I was wondering, was the Wehrmacht as a whole, a little overrated?

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.

Japan on the other hand, with it's strong navy was at least able to fight a limited world war and bring the fight to American soil, and had the Americans very jittery in the first months of their Pacific blitzkrieg.

Not bad I´d think.

__________________

It achieved many of its early victories against Nations ill-prepared for any combat, let alone modern combat.

However its defensive record was excellent, often against overwhelming odds.

__________________
Whe're off to see the Wizard, the wonderful wizard of OZ - 6 Australian Infantry Div, Bardia January 1941

An armed force that takes the gathering of half the world against it, and a good couple of years till final defeat can't be all bad, can it?

__________________

But Za,

How many were ready for the onslaught, Just like the Japanese they took advantage of a world looking for peace.

Easy pickings.

It took most Nations 2-3 years to get into decent shape to reply, from the end of 1942 they stood no chance of further easy Victory and had to defend the long road back to Berlin.

__________________
Whe're off to see the Wizard, the wonderful wizard of OZ - 6 Australian Infantry Div, Bardia January 1941

Germany actually defeated Russia in the first war while fighting large French and British armies on the Western front.

And David Glantz claims that in 1941 the Red army was poorly trained, inadequately equipped, ineptly organized, and consequently incapable of engaging in large-scale military campaigns--and both Hitler and Stalin knew it, the Wehrmacht invaded Russia with Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Finland etc, as Allies and no worries of a second front in the time frame of Barbarossa--and lost.

Didn't it basically come down to Nazi Germany fighting two European powers, one at a time, defeating one and losing to the other?

By the time of Overlord, the war was well and truly decided in favour of the Soviets.

Don't get me wrong, as I previously posted, the Heer was the most potent army in the world, especially 'till '42, but it was part of a fatally flawed military machine as a whole.

Yes, Ali, but they were a bit better than a speed bump otherwise it wouldn't have taken almost 2 years from Kursk to Berlin, considering all the problems they had on their own.

__________________

Not discounting the ability of the Wermacht in 1943-45.
The overwhelming numbers they faced in the East, and the massive technology they faced in the West, would be enough to expect an immediate collapse. But they made the Soviets and Western Allies fight for every inch.

My doubts is their Offensive abilities given that Poland, France,Btitain, Denmark, Belgium, Nederlands, Norway, Yugoslavia & Greece were hardly ready for the Warfare of 1939-40. A lot of territory was gained cheaply. Even their victories in Nth Africa were achieved at great risk, Rommel was lucky that the Brits decided to go to Greece and took their best Infantry & half an Armoured Div out of the Desert. As it was a porrly trained Infantry Division stopped Rommel in his tracks.

After 1943, did any major German offensive succeed, of course many local attackes worked but we look at Zitadelle, Mortain & The Ardennes for at best a draw and 2 losses.

__________________
Whe're off to see the Wizard, the wonderful wizard of OZ - 6 Australian Infantry Div, Bardia January 1941

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ANZAC:
[QB] Germany actually defeated Russia in the first war while fighting large French and British armies on the Western front.


Not true. Russia withdrew because of internal problems ( Bolshevik revolution ) and Germany was more then happy to end the war in the east. Keep in mind that in 1916 Russian launched an offensive that lasted ten weeks and an advance of nearly 400 km.

If you are referring to lose of life then yes Russia again suffered the worst.

__________________
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

i dont think they were overrated, seemingly glorius, but they were just the "average" military for germany at the time...

__________________
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." -Winston Churchill

Yes, the opposition they faced really were not up to par, so those were easy victories. The Soviets of Barbarossa time were a mess of an army, so it was relatively easy as well, leaving aside the German logistical difficulties. After 1942, the opposition started learning and coupled with the lack of resources and logistical friction from then on it was all downhill.

__________________

fast does not necessarily means cheap

During the 5 weeks of the Battle of France, the Wermacht's daily losses were superior to those suffered during Barbarossa (june - décember 1941).

(N.B. : of course, this does not mean AT ALL that France offered as much resistance as USSR )

__________________

Join the C-cube now !

As I see it, Germany had the best troops and the best equipment at the beginning of the war. As the war progressed, the Allies caught up in skill, experience and equipment. As the war continued, Germany could not keep up with the troop and manufacturing demands to sustain their efforts. The Allies learned what the German weaknesses were, and exploited those areas.

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

fast does not necessarily means cheap

During the 5 weeks of the Battle of France, the Wermacht's daily losses were superior to those suffered during Barbarossa (june - décember 1941).

(N.B. : of course, this does not mean AT ALL that France offered as much resistance as USSR ) </font>[/QUOTE]WOW...I was not aware of that.

__________________

Facta non verba. "Deeds, not words"

The worst thing Hitler could think of was the two-front war of WW1. Instead he got the 4-front war as he was attacked from the east, south, west and from above.

I´m quite sure the attack in the west in 1944 would not have been as succesfull as it was if , say, the pact between Hitler and Stalin had not been broken, and Germany was receiving oil etc according to the pact. Now to succesfully land in France under these circumstances and push to the German border...

__________________

hitler tried to take on too many things at the time, he should have focused on one country at a time, and not multiple, i think thats what hurt him in the end....

__________________
"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." -Winston Churchill

If only Hitler listened to what Otto Von Bismarck said almost 60 years earlier. " Germany must never go to war with Russia "

__________________
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

Personally I'm rather glad he let that little nugget slip his mind.
Cheers,
Adam.

I do beleive that the Wehrmacht has been overrated. They were good fighters no doubt, but they had years and years of training before the first shot was fired. The fighting throughout the war showed that the allies had a good learning curve, and was more than a match for the Germans by '42-43. Perhaps the fastest learners (voiced by Monty) was the Americans. They took an awful pasting in the hills of North Africa, but no less than a year later they would best the Germans on the field.

I think that the mental luggage that the Germans had. Kesselslacht, Vernichtungsgedanke halted the learning curve early in the war for the Wehrmacht. Once the german strategic thinking code was cracked, the allied would best them on all fronts. Tactical skill and extremely local victories accounted for nothing as the Allies advanced on all fronts.

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

Was it skill that beat them (germany) OR was it, they we (the allies) had a step up on them because we cracked their code?

I know it took skill to crack the code, but I'm just saying that maybe we wern't as skill'ed as we thought, because we were able to prepare, knowing what the germans were going to do.

__________________

Facta non verba. "Deeds, not words"

On the whole, yes it was greatly overrated. Some examples of why:

After the fall of France German infantry divisions on their own never succeeded in offensive operations above the tactical level (company and down) against the Western Allies with one exception...the 18th VG versus 106th US Inf Div in the Ardennes.

As the war progressed the Wehrmacht continuely lowered the standard of equipment and manpower in their units to a point where many were of marginal or no value in combat. By 1944 most divisions in the West, particularly static defensive ones, included a levening of non-German eastern, often ex-Red Army, troops in their establishment. Ost battalions are another example.
Right from the start the typical German infantry division was often marginally equipped. Even in 1939 motor vehicles were a luxury. Communications equipment was in short supply. By 1941 even artillery was in this category. An increasing number of divisions had to rely on captured equipment for their material. This only adds to their lowered effectiveness.
Even the "elite" units and ones that received the cream of the equipment like panzer divisions were often short of their established TO&E.

As for why the Allied nations took so long to win the war it varies by nation. The Soviets were simply not that competent relying far more on strategic skill and operational bludgoning to win. The British continued their traditional strategy of sniping at the edges of a land power being a sea power rather that looking for a decisive blow from a land war. Their reliance was on gaining and retaining land powers as allies (the US and Russia).
The US started from their traditional position of having no military to speak of and having to build the tools of war on the fly while fighting the war. If anything, up through early 1944 the US was far more occupied with using a strategy similar to that of Britain than winning. Once the US had built up their forces and went over to a major land war the Germans really collapsed like a house of cards in the West.
Of course, it didn't help the Germans that they had been eviserated by the Russians up to that point.
On the whole though, the German military in WW 2 did not perform with stellar results.

Who's doing the over-rating though? Allied soldiers of the time? or us over 60 years of building fascination with the 'bad guys'?
When I talk to Veterans they seem to have rated Germany very highly as an opponent but they also knew when they were up against excellent troops or mediocre.
An enemy is nearly always going to be portrayed as tough to beat by the side that eventually wins isn't it? (and I would never say that they weren't) I just sometimes wonder if there is a 'Glamour' that has become associated with the 1940's German military that has raised perceptions of even the most ineffective unit to some sort of 'elite' status. Perhaps reflected in the sheer volume of books, kits, websites etc. dedicated to them when allied material can be very hard to come by, a situation that only seems to be changing fairly recently with the release of some excellent stuff on the Commonwealth & Soviet Armies & their equipment.
Same as any other organisation, some very good & some very bad... but a well designed uniform & a magic touch with propaganda can do wonders for the perceived image .
Cheers,
Adam.

Being smarter than the other side and able to preempt him never harmed anyone, so I wouldn't rate it as a sign of Allied weakness. Quite the contrary, the Allied skill in indirect warfare was much superior.

1 - And this only for a minority of units throughout the war, for the large part of the army was never motorised and relied on horse- or mule-power.

2 - "relying far more on strategic skill" was good enough to compensate for their shortcomings at tactical level, or should we rather say that the lack of developed tactical skills (eve if we admit it) detracted from the superiority at operational and strategical level.

At tactical level the Germans had evidently amazingly bright spots but what worth was that if the universe was crashing down around them? Lost victories, as von Manstein said.

3 - Liddell Hart made a virtue of exactly that in his book "The British Way in Warfare" so again I see no problem [img]smile.gif[/img] .

To my mind the absolutely most competent - nay brilliant - figure in Germany at the time was Dr. Joseph Goebbels, whose excellent work at myth creation is alive and well today 61 years after his death and will continue so for a long time yet.

__________________

When I say the 'code' I am not thinking of the Ultra intercepts. I am thinking of the singlemindedness of Strategic thinking of the Germans. Notably the Red Army and The British Army posessed a strategic level beyond the other armies. Ironically the two armies are usually portrayed as the least tactically apt armies.

To put it sweet and short. The germans would enjoy local victories, but loose on theatre scale.

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

The Wehrmacht could have remained intact if Hitler did not attack the Soviet Union. The Wehrmacht could have been built up more too safe guard all their early war gains and the result well most likely cold war stand off.

__________________
I am English and proud of it...Europe dose not need a another State, nuts to the EU.