Question on german wins and losses

The majority of the battles the germans lost was because they were just plain outnumbered.
What battles did the germans lose where they had the numerical advantage?

 

Battle Of Britain.
Operation Husky (although admittedly the majority of Axis troops were Italian, the combined German/Italian forces outnumbered the Allied invasion force).
6th June 1944 - establishing the beachheads.
Convoy ONS-5 (28 Apr - 6 May 1943): Seen as the turning point in the U-Boat war.

(Why am I thinking "Here we go again!!!" ?)

 

Well this question is hard to answer because it is based off of a false statement. A battle is NEVER won because of just one circumstance and it is absurd to say that most of the battles Germany lost is because of being outnumbered.

I would love to hear the battles you say Germany lost just because of numbers.

 

How about El Alamein so as to begin with German major defeats?

Okay-forget it, I am not going toget myself into a Monty post with all these English around

Regards
Kruska

 

I would love to see you back this up.

 

:feedtrolls-sign:

:shamrock:

:feedtrolls-sign:

 

Believe me - you wouldn't!!

 

I'd have to throw in the Battle of Mocow as well, the Germans had numbers when they began the drive on Moscow. The Bulge as well, especially Bastonge. German attempt to cut off the American breakout at Cobra, lots of US holding actions against heavy odds, many of the D-day and post D-day counter attacks on the beacheads were defeated despite the allies holding numberical inferiority in the areas the German were hitting.

Again I would have to argue against the notion the Germans didnt have numerical superiority during their own attacks, they tended to grossly outnumber their enemies where they choose to attack. Karkov in 1943 for example, when the Germans attacked then had a 6 to 1 superiority in manpower at the point in the line they hit, though strategically they were outnumbered. Germans won many of their victories through concentration of forces, they tended to outnumber their enemies in the offensive battles they fought.

When it comes to the excuse for the Germans losing because of Numbers, I think the first world war showed throwing waves of infantry at an enemy could not break a line, no reason to think in WWII it would be any different. Germans lost because they faced enemies who became very competent in military art and who's mitaries had good generals and good officers down to the NCO's. Numbers and material advantages sealed the deal.

 

Its the responsibility of the military to concentrate forces in critical sectors. So if they are always outnumbered, that speaks somewhat to trying to defend everything and failing to successfully concentrate on key sectors.

 

The Wehrmacht outnummbers the The Allies on D day in some sectors,but these men were either Russian defectors,or they were troops from the Baltic states.To the best of my knowledge.

 

Omaha beach was staffed by Russian defectors? Since when?

 

I believe he might be referring to the Ostgruppe Battalions stationed to guard areas around Normandy prior to the invasion, specially areas around Utah, Juno, and Sword beaches.

If you have never heard of Ost battalions they were conscripts and volunteers from the occupied eastern territories recruited into the German Army.

 

I know about the Ostfront "volunteers". Stephen Ambrose puts their numbers at 1 per 6 Germans on the Western Front right before D-Day (he isn't exactly reliable, though). However, I was under the impression that....

the men at Omaha beach were largely not Ostfront, nor were they Russian defectors. The regulars there were from the 352nd Infantry Division, if Wikipedia is to be believed.

 

Right, I should have made that more clear. If he is saying that most of the defenders were Ostgruppe battalions he is incorrect.

 

Well stated and great avatar BTW :-D

 

I don't think Ost volunteers accounted for a significant portion of the German force on Normandy. Wiki is right about Omaha: the German 352d ID defended this beachhead and this was an elite unit.

For battles in which the Germans possessed superior numbers but lost, I don't know why Stalingrad, the granddaddy of them all, was not brought up. During the offensive phase of the battle the Germans outmanned the Soviets two to one and outgunned them to an even greater extend, but the Soviets held.

 

Monty was actually irish but what harm.

I would have to add leningrad to the list.Whatever about the numbers involved they should have sorted that out.

 

Hello guys,

sorry to say, but this thread is just silly.

"outnumbered" to what does this refer to, just number in men? or combined arms, tanks, naval - airpower, logistics or artillery included?

Offcourse there are endless accounts in military history were an outnumbered unit defeated a unit superior in numbers = see the 300 Spartans (at least for the beginning period of this battle).

Maybe the German Para landings on Crete might serve as a particular example if refering simply to numbers of infantry - neglecting the airforce factor.

Or the 55 days in Peking were about 300-400 Western soldiers held of about 20,000 chinese for 55 days, or Rourks drift - Brits and Zulus. (not sure about the spelling)

But to refer simply to the term "numbers" in regards to battles of the 2nd WW, is ridiculous IMO.

Regards
Kruska

 

In order to sucessfully engage in battle one needs an average in superiority of 3:1 not to mention an attack against a large city such as Leningrad. The Wehrmacht never had a numerical superiority in combined arms of 3:1 or more against the Russian forces in and around Leningrad.

I hereby rest my case in this silly thread.

Regards
Kruska