A couple of statistics

[Andreas]

Originally posted by 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 ?

No. It is not a beauty contest Tero, and I do not give a flying monkey's who won the pissing contest of 'I killed more than you'. I think that if you want to get an idea of relative operational capabilities, you are best off leaving the total outliers such as Barbarossa and the last two months in the Reich out, since they completely skew the picture, without adding any information of value - it is not at issue whether the Wehrmacht stomped the Red Army in 1941, or whether the reverse happened in the last few months of the war. We know that.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Not that it would add much to the German total, but doesn't the counter-offensive that captured Kharkov a third time count? There is also the attacks against the Kiev bulge in late '43.

The former is in, the latter I am not so sure that the Red Army had lost the initiative by as much as they had during the former, so I would not count it as German offensive period. If you get my drift.

[Andreas]

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>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by DrD:

Can we imagine what would have happened had Hitler not started playing General? A breakout from Stalingrad, panzers on the beach at Normandy, who knows?

No Fall Gelb Sichelschnitt? No Weseruebung? No El Alamein? Dunkirk taken?

It works both ways.

Panzers on the beach in Normandy would not have changed things, except for some British infantrymen who would have died on the beach rather than near Caen.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

the part of the article i quoted dealed with individual soldiers, so the scale was company level and below. i think most of the posters here agree that Germans were extremely good on this scale. perhaps not 1:7, but still extremely good.

operational level is a world apart and deals with entirely different subjects.

i find the comments on early war a bit strange. German early war victories were real against-the-odds achievements and certainly not something to write off just as expected success against very bad opponents.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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! </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i find the comments on early war a bit strange. German early war victories were real against-the-odds achievements and certainly not something to write off just as expected success against very bad opponents.

Can we write it off as unexpected success against very bad opponents?

[Becket]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i find the comments on early war a bit strange. German early war victories were real against-the-odds achievements and certainly not something to write off just as expected success against very bad opponents.

I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that in the comment about France. France is such a strange case. In many ways it's the foundation for the legend of the Wehrmacht. But at the same time, the situation is so poorly understood. Most people, for example, don't realize that the Maginot line worked in many ways exactly as intended by keeping the early battles in the low countries. (If I had a dime for every joke about how the French were stupid and had no idea that the Germans would "just go around it" .) Also, the tales of the French conquest tend to play up the acts of men like Rommel and downplay the acts of Gamelin & Co.

I think this topic is far too complex for the easy application of titles more appropriate to football teams, like "best ever" and such.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by DrD:

And the French? Wasn't their army top-notch in terms of men, equipment, training?

Good lord no. Many of the men were overaged reservists, and both they and new conscripts were poorly trained by any standards. Much of the equipment, especially the artillery and at least half the tanks were left over from the First World War and were inadequate for the times. Perhaps worst of all, their leadership sucked giant rubber donkey dicks.

In perhaps another year's time, some of the shortfall in men and equipment could have been made up. I am less sanguine about the leadership.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by DrD:

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

Not to dispute that the German tactics were indeed better, but the claim that the Char B1 was "better than the German armor" is naïve and narrow in its thinking. While the French tank had thicker armor, that armor had vulnerabilities that the German tankers could and did exploit. Even more serious, the AT gun of the Char was mounted in a two-man turret which seriously limited its usefulness. All the German tanks had radios, which greatly eased the problems of coördinating combat, whereas the French only had them in platoon commanders and up. A platoon leader could only signal to his subordinates by exposing himself to fire, and then hope that they had noticed him.

Again, the French were fighting under severe handicaps.

Michael

[Andreas]

One man turret.

[Becket]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

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

Not to dispute that the German tactics were indeed better, but the claim that the Char B1 was "better than the German armor" is naïve and narrow in its thinking. While the French tank had thicker armor, that armor had vulnerabilities that the German tankers could and did exploit. Even more serious, the AT gun of the Char was mounted in a two-man turret which seriously limited its usefulness. All the German tanks had radios, which greatly eased the problems of coördinating combat, whereas the French only had them in platoon commanders and up. A platoon leader could only signal to his subordinates by exposing himself to fire, and then hope that they had noticed him.

Again, the French were fighting under severe handicaps.

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

One man turret.

Ack! Even worse than I thought.

Michael

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Perhaps worst of all, their leadership sucked giant rubber donkey dicks.

Michael

I fail to see how this can be the reason for the fall of France.

[DrD]

I read a great book once called "Strange victory" by Ernest May that covers alot of this France vs. German stuff. A nice summary from the Amazon site follows. I highly recommend this book.

While May give the French leadership much of the blame, he also talks about their over-confidence, how no one believed that the Germans could win. They were wrong, and this is my point, that the Germans were much better than anyone thought.

The above points about the Maginot line are also covered in this book, the Maginot line was basically a force-multiplier, so that a long border could be held with relatively few troops. The fact that the Germans went around it meant it worked exactly as intended.

EXCERPT:

The collapse of France before the German onslaught of 1940 was not, as many historians have argued, the result of the Wehrmacht's absolute superiority or the terrible fury of blitzkrieg. Indeed, writes Ernest May in Strange Victory, France had more soldiers in the field than did Germany, their arms were evenly matched in many categories and superior in many others, and the German army was far from fearless. What carried the day for the Nazi invaders was a greater imaginativeness in planning. France and its allies "made no effort to understand how or why German thinking might differ from theirs," did not allow for surprise, believed that their defenses would shield them, and in any event paid little attention to the intelligence that their spies brought them, including irrefutable evidence that German forces were massing along the little-defended border with Lorraine, avoiding the heavily fortified (and, May allows, highly effective) Maginot Line.

The Allies soon overcame their lack of common sense, May continues in this penetrating study, while in the wake of his French victory, Adolf Hitler "became so sure of his own genius that he ceased to test his judgments against those of others, and his generals virtually ceased to challenge him." The outcome is well known. Still, May suggests, Hitler's comeuppance does not diminish the lessons to be learned from the fall of France--notably, that bureaucratic arrogance, a reluctance to risk life, and a reliance on technology over tactics will quickly lose a battle. Students of realpolitik, no less than history buffs, will find much to engage them in May's book. --Gregory McNamee--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

[DrD]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

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

Not to dispute that the German tactics were indeed better, but the claim that the Char B1 was "better than the German armor" is naïve and narrow in its thinking. While the French tank had thicker armor, that armor had vulnerabilities that the German tankers could and did exploit. Even more serious, the AT gun of the Char was mounted in a two-man turret which seriously limited its usefulness. All the German tanks had radios, which greatly eased the problems of coördinating combat, whereas the French only had them in platoon commanders and up. A platoon leader could only signal to his subordinates by exposing himself to fire, and then hope that they had noticed him.

Again, the French were fighting under severe handicaps.

Michael </font>

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by DrD:

What carried the day for the Nazi invaders was a greater imaginativeness in planning. France and its allies "made no effort to understand how or why German thinking might differ from theirs," did not allow for surprise, believed that their defenses would shield them...

The original invasion plan called for a limited-goals version of the Schlieffen Plan used in 1914. Hardly "imaginative". Like the old saw goes, "every army trains to re-fight it's last war". In this case, the French were right. It was only at the last minute (due to an intelligence compromise) that Hitler approved Manstein's "Sickle Stroke".

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by DrD:

The B1-bis was the main battle tank of the French army in 1940. Considered one of the most powerful and advanced tanks in the world, it was hampered only by it's low speed and cost of production. .

You fail to mention the Char B's most glaring Achilles Heel: The very noticable, very vulnerable, external radiator mounted on the left-rear hull. German gunners learned very quickly to aim for this soft spot.

[Becket]

Originally posted by DrD:

I read a great book once called "Strange victory" by Ernest May that covers alot of this France vs. German stuff. A nice summary from the Amazon site follows. I highly recommend this book.

You should counterpoint May's book with Julian Jackson's (superior, IMO) Fall of France, which includes a critique of May's work.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by DrD:

You don't have to agree with me, but I'm not sure why you characterize my thinking as "narrow" and "naive."

Let's try this: WHY do you believe that the Char B1 bis was superior to the German tanks? If you have a reason, I'm willing to hear it. I gave my reasons for why I believe that overall it was not a superior design. Will you not show me the same courtesy?

I am hardly alone in my opinion that the Char B1-bis was superior to the German Pz I, II, and III's that made up the invasion force.

That is true. I've read those kinds of statements many times. Invariably they were written by people who looked no further than to note that the B1 had thicker armor and a bigger gun, and there their analysis ceased. I call that naïve and narrow thinking that has but little to do with why it is easier to win battles with some tanks than with others.

So disagree if you will, but don't dismiss, because although I'm hardly always right I do not blow smoke (except on weekends.)

I'm not accusing you of blowing smoke. I do suggest that you have not yet learned enough on the subject to realize how difficult it can be to make judgements on a topic that is highly complex and very contingent on circumstances. I'd say the same thing about a lot of people who have written books about tanks.

Michael

[Tero]

Originally posted by 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.

Other interesting stats:

The US ETO forces lost ~90 000 men to trenchfoot and frostbite in the winter of 1944-45.

[Tero]

Originally posted by roqf77:

how much of the allies better performence over the campaign was down to being better supplied?

The only yard stick I can think of is operation Market Garden. The Allied plan (in retrospect) sucked big time but the supplies were ample enough to sustain the operation as planned. The Germans on the other hand were little better off than they had been post Falaise Cap in terms of forces and supplies.

In general the Allies were better supplied all the way the autumn of 1944 (operationally speaking). They had to stop to restock when the overburdened supply system could not sustain anymore grand scale offensive operations.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

No. It is not a beauty contest Tero, and I do not give a flying monkey's who won the pissing contest of 'I killed more than you'.

IMO the pissing contest is (or should be) really about "how many bullets/shells/bombs/other assets I needed to kill yours than you had to use to kill mine".

I think that if you want to get an idea of relative operational capabilities, you are best off leaving the total outliers such as Barbarossa and the last two months in the Reich out, since they completely skew the picture, without adding any information of value - it is not at issue whether the Wehrmacht stomped the Red Army in 1941, or whether the reverse happened in the last few months of the war. We know that.

Agreed. It would be easier to debate the relative efficiency of the republican Roman army vs the Gauls (or the Goths) since there are less passions involved.

The "problem" as I see it is the "Allies" (and the Germans) can not let go of ideas like:

1) Nazis were evil - no contest

2) Allies won the war - no contest

3) Allies won the war through far superior strategic resources - no contest.

There may be more arguments which predispose people to think that the ultimate outcome of the war has bearing in the debate about the relative efficiency of different forces in tactical/operational level.

Nobody thinks ill of Napoleon and his strategies and tactics in the operational level. It also seems OK to think highly of Rommel and his tactics and operational skills.

Why is it so hard to extend tolerance to the rest of the German army in the realm of operational and tactical performance ?

The Red Army was every bit a tool of an evil regime the German armed forces were. Why is it OK to think highly of them in the realm of operational and tactical performance ? It seems to be OK to criticise the Red Army for poor performance. Even against the Germans. Why is it seemingly so hard to admit the Western Allies may have performed worse than the Germans ?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i find the comments on early war a bit strange. German early war victories were real against-the-odds achievements and certainly not something to write off just as expected success against very bad opponents.

Can we write it off as unexpected success against very bad opponents? </font>