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.
As far as their technology, I think it's what did them in. Tiger tanks, V1 and V2 rockets, and jets were impressive but expensive which is a negative attribute in a war of attrition.
I have yet to read anywhere that Germans lost the war because their machinery broke down. Tigers were a fraction of their tank force and came way much later in the war. It is true that you could overwhelm quality by sheer quantity. That is a more likely explanation.
What are the "advanced achievements" of the Germans in "every field"? I think the more one studies the war, one comes to the realization that the Germans weren't actually all that advanced in terms of technology relative to the allies.
German weaponry are practically household names for a reason. They influenced designs half a century into the future. Look at the StG44 of 1944 and you'd swear you are looking at one for sale at the corner gun shop today. Everybody had guns but none is more famous than the 88 Flak gun. Side arms? Lugers are going for thousands of dollars today. The MG-42, "Hitler's buzz saw" was so deadly that the US army used recordings of its ripping fire in its training program. It was copied lock, stock and barrel. I was startled to watch a clip where the operator was guiding a bomb to a ship by a joystick! The smart bomb was born. I could go on.
The more amateurish armchair historians tend to focus on things like armor thickness and armor piercing capability but totally ignore boring but critical attributes like reliability, cost and fuel efficiency. Hans Guderian himself wanted to mass produce up-gunned Panzer IVs instead of investing in luxury models like Panthers and Tigers. Nazi Germany produced almost the same amount of steel as the Soviet Union but made only a fraction of the armored vehicles. If they had gone with a cheaper but more numerous model then their edge in training would likely have made a real difference on the Eastern Front.
Very good points. Germany didn't even set its economy to a complete war footing until well into 1943. The lack of organized weapon production and the endless competition of designs for resources greatly hampered their war effort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
I will have to disagree with you there. France's military spending was close to profligate, and they increased the conscription duration from 1 to 2 years as early as 1935, due to Germany re-emerging as a threat. (The WWI losses had lowered the birthrate.)
They spent their money and the time of their staff officers badly, though: They looked at World War 1 and drew the wrong conclusions about static defense vs. mobile offense.
Easy to blame them now, but with trench warfare vivid in their memory, the idea that a robust defense would be a match for pretty much any attack must have been an easy conclusion. Trenches had been mostly improvised - imagine what a pre-constructed defense work could do. And the idea was an attractive one, too - "Lavish with steel, stingy with blood" must have sounded pretty good to a country that had been drained white during 1914-1918.
On the other side, the inventive minds in the Wehrmacht embraced the armor warfare ideas of Guderian. People like de Gaulle and Liddell Hart tried much the same in France and the UK, respectively, but were considered eccentric.
France wasn't outspent, she was out-doctrined and out-generaled.
Weapons, schmeapons - they should have started with trucks.
Also excellent points. When the 1940 Battle of France is war gamed by modern military strategists, it is almost impossible for the Germans to win, even given the initial deployments of allied units when the war started. German strategy and tactics were simply more evolved, not their actual war machine. Early in the war, most allied equipment was superior to its German counterparts.
While the Germans were certainly deficient in their logistics planning, the lack of trucks wasn't the worst thing for them. They had limited fuel supplies and the more mechanized the army, the more fuel it requires. The Germans only mechanized that which required it and used more traditional methods for the remainder. The only truly 'fully' mechanized armies were the US and British, but they had the logistics train and fuel supplies to support it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider
I have yet to read anywhere that Germans lost the war because their machinery broke down. Tigers were a fraction of their tank force and came way much later in the war. It is true that you could overwhelm quality by sheer quantity. That is a more likely explanation.
The majority of losses for German heavy tanks was mechanical breakdown and destruction by their own crews. The macro point though is what you tapped into. These types of weapon systems consumed vast time and resources that could have been better utilized producing more Pz.IV's and Stugs/Marders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider
German weaponry are practically household names for a reason. They influenced designs half a century into the future. Look at the StG44 of 1944 and you'd swear you are looking at one for sale at the corner gun shop today. Everybody had guns but none is more famous than the 88 Flak gun. Side arms? Lugers are going for thousands of dollars today. The MG-42, "Hitler's buzz saw" was so deadly that the US army used recordings of its ripping fire in its training program. It was copied lock, stock and barrel. I was startled to watch a clip where the operator was guiding a bomb to a ship by a joystick! The smart bomb was born. I could go on.
The STG44 concept certainly influenced later weapons design. In particular the method with which it reduced muzzle impulse to achieve combat effective automatic fire influenced all assault rifles that followed. However, the weapon was not without its faults. Ultimately the STG44 came into existence due to failed German efforts to create a weapon that was equivalent to the M1 Garand and SVT-40. They also struggled heavily against Soviet units equipped with PPSh-41's. At the same time, the US had already pioneered the concept with the M1 carbine, which was originally supposed to have a select fire mode. The select fire version (the M2) was eventually rolled out and conversion kits provided for the M1's in the field. A final version, the M3 even incorporated a rather advanced infrared scope that was vastly superior to the "Vampir" used by German forces.
The "88" came in many various flavors, some with exceptional performance, some less so. The best German tank gun of the war however was the 75mm Kwk42. The performance of that gun though was equaled by the British QF-17 pounder and easily exceeded with the use of APDS rounds (an allied creation that is still in use today). While the Germans had some very effective guns, the allies were not deficient in this department and developed some very advanced ammunition to make even their lighter guns have exceptional performance. The QF17 was the basis for the QF20 which itself evolved into the L7 105mm which was mounted on most western MBT's for decades. Then we can look at the Soviet side and guns like the D-10 as mounted in the SU-100 were incredibly effective guns and weapon systems that saw life for decades after the war.
Lugers may be expensive collectors items and were prized as war trophies by Americans during the war, but there is nothing exceptional about the performance of a Luger relative to that of say, a 1911 Colt .45. Personally, I'd take the M1911 on my hip over a Luger any day.
The MG42 was a fantastic LMG and it's influence was felt for decades after the war. However, if we compare it's lineage and history to the M2 .50 HMG or the Soviet DPSHK, we will find equal long term use and influence.
The Germans had an early edge in radio controlled glide bomb technology, but the UK had been developing them as well and the US fielded radio and TV controlled glide bombs extensively in the latter half of 1944.
My argument is not that Germany didn't have good weapons or weapon systems, it was against the idea that Germany's equipment was "advanced" or their technology was "vastly superior" to the allies, it wasn't, especially compared to the US and British who certainly had a technological advantage over the Germans. Many German advances in particular areas were made to cover up their deficits in others. The lack of an effective primary infantry weapon forced the development of more advanced machine guns to make up for their lack of fire power and eventually led to the creation of the STG44, which wasn't all that revolutionary relative to other weapons that were out there.
Ultimately, German innovation and willingness to attempt to field advanced weaponry was born out of the fact that their standard arms had some severe deficiencies versus the allied armies. While some German equipment was advanced relative to what was standard issue to the allies, the technology itself was not unique to Germany and was often not widely adopted by the allies because they simply had no need to do so while they invested in improving their regular weapons platforms that were winning them the war. Even where the relatively advanced weapons were deployed it was often in small quantities and at the detriment of providing and/or improving other desperately needed, more conventional, equipment.
The MG42 was a fantastic LMG and it's influence was felt for decades after the war. However, if we compare it's lineage and history to the M2 .50 HMG or the Soviet DPSHK, we will find equal long term use and influence.
The MG3 was literally the MG42 rechambered for NATO 7.62 x 51 and it was used extensively as late as Afghanistan. The locals hated it, and for good reason - it's a nasty piece of kit if you're at the wrong end.
To look at it another way, what are the alternatives?
Is anyone fascinated by the French war machine? The Swedish? English? Their navy, obviously, but what else? If you fancy big numbers you might like the Russian and American war machines.
To look at it another way, what are the alternatives?
Is anyone fascinated by the French war machine? The Swedish? English? Their navy, obviously, but what else? If you fancy big numbers you might like the Russian and American war machines.
The 1939 Wehrmacht used a revolutionary doctrine and achieved something it by rights shouldn't have. But that wasn't due to specific hardware (French tanks were better in 1940) nor to German soldiers in ranks being particularly hardcore. It was the way the German generals applied their units that made the world sit up and take notice.
I would say that the RAF has a pretty interesting 1940 story to tell - but again, one has to look past the hardware and pilots, it was the defensive system developed by Dowding and his staff that secured the UK airspace in 1940. Filter rooms and reliable communication - in the air and on the ground - were as important as any number of Spitfire squadrons. (Concrete shielding of phone lines isn't sexy, but it wins battles.) In an interesting mirror image of the 1940 invasion of France, the UK had inferior radar hardware as compared to Germany, but a superior overall doctrine for air defense.
As for hardware, the German stuff always looked the part, pretty much across the board. British tanks look slapped-together and their AFVs even more so - is there any vehicle less imposing than a Bren carrier? - where German vehicles always looked menacing to me.
I was watching some WWII footage taken by the Germans during a battle with the Russians and in one scene it showed this Russian tank climbing this hill, I couldn't even guess the distance, It looked very far away. They then showed this monstrous barrel of a Tiger tank poking thru the trees and in one shot it blew that Russian tank to pieces. Not only was I impressed at the distance but to nail it on one shot, no wonder those tanks were feared so much.
The MG3 was literally the MG42 rechambered for NATO 7.62 x 51 and it was used extensively as late as Afghanistan. The locals hated it, and for good reason - it's a nasty piece of kit if you're at the wrong end.
Couldn' the MG42 be just effective on the battlefield TODAY . I am sure Syrian rebels wouldn't turn down a shipment.
Germans are known for their craftsman ship. However, they never did mass production down to an art.
Hitler being a brain dead corporal did not help either.
Most do not realize, Blitzkreig was designed to be a quick, cheap war. By the time Russia had recovered and America woke up, German economy fully mobilized. By that time it was far too late.
The 1939 Wehrmacht used a revolutionary doctrine and achieved something it by rights shouldn't have. But that wasn't due to specific hardware (French tanks were better in 1940) nor to German soldiers in ranks being particularly hardcore. It was the way the German generals applied their units that made the world sit up and take notice.
I would say that the RAF has a pretty interesting 1940 story to tell - but again, one has to look past the hardware and pilots, it was the defensive system developed by Dowding and his staff that secured the UK airspace in 1940. Filter rooms and reliable communication - in the air and on the ground - were as important as any number of Spitfire squadrons. (Concrete shielding of phone lines isn't sexy, but it wins battles.) In an interesting mirror image of the 1940 invasion of France, the UK had inferior radar hardware as compared to Germany, but a superior overall doctrine for air defense.
As for hardware, the German stuff always looked the part, pretty much across the board. British tanks look slapped-together and their AFVs even more so - is there any vehicle less imposing than a Bren carrier? - where German vehicles always looked menacing to me.
Guderian's battle strategy was based on a book written by some English officer in the 1920's. Not strategy really, but the idea of attacking by using the combined arms: armor, infantry and air. And massing the armor instead of spreading it out.
Germany was prepared to launch a reprise of the Schleiffen Plan in 1940 only this time attacking through Holland. But an airplane carrying plans for the attack crashed and the English recovered them. Manstein then came up with the Sichelscnitt Plan, so named because it would cut off the Allied forces by attacking them through the undefended Ardennes. Like a sickle stroke. (Actually, they were well defended at Sedan but the Germans broke through anyway.)
So they succeeded by good fortune as much as anything.
The real revolution in German war strategy occurred in 1866 with the war against Austria.
First, the Prussian army moved on a wide front. Corps were separated and used all available roads to seek out the enemy. Troops could be moved more quickly this way and the battle line could be set up faster, too.
Previously, armies avoided this because it risked being defeated in detail: the enemy could fall upon small advancing columns individually and beat them one at a time. But the Prussian cavalry protected the infantry with an extensive screen that kept their organization and movement secret. March divided, fight united: the army would only concentrate at the scene of the battle.
This also necessitated the devolvement of command from the overall commander to individual commanders. Corp and battalion commanders had to know the overall objective, but the details of achieving it was left to them.
Prussia also realized that to destroy and enemy, it was no longer sufficient to break its line. In older wars, if a the line were broken the enemies supplies would be vulnerable and its communications cut off. Isolated units could be attacked by the cavalry;
But with the development of railroads and the telegraph, armies could be reconcentrated even if their line were broken. To destroy an army now it would be necessary to encircle it, and this became the goal of Prussian strategy: the Kesselschlacht, kettle battle, where the enemy would be surrounded and compelled to surrender.
At Koeniggraetz the Austrians almost were encircled but escaped at the last minute. However, the general was so shaken he advised the Emperor to sue for peace.
Almost every victory the German army had since 1866 was of this type.
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.