Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree, until mid-1943. However, if the war protracted to the point the Germans could mass produce the Type XXI U-Boat, things would have swayed back into their favor for a time.
I think people are getting unnecessarily hung up on the "man for man" phrase. Obviously the Germans were not a bunch of Rambo's. German soldiers were human beings just like everyone else and possessed similar qualities - such as discipline, valor and sense of duty - as soldiers of any other military. That is not what set them apart. They were not physically or even emotionally stronger. Often, they were not even the best equipped. In fact, in the second half of the war they were almost always outnumbered and out-gunned.
What set them apart was their training and organization. Between the wars, the German General Staff, inconspicuously named "The Troop Office" to avoid the Versailles treaty restrictions, basically did nothing short of inventing a new way to fight wars. The Germans combined the stormtrooper tactics that they invented in 1918 with the internal combustion engine and transformed the Wehrmacht into the most powerful military machine on the planet. The training of their officers and NCO was second to none. In 1940, a German major had more experience and training than a French colonel. When the war began, the Germans were simply on a different level than any of their opponents.
The gap narrowed as the war progressed. The allies obviously gained a ton of experience. But, surprisingly, the German military retained its edge even into 1945! The allied frustrations at the Siegfried line and the fighting in Hungary with the Soviets attest to that. So why did Germany lose? Quite simply, they were massively outnumbered in men and material. From El-Alamein to Stalingrad to Normandy, the Germans were beaten by the sheer numbers of their opponents (as well as, often, lack of supplies). Germany did not have the manpower of the Soviet Union or the industrial might of the United States and the fact that their armed forces were able to accomplish so much and hold out for so long speaks to the overall quality of its military skill.
This is what I was trying to say in my original post, but you have expressed it better. Thanks.
I'd say that the WWII German Army was the best military ever. They may have won if not for:
1) Coldest winter in 100 years prevented their engines from starting at Stalingrad. This also prevented Germany from reaching the great oil fields close to Iran. These oil fields were the objective of the hasty invasion of Russia. Germany literally ran out of gas at the end. They had jet fighters that were 100 mph faster than the prop engine fighters. But no gasoline.
2) Hitler allowed the Brits to escape at Dunkirk(?). It would have been like shooting fish in a barrel. This allowed us to launch our invasion from England.
3) The Allies cracked the Enigma code and invented radar.
4) They must have been outnumbered by 10 to 1.
5) Hitler insisted on making the most important military decisions in spite of his lack of knowledge.
6) German intel was beyond terrible. Anybody could have walked along the coast of England and seen that the Invasion of Normandy was about to take place.
7) Hitler used crucial resources with his obsession of going after inconsequential Jews who often lacked the wherewithal to bug out before they came for them.
No to "man for man" the best. There were outstanding soldiers in very capable units in every army in WWII.
Something which is never mentioned is that the weapons and tactics which caused the most casualties to Allied troops in Western Europe were developed due to German combat losses and weaknesses derived from the Eastern Front. I mean the extensive use of mines, mortars, machine guns, panzerfaust and anti-tank guns. These were designed to provide force multipliers to offset the large expanse of frontage and limited manpower. Regarding armor, most german armor in the west was Pzkpfw IV and assault guns which were not superior to allied armor but had the advantage of holding a concealed defensive position before striking. (The Mark V and newer were designed to defeat Soviet heavy tanks hence the seeming superiority vs. Allied medium tanks.) All of the above plus being on the defensive provided the Germans with greater means to inflict combat once battle was joined. I think the advantage of terrain gave the Germans the image many authors cite regarding being better man to man.
Well trained German armor held the Allies in Normandy for many weeks but later as the degree of expertised declined among the Germans and that of the Allies increased it was the reverse. Example being the tank battle around Arrancourt in late 1944.
There are many examples were Allied soldiers routed the Germans at the company/battalion level without the often German excuse of extensive firepower and it really was one of training and combat experience providing the edge. A mean rifleman to rifleman.
Recommend reading When The Odds Were Even regarding combat in the Vosges.
This parallels the japanese vs. US airwar in that the Japanese had better planes and veteran pilots at the start....once the tables were turned it was an utter slaughter.
6) German intel was beyond terrible. Anybody could have walked along the coast of England and seen that the Invasion of Normandy was about to take place.
I think there are some misplaced conclusions here. First, people were not permitted to walk along certain sections of the coast of England; the British authorities had forced the population to evacuate various areas for security reasons. Of course preparations for such a massive invasion were impossible to hide, so the Germans knew a cross-channel invasion was coming, but the point was they didn't know exactly where. The shortest water crossing is at the Pas de Calais, and the Allies went to elaborate lengths to make German intel believe that's where the main invasion was coming. Patton "commanded" a dummy army, complete with fake tanks and encampments, and even faked radio traffic. Don't forget that by that time the Allies had air supremacy, so it's not like the Germans could send photo-reconnaissane planes over England at will. In fact, when the Normandy invasion hit on D-Day, many high-ranking Germans, Hitler being the most important one, were convinced it was a feint and were therefore slow to release units from the Pas de Calais to counter-attack in Normandy. (Naturally, the Anglo-Americans hadn't neglected to conduct heavy air and sea bombardements of the Pas de Calais area.)
I think your conclusions about how terrible German intel was are inaccurate. As far as the D-Day invasion, it was more a question of the Allied deception having been superb - well planned and well executed.
This parallels the japanese vs. US airwar in that the Japanese had better planes and veteran pilots at the start....once the tables were turned it was an utter slaughter.
The qaulifications to be a naval pilot in prewar Japan bordered on the absurd,most would have been approved for NASA! Once the 'wastage' of war started to take its toll,there simply didn't exist a pool of replacements.By Leyte Gulf in late 1944,carriers were bare of planes,and used simply as decoys to lure Halsey away from the beaches.
The qaulifications to be a naval pilot in prewar Japan bordered on the absurd,most would have been approved for NASA! Once the 'wastage' of war started to take its toll,there simply didn't exist a pool of replacements.By Leyte Gulf in late 1944,carriers were bare of planes,and used simply as decoys to lure Halsey away from the beaches.
Quite correct, although I might quibble about "bare of planes". Let's say, fewer than a full compliment of planes, and those few were manned by pilots with woefully few training hours (and of course they didn't last long enough in combat to acquire many combat hours).
As far as how difficult it was to qualify as a pilot in prewar Japan, Saburo Sakai's book "Samurai!" goes into that in some detail and I'm wondering if that is your source. Sakai tells how they longed for the ones who washed out of prewar training, and that those wash-outs would have been quite superior to the replacements that they were actually getting after a certain point. Another factor is that after a certain point, they didn't have enough gasoline to conduct the amount of training they wanted to.
The Japanese just didn't plan for a long, extended war. In retrospect, some of their practices were absurd. We rotated our pilots out after a certain number of missions in order (among other things) to have a large pool of instructor pilots who were well experienced in combat. The Japanese tended to just make theirs keep flying until they were killed. Also, we had extensive programs to resue our pilots who were floating in the Pacific Ocean, using both submarines and Catalina flying boats. The Japanese had no coherent system of recue - if a pilot happened to be picked up, so much the better, but it was haphazard. One would think even if they didn't value the individual lives, they would value the priceless training and skills.
Some Japanese attitudes are simply incomprehensible to us. No ship of the Japanese Navy (according to British historian Max Hastings) carried life vests or life rafts on the grounds that doing so might suggest it is desirable to survive defeat.
Still, it is amazing how many planes the Japanese kept fielding for as long as they did, especially on land-based fields (landing on a carrier was more difficult and took more training).
This parallels the japanese vs. US airwar in that the Japanese had better planes and veteran pilots at the start....once the tables were turned it was an utter slaughter.
The Japanese planes were more maneuverable than U.S. planes, but this was due to their light armor and light armament. When a U.S. pilot went head to head with a Japanese plane, the Japanese plane was usually decimated.
I think there are some misplaced conclusions here. First, people were not permitted to walk along certain sections of the coast of England; the British authorities had forced the population to evacuate various areas for security reasons. Of course preparations for such a massive invasion were impossible to hide, so the Germans knew a cross-channel invasion was coming, but the point was they didn't know exactly where. The shortest water crossing is at the Pas de Calais, and the Allies went to elaborate lengths to make German intel believe that's where the main invasion was coming. Patton "commanded" a dummy army, complete with fake tanks and encampments, and even faked radio traffic. Don't forget that by that time the Allies had air supremacy, so it's not like the Germans could send photo-reconnaissane planes over England at will. In fact, when the Normandy invasion hit on D-Day, many high-ranking Germans, Hitler being the most important one, were convinced it was a feint and were therefore slow to release units from the Pas de Calais to counter-attack in Normandy. (Naturally, the Anglo-Americans hadn't neglected to conduct heavy air and sea bombardements of the Pas de Calais area.)
I think your conclusions about how terrible German intel was are inaccurate. As far as the D-Day invasion, it was more a question of the Allied deception having been superb - well planned and well executed.
I got my conclusions from a book, wish I could remember the name of it.
Our Normandy efforts were extra ordinary. I also suspect that Rommel could have orchestrated an effective counter-offensive. But he was back in Germany celebrating his wives birthday. He did not believe we would attack in those weather conditions.
When a U.S. pilot went head to head with a Japanese plane, the Japanese plane was usually decimated.
Decimated? Just how does one destroy 1/10th of an airplane?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
