The Germans, historical Bad Boys or just really cool guys?

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

The German army was made for hollywood by a bunch of propagandists that knew their business. We see so much propaganda from WWII related to the Reich because this is the only media that survived, unlike the, in comparison, frank treatment the allies got. The Germans were presented as these amazing, well-armed, well-trained, Aryan supermen because that's exactly what Nazi Germany wanted to present. Compared to what we know about the Allies, even considering the amount of censorship that went on during the war, we get an incredibly favorable bias toward the German army.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right on the button. You say "German Army in WWII" and everyone is thinking about Panzer units... yet in REALITY the majority of the German Army marched on its feet and was drawn by horses. The German military made sure that hardly any pictures included these "unspectacular" units. Propaganda has become "history" in some folk's minds.

Cav

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holdit:

Don't forget the uniforms, lads. The Germans definitely won the style war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bah! What army goes into battle were a dress uniform!

Seriously, the allies had much more practicle uniforms as a whole.

Cav

[tss]

Wayne wrote:

the manpower ratio on the Eastern Front was about 5 to 1 against the Germans and they managed to almost defeat the Russians and hold them off for 2 years.

Only in memoirs of German generals. After July 41 Germans had a numerical superiority at front until December 41. The Soviets had then a 3:2 superiority until late '44 when they first time achieved 2:1 superiority.

And about pretty impressive victories: the Iasi-Kishinev stategic offensive on August 1944. Germans lost 275000 men KIA and MIA and the Rumanian army surrendered. Soviets lost 13197 KIA and MIA plus 53999 WIA. Even with adding 30% unreported casualties for the Red Army, the result is still better than 16:1 irrecoverable casualty ratio for Soviets. Disregarding German wounded (because I don't have a slightest idea of their number. However, that figure was probably pretty insignificant as most were captured) while counting Soviet ones leads to 3:1 casualty ratio favoring Soviets (with the 30% inflation).

Considering only the casualty reports, the ratios are 21:1 and 4:1.

That operation was one of the best examples of blitzkrieg in the whole war. The small losses of Soviet forces is mostly explained by the fact that usually vast majority of Soviet casualties occured during breakthrough battles. This time they had made a deal with the Rumanian troops facing them so that they would offer only a token resistance.

- Tommi

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL:

Dont forget the US was fighting a GLOBAL war. The germans were just trying to survive in Europe. You really think it would have taken us a year to get into Germany if we didnt have so much wrapped up in the navy and ground forces in the pacific (which takes up a good portion of the earth, mind you)?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make a point that is often over-looked. Germany gets many "kudos" for fighting a two-front war but America was fighting a two front war that was even more spred out than Germany's.

Cav

[Spook]

Responding to your latest comments, ScoutPL:

Well I could rant on and on about some of the obviously political responses I got for posting this question but I'll refrain.

I will adress the rest though. One of the things they teach history students is you have to remain objective. Dont get drawn in by the propaganda, the "personal" accounts, etc. Look at the cold hard facts.

Agreed 100%. Of course, there is always the trap of using facts selectively to make a case and put a bias to it. COMPREHENSIVE & balanced factual overview is more elusive to achieve, requires more effort, and may take years or decades to accomplish. But objective historical analysis requires this.

I have learned from seven years in the US Airborne and two armed conflicts and a lifetime of reading military history that success on the battlefield has very little to do with who has the coolest uniforms or the snappiest names for their tanks. When taken at a tactical level I think the germans and americans were much the same, but their influences were different which caused some minor differences. German tank design was heavily influenced by the action on the eastern front. Heavy guns, heavy armor. US tank design was influenced by the cavalry mystique. Light, fast tanks and TD's designed to use mobility and speed to fight the enemy. Most CM players dont have a very good grasp of how to use US armor so they sit them on top of hills and ridgelines and watch them brew up.

Agree & disagree. Many gamers DO gravitate to “cool uniforms/tanks”; look at the CM HQ site and see the relative weight of German to Allied “3rd Party mods”. But it remains for separate, more extensive debate than in this post about the tactical similarities & differences between the Allies & Germans, taken on equipment, organization, & tactical doctrines for the usage of squads, platoons, companies, & battalions. But as you say, ScoutPL, the CM gamer has to learn the tactical nuances on how to use his equipment.

I guess my argument would go along the lines of I enjoy playing the allies so much because in actuality they were just better warfighters. The early german successes have been amply discussed and explained. The germans had been preparing for war for years and had plenty of practice in their little takeovers prior to Poland. The US, hoping to remain neutral didnt really get started until Jan. 1938. The draft wasnt instituted until Oct. '39, and that was just for 1 year enlistments! Two years later we landed on the North African coast and then school really started! What is amazing to me is the guys who had stayed in the army after WWI were able to take this massive source of manpower and technology and harness it and mold it into a force that could win on the modern battlefield in just a couple short years. Could the Germans do that? I doubt it, they're way to stiff and practical in their thinking. Otherwise their would have been many more atttempts on Hitler's life/power.

I enjoy playing the allies because quite often in CM THEY are the underdog. Most often you get a couple companies of leg infantry, 4 or 5 shermans and some arty. The germans have a much wider and varied list of equipment, alot of it tailored to specific types of combat. The allied player has to take what he has and make it fit ANY situation. There in lies the challenge for me and the awesome realization that these guys did it for real everyday for a year in western europe, and won against a very well equipped/trained army. (Dont think this is a correct statement? Read some of the posts above.)

Dont forget the US was fighting a GLOBAL war. The germans were just trying to survive in Europe. You really think it would have taken us a year to get into Germany if we didnt have so much wrapped up in the navy and ground forces in the pacific (which takes up a good portion of the earth, mind you)?

In that first sentence, it is still HOTLY debated as to who was the better warfighter on a tactical level. I certainly don’t agree with it on face value, but defer from a long blown-out discussion on WW2 ground tactics in this post. (Maybe later on instead. )

There is a good point, though, to all at you’ve added afterwards, ScoutPL. When one gets into a big discussion as to “who were better warfighters in WW2”, one has the PERSPECTIVE to look beyond just the tactical picture and look at all of the other added levels by which WW2 was fought. Take by further example the conduct of the “Air War” with Germany. The Luftwaffe is, like other German arms of WW2, the stuff of legend, holding out against multiple fronts and achieving remarkable tactical successes on many occasions, with top-scoring pilots far outpacing the highest scoring Allied aces (the top Allied pilot being Kozebdub <sp> of the Soviet Union). But the Luftwaffe never evolved effectively for strategic use, while the UK & US were able to deploy both MULTIPLE strategic & tactical air forces in 1944. And for both the UK & US, their air forces in 1944 didn’t just win by “mass”---they both were manned with high-quality aircrews and used with increasing proficiency & tactics to the point that the Luftwaffe couldn’t cope anymore.

And herein comes the point to my reply. For any of you gamers out hoping to use CM results & trends to assess “who was better” at WW2 warfighting, I say that you’re engaging in an exercise in futility. You COULD get some insight only on who had relatively better tactical proficiency & equipment for a certain period of WW2, but that’s it. CM is a TACTICAL game of WW2 ground warfare, but on the earlier noted point of PERSPECTIVE, assessing the WW2 nations on warfighting ability can NOT be done on the tactical level alone. It has to be done on all levels---the tactical, grand-tactical, operational, strategic, and for air/land/sea.

Someone cited earlier that Modern-day “TacOps” draw from German WW2 doctrines more than any other nation. That’s a good example of GRAND-TACTICAL or OPERATIONAL level, and there’s a case to be made here that the Germans were usually better in this regard, in their ability to form “kampfgruppen” with a central command and matched/organized for a grand-tactical mission.

But on the flip side of the coin, UK/US artillery consistently outperformed the German artillery in WW2. This wasn’t due to the German gunners being poorly trained in 1944---they were proficient and could operate with a high degree of flexibility. But the UK/US gunners, with their own unique methods and better communication nets, demonstrated even better flexibility & fire control, and could get more guns concentrated to fire on a single target area at the same time (e.g., Time on Target) than the Germans usually could. Recall the “Valley of Death” scenario in the CM demo with the added number of US artillery spotters? Those aren’t common in predesigned CM scenarios due to obvious effect on game balance, but historically, that’s what the Germans often had to deal with.

So again, don’t use CM alone to make “national assessments” on WW2 warfighting ability. There are too many other levels to warfare to also consider in such a debate.

[tss]

CavScout:

Seriously, the allies had much more practicle uniforms as a whole.

In particular, the German uniforms were terrible during the winter. Their northermost army corps (I can't remember its number, the one that tried to attack to Murmansk) got hit by a sudden snow storm in September 1941 and lost its fighting capabilities for a long time. They had the additional problem that the supply officers were situated at Oslo, over 1000 km South to Petsamo, and they didn't realise that the Arctic winter was already approaching.

- Tommi

[Randy Mauldin]

Someone earlier said the reason most people like to play the Germans is because they like to win. ScoutPL hit the nail on the head when he stated that quite often in CM the Allies are the underdogs. So all this talk about how the Germans are to be admired because they were the underdogs, doesnt wash in CM. Someone else said they admired the Germans because they were defending their homeland. Well the defence of their homeland wouldn't have been nessacary if they hadn't started the war in the first place! And as far as the Germans being cool because they are the "bad guys" that's funny. The German people may have been mislead but no one goes to war unless they believe they are right in the eyes of God or their own form of diety. No one goes to war saying "we're going to be the bad guys here". But I'm not here to flame anyones opinion, you bought the game-play who you like for whatever reason you like.

I've been playing wargames for over 30 years now, and I've always wondered about this facination with the Germans too. I've played with guys who absolutly refused to play anybody but the Germans. I simply quit playing them. I've always felt that to be good at any wargame you have to be able to win with either side. You can't say you are good at CM if all you do is play one side or the other. You must be able to overcome the weaknesses of you nationality you are playing and play on its strengths.

I guess I'm different from most wargamers because I really think that the most interesting army in WWII was the Americans. Obviously part of that is because I myself am an American but these men and women who had lived thru the depression, and then fought a world war (along with their allies), how the whole country came together, just facinates me. Its a time in history that will probably never be repeated (thanks goodness) again.

P.S. The Americans uniforms ARE cool. And the Sherman tank is not ugly. Not too ugly anyway....okay its ugly but it works...when its not on fire......when there are a bunch of them around.....and no Tigers......

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

It wasn't MY company..It was the Armys' or so they told me.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Who is us Scout? & yes the USA was fighting a global war, & we agreed to a Germany 1st policy as the focus of Allied efforts. Germany was fighting a 3 front war even if it was only in Europe with less manpower, material & resources. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Opps! US was afighting a two front war as well... so the Germans must have... ah yes, they were fighting on THREE fronts!!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Yes I do think it would have taken that long, as air superiority had to be achieved etc, before any invasion could be considered viable. On the other hand when would the Allies have considered a landing in Europe had Russia been defeated?.

How long would the war have lasted had the Germans been able to concentrate all their resources + Russias against the US & UK? how would the war have fared had the invasion took place in 1942 or early 1943?. This is not meant to glorify the German military or cause, but to point out the war was not won by any single Nation's contribution or military, it was won by an concentrated Allied effort. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One word... ATOMICS.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

ppl here have dismissed or ignored German victories vs France, Poland, Russia etc, as if they have no merit, as if these battles were against inferior nations of no consequence etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And people dismiss the German losses in an even more dramatic fashion! "You see the Germans were fighting against multiple enemies..." I wonder if Poland is given the same excuse. "You see the Germans were fighting against more people than they had." I wonder if Denmark or the Low Countries are given that excuse.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The truth is Russia alone bore the brunt of the war for 3 years, the US & UK etc, used the time Russia bought them with blood to build up their military, and eventualy invade Europe against an already weakened nation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A nation that was AT WAR, unlike the German invasions of Russia, Poland, Denamrk and others.

Cav

[TankDawg]

On the west coast here, so excuse the delay.

I can NOT beleive how many people still buy into that 'sheer weight of force' argument.

"The Allies won due thier superior force and numbers." Wrong! Remember, most all the history written on WW2 up until recently was by German officers who time and time again tried to explain HUGE tactical mistakes and poor leadership by saying "We would have one if it were not for the 5:1 odds against us."

Allied Jr. Officers and NCO's were just as competent (if not more) than their German counterparts time and time again.

If you like playing the Germans because of their cool toys, fine. But don't give me this 'better leadership' and underdog stuff.

You want underdogs? Play the US in Mortain, Bastogne or Eindhoven. Play the British at Pegasus Bridge or Arnhem.

Just please, please stop saying the Germans lost due to sheer numbers.

Rant mode off.

[Panzer Man]

Being American and of German descent, I enjoy

both sides.And I certainly agree with the statements about the Americans fighting on two fronts as well.The only thing that you have to take into consideration here is that the American Factories and Supply routes were not being Bombarded.If you cannot halt the supply lines you are in trouble.And no other Nation could match the US's industrial might.The reason the Allies didn't end the war earlier in Europe was because the Supply lines were too long.The Armored Divisions didn't have enough fuel to drive on.

Now, if Hitler never invaded Russia.... they might be speaking German in France today.

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

"If Patton were alive today,he'd play Combat Mission."

[RMC]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TankDawg:

Just please, please stop saying the Germans lost due to sheer numbers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. The allies won. Therefore they were superior in all respects to the axis except in numbers of men. Allied soldiers were more intelligent, braver, nicer, sweeter, more wholesome, more trustworthy, more educated, had less stinky feet, fewer bunions, fewer head lice, better hair cuts, better teeth and were just all around super swell guys. And all that stuff about detroit is nazi propaganda. At no time did the superior logistics capability have a bearing on the outcome of the war. Basta.

[DarkSkinny]

The German Military of WWII showed great insight into the art of war. If you look at modern 1990+ American Equipment you can see the base that it came from. Even some of the earlier equipment is copied from the Germans. The M-60 GPMG is copied from the German MG-42(a cheap copy but a overly complex MG like it's predissessor. All of you guys with those 19D user names (cav scout, scoutPL) need to look at your Kevlar helmets, the M1 family of tanks, our close air doctrine, the number of radios in units. It all shows how the Germans were ahead of there time. Even other nations copy alot from them the AK-47, the tripod on the British version of the Mag-58. What about North Africa for a series of battles who out numbered who? Who was afraid of the Desert Fox. Both sides fought on the Defense as well as the Offense who lost more men and equipment. As far as the fight to the last the average soldier kept fighting under very hard conditions. You should read Forgotten Soldier for an acount on the Russian Front. How about an expantion for CM on the course of the entire desert war, I would buy that!

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

Brett Wilson SGT.CA Guard

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC:

And all that stuff about detroit is nazi propaganda. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hell, if you believed Nazi propaganda America wouldn't have been ready to fight for 5 years!

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gregory Deych:

To whoever it was that said that Russians outnumbered Germans 5 to 1 - that is so wrong, it's not even funny. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets look at this abit below are some examples of the German Russian Force correlation by year* on the Eastren Front Russian in ( )'s :

22 June 1941 1:1.4 - 3,050,000 EF, 67.000 Norway 500,000 Finns, 150,000 Rumanians total includeing Satalites: 3,767,000. (2,680,000 Westren MD, 5,500,000 including other Districts).

1 Dec 1941 1.23:1 - 2,700,000 EF 67,000 Norway, 500,000 Finns, 150,000 Rumanians, total includeing Satalites: 3,407,000. (4,197,000 Fronts)

7 March 1942 1.34:1 - 2,500,000 EF 67,000 Norway, 450,000 Finns, 140,000 Rumanians, 300,000 Hungarians, & Italians, total includeing Satalites: 3,470.000 (4,663,697 Fronts, 397,978 hospitals, 9,597,802 toatal).

5 May 1942 1.52:1 - 2,500,000 EF 80,000 Norway, 450,000 Finns, 500,000 Rumanians, Hungarians, & Italians, total includeing Satalites: 3,580,000 (5,449,898 Fronts, 414,400 hospitals, 8,950,000 total).

7 June 1942 1.42:1 2,600,000 EF 90,000 Norway, 430,000 Finns, 600,000 Rumanians, Hungarians, & Italians, total includeing Satalites: 3,720,000 (5,313,000 Fronts, 383,000 hospitals, 9,350,000 total).

7 Oct 1942 1.62:1 - 2,490,000 EF 100,000 Norway, 430,000 Finns, 648,000 Rumanians, Hungarians, & Italians, total includeing Satalites: 3,638,000. (5,912,000 Fronts, 476,670 hospitals, 9,254,000 total).

9 July 1943 1.71:1 - 3,403,000 EF 80,000 Norway, 400,000 Finns, 150,000 Rumanians, Hungarians, & Italians, total includeing Satalites: 3,933,000. (6,724,000 Fronts, 446,000 hospitals, 10,300,000 total).

27 July 1943 1.86:1 - 3,064,000 EF 80,000 Norway, 400,000 Finns, 150,000 Rumanians, Hungarians, & Italians, total includeing Satalites: 3,694,000. (6,903,000 Fronts, 354,000 hospitals, 10,547,000 tota .

14 Oct 1943 2:15:1 - 2,498,000 EF 80,000 Norway, 350,000 Finns, 150,000 Rumanians, Hungarians, & Italians, total includeing Satalites: 3,068,000 (6,600,000 est, Fronts, 10,200,000 est total).

the highest ratio overall was 4.10:1 on 8 May 1945. Of course this doesn't represent the corolations actualy achieved in Soviet offensive buildups or in attacks on a small frontage where local Soviet corelation often achieved 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 in men & similar superiority in AFVs etc.

*See Glantz David, House Jonathan, When Titans Clashed p. 301 - 303.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the feild".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

What gave me a certain admiration for germans.

The common knowledge of WWII goes a bit like this here in finland.

1. Germans were evil nazis, Hitler was their leader.

2. Hitler wanted to kill all the jews, so the americans had to fight him. The british helped a bit.

3. As the movies so well show it, the americans had to fight against overwhelming odds.

They prevailed because they were morally superior.

4. Germany also had some sort of skirmish against the russians.

[This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 10-10-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Jarmo, that's being a bit heavy handed isn't it? I thought the stoush between Germany & Russia was more like an argument and not nearly as serious as a skirmish. Oh, & of course we all know that it was the Americans that won the war for the Allies singlehandedly going by what Hollywood "realistically" portrays.

Regards

Jim R.

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Oh, & of course we all know that it was the Americans that won the war for the Allies singlehandedly going by what Hollywood "realistically" portrays.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I am sure locally made movies don't "prop-up" their own country's participation in WWII.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

And people dismiss the German losses in an even more dramatic fashion! "You see the Germans were fighting against multiple enemies..." I wonder if Poland is given the same excuse. "You see the Germans were fighting against more people than they had." I wonder if Denmark or the Low Countries are given that excuse.

A nation that was AT WAR, unlike the German invasions of Russia, Poland, Denamrk and others.

Cav

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your point Cav? I poiint out the same analogy used by you can apply to the Germans & you find fault with it and point out the front diference why? you see no merit it pointing out how long the Germans held out despite the odds? or that the US was in no such predicament nor doew we have anything to compare a similiar US situation to or that I personaly make no excuses for the Germans, read material, ppl point out the same as above not as an excuse but as a example of why the German armed forces are still 50 + years later garnishing an interest.

Atomics? what part do they play?, their use still would have been in the same time frame as historicaly, and they dont provide us any examples of US tactical superiority etc.

Could you elaborate on the above and your points & provide us examples, then maybe more ppl will see, where your comeing from instead of the constant snips about how unfairly you feel the US etc, is portrayed in wargames & lumping ppl into German this or that pro German group etc, instead start showing where US forces & equiptment was far superior point out errors, in texts etc, this will go alot father then your uber German bashing.

Personaly I think the US soldier was equal to & superior to the Germans, I also have pointed out despite its obselesence by 1944 the Sherman & her crews defeated German uber tanks etc on a daily basis and IMHO was a great tank for the role it was designed for, Ie, explotation & Infantry support.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the feild".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-10-2000).]

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

And your point Cav? I poiint out the same analogy used by you can apply to the Germans & you find fault with it and point out the front diference why?.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Why are German losses "excused" for "X" reason when the German victories in many places had the loser when the same "X" reason that the Germans later claim as their reason for losing?

I have a problem with the "Deutschland wurde betrogen" crowd when many of Germany's own victories were in conditions that Germany later found itself in.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Atomics? what part do they play?, their use still would have been in the same time frame as historicaly, and they dont provide us any examples of US tactical superiority etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone saying the Allies couldn't win without Russia, which this point was refering to, over-looks these weapons.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Could you elaborate on the above and your points & provide us examples, then maybe more ppl will see, where your comeing from instead of the constant snips about how unfairly you feel the US etc, is portrayed in wargames & lumping ppl into German this or that groups etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you familure with the German invasion of the countries mentioned? Do you know history?

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

Are you familure with the German invasion of the countries mentioned? Do you know history?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Cav I have no knowledge of history whatsover, please enlighten me.

We had atomic wpns in 1941? WOW I did not know this darn. Now we can dismiss the Russian involvement totaly & prove US superiority hell we didn't even need Allies they just held us back, damn someone shoulda told Great Britian & Russia to get outa the way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Anyone saying the Allies couldn't win without Russia, which this point was refering to, over-looks these weapons.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone ignoreing the importance of the other nations contributions or downplaying it isn't going to see my point either. So let me understand this, Germany conquers Russia, their is no atritional warfare for 4 years, their is no bulk commitment of German troops in the East, the US sets back waits till August 1945 & nukes Berlin and waits for someone to sighn the armistance.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the feild".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-10-2000).]

[TankDawg]

Hi JOhn,

I think what CavScout is trying to say is this: (here comes a sports analogy)

If in football, you beat a team that was playing without its 2 star players due to injury, and then later in the season you lose a game because YOUR 2 star players were injured, you can not whine or complain about "we only lost because of our injuries."

The Germans won many battles in 39-41 for the same reason they lost many a battle in 44-45.

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

Jeff Newell

TankDawg

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TankDawg:

Hi JOhn,

I think what CavScout is trying to say is this: (here comes a sports analogy)

If in football, you beat a team that was playing without its 2 star players due to injury, and then later in the season you lose a game because YOUR 2 star players were injured, you can not whine or complain about "we only lost because of our injuries."

The Germans won many battles in 39-41 for the same reason they lost many a battle in 44-45.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo.

[Tiger]

Something else to think about:

"There were many aspects of the internal policy of Nazism which were disliked by professional soldiers, but General on Seekt, the creator of the Reichswehr, had adopted the principle that the army should remain aloof from political affairs, and his view was generally accepted. No German officer liked the antics of the "brown men," and their attempts to play at soldiers aroused laughter and contempt."

"It is a matter of regret that Gestapo officers and party officials soon raised a barrier between the occupation troops and the civil population; their complete lack of consideration and ruthless conduct alienated many potential friends. Unfortunately these officials lacked culture and education- the foundation of successful work in a foreign country."

I'm not trying to absolve the German Army from their actions in WWII, but the above quotes offer some insight on the other side of the coin. Something to think about when the popular Hollywood vision of "evil German soldiers" is spouted.

[Maj. Bosco]

I think it's kind of interesting to note someting about the definition of underdog.

When a 10 man german infantry squad with bolt-action rifles (never mind the ubiquitous MP44) faces american infantry with M1 semi-auto rifles they are the underdog.

When a Sherman Tank faces a King Tiger it is German tactical and doctrinal superiority.

When allied air support was succesful Germany couldn't help it because they were the underdog.

When the Luftwaffe was succesful it was German tactical and doctrinal superiority.

When CavScout says that the US was fighting on X fronts, the Germans suddenly fight on X +1 fronts.

That last one is just to note that as much as Cav and some other fellow Americans on this board argue with a slight bias some of the people arguing for the Germans do too. I think that when PzKpfw 1 posted that Germany fought on three fronts he was refering to Italy? America was in Italy too. We were fighting a war on three fronts then too. One of those fronts bigger than all three of Germany's fronts combined.

The others are just examples of a slightly biased attitude I've seen. If the allies were winning battles it's because they could afford to hurl themselves into the battle with no repercussions and if the Germans win it was their doctrinal and tactical superiority combined with the superiority of their troops. If that isn't straight out of Joe Goebbels scrap book then it resembles something there damn closely.

In WWII, and especially in CM the Germans were on par with the allies at a tactical level until the very end. Actually, in CM at the very end the Germans are doing better infantry-wise than they were in '44. Just look how many MP44's there are. I've been kinda curious about those numbers to tell the truth... That's another thread though. In CM and in real life engaments of the CM level the Germans often had better equipment, prepared defenses, better tanks (on a tank to tank basis naturally, I actually consider the Sherman a better tank for dealing with infantry. Three machineguns y'know). There were cases where boys too young to really be soldiers were pressed into service, but the German army also had a large core of lifers. The American army was working with a mainly citizen army. If anyone was the underdog on the tactical level it was the Americans. Once again I'd like to point out that the above statements refer to CM and engagments resembling CM engagments. I'm not going to bother to get the qoute but BTS said that these engagements are meant to be even and are therefor times when allies were suffering from equipment shortages etc...

Strategically there were major screw-ups on both sides. Germanies are all well-known. They're repeated every time some one asks "Well, if they were so much better why didn't they win?". I think the point is that The allies didn't make strategic mistakes they couldn't recover from. Part of it was luck but part of it was skill. By that yardstick the allies come out looking a lot better on a grand tactical and strategic level don't they?

Finally, for the endurance of German practices in modern armies. I'm not in the military so I don't know too much about this one. It would seem to me, though, that if one is too fight wars by acheiving massive local superiority (esp with armor) that most tactics are going to be some variant on German tactics since that was their goal too. German tactics and their variants aren't the only ones that have been succesful. America fought a couple of wars in SE Asia and learned that one.

Well... that's my two cents.

{Rant Ends Here}

[General Panic]

Bombadier wrote:

<HR>

<BLOCKQUOTE>"It is also a little known fact that the official language of the US was almost GERMAN!!!"</BLOCKQUOTE>

<HR>

It's actually a well-known urban legend with no basis in fact.

"A proposal before Congress in 1795 merely recommended the printing of federal laws in German as well as English, and no bill was ever actually voted upon."

http://www.snopes.com/spoons/fracture/german.htm

[This message has been edited by General Panic (edited 10-10-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

RE: Atomics -

I don't think there was even a slight possibility of the US dropping atomic weapons on Germany. Others have made this point much better than I, but I'll lay it out: the war against Japan was of a fundamentally different nature than the war against Germany. Racial and cultural differences were perceives as so great, that all other concerns of fairness, humanity, morality, were wiped away by a consuming desire to win. Studies were done which determined that a significantly smaller percentage of Americans fighting in the Pacific had moral compunctions against killing Japanese than Americans in Europe did against killing Germans. The war in the Pacific was significantly more brutal than the war in Europe, and that brutality made it possible to consider using a weapon of such extraordinary brutality as the atomic bomb.

In contrast, Americans of German descent made up a large percentage of the American population. IIRC, in 1914 1/4th of all Americans claimed some degree of German descent. After WWI, German emigration to the US increased, and then fell off again after 1933, so I can only assume that that percentage remained stable or even grew slightly. Hell, half of the guys who designed the A-bomb were German. I believe that if it was likely that the Nazi atomic bomb program had moved quicker, and if Hitler either used or threatened to use atomic weapons against the Allies, then the US would have retaliated in kind. But that is a what if, and a moot point. The US simply would not have nuked Germany otherwise.

And, as John pointed out, we most certainly did not have atomic bombs sitting around in 1939, or 1941, or June 1944.

You cannot argue that the US did win or could have won the war on its own. Winston Churchill wrote after the war that "England provided the time, America provided the money, and Russia provided the blood." And I think that's a good quote with which to end this post.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-10-2000).]