Were the Germans really that good?

[Weasel]

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.

I got lost twice going to the PX. We were there with our cougars doing some training and blowing all hell out of your tank ranges. The US MPs kept giving us warnings to slow down when we drove, but we didn't.

Then our squadron commander held a big leaguer in the middle of one of your emergency helo pads, causing $100K damage! The best part was when we left Petawawa it was warm and sunny, got to Ft. Drum and froze in snow! WTF!

[Chuck10mtn]

Hey Weasel,
The worst part is that when the snow gets real bad they only clean every other street, that totally sucksyou can see where you want to go but have to walk through 3ft of snow to get there.
At least as a guest you were SUSPOSED to follow the rules. Hell I stsyed there and didn't. Have to admit I had alot of fun at that post. There is so much open space you can shoot the hell out it and still not have to worry. One time we went on a road march and got lost and ended up returning back to the company 72hrs late wet cold and hungry is no way to see that place. After that we ended up at imnage that.

[Weasel]

We all went charging to the PX to buy beer only to be told we are not allowed to buy in uniform. HUH???? We were all very disappointed, and thirsty.

Then traveling home we heard emergency sirens behind us so we pulled our cougars to the side of the road, as we do in Canada when an emergency vehicle is approaching, only to see tons of motorist taking the opportunity to tail gate the ambulance and get by us. Then I saw it again when I was posted to DC, people tail gating ambulances to get through traffic faster. Nuts.

Lost in Ft Drum, I can see that no problem!

[JonS1]

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.

Hmm. let's see ...

The British in 1940? Kicked all over the place for almost the whole year, and respnd with ... COMPASS.

No? What about the British again, in 1941? Kicked all over the Med for most of the year, and respond with ... CRUSADER.

No? Hmm, ok, let's try the Russians. Kicked all over the park from June to December 1941, then counter-attack against German forces outside Moscow.

No? Ok, what about the Russians in 1942? Kicked all over the park at Kharkov, in the Crimea, then again in Case BLUE, and they respond with ... URANUS.

No? Well, what about the British again - in 1942 they get kicked all over the park in North Africa, the Atlantic, and in Asia, and they respond with ... LIGHTFOOT and SUPERCHARGE.

Still no? Ok, what about the Americans then? Kicked all over the Pacific for six months, and they respond with ... the Battle of Midway and WATCHTOWER.

[JonS1]

The Germans did "best" the Royal Army everywhere [they faced each other] in '40 and '41.

Firstly; there is no such thing as 'the Royal Army'.

Secondly; Narvik, Tobruk, and CRUSADER suggest you are wrong.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Mmmm, moot point that " there is no such thing as 'the Royal Army'. "

I think as all the English armed forces swear allegance to their Monarch, and as we are all subjects of the Queen it could be argued that even though not named as such (except the various 'Royal' regiments) the army is still a 'Royal' one, it goes without saying sort of thing. :)

All the Best
Peter

[Steel God]

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.

Hmm. let's see ...

The British in 1940? Kicked all over the place for almost the whole year, and respnd with ... COMPASS.

No? What about the British again, in 1941? Kicked all over the Med for most of the year, and respond with ... CRUSADER.

No? Hmm, ok, let's try the Russians. Kicked all over the park from June to December 1941, then counter-attack against German forces outside Moscow.

No? Ok, what about the Russians in 1942? Kicked all over the park at Kharkov, in the Crimea, then again in Case BLUE, and they respond with ... URANUS.

No? Well, what about the British again - in 1942 they get kicked all over the park in North Africa, the Atlantic, and in Asia, and they respond with ... LIGHTFOOT and SUPERCHARGE.

Still no? Ok, what about the Americans then? Kicked all over the Pacific for six months, and they respond with ... the Battle of Midway and WATCHTOWER.

Jon;

Midway was no victory of training, but a victory of intelligence, and I believe even the most casual student of WWII probably knows that.

In regards to the British operations in North Africa, well frankly, victories in NA (for either side) were pretty close to meaningless in the big picture. The battles you are talking about were fought with a couple of divisions, and hardly worthy of inclusion of a big picture discussion, no matter how meaningful on a tactical level (and this is coming from a HUGE fan of the NA Campaign).

As for the Russian Counter attacks in 41 and 42, these are valid points and worthy of discussion. One could make the argument that given the relative strengths between the Germans and Russians in terms of manpower, the Russians should have never been in the position to counter attack I suppose. But they were, and they did, but again, given the huge size of the Russian Army, are their counter attacks in 41 and 42 really that surprising?

Paul

[Steel God]

The Germans did "best" the Royal Army everywhere [they faced each other] in '40 and '41.

Firstly; there is no such thing as 'the Royal Army'.

Secondly; Narvik, Tobruk, and CRUSADER suggest you are wrong.

You are, of course correct, but it did not seem to prevent you from knowing what army I was refering to. As for Narvik, Tobruk and Crusader, please see my comments in the previous post regarding size and scope of operations.

A bit of friendly advice, conversations are generally more enjoyable, and more productive, when the tone of the conversation is more charitable and less adverserial.

Regards.

[Stryker]

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

On the Original question:

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. They were the first modern mechanised Army and it showed. Britain and especially France, were let down by extremely poor leadership and a belief that no country could hope to conquer a modern Europe. Russia bought some time with their pact, but they knew what was coming and tried to be as ready as they could. Germany having a standing army of 3 million also helped... Britain had about 300,000
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...
By the end, old men and boys are being trained up, they have limited supplies and the allies will not allow them to sue for peace, they are fighting for their homeland and their families and pride, the Russians are fighting with anger, the the Brits and Yanks just want to get the job done and not die trying... whereas the Germans know they are going to die... it makes you fight harder, no? I know an old German soldier and asked him why the Germans often fought to the last man and appeared to have super-human fanaticism... it wasn't Nazi-ism or patriotism, it was the knowledge that if they failed or retreated in the face of the enemy, they would be shot...that's from the horses mouth.

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.

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 point of Britains refusal to capitulate, is that Churchill knew they only had to survive and not be defeated, they didn't have to win, but stand their ground and do their best.. thank god the rest of the commonwealth sent troops to their aid or they couldn't have done it, but they did, and god bless 'em

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.

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.

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...

The German Air Force was defeated by the British and the Russian Air forces... not so great. The German Navy was defeated by the British also....

I'm moving into ramble mode fast here now.. time to stop... but I've enjoyed the rant and am enjoying the thread..... remember everyone, nothings personal and keep smiling.. most Army's have had their great times, their lucky times and their disasters, their heriocs and their shame.. we are after all... humans together...

One last ditty... Opinions are like Arse-holes, everyones got one - I'm just showing you mine :) (did any of it make sense...???)

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

[Weasel]

Nicely put together and well written. Thanks.