I have always wondered if the Germans in WW2 were really that good. Sure they conqured Europe in 40 and a lot of Russia to late 42, but my feeling is that it was only because their opponents were so ill prepared and out dated.
The French had the tanks that were better, but poor employment there of. The UK also felt that tanks should support the grunts.
Russia, well until 43 their tanks by and large were totally outclassed by the earliest German tanks.
However, once 43 rolls around the Allies have their act together and begin to kick butt. In Russia the tank forces and tactics changed, sending the German army into one big long retreat. And in the west it took the allies 10 months from D-Day to beat the Germans, not very long when you think about it.
So basically once the equipment and doctrine were on par, the Germans were totally outclassed and out fought. Thus I feel that they were not the great force that many think they were, but an army that took full advantage of foresight to develop the tactics to beat their outmoded enemy.
Agree/disagree?
I'll disagree with you. The Germans WERE that good, and should have been beaten long before they actually were, and they were that good only in part thanks to doctrine (which was supperior). 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.
To taken acception to particular points of your statement:
The German tanks did not outclass the Russian tanks early in Barbarossa, in fact it was the other way around, even more so than the French tanks outclassed the Germans (which was machine wise also the case).
And the 10 months to beat the Germans after D-Day should have been shorter. Poor planning, and the Allies need to play politics pulled their chain up short in 44, not the German Army. Not because the German Army sucked, but because by 44 the war had already been won in the east. The recovery the Germans managed in 44, and the victory at Arnhem, and the counter attack in the Ardennes speak volumes to a a fighting force that should have been down for the count but took full advantage of the opportunties it was given by it's enemies. Only a top notch, professional to it's very soul, military organization can achieve those types of things.
Yes, the Germans WERE that good, and in the end were defeated on all levels by Russian Blood and American Industry. Not better tactics, better doctrine, or better equipment.
I would agree with Steel God, excepting perhaps that Allied artillery doctrine came to be superior probably no later than 1942 to German doctrine in its flexibility of response and ability to put together quick massed fires. Allied fighter-bomber/ground co-operation came to be superior also imo. Naval doctrine was superior. Air power doctrine & performance soon shaped up.
The better German tactical performance on the ground owes a lot of doctrine in turn, sure, but that's kind of the point. It says volumes that the other nations took many years to even come close in matching it, not that I'm sure they ever quite did so.
I believe that the only reason the Germans were beaten in WWII was Adolf Hitlers strategic misconceptions brought on by hubris and poor strategic intelligence leading them to fight on several fronts simultaneously. Can anyone believe that an Allied invasion of Europe would have succeeded if the Germans weren't tied down in Russia and having suffered huge losses there or that if Germany did not have to guard against the second front and fight Russia that Russia would have prevailed? The absolute control that Hitler held over the war and the war economy ultimately led to Germany's defeat despite the brilliance of the armed forces, it's doctrine, and equipment.
Poland - tactical success, strategic blunder - brought in France and Great Britain.
France - tactical success but inability to finish the war with Great Britain meant strategic failure.
Japan - Hitler took opportunity of Pearl Harbor to declare war on US when that hardly was in Germany's interest.
Great Britain - loss of Battle of Britain and inability to bring decision in North Africa meant strategic failure and ultimately loss of control of the sea lanes.
Balkans - bolstering the southern flank for invasion of Russia meant a campaign in winter in Russia
Russia - probably doable if not committed against Great Britain, occupying France and Balkans, fighting in North Africa, and against the US (and giving Britain and US excuse to ally with Russia). Major mistake in not allowing overrun countries to become free liberated states rather than trying to subjugate them into the Reich.
Steel God Wrote:Yes, the Germans WERE that good, and in the end were defeated on all levels by Russian Blood and American Industry. Not better tactics, better doctrine, or better equipment.
I have to agree, I wish I could remeber where I read it but its account of German commander telling how he and his crew destroyed Sherman after Sherman in France and how he had to eventually surrender his position, the interviewer ask why he would surrender after such success he said thats easy I ran out of anti-tank rounds before the Allies ran out of tanks...
Still disagree with you guys. Why then, did the German forces end up in full retreat in Russia if they were so fantastic? They had great equipment which did nothing but drag things out. If they were that good they should have been able to continue the push and beat the Reds.
In the west they totally outclassed the Allied in tanks and most infantry equipment but still got their butts kicked. As for the air war well that was a joke wasn't it. As soon as they came up against equal a/c they were defeated (Battle of Britain).
"The German tanks did not outclass the Russian tanks early in Barbarossa, in fact it was the other way around, even more so than the French tanks outclassed the Germans (which was machine wise also the case)."
They did? BT7 and T26s? Sorry, I will take a PzIId or PzIII over these tin cans anyday. Sure they had some T34s, but not until 43 were they everywhere.
The Germans didn't win at Arnhem, the allies lost it by poor planning and drive. The Germans would have been totally caught off guard if it had not been for a resting SS pz div that just happened to be there. Luck, not skill.
Ardennes? That was a joke. Scramble brains strips all his forces and creates new divisions for a last hurrah. This operation had no chance of success, not at all. Hell, they couldn't even beast a frozen, poorly supplied airborne division with other elements for 2 weeks! How about St Vith where some 105s firing over open sights stopped them cold. Yeah, great operation there!
If the German tactics were so great, then why did they suffer HUGE LOSSES in Russia? The Russians were not tactical geniuses that is for sure. So their superior leaders and training with equipment should have easily won the day, but they didn't. In the end farmers beat the super men; and in the west civilians in uniform did the same.
The Russians may not have been tactical geniuses, but they had operational geniuses whereas the Germans, increasingly, had Hitler and in the end that counted for a lot more. I guess we need to know at which level you are talking...tactical, operational, what?
The best welterweight in the world will still get his heinie kicked by a reasonable heavyweight 9 times out of ten. Or, to use another analogy, four special ops guys can still get shot by a hundred militia.....doesn't make the special ops guys worse soldiers.
Weasel Wrote:Still disagree with you guys. Why then, did the German forces end up in full retreat in Russia if they were so fantastic? They had great equipment which did nothing but drag things out. If they were that good they should have been able to continue the push and beat the Reds.
The laws of physics caught up with them. As the advanced eastward the size of the front tripled in size, while their manpower pool to attack with shrunk. Meanwhile the Russians, whose manpower reserves were under estimated, refused to accept defeat. The German military machine WAS the best on the earth between 39-42, but it was built for short campaigns, not long ones. Russia was the first opponent who refused to fold after 3 months and from that point on it was really a lost cause. That doesn't mean that man for man, the Russians were better than the Germans. They just buried them under weight.
Weasel Wrote:In the west they totally outclassed the Allied in tanks and most infantry equipment but still got their butts kicked. As for the air war well that was a joke wasn't it. As soon as they came up against equal a/c they were defeated (Battle of Britain).
I'll have to disagree with you here again Chris. The Luftwaffe did not lost the BoB to the RAF because of superior or equal quality aircraft (alhough that is a true statement); they lost because of a lousy German operational plan (failing to see concentrate on the radar and the fighter bases) and the RAF's radar control system was a force multipier. All other things remaining the same, the RAF loses without the Chain Home Stations.
Weasel Wrote:"The German tanks did not outclass the Russian tanks early in Barbarossa, in fact it was the other way around, even more so than the French tanks outclassed the Germans (which was machine wise also the case)."
They did? BT7 and T26s? Sorry, I will take a PzIId or PzIII over these tin cans anyday. Sure they had some T34s, but not until 43 were they everywhere.
The KV series of tanks were available in significant numbers and cold be dealt with only by 88s or close assaults. No German tank cold do anything but immobilize a KV. The T34s were only available in low numbers true, but every Russian tank was capable, on paper, of destroying any German tank it might encounter. The fact that they often lost the exchanges is because of superior German doctrine and training, not equipment, and that illustrates my point.
Weasel Wrote:The Germans didn't win at Arnhem, the allies lost it by poor planning and drive. The Germans would have been totally caught off guard if it had not been for a resting SS pz div that just happened to be there. Luck, not skill.
I used to think that too, but that's from reading too much American history. Study that batle, really get into the nuts and bolts of that battle and you will come away with 2 important facts. The notion of the Red Devils dropping on top of a "SS Pz Div" is nonsense. The 9th SS was about 2 battalions in strength, and all it's vehicles were stripped out to make 10th SS Pz (also only a few battalions in strength) mobile. The other thing you will learn is that the entire German operation at Arnhem, from one end of the corridor to the other, was a masterful demonstration of operational flexibility and planning that NO other Army in the world, NONE, could have puled off. On the contrary to Monty being an idiot for trying MG, that plan had every right to succeed, and would have against any other army in the world. When I worked on MG'44 for HPS and had to do some serious research, it really opened my eyes as to what happened there. It is far and away, my favorite ETO battle precisely because it is so misnderstood.
Weasel Wrote:Ardennes? That was a joke. Scramble brains strips all his forces and creates new divisions for a last hurrah. This operation had no chance of success, not at all. Hell, they couldn't even beast a frozen, poorly supplied airborne division with other elements for 2 weeks! How about St Vith where some 105s firing over open sights stopped them cold. Yeah, great operation there!
I'll grant you that the Bulge was doomed to failure from conception, but you're missing the point. What other Army in the world, could have gone through 1944 and suffered the twin disasters of D-Day in the East, and the destruction of Army Group Center in the East, and still possessed the discipline to even put together an operation like Bulge, let alone execute it in a some what effective manner? To reverse roles, it's the equivilant of the Japanese beating up on the US and UK for 6 months in early 1942, and the Americans responding with the battle of Leyte Gulf.
Weasel Wrote:If the German tactics were so great, then why did they suffer HUGE LOSSES in Russia? The Russians were not tactical geniuses that is for sure. So their superior leaders and training with equipment should have easily won the day, but they didn't. In the end farmers beat the super men; and in the west civilians in uniform did the same.
Exactly. Like Ivan says, 100 militia can kill for SpecOps guys almost every time out. That in no way diminishs the fact that the SpecOps guys are, man for man, much better soldiers than those taliban militia. The Germans were clearly, man for man, the best practitioners of the military art in WWII.
<<<I have to agree, I wish I could remeber where I read it but its account of German commander telling how he and his crew destroyed Sherman after Sherman in France and how he had to eventually surrender his position, the interviewer ask why he would surrender after such success he said thats easy I ran out of anti-tank rounds before the Allies ran out of tanks... >>>
Does Ernst Bake ring a bell? I read a couple of books some time ago called Panzer Aces I and II and I think this was Bake near the Ruhr Pocket right before it's collapse. Key word is I think.
Reading those books plus Infantry Aces and many others like most of us have, the Germans were that good.
The SS front line troops were among the best in all history IMO for what they accomplished on the battle field against incredible odds the latter half of the war. And yes there was a difference between the front line SS and the scum at the concentration camps.
BoB was lost because of the luck of a string of events. The accidental bombing of London led to the raid on Berlin which angered Hitler enough to change the focus away from Fighter Command at the time it was on the verge of collapse and the lack of foresight to develope a larger bomber and longer range single seat fighter. A lesson not lost on the allies later on with the introduction of the P51.
The British determination to not give up should account for something.
The only thing I can consider the Russians genius' was being able to amass a million men at a small part of the front for numerical superiority. The odds grew daily in their favor and it still took them years to get to Germany. And the Germans were just simply running out of manpower over the years. That's why they had the young teens, old men and convalescent bns popping up.
Hitler's refusal to save men to fight another day like at Stalingrad and other places was another factor. Hube or Hausser or somebody, can't remember, refused to let the SS suffer that same order near Kharkov, disobeyed it, rescued them and shorlty later came back in the area starting the operation at around 50% and salvaging a victory out of it.
In the end it is an arguement that will never end because of so many people with their own opinions. That's what keeps it interesting for so long.
HiHi
Err, point of Order???
Russia was the first opponent who refused to fold after 3 months and from that point on it was really a lost cause
?? It could I think be reasonably suggested that England and the British commonwealth had actually been fighting the Germans a tad longer than 3 months!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pictures/image...05,00.html
Paul If, as you imply, it was the staying around (who refused to fold after 3 months) that made it a lost cause for Germany (from that point on it was really a lost cause), then maybe England should take the credit, after all if they had chucked it in like the French did it is doubtful Russia would have managed against the whole weight of Germanys war machine.
It may be worth pondering on that possibly the 2 most important battles against Germany were won in the air & at sea in the military field (Battle of Britain & Battle of the Atlantic), a 3rd may also be included that of the civilian population both on land and at sea. While from September 1939 Germanys ally Russia was supplying the raw materials for the Blitz & the U-boat campaign it was the our Civilians and Merchant Navy that bore the brunt of German aggresion, they refused to buckle and it is from that firm base, 'The will to win' that Germany was defeated.
So possibly the answer to Weasels question should be, "Yes the Germans were good, but thankfully we were better".
Just a Thought.
All the Best
Peter