Winner of the war

[CarlosI]

Hi, iv'e often been wondering something about the second world war, that some of you might be able to help me with.

I have often wondered what the outcome of the war would have been, if both the Allies and Axis fought the war with an equal amount of troops. Meaning man per man, the better fighter, would win the war, and not have it be decided along 10 to one odds.

I mean i know the germans killed more allies then they lost, but they still lost the war, so im kinda wondering if both sides were equal in numbers, who would have won the seond world war.

Thanks in advance.

[Adz]

The Allies, cause they had the aussies. Remember, a bunch of bush rangers from australia gave rommell and his afrika korps their very first arse wopping. The War in europe would of been over quickly if Japan hadn't started getting ambitious.

[h22chen]

Who won? the Rest of the world of course. *added: :p *

1. The European powers got so exhausted that they lost their colonial possessions in the following decades (and brought in a new world order?)
2. With the new distaste for all conflict, xenophobia and hate, etc... the former colonial states can play the victim card until the end of time.

*edit:
I want to explain my post, I realized that it could create misunderstanding. Firstly, I am not advocating conflict, xenophobia or hate (actually I'm against those). The actions by both sides (the atrocities etc...) during the war made people realize that these should not happen again ("never again") and that those should not happen (theoretically)
Unfortunately, even though it is a good action and concept eventually became fuzzy and now, there's no difference in the way that people tried to stop this and the people who abuse this through their own selfishness.

[Adz]

Yeah, that too. :roll: :roll:

[Blarney]

US and allies had industry, air and sea. They would have swept Germany away anyways....That and Allies could still have produced more men.

[usmajunk]

I think it does depend on what kind of time frame you are talking about. the US and British forces in the shape 1939? or of 1944?
if 39' and America and the allies attack, then yes, the outcome is drastically different
but by 44' the quality of troops is hard to compare. I mean there are a lot of factors in that kind of statement (i.e.-fighting at home, airpower, morale, etc.)

[CarlosI]

What i ment by my question was if both the allies and axis had just for example 10 men, and were equal in numbers, would the allies have still won the war.

[Freibier]

No p-) 123456

[Caper]

Too many variables man. Cant come up with a definite answer on that one...

[Kitsune]

If you are asking which side had the qualitatively better army and would have therefore won the war if no side had the quantiative advantage...if that is your question, then you are posing a dangerous question. A lot of pride is involved, and there is the matter of the Holocaust, of astrocities, of morals.
But the answer of that question, like it or not is: Germany had the qualitatively better armed forces compared to all of the allies. In both WWI and WWII they were men for men, unit of unit superior to any other army, (even including the Aussies by the way).

Afaik the best books as far as this question is concerned are and remain "Genius For War - The German Army and General Staff 1807-1945" by Colonel T.N. Dupuy, USA, Ret. (who discusses this question along with the arguments of those who deny the excellence of the German army) and, as an addition, "Fighting Power - German and U.S. Army Performance, 1939-1945" by Martin van Creveld.

To quote Dupuy who had studdied numerous WWI and WWII battles in detail: "In essence, the record shows that the Germans consistently outfought the far more numerous Allies armies that eventually defeated them. In 1943-1944 the German combat effectiveness superiority over the Western Allies (Americans and British) was in the order of 20-30 percent. On a man-for-man basis, the German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they had not, when they won and when they lost." (Dupuy on pp 253-254 of his afore mentioned book). Similar things can be said about the Eastern Front and about Western and Eastern Fronts in WWI, by the way.

Dupuy by the way explicitely states that this German superiority had nothing to do with genetics or inbred traits, but that it is the result of a carefully grown and nurtured system that institutionalized military excellence better than any other (although others at times came close) and that begun with the Prussian military reforms under Scharnhorst and Gneisenau just after the Prussian defeats at the hands of Napoleon.
A more in detailed analysis of the German WWII Army in direct comparision with the US Army is then given by the already mentioned "Fighting Power" by Martin van Creveld which essentially aims to answer the question what exactly made this Army as excellent as it was.

But, as said, the question is a rather emotional one. For many it simply cannot be what must not be. Dupuy himself admits that he was heavily critized for his claim of German martial superiority. But, as he puts it, the group that was most likely to support him as far as this opinion is concerned were American and Britsh war veterans who had actually fought in WWII.

[CarlosI]

Yea Kitsune, that was my question, thanks for the reply.

[Mastermind]

Yes...thanks for you usual in depth and fact backed reply Kitsuni...good read and informative.

[usa320]

With the completion of the Manhattan project i dont see any way Germany could have won. If they didnt get crushed in France and by the Russians they would have probably gotten their asses nuked.

[Kilgor]

German forces were one of the first to properly prepare for a "modern' war. They killing power was also greatly magnified by the total political and military weaknesses of the enemies they fought. Especially the french and soviet armies. And when the war did swing around, german forces were on the defensive and as a general rule forces on the defensive do enjoy a advantage against a attacking force.

[angry cow]

If you are talking strictly about infantry, which I think the poster intended, then the Germans had the most effective infantryman. It can be argued, however that it was actually a combination of the hi-speed maneuver battle and combined air, artillery, and armor support that made him so effective. Either way, by training or tactics, the Germans averaged the highest "kill ratio" of the war. Of course you all know how useful kill ratios are in determining the outcome of conflicts . . .

[Lanton]

Well, from what i've heard and read, the Germans had a better trained officer corps and, arguably, they got to play around with superior equipment (small-arms etc.).

[ogukuo72]

The consensus on this issue seemed to be that the German armed forces is qualitatively superior to the Allied ones.

Prima facie, this seemed indisputable - afterall, it had taken the combined power of two of the world's largest economies together with the world's largest empire to defeat Germany. This surely must mean that Germany possessed some combat power superior to those of all the others.

But looking at the issue this way is rather simplistic. For one thing, it assumes that the quality of the various armed forces remained constant throughout the entire war. This is not what happened between 1939 and 1945. And it is hardly possible to average out everything and say that on the whole, the Germans did better than the Americans or the Soviets, or the other way round.

In 1939, there's no question which nation was best prepared for offensive warfare. It was Germany. Britain and France were still desperately trying to rearm in 1939, when war was declared. Germany, having prepared for war since before 1936, had the advantage of being the aggressor, and held the initiative.

In 1940, German retained its superiority, by dint of superior leadership, superior combat skills, although not superior equipment (e.g. French tanks were better than German tanks). It also helped that in the French, they faced a foe that lacked the will to fight. Its soldiers were willing enough, and fought with some skill and determination, but the French government of the day was weak and corrupt, and there was a strong pacifist streak amongst the population. Against such a foe, it was hardly surprising that the Germans managed one of the greatest strategic feats of the 20th Century. Once they've punched through the Allied lines at Sedan, there was nothing to stop them - the French did not have any operational reserves, contrary to all military common sense. Once the French collapse, there was little that the British could do, except to save themselves from encirclement. The action fought by the British Army at Dunkirk was a forgotten story of heroism and tenacity.

The story was the same with the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941. The Soviet Red Army was unprepared for war, having had their most competent leaders massacred in the Great Purge of 1937-8. Their leader, Stalin, was so deluded about German intentions that even when the British told them about German plans to attack (gleaned from Ultra), he refused to believe them. It was hardly surprising that when the Germans struck, the Red Army almost collapsed.

But once the Germans faced real opposition, they were very quickly brought to a halt. The Luftwaffe, so effective against unprepared and weak opponents in 1939-40, was suddenly faced with heavy casualties against a determined and well-prepared RAF Fighter Command. By the end of the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe had lost 25% of its fighter force, and 30% of its bomber force, against an enemy that had actually increased in strength by 17%!

And what about the German failure in Russia? It failed as early as the autumn of 1941, when it failed to catch the Red Army, and was thrown back almost in panic in the winter of 1941. It came close to catastrophic defeat that winter. But the Soviet Red Army could do no more as Russian industry had been disrupted, and it had thrown in its reserves to throw back the Germans. It too had to rebuild itself before it can take real offensive. If the Red Army possessed the kind of strength it did in 1944, the Germans would have been crushed right there and then in 1941.

And what about the often hyped superiority of the Afrika Korp, supposedly the exemplar of German military efficiency? For much of 1941, they are fighting only against the British. The British was fighting at an disadvantage. Their supply lines were long and round Africa. The British Army was still unskilled in armoured warfare. And the British was outnumbered by the combined German and Italian forces. Yet, the British fought remarkably well. Rommel could do little when faced with the kind of warfare that the British was good at - defensive warfare.

And then there was Malta. No matter what the Germans threw at it, even with an obsolescent defense force with old fighters, the British held out, just as they did in the Battle of Britain. Again, the Germans could do little against the defenders.

The Germans had a couple last triumphs in 1942. The first was Operation Bleu, when once again, it seemed that the German army was pushing all before it. This was a misconception of course. The Germans were pushing into a weak flank of the Soviets. The Soviets had placed most of their troops in Russia, not Ukraine, as this was the true strategic centre of the struggle. They were surprised that the Germans chose to thrust so deeply into a flank that would leave them vulnerable. As we saw, this mistake was exploited by the Soviets at Stalingrad to crush the German army - so much for the vaunted German military effectiveness.

Then there was the thwarting of the Americans at the Kasserine Pass. Again, the Germans were fighting an inexperienced army that was in battle for the first time. Was it any wonder that the green Americans were badly beaten by opponents that had been fighting for three years? What should be surprising was that the Americans recovered remarkably well, and under good leaders like Patton, were able to beat the Germans consistently within a few months.

There's little doubt that the German army was very strong in the defense, but so is every other army. The Americans during the Ardennes Offensive, the British at Tobruk and Arnhem, the Soviets at Stalingrad all performed amazing feats of arms against incredible odds. Should it be surprising then that the Allies need to make so much effort to fight against an entrenched enemy?

What should be surprising is that the Allies, being constantly on the offensive and fighting against an entrenched enemy, should do so well.

In summary, the Germans won in 1939 and spring of 1940 because they fought weak and ill-prepared enemies. When they fought real enemies, such as the RAF in the summer of 1940, and the Red Army in 1941, even at a very early stage of the war, they were stopped in their tracks and suffered heavy casualties.

It is hardly surprising that the Allies had a tough time against the Germans between 1943 to 1945. This is not because of superior leadership or superior equipment, but simply because the Germans were fighting from entrenched positions.

[foxtrot023]

It is hardly surprising that the Allies had a tough time against the Germans between 1943 to 1945. This is not because of superior leadership or superior equipment, but simply because the Germans were fighting from entrenched positions.

Just a few points-

The germans did have a superior leadership of the field, mind you not at a strategic level, than the allies. Western allies military leader of divisional size and lower in particular performed poorly, specifically in the Normandy campaign, even on the italian campaign. You can read up several books on the topic, but just look at how many divisional and regimental comanders were sacked during the normandy campaign. Germany did enjoy superior equipment in some field also. German tanks were better than their western equivalents, and equal to the soviet tanks. German light infantry guns were also very well regarded by the allies (MG42, MP40, etc).

While it is true that in 1939, Poland was caught unaware, you can hardly say the same of 1940 France and UK, which had declared war on Germany 9 months earlier.

In any case, the allies outproduced the germans, and wore them down, and had clear strategic objectives and that won them the war.

PS. Please read on the Afrika corps, which in 1940-41 consisted of a couple divisions, and were heavily outnumbered by the british in Africa, even when including the italians. Take for example El Alamain, the allies outnumbered the axis by roughly 2 to 1. Likewise, the lines of communication/supply were much longer and fragile for the germans (Malta was the thorn on their side, and the RN sunk a large chunk of axis shipping) than the brits (main base was in Egypt). Sure the germans were the uber men and they vastly understimated the soviets, they also had a piss poor strategic direction of the war, and their production with its slavery, multiple product, complex weapons, et al hampered them, but they had brilliant tactical leadership and performed better even when outnumbered, which was often the case, by the allies.

[Para]

We will never know will we as such things never happen

[Mastermind]

I think it is difficult to determine because of several factors. You can train anyone to be an excellent fighting man if you have the core skills and the time. A large percentage of fighting men in the American army were from German, Polish, British, French, Finn, Russian (an all other nations) and African stock. The Germans were well trained and disciplined and well led. At the beginning of the war, there is no doubt in my mind they were the best fighting forces in the world. However, this qualatative assessment is primarily due to the over all poor condition of troops elsewhere. As the war progressed, it could be argued the quality of the German forces degraded and the quality of the allied forces improved dramatically. Individual fighting groups, such as the US Marines, British Commandos, American Rangers and the various airborne forces could easily be a match for the best German forces ever deployed. Some of the great massed fighting forces fielded by the Russians after the turn from Moscow might have been the equal of any fighting men any where at any time in history.

Summing up...it is my opinion you can not make fighting men from nationalities...you make them from will and drill.

[Atlantic Friend]

I strongly recommend reading Steven Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers" for a detailed description of the uniaue characteristics of the soldiers that made the bulk of the United States expeditionary forces in Europe. I don't think many European armies, including the German Wehrmacht, ever had the opportunity to be as picky and selective as the US Army then.

[ogukuo72]

Thanks foxtrot, you made some interesting points.


Just a few points-

The germans did have a superior leadership of the field, mind you not at a strategic level, than the allies. Western allies military leader of divisional size and lower in particular performed poorly, specifically in the Normandy campaign, even on the italian campaign. You can read up several books on the topic, but just look at how many divisional and regimental comanders were sacked during the normandy campaign.
Yes, the Allies had had a string of bad commanders. There's no doubt about that. Some command decisions border on the incompetent, or even the criminal, such as sending men to fight in the Hurtgen Forest (that's Bradley BTW) or sending men to a bridge too far (that's Montgomery).

And the Germans had some very good commanders, such as Kesseling <sic?> which fought well in Italy from 1944-45.

As you noted, the Allies had superiority in grand strategic leadership. It did not help the Germans that Hitler had himself as his own chief of staff.

While acknowledging your points, I'm not sure if there's much evidence that German field commanders are truly superior to Allied ones. For every Guderian, there's a Patton (I'm sorry that I don't know more about Soviet field commanders. I would've loved to know more about the commanders that broke the Army Group Centre in Jun 44).


Germany did enjoy superior equipment in some field also. German tanks were better than their western equivalents, and equal to the soviet tanks. German light infantry guns were also very well regarded by the allies (MG42, MP40, etc). I really don't agree with this at all. For example, the MG42 is inferior to the Bren and BAR in the role of the light machine gun, and inferior to water-cooled machine guns like the vickers and 0.5in calibre weapons like the M2 in the heavy machine gun role. The MP40 is inferior to the PPsH-41 in terms of firepower and reliability, and the Thompson in terms of the heaviness of the rounds. The M1 or SVT40 are easily the superior battle rifle, compared to the Mauser 98K.


While it is true that in 1939, Poland was caught unaware, you can hardly say the same of 1940 France and UK, which had declared war on Germany 9 months earlier.
I'm not saying that the British and the French were not prepared. Certainly the French units were well equipped and battle ready. But their strategic leadership was lacking, and they were not back up by governments (remember, Chamerlain was still PM, and the corrupt and inept 3rd French Republic) with a strong back bone. Not holding a mobile reserves ready to attack any breakthrough was a basic strategic mistake.

Rather than demonstrating German superiority, it actually demonstrates a very basic strategic error. Once the Germans punched through the Allied lines at Sedan, and pushed to the Channel and isolating the British, there was very little that either the British or French could do.

The Germans had been lucky in 1940 in France. This was acknowledged as much by German generals.


Please read on the Afrika corps, which in 1940-41 consisted of a couple divisions, and were heavily outnumbered by the british in Africa, even when including the italians. Take for example El Alamain, the allies outnumbered the axis by roughly 2 to 1. Likewise, the lines of communication/supply were much longer and fragile for the germans (Malta was the thorn on their side, and the RN sunk a large chunk of axis shipping) than the brits (main base was in Egypt).
The Afrika Korp in 1941 was sent to reinforce the Italians, and provide de facto battlefield leadership under Rommel. At this point, the Germans and Italians actually outnumber the British forces. The spectacular early victories of Rommel could be attributed to this.

Similarly, the subsequent defeat of Rommel can be attributed to the tenacity of the epic defence of Malta to keep it as an offensive base against Rommel's supply lines, the patient reinforcement and building up of the resources of the British, and a carefully thought out battle plan by Montgomery. All this was a military achievement of the first order, which people seem to give the Allies very little credit for.

[ogukuo72]

I strongly recommend reading Steven Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers" for a detailed description of the uniaue characteristics of the soldiers that made the bulk of the United States expeditionary forces in Europe. I don't think many European armies, including the German Wehrmacht, ever had the opportunity to be as picky and selective as the US Army then.
This is absolutely true.

In addition, by 1944/45, Germany had been fighting for four years and had already suffered horrendous casualties in the Eastern Front and in North Africa. Other than a hard core, the quality of the rest was bound to have suffered.

This is why it is important to distinguish the German armies at different periods of WW2.

[foxtrot023]

Thanks foxtrot, you made some interesting points.


While acknowledging your points, I'm not sure if there's much evidence that German field commanders are truly superior to Allied ones. For every Guderian, there's a Patton (I'm sorry that I don't know more about Soviet field commanders. I would've loved to know more about the commanders that broke the Army Group Centre in Jun 44).

Von Mastein for one. But I was refering more to the junior ranked officers ie- from Lt to Major, which often times made a strong diference. Sure, german division commander were aggresive on the offensive and keen on the defensive. There is a very good book on this issue by S. Ambrose and J. Balkoski ¨Beyond the beachehead- The 29th division in Normandy ¨

I really don't agree with this at all. For example, the MG42 is inferior to the Bren and BAR in the role of the light machine gun, and inferior to water-cooled machine guns like the vickers and 0.5in calibre weapons like the M2 in the heavy machine gun role.

But the MG42 excelled at the role it was intended for. It was so successful that armies copied the whole LMG for each squad idea. And the BAR, as well beloved as it was by the GIs, lagged behind the MG42 is term of firepower.

The MP40 is inferior to the PPsH-41 in terms of firepower and reliability, and the Thompson in terms of the heaviness of the rounds. The M1 or SVT40 are easily the superior battle rifle, compared to the Mauser 98K.

I agree with this

I'm not saying that the British and the French were not prepared. Certainly the French units were well equipped and battle ready. But their strategic leadership was lacking, and they were not back up by governments (remember, Chamerlain was still PM, and the corrupt and inept 3rd French Republic) with a strong back bone. Not holding a mobile reserves ready to attack any breakthrough was a basic strategic mistake.

The beauty of the german plan was to adapt it to changing circumstances- mobile warfare, and a daring thrust via the ardennes while the allies basically did a re-run of their 1914 plan, plus pushing their best troops to Belgium.


The Afrika Korp in 1941 was sent to reinforce the Italians, and provide de facto battlefield leadership under Rommel. At this point, the Germans and Italians actually outnumber the British forces. The spectacular early victories of Rommel could be attributed to this.

The British soldiers were indeed outnumbered by the Italians in 1940 but the Afrika Corps landed in 1941. As a matter of fact the English took over 130,000 italians prisoners by the end of 1940.

In February 1941, the Afrika Corps was only composed by the 5th light division, which pushed the English to Cyrenaica before the 15th PZ div arrived. They faced several allied divisions. Op Brevity did indeed had the british outnumbered, even if they had more tanks, but on the other hand the majority of soldiers in axis ranks were Italian, which were poorly equipped and led. But for example, Op. Battleaxe both sides were about even in numbers. Op. Crusader faced 7 allied divisions against 3 german ones. The Italians had 6 very weak divisions. Tank wise the allies had 770 to less than half of that by the germans/italians.

Similarly, the subsequent defeat of Rommel can be attributed to the tenacity of the epic defence of Malta to keep it as an offensive base against Rommel's supply lines, the patient reinforcement and building up of the resources of the British, and a carefully thought out battle plan by Montgomery. All this was a military achievement of the first order, which people seem to give the Allies very little credit for.

That I agree 100%. Not taking Malta was a grave oversight by the german command. But Monty´s plan was the application of their materiel and men superiority rather than a brilliant plan. Was it carefully thought and executed- yes, brilliant and daring- no.



1234567890

[CPLHUNTER]

The consensus on this issue seemed to be that the German armed forces is qualitatively superior to the Allied ones.

Prima facie, this seemed indisputable - afterall, it had taken the combined power of two of the world's largest economies together with the world's largest empire to defeat Germany. This surely must mean that Germany possessed some combat power superior to those of all the others.

But looking at the issue this way is rather simplistic. For one thing, it assumes that the quality of the various armed forces remained constant throughout the entire war. This is not what happened between 1939 and 1945. And it is hardly possible to average out everything and say that on the whole, the Germans did better than the Americans or the Soviets, or the other way round.

In 1939, there's no question which nation was best prepared for offensive warfare. It was Germany. Britain and France were still desperately trying to rearm in 1939, when war was declared. Germany, having prepared for war since before 1936, had the advantage of being the aggressor, and held the initiative.

In 1940, German retained its superiority, by dint of superior leadership, superior combat skills, although not superior equipment (e.g. French tanks were better than German tanks). It also helped that in the French, they faced a foe that lacked the will to fight. Its soldiers were willing enough, and fought with some skill and determination, but the French government of the day was weak and corrupt, and there was a strong pacifist streak amongst the population. Against such a foe, it was hardly surprising that the Germans managed one of the greatest strategic feats of the 20th Century. Once they've punched through the Allied lines at Sedan, there was nothing to stop them - the French did not have any operational reserves, contrary to all military common sense. Once the French collapse, there was little that the British could do, except to save themselves from encirclement. The action fought by the British Army at Dunkirk was a forgotten story of heroism and tenacity.

The story was the same with the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941. The Soviet Red Army was unprepared for war, having had their most competent leaders massacred in the Great Purge of 1937-8. Their leader, Stalin, was so deluded about German intentions that even when the British told them about German plans to attack (gleaned from Ultra), he refused to believe them. It was hardly surprising that when the Germans struck, the Red Army almost collapsed.

But once the Germans faced real opposition, they were very quickly brought to a halt. The Luftwaffe, so effective against unprepared and weak opponents in 1939-40, was suddenly faced with heavy casualties against a determined and well-prepared RAF Fighter Command. By the end of the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe had lost 25% of its fighter force, and 30% of its bomber force, against an enemy that had actually increased in strength by 17%!

And what about the German failure in Russia? It failed as early as the autumn of 1941, when it failed to catch the Red Army, and was thrown back almost in panic in the winter of 1941. It came close to catastrophic defeat that winter. But the Soviet Red Army could do no more as Russian industry had been disrupted, and it had thrown in its reserves to throw back the Germans. It too had to rebuild itself before it can take real offensive. If the Red Army possessed the kind of strength it did in 1944, the Germans would have been crushed right there and then in 1941.

And what about the often hyped superiority of the Afrika Korp, supposedly the exemplar of German military efficiency? For much of 1941, they are fighting only against the British. The British was fighting at an disadvantage. Their supply lines were long and round Africa. The British Army was still unskilled in armoured warfare. And the British was outnumbered by the combined German and Italian forces. Yet, the British fought remarkably well. Rommel could do little when faced with the kind of warfare that the British was good at - defensive warfare.

And then there was Malta. No matter what the Germans threw at it, even with an obsolescent defense force with old fighters, the British held out, just as they did in the Battle of Britain. Again, the Germans could do little against the defenders.

The Germans had a couple last triumphs in 1942. The first was Operation Bleu, when once again, it seemed that the German army was pushing all before it. This was a misconception of course. The Germans were pushing into a weak flank of the Soviets. The Soviets had placed most of their troops in Russia, not Ukraine, as this was the true strategic centre of the struggle. They were surprised that the Germans chose to thrust so deeply into a flank that would leave them vulnerable. As we saw, this mistake was exploited by the Soviets at Stalingrad to crush the German army - so much for the vaunted German military effectiveness.

Then there was the thwarting of the Americans at the Kasserine Pass. Again, the Germans were fighting an inexperienced army that was in battle for the first time. Was it any wonder that the green Americans were badly beaten by opponents that had been fighting for three years? What should be surprising was that the Americans recovered remarkably well, and under good leaders like Patton, were able to beat the Germans consistently within a few months.

There's little doubt that the German army was very strong in the defense, but so is every other army. The Americans during the Ardennes Offensive, the British at Tobruk and Arnhem, the Soviets at Stalingrad all performed amazing feats of arms against incredible odds. Should it be surprising then that the Allies need to make so much effort to fight against an entrenched enemy?

What should be surprising is that the Allies, being constantly on the offensive and fighting against an entrenched enemy, should do so well.

In summary, the Germans won in 1939 and spring of 1940 because they fought weak and ill-prepared enemies. When they fought real enemies, such as the RAF in the summer of 1940, and the Red Army in 1941, even at a very early stage of the war, they were stopped in their tracks and suffered heavy casualties.

It is hardly surprising that the Allies had a tough time against the Germans between 1943 to 1945. This is not because of superior leadership or superior equipment, but simply because the Germans were fighting from entrenched positions.

I think that alot of the failures of the German Army was b/c Hitler insisted upon playing a very important role in tactical decisions. If he would have let the his Generals run the war, things may have turned out a bit differently.

In regards to the Battle of Britain, Hitler and Goering made a huge error when they switched their attacks from radar and air bases to the city of London after a German bomber by accident bombed London. The British retaliated by bombing Berlin, which embarressed Goering so then Hitler was enraged and oder the switch from tactical bombing to soft targets.

It's a historical fact that in late August, the Luftwaffe had killed over 25% of British pilots. If they would have kept it up, the war may have turned out differently.

But that God for the resolve of the British people and Hitlers stupidy and huge ego...

[ClydeFrog]

I really don't agree with this at all. For example, the MG42 is inferior to the Bren and BAR in the role of the light machine gun, and inferior to water-cooled machine guns like the vickers and 0.5in calibre weapons like the M2 in the heavy machine gun role. The MP40 is inferior to the PPsH-41 in terms of firepower and reliability, and the Thompson in terms of the heaviness of the rounds. The M1 or SVT40 are easily the superior battle rifle, compared to the Mauser 98K.
Not true. The MG34 and 42 are at least on par (if not superior) with the Bren and easily superior to the BAR in the role of the LMG. Not to mention that the MG42 is a lot cheaper and faster to produce than all of the others and serves well in both roles. Regarding heavy machineguns: All water-coolded mgs were pretty much obsolete by the time the war started. Even without the introduction of the GPMGs they would not have outlived the war. The SVT never became the general issue rifle and therefor you have to compare the Mosin to the Mauser, which is about on par. The MP40 is inferior to the PPSh-41 no doubt, but not to the Thompson. I won't turn this into a calibre discussion but they both are about on par performance-wise and the MP40 is much cheaper to produce.

[ogukuo72]

Clyde, I can see where you are coming from. I believe our difference is because of what we think a good LMG is, or what a good HMG is. For me, I've always thought the GPMG concept was flawed, and that the MG-42 had too high a rate of fire. I think we can agree to disagree on this one and move on. :)

I've always wondered about Hitler. Just how much an impact did he have on the German military disasters? In other words, if we have, say a Roosevelt or a Churchill, or even a Stalin, instead, would things have been different? Would, for example, the Sixth Army have been saved in Stalingrad? Or would the German and Italian forces in North Africa have been saved?

I think we have to look at it on a case by case basis. For example, in North Africa, given Malta's chokehold on Axis convoy routes, I don't think there's much that could be done there.

A stronger case could be made for Stalingrad, where part of the 6th Army could well be saved if Hitler had not ordered them to hold fast. But I think only elements of the 6th Army could be saved, given that the left flank had collapsed.


It's a historical fact that in late August, the Luftwaffe had killed over 25% of British pilots. If they would have kept it up, the war may have turned out differently.
I'll have to refer to a book on the figures on British pilots, but I think don't think this is correct. As I recalled, there were more British pilots in Sep 40 than in Jul 40! I'll get back to you on this.

I'm going to start a seperate thread on myths associated with the Battle of Britain. Let's return to the original thread.

I want to emphasise that I'm not saying that German forces were inferior. Afterall, how can I deny the quality of troops like the SS panzer corps in Normandy, or the paratroopers that fought in Crete?

I'm just saying that the picture is much more complex, and that the Allies had very good troops as well, and the quality of the troops on both sides changed over time. This is not only only because of battle experience, but also because of training. Very often, it was because their will to fight had been hardened.

If, for example, the British had fought in 1940 with the troops, experience, and tactics of 1945, and the French had fought with the kind of troops and commanders such as Leclerc and his Free French forces, the Germans would have had a much tougher time, and might even have been defeated outright.

As it was, the Germans already met good quality troops, aircrew and commanders as early as 1940, and as we saw, had a much tougher time.

[Lokos]

(I'm sorry that I don't know more about Soviet field commanders. I would've loved to know more about the commanders that broke the Army Group Centre in Jun 44).


My God, let us not discuss some of the commanders the Soviet Union had to work through in the panicky months of 1941 and 1942. A truly lethal learning curve was the result.

The men who broke AGC in 1944 include the well-known Giants: Zhukov, Konev, Vassilevsky, Rokossovsky. Men like Chernakovskii, V. F. Mernov, Rotmistrov, Gordov, Pukhov, Katukov, Kurochkin, Moskalenko, Lelyushenko, Rybalko etc. played leading roles in actually carrying out Operation Bagration.

All of them were schooled in the bitter realm of hard knocks. Some lost entire armies due to early mistakes. But they learned, and developed their skills. The most successful ones were, almost invariably, those who had come away from the Civil War with an appreciation of mechanized cavalry groups and their application in maneuver warfare. It is quite funny that a number of these men had to get formal qualifications for certain positions that they had earned by merit and out of necessity.

It was most certainly a war that brought out the best and the worst in individuals.

Lokos

[caridon]

one thing i am missing from this discusion is Logistics.

This was the german armys main achiles heel.
The big reason Patton was a great general was that he figured this out and created a way of fighting that forced the oponent to spend a lot off amma,fuel ect.

It costed his forces a lot of ammo ,fuel ect to but the american logistics were much better so he could win by material atrition.

The same effect can be seen on the russian front but less intentionaly and just as a factor of the vast amounts of men and great distanses.

/C

[ogukuo72]

Caridon, you are right.

This is clearly seen in Rommel's to-ing and fro-ing in North Africa in 1941/42, where each time he ignored his logistics and rushed ahead, only to come to a halt, literally out of gas.

The other achilles heel is intelligence. The Germans never had very good intelligence.

And let's not even talk about their signal security. ULTRA was one of the most important weapons the Western Allies had.

Of the Allies, I thought the most amazing phoneix out of the ashes story was the recovery of the Red Army after the defeats in the Summer of 1941. As I had said, the Red Army was able to throw back the German Army as early as the winter of 1941.

And who can deny the quality of the Soviet soldiers that fought outnumbered for so long in Stalingrad to hold the Sixth Army in place for their colleagues to prepare a trap?

[foxtrot023]

Caridon, you are right.

This is clearly seen in Rommel's to-ing and fro-ing in North Africa in 1941/42, where each time he ignored his logistics and rushed ahead, only to come to a halt, literally out of gas.

The other achilles heel is intelligence. The Germans never had very good intelligence.

And let's not even talk about their signal security. ULTRA was one of the most important weapons the Western Allies had.

Of the Allies, I thought the most amazing phoneix out of the ashes story was the recovery of the Red Army after the defeats in the Summer of 1941. As I had said, the Red Army was able to throw back the German Army as early as the winter of 1941.

And who can deny the quality of the Soviet soldiers that fought outnumbered for so long in Stalingrad to hold the Sixth Army in place for their colleagues to prepare a trap?

True, I agree 100%. I would add to logistics and intelligence 2 other things- Strategic leadership and complex and hard to produce weapons (which is tied to the empire building and infighting for resources between Luftwaffe, Waffen SS et al which at the long term weakened the german war effort)

[Kitsune]

Certainly logistics was a problem for the German armed forces in WWII. Germany began the war completely unprepared. Remember, until 1935 Germany had only an army 100.000 strong and no conscription. This meant there was a small hard core of excellent Reichswehr officers - that is it. Hitler wanted a fast increase in numbers to reach French levels as soon as possible (France had a standing army of 750.000 soldiers, to be enlarged in case of war to 1.5 million), whereas the German generals would have preferred to slowly increase the size of the German army so that training can keep pace.
As a result, when war with the Western Powers broke out (against German and even Hitlers will, he had wrongly believed that they would not dare to declare war because of Poland) the German army, including many of the low ranking officers, was largely "green".
Same with war material: whereas France and Britain had nearly endless stockpiles of weapons, if need be from all those years since WWI, Germany had not - there was constant and acute shortage of weapons, ammo, fuel...
Actually Czech and then Polish stocks helped a lot to overcome shortages.
Added to this was, that Hitler did not want to burden the German people too much, lest his popularity could dwindle. Therefore the amount of resources committed for military campaigns was limited. Only when the war entered the critical phase Germany was turned to a war economy - AFTER Britain, the UdSSR and even America NOT before.

Point is, that ogukuos assertion that a well prepared Germany met some surprised and unprepared enemies in the early years of WWII is quite wrong. It was more the other way round. (Why should the French and British be suprised...it was not that the Wehrmacht jumped at them from some dark corner. They had declared war themselves - three quarter of a year before the Western Campaign begun at that - so they were hardly suprised. And when the Germans attacked westwards...well this was actually what the French and British leadership wanted. Afzer WWI they firmly believed in the superiority of defense and wanted to exploit the advantage of being the defender...if possible even the costly defenses of the Maginot line).

The German shortage of about every imaginable ressource - including time- is then a ever repeating story in WWII. The campaigns in Poland, Norway, France, Balkans, Greece, Africa, Russia... always the same: the Wehrmacht was unprepared for it, had to cook something up (how to defeat Poland in as short a time as possible, how to transport troops to Norway, how to break through the French/British defenses in the West, how to march through the Balkans, how to conquer Greece, how to take Crete, how to fight in the deserts of northern Africa, how in the steppes of Russia) and that in very limited time (the whole Norwegian campaign was prepared in a few weeks, the planning for the Greece campaign was done in a mere 10 days).




From a more general viewpoint, it had been a German and before that Prussian tradition to concentrate on military effectivity on the battlefield and not on logistics. Prussia and then Germany are surrounded by other states, France in the west, Austria and Italy in the south, Russia and possibly Poland in the east. So its easy to to form an alliance against Prussia/Germany and to attack it from various directions. And since nearly any alliance (and certainly any including Russia) would be able to field more soldiers than Prussia/Germany, an longwinded conflict that was decided through mere attrition would be very disadvantageous. And even if it came to one: for Prussia or Germany to have any chance to win the own armed forces have to be qualitatively better than the ones of the opponents. Otherwise one can as well forget it.
So there is no question: the Prussian, and after 1870 German military liked to send there best and brightest to the front to fight and not to the rear to handle logistics.

Compared to this, the USA were in a completely different situation in both worldwars. It was the largest industrial power of the world by far. Their home turf was secure. Their enemy was already fighting an alliance that was superior to him, on top of this came now the USA. (This goes for the European theater of course. But as far as Japan is concerned, this was still an industrially quite backward nation back then, the US production capacity was 15 to 17 times larger. Even if America used 60% of all of its war effort against the Germans the American forces still enjoyed a very comfortable advantage as far as the numbers of supplies were concerened - namely by factor five atleast. I can't say wether the Americans fought more efficiently than the Japanese. In any case this was not needed, pure and simple outproducing the enemy could do the job just fine. Once America was committed the Japanese were in a quite hopeless situation.)

The question would be: is it a mistake to concetrate on the battlefield? Should one not, like one American military man once said "study logistics instead of battles"? My answer is a simple: no, not at all.
Form the German viewpoint war is something of an art. Meaning that there are aspects to it that cannot simply be measured or scientifically understood. Not that scientific and logical thinking has no place in the military field, on the contrary. But some aspects of war seem to be inherently vague or almost illogical. Actually this may be an illusion: one that recedes if one, as a military historian, can look at the whole picture of a battle, both sides. But DURING the battle one usually cannot. Information is limited, the fog of war enshrouds everything. And in such a situation illogical things like for example "intuition" come into the game.
In contrast to this logistics is a quite orderly affair. Its about production numbers, transport lines, timetables. No one says that initiative, improvisation or intuition do not play a role here at all. But not like on the battlefield, whatever the logistic guys say.

It is on the battlefield, where the commander, even on the low company level, holds the lifes of his man in his hand. One stupid order can, quite directly, kill them. And if he does, the survivors will notice it. They also will notice how effective they are against the enemy. And once the soldiers start to loose their confidence in their leadership, moral goes downhill. This is usually the secret why some national armies seem to be more cowardly then others: the troops have no confidence in their officers. If the officers are seen as a bunch of arrogant, incompetent lounge lizards, the enlisted man will feel little compulsion to take risks - and possibly use the first opportunity to get the hell out of Dodge. There is a way against it: draconian discipline and instilled fear. When the soldiers are too afraid to run they may not do it. But such an army can never be the best.
This is why the best and brightest belong to the battlefield.



But some word about German logistics.
Compared to France, Britain the German logistic sytems were not much inferior. Not at all inferior in WWI. However, in the WWII era the organisation on top was, thanks to the Nazi leadership, quite chaotic. Nonetheless this was usually overcome through efficency further down the ranks. In the last years of the war- the loosing years- logistics, after reorganized in 1943, worked much better. Please consider that Germany in 1943 and then 1944 was under far more military pressure than any other state in history had ever been. Far worse than the Sovietunion in 1941 actually. Both western and eastern forces advanced, both were respectively outnumbering the German forces in about everything. Still, when the Soviets attacked in summer 1944, the German armed forces did not break and dissolve. They reorganized and managed to stop the Soviets (if only for some time). In the West the American generals noted that the German resistance instead of faltering under the immense pressure INCREASED over autumn 1944. In winter the Germans even started to go on the offensive.
The point is not wether the Ardennes offensive was in any way wise or clever. It's about that the Germans could do such a thing. Despite completely overwhelming, even hopeless odds, constant aerial bombardement, the German defenses were reorganized. Production was increased, immensly actually. New weapons were designed and fielded. Others were simplified and mass produced. For lacking raw materials replacements were found.
So the German logistic skill and effort was quite remarkable and may compare favorably with the one the Soviets diplayed in 1941-43. Still the old wisdom proved true: don't fight a war of attrition against an quantiatively superior enemy.

[Kitsune]

The second topic is German intelligence. Or lack of thereof. This may perhaps be the greatest myth of all: Germans have no good intelligence. The countless Hollywood movies displaying clever American/British spies against incomptent German opponents may be a cause for this. Or the numerous one-sided books about the clever Western Allied camoflaging of their various offenses. Whatever.

One remark at the beginning: if somebody manages to fight efficiently, possibly conquer other nations you can downright bet that he does this backed by good intelligence. So how come that the Germans swiftly conquered nearly all of Europe during WWII without it? Well, simple answer, they did not.



Some remarks to counter this "the Germans had never good intelligence" myth.

-In the mid of the 19th century Prussia won three wars in rapid succession: against Denmark, Austria and France. One reason for these successes was a very efficient German intelligence service, the so called "Central Nachrichten Bureau" (translation: "Central Intelligence Agency"). Prussian forces knew very well how strong for example the French were (better than the other way round, that's for sure) and how they were positioned. Without this the defeat of France would not have been possible. This was also one of the reasons for Bismarcks diplomatic successes in the second half of the 19th century: the man usually knew more about the intentions, weaknesses and problems of his opponents on the negotation table than they knew about him, his intentions and problems. The secret of success so to speak.
-In WWI the German intelligence was notorious by the Western Allies. Spymania troubled both French and British repeatedly and Western newspapers brought stories about the mysterious female German masterspy "Tiger-Eyes" (aka "terrible Blond of Antwerp" and of course "Fraulein Doktor"). Indeed, the Germans had often very good intelligence over their adversaries and the terrain, in west and east alike. The Russians were finally brought down by an Operation of German Intelligence: they smuggled Lenin into Russia, hoping that this would bring about a revolt. It worked. (Too well perhaps...)
-And after WWII atleast the East German intelligence service managed to gain a reputation of fearsome efficiency. The "Stasi" became downright infamous.

Which leaves the WWII era. There are of course those things that are well known: ULTRA of course. The British actually managed to break into the German code system (which were state of the art, possibly more difficult to break than comparable British codes). Or various camoflaging maneuvers let Hitler believe that the invasion in Normandy was a feint and that the real invasion force would land somewhere else. No two ways about it, both were serious defeats of the German intelligence system which was troubled by a lot of Nazi induced infighting (the Abwehr's chiefs loyalty to the Nazis cause dwindled, the SS/SD apparatus wanted nothing deared then to take get all intelligence operation in his claws and so forth).

However:
1) ULTRA's effect on the war was suprisingly limited. Reason for this was twofold: while Churchill sometimes had reports intended for Hitler on his desk before Hitler himself, this was usually not the case. Often the decoding delayed the information by days or even weeks. Added to this there were "blackout" periods when the Germans had their codes changed or upgraded. During this time (periods of weeks or even months) the picture became dark.
2) A continous problem that hindered the battlefield exploitation of information by ULTRA was the suppleness of the Wehrmacht...an army that was MORE flexible than its oponents in both east and west. It adapted to a changed sitation unusually fast, this made Allied attempts to easily outmaneuver the German forces difficult.

The situation on the "codebreaking front" was not different from the overall situation of the war: the Germans were heavily outnumbered. In other words: everyone (the French, Polish, British Americans and Russians, before the annexation the Czechs) tried to crack the German codes, the Abwehr had to split their efforts. Nonetheless German intelligence were more successful than the Hollywood induced reputation gives them credit for. For example: in Spring 1942 the Germans broke into the codes of the Allied convoy system (while the introduction of the new code "Triton" stopped the British from decyphering the ENIGMA messages from the Germans subs). For months 80% of all messages about position and situation of the convoys were read by the German Navy. Resulting in the highest quota of ships sunk per month.

According to James Bamfords book "Body of Secrets" (a history of the American NSA), German intelligence was also quite successful on another front: at the end of 1944 the German intelligence managed to achieve an ULTRA like break-in into the (quite complex) Soviet code system. Something which the British and Americans never managed on their own (they were busy with the German codes after all). Too late to exploit this, this knowledge and the scientists behind it were taken to the United States in 1945...and enabled the United States to actually read Soviet messeages to the highest echelons for years. (This ended exactly on the day the Korean war broke out, a date which allegedly would be reffered to as "black day" in the NSA to this very day). In any case, some aspects about this are still kept secret by US authorities to this very day, the political ramifications may still be too severe.


As far as the Normandy situation was concerned: many German generals came to the conclusion that Overlord was the invasion - decisive was that Hitler did not. By the way, an Allied attempt to deceive the Germans about their invasion in Sicily had failed.


On the opposite side, the Germans seem to have been able to keep some secrets about their own invasions. During the Poland campaign the French and British were successfully deceived about the extent to which German troops were left at the "Siegfried line" in the west (barely any that is). Likewise, the extent to which the Wehrmacht was short of supplies (basically out of ammo after the four weeks of the Poland campaign) was successfully hidden.
The Norwegian camapaign came as quite a surprise to the British, who at first did not believe that the Wehrmacht could pull this off against the will of the Royal Navy (look on a map to see why).
Decisive for French campaign was the knowledge that the French had only weak forces behind the the southern Belgian Ardennes reagion. This and the ability to channel sufficient German forces through this difficult area enabled the victory over France and the British BEF in summer 1940. The other alternatives would have been a direct assault on the Maginot Line (suicide) or a repetition of the Schlieffenplan, now with motorized armored forces (exactly what the Franch and British generals expected). Of course, had the Allies only suspected what the Wehrmacht would do, the attack could have been countered....but the secret was kept. (This must be what Ogukuo72 refers to as "luck"...)
[Sidenote: A couple of years ago their was some rokus in Swiss media. During WWII the Swiss had an super secret giant of a Bunker, of which the world, or more specific, the Germans should have had no idea that it even existed. The cause of the splash in the Swiss media was, that the German Abwehr not only knew about it...they had the complete floorplans. Via inside sources in the Swiss military, of course. What's more: Canaris seems to have kept this secret from Hitler, lest the Nazi-leader could feel inspired to attack Switzerland.]
The Greece campaign succeeded in the way it did only because of solid intelligence about the terrain (German Gebrigsjäger traversed a mountain chain that, according to Greek and British assessment was untraversable...the Germans were lucky again it seems.)
Successes in Africa had often to do with intelligence about the geography as well, plus, the Afrikakorps had a very efficient signals intelligence unit. With the fast reaction time of the Wehrmacht (and the slower one of the British forces - even more since their supreme commander tended to direct the war from a desk in Egypt via telephone), Rommel could often directly react on British moves and counter them. And sometimes the Abwehr got lucky again (by chance "finding" the complete battleplans for the British counteroffensive "Crusader" for example), that helped as well.
The invasion of the Sovietunion, "Barbarossa" came as a surprise for the Soviets as well. Various operations for deception were undertaken by the Germans to achieve that. The details how and why this worked so effectively are still unclear, maybe the Germans were this time indeed lucky.
And so on. Even the ill fated German Ardennes offensive in december 1944 came as an utter surprise for the Americans - who did not see it coming. Despite of German preparations that had taken months, despite complete American aerial superiority (and therefore reconnaisance), despite ULTRA.

I could go on by listing Allied intelligence failures. The general low level of successes that MI-6 had against the Germans (see "MI-6" by Stephen Dorril). Or more specific things like the attempt to assassinate Rommel (Rommels identified HQ was not that anymore for months) or the faulty intelligence that helped to turn Operation "Market Garden" in a unmitigated desaster. And so on.
But that would be mood. Point is, the reputation of German intelligence in the WWII era as a bungling, clumsy affair, dumb Teutons outwitted by clever Anglo-Saxons at every turn is quite injust.
The Abwehr was a basically very effective organisation, hampered by the Nazi leadership (Hitler as a dictator had often a problem what to do with information he did not like. Stalin and even some democratic leaders may have had similiar problems). To this came problems of loyality (Canaris definitely started to work against the Nazis, to which exact extent stays a mystery) and of rivalry with Nazi organisation (the SS/SD started more and more to breath down the neck of German intelligence).
Still, the (amazing) German successes of the early war years were also the result of the often excellent workings of German intelligence of that era...and testimony to their efficency.
Allied successes on the other side were to a certain degree the result of their outnumbering of the German side (not that I mean to deny the often excellent work of the British, French and Soviet intelligence...the Americans had the biggest problem, since they had no real Intelligence Service until WWII - something that has surely changed since then).
But these things and especially the extremely unfair presentation of what had happened in one sided books, documentaries (given to self-shooulder patting) along with countless Hollywood movies and novels in which the German spies are cast into the role as stupid thugs led to the extremely distorted picture of the "Germans having no good intelligence".

[foxtrot023]

Kitsune,

Intelligence, specially against the soviets both on means and intentions was piss poor. Consider how they understimated soviet strength, or how they were hoodwinked by the Red Army in 1943, 1944, and 1945. I mean, the soviets knew they were coming at Kursk for several months... or how Hitler was sure that Pas de Calais was going to be the route for the invasion and that Normandy was a diversion.

[Ea$y-8]

Great post Kitsune. I could not have said it better!!

[Kitsune]

@foxtrot:

The Soviets were always a hard case. This was one of the most totalitarian states on Earth, with limited and strictly regulated trading connections to the outside world. Any information available for Soviet citizens were also tightly controlled. Punishments were draconian, or even completely arbitrary. In all of these aspecits the Soviet state did exceed even the Nazi German dictatorship by far.

While it is true that the Germans had problems with gaining intelligence from the Sovietunion, others, namely the British and Americans, had the same problem (Winston Churchill said once that the Sovietunion would be a mystery inside a riddle inside an enigma or some such). In 1941 British intelligence came to the conclusion as their German counterparts, namely that the German invasion would be successful. Generally the western powers tended to underestimate Soviet armament, size of their military or quality of their weapons as much as the Germans did (not entirely coindicently, the Soviets deliberately tried to camouflage matters).

At the same time the general affection many intellectuals had for the communist ideology was duely exploited by the Soviets (this sympathy would decline more and more over the decades after the war, but at that time it was still going strong). This made the UdSSR very capable in gathering intelligence (France seems to have been an especially easy target, this proved helpful for German intelligence in 1940 because French communist made useful contacts...the Nazistate was allied with the Sovietunion at that time after all). Within Germany the Wehrmacht itself was the hardest for the Soviets to crack, nearly impossible to infiltrate (and this is the reason why the Soviets were surprised now and then). Interestingly, Nazis proved to be an easier mark, the Soviets had some spectacular successes aquiring contacts with this group.

After the war the difficulty to aquire information about the newly aquired Soviet enemy fell squarely upon the shoulders of the Western Allies. The British did not very well and the Americans were, it seems, completely clueless. They had basically to begin from scratch. Its no secret that they turned to the Germans who had the best contacts. The Federal German intelligence service BND grew out of the so called "Organisation Gehlen", an intelligence agency working for the American forces occupying Germany (to this day the BND is more present in Bavaria then elsewhere) but comprised exclusively of Germans, headed by Reinhard Gehlen who had headed the "Fremde Heere Ost" Organisation (which had done a reasonably good job spying on the Soviets...not immaculate, but compared to the "successes" of others quite ok). This organisation was in the first decade after WWII the main HumInt source of infromation the USA had as far as the Soviet sphere was concerned.
(Other communists dictatorships proved to be hard cases as well. China, North Vietnam, North Korea...even Cuba all proved extremely difficult for Western intelligence to infiltrate. This goes for East Germany as well, the efficency of the "Stasi" in counterintelligence was such that it was nearly impossible to aquire contacts - the density of MfS agents per member of the population exceeded the one the infamous Gestapo had had in the Nazistate by nearly factor 20!)

So if one includes the difficulty of the target the Soviets represented, compares German successes to those of other Western states before during or after the war the Germans did better than most.

[ogukuo72]

Deleted as there's no point arguing this point here. The issue of Germany's intelligence and security failures should be dealt with in a seperate thread.

I'll just list some examples of German gullibility and incompetence:

Invasion of Poland - didn't believe that France and Britain would declare war.

Battle of France - assumed that Britain would sue for peace and didn't destroy the British Army at Dunkirk.

Battle of Britain - didn't know that the British only had three full equipped divisions to resist invasion, and didn't know that the RAF Fighter Command had far more fighters and pilots than at first thought.

Crete - didn't know that the British had four divisions and 25 tanks.

Operation Barbarossa - Don't know about the T-34 and KV-1, don't know that they're available in large numbes, don't have good maps of Russia, don't know that the trains run on different gauges, don't know that the winter will come in Oct instead of Nov, didn't know that the Russians were preparing a winter offensive.

Operation Bleu - Didn't know that most of Russian forces were concentrated on the Leningrad-Moscow axis and that the Russian retreat was not a sign of weakness, didn't know that the Red Army was building up a heavy punch on the left while holding in the centre at Stalingrad.

Operation Mincemeat - dead man with pouch containing a letter refering to sardines and the Germans believed that the invasion would be at Sardinia and not Sicily.

Operation Fortitude - Germany's best agents turned out to be British double agents, thought that the actual invasion would come at Pas da Calais while Normandy was just a diversion, overestimated the number of Allied divisions by two times.

Destruction of Army Group Central - didn't know when it was coming, surprised when it was, surprised at its magnitude, surprised that the Russians could keep punching left, right and centre.

Ultra - The Poles stole and copied an Enigma, and the British and Czech worked to crack the ciphers, while the Germans assumed that it will never be broken.

[ClydeFrog]

Oh boy.. another one of ogu's stupid attempts to "prove" German inferiority :roll:

[Pvt.Anderson]

Deleted as there's no point arguing this point here. The issue of Germany's intelligence and security failures should be dealt with in a seperate thread.

I'll just list some examples of German gullibility and incompetence:

Invasion of Poland - didn't believe that France and Britain would declare war.

Battle of France - assumed that Britain would sue for peace and didn't destroy the British Army at Dunkirk.

Battle of Britain - didn't know that the British only had three full equipped divisions to resist invasion, and didn't know that the RAF Fighter Command had far more fighters and pilots than at first thought.

Crete - didn't know that the British had four divisions and 25 tanks.

Operation Barbarossa - Don't know about the T-34 and KV-1, don't know that they're available in large numbes, don't have good maps of Russia, don't know that the trains run on different gauges, don't know that the winter will come in Oct instead of Nov, didn't know that the Russians were preparing a winter offensive.

Operation Bleu - Didn't know that most of Russian forces were concentrated on the Leningrad-Moscow axis and that the Russian retreat was not a sign of weakness, didn't know that the Red Army was building up a heavy punch on the left while holding in the centre at Stalingrad.

Operation Mincemeat - dead man with pouch containing a letter refering to sardines and the Germans believed that the invasion would be at Sardinia and not Sicily.

Operation Fortitude - Germany's best agents turned out to be British double agents, thought that the actual invasion would come at Pas da Calais while Normandy was just a diversion, overestimated the number of Allied divisions by two times.

Destruction of Army Group Central - didn't know when it was coming, surprised when it was, surprised at its magnitude, surprised that the Russians could keep punching left, right and centre.

Ultra - The Poles stole and copied an Enigma, and the British and Czech worked to crack the ciphers, while the Germans assumed that it will never be broken.

So i would say the British / American intelligence sucks because they didn't know continental Europe would be captured within 2-3 years ? There's 1000s of manouvers the Germans did without the knowledge of any allied countries , especially not before the enigma was captured

Also take time to read this ( 3 threads above and absolutely correct , as usually )

I could go on by listing Allied intelligence failures. The general low level of successes that MI-6 had against the Germans (see "MI-6" by Stephen Dorril). Or more specific things like the attempt to assassinate Rommel (Rommels identified HQ was not that anymore for months) or the faulty intelligence that helped to turn Operation "Market Garden" in a unmitigated desaster. And so on.
But that would be mood. Point is, the reputation of German intelligence in the WWII era as a bungling, clumsy affair, dumb Teutons outwitted by clever Anglo-Saxons at every turn is quite injust.
The Abwehr was a basically very effective organisation, hampered by the Nazi leadership (Hitler as a dictator had often a problem what to do with information he did not like. Stalin and even some democratic leaders may have had similiar problems). To this came problems of loyality (Canaris definitely started to work against the Nazis, to which exact extent stays a mystery) and of rivalry with Nazi organisation (the SS/SD started more and more to breath down the neck of German intelligence).
Still, the (amazing) German successes of the early war years were also the result of the often excellent workings of German intelligence of that era...and testimony to their efficency.

Another one from ogukuo

I really don't agree with this at all. For example, the MG42 is inferior to the Bren and BAR in the role of the light machine gun, and inferior to water-cooled machine guns like the vickers and 0.5in calibre weapons like the M2 in the heavy machine gun role. The MP40 is inferior to the PPsH-41 in terms of firepower and reliability, and the Thompson in terms of the heaviness of the rounds. The M1 or SVT40 are easily the superior battle rifle, compared to the Mauser 98K.

The only right thing about that is the K98 being inferior to the Garand in case of firerate , accuracy was + for the K98
The Mg42 and even the 34 were superior to the Bren and BAR , ask any specialist and , also why do you think the MG42 is still in use
today and the Bren and BAR not ?

Other facts

-The STG44 was produced , the first assault rifle ever
-The G43 actually wasn't far behind the SVT and Garand if even .
-German tank sights being far superior to any russian sights , and I even think to allied ones ( The sights of the Königstiger were used for the 1st Leopard later on , a bit optimized tho i think )
-The Luftwaffe fighter planes ( Focke Wulff and Me109 , later also the Me262 , the first turbine jet ) being superior to the spitfire for instance
-The V2 being developed
-The Panzerschreck

+ others show that German some weapons / weaponsystems ( to mention here are : Mg42 , STG44 , the Tiger , the Königstiger , which was actually much better than many think , the Panther , the Focke Wullf , the Me 262 , the V2 ) were , until the late months of the war , in some cases even for the next decade or longer , superior to anything the Allies had

The problem was MOST of them couldn't be fielded in great numbers

[Mastermind]

Pvt. Anderson said: "The problem was MOST of them couldn't be fielded in great numbers."

Yah....and that is a mighty big problem when you are fighting a world war. MM

[Pvt.Anderson]

Pvt. Anderson said: "The problem was MOST of them couldn't be fielded in great numbers."

Yah....and that is a mighty big problem when you are fighting a world war. MM

Of course it is , tho the question was if they've been superior , and they were without a doubt

Though the Mg42 for example has even reached "mass" production

[ogukuo72]

Oh boy.. another one of ogu's stupid attempts to "prove" German inferiority :roll:

I guess I won the argument then, given that you have nothing to refute me with. :)

But that's not the point I was making.

I think Milton Shulman puts it best:

German propaganda, inadvertently helped by the press of the world, succeeded in building up the German officer as a superhero military machine gtowering above all others in his profession, both in ability and in performance. Many Germans will attempt to perpetuate this myth in future years by offering varied excuses for the defeat of the Wehrmacht. They will blame it on Hitler's interference, on the overpowering strength of Allied material, on the stupidity of the Nazi politicians, on dozens of other reasons - some of which did and some of which did not contribute to the downfall of the Third Reich. But one reason that they will rarely or never offer for their defeat was the fact that , in addition to their other weaknesses in their national effort, they were also beaten on the battlefield. The Russians did it time and time again; the Western Powers did it time and time again. If this book has proved anything, I trust that it has proved that as well as making strategical blunders of the first magnitude in the early years of the war, the German generals also made far-reaching mistakes of their own design in the Battles of the West.

These mistakes, some made with Hitler's help and a large number made without it, undoubtedly brought about Germany's military defeat. The German General Staff will attempt to duck and squirm out of thaking their share of responsibility for the military collapse of the Third Reich. Having done it after World War I they will try it again after World War II. But the facts are irrefutable. Despite their longer study of, their fuller experience in, and their greater passion for the art of war than any of their opponents, they nevertheless managed to lead their country to the most overwhelming defeat in modern times. That alone should be enough to tear away the martial halo from above their heads.

The interesting thing is that he wrote this in 1947. Looking at the arguments made in some of the posts here, I think Shulman was right.

[ogukuo72]

Of course it is , tho the question was if they've been superior , and they were without a doubt

Though the Mg42 for example has even reached "mass" production
This one example could hardly overturn the argument made.

Mastermind made a perfectly valid point. The technical superior weapons that the Germans put so much effort into turned out to be so much wasted effort. Instead, they should have concentrated on perfectly adequate (though not super) weapons such as the Panzerfaust and the Jagdpanzers.

BTW, the MG42 is one of the few examples of a good design actually making it into mass production. Too bad its rate of fire was too high, it was too inaccurate, that it was too heavy for the LMG role, and too light for the HMG role. Otherwise, it's a good machine gun!


The Mg42 and even the 34 were superior to the Bren and BAR , ask any specialist and , also why do you think the MG42 is still in use today and the Bren and BAR not ?

Well, the trouble is, if I ask ten specialists, I get 11 opinions. I suggest you read Ian V Hogg's "Machine Guns", especially the relevant sections addressing the BREN and the MG42.

I've addressed this issue in other threads, but I'll go through my points one more time. The Bren and BAR are better LMG's because they are magazine fed, they are lighter, and they had better ergonomics for their role as LMG.

The MG42, in trying to fulfil both the LMG and HMG roles, fell between the stools. It's too heavy, too cumbersome, too long, and had a belt feed, making it less suitable as an LMG. It is too light, with too high a rate of fire, without water-cooling, to serve as a truly excellent HMG. Both the British Vickers and the American M1917 were superior to the MG42 in this role.


So i would say the British / American intelligence sucks because they didn't know continental Europe would be captured within 2-3 years ? There's 1000s of manouvers the Germans did without the knowledge of any allied countries , especially not before the enigma was captured
I'm not quite sure what's the point you're trying to make here. Of course the Germans made moves without the knowledge of the Allies - they use secure means of communications, which is precisely what they should have done much more. They did not do this, and instead relied on Enigma to keep their secrets more than they should. Indeed, very high grade traffic was was passed through on Enigma.

In this area, the Allies were clearly superior. Neither the British Typex cipher machines and the US Sigaba cipher machines were broken during WW2. The ciphers that the Germans succeeded in breaking were the low grade ciphers such as those used by the Merchant marines for the Atlantic convoys.

The Allies were also clear superior in terms of breaking German and Japanese ciphers, most of the high grade ciphers of which could readily be read by the Allies as early as 1941.

Clydefrog is right that the Allies outnumbered the Germans in this area. The Czechs, the Polish, the British, the Americans, etc. were all involved in this. Clearly, the Allies knew that this was one of the important keys to winning the war. So, either the Germans failed to see the importance and put the necessary manpower into it, or they simply did not have the high-calibre talents such as mathematicians and linguists needed.

[Pvt.Anderson]

But one reason that they will rarely or never offer for their defeat was the fact that , in addition to their other weaknesses in their national effort, they were also beaten on the battlefield

This is the only thing that comes to my mind reading this BS :

O RLLY ? Pretty necesairy that when you have lost a war , you logically lost on the battlefield right ?
Another thing i gota ask you haver ever seen that nearly the US alone mobilized as many soldiers as Germany . So add Russia , England and other allied states , even YOU would have to notice that the manpower was like 1:3 for the germans , so not even this could stop the defeat :


"In essence, the record shows that the Germans consistently outfought the far more numerous Allies armies that eventually defeated them. In 1943-1944 the German combat effectiveness superiority over the Western Allies (Americans and British) was in the order of 20-30 percent. On a man-for-man basis, the German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they had not, when they won and when they lost." (Dupuy on pp 253-254 of his afore mentioned book). Similar things can be said about the Eastern Front and about Western and Eastern Fronts in WWI, by the way.

You can't deny that the mentioned weapons were superior , you always evade to another topic
May i also ask you if you have even read Kitsune's posts , which completely pwn your arse , since every little argument you brought up was killed by him ( 95% of the people that read this thread will agree ) ?
You're arguments are weak and your sources limited , as another guy said , weak show trying to show the german inferiority

[ogukuo72]

O RLLY ? Pretty necesairy that when you have lost a war , you logically lost on the battlefield right ?

By golly, you got the point at long last! That's a relief. For a moment, I thought I would have to hit you over the head with it until it gets through to your brain.


You can't deny that the mentioned weapons were superior , you always evade to another topic
Really. I don't see how I'm doing that. You would have to be more specific. If you want to, lay down your arguments point by point. It's rather difficult when you don't put up any arguments at all.


May i also ask you if you have even read Kitsune's posts , which completely pwn your arse , since every little argument you brought up was killed by him ( 95% of the people that read this thread will agree ) ?
I've read some but not all of it. There's a lot of psychotic babbling in there which is quite unpleasant to read, so you'd have to excuse me.

BTW, how did you come up with the 95% figure. You wouldn't happen to just pluck it out of the air, would you?

I never claim to be an expert, or a specialists. I just read some books, and form my own opinions. Instead of taking what everybody said as the truth, I try to think for myself.

You ought to try it some time.

[Pvt.Anderson]

Well you never claimed to be a specialist , I now gonna tell you that you are one : In talkin ****e .

First of all , it is my opinion , as i stated 2 or 3 times , that the MENTIONED ( did you even read the thread ) german weapons were clearly superior to their allied counterparts
And I don't really copy my opinion from some one else ( Kitsune ) cause the things he said were just correct FACTS , with reliable and trustworthy SOURCES , that you are UNABLE to bring up .

[Kitsune]

@ogukuo:

Well, Milton Shulman is of course the great opponent to the idea of German military excellence. So I take you have read his book "Defeat In The West". This work from 1947 goes on about the stupidity of German generals to follow Hitler's stupid orders or about the lies of the Nazi state which lead to the German defeat. It ignores that the Western Allied Generals also followed stupid orders and that there were lies and misinformation directed against the American or British people as well. Or that the Soviet Generals had an incredible tendency to follow stupid orders of their respective dictator and that the Soviet state was even more build upon lies and deception than Nazi Germany. And it ignores the great difficulties Western and Eastern Allies alike had to bring down the quantitavely inferior German armed forces despite their alleged lower efficiency. It also ignores combat statistics. In short: his book is hopelessly biased. Perhaps not that surprising for something written just two years after the war by an former Allied officer.

[Ea$y-8]

Good point Kitsune!

many people like Milton Shulman have major biased against Germans. And guys like David Irving are biased for Germans. This causes them to shift around the facts to create myths that suit their bias. It is ok to have a bias for something (hell I have a bias for US/German military might) but too much is counter productive.

[Lurps]

Some might not know that the Finnish military has a strong german influence. IMO well suited in finland because the lack of resources and unique geography required out of the box mindset from the leaders. Another important point is that as the army was based on a large reserve it gave access to a large pool of talent as officers and NCOs.http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-4716.html
Soon after Finland gained independence in December 1917, a nationalistic, middle-class militia known as the White Guards, which had been secretly established in 1904 and 1905 and which had remained underground since then disguised as athletic clubs and other groups, was officially proclaimed the army of the Finnish government under General Mannerheim. This so-called White Army was strengthened and trained by 1,100 officers and noncommissioned officers (NCOs) who had traveled clandestinely to Germany during World War I and had formed the Twenty-seventh Royal Prussian Jaeger Battalion. Returning to Finland, they brought back with them urgently needed small arms captured from the Russians. The White forces were swelled by new conscripts, officers of the former Finnish armed forces, Swedish volunteers, and Finnish officers who had served in the Swedish and in the Russian armies, in addition to the jaegers. After three months of bitter civil conflict, the White Army of about 70,000 troops defeated the Red Guards from the radical wing of the Finnish Social Democratic Party, in May 1918. Both sides suffered thousands of casualties. In four months, the White Guards had evolved from a strongly motivated, but ill-trained, militia into a battle-hardened, disciplined national armed force. Although numerically superior and reinforced by the Russian garrisons in Finland, the Red Guards were deficient in equipment, training, and leadership (see The Finnish Civil War , ch. 1).

During and after the Civil War, conflict emerged between the younger jaeger officers of the Finnish army and the former tsarist officers in its upper ranks. When most of the Finnish officer corps threatened to resign in 1924 over the dominance of the Russian-trained leadership, most of the Russian officers were moved aside and the jaeger officers began to occupy the higher echelons, bringing the influence of German military doctrine and training methods with them.

The new government reinstituted conscription after the Civil War and established a small national army. It also introduced a mobilization system and compulsory refresher courses for reservists. The Finnish Military Academy was reactivated in 1919, and during the 1920s a reserve officers' school was formed, together with NCO schools for various branches and arms of the service.

[Mastermind]

So....could you guys sum it up in a hundred words or less? I've read just about every post on this thread and I seem a bit more confused now than when I started it. I think the points made by Kitsune are well thought out and substantially researched. As are the other posts in general (except mine...I'm here to learn from you guys on this...and have managed that nicely so far) I have, read several personal comments against the posters...but, nothing really that refutes them with any degree of substance. I have to come to the conclusion, this is pretty much a waste of my time unless you guys can come to a consice conclusion....And I' not being a smart arse...I really am interested in your opinions and would like to read objective commentary without all the personal BS tossed in. You guys all seem so well educated on this subject, you really don't need all the emotion in it to carry your arguments.

[foxtrot023]

So....could you guys sum it up in a hundred words or less? I've read just about every post on this thread and I seem a bit more confused now than when I started it. I think the points made by Kitsune are well thought out and substantially researched. As are the other posts in general (except mine...I'm here to learn from you guys on this...and have managed that nicely so far) I have, read several personal comments against the posters...but, nothing really that refutes them with any degree of substance. I have to come to the conclusion, this is pretty much a waste of my time unless you guys can come to a consice conclusion....And I' not being a smart arse...I really am interested in your opinions and would like to read objective commentary without all the personal BS tossed in. You guys all seem so well educated on this subject, you really don't need all the emotion in it to carry your arguments.

The original argument was if Germany could have won WW2 given ecual manpower to the allies. The brief- lots of Ifs, Maybes, perhaps etc.

[Belrick]

With the completion of the Manhattan project i dont see any way Germany could have won. If they didnt get crushed in France and by the Russians they would have probably gotten their asses nuked.


Doesnt really sit this arguement of yours unfortunately.

1: USA couldnt produce many nukes per year at all, this situation didnt change till the 50's
2: Conventional bombing could inflict greater damage than simple heavy metal bombs of 20K ton yield anyway.

[Belrick]

The original argument was if Germany could have won WW2 given ecual manpower to the allies. The brief- lots of Ifs, Maybes, perhaps etc.


The answer has to be yes. Anyone who has ever studied the great patriotic war knows that in the case of the Russians, quantity has a quality all of its own and that was how they won the majority of there battles.

80million vs 360 million Russians and Yanks alone?
500 million Indians

It's more suprising that they did as well as they did!

[ClydeFrog]

I guess I won the argument then, given that you have nothing to refute me with. :)

You know ogu, my time is limited. I only check the forums every few days as of late.

I figure my time here is better spent browsing through the endless great picture threads then on a little kid who read some books and things he knows everything about war. A kid who, against the arguments of most experts and against the fact that every light machinegun today is essentially a predecessor, tells me, someone who has fired the thing many times, the MG42 was a bad light machinegun. How about the fact that due to this machinegun the Russians started issueing two DP27/28s per squad to compete? How about that on squad level the MG42s overcompensated for the slow bolt action Mauser so well that the German squad had more firepower than the American with their Garand-BAR combination?

No, you don't even take those things into consideration. You are not here to discuss something on a reasonable basis, you are here to spread a pretty stupid agenda about the oh-so inferior Germans. That's why I don't refute to you anymore. It's completely pointless. Maybe when you're older.

[GroznyConquerer]

The answer has to be yes. Anyone who has ever studied the great patriotic war knows that in the case of the Russians, quantity has a quality all of its own and that was how they won the majority of there battles.

80million vs 360 million Russians and Yanks alone?
500 million Indians

It's more suprising that they did as well as they did! Same with the U.S. 500k troops, for Iraq's 20k that went into Kuwait, Iraq didn'y go in with 100k, as U.S. Propaganda wants you to believe.

[Mastermind]

This is a silly argument anyway...it's like comparing ants to wildebeasts because they both roam in the millions...also, I can't find any curse words that are five letters and end in an "e"...so I go elsewhere

[Smok]

Allies because Poles have broken codes of the Enigma. That is why allies were able to decrypt almost all german messages.

[MARINO]

Tuvalu won

[ogukuo72]

I figure my time here is better spent browsing through the endless great picture threads then on a little kid who read some books and things he knows everything about war.

No, you don't even take those things into consideration. You are not here to discuss something on a reasonable basis, you are here to spread a pretty stupid agenda about the oh-so inferior Germans. That's why I don't refute to you anymore. It's completely pointless. Maybe when you're older.

I'm flattered, Clyde. I'm a lot older than a kid, but it's great that someone thinks I'm young!p-)

I apologise for losing my temper. It's not the adult thing to do, especially when dealing with children.

My point is that the Germans' combat abilities in WW2 were over-rated, and that not enough credit has been given to Allied fighting men. This is particularly true when it comes to the British and the Russians. Their achievements were truly astounding given that they were on the verge of defeat in 1940 and 1941.

I believe that multiple points of view are essential, and should be allowed in a forum such as this.


A kid who, against the arguments of most experts and against the fact that every light machinegun today is essentially a predecessor, tells me, someone who has fired the thing many times, the MG42 was a bad light machinegun. How about the fact that due to this machinegun the Russians started issueing two DP27/28s per squad to compete? How about that on squad level the MG42s overcompensated for the slow bolt action Mauser so well that the German squad had more firepower than the American with their Garand-BAR combination?
Who are these "most experts" you keep referring to? I really would like to learn more.

[ClydeFrog]

Oh really? When I read your posts it usually boils down to: Germans were lucky in the first part of the war, Germans only did well when facing inferior enemies, Germans only won when they had more or better equipment. Read over your own posts and you'll see which "message" you're implying. You replace one absolute with another.


Who are these "most experts" you keep referring to? I really would like to learn more.
Take Peter Kokalis, Max Popenker or Chris Bishop for a start.
Oh btw, counterquestion: Name one expert that supports your claims for the MG42 being an inferior lmg.

[BYRON]

War is done for economic reasons. in this optic I think that


a- the greatest loosers are UK and France, they loosed the domination of the word with their colonies as font of free manpower and first materials. Russians are traditionally loosers, do they don't count.

war was won first of all by USA (Thanks Lord) that brought on the old europe a new mentality and sense of freedom, Europe has been civilised by USA
Other winners are the nations that get economically stronger than France and UK (tah with their guaranted markets became a reasons for the stopping of industrial progress, as they did not allow free competition based on quality and price)
so other winners were Japan, Italy and absolutely Germany, finally Germany had the place that was her in the market of the world. Ok I am sorry for the britts, and happy for the frenchs that loosed the pants...

[foxtrot023]

War is done for economic reasons. in this optic I think that


a- the greatest loosers are UK and France, they loosed the domination of the word with their colonies as font of free manpower and first materials. Russians are traditionally loosers, do they don't count.

war was won first of all by USA (Thanks Lord) that brought on the old europe a new mentality and sense of freedom, Europe has been civilised by USA
Other winners are the nations that get economically stronger than France and UK (tah with their guaranted markets became a reasons for the stopping of industrial progress, as they did not allow free competition based on quality and price)
so other winners were Japan, Italy and absolutely Germany, finally Germany had the place that was her in the market of the world. Ok I am sorry for the britts, and happy for the frenchs that loosed the pants...

I forsee a future full of pwnage for you young padawan. TV is not a substitute for good ol´ research and books.

So many mistakes and misonceptions in one email. I will only answer one-

The winners of World War 2 were the allies. The allies refers generally to the USSR, the UK and the USA. Finally the USSR came out of WW2 as the other superpower, it gained quite a bit of terrain in the deal, plus they got Eastern Europe under its wings. The US was of course, the other superpower, economically unmatched. The UK was the one that ¨won¨ the least. It was a costly war for them, they lost many colonies, and it hurt them economically.

[Lokos]

Russians are traditionally loosers, do they don't count.

*left eye begins to twitch*

You're Italian, yes?

Coming from such a martial colossus, I don't know how the Russians should feel about that comment.

(You are an IDIOT)

Lokos

[Kilgor]

I forsee a future full of pwnage for you young padawan. TV is not a substitute for good ol´ research and books.

So many mistakes and misonceptions in one email. I will only answer one-

The winners of World War 2 were the allies. The allies refers generally to the USSR, the UK and the USA. Finally the USSR came out of WW2 as the other superpower, it gained quite a bit of terrain in the deal, plus they got Eastern Europe under its wings. The US was of course, the other superpower, economically unmatched. The UK was the one that ¨won¨ the least. It was a costly war for them, they lost many colonies, and it hurt them economically.

Actually.. the UK got very little out of the war. Exhausted, it lost control over its many colonies and was left with a large war debt.

The winners of the european civil war were outsiders, the USSR and the US. In the long term view, winners were also western germany and japan who under US guidance and economic systems became wealthy economic powerhouses.

[Kitsune]

Although at least Germany had been already an economic powerhouse before WWII and also before WWI, without any wise American guidance. Which we nonetheless appreciate of course. ;-)

[Kilgor]

Although at least Germany had been already an economic powerhouse before WWII and also before WWI, without any wise American guidance. Which we nonetheless appreciate of course. ;-)

With a stable government, and without the nazis and communists going out in the streets bashing each other up :P

[Kitsune]

That was after Versailles and after Black Friday only. If the USA would have suffered both and not only the latter it may have looked similiar over there in the early thirties.
Face the dire truth: there are some good things in this world that did not originate in America.
Not many, but there are one or two. :grin:

[foxtrot023]

Actually.. the UK got very little out of the war. Exhausted, it lost control over its many colonies and was left with a large war debt.

The winners of the european civil war were outsiders, the USSR and the US. In the long term view, winners were also western germany and japan who under US guidance and economic systems became wealthy economic powerhouses.

Isn´t that what I said?

[Kilgor]

Kinda, but you mentioned the UK was on the winning side. Id agree the UK won in a moral sense and stuck out in the war for longer than anyone else, but other than that went backwards as a global player.

[BYRON]

*left eye begins to twitch*

You're Italian, yes?

Coming from such a martial colossus, I don't know how the Russians should feel about that comment.

(You are an IDIOT)

Lokos

and you are my serv.

[sp2c]

well the problem is that the quality the troops isn't the only factor to be considered even the poorly trained and equipped Dutch troops that lasted only five days gave the elite german paratroopers a run for their money simply because they were outraged at the fact that Germany invaded or country!

if it was a straight man to man fight on noman's land the paratroopers would've made short work of these guys, in the end though Hitler had to resort to firebombing Rotterdam to save his precioous paratroopers for future offensives (operation seelowe)... and still 22nd luftlande division never played a major role in the war ever since, the were replaced by a division of mountainleaders for the invasion of Crete afaik.

Napoleontic times had long since past when ww2 started, sheer bravery and proper training weren't enough to win a man to man fight anymore

[Lt. Wittmann]

Well, no doubt about it, the axis would have wiped out the allies. At the very most, the Germans threw up around 20% of their military force on the Western front leaving the other 80% or so to freeze on the ostfront in the desperate war of political ideologies. The Germans simply had a fluent understanding of mechanized warfare that the Allies, as a whole refused to accept. The reason they had such and understanding is largely, if not completely due to the reult of the Great War. Germany was left with almost no army and absolutely no dignity. When Fuller, British soldier and perhaps the greatest strategist of the 20th century, began to work out the ideas of mechanized warfare and Hitler began to offer the Wermacht a chance to regain their honor and dignity, they embraced and developed the ideas Fuller had worked out. Their country was completely destroyed something was better than nothing and it turned out this something was the way of the future. The Allies on the other hand were sick of war and believed their way of mass warfare was sufficient to stem any new resurgance of German warmongering, and nobody even considered the Japanese a threat worth caring about. Anyway, the Germans embraced combined arms warfare, and, ironically, with the help of the Russians, developed the waeapons (Mk. I Pzkpfw, Junkers Ju 87, et cetera) necessary to carry out the new type of warfare. Needless to say they had the ability to learn from their previous defeat and completely change their military arms to compensate. The underlying theme of this warfare was the small unit tactics employed. The Germans instead of coming up with elaborate war plans like the Russians or the dreaded and pompous Sir Birnard Law Montgomery, relied on fleshing out objective tables, take this place using any means. They allowed their commanders who in turn allowed their officers to use their own judgement and asses the situation immediately before them and take action accordingly maximizing the explotaion of local terrain and small advantages and the like that might occur. Basically, it is an army based on a modified laisse-faire system. It worked out so well in fact that we (Americans at least not so sure about other allied nations) developed our post war tactics around the German system. I am sure that some may be well aghast at my disregard of Allied combined arms tactics, but while the allies had developed them, we still relied a lot upon the old doctrine of rigid chains of command, not the fluid doctrine that the Germans had largely developed. We allies were just not as desperate and therefore slower on the uptake of the radical new system, though the British military's near complete disregard of Fuller is a prime example. The war did help to school us in the lessons of mobile warfare which we are using to good effect ( Iraqi war for instance, in the early stages not the occupation we do now). Anyway that is why I believe the axis, or at least the Germans, would have completely wiped out the Allies in a fair fight. The Italians were not very good fighters in either the Great War nor the Second World War, and the Japanese were good fighters (suicidal in fact) just not so good with the tactics, their victories were due to the Allies lack of belief that the Japanese could even build a modern army worthy of being recognized as a threat. Well, the Germans and Italians really didnt have much coordination with the Japanese anyway so there is no real comparison there, but the Germans would definitely beat the Allies.