Was the Wehrmacht overrated?

Ironcross, break out the champagne, I agree with you

 

Well T.A. Dupuy's got a tad more credibility me thinks. Like any human he can be wrong, but based on his accomplishements, I'll go with him.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/tndupuy.htm

Trevor has been characterized as a genius and a prophet. His contributions to the store of human knowledge in terms of the derivation of a theory of combat and philosophy of war are of outstanding value. He is the author or co–author of more than 80 books and more than 100 articles published in professional and military journals in many countries.


During WWII he commanded a US artillery battalion, a Chinese artillery group, and artillery from the British 36th Division. He was always proud of the fact that he had more combat time in Burma than any other American, and received decorations for service or valor from the US, British, and Chinese governments. After the war Trevor served on the War Department General Staff, OPD from 1945 to 1947, and as military assistant to the Under Secretary of the Army from 1947 to 1948. He was a member of the original SHAPE staff in Paris under Generals Eisenhower and Ridgway from 1950 to 1952. Between 1952 and 1956 Trevor was a member of the founding faculty of the Harvard Defense Studies Program. In 1956 he became Director of the Ohio State Military Studies Program. In 1958, after retiring from active military duty, he served as a visiting professor in the International Relations Program at Rangoon University in Burma.

 

Dupuy is a good historian, as was S L A Marshall and Charles MacDonald.

But, Dupuy is no mathematician, statistician,or engineer. He admits as much in Numbers, Predictions, and War. My characterization of his quantification methodology was and is based on a mathematical analysis of his data and a critical review of the system he developed; the Quantified Judgement Model or QJM.
The QJM has been updated and modified as the Dupuy INstitute's current model, the TNDM. Unfortunately, I don't have the $90,000 to plunk down for a copy to look at.
However, the QJM is worthless. Look at the examples I gave above just on the results portion of this model. There is absolutely, no credible basis by using the QJM to make the statement that the German military was 20% better than the Western Allies. None. No more than Ptolemy was right about the nature of the solar system and universe.

 

I'll not pass judgement til he has a shot at rebuttal.

 

Dupuy died several years ago, so it may be a long wait. Chrome, a question: Have you read Numbers, Predictions, and War? After all, at the crux of whether Dupuy's argument is valid or not is whether the method he arrived at his answer is valid. As I pointed out above, his methodology for determining results is mathematically flawed.
I can go through the entire QJM and point out dozens of other inconsistancies and mathematical errors in construction as well. For example, the equation for spacial effectiveness mentioned above gives an inaginary number result (ie the value i) if the side being evaluated lost more ground than it gained during the batttle.
In the TLI (Theoretical Leathality Index) it is interesting to note that the T-34, M 4 Sherman, and Char B1 bis all have virtually identical values. I throw that one in here for a reference to something that does not necessarily require having read the book.

 

Nope, haven't read it. The point I was making is that I don't accept your word as law without rebuttal from another whom is intimately familiar with the subject. You've been incorrect on numerous occasions, Temp laminar flow wing, P-51 wing, fuel economy of late 109 engines & such. & nearly every time your arguments are of anti German bent, this thread being a yet another example. So your impartiality is somewhat in doubt to me.


Having said that, you may be correct, but short of intelligent rebuttal, I'll remain neutral.

 

Well, while I don't make a habit of pointing out things on a personal level, I said nothing on laminar flow wings or the P-51 (check the threads on that, I did). I can't recall having discussed fuel economy of aircraft engines recently, if at all, so I cannot comment on this particular issue.
As for my arguments, I want truth over anything with history. If the Germans are better at something so be it. If the US is then that too is the result that should be up held. Enough on that.
As far as Dupuy goes, you can simply look at the entry I made above. I cited the specific formulae from his model, gave a mathematical analysis, and demonstrated from that the fallicy of construction. If the results are based on faulty math, then what else is? I also stated that his results as published in Numbers, Predictions, and War were unreproducable. Dupuy fails to give sufficent information at any point to go through his system and verify the results he got within the book. The bottom line is that as constructed and published, Dupuy's argument of a 10 to 20% better German fighting force is nothing but speculation on his part. It is certainly not based on a credible set of stocastic modelling results.

As a subjective, non-analytical set of observations I would say that the German army compared to the Western Allies stacks up as follows:

At the squad and platoon level the Germans have an edge. At the company and battalion level they have parity. Going to regiment and division level the Germans fall short. At corps and above the Germans are far behind.

Against the Soviets, the Germans maintain parity to divisional level but again are not able to match the ability of Soviet corps, armies, and fronts.

So, tactically yes, the Germans have an edge on their opponets. But, this is not translated into enough of a margin for success at higher levels of orgainzation.

 

Well my two cents worth is this, the German Army at was the most awesome military machine in the war no doubt, in the early part of the war it was unstoppable, but it was when Hitler faied to launch Operation Seelowe that would have knocked Britain out of the war and would have prevented the US from conducting long range bombing campaignes on the German industrial centres.

But it ran out of luck when it attacked the Soviet Union, not because of the troops, but because Hitler could not make up his mind on how to defeat the Soviet Union.

 

I think a few posters may be missing the point of my original question which was ''was the WEHRMACHT as a whole, a little overrated?''

I also said ''What's the good of having the most potent ARMY in the world with top notch commanders when your army can only fight a continental war, not a world war, can't even cross the English Channel to finish of a desperate Britain let alone get within a bulls roar of of an enemy like the U.S. who can pound Germany to ruin with impunity.''

I think some posters are looking at the HEER alone, and missing the fact that it takes more then a superb army to win wars in the modern age.

 

No, the Wehrmacht was not overrated.
The Wehrmacht can only be compared to the Legions under Caesar, the Huns under Attila, and the Mongols under Genghis Khan. But Hitler can't be compared to Caesar, Attila, or Genghis Khan.
The Wehrmacht had what it takes to reach the glory of the Romans, Huns, and Mongols.

It is fair to say Hitler ordered the finest troops of his time to walk into slaughterhouses. The shame is that his troops obeyed his order until the very end without any doubt.

Hitler is the only one who can stop the Wehrmacht from taking over the world, and he did what he does best.

[ 25. January 2007, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Ironcross ]

 

The Germans were like a bully. Learning to fight by beating up on children and old men. Then the adults took over, came and spanked his butt.

Most of their victories were by surprise against a smaller force, or against a nation totally unprepared for a modern war. After the initial battles, the troops had learn combat basics. The pilots had racked scores against obsolete planes or poorly trained pilots. I am not knocking the German troops, but they had a relatively easy combat 101 course. When the Allies struck back, they had a more difficult education. And they were going against prepared fortifications in Europe. Look at the troop toll in the Pacific when trying to take japenese held islands.

You can have the best pilots and soldiers in the world, but if you cannot provide leadership and the tools needed to do the job, you lose. And one of the tools is to have enough troops and pilots in reserve to relieve the first team.

 

Overrated, I guess it depends on who does the rating. I bet Za would be more likely to underrate them and chrome is more likely to overrates them That's a little joke, no flaming!

However, this thread seems a little basic to me.

Was the wehrmacht very good? Of course! It took almost the entire production of the worlds' three largest/most powerful countries of the day several years to beat germany, who was essentially fighting alone. Combine that with the Hitler's crazed leadership and I'm surprised they lasted so long.

In my opinion the Wehrmacht was probably the best army, unit vs unit, of the big players in WWII. Finland (probably the best unit vs unit), Canada and Australia were also very good as well.

 

I'd be more flattered to hear I tend to make fair assessments rather than sweepingly rate (over/under) by general impression or comic book Weltanschauung. I don't like to see in Black & White terms (except in whisky form), rather in a continuum of shades of grey

"Fighting alone"? Mobilizing the manpower of a number of allies and the material resources of almost the entire continental Europe is not fighting alone. Beware the "general impression or comic book Weltanschauung" view.

That should apply to the elite Waffen SS divisions, the ones up to and including no. 12, plus a select few Heer divisions like PzLehr and Gross Deutschland. All the rest might be classified as General Issue. The German armed forces were not homogenous. Or would you rate Volksturm and "Ear and Stomach" battalions as "best units", to use an extreme case?

 

Like I said, my first comment was a joke, but you must admit that any member that has an avatar of Stalin, and handle that is a pro-soviet slogan, a signature that contains the Soviet national anthem, apparently lives "deep in the Kremlin" and enjoys crashing every pro-german What-If? thread might have just a slight pro-soviet bias. Not that I'm referring in any way to you Za.

I would indeed say Germany fought essentially alone. German occupied Europe was not unified in the same way that the UK, Russia and the UK were. During the war, military resources had to be spent to occupy and control Europe. Did the US need to occupy and control Canada, or the UK? I think not.

And speaking of comic books, all the ones I have read are pro-allied and anti-nazi. I think Sgt. Rock destroys a panzer every issue, and so do Nick Fury and his Howling Commandos. Comics back up the allied superiority, not the other way around.

In any case, I 'll repeat my statement:
"In my opinion the Wehrmacht was probably the best army, unit vs unit, of the big players in WWII." While some may debate this opinion, I don't think there are many who would say Germany had the worst army of the big players. I guess we have to agree to disagree here Za...

Peppy >>> has a strong anti-nazi, pro-hemp bias

 

When you look at the whole of the German army in WW 2 it is hard to conclude that as a whole it a superior orgainzation. During the war the Germans raised (note: this is generalized so the numbers are not precise but just 'ballpark figures and close enough to make the example) about 350 divisions of all kinds. Of these, about 30 were panzer, 15 panzergrenadier, 15 motorized infantry, 2 - 3 cavalry and the balance some sort of "leg" infantry.
This means that about 20% of the German army was doing about 80%+ of the offensive combat. The leg infantry divisions generally were not used to spearhead offensives. These divisions were used to hold the front in a primarily defensive role. They also tended to remain obscure in a historical context.
This combination can be likened to the late WW 1 German army's concentration of offensive power in a small number of Stroßtruppen divisions. It is also that 20% that get credited as the 'norm' of German military potential.
The reality is that the bulk of the German military was of more limited potential. A more typical German division of the WW II period is one where motor vehicles are scarce to non-existant, horse-drawn equipment (much of it captures or civil in nature eg., the panje cart) the norm. It would have a shortage of almost everything but possibly small arms. Some or most of its equipment would be foreign captures. Manpower would be made up not just of Germans but frequently Volksdeutsche and a smattering of Hiwis who were often ex-POW's. Much of the manpower would likely also be less than fit men or the over- or underaged.
This is the reality of the "typical" German army of WW 2.

 

Point taken. From what I understand, all armies are like this TA, a very few do the lion's share of the effective fighting. I know that there were some poor German units, especially near the end, but these likely appeared due to the scale of the war and manpower needs. Offensive power will always be concentrated in a smaller, properly erquipped portion of an army. I am well aware of the German mechanized myth, and have no illusions about the German forces, I do not revere them nor do I put them on a pedestal as some are want to do. I'm not pro-german, or pro-waffen or whatever, I'm a blue-blooded American goodol' boy, so if I have a bias, it's pro-USA. Im just making an opinion based on what I've read.

Again it depends on who does the rating, but I'm my opinion, the German army did the most with the least.

 

Perish the thought The fact that I look at the Soviet side with more depth than usual does not make me less exempt, all I have is a different point of view that by definition allows me to see things differently. I don't "enjoy crashing every pro-German what-if thread", I just try to puncture incorrectly based assumptions, and views taken acritically concerning a subject steeped in myth.

Ahhhh! That's what I wanted to hear! Absolutely no objection there! I say "The Germans were not so and so because bla, bla, bla, bla". Then you come back you "I don't agree because yack, yack, yack, yack." We exchange arguments for another couple of times. At the end I do not convince you and you fail to impress. Fine, we "agree to disagree". No need at all to drag the subject ad nauseam, repeat arguments, dig heels, reject every argument just because it is there, pull rabbits out of a tophat, stonewall, pile on more posts in succession like a maniac, etc. End a discussion in a civilised way. Recognise a discussion has reached exaustion points, no new facts are brought in, in short stop beating the dead horse at an acceptable point instead of grinding it to a sorry pulp as normally seen here. That game I have no problem in playing.

Peppy, are you sure you aren't the guy in the Grassy Knoll?

 

Hey T.A. you said Tempest didn't have laminar flow, & P-51 wing was same in C & D models. Don't sweat it, we're all wrong from time to time.

Back on subject, I read an interview with 2 germans captured by the US in africa, they were led by jeep to the rear areas, they couldn't believe the astonishing amount of supplies. They both agreed they had no chance.

Same goes for Monte Cassino. WW2 mag had an interview with a German who fought there, he said it was a battle of attrition. Mortars were the biggest frustration for them. Slowly but surely men were whittled down & no supplies or reinforcements came in so they eventually had to abandon the place.

In both cases, superior US supply situation weighed heavily on the outcome. & I can't recall any front where Germans had air superiority against US. Steinhoff mentioned the futility of the situation June 43 in the book Messerchmitts over Sicily.

http://www.amazon.com/Messerschmitts-over-Sicily-Johannes-Steinhoff/dp/product-description/0933852576

 

Stalingrad 1942

Name one army that fights like them under their condition.

 

The Russians in Sevastopol 1942? Or Stalingrad 1942 as well?

Is this a pissing contest?