A couple of statistics

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DrD:

True, but the bulk of the German army was in the USSR, and for the almost 4 years of that war it was on the offensive as much as the defensive (give or take a few month.)

I don't think that is quite correct.

Major German offensive periods (no pun intended):

June 22 through Dec 6th 41 - 5.5 months

mid-May through mid-November 42 - 6 months

February 43; July 43 - 2 months

Total 13.5 months

Major Red Army offensive periods (ditto):

December to January 41 - 2 months

May 42 - 1 month

November to February 42/43 - 3 months

August to December 43 - 5 Months

january - February 44 - 2 Months

July to October 44 - 4 months

January to March 45 - 2 months

April 45 - 1 month

20 months total

Rough calculation, of course, also ignoring that the initial Barbarossa offensive was across the front, while later offensive periods on both sides were not. </font>

[Zimorodok]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Number of allied planes downed over Wisconsin as a direct result of enemy action - 0

Number of Bolivian warships sunk by U-boats during the period Sept '39 / May '45 - 0

Total number of axis bombs dropped on Victoria Island, Canada - 0

Bolivian Navy? I thought Bolivia had to give up their Blue-Water navy (i am acknowledging that there still is a Bolivian Navy of River boats)after the Guano War.....

Zimorodok

[DrD]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DrD:

Very true, but what are your thoughts on the overall level of performance of the German army? Do you contend that their reputation as being one of the finest armies ever is overblown? Is it a little overblown or very overblown?

Haven't come to a conclusion yet, I have only been thinking about it for a few years now. </font>

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike:

An old "Strategy and Tactics" mag compared the rates of advance of hte Germans towards Paris in WW1, WW2, and the Israeli advance across the Sinia in 1967 - the WW1 Germans were the fasest IIRC.

I think the WW I figure concerned their advance across Russia and Ukraine. But this was after the Russian collapse and was accomplished by loading soldiers on trains and chugging across the country against little or no opposition.

</font>

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lord Peter:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike:

An old "Strategy and Tactics" mag compared the rates of advance of hte Germans towards Paris in WW1, WW2, and the Israeli advance across the Sinia in 1967 - the WW1 Germans were the fasest IIRC.

I think the WW I figure concerned their advance across Russia and Ukraine. But this was after the Russian collapse and was accomplished by loading soldiers on trains and chugging across the country against little or no opposition.

Michael </font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by CSO_Talorgan:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by roqf77: [QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> but weren't the WW II

British hamstrung by lack of egalitarianism?

.

what do you mean?????????????</font>

[roqf77]

i agree with john, the problem was with the shermans gun mainly. The firefly and the us 76mm gun fixed that plus with improvements of ammo and the like the gap was closed, remember the us produced 50k plus shermans to germans 7k panthers and tigers and that doesnt include other british tanks and the us m10's and the such the germans were getting swamped with allied tanks and they did nothing to try and stop it. they would of been better of copying the allies(as the russians were swamping the germans with t-34's) and mass producing the mark 4.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by DrD:

There is no doubt that the German army was evenly matched throughout the war.

No. It is very clear that for the first two years of the war, the Germans were fighting nations that were seriously unprepared for war. Also, many of them were significantly smaller nations that could not have been expected to resist indefinitely even if their armed forces been in tip-top condition and their populations united in hardened determination to fight. And those were the years when Germany's atacks were mostly succeeding with the drama that so enamours a certain kind of wargamer and history buff.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mike:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike:

An old "Strategy and Tactics" mag compared the rates of advance of hte Germans towards Paris in WW1, WW2, and the Israeli advance across the Sinia in 1967 - the WW1 Germans were the fasest IIRC.

I think the WW I figure concerned their advance across Russia and Ukraine. But this was after the Russian collapse and was accomplished by loading soldiers on trains and chugging across the country against little or no opposition.

</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by DrD:

I was reading Keegan's "6 Armies in Normandy" (again) and he presented a good quote from Montgomery: "there is no doubt that they (the Germans) are the most wonderful soldiers."

Certainly. I doubt anyone means to deny that. The 20% edge that DuPuy and others quote is probably as good a generalization as can be made. But that's all it is, a generalization. Most of the Heer and most of the Paratroops proper were very good. The Luftwaffe field divisions and much of the SS were very poor. Even the quality of many of the soldiers in Heer formations declined noticeably in the last six months of the war. This should come as no surprise in a country that is scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel and flirting with collapse.

Michael

[rleete]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

and flirting with collapse.

Flirting? Hell, they were bent over the table yelling "take me now, big boy!".

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pzman:

No, no France 0... Britian US, Canada, Aussies, etc... 2.

How did you figure that one? France wasn't beaten in WW1 </font>

[Becket]

Originally posted by DrD:

Do you contend that their reputation as being one of the finest armies ever is overblown?

How does one even attempt such an analysis? How do you compare post-Marian legions with Napoleonic armies with the Wehrmacht? I don't mean to poke fun - I seriously don't think it's really possible to perform the comparison suggested by "finest armies ever."

In any event, I find the discussion of just how good they were to be quite interesting. Once you strip away the old stand by arguments about how great the generals were (had they not been hamstrung by Hitler, don't you know), once you look at some of the deficiencies of said generals (like Rommel's failure to appreciate logistical and operational complexities in North Africa), the picture gets muddier.

Another interesting point in these discussions is that they tend to ignore the Pacific theater entirely. Hard to find many threads debating the fighting abilities of the IJA. Too bad, really. What makes an army "one of the finest ever"? Fighting spirit? Ferocity? Tactics? The Soviets held the IJA in somewhat high regard; consider that they placed high value on someone being a veteran of Khalkin Gol.

But I digress and the scotch makes it hard to write in a way intelligible for anyone but myself.

[Becket]

Originally posted by DrD:

Can we imagine what would have happened had Hitler not started playing General? A breakout from Stalingrad...

Question: How were they going to break out of Stalingrad given the forces that Rokossovsky & Co. had in reserve to stop them? How does Paullus escape criticism in the analysis of the Stalingrad debacle? How do to the failings of German intelligence to notice the buildup get off scot-free? That's just Manstein talking....and he had no true idea of the forces that were arrayed to stop any breakout.

[DrD]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DrD:

There is no doubt that the German army was evenly matched throughout the war.

No. It is very clear that for the first two years of the war, the Germans were fighting nations that were seriously unprepared for war. Also, many of them were significantly smaller nations that could not have been expected to resist indefinitely even if their armed forces been in tip-top condition and their populations united in hardened determination to fight. And those were the years when Germany's atacks were mostly succeeding with the drama that so enamours a certain kind of wargamer and history buff.

Michael </font>

[DrD]

Originally posted by Becket:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DrD:

Do you contend that their reputation as being one of the finest armies ever is overblown?

How does one even attempt such an analysis? How do you compare post-Marian legions with Napoleonic armies with the Wehrmacht? I don't mean to poke fun - I seriously don't think it's really possible to perform the comparison suggested by "finest armies ever."

In any event, I find the discussion of just how good they were to be quite interesting. Once you strip away the old stand by arguments about how great the generals were (had they not been hamstrung by Hitler, don't you know), once you look at some of the deficiencies of said generals (like Rommel's failure to appreciate logistical and operational complexities in North Africa), the picture gets muddier.

Another interesting point in these discussions is that they tend to ignore the Pacific theater entirely. Hard to find many threads debating the fighting abilities of the IJA. Too bad, really. What makes an army "one of the finest ever"? Fighting spirit? Ferocity? Tactics? The Soviets held the IJA in somewhat high regard; consider that they placed high value on someone being a veteran of Khalkin Gol.

But I digress and the scotch makes it hard to write in a way intelligible for anyone but myself. </font>

[DrD]

Originally posted by Becket:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DrD:

Can we imagine what would have happened had Hitler not started playing General? A breakout from Stalingrad...

Question: How were they going to break out of Stalingrad given the forces that Rokossovsky & Co. had in reserve to stop them? How does Paullus escape criticism in the analysis of the Stalingrad debacle? How do to the failings of German intelligence to notice the buildup get off scot-free? That's just Manstein talking....and he had no true idea of the forces that were arrayed to stop any breakout. </font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Err, please read what you quoted again. In both cases the desasters that really related to strategic factors are substracted in order to understand better what really went on when they met under 'fairer' conditions, and to get an idea of operational capabilities.

So, just to even out the playing field, any and all actual non-bodily harm related casualties (POW/MIA) no matter what the time frame and what the opposing forces can be disregarded as they do not give a "fair" idea of their operational capabilities ?

[Becket]

Originally posted by DrD:

The French Chars were much better than the German armor, but through superior tactics the Germans prevailed quite handily.

Another interesting question. Superior German tactics or bloody awful French decisionmaking? The Dyle plan was completely untenable at the time Gamelin elected to employ it, the underpinnings for its use having been completely stripped away. Couple this with the disastrous decision to place aging, poorly equipped reservists at Sedan and you have the makings for an unprecedented military disaster.

As for preparedness in general, it is fair to say that the English, French and post-purge Soviet military leaders were all preparing to fight the last war and failed to appreciate the developments in the intervening period. Marshall Tuchachevskii did appreciate these, but did not survive past 1937.

[Tero]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Depends what you're looking at. If you're comparing the Germans and the Western allies, including the Russian losses is a bit peculiar as the allies never had the opportunity to rampage unchecked into an unprepared, underequipped, untrained and huge army on the same scale as Barbarossa.

That is irrelevant, actually. There are detailed studies which single out the German losses in the West against the Western Allies. And there are detailed studies on the Eastern Front as well.

Looking at losses differential is only relevant when comparing the two forces in question.

Agreed.

The Stats at the beginning of the thread seemingly pits the entirity of the Allies against Germany. In reality, the Allies fought against the Italians, the Romanians, Hungarians, Vichy French (Briefly), the Finns and the Japanese.

That works both ways, actually. The minor Axis/co-belligerent losses are either calculated in or not depending on who is doing the research and to what purpose.

For example in the case of Soviet/Russian studies on their war against the Finns they often cite the entire number of the Finnish casualties between 1939-1944 while they cite only their guestimate losses for 1941-1944 or in some extreme cases only the number of losses between 1943-44. The Soviet figures have been considerably skewed since the accepted figure of RKKA KIA for Winter War was ~48 000 while the actual number is in the order of 130 000. (The Finnish estimate used ever since the end of the Winter War for the total number of RKKA KIA was/is 200 000 BTW.)

Conversly the Finnish studies have had to use Finnish intelligence sources to determine the RKKA casualties because until very recently the "official" Soviet/Russian figures have been pretty bogus.

Either way it is (too) often argued that because of these "discrepencies" it is impossible to determine actual losses on either side in any given battle/operation/campaign. Which is not strictly speaking accurate since the data on Normandy for example does not leave too much in dispute. What is more, it seems to me that whenever the figures start to look a bit dubious and against the Western Allies the "who won the war again" and the "strategic level" cards are played to divert the attention from the fact the ratio of actual KIA is very often close to or better than 1:1 in favour of the Germans.

The fact the majority of the German losses in 1944-45 were MIA/POW does not make it any less evident that in the "bang for the buck" cathegory the Germans seem to have been more cost effective than the Western Allies.

And just to dissolve the neo-Nazi argument against me I must point out that, based on the casualty exchange rate figures the Germans lost to the Finns in the "bang for the buck" cathegory. And in case you like to point out the Finns lost the war then I I like to point out that the only warring capitals in Europe not occupied by enemy forces at any stage were Moscow, London and Helsinki.

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I dimly recall that towards the end the Red Army and the Wehrmacht inflicted similar numbers of casualties on each other.

How dare you suggest the Slavic sub-humans were a patch on the Aryan super soldiers! Get with the starry-eyed Wehrmacht worship program you dolt!

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DrD:

There is no doubt that the German army was evenly matched throughout the war.

No. It is very clear that for the first two years of the war, the Germans were fighting nations that were seriously unprepared for war. Also, many of them were significantly smaller nations that could not have been expected to resist indefinitely even if their armed forces been in tip-top condition and their populations united in hardened determination to fight. And those were the years when Germany's atacks were mostly succeeding with the drama that so enamours a certain kind of wargamer and history buff.

Michael </font>

[David I]

Here's another intersting stat: The Germans, on the Western Front alone, executed approx. 5,000 men for desertion or derilection of duty between June 6 and December 31, 1944. That'll keep you in the trenches and fighting! The US executed 1, the Brits ?, but not too many more.

It got even worse on the Eastern Front in '45.

Schroder was known as the Hanging General. Volksturm kiddies and old men not up to snuff? Hang a few hundred and the rest will get the idea.

Great!

DavidI

[roqf77]

my dad works at the mod and apparently according to one file they have its not top secret obviously) he said something like half of all mg 42's captured by the british in normandy had run out of ammo and been abandoned. Not a very efficient way to run a campaign man for man germans may have been better equiped but not so well supplied. On the whole it was not very fair but the germans were broken in normandy took 2-1 losses about half were captured so casulties were about 1-1. numbers whise i belive the germans actualy had the advantage for a while. the german troops may of been more effective on there own but how much of that is down to there improved equipment? how much of the allies better performence over the campaign was down to being better supplied? the only way to tell would bew reverse the situations i guess

[Sergei]

Originally posted by roqf77:

my dad works at the mod and apparently according to one file they have its not top secret obviously) he said something like half of all mg 42's captured by the british in normandy had run out of ammo and been abandoned.

Does that tell us something that we can draw conclusions from? No, unless we know how many MG-42's were captured out of how many and why they had run out of ammo.

Take, for example, a MG company that is ordered to withdraw from positions, but has lost so many of its men that it can't take all the weapons and all the ammunition along or it would be slowed down too much. So it's decided that one gun is left and all the ammo that can't be carried will be used to cover the withdrawal. Then, when the British approach, all they see is a MG-42 that has burned through all its ammo and so they conclude that it was abandoned because of running out of ammo.