German Military at the start of WWII

[CJackson]

I've heard that Germans weren't as technologically advanced militarily as other countries before the start of the war. Which countries were more advanced, and generally what was the state of the Wehrmacht during 1939?

[Astaran]

It is important about which aspect of the military you speak:

Tanks for example: If I remember correctly Germany owned mainly PzKw I and PzKw II and only a few PzKw III in September 1939. In addition they had the captured PzKw 35(t) and PzKW 38(t) of Czech origin.
All tanks were relatively light tanks with a rather weak armament.

The French Char B1 on the other hand was so heavily armored, the German PzKW III (and early PzKw IV in 1940) weren't able to penetrate it's frontal armor.


What gave Germany the advantage in tank warfare against the Allies in 1939/1940, were doctrine and radio. The Allies used relatively heavy tanks, but designed them for infantry support (rather slow and heavily armored), while the Germans relied on mobility, communication and Schwerpunktbildung (concentration of troops?).

But this is only about tanks, you have to take infantry weapons, logistics, airforce, navy, artillery and other combat support elements into consideration.

[Kitsune]

Schwerpunktbildung (concentration of troops?)

Ah, the unfathomable mysteries of the Teutonic language.
In the German word "Schwerpunktbildung" you have "schwer" (= heavy), "punkt" (= point) and "bildung" (= building). "Schwerpunkt" (literally "heavy point") is a term that is also used by German physicists for a certain point in a material object which is called the "center of gravity" by the Church of England. Therefore, "Schwerpunktbildung" means simply "forming a center of gravity".

[BLUE THOR]

a couple of years ago all the NCO's and above from my Bnwere dragged into a pressure cooker lecture room to discuss the Schwerpunkttactic. The big shift in Infantry tactics in WWII was the Germans were preparedto push tactical command to lower levels (sections and small teams) whereastactical command amoung the French and other Allies remained at Platoon level.This made the Germans more able to maneouvre and use Schwerpunkt tactics assmaller units and achieve the same results with less men. This level of trustin lower levels of command was achievable through lots of training and soundtactics, Germans never let anything get in the way of efficiency, so were ableto take up more effective methods of soldiering without much fuss.

to answer the question, I think they were technologically equal or worse off,but tactically superior and far better trained and led.

[TheKiwi]

You must keep in mind that the German army had rapidly expanded between 1933 and 1939. As a result, it was in no way possible to motorise that vast majority of German divisions, which therefore continued (for the entire war) to rely on horses and trains for moving, logistics, etc. In May 1940, the French army was more motorised than the German one, while the British had completely abandoned the horse (indeed a number of ex-British army horses found themselves in German service when they were bought up in bulk pre-war).

German, French and British tanks were largely similar in performance, although the Germans were less handicapped by having to support the wide range of tanks that the French (and British) did.

So as pointed out above, it was much more a case of the German doctrine (both for the Army and Air Force) being more flexible than the highly rigid French command structure - which could take 48 hours for information to pass up the chain and another 48 hours to go back down.

[LineDoggie]

Dont fritter away resources. French spread their tanks which had superior Guns(But hampered by 1 man turrets), British were flanked, Germans had already lessons learned from Poland where they lost the equivalent of an Panzer Division in tank losses

Close Air Support- doctrinal in the Wehrmacht to support the advance

[Kitsune]

You must keep in mind that the German army had rapidly expanded between 1933 and 1939.

Strictly speaking between 1935 and 1939. On 16 March 1935 conscription was reintroduced, there was no expansion before that. Otherwise I agree with your post.

[picanha the second]

An endless topic if you want to discuss and compare every item
For example the germans already had proper boots unlike the many allies who still wrapped their feet in bandages.
The russians on the other hand had nice warm felt boots while the german soldiers exchanged their nailshoes freezing their feet of even for sandals made of hay...

I would say that the main german technical equipment shortcommings at the beginning of the war was the lack of LR bombers, weak tanks, weak AT weapons (the 88 was a misused FLAK and the better 75mm models only came later on), radar, medical dressings and pharmaceuticals. I wouldn't see the 40% motorisation rate as a real disadvantage. I believe the good ole horse helped the soldiers a lot on Russia. No breakdown, no fuel needed and you could eat it as well. The horses in the german army where highly regarded.

It was even called comrade horse. Of the 3 Million horses in duty from 1939 - 1945 1.7 Millions died. The little panje horse found in Russia was also a very welcome addition. Being weaker and smaller than traditional working horses it could only carry light loads but were very willing, frugal and insensitive against heat and cold.

[Marsch]

Ah, the unfathomable mysteries of the Teutonic language.
In the German word "Schwerpunktbildung" you have "schwer" (= heavy), "punkt" (= point) and "bildung" (= building). "Schwerpunkt" (literally "heavy point") is a term that is also used by German physicists for a certain point in a material object which is called the "center of gravity" by the Church of England. Therefore, "Schwerpunktbildung" means simply "forming a center of gravity".

Excuse me but it simply means "concentration of forces" in this context.

[PostmandPer]

I would say that the main german technical equipment shortcommings at the beginning of the war was the lack of LR bombers, weak tanks, weak AT weapons (the 88 was a misused FLAK and the better 75mm models only came later on), radar,

Could you elaborate on this?

[LineDoggie]

I would say that the main german technical equipment shortcommings at the beginning of the war was .....weak AT weapons (the 88 was a misused FLAK and the better 75mm models only came later on),

Flak 36 8.8cm was designed as a dual purpose gun from the start, otherwise why would solid AP shot which was useless against aircraft have been in inventory? It could and did destroy every tank series it came across. in that respect a Much better gun than Pak 40 7.5cm or Pak 38 5cm. and the other gun the Pak36 3.7cm was at least the equal of the French 4.7cm and much better than the French 2.5cm. Interestingly recently saw an article on the Modified Flak 18

Called the Bunkerknacker, these Flak 18's were specifically designed for the french campaign and had the fire controls all moved to the right side so one man couold elevate and traverse the mount. The Fuze setters removed, and a Platform for a Loader set onto the left of the mount with a 8 round ready rack. the cruciform mount was modified so the gun was supposed to fire with limber wheels attached.

[picanha the second]

Could you elaborate on this?

Ok that may be a bit on the non technical side. The more complex FREYA Gerät, having a higher resolution and being able to rotate was more complex and couldn't acquire elevation data. Thus the german AD was at a disadvantage because it couldn't get a 100% coverage like the chain home provided (due to complexity and time needed to install the units). But I admit that it is not a technical disadvantage more a logistic/strategic one.

German funkmess technology is quite interesting.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funkmessger%C3%A4t


@ LD

I didn't know that I presumed it being an emergency solution. I looked it up and indeed they made some trials in the spanish civil war with AT rounds..but the overall german AT capability was a joke. The Panzer Anklopf Geräte..well all they did was knock knock....

[PostmandPer]

Tbh, i always thought that German AT capabilities were good, at least not as bad as you describe it. But i havent researched it that thoroughly.

[Strelok126]

Tbh, i always thought that German AT capabilities were good, at least not as bad as you describe it. But i havent researched it that thoroughly.

Early German war AT capability was poor. Germany's strength lied in proper tactics with comparable, if slightly inferior, equipment in some sectors in regards to the allies.

[JCR]

Early German war AT capability was poor. Germany's strength lied in proper tactics with comparable, if slightly inferior, equipment in some sectors in regards to the allies.

The 37mm "Army Door Knocking Device" was pretty much standard in 1939.
It was just overtaken by technology but in 1939 it could still knock out anything short of the few french heavy tanks.
In fact it was a export success. The Japanese, the US and I think the USSR all bought this gun.
The US 37mm AT gun successfully used in the Pacific is the same weapon.