Were the Germans really that good?

[Steel God]

Peter;

Your response gets to the heart of McIvan's post. What is chris really looking for? A discussion on what level?

Clearly yes, it could be argued that the Battle of the Atlantic was one of the two "decisive" battles of the war upon which the whole thing hinged, but that is clearly a strategic level battle. I think since the Allies won the war they clearly did win at the Strategic level.

I believe Chris is asking on a more tactical, or at most, operational level, what army, or whose men, were better in WWII. In that case I stand by my position that it was the Germans.

As for Britain standing for more than 3 months...once again, if we are comparing whose "Army" was best, the BoB and Englands stand in 40 does not "count" in that sense, because no where were they engaged in a significant campaign on land during that time that they succeeded. But you also illustrate my point that if the Germans could not knock you out operationally in 3 months they could not finish you off period. The Germans did "best" the Royal Army every where it face it in 40, and 41. England survived because of the English Channel. It's not glorious, but neither was the Russian scortched earth policy that they used in 41-42. but it will work "Strategically" against an oppenent that is superior to you tactically and possibly operationally.

[Huib Versloot]

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

I think none of the allied nations could have held against the Germans on their own. Certainly not Great Britain. The Brits were no match for the Germans on land (as the 1940 campaign had demonstrated). It was just their luck that Hitler had his focus on the Soviet Union.

SG puts forward some strong points. You'll find these supported in most serious literature. As an example: It took the Americans many months to fight through the Hurtgen. A few miles south are the same type border forests of the Ardennes: The Germans smashed through the US line in a matter of hours/days during the Ardennes Offensive. Exactly the same type of operation the Americans should have executed in the Hurtgen area, only in a eastern direction, instead of going west.

Huib

[Kingmaker]

HiHi
Paul, Huib 'fraid at a tactical level then I am way behind re WWII, not my era, I'm more of a, "Mechanized transport! ... In War ... don’t be silly boy it would scare the horses!” type.

Overall I agree Huib, no one country could have completed the task in the time-span 1939-1945, but Paul, I would still suggest that although it’s a strategic battle the BoB was the first one that had to be won, aircover for the RN to fight in the channel was imperative against ‘Sealion’, if that had been lost and the Germans had of landed in England the Gods alone know how the war would have gone.

While a backwater affair I would also suggest that the British Armies successful campaigns against Italy in Abyssinia & Libya were also vital in the long term strategic picture in that a) Rommel & Africa corps were sent to bolster the Italians in the Desert, a drain on resource, supply, men & equipment etc. b) the further involvement of British and Commonwealth forces in Crete and Greece forced Hitler to put back the invasion of Russia while he diverted forces to the Balkans to get Italy out of a mess. At a strategic level some historians (J G Stonessinger, ‘Why Nations go to War’ for one), have suggested it was that very act of diverting to the Balkans that caused Barbarossa to fail.

But I’m waffling on about strategic issues, and out of my league so I will end it there, let you good folk get back to tactical issues. :)

All the Best
Peter

[Steel God]

Peter;
Just for clarity...I did not list BoB as a strategic battle, I alluded only to the battle of the Atlantic. I agree with you, BoB was operational, and needed to be won for Sea Lion to be executed, but seriously, Sea Lion was NEVER under consideration. It was a huge bluff and the Wehrmacht knew it was a bluff. They could not cross that channel in the face of the RN, even with air superiority. The British had to surrender and accept terms for BoB to be won.

[Weasel]

I am speaking of all levels: tactical and strategic, men, equipment, training, etc etc. Everyone says they should have, could have kicked the worlds ass, yet they lost and lost BIG. Everyone can point out tactical battles to prove their point that is not a problem, but look at the whole picture.

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. Being abused in your training doesn't make you a fantastic soldier.

Tank for tank, the Germans on paper had the best in the panther if you just look at combat ability. But take into account ease and cost of production and then you would have to say the Sherman or T34 were the best in the world. Capable, cheap, and reliable.

Aircraft? Well the 109 had short legs and it's best version, the 109G was easily beaten by the Spitfire IX, Thunderbolt, P51, Migs and La's. FW190 was better, but still had superior opponents to knock it from the sky.

Ships? They built two capable BB that were once again over the top complicated and costly, and thus non-sustainable. U-boats were only effective until the Allies got their sonar sorted out, and then by 1943 they were neutralized.

Generals? Well, they had some great ones that is for sure, but every army does. All in all I would say this is a tie between all nations.

Industry? Once again, not capable of going toe to toe with either the US or Russia, even if raw materials were not scarce.

So, I still disagree.

Gee it sure is strange that all you guys are wrong and I am right! :P

[Chuck10mtn]

Just my .02 worth.

Anybody who ever read The Rommel Papers would know that by sheer luck tha Hitler didn't like Rommel and vetoed all his Ideas on how to defend the atlantic wall. His defense ideas would of made the allies enploy a retreat off the beaches and made England and the U S come up with a favorable peace for them.

In Afrika he would of with 2 more divisions had taken northern Afrika to the suez canel. That would of opened up a whole new front to attack Russia and taken there oil fields making themvunerable to the same problems that Rommel suffered in the Afrikan front no fuel.
I know this is only one mans opinion but thankfully the germans didn't take there battlefield commanders thoughts into the planning of the war. it would of taken alot longer and ended with tha axis getting alot more than they did.

Thanks for your time

Chuck

[Weasel]

D-Day would have still worked due to all the naval support and air superiority. It was well known that the Pz Divs could only move at night as they tried moving on June 6 and were massacred. That is why the UK at the Orne bridge were successful, the tigers couldn't get there until it was too late.

Africa? Hard to fight with no gas in the fuel tanks.

But as you said, just as I see it. Tenth Mtn Div huh, good group of guys. Huge friggin base you guys got! You can't get lost on a Cdn base, but I sure as hell did on yours!

[RedDevil]

I'll chip in a wee bit

I base the early victories and eventual demise on the NCOs and young officer corps of the German armies. They were highly trained and very effective at what they did best. When your best men are dead or crippled, it is rather difficult to continue achieving success. It is also difficult to train others to be as efficient as those before them, when there is no experience to draw from.
When you couple this with the paralysis (ala Hitler) of the German High command when it came down to making a decision, it was only a matter of time irregardless of manpower and logistics.

I think western powers chose to pull men from the front to train fresh recruits because they could. Germany could not afford to do this after the winter of 41/42 and the summer campaign of 42 really overextended their manpower resources. One can only press so much of the population into the military, without destroying the economy.
Contrary to belief,The Reich was not even on a full war production at this time yet! They had no real pool of skilled labor people to produce things as most were in service and women were not utilized until later in the war to work in factories. They failed miserably in mass production efforts depending on hand made and custom building at several locations and then assembly in a main complex. Very strenuous on the transportation and economic systems for any country at war. Thank God they didn't have a Henry Ford idealist...

Another flaw in the German plan lies in it's command organization, none of the armed forces were able to effectively coordinate with each other. The organization plan to create new units, rather than rebuild broken ones also weakened the command structure and gave less meaning to comradeship and trust of the man next to you in combat situations. One must also consider the physiological effects of seeing their country being devastated around them as well. Do you want to die for der fuhrer or get home and protect your family now that the situation has becmoe rather unpleasant for your side..

Many mistakes were made and all of them will point to 1 bohemian at some time or another, let's be thankful he was in charge screwing up everything, and not a well versed Prussian General or even a King, who left military affairs to be dealt with by capable General staff.

[Chuck10mtn]

Hey Reddevil,

I agree with you about the command structure. But Rommel saw for himself 1st hand in afrika what would happen with allied air superiority. He knew that if the panzer divisions had to move very far that there destruction was imment. He could also see that the Airborne units would be slowely captured and destroyed. If the Americans had been stopped for 24hrs they would of pulled off the beach.

Weasel,
That base if huge, I got lost on the post not to mention it sits out in the middle of no-where. It is one of the best looking places I've been.The fall is best when the leaves change colors. The only problem with that is ALOT of snow is coming , and alot isn't a good description of it . You have to be a outdoor person to be there, to appriciate it.

[Steel God]

Ahhh, but Chris, you can't just casually say "on all levels" because it's an apples and oranges comparison.

To win at war you must first and foremost have a good strategy. In that regard the Germans sucked. At best their strategy was improvised, and at worst it didn't exist.

To support a good strategy you need the industry to support your plans, and a military capable of executing it. The German industry didn't even gear up until after the war was lost in 42. Their military was always capable of executing whatever was asked of it, but occasionally what was asked of it by OKW was asinine.

To support the military operations that execute your strategy you need a well trained and tactically disciplined army. In that regard the Germans had no equal in the early war, and few equals in the later years of the war.

So again, you can't casually say "at all levels" because the answer is different.

As for the Canadians, true warriors in WWII to be sure, as tough as the Aussies and main line SS in my book; but it's tough to compare small contingents of troops (like the three I mention here) to the over all training of 100s of divisions). When painting with a broad brush like this we can't use a small canvas.

Paul