sorts of Baltids, and Central East European\North Pontid... It's just that in NW Russia - majority of the population is Russian, while in Siberia - about 25% of people are not ethnic Russians...

goldgrube
Thursday, August 3rd, 2006, 02:19 AM
Siberia has been russian for some 300 years, there are no racial subtypes coming from there

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, August 3rd, 2006, 04:58 AM
The Germans did research on altitude and its effects on combat during the war, so did the Americans. The German high altitude troops (Gebirgsjaeger--please correct my spelling) fought well at altitude but over a certain altitude they found the body just could not adapt of demanding physical exercise--I think about 12,000 feet. The body could be made to adapt below this critical altitude but only by working it on the same level as was expected in actual combat. The Germans also did experiments on cold and bodies in cold water for flyers downed over the cold ocean.

I know of no sub-racial studies done involving combat. The US Army who did studies of White vs Negro soldiers. It has been awhile but it seems to me the Whites did better in the cold and in dry heat, the opposite for the Negroes. It is known from anthropological studies that the Indians of South America do much better at altitude than Whites. Negroes at altitude have difficulty with everything and especially in reproduction. The oxygen transport in Negroes between the mother and child during pregnancy is the weak link here. Negroes with sickel cell get sick at altitude almost immediately. Tibetians are also altitude adapted.

According to a Czech writer, the Germans experimented with dogs and specific dog breeds for use in the arctic (possibly also Antarctic). They did this work in mountains in Poland and came up with a special dog for Arctic use.

Agrippa
Thursday, August 3rd, 2006, 12:27 PM
Like Jäger said, modern war is per se contraselective and even the best individuals can be eliminated in seconds without having any chance to survive. That was not that extreme in ancient times, though even than a "lucky arrow" could have killed the perfect warrior type. In fact there was never a guarantee for the better one to win, but just a probability. Now in the situation of group selection in ancient warfare - before states and modern military came up (already in Roman times it was already negative selection) things are different, because a whole group consists almost exclusively of the same time. This small clans in competition could only win if having a positive and versatile feature combination, both physical and psychic.

Now this progressive forms survived in later times and were usually the (social) leading element of all societies in which they lived, even if their numbers decreased.

So one would have to analyse f.e.:
-Which type was more common in officers.
-In decorated war heros which showed special abilities (not just "lucky punch", f.e. aviators - compare with the Finnish examples shown in the "contraselection thread")
-The variants which made it into elite units which required high psycho-physical standards and a great fighting moral. The SS would be an example, though one could argue that they were already chosen after racial standards (the results being very interesting too), so one could look paratroopers, undersea divers, special units in all factions.

So in modern war its rather about the potential and abilities, in the actual combat this abilities are needed and good for success, but are usually of secondary importance because of the technological overbalance. I mean what can you gain by having the best tanks and tank crews if the airforce is eliminating them in seconds to give an example...

And the Russian Siberian troops had usually a better equipment, especially clothes than most German troops. So if putting a German and Russian Nordid on the same battlefield, one with summer boots, the other with felt boots, you can guess who will have greater problems in the hard Russian winters of that years no matter if being more or less leptomorphic etc.

Concerning climatic challenges: Its well known from various studies that very leptomorphic individuals, especially Negrids in general, have problems in extreme cold, Northern pyknomorphics with a higher fat ratio in heat, same goes for long legged and short legged. Furthermore Nordoids have more problems with high UV-radiation and various Southern diseases what should be known.