Great thread, sorry I missed it early. Not adding anything here besides "I agree with those guys!"
The answer to the question is "yes" and SG stated the reason.
Steel God Wrote:The other key was a professionally trained officer corp that had no equal. The General Staff work of the Germans was superior to all other nations at the time. Their training kept them cohesive long past the point that other armies fell apart.
Carry on.
One point of order (italics added by me):
Stryker Wrote:The point I always like to make, which is indisputable, is that in 1940, after the fall of France, Britain stood alone against the AXIS powers... Britain was totally unprepared for war in 1939, Germany was totally prepared, Britain had 300,00 men, Germany 3 million, I don't know how many Italy came in with in 1940, or how many the Japs had, but you get the point.
The only people fighting the Japanese in 1940 were the Chinese. The UK went to war with the Japanese in December 1941, just like the US and the Dutch. Actually, the Tripartite Pact between Germany, Italy and Japan was not signed until Sept 1940. This does not really lessen the impressive stand the UK made alone in 1940.
And my own feelings on the North Africa campaign are that it was always a battle of logistics more than tactical prowess. Both sides were able to push the other side back until the supply train couldn't keep up the advance and the other guy's supply line finally got short enough to catch their breath.
Mike Abberton Wrote:And my own feelings on the North Africa campaign are that it was always a battle of logistics more than tactical prowess. Both sides were able to push the other side back until the supply train couldn't keep up the advance and the other guy's supply line finally got short enough to catch their breath.
I don't think you can blame the lack of supply on the British stopping around Marble Arch in 40 and 41. Both tiimes they stopped because troops (and lots of troops too in terms of percentages) needed to be withdrawn for other commitments around the Empire. The Allies logistical problems were not the same as the Axis Logistical problems.
Steel God Wrote:I don't think you can blame the lack of supply on the British stopping around Marble Arch in 40 and 41. Both tiimes they stopped because troops (and lots of troops too in terms of percentages) needed to be withdrawn for other commitments around the Empire. The Allies logistical problems were not the same as the Axis Logistical problems.
True, I was thinking more on the battles after the DAK arrived, not so much Compass in 1940/41.
Crusader's momentum was pretty much over when the British halted. Intermittent supply shortages disrupted attacks letting the DAK retreat and the troops were tired. Rommel's shortening supply line and some successful convoys let him build his troops up to counter-attack a month later in Jan 1942.
Boy, who would have thought that a simple question like "were that Germans that good" could create such a thread. Sitting at 897 views right now, rock on.
Weasel Wrote:Boy, who would have thought that a simple question like "were that Germans that good" could create such a thread. Sitting at 897 views right now, rock on.
LOL, well Chris, it does have the advantage of being an entirely open ended question. Kinda like asking which beer is best. ;)
The most is said, but some key point for the downfall of the Germans was in 1944 as the Allies Airforce destroyed the most of the German hydrogenated oil plants and the bombing brought communications to a standstill and supplies could not be moved.
So the Panzer Divisions and mech. troops had no fuel, spare parts and ammunitions, they were limited in their movement, there was no armoured Corps in reseve.
Of what avail is it to have superior officers and tactics but no fuel.
I would wish we had all the hydrogenated oil plants again so all Sheik would live still in an tent
Some comments on this thread.
Rommel is oft overated in the English and Americans' writing. One way to empasize your accomplishment is to build up the ability of your enemy. Also, as the Cold war was beginning, he was the perfect example of the "Good German," especially played on film by James Mason.
Through the fall of France, the Germans were better tactically and operationally. The General staff must bear some responsibility for the misbegotten belief that Russia could be knocked out in a few months' campaign in 1941. It can be argued that if the Germans had plunged on to Moscow, leaving large intact forces on their southern flank (which they decided to encircle and destroy) they might have been in worse trouble, come winter.
Once the Germans failed in front of Moscow, it was over, especially with the U.S. entering the war. That the Germans fought so hard and well, and lasted so long is a testament to their tactical superiority over their foes.
FM WarB Wrote:It can be argued that if the Germans had plunged on to Moscow, leaving large intact forces on their southern flank (which they decided to encircle and destroy) they might have been in worse trouble, come winter.
Once the Germans failed in front of Moscow, it was over, especially with the U.S. entering the war. That the Germans fought so hard and well, and lasted so long is a testament to their tactical superiority over their foes.
A valid point (about trying to grab Moscow instead of diverting south to Kiev), but if one buys the idea that at least through 1941 the Germans enjoyed a huge superiority on the battlefield, then leaving the Kiev forces to be dealt with after Moscow is a risk worth taking. The Russians counter attacks in 41 prior to Moscow were horribly executed, and even in front of Moscow it was as much weather as the Red Army that stopped the Germans, so the Kiev forces left around Kiev could have been dealt with...if not safely...with acceptable risk, if the stragetic transportation center of Moscow is captured.
With Moscow in hand, the strategic movement of the Red Army is crippled.
Yes, the General Staff estimated Barbarossa poorly, but I do admire their attempts at execution. Who else would have had even the audacity to try? For me it's as exciting a tale as Alexander in Persia or the Romans against the known world. As the SAS say, Who Dares, Wins (well not always, but you get the idea) ;)
My opinions of Rommel are not taken from film,but from having read his book The Rommel Papers. His keen insight into what would happen after the allies got airsuperiority, and living it in the Afrikan campaign showed he knew what would happen after the allies landed on D-day. As far as Russian Campaign goes,he wanted to attack russia after finishing off the British in north Afrika and taking the oil fields in the south from the Middle East.
Once the Germans started to Moscow and failded it gave the Russians hope that the Germans could be defeated. Taking Moscow would of left a lot of troops with no where to go. A army that is not mobile against a army that is will lose everytime, again a point that Rommel found out in north Afrika.
I'm really starting to like this post a lot of Ideas have been tossed out that you would never think of.
Chuck