Germans vs. West/Germans vs. East

[Major Tom]

What he is probably trying to state, is that not every Allied victory was decided on air power. There were many, especially smaller, engagements where the Allies fought Infantry to Infantry against equally, or even higher trained SS or German Army troops and prevailed. On the Macro scale the use of airpower was not the decisive aspect in the tactical part of warfare. Aircraft were best used by the Allies to defeat reinforcements, or movements of enemy troops behind the lines, they didn't have a direct impact on the battlefield as much is assumed.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dale, What history books are you reading from?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

G-

Well, G, relax a little, first of all.

And as far a 'bursting bubbles', well, let's not go there. I don't to waste a public forum's time and space with this tired subject. Feel free to email me at dalem@provide.net though, and I'll gladly lock horns with your interpretation of history.

-dale

[Guest Big Time Software]

The Western Allies managed to do pretty well against German forces even with the absence of airpower. Heurtgen for example. Yes, the Allies were bloodied quite badly, but look at the casualties for the Germans. Pretty horrible too. This is what I was talking about earlier. Seems the Western Allies, even when they "failed", still managed to cause the Germans quite a bit of harm. And because they were getting kicked in the teeth everywhere, this mattered. The Allies could take 50,000 casualties here and there, the Germans couldn't. So while the Germans got thinner and thinner due to losses, the Allied Armies and partisans became stronger. Only a matter of time for a situation like that to spell disaster.

Steve

[Gespenster]

Point well taken Steve ... Dale, there is no point to email you, if you have the thought in your head that Allied troops were so much better than German Troops, no matter how many facts and examples I give you, that is what you will always believe, therefore we would just argue forever. All I ask is that you please not post your thoughts on who was the better Army on this board and not expect someone to question you about it.

As far as I am concerned this topic is closed.

~G

------------------

"It is well that War is so terrible, lest we grow to fond of it"

Robert E. Lee

[Major Tom]

Hey, G vs D, remember, there are no absolutes in war. If German formations were defeated time and time again, then why did it take a year to get to Germany after the landings in Normandy? Also, airpower only aids a military land force, it doesn't make it. You saw on Fionn and Moon's AAR, a fighter-bomber killed 1 Panther, 1 StuG and a halftrack or two. Nothing too critical, much of the force was left untouched. In Normandy there was a VAST number of good and veteran SS and Army soldiers in the German army, plus, a large number of conscripts. The Allied army featured more Regular troops, with a fairly large proportion of Veterans. Rarely were Allied forces Elite, even airborne forces. To reach beyond Veteran status you (probably) have to actually get military experience on this type of terrain. Only a relatively few Allied units fought on Western European terrain (British in 1940, and a few Allied formations transferred from Italy). The Germans have been fighting in this type of terrain since 1939! Many of the troops were WELL trained for this area. Not to say that they were invincible. Many German small unit tactics were leagues beyond that of the Allies, but, they suffered do to poor Strategical tactics, which the Allies were better/luckier at.

Look at our CM games, the three scenarios have been won and lost by all sides repeatedly. There isn't one side that is the predominant victor over the other. The German army was good, so was the Allied army. Without air support the Allies would not have been outright defeated. With air support, the Germans wouldn't have been unbeatable. Invention is the mother of neccessity. The Allies didn't really NEED to create super heavy tanks as the Germans did (to compete with vast numbers of good Soviet tanks). Possibly if the war went badly for the Allies, better, and heavier tank designs would have been put into massive production. But, the Sherman, albiet modified, was able to fight on until the close of the war. Plus, the Heavier German tanks weren't designed for the offensive. Lighter tanks, which require less maintenance and tended to break down less (less stress on the engine to move a heavier body) and were able to move faster were a better choice for the Allies. King Tiger commanders DREADED going on the offensive, they moved too slowly, and once they move they make a good target (not hard to hit one of these!).

rant, rant, rant.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Well, I used to subscribe to the old "the Western Allies were dead without air and artillery" school of thought. After doing much more reading about the Western Theater (previously I was mostly researching Eastern Front) and playing a bunch of CM I can see that it all came down to circumstances. They favored one side or the other much of the time, but never only one side all the time. That is why the Western Front is so fun to play around with. Lots of possibilities for a good, clean, even fight with roughly normal troop balances.

So while air and artillery certainly made the Western Allies' lives easier, as did the needs and losses of the Eastern Front, the war was not won by simply bombing the crap out of the German front line forces.

Steve

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dale, there is no point to email you, if you have the thought in your head that Allied troops were so much better than German Troops, no matter how many facts and examples I give you, that is what you will always believe, therefore we would just argue forever. All I ask is that you please not post your thoughts on who was the better Army on this board and not expect someone to question you about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? How did I get to be the bad guy here?

G, I made a simple statement, you threw a bunch of half-facts and personal interpretations at me, I politely disagreed and offered to take the topic off-line for a discussion.

At no point did I ever type "...Allied troops were so much better than German Troops...".

I may or may not believe that to be true, but I certainly didn't type it.

Don't be so defensive, we're supposed to be having fun here.

-dale

[coe]

So what would be the major differences

between the (beatable) allies in the early

years as opposed to the later years?

Note that in the early years Allied tanks

were on par or better (Char and nor did

the Germans have air superiority.

Perhaps tactics changed? Howabout on the

small unit level?

[Major Tom]

On the small unit level, in 1940, many French units in both May and June fought as good, and sometimes better than their German counterparts.

The place of breakthrough in May 1940 was held by the 9th Army, full of third rate troops. Most of the good troops were occupied in Belgium, actually repelling German armoured attacks, or, in or behind the Maginot Line. The result of the bad showing of the Allies was the inability to put the good units in the regions that they were needed. Once the breakthrough was completed the Allies didn't have enough room, as in Russia, to pull back and consolidate. French troops on average in 1940 were better than Russians in 1941, 42, possibly even 43 and later. They just didn't have the room to manuver and react.

[dalem]

coe-

My research makes it pretty clear that the disproportionate victories of the German Armed Forces in West and East in the first couple of years were due to applying their strengths to their enemies' weaknesses, plus better preparedness. As has been pointed out, equipment-wise they were matched or outmatched by almost everyone in SOME area: the Poles, French, and British tanks were in many ways equal or better than their German counterparts, but weak tactics and doctrine prevented their optimal use, etc.

The German Army was suited to its doctrine.

BUT...

It seems that the German Army never really learned much, and, by and large, continued in its 1939 form, so when the '43-'44 battles took place against the Allies, it was mainly the same German Army doctrinally and structurally - bigger and better tanks, maybe, but the same Force Structure to use them in.

In contrast, the Western Allies, especially the U.S. Army, had a) the benefit of *time* to build an army, and the opportunity to make adjustments based on actual experiences of their British Allies (for instance); and the ability to make universal force and doctrine changes as conditions demanded.

The even simpler answer is that the Germans brought a knife to a stick fight and kept the knife when it turned into a gun fight. It's clear that the Allies, especially the U.S. Army, were simply superior *as an Army*, in all ways, by the end of '43. The German Army simply could not outfight the modern army concepts that the Allies brought to bear.

-dale

[Guest Big Time Software]

One huge difference that must be pointed out here is the level of training in 1940. Allied commanders were unpleasantly surprised by the quality of German 3rd line units. I remember reading some statements by British officers that rated the German 1st line better than most any Allied division, 2nd line generally equal to Allied 1st, and German 3rd line at least equal to Allied 2nd line divisions.

The other huge change from the Allied 1940 and 1944 Armies were their tactics and strategies. While some Allied units gave a good account of themselves in 1940, most were flat out beat. The concept of combined arms was the CORE of the German Armed Forces, but in the West it was still halfway inbetween that and WWI seperate arms tactics. But by 1944 the Allies had unlearned their old ways (for the most part) and adopted the German methods (for the most part). The Soviets and US forces did this as well.

The Germans did improve their tactics and strategies over time. It is probably the only reason they lasted as long as they did. No, they didn't come up with a new revolutionary method of warfare, as they employed in 1939-1941, but who has? The modern armies of today still use the German system in spirit if not in actual tactical practice. Point here is that there was no good counter balance to the system they employed other than doing it with more/better forces. Obviously this wasn't really an option by 1944.

BTW, one tactical form of warfare the Germans learned during the war was forest warfare. They pretty much sucked at it until they learned (the hard way) from the Soviets and to some degree from their Finnish allies. On the operational level the Germans constantly evolved their methods of defense agaisnt a superior force.

So I guess I disagree that it was only the Allies that learned lessons. The failure of Germany to win is involves larger issues.

Steve

[dalem]

Steve-

You are correct. I re-read my post and I have obviously only hit one factor. And I was mistaken in stating that that the Germans didn't learn *anything*.

As you say, coe's original question involves many complex issues. In trying to disprove the 'knee jerk' response of "Jabos! It was the Jabos!" I knee jerked my own prejudice in there.

Fun topic, though.

-dale

[Guest Big Time Software]

Your comment about the knife to a gun fight is correct. The only thing is that the Germans knew that they should bring a gun but all they could find around the house was a knife. Either someone took their gun (bombing and losses) or they made a mistake and forgot to buy one prior to the event (not ramping up industrial base).

My point is that if you had given the 1944 German Army 5000 Panthers fresh off the assembly line WITH PLENTY of gas to fuel them and thne 1000 interceptor planes (complete with trained crews) they would have known what to do with them. The fact that the Germans managed to do so well inspite of their obious material and human shortages is why we all sit here and talk about them so long after the fact

Steve

[found some logic typos ]

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-14-2000).]

[Gespenster]

Amen ...

------------------

"It is well that War is so terrible, lest we grow to fond of it"

Robert E. Lee