WI the Wehrmacht had better Sanitation Guidelines ?

This sound mad, but it those little details who makes Difference!
best exsample is North African Campaign
were 2/3 of Afrika Korps were sick by Dysentery
becaus of bad Germans Sanitation Guidelines
a Simelar problem had Wehrmacht also in Stalingrad

while the British Army used strict Sanitation Guidelines
digg a hole so deep as it can, put a Box with a Hole over it.
and cover the box with Cloth, so that flys can not reach the faeces

the Wehrmach in the Blitzkrieg mode had mostly no time to digg holes
they "drop" the faeces nearby of base or frontline
and left them oncovert, for the flys and those came back with Dysentery to nearby Germans.
(the Wehrmacht Latrine were not better, mostly a open pit with plank over it.)

So WI Wehrmacht had simelar Sanitation Guidelines as British Army ?

i think that Battle of Gazala and First Battle of El Alamein had be differently.
with a healthy Rommel and German forces.
also the battle of Stalingrad had be differnt
 
More investment (of money/time/resources) that doesn't go to other stuff.

Yes but think about this less troops sick means less need for medical troops which means more men for the Combat arms .
Also rember more people die in War from being sick then Combat .
 

mowque

Banned
Yes but think about this less troops sick means less need for medical troops which means more men for the Combat arms .
Also rember more people die in War from being sick then Combat .

Wan't WW2 the first one to reverse that? (I could be totally wrong there)

Anyway, yes, it saves soldiers, but what are we going to trade away? Could be alot of things. Hard to judge.
 
I don't dispute what you say (don't have data showing it was lack of regulations or effort), but in general the German Army had good medical service, and the Germans were leaders in public health. To those who worry about the "cost" of proper field sanitary measures, let me assure you that the cost in manpower and materiel to do this is very minimal compared to the savings you get by having a healthy force. Having spent MANY YEARS in field medicine with the Navy/Marines let me assure you this is the case.

BTW the first war in which casualties from wounding exceeded casualties from sickness was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 on the Prussian (not French) side. The Prussians had had appalling sickness problems in 1867 against Austria, and learned the lessons and reorganized their medical service & sanitary regulations accordingly.
 
most historian look on glorius Battles not on its Sanitation Problems :rolleyes:
its is hardly known, the Wehrmacht had this problems

next to that they had Lack of equipment
were the chaos in Order from Hitler HQ
Like my german grandfather who had to join Afrika Korps
in last minute came the order the troops move to LENINGRAD
so they moved in DESERT equipment and uniform to Cold russian winter :eek:

another little detail: Blood transfusion
the Wehrmacht doctors used syringe for direct interhuman blood transfusion
and healthy soldiers as donors (removed from battlefront)

the British army used already blood banks!
and put several wounded on one bottle
 
As a matter of fact, allied deaths in Sicily and New Guiney due to malaria and such by far outnumbered combat casualties . There had been plans for inoculations but they were scrapped by the top brass and Sir Winston .
 
As a matter of fact, allied deaths in Sicily and New Guiney due to malaria and such by far outnumbered combat casualties . There had been plans for inoculations but they were scrapped by the top brass and Sir Winston .
Inoculations? For malaria? Really? When we don't have them now?
 
The total deaths in the German military in WW2 owed to disease included secondary infections resulting from wounds was 500,165.

I would suggest that if the Wehrmacht has improved sanitation, an improved medical corp and most importantly a greater and continuous supply of medicines and bandages that I'd guess around a 1/3 of the above deaths could have been prevented. The problem is that the number above also includes deaths by accidents - which no amount of sanitation or medicine can prevent.

Would around 175k or 180k of German soldiers made the difference in the long run during WW2? I honestly don't know.
 
The total deaths in the German military in WW2 owed to disease included secondary infections resulting from wounds was 500,165.

I would suggest that if the Wehrmacht has improved sanitation, an improved medical corp and most importantly a greater and continuous supply of medicines and bandages that I'd guess around a 1/3 of the above deaths could have been prevented. The problem is that the number above also includes deaths by accidents - which no amount of sanitation or medicine can prevent.

Would around 175k or 180k of German soldiers made the difference in the long run during WW2? I honestly don't know.
You forgot that there would be substantially less sick soldiers at any given time as well and that available soldiers would be in a somewhat better shape on average as well. Not to mention the better morale with less sickness around.
 
A lot of the medical problems in Africa came from the troops not getting proper food. Many of the depot ships that would provide food were sunk by allied bombers and submarines so they were forced to rely frequently on old stocks of meat and biscuits that the Italians had built up over the years... (the meat was referred to as AM (old man) or the more vulgar of the troops called it Mussolini's anus)
 
Odds are, it would have made no difference to the outcome. Think about it. Possibly, better sanitation changes the outcome of an individual battle or two. But then again, maybe not - I believe El Alamein was one of your examples. Wasn't that battle won by the British because they were able to utilize intelligence intercepts to deploy such that the Germans attacked into a trap? More healthy German soldiers probably wouldn't make a difference.

Either way, though, changing the outcome of even major battles such as Stalingrad won't change the outcome of the war. The only such example I can think of MIGHT have been throwing the Western Allies back on D-Day and keeping them out, but even if Germany went on to drive the Soviets to standstill somewhere in Poland, the US just uses atomic weapons to end the war in 1945 anyway, which actually causes more German deaths.

In general, the better Germany performs during the war, the worse they end up at the end, oddly enough. This war was not winnable, under any non-ASB circumstances, for Germany, with the exception of keeping the US out of the war. That's the initial PoD you need for virtually ANY "Germany wins" scenario, IMHO.
 
You forgot that there would be substantially less sick soldiers at any given time as well and that available soldiers would be in a somewhat better shape on average as well. Not to mention the better morale with less sickness around.

You're absolutely right. I concentrated only on casualties.

Dysentery was a huge problem on the Eastern Front - maybe this would have allowed the Germans to delay the Soviet advance by having more available combat ready troops. However, that said, mass disease didn't tend to strike soldiers in well prepared well maintained positions and fronts. Usually it struck when the army was already in full retreat or had over extended itself. To supply materiale and sanitation in such conditions is difficult at best.
 
oh the WW2 German soldiers main food
wat he carry and no Field kitchen near by
called Panzerplatte and Matsch frass in english =Armor plate and eatmud

Panzerplatte, nicname for Hardtack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardtack
Matsch frass, nicname for Spam like presst Meat
the Italians nicname that stuff "Mossulini Butt"
Next to that beans in cans

the British Army had far more better Food
like Steak or Fruit in cans

on today ration in Militray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_ration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meal,_Ready-to-Eat
 
Top