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.

__________________
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

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.

__________________

Phear der PanzerPenguin!
HellFish love teh

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

__________________

Phear der PanzerPenguin!
HellFish love teh

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.

__________________

Phear der PanzerPenguin!
HellFish love teh

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...ion/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?

__________________

I might be, but it depends on what type of grass you are talking about. [img]graemlins/peppy.gif[/img]

__________________

Phear der PanzerPenguin!
HellFish love teh

Ummmm...... In the Beginning of the war no army fought under BETTER conditions then the Germans.
They had everthing and their opponents usually had nothing or next to nothing. However even under the best conditions and leadership, even the element of surprise and military experience, the Germans failed to accomplish their largest tasks on the eastern front, Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow.

Unlike the Germans who had virtually everything, the Russians faced the exact opposite, not enough food, little battle experience, outnumbered and out gunned sometimes only having 1 rifle between several men, not to mention the fact that the Russians werent even allowed to retreat or they would be shot by their own troops!!! Yet somehow the very same Russians managed to walk into Berlin after destroying the glorious Wehrmacht.

So name one army that can fight like them and under their conditions you ask?? I am going to say the Russians!!!!

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

No, they were not under the same condition. The Germans were invaders, and Russian the defenders. To most people, the task to defend is far nobler than the task to invade. So the Russians had the moral high ground.
The Germans were far from the fatherland, while the Russians fought deep in their own country, another moral plus for the Russians.
After the encirclement of the 6th army, the Germans were starving, freezing, sick, and dying; another big moral plus for the Russian.
The Russians have successfully stoped the Germans from reaching their objective, and now Russian winter is here to aid the Red Army; another moral plus for the Russians.
Without a moral high ground, the Germans still fought till they can fight no more. It is clear which army is better.
In comparison, as many as 50,000 turncoat Soviets were killed or captured by the Red Army after the battle. That is about half of the number of German captured by the Rus.

The odd thing actually is, I don´t know if you have ever thought about this, but if you Za had lived back in the Stalin age in the USSR the Great One himself would have considered you a danger and sent you to a Gulag or straight to the front during the war to step the mines, at least his policy was to get rid of the intellectual people because they were dangerous to him....During the thirties many top communists from Poland, Finland etc were invited to the Great USSR and they never returned...ever wondered why??

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

Well, that was a mighty side step. But on the main subject. I think we can agree Hitler himself overrated the Wehrmacht and that´s why he lost.

__________________

Now that's a comforting thought, Kai, thank you [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Now, how far are we from the stage in this thread?

__________________

RNA

Hegra 1940.

Tobruk.

I'm not impressed with the Hallelujas for the Wehrmacht.

A band of mindless butchers that enslaved millions of people to work for their war machine. As for 'the rest of the world' having to fight them for several years to beat them; what if the Allies had stared arming at the same time as the Germans? There would be a lot of crosses in the Low countries and France with an Aryan superhuman under them.

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

I´d correct that last sentence a bit Jaeger, nothing else.

There IS a lot of crosses in the Low countries and France with Aryan superhuman under them. And Russia etc.

__________________

I was thinking about a solid blow in 1940 and no need for crosses in 1944-45

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

Thought I'd resurrect this thread for some new input as we seem to have quite a few new members on the board.

I still contend that rating the quality of an army on 10% of its forces as indicative of its overall performance and quality is just wrong. That is what most of those claiming the outstanding performance of the German army is based on.

On an army-wide scale of measure the US and Britain easily had the best militaries of the war. Neither nation's military contained any really pathetic units comprised of low quality manpower, primarily armed with substitute, captured, or ad hoc weapons of questio