So are German forces "better" on average?

[Vark]

But when the Germans used massed air power and artillery it was all part of their genius for organisation and tactical skill, same old same old. They lost, get over it!

[ChrisND]

Dare I say that you sound a lot like the Allied masterminds who we may thank for the destruction of the abbey of Monte Cassino and its historical treasures? Hint: it wasn't a great tactical success...

Well, he did say a HILL, not a priceless Abbey. One solution does not fit everything, do I actually have to spell this out?

[Broken]

Exactly! A King Tiger was an awe inspiring beast! But when it was broken down on the side of the road or out of fuel, it wasn't much good!

The King Tiger is fun, but in reality it was a waste of engineering and manufacturing resources. The attrition rate due to breakdown and lack of fuel was appalling. In the Ardennes Offensive, particularly in KG Pieper, the Royal Tigers had a higher attrition rate to all causes than either the Panther or even the Mark IV. It was just too massive a lump of metal for the engine technology of the time.

Kind of like Shaq O'Neal: great to have if you can ever get him out on the court.

[Battlefront.com]

But when the Germans used massed air power and artillery it was all part of their genius for organisation and tactical skill, same old same old.

Heh... this point is ALWAYS lost on a person who argues that material advantages automatically means a lack of quality. As you say, by this logic the Germans were tactically inept, timid, and cowardly in their invasions pre 1941.

If anybody here has been paying attention to my posts over the last 12 years you'll know that I don't believe this, nor do I believe the Western Allies were the same way. By 1944 the Germans were in advanced decline, the Allies were either at their peak or just getting started.

It's always a fun argument to have, but it's an argument that never gets resolved.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I recall my grandfather, who served in both wars, mentioning that as far as Canadians went, there were few who would underestimate a German soldier, but the reason for so doing might surprise all of you who are trying to find an empirical/doctrinaire/material basis for evaluation...

The 'better soldier in the field' wasn't one who followed orders nor followed a particular philosophy, but rather was able to improvise quickly and reliably, in all situations. The Germans, by dint perhaps of their training methods and experience (and shortages of equipment) improvised extremely well, in just about all circumstances that he could recall.

No denying that. But the inverse is not necessarily true, that nobody else improvised as well or better. In fact, the German veterans constantly ranked the Soviets VERY high in regards to these skills. The Americans, in particular, can make a strong argument for having an extremely fast rate, and willingness, to change their tactics and strategies to fit conditions on the ground. As I said earlier, the US Army went from a backwards, impoverished unmechanized rump of a force to victors over Germany in just 3 years WHILE actively engaged in warfare on both sides of the globe. The nature of both wars, and their enemies, were radically different... and yet they won on all fronts in all theaters. Hard to imagine the Americans were able to do this by dumb luck or just because they had superior numbers.

This, sad to say, was contrasted sharply with HIS view of US forces. He felt that having so much material means at their disposal, rendered American troops somewhat 'soft'. To the Canadian army, "capturing that hill" meant devising somewhat of a set of stunts/schemes, working together, to capture a hill. From what he told us (long ago)..."taking that hill" to the US army meant 'blow the crap out of it'.

Al Qaeda says the same thing about the Americans today. Using one's strengths vs. the others' weaknesses is not a sign of weakness or softness, it's a sign of intelligence. Or do you support the notion that Indiana Jones should have fought that master swordsman with his bull whip instead of his pistol to prove himself a man?

This not offered as proof, merely anecdotal evidence that perhaps the German Army might be considered as somewhat more of a crafty foe in the field for precisely the reason that:

-regardless of the philosophy of their 'nation state' and politics, they found themselves embroiled in a conflict that had them face a variety of enemies with different means and resources, on no less than three fronts simultaneously, and managed to fight for 'parity' for a long time, and this in the face of great air superiority....

Granted the Germans managed to take their strategic blunders and tread water based on nearly pure determination for a while, but ultimately it was their cumulative strategic and operational folly that lead to their downfall more than anything else.

Also, let's not get into trying to prove a negative. Can you prove that the United States would not have fared as well as the Germans under similar circumstances? Remember the United States was not only fighting on multiple fronts, but also opposite sides of the planet AND being on the offensive for almost the entire time.

I think the thought experiment of "what would happen if all things were equal" is obtuse. Offered herein is the simple question: "what other army of the time would have lasted as long and fostered as much success?"

Soviet Union and Great Britain come immediately to mind. We can't say for sure about the US because it won most of its battles it fought and therefore didn't put itself into such a horrible position that the Germans put themselves in.

Quality of workmanship and militarism have long been "characteristics" of the German people.

Some would argue this is why they lost.

Really, I think we'd have done well to poll veterans of ww2, not armchair philosophers and technicians. My .02

I've read such surveys and the opinions are all over the place. The German soldiers tend to have opinions that reflect the points in time they fought against the Western Allies. Opinions ranged from thinking the Americans couldn't tie their shoes without a howitzer, all the way to high levels of respect. The ones with the most experience fighting against the US were the interesting ones. They tended to comment on how quickly the Americans learned from their mistakes and that made them quite unpredictable.

Remember, the quality of the German fighting force changed over time too. The opinion of the fighting quality of the Waffen SS in Poland and France 1939/40, even by German Heer opinions, was low. They made up for their tactical ineptness with blood. Some of that was rivalry, for sure, but the casualty statistics do back that up. The routing of the SS in Finland and the poor combat record of the 4th SS can be cited as well. Fanaticism should never be confused with skill.

Etc., etc.

Steve

[undead reindeer cavalry]

They lost, get over it!

no, it was a part of the plan all along. first we lose on purpose, then we call in the bombers. nuking from the orbit is the highest form of all small-unit tactics.

[Vark]

Steve, I think having mainland centres of production and a civilian population untouched by enemy action (physical not mental) also helped the US recover. I remember the German player, in Flames of War, looking on in envy at the US production schedule and then in horror at the Russians.

"The World Within War" by Gerald Linderman (Harvard University Press) is a very good repository of anecdotal stories about the US infantry in WWII, often culled from letters and diary entries, it makes fascinating reading.

[Magpie_Oz]

The German army in '44 was lets face it a dying Army...the Russians had to take them on at the height of their powers...and the Russians ground them down..so when we hit France we were fighting an Army who's best days where behind it...so in effect you had the Americans and British both pretty green fighting against a German Army which was having to dreg up all kinds to fill boots...so I expect apart from a few select units both sides wouldn't have been regarded as top fighting Armies...The Allied weight in Arms rather rather than a better soldier wiped all before them...

I'm sure if we had met a German Army still at '42 standard things would have been alot worse...if we had got off the beaches.

So in the end I expect it was a pretty even match soldier for soldier...the Industrial weight of America wiped all before it...

as for this thing about certain soldiers of a particular Amry commiting all sorts of crimes...come on now...all sides killed prisoners..all sides would have raped...all sides commited atrocities...War does terrible things to men....and due to the nature of WW2 and consrciption I expect alot of bad apples would have joined up...infact I've read a fair few accounts of real bad men winning top medals...and it says not every Medal winner is a nice guy...far from it..

The 1944 German army was far from a dying force it's level of equipment and technology was peaking.

The Americans and even more so the British were well versed in fighting the Germans as they had been doing so continuously in North Africa and Italy, and mostly winning since 1942.

The point with the atrocities is not so much that they were carried out and I agree that one side was probably the same as the other. The point is that it has been suggested that the German Army had a propensity for murder and rape of civilians and that this somehow made them better or tougher soldiers where as I would say it makes them more of an ill-disciplined rabble.

If the Allied Armies were incompetent and out classed by a dug in enemy that had held the ground for 4 years and was in perfect defensive terrain and only won by way of their superior numbers and supply then you would expect for an horrific number of casualties on the allied side I would be expecting well of 3 to 1 against but instead we see parity.

[JSj]

If the Allied Armies were incompetent and out classed by a dug in enemy that had held the ground for 4 years and was in perfect defensive terrain and only won by way of their superior numbers and supply then you would expect for an horrific number of casualties on the allied side I would be expecting well of 3 to 1 against but instead we see parity.

This would most likely have been the case, had the odds in numbers and firepower been even close to even. The better German tactics and training were more than compensated for by allied firepower and numbers. The advantages of the two sides balanced themselves out as far as casualties in men were concerned. The allied tank losses on the other hand were enormous, about 4,000 compared to 2,000 German. And only about 1/5 of those German losses were combat related. Most were vehicles left behind when they ran out of fuel during the final retreat out of the Falaise pocket.

By the way, no one is claiming that the allies were incompetent, only that the Germans had found a system that generally produced more efficient fighting units than anyone else. The allies could produce some great units too, like the American 88th Infantry Division in Italy, with a reputation for being at least as good as the best German units. It's just that this high level was an exception among the allies, but very common in the German fighting forces.

[Magpie_Oz]

Nah still not buying it.

Have a look at Kursk, widely considered a major Russian victory over the Germans, they suffered over 4 times as many casualties and 10 times the tanks with a similar number of combatants involved, THAT is an example of mass against tactics.

[JSj]

Yes, but they didn't have total air supremacy, the Luftwaffe had almost as many aircraft over Kursk as the Russans had. Neither did they have the truly massive firepower advantage that the allies had in Normandy, where they had both thousands of heavy bombers and naval gunfire support. The Soviets won anyway because of greater numbers, but they suffered more casualties due to having less advantages over the Germans than the allies had in Normandy.

[Magpie_Oz]

Yes, but they didn't have total air supremacy, the Luftwaffe had almost as many aircraft over Kursk as the Russans had. Neither did they have the truly massive firepower advantage that the allies had in Normandy, where they had both thousands of heavy bombers and naval gunfire support. The Soviets won anyway because of greater numbers, but they suffered more casualties due to having less advantages over the Germans than the allies had in Normandy.

The Russians had a 5 to 1 advantage in artillery at Kursk, a far greater advantage than the Allies had, even with the NGS.

The Air Superiority would have helped for sure but my belief is that it effected the supply situation more than the tactical situation.

The heavy bombers did have considerable impact but it was one more of shock effect as it was noted that if an attack did not follow fairly close on the heels of the bombers the element of shock would be lost.

So for me it is still "even stevens" with the Allies and the Germans with the Allied numerical superiority allowing them the hold them by the nose in on spot and the whip around and kick them in the pants from another spot. A little village called Falaise

[JSj]

I don't have any sources for Kursk quickly available, but Wikipedia gives about a 2,5 times advantage in artillery for the Russians, at least in numbers of guns and mortars. I would say with total air superiority, the heavy bombers, the NGS and all the artillery that was landed the Allies had a greater firepower advantage than the Russians had at Kursk.

Still, Kursk is not really that relevant to this discussion, the situations were quite different. Just the fact that both sides at Kursk knew about the battle for months before it started and had plenty of time to prepare for it means that the fighting and the casualties can not be compared directly. There were lots of different factors influencing the level of casualties in these two operations, not just firepower or tactics.

[JSj]

Anyway, I think I´ve said all I have to say of this subject. I can recommend this book to anyone interrested in the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Power-German-Performance-1939-1945/dp/0313233330

“Martin van Crevald has produced yet another provocative book that ... is bound to stimulate discussion. ... With the aid of almost sixty tables and figures van Crevald conducts a sophisticated analysis of measurements and calculations, juxtaposing the Wehrmacht to the U.S. Army in order to establish where the secret of the former's superior efficiency lay in scoring more kills than the enemy. ...van Crevald proceeds in a more sober and systematic way to look into a wide range of categories: social status, structure and mobility, army organization and administration, rewards and punishments, and the role of noncommissioned officers and of the officer corps.”

[Wodin]

The Wermacht might still have had the equipment (though lack of fuel) but with no air superiority and way to many of their best, dead or rotting in Gulags in Russia. On paper they might have been a force but they weren't what they where..no where near...you also have to remember the Germans had to split their best divisions between both fronts thus diluting their overall strength on any given front...As for Africa...the reason we ended up managing to launch a successful offensive after alot of dire military loses was because Rommel wasn't given the equipment he needed and as his forces became less ours grew...all due to the Germans commitment to Russia...As for the Americans Tunisia was abit of a disaster...however a German general did say he has never seen such poor troops learn so quickly and turn around into good troops...Also most of our experinced Desert front divisions where in Italy not Normandy...

Not trying to but a dampner on what the Allies did in France but in my opinion they weren't fighting the best anymore....having to fill an SS division with 17 to 19 year olds can't compare to the divisions that hit Russia in 41...they had great difficulty in actaully getting to the fighting due to Air power and many had taken way to many casualties aswell as a loss of vital equipment before they even got to within firing range....

Even so I still feel that on the whole the Allies where inexperienced (citizen army) and the Germans had been fighting for 4 years...so I believe that man for man the Allies wouldn't have been a match for the German Army in '44...it was mass firepower both Arty and Air that made life alot easier than it would have been if the Germans had the same resource son hand...

[Vark]

Wodin, the weakness of the Allied 'citizen soldiers' was their greatest strength. They were only weak because they had not practiced as children to fight a bloody war of conquest. You cannot separate the system of government from the outcome, as some on this board are wont to do. You cannot just say the Germans were better trained, their whole society was militarised, well before the war, unlike the democracies and as such they had a short term advantage.

Trouble was if the democratic institutions were not quickly destroyed, then their initial weaknesses became their greatest strength, can you imagine OR being conducted in the 'medieval' German economy? Why do you think less than 10% of the German male population could drive and most of their supply was horse drawn (see any horses in the British or American supply system, don't count mountain mules)

[Blackcat]

As Wodin points out the "Systems" had most to do with the result. Systems of politics, industry, social and, as a spin off from all three, war fighting.

It wasn't an accident that the Allies had lots and lots of artillery in, and total air superiority over, Normandy. Those factors happened by deliberate design and decision as to how the Allies wanted to fight the war and were mandated and made possible by the political, industrial and social systems of the allied countries.

The Germans made other decisions and the Sovs something else again. Was he German militaristic system superior? Well they lost in WWI and again in WWII, both times against citizen armies that took time to build up and learn their lessons. In both cases, by the end, the Allied soldiers were, man for man, at least the equal of the German.

[Battlefront.com]

Was he German militaristic system superior? Well they lost in WWI and again in WWII, both times against citizen armies that took time to build up and learn their lessons.

Yup. And one can also say that this militaristic system allowed them to perpetrate some of the biggest morale crimes in modern history. "Don't question authority" is cultural asset for a leadership that wants to murder millions of people and plunder a dozen countries. This, in turn, contributed to a MAJOR reason for the downfall of the Third Reich. It's impossible to govern occupied populations greater than your own in terms of headcount and land area even under the best of circumstances. Being hated makes it impossible.

No matter how it's sliced or diced, the Third Reich was a disaster when it came to strategic planning and execution. The early successes were more a reflection of the poor state of the opponents and politics than the qualitative attributes of the German military. Not to say the Germans didn't so some amazing things, because they did, but let's not kid ourselves... would have had to been outright incompetent to NOT have taken over most of the countries they invaded up until the Soviet Union. To take out Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States they had to be far more than competent and lucky. They weren't, so they lost.

Steve

[Vark]

Yup. "Don't question authority" is cultural asset for a leadership that wants to murder millions of people and plunder a dozen countries. This, in turn, contributed to a MAJOR reason for the downfall of the Third Reich. Steve

Don't forget, some of the 500,000 Jews who fled pre-war Germany were some of their top scientists who went on to help the Allies, either developing weapons or revealing industrial secrets, racial hatred is so dumb.

Could you also not argue that initial German tactical superiority was a fatal falw as it allowed poorly conceived operations to succeed, when they should have failed and therefore prevented any self-reflexion. Or was the whole ghastly system beyond that sort of 'intelligent' thinking, by the time war began?

[poesel]

Vark, calling the german economy between WWI and WWII 'medieval' is a bit far fetched. With all these horses would building an Autobahn not be a bit silly, no?

I would like to know where you got that 10% figure and how it compares to other states at the time.

[MikeyD]

The German army didn't even have decent blood transfusion technology because most of its top doctors either fled or were done-in.

This debate about the 'superior German soldiers' seems to parallel their love for 'cool' German uniforms. Some people see them as the best thing ever, largely ignoring the fact that most troops wore badly-stiched tunics and trousers made out of something resembling horse blanket material. Not to mention that regulation pullover shirt with tails that reached to the wearer's knees!

[Vark]

Don't forget crappy webbing, that fell apart in poor weather, an antiquated canteen set horse drawn field kitchens and hobnailed boots. Their helmet was a better design, but that's about it, even their paras had badly designed old fashioned harnesses, but hey that Pz IV has a kool camo scheme, blech.

Poesel, 'medieval' had inverted commas, it was a word meant to denote the fiefdoms the Nazi's set up and their antiquated system of requisitioning war materials. Though if one were to look at agricultural practices then for large areas of Germany that term would be accurate. I will dig up the source for the 10% figure, think it is in Tooze's excellent "Wages of destruction" (it could related to the army and not the whole population) as for autobahns they were used for the rapid transferal of mechanised forces fron East to West, not dealing with large volumes of traffic.

[Praetori]

The German army didn't even have decent blood transfusion technology because most of its top doctors either fled or were done-in.

This debate about the 'superior German soldiers' seems to parallel their love for 'cool' German uniforms. Some people see them as the best thing ever, largely ignoring the fact that most troops wore badly-stiched tunics and trousers made out of something resembling horse blanket material. Not to mention that regulation pullover shirt with tails that reached to the wearer's knees!

Given the Normandy setting as was, I believe the OPs intention one could argue (as has been done in the thread) that the German divisions initially had an advantage in experience compared to their Allied opponents (and thus the Germans were "better" on a battalion level). This however is fully modeled with the ability for scenario designers to set the experience level for the troops.

The German army didn't even have decent blood transfusion technology because most of its top doctors either fled or were done-in.

This debate about the 'superior German soldiers' seems to parallel their love for 'cool' German uniforms. Some people see them as the best thing ever, largely ignoring the fact that most troops wore badly-stiched tunics and trousers made out of something resembling horse blanket material. Not to mention that regulation pullover shirt with tails that reached to the wearer's knees!

They did make some advances in the medicinal field though. If I remember correctly they amongst other things used nails to fixate broken bones. At first the allies thought it a form of torture when allied airmen were examined after German captivity. But when compared to similar injuries treated by Allied hospitals the advantages of the German techniques became apparent.

Btw the German uniforms were FUGLY IMO. The helmet is smashing but so is the brit flattop. Especially in combo with the trench-coat or better the fur vest (all real men go to war in fur).

[Vark]

Wonder who they practiced on first, when developing their bone reapair techniques? Remember their Pilots had very good cold weather immersion gear after they studied real people freezing to death in tanks of icy water!

[Battlefront.com]

Don't forget, some of the 500,000 Jews who fled pre-war Germany were some of their top scientists who went on to help the Allies, either developing weapons or revealing industrial secrets, racial hatred is so dumb.

It also curtailed pre-war investment from overseas, etc.

Could you also not argue that initial German tactical superiority was a fatal falw as it allowed poorly conceived operations to succeed, when they should have failed and therefore prevented any self-reflexion.

There is something to this, I think. It is widely believed that Hitler's biggest failing was that he was initially quite lucky. This, and a bunch of sycophants, convinced him that his luck was basically a given. Had he suffered some setbacks early on then perhaps he would have had more humility later on when things started to go the wrong direction. And that humility could have averted total disaster.

This translated down to the tactical level. "I'm being asked to do something that appears really stupid, but our Glorious Leader always gets it right in the end so what I'm asked to do must fit in with a bigger plan that will ultimately work". And the Nazi propaganda machine played up on this every opportunity it could get. Exhibit A... "Vergeltungswaffe". Everybody was told to just hang on a little longer and then the V Weapons would come out and fix everything. And people BELIEVED this nonsense because it seemed plausible to them. At least for a while.

Steve