 |
|
Were the Germans really that good? - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Parade Ground (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=2) +--- Forum: Historical Discussion (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=17) +--- Thread: Were the Germans really that good? (/showthread.php?tid=45744) |
RE: Were the Germans really that good? - fastphil - 05-30-2008 Initially, the Germans were unstoppable, history proves that. Their tactics, use of combined arms and overwhelming confidence gave them that, don't forget, they were also an angry nation who believed, quite rightly, that they had been shafted after the Great War and had some serious scores to settle. I disagree with you here. History only shows they were not stopped. Hitler could have been stopped at many points in time, but there was not a collective agreement to stop him in Europe or for that matter the US. You notice I say 'collective agreement' because no country was 'individually willing' to act alone against Hitler. At the time of Germany's occupation of the Rhine, France had a bigger army than Germany. But she refused to act independently, as did the UK. The policy of 'appeasement' was adopted. When Hitler occupied Austria-Europe did nothing. When he occupied Czechoslovakia-Europe did nothing. Why the hell do you think Stalin signed a non-agression treaty with Hilter and paved they way for Poland's dismemberment? Because Europe when it had the power did nothing to check Adolf and Germany. Hitler truly believed France and England would do nothing when he invaded Poland. They were the first modern mechanised Army and it showed. Germany was not the first modern Mechanized Army-in fact it never was fully mechanized. I believe GB holds claim to the first(look at the makeup of the BEF) but if not them than the U.S. of the major powers. Although the majority of German strength rested in 'the Panzertruppen' the majority of Germany army was and remained 'saddled' to the horse and on foot. If you look at the TOE of the US/UK Armies in 1942 I don't think you will find any horse drawn units. Now mountain or other special units might have mules etc but the armies were motorised/mechanized. Now I am not saying that any other country did a better job of utilizing the mechanized forces they did have, but Germany was never able to mechanize the majority of their army . The German Army fighting a global war was doomed from the outset much like the Confederate Army fighting in A Civil War. They suffered from the same things -good Army, good generals(for the most part) and poor economy with the Germans having the worst of it fighting a global war without a global airforce, global navy or global economy. The German long term global war strategy was-well it didn't exist. The German Army, as well as the Luftwaffe was built along lines of the short-term small-scale war. The Luftwaffe's role was army support and home defense. Short legs, short-ranged, small loads. It was not designed for a long duration-long distance war. However, the means to build a 'strategic airforce' would have taken away from the other services unless Germany Industry went on a full war footing in the thirties. If they had a global Navy capable of projecting power, who knows what they could have done in NA. But then again building a global navy would have drawn resources away from the other services. As it was Hitler meddled too much and the German Army didn't have a long term plan established to fight Russians as the winter of 41/42 showed. Well thats enough for now. Bound to raise a few hackles.:stir: RE: Were the Germans really that good? - Steel God - 05-30-2008 Stryker Wrote:As there are so many sweeping statements, ignorance, school-boy history and generalisations in this thread, I just can't resist putting my 2d in... what a great thread.. I always love this argument.... here's my take Aye, tis that. :) Stryker Wrote:On the Original question: Agree for the most part, except that Germany had a modern mechanized army. At no time in the war did the Germany Army achieve truly mechanized status. Only the US Army came close in 44/45. The Germans never had more than a small percentage of it's army mechanized, most of the army was foot and horse drawn, just like their Dads were in WWI.\ Stryker Wrote:The middle part of the war, The Germans realise that they are not actually superior men and the Russian is not the unter-mensch, there is mutual respect, and it's going to come down to industry, supplies and how many Tanks, Planes, Ships and trained men you can get into the field in the right places... the Allies have caught up... Agree here as well. But it just explains why, it doesn't dispute the fact. Stryker Wrote:The British Army... lets get this right, the British Army was not made up from the English, it was not an English or British Army, it was a British Commonwealth Army made up from troops from all over the world. To say one group was tougher or braver than another is insulting to those who fought and died. ANZACs Canadians, Indians, Africans, Scots, Welsh, English to name but a few.. all made up the "British" forces. Not sure anyone has contended otherwise Paul. 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. I agree also here Paul, but this is not a credit to the training or discipline of the UK Military, it's a testimony to Winston's brass. he had people in his own cabinet wanting to sue for peace, without Winney things are definitely different IMO. Stryker Wrote:Steel God's (sorry to pick this one out) statement that the NA campaign was irrelevant seems rather off the mark, Egypt, Suez, the Oil fields, the landing place for invasion of Italy, the Moral boosts of Tobruk and El Alamein when things looked dark. The attempt to assist the Balkans and Greece.. all pretty relevant to me... and hundreds of thousands of troops were involved, Hitler sent his best General to sort it out - and he failed, in spite of stealing the Italians equipment and supplies and leaving them with no option to surrender. You're entitled, but I believe I'm correct when I say that NA (not the Med, North Africa) is not relevant in the big picture of the war. The German chances of capturing Suez are post war fantasy, and of capturing ME Oil Fields even more so. No serious scholar entertains the notion. When you say Hitler's best general, do you mean Rommel? Rommel was a big fish in a small pond, but not only not the German's best General, he is barely more than a gifted Divisional commander. Precisely the kind of general that will shine in a "small" strategically irrelevant palce like Libya. ;) Stryker Wrote:Russia would have lost the war to Germany IMO if the Japs had not been totally defeated in two decisive battles with Russia in the East. When Stalin was sure that Japan would not attack Russia and was over stretched in SE Asia, he released his Siberian Troops to the defence of Moscow... and that was the end for the ill-equipped (for winter) Germans. Russia, some what like th UK, could have survived by refusing to surrender. A case can be made that capture of the rail nets around Moscow in 41 before winter sets in COULD have made it strategicaly impossible for Russia to coordinate troop movements effectively, and further more a case can be made that if the Germans attacked east after Smolensk and didn't go south to fight the encirclement of Kiev, they would have had Moscow, regardless of any Siberian troops coming west. Germany had a chance to beat Russia IMO, but it was long odds and they ahd as much to do with not cashing in on them, as the Russians did. Stryker Wrote:the comment someone made about the Canadian troops is right, they don't get enough recognition for the huge part they played during the War - but us Brits appreciated it I can assure you...  Paul
RE: Were the Germans really that good? - JonS1 - 05-30-2008 Steel God Wrote:You are, of course correct, but it did not seem to prevent you from knowing what army I was refering to.Sure. One learns to make allowances for sweepingly ignorant schoolboy historians. RE: Were the Germans really that good? - Stryker - 05-30-2008 Now come on lads, you knew I didn't mean fully mechanised - now didn't you? :rolleyes: I agree Rommel probably wasn't Germanys best commander of the War... but I was on a role and it fitted my argument :P good discussion points all..... RE: Were the Germans really that good? - Steel God - 05-30-2008 Stryker Wrote:Now come on lads, you knew I didn't mean fully mechanised - now didn't you? :rolleyes: Weelllll, given the context of your argument, no I wasn't sure you did. Because you see, the point of your statement was that the Germans Army was better because it was mechanized, and the counter point was that they were no more mechanized than their opponents, andin fact, a good bit less mechanized. As fastphil rightly states, the germans certainly made better use of the mechanized units they did have (compared to their enemies) but that's the whole crux of the matter. Stryker Wrote:I agree Rommel probably wasn't Germanys best commander of the War... but I was on a role and it fitted my argument :P LOL, the noble tradition of making the facts fit. ;) Paul
RE: Were the Germans really that good? - Chuck10mtn - 06-01-2008 Hey come on now. Not only was Rommel Germanys best General he in charge of the war effort all by his self would have won the whole thing. He was smart enough to realize that air superiority was the key. How many other Generals realized that. Rommel realized that in north Afrika and was trying to use his knolwage to defend the atlantic wall. All the other Generals wanted to wait and see where the main invasion would happen. He having been pummled by the British Airforce in Afrika knew that they would never be able to move troops any distance without the same result day or night. The Generals in the east front and in Europe never seen the results of it. Rommel having seen the devastation of unchecked airpower knew what would happen. The other Generals poor judgement in not believing him are the results that happened. Now as far as the British standing alone after the fall of France, I think they got a little help. A lot of other countries sent them help. Maybe not men at the start but a lot of material. The invasion of France on D-Day would of never happened without the U S A taking the lead and showing them the way. Sorry to have ruffled so many feathers but its only my opinion. RE: Were the Germans really that good? - Fullhouse - 06-01-2008 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. Weasel you dont take into account the HUGE advantage the Allies had in men and equipment. Given that in WW2 80% of casualties were caused by artillery, having more guns and more ammo is pretty key. Also the debacle in Stalingrad and the sucker punch that was Kursk were pretty much the two Battles that decided the war in the East. Both of these were strategic level blunders by Hitler. Also its worth remembering that Germany had 80% of its combat power in the East. What happened in the West was little more than a side show in comparison.[/b] RE: Were the Germans really that good? - D-Day_Dodger - 06-01-2008 Weasel Wrote:If you want to go man for man then I would say that the Canadian troops were the best in the world in both World Wars, and there is a ton of evidence to back that up. :P We Canucks do tend to feel overlooked when it comes to their history. I tend to blame the fact that Canada's military accomplishments are not that well known compared to those of Britain or the US on the lack of a Canadian film industry during or after WWII. I can reel off a list as long as your arm of excellent British and American war films produced in the last 60 years but would have difficulty naming one big budget Canadian war movie. Only three movies about the Canadian Forces were made during the war; Captains of the Clouds starring James Cagney, Corvette K-225 starring Randolf Scott and Commandos Attack at Dawn. After the war, Canadians were pretty much ignored by the motion picture industry. Even The Longest Day, that epic film from the 60's, with its huge cast does not have a single Canadian character despite the large Canadian contribution to D-Day. Indeed, when a Canadian character is represented in a war film its usually done as an excuse to put an American actor into a British Uniform (eg. Cliff Robertson in 633 Squadron, Henry Fonda in The Immortal Sargeant). But all this says is that if you don't blow your own horn, then no one will blow it for you. This is not to say that the subject was totally ignored in Canada. After the war the Canadian government created the National Film Board of Canada which was meant to promote independent film producers. One of the best releases of the NFB was the Canada at War series which consisted of 13 half hour episodes and was originally broadcast on CBC in the 50's. With authentic film footage, stirring soundtrack and excellent narration this series is worth picking up. Its available on DVD on eBay. Things have improved though. With the advent of cable there have been many excellent documentaries about Canadian history on channels like History Television and Discovery Channel. And as I write, a flim about the Canadian victory at the WWI battle of Passchendale is currently being filmed in Alberta. RE: Were the Germans really that good? - Tide1 - 06-02-2008 I would like to add my 2 cents 1. The BT7 was a fine tank for it's time The Russians took the Christy design and made a fast and hard hitting vehicle. By 1941 it was obsolete but still could cause damage. 2. Although the mad Austrian did make decisions that where tragic, alot of times it was the General Staff and the personalities within it that caused alot of the early German failures in the east. Kursk is the no brainer for an example. Hitler signed off on the operation but it was the brain child of the great general staff. Even Hitler new it was a waste of men and material and it's stated in many different history books. 3.Poor planning and execution is what turned Arnhem and the Hurtgen battles into German defensive victories. 4.Rommel did know what it was like to be dogged by stronger airpower but that doesn't mean he was the best General of all time. He just took his experiance of defensive warfare to a higher level with the Atlantic Wall. With the Naval and Airpower backing the D-Day landings it's doubtful the Germans would of been able to wipe out the beachheads. Anzio and Salerno where close calls but they couldn't even manage to eliminate them. 5.The Canadians through out the war held their own or better for sure. The Brits or Americans didn't go into Deippe ( Pardon the spelling ) It was the Canadians. One of the best movies made was the Devils Brigade :) Tide1 RE: Were the Germans really that good? - D-Day_Dodger - 06-04-2008 tide1 Wrote:5.The Canadians through out the war held their own or better for sure. The Brits or Americans didn't go into Deippe ( Pardon the spelling ) It was the Canadians. One of the best movies made was the Devils Brigade :) Actually the Brits and Yanks were at Dieppe, although not as part of the main landing force. British Commandos and a 50 man detachment of American Rangers made successful attacks against coastal gun emplacements. In fact the first American serviceman to die in the ETO was killed at Dieppe. As for The Devil's Brigade, it was a thoroughly enjoyable movie, but one that should be taken with a grain of salt. The characterization of the Canadians as a bunch of prim and proper soldiers compared to the rowdy "dirty dozen" like Americans just wasn't the case. It was an all volunteer force as I recall. Also the raid on the Italian village where they capture the whole garrison complete with commander, is a piece of pure fiction. However, on the plus side, the movie gets top marks for the portrayl of the climatic assault on the Germans mountain top position on Monte Defensa. The terrain looks accurate and many of the incidents included actually happened, like the deadly German sniper and the Cdn officer who gets killed after accepting a German officer's surrender. That officer was played by Cliff Robertson, who also wore a CANADA shoulder flash as commander of "633 Squadron". Thanks Cliff. Your Order of Canada is in the mail. |
){kind=link}