Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Friday, 23rd December 2005
I think it was Germany, they had somew of the best designs of Tank, such as the King Tiger and the Panther, they adopted OUR tactics if Blitzkrieg and improved them, had some of the second best speciel forces, after us, such as the 1st Paras, the Wermacht SS, the 7th airborne and many others. THey had some of the best generals such as Guderian, and Rommel, the best individual soldiers such as Michael Wittman, and Otto Skorzeny, as well as the best pilots like Erich Hartmann with 352 validated kills and Adolf Galland, they had the technology as well, the Bismark, the MP40, they were developing an atomic bomb, what better could ytou have. In fact I believe Germany would have the war if it wasn't for Hitler.
Feel free to correct me or add to it, or utterly destroy it but please put your ideas down in full. Thanks in advance.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 2
Posted by DANNY-FRANKS (U2186615) on Friday, 23rd December 2005
I agree for the most part.
Not only did the Armed forces have high morale and elite units, they also had the uncanny knack of forming ad hoc kampfgruppes mingling different units with great success.
The thing to remember is that Germany stood pretty much alone (fair enough Japan were a decent enough ally) against the rest of the world for a few years.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 3
Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Saturday, 24th December 2005
Actually I'd say that Germany and Japan weren't really allies, I mean they were two different battlegrounds with 2 different aims, Japan was only really interested in the Pacific and Asia, wereas Germany was Europe and Russia. The only reason Japan joined was to grab the colonies of the European nations before Germany took them. They were about as allied as America and Russia.
Also Germany taught all it's officers iniative, telling them to improvise in the face of battle, wereas the allies were much more riged. I agree for the most part.
Not only did the Armed forces have high morale and elite units, they also had the uncanny knack of forming ad hoc kampfgruppes mingling different units with great success.
The thing to remember is that Germany stood pretty much alone (fair enough Japan were a decent enough ally) against the rest of the world for a few years.ÌýLink to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 4
Posted by Dirk Marinus (U1648073) on Saturday, 24th December 2005
I think it was Germany, they had somew of the best designs of Tank, such as the King Tiger and the Panther, they adopted OUR tactics if Blitzkrieg and improved them, had some of the second best speciel forces, after us, such as the 1st Paras, the Wermacht SS, the 7th airborne and many others. THey had some of the best generals such as Guderian, and Rommel, the best individual soldiers such as Michael Wittman, and Otto Skorzeny, as well as the best pilots like Erich Hartmann with 352 validated kills and Adolf Galland, they had the technology as well, the Bismark, the MP40, they were developing an atomic bomb, what better could ytou have. In fact I believe Germany would have the war if it wasn't for Hitler.
Feel free to correct me or add to it, or utterly destroy it but please put your ideas down in full. Thanks in advance.Ìý
desertfox,
This has always been, still is, and will for a long time to come be a subject of debate.
Hitler during the 1920's and well into the 1930's had a great following , not only in Germany but also in other European countries.
It was especially some of the Royal houses and the nobility in European countries who, maybe due to family connections were in favour of Hitler's political aims.
It was only when Hitler's Nazi party started the persecution of the Jewry that the support in other countries faded and that was not always spontaneous either.
Even when Hitler invaded Poland there were many voices still to be heard who were in favour of keeping in with Hitler.
Hitler's biggest mistake was that he became greedy in starting a type of war which was to become impossible to win i.e, Jewish persecution , the indiscriminant killing of the occupants of the Eastern European countries ( Ukraine, Poland and Baltic countries) in particular.
Instead of trying to get the civil population of the occupied countries on his side his policy of total dictatorship was his downfall.
It has always been a point of discussion as to what the attitude of the British upper class ,including Royalty, was towards Hitler's policy in the early 1930's, bearing in mind that many of the upper class families are all related to noble families in Germany/Austria.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 5
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 24th December 2005
The trouble was, that the Germans Over engineered. The U S and U S S R could turn out many more tanks than Germany. The Tiger was good, and the T 34 cheap and nasty, but the T 34 was the better all round tank for its battle field. In fact the allies would have been better off dumping the likes of the Sherman, and building 34s. The M P 34, again a good machine gun, but could not be made as fast as the 42, and so it went The 109, was a dream to fly, but a cow to land.
Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 6
Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Saturday, 24th December 2005
desertfox,
This has always been, still is, and will for a long time to come be a subject of debate.
Hitler during the 1920's and well into the 1930's had a great following , not only in Germany but also in other European countries.
It was especially some of the Royal houses and the nobility in European countries who, maybe due to family connections were in favour of Hitler's political aims.
It was only when Hitler's Nazi party started the persecution of the Jewry that the support in other countries faded and that was not always spontaneous either.
Even when Hitler invaded Poland there were many voices still to be heard who were in favour of keeping in with Hitler.
Hitler's biggest mistake was that he became greedy in starting a type of war which was to become impossible to win i.e, Jewish persecution , the indiscriminant killing of the occupants of the Eastern European countries ( Ukraine, Poland and Baltic countries) in particular.
Instead of trying to get the civil population of the occupied countries on his side his policy of total dictatorship was his downfall.
It has always been a point of discussion as to what the attitude of the British upper class ,including Royalty, was towards Hitler's policy in the early 1930's, bearing in mind that many of the upper class families are all related to noble families in Germany/Austria.
Ìý
Yes having read this, I quite agree about the political elements, he got Germany working again, unemployment was at an all time low, and Germany's economy was hut up high, so in that way he did well, however it's as you said, his ideas on racism and ideology lose him my vote, if id had have had one as nobody did when he was in power, this also meant that countries like Ukraine and Estonia, who hated Russia, still joined forces with Stalin, because Hitlers ideology meant that they should be killed or forced into slavery.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 7
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
It has always been a point of discussion as to what the attitude of the British upper class ,including Royalty, was towards Hitler's policy in the early 1930's, bearing in mind that many of the upper class families are all related to noble families in Germany/Austria.
Ìý
That dear old lady the Queen Mother was a BIG supporter of appeasement (and therefore hated Churchill). This may have had something to do with her "reservations about the Jews" as reported by diarist & royal sycophant Woodrow Wyatt, not to mention other distinctly dodgy opinions.
Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 8
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
desertfox, hi,
I think it was Germany, they had somew of the best designs of Tank, such as the King Tiger and the Panther, they adopted OUR tactics if Blitzkrieg and improved them, had some of the second best speciel forces, after us, such as the 1st Paras, the Wermacht SS, the 7th airborne and many others. THey had some of the best generals such as Guderian, and Rommel, the best individual soldiers such as Michael Wittman, and Otto Skorzeny, as well as the best pilots like Erich Hartmann with 352 validated kills and Adolf Galland, they had the technology as well, the Bismark, the MP40, they were developing an atomic bomb, what better could ytou have. In fact I believe Germany would have the war if it wasn't for Hitler.
Feel free to correct me or add to it, or utterly destroy it but please put your ideas down in full. Thanks in advance.Ìý
Generally I'd have to agree that the German Armed Forces were quite remarkable. The tactics they developed together with the training they received did make them formidable and overall the land forces probably do deserve the title "The Best". It is one of the advantages of a miltarised society.
The Kriegsmarine, however much the U Boat arm achieved cannot be described by any stretch of the imagination as "the best". You mention the Bismarck as an example of superior German technology, cough, can I point out it was disabled by Swordfish biplanes? The Luftwaffe, after early successes, didn't perform as well as the RAF, USAAF and dare I whisper it, even the Red Army Air Force.
Talking about individual soldiers abilities in this context of massive generalisations makes me nervous. May I suggest you read the citations (if you haven't) for some of the VC, Congressional Medal of Honour or Hero of the Soviet Union Gold Star recipients just to make sure you have a balance here.
Onto German arms, well for the ground forces again they had some fearsome machine guns and personal weapons, the humble MkIV was in my opinion the "best" tank design the Germans came up with. However it can't be compared with the T34 especially when the T34 was armoured with the 85. (Don't get me wrong, on a personal level in 1944, if you offered me the choice of a T34, a Sherman or a Tiger to get into and fight I'd pick the Tiger, however it wasn't the best design as the design ignored certain realities of logistics.)
I don't hold personally with the theory that Guderian "stole" Blitzkrieg tactics from Fuller, Liddell Hart or de Gaulle. The ideas behind Blitzkrieg are military axioms as old as the hills. Guderian was the first to advance and deliver the welding together of tanks, air support, wireless communication and mobile infantry into "Blitzkrieg".
Your claims about the atomic bomb are interesting. The Germans were at least two years, possibly five years or longer from developing a workable atomic bomb in 1945. The claims about the state of Germanys atomic research during the war were exaggerated. They just didn't have the required grouping of scientific knowledge. (One of the disadvantages of militarised society).
Regarding Hitler, well, it's an interesting question, without Hitler would there have been a war? If you're removing Hitler from the scene,or limiting his powers when exactly?
Cheers AA.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 9
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
It has always been a point of discussion as to what the attitude of the British upper class ,including Royalty, was towards Hitler's policy in the early 1930's, bearing in mind that many of the upper class families are all related to noble families in Germany/Austria.
Ìý
That dear old lady the Queen Mother was a BIG supporter of appeasement (and therefore hated Churchill). This may have had something to do with her "reservations about the Jews" as reported by diarist & royal sycophant Woodrow Wyatt, not to mention other distinctly dodgy opinions.
Ìý
Call me skeptical, but I don't think beleive it.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 10
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
I wrote a short What if story based on What if Edward had not given up his right to be king, and because (In the story) He becomes anti jewish/comunist. He was already a great friend of Hitler, and very Pro. German. So imagine 1939. Germany marches into Poland. Britain (With Mosley) the Prime Minister. Britain remains out of the war, but Pro German, and cooperates with them on both the Jet engine, and the Atomic bomb. Then does Lease lend to them when they invade Russia. Supplying Long Range Lancasters. and supplying through the Empire raw goods to both Germany and Japan. Japan would then have no reason to attack Pearl, because they only did it because of the U. S. embargo on both oil and other materals. The U S would have no reason to enter the war,and therefor would not become todays Super Power. Germany using the A bomb, would in the end beat Russia, but at a great cost. Japan would do the same in China, leaving Britain the only Super Power in the world. Germany and Japan both being up to their eyes in debt to us. It's my story, so hands off.
FredLink to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 11
Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
just a question, when did we invent the Lancaster, secondly Japan attacked America becauswe it would have obvoiusly been annoyed when Japan attacked the US phillipines, and other innocent countries, same for Britian are they going to just let Japan take its colonies, at the moment who is Japan attacking?
Nice idea about Britian being the only superpower though!Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 12
Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
replying to Arnald Almaric
Thanks for your comments, i appeciate both the repliesand the historical knowledge. The bit aboutthe Tiger is right, as the Tank was made almost exclusively out of unique TTiger only pieces, thus meaning that they couldn't salvage a disabled Panzer 4 for spare parts.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 13
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
If you think about the three fascist dictators in the l930s, Hitler, Musso, and Franco - the last was the shrewdest, and stayed in power well into my lifetime. No reason the other two shouldn't have if they hadn't 'gone loony' about racism etc etc - and Musso was probably quite willing not to go racist loony - high-ranking Jews were not unknown in his fascist party. I read somewhere they were horrified and betrayed when he handed them over for racial cleansing to his nice new Nazi friends.
One point worth making about the excellence or otherwise of the German armed forces. Without their support, Hitler could never have invaded the at least 10 European countries he did (Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and France) (not sure about Hungary - think they Admiral Horthy went over to him voluntarily, nor about Rumania or Bulgaria?). And that's not even counting all the German military movement in North Africa and the Middle East.
He could never have commited his transnational atrocities. He probably couldn't even have committed them in Germany without the support - tacit or otherwise - of the armed forces.
The political allegiance of a country's army is crucial to the government it ends up with.
Eliza.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 14
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
Lancaster arrived on the scene 1942. as an uprated Manchester, which was a late 1930s model.The Stirling was an earlier four engined bomber. If Japan had been supplied by the British Empire, and just stuck to carving out an empire in China, then they would have had no need to attack the U S. If the the Brits were supplying them with everything, And don't forget, WE not the U S controled the Persian Gulf at this time, so would they risk upseting not only Us, (And their oil supply) but Germany. Still As I said, it is my story. And certain factions in the U S were preaching no more U S troops to die abroad. Imagine say Linberg, winning the election (Pro German) for U S President. In my story, Mrs Simpson is killed in such ac way as to make the KIng (Edward) think it was an attempt on his life by Jewish/comunists that went wrong To much time on my hands.
LOL
FredLink to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 15
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
He could never have commited his transnational atrocities. He probably couldn't even have committed them in Germany without the support - tacit or otherwise - of the armed forces.
The political allegiance of a country's army is crucial to the government it ends up with.
Eliza.
Ìý
You are right about that. Also there is the role of pre-war German army in helping Nazis get into power in the first place. This goes back to the post-WW1 period when German army generals were keen to crack down on left wing revolutionaries but took a "hands off" approach when it came to fascists. Hitler himself worked as a spy for the army which used him to infiltrate the German Workers Party - later to become the Nazi partyLink to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 16
Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
Is it me or do we all think the Germans had the best armed forces?
Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 17
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
It was probably a bit po-faced pious of me to post that stuff about the role of the German army in allowing Hitler to commit his atrocities at home and away, but I think there is sometimes a general 'Nazis, SS and Gestapo bad, German soldiers thoroughly decent chaps like our lads, but ust happened to be fighting on the wrong side'....and we don't think, perhaps, enough that without those thoroughly-decent-chaps-like- our-lads-but-fighting-on-the-wrong-side, the wrong side would not have needed fighting against at the hideous price that its victims - and our lads - paid for it.
I personally still find it chilling when I see veterans from both sides, Allied and Axis, getting together and talking about what they went through at the time, however pyschologically healing it is for the individuals concerned.
However, I do appreciate that for many, many men who served in the German-Nazy armed forces, they didn't actually get much of a choice. It was join the army or get killed off yourself.
It must be THE hardest moral choice in the world - whetherto assist in the practice of evil in order to save your own life, or the lives of your family.
The big thing is NEVER to let your country get to a point where that decision has to be made.
Anyway, to return to desertfox's question, would it be far too trite to suggest that the Germans had the best armed forces until they started to lose the war?(Yes, it would be trite, I know.)
Again, sorry to be so pious. Let's see if I can be as pious and self-righteous if I apply my views to the awful damn mess in the Middle East right now.
Eliza.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 18
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
If you think about the three fascist dictators in the l930s, Hitler, Musso, and Franco - the last was the shrewdest, and stayed in power well into my lifetime. No reason the other two shouldn't have if they hadn't 'gone loony' about racism etc etc - and Musso was probably quite willing not to go racist loony - high-ranking Jews were not unknown in his fascist party. I read somewhere they were horrified and betrayed when he handed them over for racial cleansing to his nice new Nazi friends.
Ìý
Yes but Hitler as we know him wouldn't have existed had he not been a racist. Racism was the core unifying element between the centrefugal forces and disparite interest groups that made up the party, particularly until 1930-31. A Hitler without racism would have been unable to hold together the various Volkisch groups that eventually made up the Nazi Party in the late 1920's therefore the Nazi Party as we know it wouldnt have existed and Hitler would never have come to power in the first place.
Also, as far as i was aware Mussolini handed no Jews over to the Nazis until he had been deposed from power, the Germans had occupied Italy and he was made leader of a puppet state. I wouldn't have imagined that he would have had much choice in the matter by that stage.
cheers,
PaulLink to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 19
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
Not sure when Musso handed over his Jewish Fascist pals I have to say. I simply remember reading about it somewhere, and how shocked they were.
Interesting that Hitler couldn't have come to power without playing the racist card. As depressingly ever, the quickest way to get power is to rally everyone against a 'secret enemy' etc.
Eliza.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 20
Posted by jesw1962 (U1726423) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
Is it me or do we all think the Germans had the best armed forces?Ìý
desertfox: Welcome to the wonderful world of "My country can beat your country." IMO the German forces were far superior "Man-for-man" than the allied. Also, as already mentioned, the Germans were able to grabl a batallion here, a regiment there, a Air-force unit, and in a couple days they had a unified fighting force. The allies were unable to do that.
DL is a person I very much respect, but in this case I have to question his logic. The German U-boat force did wonders with what they had. Additionally, the Waffen-SS was a fantastic fighting force. IMO it was Hitler's stupid strategy that ultimately did them in. I once read a story about an officer that approached Churchill with a plan to kill Hitler. Churchill cancelled the idea immediatelly because he was afraid if they killed Hitler then Germany might get a good leader.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 21
Posted by Ijeomaodigwe (U2790958) on Friday, 30th December 2005
Germany of course because they made a fast territory gain and if they had must a little bit more supplies and men the outcome of the war might have been different. I agree with everything that the rest of you guys have said.
Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 22
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Saturday, 31st December 2005
Interesting that Hitler couldn't have come to power without playing the racist card. As depressingly ever, the quickest way to get power is to rally everyone against a 'secret enemy' etc.
Eliza.Ìý
Well, yes and no. As i said racism was the central plank which held together the various disparate interest groups within the Nazi Party itself (especially in the early years). However, with regards to the wider German population who voted for the Nazis between 1930-33, most recent research comes to the conclusion that racism played at best a secondary part in persuading germans to vote for Hitler. The promise of jobs, making germany great again, shaking off Versailles were all far more important. Won't go into this in too much detail as i dont really have much time but the best summary you'll get is in Ian Kershaw's "The Hitler Myth" which has a chapter on Hitler's popular image and antisemitism.
cheers,
PaulLink to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 23
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Saturday, 31st December 2005
Germany of course because they made a fast territory gain and if they had must a little bit more supplies and men the outcome of the war might have been different. I agree with everything that the rest of you guys have said.Ìý
The above statements illustates your ignorace most well. Germay had the best armed forces because they made fast territorial gains. Oh really?
And if they had a little bit more supplies and men the outcome of the war might have been different. Well lets see. They made fast territorial gains So what? All that proves is that the German army was well suited to a 'lightning war'. In essence the German army was good at rushing into territories against countries who were not on a war footing. They were proficient at knockin out the mighty Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Poland. Czechoslavakia, France, Greece et al. Countries which were geared to peace and co-habitation with the rest of Europe. So, it is fair to say that the German army which had been on a war footing since the 1930's developed a lightening war and made some headway in the first 2 years of the war. But, they had yet to meet an enemy who had time to prepare, who had time to develop their response, who would match the German aggession with an resolution to dispose of Hitler and his tyranny. The German army could never match the Allies in the long run because the german army planned for the moment. German generals were on the front line, they were often in considerable danger. The Allies high command were in essence managers, directing the war effort from afar. Taking a longer time perspective. They were not hostage to a mad mans whims on notions. Allied stratagy was discussed and the merits of each proposal were discussed. They were promoted or demoted on merit, not on the whim of Hitler. In fact German commanders were often sacked for bringing reality to Hitlers notice. he wanted 'yes' men around him. When the German armies chickens came home to roost they only had themselves and their commander in chief to blame foe being over-deployed, undermanned, with outdated equipment, with outdated tactics, with no clear war stratagy, with no close Axis co-operatio, with 3 different arms of the military (air, naval and army) working as competitors and with no clear cohesiveness. Hardly the traits of the best army in the world.
Your second claim that if the German army had more men and equipment they could have won the war is so ridiculous it hardly merits a response. Of course, if they did have unlimited men and equipment they could have won. But that almost reminds me of stories of Hitlers lat days in the bunker directing non-existant armies into battles long lost.
The german arrmy conquered much of Europe and had at its disposal enourmous natural resources and slave labour. But it could still not stand up against the fury of the Allies.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 24
Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Sunday, 1st January 2006
Just a note, i believe you're wrong about the Czechoslavakia and the France bit, at the start of world war two France had the best equiped army, but the worst tactics, and Czechoslavakia had a brilliantly equiped and thoroughly modern army, a good industry (Skoda) and decent tactics. However Czechoslavakia never got to use any of these except in German hands as Chamberlains negotians with hitler essentially gave it to the third reich, leaving riots all over the country. Also Belgium had conscription. Yes they were geared to peace, but they were ready to foght for it. The rest of its good reasoning and probably correct too.
Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 25
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Sunday, 1st January 2006
Slimdaddy101,
Whilst you make some valid points in your post I would disagree with some of them.
To start with France declared war on Germany in September 1939 and was invaded by Germany in May 1940, that means they had 8 months to get on a 'war footing' as you put it, they lost due to their own miltary incompetance not because they weren't prepared.
As for Greece, they too were already on a 'war footing' at the time of the German invasion as they had been fighting Mussolini's Italian forces.
As for outdated tactics and equipment I suggest you go back and study some more, the German armies infantry and panzer tactics were far in advance of anything any of the Allied forces were using, and indeed many of their methods were taught by those same Allied forces to their on troops in the post war era. With the possible exception of the American Combat Commands (which had their own formalised TO&E)which other army could put together Ad Hoc Kampfgruppes for specific missions.
As for equipment, whilst I realise some of the items in the following list weren't produced in large enough numbers to effect the war, please tell me what the Allies had that would make them outdated.
1. PzKpfWg V Panther tank
2. MG 42 machine gun - still manufactured and used to this day as the MG3.
3. Sturmgewehr 44 Assault Rifle
4. Panzerfaust - the worlds first handheld throw away AT weapon.
5. Me 262A-1a - the worlds first jet fighter
6. Arad0 234 'Blitz bomber' - the worlds first jet bomber.
I could name others, such as the Type XXIII submarine, but i'll leave it at that for now.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 26
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Sunday, 1st January 2006
Germany. No question.
Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 27
Posted by Lord Ball (U1767246) on Sunday, 1st January 2006
As for outdated tactics and equipment I suggest you go back and study some more, the German armies infantry and panzer tactics were far in advance of anything any of the Allied forces were using, and indeed many of their methods were taught by those same Allied forces to their on troops in the post war era. Ìý
Actually, De Gaulle had been calling for separate armoured units like what Germany had for years before the War. Also, there were British Commanders calling for the same. I think Hobart was one of them, not too sure though. Eventually, the French realised too late that De Gaulle was right and decided to give him the command of one of the few exclusively armoured regiments.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 28
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Sunday, 1st January 2006
As for outdated tactics and equipment I suggest you go back and study some more, the German armies infantry and panzer tactics were far in advance of anything any of the Allied forces were using, and indeed many of their methods were taught by those same Allied forces to their on troops in the post war era. Ìý
Actually, De Gaulle had been calling for separate armoured units like what Germany had for years before the War. Also, there were British Commanders calling for the same. I think Hobart was one of them, not too sure though. Eventually, the French realised too late that De Gaulle was right and decided to give him the command of one of the few exclusively armoured regiments.Ìý
You are quite right that both in Britain and France there were individuals calling for German style armoured units, De Gaulle and Liddel Hart to name two, but it still doesn't alter the fact that pre WWII the French mentality to a future war with Germany was defensive in nature, hence the building of the Maginot line and the failure to invade Germany prior to May 1940, and that the mindset of the French and British command was that the tanks were their to support the infantry, and not as an offensive weapon in their own right.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 29
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Sunday, 1st January 2006
Slimdaddy101,
Whilst you make some valid points in your post I would disagree with some of them.
To start with France declared war on Germany in September 1939 and was invaded by Germany in May 1940, that means they had 8 months to get on a 'war footing' as you put it, they lost due to their own miltary incompetance not because they weren't prepared.
As for Greece, they too were already on a 'war footing' at the time of the German invasion as they had been fighting Mussolini's Italian forces.
As for outdated tactics and equipment I suggest you go back and study some more, the German armies infantry and panzer tactics were far in advance of anything any of the Allied forces were using, and indeed many of their methods were taught by those same Allied forces to their on troops in the post war era. With the possible exception of the American Combat Commands (which had their own formalised TO&E)which other army could put together Ad Hoc Kampfgruppes for specific missions.
As for equipment, whilst I realise some of the items in the following list weren't produced in large enough numbers to effect the war, please tell me what the Allies had that would make them outdated.
1. PzKpfWg V Panther tank
2. MG 42 machine gun - still manufactured and used to this day as the MG3.
3. Sturmgewehr 44 Assault Rifle
4. Panzerfaust - the worlds first handheld throw away AT weapon.
5. Me 262A-1a - the worlds first jet fighter
6. Arad0 234 'Blitz bomber' - the worlds first jet bomber.
I could name others, such as the Type XXIII submarine, but i'll leave it at that for now.
Ìý
You make some interesting coments, however I would like to take issue with some of them. Leaving aside France, Greece and the likes for just now, I would like to focus on the German tactics and equipment which you rate so highly.
Germany invaded Russia with essentially 2 armies, 1 small modernised army based on tanks and trucks, and a huge old-fashioned army dependant upon horses and railways. This was a deliberate decision from the 1930's to neglect the modernisation of a large part of the army in favour of developing a hard core of heavily armed mobile divisions. This allowed for large daily advances but slow deployment of the main forces. The German army invaded Russia with 6,000,000 vehicles and 700,000 horses. Many of the armeroured divisions were comprised of poor quality Czech tanks or the outdated Panzer II. The losses sustained in comabat were many times German expectation and by November 1941 the Germans had a mere 75,000 working vehicles from the original 6,000,000. Little thought had been given to the question of what to do if a quick campaign of annihilation failed. The German army needed to modernise in 1942.
Part of the German problem was the huge variety of equipment the utilised. Spare parts were hard to come by, repairs became a nightmare. Instead of concentrating on reliable, easy to mass produce, consistant arms the germans over-engineered. Producing an ever extensive range of equipment and spare parts.
You mentioned for example the Panther tank. Lets ananlyse that example. Hitler took a leading in developing them (as if he didn't have enough to do!) but instead of developing a tank that was easy to maintain and produce in large quantities, he demanded large, technically complex tanks of very great weight. The Panther could deliver enhanced firepower, but they were slow and unmanouverable and a liability on poor ground. There were too few of them produced and were too heavy and cumbersome to be used on anything but flat summer ground. For every 10 new type tanks produced only 1 spare engine and transmission were produced. The absence of heavy repair equipment or spares at the front meant that broken tanks had to be transported 2000 miles to be repaired.
I realise I'm talking too mush, so I will finsih by questioning the worth of the Me 262A-1a - the worlds first jet fighter. Just how was this a war winner? The resources invested in developing this were massive and with very little return on that investent. Again they were too few, too expensive, almost impossible to fuel (the high octane fuel was at a premium due to the Allied bombing campaign) Over engineering and diversification were a major flaw in German tactics.
Just before I go, the German battlefield tactics of 1942 were still stuck in a blitzereg fashion which served them so well. However Stalingrad and especially the Kursk proved that the Russians had evolved had adjusted their approach. Something the Germans found almost impossible to do. Especially with Hitlers WW1 outlook of fighting to the last for every bit of ground.
Where do you suggest I should start studying?Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 30
Posted by billy the ball (U2740765) on Monday, 2nd January 2006
high octane fuel -in a jet engine?Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 31
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Monday, 2nd January 2006
Of course the jet fighter didn't use high-octane fuel, it was late, I was tired. I also made a typo when I stated the Germans invaded with 6,000,000 vehicles. Of course I meant 600,000 vehicles. But I stand by my central theme; German armed forces pursued technical excellence for its own sake. By the late 1930's they had developed the weapons that would be used in WW2 They were now keen to move onto the next technical threshold to keep ahead of the arms race. At the outbreak of the war they were already at the very cutting edge of the world of jets and missiles. When the war came they tried to speed this process up, to win the war with the weapons of the 1950's. The upshot was a technical disaster; shortages of resources, constant political interference, the inherent difficulty of accelerating research work at the very forefront of science (especially under bombing offensive) all meant that the German army got little in terms of performance from the new weapons to match the great expense in producing them (the V1 and V2 killed 9000 Londoners, but the total tonnage of explosives they contained represented just 0.23% of the tonnage dropped on Germany in the same period. The V programme cost an estimated 5 billion marks and absorbed many thousand (slave) workers. Post-war, the American bombing survey group reckoned that with that outlay the Germans could have produced an additional 24,000 aircraft)
The Allies-except for the Manhattan project (a real war winner that everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten as they state how great the German army was) stuck with the weapons of the late 1930's and pushed them to their successful limits. When after the war they came to develop missiles, jets and advanced submarine technology etc they simply took the German scientists.
That Germany was without doubt a modern state by the standards of the 1940's, but her forces were deprived of the modern weapons and leadership they needed. Whilst German scientists pioneered the worlds most advanced weapons-rockets, jets and even atomic weapons- German forces lacked adequate quantities of the more humdrum petrol-driven equipment. Billions of marks were spent on projects at the very forefront of military science, which brought no strategic value whatsoever.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 32
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Monday, 2nd January 2006
Slimdaddy101,
Whilst you make some valid points in your post I would disagree with some of them.
To start with France declared war on Germany in September 1939 and was invaded by Germany in May 1940, that means they had 8 months to get on a 'war footing' as you put it, they lost due to their own miltary incompetance not because they weren't prepared.
As for Greece, they too were already on a 'war footing' at the time of the German invasion as they had been fighting Mussolini's Italian forces.
As for outdated tactics and equipment I suggest you go back and study some more, the German armies infantry and panzer tactics were far in advance of anything any of the Allied forces were using, and indeed many of their methods were taught by those same Allied forces to their on troops in the post war era. With the possible exception of the American Combat Commands (which had their own formalised TO&E)which other army could put together Ad Hoc Kampfgruppes for specific missions.
As for equipment, whilst I realise some of the items in the following list weren't produced in large enough numbers to effect the war, please tell me what the Allies had that would make them outdated.
1. PzKpfWg V Panther tank
2. MG 42 machine gun - still manufactured and used to this day as the MG3.
3. Sturmgewehr 44 Assault Rifle
4. Panzerfaust - the worlds first handheld throw away AT weapon.
5. Me 262A-1a - the worlds first jet fighter
6. Arad0 234 'Blitz bomber' - the worlds first jet bomber.
I could name others, such as the Type XXIII submarine, but i'll leave it at that for now.
Ìý
You make some interesting coments, however I would like to take issue with some of them. Leaving aside France, Greece and the likes for just now, I would like to focus on the German tactics and equipment which you rate so highly.
Germany invaded Russia with essentially 2 armies, 1 small modernised army based on tanks and trucks, and a huge old-fashioned army dependant upon horses and railways. This was a deliberate decision from the 1930's to neglect the modernisation of a large part of the army in favour of developing a hard core of heavily armed mobile divisions. This allowed for large daily advances but slow deployment of the main forces. The German army invaded Russia with 6,000,000 vehicles and 700,000 horses. Many of the armeroured divisions were comprised of poor quality Czech tanks or the outdated Panzer II. The losses sustained in comabat were many times German expectation and by November 1941 the Germans had a mere 75,000 working vehicles from the original 6,000,000. Little thought had been given to the question of what to do if a quick campaign of annihilation failed. The German army needed to modernise in 1942.
Part of the German problem was the huge variety of equipment the utilised. Spare parts were hard to come by, repairs became a nightmare. Instead of concentrating on reliable, easy to mass produce, consistant arms the germans over-engineered. Producing an ever extensive range of equipment and spare parts.
You mentioned for example the Panther tank. Lets ananlyse that example. Hitler took a leading in developing them (as if he didn't have enough to do!) but instead of developing a tank that was easy to maintain and produce in large quantities, he demanded large, technically complex tanks of very great weight. The Panther could deliver enhanced firepower, but they were slow and unmanouverable and a liability on poor ground. There were too few of them produced and were too heavy and cumbersome to be used on anything but flat summer ground. For every 10 new type tanks produced only 1 spare engine and transmission were produced. The absence of heavy repair equipment or spares at the front meant that broken tanks had to be transported 2000 miles to be repaired.
I realise I'm talking too mush, so I will finsih by questioning the worth of the Me 262A-1a - the worlds first jet fighter. Just how was this a war winner? The resources invested in developing this were massive and with very little return on that investent. Again they were too few, too expensive, almost impossible to fuel (the high octane fuel was at a premium due to the Allied bombing campaign) Over engineering and diversification were a major flaw in German tactics.
Just before I go, the German battlefield tactics of 1942 were still stuck in a blitzereg fashion which served them so well. However Stalingrad and especially the Kursk proved that the Russians had evolved had adjusted their approach. Something the Germans found almost impossible to do. Especially with Hitlers WW1 outlook of fighting to the last for every bit of ground.
Where do you suggest I should start studying?
Ìý
Slimdaddy101,
I would suggest that you start your studies by re-reading my post, because I was talking tactics, and by going on about the invasion of Russia you are not talking tactics, you are talking about Strategic and Operational decisions. Tactics are those methods carried out at Regimental level or below, especially at Company level and below. You said "Over engineering and diversification were a major flaw in German tactics." these are Strategic decisions not tactical decisions.
Before moving onto discuss Russia let's take you up on a couple of your other points made in reply to mine.
Panther Tank - I think that you will find that what you are talking about is the Tiger I & II tanks of which only 1843 were built, as compared to the Panthers 5976 total production run. Whilst the Panther had severe difficulties when first introduced at Kursk, these were quickly sorted out and it became arguably the best medium (if not the best all round)tank of the war.
Me 262a1-a - If you read my original post you will note that I said some of those on the list were to late to have any effect on the war. My list was made in reply to your ascertion that when the Germans "chickens came home to roost" they had outdated equipment.
Maybe you would care to post your own list of what equipment the Germans had that was outdated at that time.
And now onto Russia, I agree with some of what you said, so I will only deal with that that I do not.
Whilst I agree that the Panzer Divisions were equipped with many older models still, please tell me an Army that wasn't, and before you go onto mention the Russian T-34 and KV series I'll give you some figures and percentages.
Total number of German Tanks in Operation Barbarossa 3,332
Pz I - 410 (13%)
Pz II - 746 (23%)
Pz 38(t) - 772 (22%)
Pz III - 965 (29%)
Pz IV - 439 (13%)
Total number of Russian Tanks in service as of Operation Barbarossa 23,197
T37/38/40 - 4,222 (18%)
T26 - 11,000 (48%)
BT Series - 6000 (25%)
T28 - 500 (2%)
T34 - 967 (4%)
KV Series - 508 (2%)
As you can see the Russian tank force consisted almost totally of obsolete and older models just like any other.
Tank repairs- you give the impression that every single German tank that was hit/broke down had to be shipped back 2,000 miles, presumably to Germany, so let's set the record straight.
Tank repair sections were included in Panzer units at company, battalion and regimental level. Tank crews(as in all armies) were expected to make their own running repairs, only heavy work being undertaken at regimental workshops. Regimental workshops were equipped with mobile cranes and recovery vehicles and were a essential part of the German concept of independant mobile forces.
At Panzer Armee level their were workshop companies that undertook more difficult and time consuming work, amongst their equipment was heavy lifting gear.
The only tanks that were returned to 'home' workshops were those that required 3-4 weeks or longer to repair.
Alongside the Panzer Armee workshop companies were army motor transport parks and other specialist units allotted to Panzer units by OKH, these included tank spares and motor tyre depots.
On a last note I would be interested in your thoughts as to how you would have modernised the German army in 1942, and also how you think that the Russians had evolved their approach as regards Stalingrad and Kursk.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 33
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Monday, 2nd January 2006
I must concede I had no idea one mans tactics were another mans strategy. I used the term tactics when I discuss the German armies conduct in the war. You will forgive this indiscretion of mine I hope.
The first batch of Panthers sent into battle before development work was complete. All 325 of them had to be sent back to Berlin for modification of the steering and control mechanism; the Maybach engine proved inadequate and had to be improved making an already complex piece of military engineering yet more sophisticated.
The repair problem within the German army was as I mentioned before were a nightmare. One armoured division went into battle with 96 different types of personnel carrier, 111 types of truck & 37 different motorcycles. By November 1941 the same division reported 12% of its vehicles as roadworthy. Vehicle spares were not a top priority. The Reich placed much more emphasis on producing the whole product than a satisfactory ratio of spares, but the absence of standardisation and poor state of the long supply routes into Russia left a good many vehicles immobilised, forcing the German army to rely increasingly on horse-drawn artillery and long marches on foot.
Your list of Soviet tank figures is interesting (do you have a list of such figures for 1943/44?) (I have a source with slightly different figure 3,648 German tanks and an estimated 15,000 Russian tanks) Against overwhelming odds the German army cut vast swaths through the Russian tanks, bringing Russia to almost collapse in 1941.
Though the Soviets were numerically superior the German attack exposed fundamental weaknesses in the way they were used. The almost complete destruction of the mechanised corps allowed the Russian army to start from scratch. The new Soviet tank armies were equipped with the versatile, hard hitting T-34 and the heavier KV-1. Both were converted to diesel engines which improved the tanks radius by a factor of 3; they had wide tracks unlike most German tanks, to cope with the Autumn muds and winter snow and during 1943 the greatest defect was made good with the gradual introduction of a 2 way radio. At a stroke this improved the battlefield performance of the Russian tank arm. Handrails were welded on so that infantry could piggy back into battle) The KV was of course phased out to simply repairs and spare parts. The Red army learned quickly from its mistakes. In 1941/42 Soviet forces lost 6 or 7 tanks for every 1 German tank; by the autumn of 1944 the ratio was down to 1:1. I t wasn’t luck that brought this turnaroud it was the Russians catching up with the stagnating Germans.
At the Kursk, Rotminstrovs 5th Guards lost 400 tanks in 2 days of heavy fighting, but the repair crews returned 112 within hours. The German mechanics were practically impotent by then due to (dare I repeat) over diversification and lack of spare parts.
Another example of the Germans outdated equipment can be highlighted if we look at the German air-force. The Luftwaffe also lost its way. Responsibility for production and development was given to Ernst Udet, an ex stunt pilot (appointed on a whim of Hitlers, I believe). Udet was hopelessly out of his depth and insisted that all bomber aircraft, even 4 engine bombers had to have a dive –bombing capability. A requirement that set the German bomber years behind that of the Allies. With the exception of the Focke-Wulf 190, which proved to be of exceptionally high quality every one of the aircraft selected by Udet was a failure. The He-177 long range bomber, which Goering and Hitler wanted for attacks on Soviet industry and Allied trade routes was plagued by technical problems that stemmed from Udet’s dive-bombing order, and was never produced in any quantity. The new generation of medium bombers and heavy fighters, the Junkers Ju-288 and Me-210, were technical flops and were scrapped, but only after heavy investment of money and production effort. The replacement for the aging Stuka dive-bomber, the Hs-129, which was expected to match the Soviet Sturmovik, had to be withdrawn because its engines caught fire too easily and were so susceptible to the dust of the Russian steppe.
The failure of almost the whole range of new air designs forced the Luftwaffe to stick with older, proven models. But the damage was done. Production of older models was run down to make way for the new; a great deal of modern factory space and skilled labout was allocated to a production that never materialised.
Udet incidentally drank 2 bottles of Brandy in November 1941 and shot himself.
As for how I think the German army should have been modernized, I would have to muse on that a while longer. Perhaps that question is worth a thread of its own, although I would be curious to know if I have I convinced you of the German armies tactical (or is that strategic!) naivety and need for more effective modernisation.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 34
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Tuesday, 3rd January 2006
On a last note I would be interested in your thoughts as to how you would have modernised the German army in 1942
The modernisation of the Geman army had to start oat the very top. The very term tactics and stratagies when used to describe the third Reich become to a certain exctent interchangable. Hitler was the Commander in Chief as well as the head of state
A commander in chief is expected to defend the interests of his forces and too have contact with the trops. he must make many specific rulings-including matters of perconnel-must iron out the specific differences between the army at home and the army at the front. and make decisions on the questions of supply. Hitler had no time for this and no expert knowlegde, so that the actual post of commander in chief and become practically abolished. Hitler nefer fullfilled any of the functios; his inadequater training, his lack of contact with 1st line soldiers, his terrible treatment of officers, his disasterous hesitation on the one hand, and on the other his conscious gambling on the strenght of his 'luck'; his wilfull sacrafice of his soldiers lives and fundamentally immopral concepts, all the more appartent in his last few weeks means that any analysis of modernising the German army has to start with Hitlers removal. Of course this would never have happened. The July 20th plot only increased his paranoid behaviour and grip on power. Hitlers foreign policy was almost developed on an ad hoc basis and thought out with no clear rational. His constant political interferance and sticking his nose into the most trivail maters on the front meant that often Generals had NO STRATEGIC input, but left to organise general tacctics i.e Rommell in the West on D-day, 1944 had no authority to mobilize the reserve pazer force.
Churchills remark that as a leader of military operations Hitler was the best ally of the Allies is very true.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 35
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Tuesday, 3rd January 2006
I must concede I had no idea one mans tactics were another mans strategy. I used the term tactics when I discuss the German armies conduct in the war. You will forgive this indiscretion of mine I hope.
The first batch of Panthers sent into battle before development work was complete. All 325 of them had to be sent back to Berlin for modification of the steering and control mechanism; the Maybach engine proved inadequate and had to be improved making an already complex piece of military engineering yet more sophisticated.
The repair problem within the German army was as I mentioned before were a nightmare. One armoured division went into battle with 96 different types of personnel carrier, 111 types of truck & 37 different motorcycles. By November 1941 the same division reported 12% of its vehicles as roadworthy. Vehicle spares were not a top priority. The Reich placed much more emphasis on producing the whole product than a satisfactory ratio of spares, but the absence of standardisation and poor state of the long supply routes into Russia left a good many vehicles immobilised, forcing the German army to rely increasingly on horse-drawn artillery and long marches on foot.
Your list of Soviet tank figures is interesting (do you have a list of such figures for 1943/44?) (I have a source with slightly different figure 3,648 German tanks and an estimated 15,000 Russian tanks) Against overwhelming odds the German army cut vast swaths through the Russian tanks, bringing Russia to almost collapse in 1941.
Though the Soviets were numerically superior the German attack exposed fundamental weaknesses in the way they were used. The almost complete destruction of the mechanised corps allowed the Russian army to start from scratch. The new Soviet tank armies were equipped with the versatile, hard hitting T-34 and the heavier KV-1. Both were converted to diesel engines which improved the tanks radius by a factor of 3; they had wide tracks unlike most German tanks, to cope with the Autumn muds and winter snow and during 1943 the greatest defect was made good with the gradual introduction of a 2 way radio. At a stroke this improved the battlefield performance of the Russian tank arm. Handrails were welded on so that infantry could piggy back into battle) The KV was of course phased out to simply repairs and spare parts. The Red army learned quickly from its mistakes. In 1941/42 Soviet forces lost 6 or 7 tanks for every 1 German tank; by the autumn of 1944 the ratio was down to 1:1. I t wasn’t luck that brought this turnaroud it was the Russians catching up with the stagnating Germans.
At the Kursk, Rotminstrovs 5th Guards lost 400 tanks in 2 days of heavy fighting, but the repair crews returned 112 within hours. The German mechanics were practically impotent by then due to (dare I repeat) over diversification and lack of spare parts.
Another example of the Germans outdated equipment can be highlighted if we look at the German air-force. The Luftwaffe also lost its way. Responsibility for production and development was given to Ernst Udet, an ex stunt pilot (appointed on a whim of Hitlers, I believe). Udet was hopelessly out of his depth and insisted that all bomber aircraft, even 4 engine bombers had to have a dive –bombing capability. A requirement that set the German bomber years behind that of the Allies. With the exception of the Focke-Wulf 190, which proved to be of exceptionally high quality every one of the aircraft selected by Udet was a failure. The He-177 long range bomber, which Goering and Hitler wanted for attacks on Soviet industry and Allied trade routes was plagued by technical problems that stemmed from Udet’s dive-bombing order, and was never produced in any quantity. The new generation of medium bombers and heavy fighters, the Junkers Ju-288 and Me-210, were technical flops and were scrapped, but only after heavy investment of money and production effort. The replacement for the aging Stuka dive-bomber, the Hs-129, which was expected to match the Soviet Sturmovik, had to be withdrawn because its engines caught fire too easily and were so susceptible to the dust of the Russian steppe.
The failure of almost the whole range of new air designs forced the Luftwaffe to stick with older, proven models. But the damage was done. Production of older models was run down to make way for the new; a great deal of modern factory space and skilled labout was allocated to a production that never materialised.
Udet incidentally drank 2 bottles of Brandy in November 1941 and shot himself.
As for how I think the German army should have been modernized, I would have to muse on that a while longer. Perhaps that question is worth a thread of its own, although I would be curious to know if I have I convinced you of the German armies tactical (or is that strategic!) naivety and need for more effective modernisation.
Ìý
Hi Slimdaddy101,
I'll take your points in the order that you raised them.
By May 1943 324 Panthers had been built and the first time any Panthers saw action was at Kursk in July 1943 when 200 were available to Panzer Abteilung 10, and yes initially they did suffer from mechanical problems etc, but these were quickly worked out and the Panther went on to be a well respected vehicle. As to it's teething troubles yes it was rushed into service with problems, but this wasn't a problem peculiar to the Germans, the British had the same problem when they first introduced the Churchill tank, and the T-34 had problems initially, they were both mechanically unreliable, and one only has to look at the problems the modern British army had when they introduced the SA 80 into service, and that was in peacetime. As to German tanks being over engineered maybe they were, but then most British and American tanks would be classed as over engineered compared to Russian tanks and if it was a bad idea to over engineer then why post war did all the NATO countries over engineer their tanks (Chieftan, Leopard, Challenger, M1A1) compared to Russian tanks (T-54, T60, T62, T64, T72), we went for quality over quantity much as the Germans had.
This is where we agree on some issues not on others.
I know that with the increase in the size of the German army in preparation for Operation Barbarossa, especially with the doubling of the number of Panzer Divisions, that great use was made of vehicles that had been captured in France etc, and yes my the end of the year vast amounts of equipment were out of commission or had been abandoned during the retreat. As to your assertion that the German army had to increasingly rely on horse drawn artillery and long foot marches, well the Infantry divisions had always relied on them, as to the Panzer and Panzer Grenadier divisions, they never had or never were issued with Horse drawn artillery.
I don't immediately have to hand figures for 1943/44, but I do know that 3,463 Light tanks were manufactured by the Russians in 1943 so many of them would have survived into 1943 at least and at Kursk they still had some Matilda II's and Valentine's available from lend lease. Of the 23,197 tanks on hand in June 1941, 29% required a major overhaul and 44% required rebuilding leaving only 27%, about 7,000 tanks, as combat worthy.
It’s always a great advantage to be able to start something from scratch, rather than having to change organization part way through, so yes the Russians did benefit from losing their Mechanized Corps, of which those that were left were officially disbanded on July 15. The tank brigade organization that did away with the light tanks in favour of all T-34 equipped units came about in November 1943, the new tank units set up in 1942 still had a mixture of light and medium tanks. I’ve seen many discussions over the pro’s and cons of petrol/diesel engines so we’ll leave that one alone. As to the wide tracks, well the Russians new their weather conditions better than anyone, but you also have to take into account the lack of roads in Russia which meant most of the time they were operating across country, the Germans like all Western European nations had highly developed road systems upon which their tanks would operate.
As to the introduction of the two way radio, unlike all other Allied and German tanks which all had radios, only the Company HQ and platoon leaders tanks had radio’s so communication was still a major problem.
Well not all Russian tanks had handrails and at times all countries troops have been given lifts on tanks. Whilst it gave Russian tankers immediate infantry support in theory, it did have major disadvantages, the infantry were susceptible to losses from tank hits and artillery fire, and I’ve read many accounts where either the infantry were pinned down leaving the tanks to advance alone, or vice versa. I think it was a result of the Russians initially not having APC’s like the German SdKfz 250 or American M3 HT that they resorted to using tanks to carry infantry.
As regards the ratio of Tank losses the figures I have are a follows:
Soviet Losses
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
20,500 15,000 22,400 16,900 8,700
German Losses
2,758 2,648 6,362 6,434 7,382
Ratio – German:Soviet
1:7 1:6 1:4 1:4 1:1.2
So as you can see it wasn’t until the last few months of the war that German losses approached that of the Russians.
As to you mentioning Rotmistrovs 5th Guards Tank Army at Kursk, one unit in one battle taken in isolation doesn’t prove anything at all. But seen as you brought it up lets take a look at it.
Losses
5th Guards Tank Army -
TO&E On-hand Survived Total Loss
about 680 615 374 113 These losses are from the 11-14th July 1943 and the totals are for all armoured vehicles, that’s tanks, assault guns and armoured cars. The TO&E and On-hand figures also include about 212 tanks that belonged to the 5th Guards Mechanized Corps.
As to the German beings practically impotent by then (presumably Kursk) due to over diversification and lack of spare parts, well let’s take a look.
Diversification – well let’s take a look a the ‘wide’ variety of German tanks used at Kursk,
Pz II, Pz 38(t) - very few in number and no longer used in a combat role, not in production
Pz III – production ceased in August 1943
Pz IV – standard German tank
Pz V – first introduced at Kursk, became standard medium tank
Pz VI – used by Independent Heavy Battalions and Companies
I haven’t mentioned the Stug III because it had commonality of parts with Pz III or the Ferdinand/Elefant of which only 90 were ever built, and then they were built on the Porsche Tiger variant chassis that never went into production. So as you can see their were only 6 types of tank at Kursk, 2 of which were no longer in production and 1 which was about to cease production, not exactly a lot of diversification.
As to a lack of spare parts I assume you are equating this with heavy tank losses suffered by the Germans at Kursk, so let’s take a look at some numbers shall we.
Pz Gren Division Grossdeutschland had 132 tanks on 5th July 1943, on the 14th July it reported 40 tanks operational, there were 59 in short term repair(less than 14 days) and 14 in long term repair (more than 14 days). The total losses for the Division during Kursk were 13 tanks.
The II SS Pz Korps which were engaged with Rotmistrov’s 5th Guards Tank Army that you mentioned in your post, reported on July 21st total losses of 31 tanks for the period of Kursk( 5 Pz III’s, 23 Pz IV’s, 3 Tiger I) out of a total of 408 tanks.
As I’ve gone on for quite a while I won’t go on about the air force other than to agree with you that yes they wasted a lot of resources on aircraft design, a lot of which was wasted, I would however point to the fact that 30,000+ BF 109’s and 20,000+ Fw-190’s were produced so they did produce two very effective fighters in very large numbers and also the Me 262a1-a would have been a very effective fighter if produced earlier and without interference from above.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
-
Message 36
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Friday, 6th January 2006
I could not do better than Steelers 708 in evaluating the equipment available to the Russians and Germans during WW2,but i thought I'd toss in my tuppence-worth just the same and maybe add something that was overlooked.
So far, nearly all comments have concentrated on the armies and their equipment, and to some extent, rightly so. In that regard good points have been made. The German tanks were better than anything made by Britain or the US, but Russia had a still better one. Furthermore, the German ones were seriously flawed, as has been noted...and German equipment and machines had so many modifications and thus were so varied that spares were almost impossible to obtain in adequate amounts and repair was extremely difficult. My brother, who fought in a Sherman against both Tiger and Panther tanks said that they got stuck in ground that the Shermans could run through easily, and their turrets turned so slowly that if a Sherman ran at high speed past them, they couldn't train their guns fast enough to keep up...minor item, but at times, critical.
But let us not forget the aircraft produced by the allies. The Lancaster was one of the finest heavy, long-range bomber designs of the war and Germany never produced its equal -- or even a minor challenger. The American B-17 and B-24 were both heavily-armed, good, long-range bombers, and had Germany possessed anything comparable in 1940, they might have been able to complete Goering's plan to wipe out or neutralize Fighter Command. The Spitfire was the equal of the Me-109 but had trouble with the FW 190. The US P-47, in the right hands, could handle either the 109 or the Focke Wulf and could out-dive any fighter of the war. The US-built P-51 with the Merlin engine was better than either the FW-190 or the Me-109 and was able to range all the way to Berlin and back -- and fight over thei target. Again, had Germany possessed its equivalent, the air war could have had vastly different results. Both the FW-190 and the Me-109 had the same serious drawback -- lack of range...
The Me-262 and the rocket plane developed by Germany in 1945 were designs born of desperation and came along far too late to have any significant impact on the war in the air.
At sea, the German E-boat was far better than either the American or the British MT/PT boats, but aside from them, they had nothing but submarines to challenge the allied navies. And the allied ships and tactics available/used in 1944-45 drove the U-boat wolfpacks from the oceans.
The individual German army fighting units (squads, platoons, companies) were, IMO, better than anything the British, Americans, or Russians had, but they were handicapped by their high command, hence by 1944 could be beaten by equal numbers of allied soldiers mainly because of stupid yield-not-an-inch commands delivered by Hitler.
The Japanese really need to be considered also, and they haven't been mentioned so far. Like the Germans, they had serious high command problems, and the Bushido mind-set that was drilled into individual soldiers and thoroughly believed by most of the officers was the biggest difficulty they had to overcome. However, having talked to some Aussies and US marines who fought against them, they seemed to feel that the individual Japanese soldier was a murderous bloke to tangle with. To quote an ANZAC corporal I spoke with, they were ''the toughest little bastards I ever saw''.....an observation most marines and other Aussies seemed to feel was appropriate.
They wasted their men in foolish Banzai charges and the had a strange tendency to want to kill themselves when they felt they were on the verge of defeat. But they could endure, without complaint, privation that no European had to face and would accept conditions that European and/or American soldiers never would have.Link to this forum: During the majority of WW2, who do you think had the best armed forces?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.