-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Them tankettes
That was their intended role wasn't it , what they was designed for , they were supposed to form the armoured reconnaisance element of the regular (not mountain)infantry divisions . Their removal into independant companies not only wasted them it denied the infantry divisions their use .
The companies were attached to infantry divisions, so what is the point ?
They became 'independent' only for the general purpose, not on tactical or operational scale. There were no independent companies fighting on their own, unless were attached to army level HQs to be assigned wherever their commanders needed them.
Quote:
Whereas the French did use them and the Finns mainly used them as an instant pillbox .
If I am not wrong in one unit + after the defeat in Flandres (were desparate).
In Poland there are two known uses.
One was to block the gate to the old fortress of Brest. Second - a small number escorted supplies for the Northern Front and a couple of old FT 17s seen some combat when Soviet forces attacked the supply columns.
Quote:
An infantry support tank is an infantry support tank , it is what it is .
The French used them for that and the French tank was better armed than the tank the British used in that role(though not as well armoured) . the British were still using the same tank in the same role 3 years later .
Which kinda comes round again to the tankettes and the vehicles others used in the same role .
Of course. The problem was that R 35s were bought because there was nothing else worth buying - their use was at least problematic considering their use according to the Polish armoured doctrine R 35s were too slow to fight in dealying actions and too weak and slow to fight enemy tanks (their cannons were just too old).
That is why the single unit formed from those tanks seen limited combat only at the end of the campaign.
Noone had any illusion about their combat capabilities.
IN Poland we see no concept of an infantry support tank - it was seen as rather a waste of necessary resources. There were some plans to build assualt tanks in the future ( 14 TP to some degree), but AT use was seen as the most important one.
Quote:
However since you mention the arms deal with France , which is just the same as any other credit/lease deal .There was a slightly contentious issue over that wasn't there , in as much as one tank type the Polish wanted was not supplied in the numbers they requested .
But once again that is normal since the French like any other country would only ship the weapons when it felt its own requirement was filled and there was suffiecient spare for export .
Of course. If there is nothing you really want you take what you can.
100 R 35s were bought and that is about all when it comes to armoured equipment ( there were also some H 35s, but proved badly armed and too weakly armoured, H 39s were not yet available) - the really important equipment were the airplanes ( 100 Battles, several Hurricanes and over 100 Moranes) - the problems which plagued domestic designes ( P 50 Jastrząb or especially the failed project - P 38 Wilk) meant the Polish air force needed something before home produced fighter planes are finally available.
Generally I see little purpose indiscussing that with you. I agree with almost everything and I feel it is useless to look for something to argue about just for the sake of argument.
Perhaps I will see something I feel should be corrected, but basically it is all Tribesman.
BTW The machine gun armed armoured vehicles serve their purpose , especially if the enemy doesn't expect it to appear.
Just like this 'Kubuś' ( Jake) armoured car bild by the underground before the Warsaw Uprising in 1944.
@
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
@cegorach
You honestly believe that Poland could have stopped German forces after Bzura without the Soviet Union's entrance? I read all that you posted, and none of it demonstrates how that could have been done.
Not forever, but for at least one-two months. I don't share the optimistic plans to defend to the spring of 1940.
Anyway it much depended on what would happen in the western front - OKW was 'quite' worried about it to say the least.
Polish army was never supposed to stop the Germans forever in 1939, that couldn't happen. However it was sufficient to say that it would take a long time to remove the defences formed in the 'romanian bridgehead'.
Taking all the data into account - there were sufficient forces to form 8 division strong army already + anything which would break through German forces to the north-west of Lvov.
Factos which would matter:
- German logistical problems of all kinds,
- different weather,
- worse roads in the entire eastern Poland,
- difficult terrain conditions in that area (numerous ravines, hills, forests and rivers),
- prepared defences,
- new weaponry coming from Romania (already delivered to Romania and on its way),
- guerillas disrupting German supply lines - from 14th September the attacks were more organised. It was expected that a part of the country will fall under occupation for a time and sabotage tems were trained for that purpose - Poland had much experience with such attacks - mainly against the Soviets (in 1920s and 1930s), Czechs, Lithuanians and in once cooperation with Hungarians (Operation 'Łom' in March 1939).
Quote:
Poland had a strong military, and could have potentially created a big problem for German forces. However, unfortunate decisions on the tactical and organizational level led them to be completely out-fought and their capitol surrounded. Soviet entry simply hastened the inevitable.
Considering that Poland wasn't and couldn't win ALONE you are right, BUT the question is how long and with what losses.
I don't understand what the capital means in that opinion of yours ?
After all there was nothing which wasn't in the south - highest authorities, most of reserve officer corps and reserve soldiers, several highest commands, the whole airforce, most of evacuated arsenals, sufficient supplies - everything was already in the south.
It included over 200 000 reservists and that number alone should mean something.
It was not like there was this Warsaw and nothing else mattered.
Even OKW DIDN'T EXPECT the city to be defended at all, so even the Germans didn't see Warsaw as the most critical target.
Remember that only after the Soviets attacked it became the largest defended stronghold - 'romanian bridgehead' was gone and Lvov capitulated to the Soviets on the 22nd September (after Khruschov and others agreed to allow the evacuation of the garrison to Romania - the promise which of course they didn't keep).
Can you give me a single reason why Warsaw was so important ?
I mean something which really affected the general situation so that no further defence was possible after it was cut off.:inquisitive:
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
OK cegroach , but just a couple more comments .
Its wierd isn't it that the 17s saw more combat than the 35s and when the Polish army was formed in France it was these same two tanks they used .
Not to forget of course that it was 17s along with tankettes that formed the armoured trains .
But also back to the Vickers light , the Finns used them throughout the war as well as the the Russian version of the Vickers, they still used them up until the mid 1950s .
Though I think the funniest two examples relating to that tank must be Thailand using them against the French , and the Bulgarians using them against the allies and then in '44 using them against the Germans(BTW the Bulgarians were still using the 35s then as well).
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
OK cegroach , but just a couple more comments .
Its wierd isn't it that the 17s saw more combat than the 35s
Ironic, but strange not. The 35s were a part of the general reserve, while 17s were ... something between junk and very, very last resort.
35s would see a lot of combat if the 'romanian bridgehead' was attacked. After all another unit was supposed to appear soon coming from Constanca.
Quote:
and when the Polish army was formed in France it was these same two tanks they used .
Not to forget of course that it was 17s along with tankettes that formed the armoured trains .
It seems it was a terrible irony, but I have better...
There was a french fighter copying the designs of P 7, P 11 and P 24 family of fighters. It was one of Loire models , don't remember the number right now.
When Polish fighter pilots were shon they are expected to use it in combat in France, most of them thought it is a stupid joke, because even if P 11s and similar were most modern fighters at their time in 1940, in France nobody was willing to fly an obsolate plane like this,which was even worse than P 11c...
Especially with over 100 Moranes bought before the war which were supposed to be given finally.
Quote:
But also back to the Vickers light , the Finns used them throughout the war as well as the the Russian version of the Vickers, they still used them up until the mid 1950s .
Wasn't that T 26 or T 28 ? Anyway, in theory even 7 TP was a Vickers design despite almost total redesign.
Generally Finns wwre experts in using wepons from various sources - much of their artillery in 1941 was using ex-Polish cannons delivered by Germans, not to mention the wonders their pilots did with the poor Brewster Buffalo.
Quote:
Though I think the funniest two examples relating to that tank must be Thailand using them against the French , and the Bulgarians using them against the allies and then in '44 using them against the Germans(BTW the Bulgarians were still using the 35s then as well).
True with the Bulgarians their armoured brigade used all kind of weaponry, but I like something more.
PZL 37 Łoś and PZL 23 Karaś used by Romanians over Stalingrad and later against the Axis troops in 1944.
Or the Pz V Panthers used against Germans in the Warsaw Uprising - unfortunatelly I cannot say if the story about a captured Pz VI Tiger is true (it was damaged and immobile so wasn't used), that would be something, almost like the Japanese rifles used by Poles in 1920 ( Siberian Brigade).
Or maybe the Polish AT rifles captured in 1939 used by German paras in Belgium or by the Italians against the Poles in North Africa would win the contest ? :beam:
BTW TKS tankette was recently found in Norway - a local guy rebuilt it as a tractor, but agreed to sell if for a low price so it is coming back.:yes:
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
Can you give me a single reason why Warsaw was so important ?
I mean something which really affected the general situation so that no further defence was possible after it was cut off.:inquisitive:
I mentioned the encirclement of Warsaw to demonstrate the extent of the German advance before Soviet intervention. I did not imply that it would have been the end of fighting.
However, the loss of Warsaw represented 120,000 soldiers captured plus casualties. Add that to the 170,000 captured plus casualties just a week prior at Bzura, the 35,000 captured plus casualties lost in defense of Modlin, the 17,000 captured plus casualties at Kock, the 10,000 captured plus casualties at Kepa Oksywska, the thousands more captured, wounded, or killed in smaller engagements and we're talking real numbers. :beam:
Add to the raw number of men lost the hits to moral, administration, industry, and manpower involved and Warsaw becomes an important strategic position.
Granted, much of the polish military had moved to the south and much of Poland's industry was located on the border and thus already captured, Warsaw did have significant levels of soldiers, military equipment, and industry.
As for moral, capturing a nation's capitol is a significant blow. It would certainly make some soldiers question whether the fight could be won.(especially considering the complete inaction on the part of the French and British.)
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
OK cegroach , but just a couple more comments .
Its wierd isn't it that the 17s saw more combat than the 35s and when the Polish army was formed in France it was these same two tanks they used .
Not to forget of course that it was 17s along with tankettes that formed the armoured trains .
But also back to the Vickers light , the Finns used them throughout the war as well as the the Russian version of the Vickers, they still used them up until the mid 1950s .
Though I think the funniest two examples relating to that tank must be Thailand using them against the French , and the Bulgarians using them against the allies and then in '44 using them against the Germans(BTW the Bulgarians were still using the 35s then as well).
Well our artillery was also still using lot of these babies during winter war:
https://img238.imageshack.us/img238/6099/87k95da0.jpg
The models name was 87 k 95. It didnt have any kind of recoil mechanism and had to be re aimed after each shot. the first figure comes from the date when it was taken into use, 1887. Now that Finnish army used lot of stuff, doesnt mean that anyone with any kind of opportunity to use something else instead shouldnt have done just that, specially in winter war, our army used basicly anything they could get their hands on.~;)
The "Russian Vickers" was the T-26.It was the main tank of our single armoured division for the majority of continuation war. Fortunately Finns captured couple KV-1 heavy tanks early on and the fate of those tanks was to drive in front and gather hits from the enemy, while the T-26 would only come out once the heavy tanks would have spotted the enemy to shoot and then scoot again.While the Jaeger infantry tried to keep up with the speed with their bicycles. This was the Finnish take on Blitzkrieg during WWII.:laugh4:
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Wasn't that T 26 or T 28 ? Anyway, in theory even 7 TP was a Vickers design despite almost total redesign.
Yes the T-26 , both Poland and Russia bought the licence to make their own ,which made it easier for the Finns to later change their english built and armed Vickers into English built russian armed tanks (after re arming them initially with swiss weapons)
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I mentioned the encirclement of Warsaw to demonstrate the extent of the German advance before Soviet intervention. I did not imply that it would have been the end of fighting.
Fine, but considering that Warsaw is close to the border it is rather pointless.
As quickly as the 8th September the plan was to converge towards the 'romanian bridgehead' - at that time Warsaw was not even under siege that is why Army 'Modlin' was able to cross the rivers in that area and move south - it later formed a part of the Northern Front which frought to the end ot the fourth week of September at Tomaszów against Germans and Soviets.
German offensive basically stopped around 14th September they had to regroup and deal with the unexpected developments at Bzura. At that time Wehrmacht finally had to deal with logistical problems of all kinds moving further and fruther from the borders.
In addition OKW was concerned about the western front despite French and British inactivity. They didn't know there will be no offensive and acted accordingly - each mile more to the east means another mile further from the western front.
Besides the German command was notorious in making mistakes in judgement.
Two armies on Bzura were a suprise, same like equally large forces at Tomaszów, the 'Polesie' Group and various others and that despite the superiority in the air (night marching might have something to do with it).
Almost every single battle in the later part of the campaign seen confusion on the German side which could be dealt with thanks to superior mobility and the Soviet attack.
That means if they expected to be ready to attack in the south after the 20th of September it is safe to assume more time would be necessary to continue with the attack.
Quote:
However, the loss of Warsaw represented 120,000 soldiers captured plus casualties.
This place were considered a bastion after 9th-10th September so obviously was supposed to fight as long as possible, WHILE the real frontline would be in the south.
Quote:
Add that to the 170,000 captured plus casualties just a week prior at Bzura,
Who were doomed anyway - as I said before. Only if the battle was coordinated in much better way a large part of this force would join defences of Warsaw and Modlin.
Quote:
the 17,000 captured plus casualties at Kock,
Kock ? A nice example, for sure - considering that the force was almost completely formed after the Soviet Invasion and was cut off from Romania and Hungary.
Mind that even Warsaw's capitulation didn't change much for those soldiers - there was no drop in the morale of this group - 2,5 divisions.
Only after the force used up all artillery ammunition defeating 13th Motorized Division at Kock it had no other choice but to capitulate.
Quote:
the 10,000 captured plus casualties at Kepa Oksywska
,
Do you know where it is ? ON THE BALTIC COASTLINE. In other words the most isolated place in Poland, cut off in first two days of the campaign.
Besides there were also 3000 men who capitulated in October in Hel.
Quote:
the thousands more captured, wounded, or killed in smaller engagements and we're talking real numbers. :beam:
You must have forgotten about OVER 400 000 soldiers who capitulated in Tomaszów area or in the eastern Poland (mainly southern) or about 120 000 men who crossed the borders (mainly southern).
IN addition thousands of reservists (as much as 100 000) went home after the Soviet attack - not everyone had the will to fight abroad and many of those men were Belorussians or Ukrainians and had less reasons to fight outside the country (fought well against the Germnas, though).
Quote:
Add to the raw number of men lost the hits to moral, administration, industry, and manpower involved and Warsaw becomes an important strategic position.
OK. One after another.
Morale - that would be a blow, but Warsaw was cut off earlier and the soldiers knew what to expect. Notice that even despite the Soviet attack (which was much heavier blow to morale since it erazed any hopes for a successful defence) thousands of soldiers were fighting with even greater desperation.
According to the Abwehr which made the evaluation of the Polish army before the war. Polish officer corps was considered 'fanatical' and certainly despite the report was lacking much data in several areas, here it is very close to the truth, there were sufficiently many examples to back it up.
Even when fighting for honour only and without any chance to win morale was ket high in 1939, 1940 (after the fall of France more Poles evacuated and continued fighting than the French despite much smaller numbers in 1940) or especially in 1944 and 1945.
After all the Parachute Brigade fought very well at Arnhem even if it was close to a mutiny learning it will not support the Uprising in Warsaw (something it was formed to do), but somewhere in the Netherlands, a place - no offence to anyone - nobody really cared.
At the same time there is no doubt that the Polish units fought well after they learnt it is all for nothing - Yalta agreements were revealed - even the 2nd Polish Corps which was consisting mainly from Poles living in the areas given to the Soviets, even the unit in the Corps formed from ethnic Lithuanians mainly not even from Poland.
Although the soldiers fighting in the second part of the war in 1939 were less resilent it was more than sufficient.
Administration was evacuated, Warsaw was no longer a center of such activities.
Industry. There was no such impact - factories in Warsaw were not working at rate which would see any change.
Defence would be built on supplies evacuated to the south and coming from Romania, ammo stockiles were sufficient for more than three months.
Manpower ? Are you kidding ? Most of reservists were waiting for weaponry to be assigned and units to be formed, there was NO such shortage for sure - at least 400 000 reservists were in available.
Quote:
Granted, much of the polish military had moved to the south and much of Poland's industry was located on the border and thus already captured, Warsaw did have significant levels of soldiers, military equipment, and industry.
As for moral, capturing a nation's capitol is a significant blow. It would certainly make some soldiers question whether the fight could be won.(especially considering the complete inaction on the part of the French and British.)
The question of morale - I have dealth with that above fine, enough, but all things cosidering it was sufficiently strong to carry on.
Most of the soldiers who fought at that time were as hard as nails and even the cathastrophe of the Soviet invasion affected only some units.
As long as there was any hope for victory the fighting would continue, after all even without such hope (to win in Poland, obviously there was hope for the final victory anyway) we seen operational groups trying to get to Romania and Hungary (or Lithuania and Latvia - e.g. Reserve Cavalry Brigade 'Wołkowyjsk' or Wilno operational area) or without such options (Kleeberg's Operational Group 'Polesie') the fighting was continued until it was possible to achieve any results - a succesful escape or starting guerilla activity - much of the weaponry later used by the resistence was stockpiled in hidden places according to the orders.
Guerilla war was the last considered possibility - the underground was created according to the secret order on the 27th September 1939 with its center in Warsaw according to the orders received during the secret mission flown by the prototype bomber 'Sum'.
Basically the main question was if the capitulation of Warsaw would be a sufficiently heavy blow to the morale to break the will to fight.
I don't think so - one thing noone seriously can question is the will to fight.
It was more if the fighting can bring the final victory - only units completely cut off capitulated and that happened ussually when the situation was hopeless.
In the later part of the campaign the much reduced divisions (30 overall, with 20 formed divisions to the east of Vistula) were in fact 'Kampfgruppe' like structures - units smaller in number, but consisiting from mostly frontline elements, the combatants - the parts o the divisions not immediatelly useful in combat were discarted which meant the remaing forces were still dangerous and two that their combat capabilities were limited in time. Because more than sufficient resurces were already in place (Luftwaffe was directed elsewhere and frankly it did poor job with the railways) it was the question if there would be enough time to form new divisions and reform the old.
According to the information I have to my disposal I can say for sure there were such resources in every important area including the time.
Battle of Bzura bought time for the rest of the army and the state, similar was the purpose of the 'bastions' left behind like Warsaw, Modlin, Brest and others.
ON the 17th September forces sufficient t defend the 'romanian brdgehead' were already there - 2 division sized force with 100 airplanes, 70+ tanks and sufficient AA artillery. First line included pioneer units which were preparing defence positions and destroying approaches which could be used to those.
The problem was that noone expected the Soviet Invasion and there was no question of defence from that direction.
German highest command couldn't prevent such developments, even if it gave it the highest priority - most of their forces were locked in combat and the single useful large unit i.e. 5th Panzer Division was recovering from losses and stuck on bad roads with a number of mechanical failures and logistical issues stopping it from entering combat even when it was desperately needed (by the XXIInd Panzer Corps).
The same situation concerned all other considered forces - first offensive actons would be possible after 28th September and I don't mean Warsaw's capitulation which wouldn't happen so soon without the Soviet Attack.
That gives at least 11 days to create solid defences and evacuate more resources where necessary, but two weeks would be a better guess.
All this means that the fighting would be continued for more than another month if not more.
I doubt it would be carried on through the wintertime - the probability might be too small, but not unlikely - but at least not 100 000+ men would be evacuated, but rather 300 000 and German problems would be much larger than in reality, so their losses.
Of course that would happen only if the Soviets didn't attack which was possible on at least one condition.
No declaration in Abbeville which was a fatal mistake bordering a betrayal and a suicidal stupidity.
Stalin was too much an opportunist to attack where the fighting was raging, he wouldn't commit his forces in a campaign which could cost him something, actually he only did attack becuse of the Allied secret declaration and German information about the fall of Warsaw and the red Army suffered sizable losses in the result including 447 (!!!) tanks...
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Interesting topic indeed and while my knowledge is quite limited I'd like to throw in some thoughts and questions, hoping that someone can enlighten me. ~D
Few days ago I looked up some tanks on wikipedia and while the japanese tanks were apparently pretty bad indeed I found it funny that when I checked some of the later german designs, many of them came close to 10:1 kill ratios and it was also often said that most of them were destroyed and abandoned by their own crews due to lack of support or fuel, one wonders what they could have achieved with more ressources behind them but of course lack of ressources and manpower were unsurprisingly the main failures of the german army while I find some of the technologies quite fascinating even though not all of them were perfect yet.
And then I would also like to throw in the dutch, they weren't really a major power and when I asked my dad what they had to defend their borders at the start of the war he jokingly said a few men on bicycles although that could well be true. However when the dutch marine infantry arrived in Rotterdam from overseas(if I understand that correctly they were quickly recalled?) they apparently put up quite a fight and made the germans bomb the town quite a bit to finally defeat them(didn't they run out of ammunition as well?). And then there is of course this (myth?) that the german commander said if there had been more of these devils they could have defeated the german forces. Well, in this case their playground was limited to one city and their equipment sounds rather limited(not like I had expected the dutch to successfully defend against a german invasion anyway) but they sound like quite a capable and determined small force to me.
Oh and since someone said the soviet army was a very good force since it defeated the german army, well, when one army outnumbers the other 20:1 then even a 10:1 kill ration on the side of the outnumbered army isn't going to help a lot and one has to keep in mind that geographically the soviet union outnumbered germany quite a bit from the start, plus they got a whole lot of equipment and money from the united states whose economical power basically won the war for the allies one might say, I find it quite amazing how they could go from not much(especially the army air force was in a rather bad shape at the beginning of WW2) to large carpet bombing operations, buiding more ships than the others could sink and also outnumbering their enemies on land, not to mention the atomic bomb, which, despite the stunning german technologies, the US got first(well, the scientists have a lot of german family names, but still ~D ).
Finally some people mentioned swedish tanks which I didn't know existed back then. I know Sweden has made some amazing planes and ships since WW2 which I also find quite fascinating, especially since they can compete with some quite larger countries in that regard, but I had no idea they built tanks in WW2 as well.
About the whole Poland debate, I don't know enough about that, just like I prefer the later middle ages with their shiny plate armour, I prefer the later war period with the big armoured tanks (I must have some armour fetish ~D ).
edit: almost forgot about the quiz results:
You scored as a British and the Commonwealth
Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.
British and the Commonwealth 75%
Italy 69%
Finland 63%
France, Free French and the Resistance 56%
Poland 50%
Germany 44%
United States 44%
Soviet Union 13%
Japan 13%
I don't like Italy being on place 2 as they were probably one of the biggest failures in the war or can anyone tell me where they achieved anything without daddy germany coming to help them out? *waits for Tribesman to come and crush his fantasies about italy being bad*
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Interesting topic indeed and while my knowledge is quite limited I'd like to throw in some thoughts and questions, hoping that someone can enlighten me. ~D
Few days ago I looked up some tanks on wikipedia and while the japanese tanks were apparently pretty bad indeed
Bad is not the right word, they were terrible - weak armour (especially with much resilent steel they were using), bad doctrine and bad armament.
Japanese Type 89B might be the worst medium tank of the war...
Still they achived wonder with that equipment initially, were mad/stubborn enough to somehow carry them to inaccessible places noone expected any heavier equipment.
Besides - which I find especially funny considering all this nonsense about Polish cavalry charging tanks - their tanks were in fact charged by American cavalry during the Phillippines campaign.
Quote:
I found it funny that when I checked some of the later german designs, many of them came close to 10:1 kill ratios and it was also often said that most of them were destroyed and abandoned by their own crews due to lack of support or fuel, one wonders what they could have achieved with more ressources behind them but of course lack of ressources and manpower were unsurprisingly the main failures of the german army while I find some of the technologies quite fascinating even though not all of them were perfect yet.
Several reasons with superior design as most likely a less important one.
Regardless of that the Germans made mistakes designing and producing too many types of tanks and armoured vehicles in too many versions.
So were a pure waste of resources, time and fuel - e.g. Konigtiger or Jagdtiger, not to mention Maus or the insane Ratte - 100+ t WTF were they thinking ?:dizzy2:
Quote:
And then there is of course this (myth?) that the german commander said if there had been more of these devils they could have defeated the german forces. Well, in this case their playground was limited to one city and their equipment sounds rather limited(not like I had expected the dutch to successfully defend against a german invasion anyway) but they sound like quite a capable and determined small force to me.
Virtually every army has such elite formations and surely in combat most of them fought exceptionally well compared to 'average' units.
Urban environment is exceptionally useful for that purpose.
BTW I found something really ironic.
Westerplatte - the slightly fortified Polish outpost in Danzig which was defended for a week against 10 times larger German forces with a loss of 16 men only in 1945 German units occupied that area and fought for... a week too.
There is a story coming from Soviet sources that they surrendered learning that a Polish brigade will be sent to fight them (which just finished fighting in Gdynia few miles to the north).
That would really be something - a complete change of places like this doesn't happen too often.
Quote:
Oh and since someone said the soviet army was a very good force since it defeated the german army, well, when one army outnumbers the other 20:1 then even a 10:1 kill ration on the side of the outnumbered army isn't going to help a lot and one has to keep in mind that geographically the soviet union outnumbered germany quite a bit from the start,
There is more than one situation when the Soviets caused much more losses than they suffered, especially in the later part of the war - the offensives in Moldavia and in western Poland-eastern Germany for example.
Germans tended to win tactical victories, but had problems with actually winning something which really mattered.
Quote:
I don't like Italy being on place 2 as they were probably one of the biggest failures in the war or can anyone tell me where they achieved anything without daddy germany coming to help them out? *waits for Tribesman to come and crush his fantasies about italy being bad*
Italians were unlucky to enter the war with so outdated equipment, weak industy and too much ambition.
Their defeats in Northern Africa are a bit overrated since in such environment numrical superiority doesn't translate into something tangible.
Slower moving Italians were simply cut off by motorized enemies and forced to surrender.
The loss of the infantry was also quite important factor to Rommel's demise.
On the other hand their mobile and elite formations performed quite well, especially with their terrible tanks similar to 2 year earlier designes used by other top 6 armoured forces ( Soviet Union, Germany, France, Japan, Poland) for example tankettes were still all too numerous in late 1940.
Another misfortune - the Greek campaign was initially due to a total disregard of the basic combat rules - they attacked with roughly 8 divisions which was supposed to win the war and later got stuck in the mountains where lower level tactical experience or determination mattered more.
Finally the Soviet campaign - armed with obsolete weapons and facing the full strenght of the 'Little Saturn' - a recipe for a disaster...
Italy was the weakest major power for sure and they fought in some worst places in the war, just like the French they are really underrated when it comes to some exceptionally well fought battles and skirmishes.
Personally the more I learn about this war I am more convinced that hardly anyone could be seen as a superior fighting force - there were always factors which make such claims not exactly justified.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Well, nobody's perfect, I guess everyone had a few successes or defeats here and there but if you try to find an average success rating I would think there are quite a few differences and then you try to find out what these differences were. Just looking at the casualty figures of the war one could say the soviet success had something to do with manpower, they lost so many, yet still outnumbered the german forces heavily. I think the more you outnumber an enemy the less losses you take might also apply since you have a lot more firepower and even if you can't hit a thing the enemy will be extremely disturbed by the amount of lead and explosives you throw into their general direction. That doesn't mean the soviets couldn't hit a thing, they even had the best snipers overall, I just think at some point it becomes hard for the defenders to stop the mighty steamroll.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Few days ago I looked up some tanks on wikipedia and while the japanese tanks were apparently pretty bad indeed I found it funny that when I checked some of the later german designs, many of them came close to 10:1 kill ratios and it was also often said that most of them were destroyed and abandoned by their own crews due to lack of support or fuel, one wonders what they could have achieved with more ressources behind them but of course lack of ressources and manpower were unsurprisingly the main failures of the german army while I find some of the technologies quite fascinating even though not all of them were perfect yet.
As good as the late war German armour was - and it was very good - those ratios have more to do with skill and experience than anything else. German tankers were simply amazing, in a class of their own.
The reason the ratios aren't 20:1 is that the USSR actually had some very good tanks. The T34/76 and T34/85 were extremely solid tanks. They came into their own at a time when the Pz.IV was the main German medium tank. I've read a lot about armoured combat in the East and there is a consant refrain of German commanders in Pz.IVs, Pz. IIIs, StuGs, etc outmanuevering their Soviet rivals, only to have their repeated shots bounce right off. Had the Soviets instead produced large quantities of a Sherman copy - things would have been dire indeed.
Tank warfare in the East is often characterized as a David and Goliath struggle, with the lowly T-34 fighting the mammoth Tiger. While this was true in some circumstances, with Tigers pulling off amazing victories against far greater forces, most of the Panzer Korps was fighting in inferior tanks - yet still managed the success that they did.
When it comes to the big cats, such as the Tiger, Panther, King Tiger, and some of the big tank destroyers, their biggest enemies were themselves. In proper working order, they were amazingly effective against far greater forces.
Unfortunately for the Germans, late war pressures meant an increase in production faults and logistical issues. As you mentioned, that meant that these beasts succumbed to mechanical breakdowns or a lack of logistical support more often than enemy fire. Also, the growing Soviet air presence became increasingly deadly to German AFVs of all types. (It was never as big of an issue as it was on the Western Front, where German tanks could barely manuever at all.)
It is also imporant to mention that tank versus tank combat was not as typical as portrayed. While plenty of it went on, assaults against enemy infantry and fortified positions were far more common experiences. Commanders typically wanted to preserve their tanks for armoured thrusts, and prefered to engage enemy armour with tank destroyers, AT guns, or other methods.
Quote:
Oh and since someone said the soviet army was a very good force since it defeated the german army, well, when one army outnumbers the other 20:1 then even a 10:1 kill ration on the side of the outnumbered army isn't going to help a lot and one has to keep in mind that geographically the soviet union outnumbered germany quite a bit from the start, plus they got a whole lot of equipment and money from the united states
The Russian military became better as the war progressed. It never quite reached the level of German military thinking, but far surpassed the other allies.
The sheer weight of Russian manpower practically eliminated the importance of tactics and manuever in the East. In the begining, the Germans encircled and destroyed enormous armies. Even after Hitler's stupidity at Stalingrad and Kursk, Manstein and other German commanders were able to pull off some amazing tactical victories against huge odds, such as Kharkov.
However, a tactical victory that would have been a huge blow to an equally sized military meant very little to the Russian command. They simply pulled back, wrote another hundred thousand soldiers off the books, and pressed on with their war of attrition.
It should be noted, though, that the Russian military was thouroughly exhausted by the end of the war.
Quote:
I don't like Italy being on place 2 as they were probably one of the biggest failures in the war or can anyone tell me where they achieved anything without daddy germany coming to help them out? *waits for Tribesman to come and crush his fantasies about italy being bad*
Many people blame Italian incompetence for the Axis defeat.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
*waits for Tribesman to come and crush his fantasies about italy being bad*
But they were bad , too many political appointees and too many crazy objectives . They managed OK despite all their big losses , but after the 8th army was destroyed morale completely fell apart .
One notable achievement hey did make was putting all the British battleships in the med out of action which led the British to launch a major operation with the heavy escort consisting of an old battleship armed with Quaker guns, needles to say that the British operation failed with big losses .
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Thanks for the answers, few more things I came up with:
1. Were the dutch bicycles superior to those the finns used? How decisive were bicycles in the outcome of the war for both countries? :sweatdrop:
Ok, I can't really see a superior dutch bicycle stopping even a Panzer II but that the Finnish infantry could keep up with their tanks using bicycles could have been decisive, maybe they even used those superior dutch bicycles.*
2. I read the americans especially tried to rely on tank destroyers to destroy tanks, I wonder why so many couldn't really see tanks fighting other tanks? Obviously it did happen, but apparently more accidental than wanted, I wonder why? Today it seems pretty normal and I'm not aware of any modern tank destroyers, dividing things into heavy armour with tiny guns and medium armoured vehicles with big guns seems a bit weird and it seems only logical to me to combine the two to get the best out of both worlds. I wonder what the reasons were not to do that.
3. Firing in movement I read was not really working well back then due to the lack of automatic stabilizers like modern tanks have them, from what I read, even the T-72 didn't have any which was a major disadvantage in the first Gulf War because they had to stop to fire. Is that true or were there any attempts at stabilizing the guns during movement?
4. I'm not really that much into the sea warfare but I always wondered how it came to be that the german navy seemed to do mostly submarine warfare but also built big battleships, which were apparently superior to most of the british ships, but hardly ever used them for anything else but hunting convoys or lying around in some remote port until some commandos or planes destroyed them. Seems like a waste of ressources just like sending the Bismarck into the middle of the Atlantic where the british managed to destroy it, why was there no attempt to gather all ships and sort of finally duke it out with the royal marine to perhaps secure the channel for germany? If that wasn't possible to win then I wonder why they built those big ships in the first place and didn't just stick to submarines? Perhaps one of Hitler's weird commands similar to how they wasted ressources on other huge projects like the V1 and V2 which basically existed because he was acting like a spoiled kid who got a slap in the face?
And finally, what role did south america play in this war? I heard here and there about this or that country aligning with this or that side but I have absolutely no idea what the individual countries did exactly, except that argentinia invited germans to come over after the war. :shrug:
*taking this too serious could result in major brain damage
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Thanks for the answers, few more things I came up with:
1. Were the dutch bicycles superior to those the finns used? How decisive were bicycles in the outcome of the war for both countries? :sweatdrop:
Ok, I can't really see a superior dutch bicycle stopping even a Panzer II but that the Finnish infantry could keep up with their tanks using bicycles could have been decisive, maybe they even used those superior dutch bicycles.*
To come to think of, im not quite sure where the Finnish bicycles were manufactured. But im positive those were not taken from the Russians, like the tanks were:clown:
Actually bicycle wasnt half bad for the supporting infantry for the tanks, to travel with. During WWII there was no such thing as IFV, infantry fighting vehicles, Germans and US preferred armored halftracks, while the armor of those was so thin that a heavy machine gun could destroy one, with the infantry many times with it.
The Soviet mechanized infantry tended to ride on the hull of their tanks into battle, but the negative thing about that is that tanks tend to gather fire when spotted and the poor infantry men tended to be shot or blown to pieces, when battle started,no matter if the tank survived or not. So in the end the bicycle was pretty good poor mans solution since when the sounds of fire in front would start the Jaegers dropped their bicycles in near ditches and started fighting on foot, once the path was clear, they would pick up the damn things and move on. Of course the continuous cycling might have caused the jaegers to have sore arses, but maybe that was one of the key elements behind their ferocity.:laugh4:
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
I read the americans especially tried to rely on tank destroyers to destroy tanks, I wonder why so many couldn't really see tanks fighting other tanks?
I think reason is weakness of American and most of British tanks comparing to German ones. Sherman had no chance against Panther on open area. Panther had bigger range, heavier gun, better armour and was was smaller and faster.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
That doesn't mean the soviets couldn't hit a thing, they even had the best snipers overall, I just think at some point it becomes hard for the defenders to stop the mighty steamroll.
Not necessarily. Unlike the Finns and Germans, the Soviets are known for recklessly inflating sniper kill totals. Simo Häyhä was the highest scoring sniper of the war.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
2. I read the americans especially tried to rely on tank destroyers to destroy tanks, I wonder why so many couldn't really see tanks fighting other tanks? Obviously it did happen, but apparently more accidental than wanted, I wonder why? Today it seems pretty normal and I'm not aware of any modern tank destroyers, dividing things into heavy armour with tiny guns and medium armoured vehicles with big guns seems a bit weird and it seems only logical to me to combine the two to get the best out of both worlds. I wonder what the reasons were not to do that.
Inter-war thought on the subject of armoured warfare proscribed two distinct roles for tanks - infantry support and AT. The armoured forces of the major combatants all reflected their adaptions of this basic premise. Later in the war, these roles became far more blended.
As I was saying, the AFVs we traditionally think of as "tanks" today, were most often designed for infantry support, to break the static situation encountered during WWI. For example, the Pz. III and Pz. IV were originally designed to play these roles in tandem.
It also explains the somewhat unfortunate British armoured situation throughout most of the war. Tanks such as the Churchill - an enormous beast that could go no more than 10km/h IIRC, are often mocked for their immobility and strange design. While it is true that they were completely ineffective versus German armour, they were never designed to go head to head against enemy armor. Their designers envisioned them spearheading an infantry advance against a fixed position, and in such a role, a speed faster than that of your average infantryman on foot was not seen as necessary.
To answer your original question, the Americans relied so heavily on tank destroyers, specifically the M10, M18 and M36, out of necessity. They found themselves severely outgunned in Normandy by a German armoured corps that had evolved significantly beyond their own capabilities. The open-topped nature of American TDs allowed for larger, more powerful guns to be utilized. However, there were significant disadvantages to having open-topped AFVs in combat, as I'm sure you can imagine. :laugh4:
As for the Germans, their tank destroyers followed two distinct development patterns.
The first were essentially static AT guns mounted on a chassis and used as a stand-off weapon. They were meant to engage enemy tanks from a distance, with forward support - often working with spotters.
PanzerJager I
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...r/marder03.jpg
Marder III
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...3-ardennes.jpg
Nashorn
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...n_hornisse.jpg
..and the mighty Elefant
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...Elephant-3.jpg
The second type were extentions of the StuG assault gun concept. Originally meant for infantry support, the Germans quickly realized that they were effective TDs as well. This led to a string of turretless tank destroyers based on a multitude of chassis. Removing the turret allowed for both increased frontal armor and easier angling of that armor - both very desireable attributes when engaging tanks. While having a very limited traverse limited their capacity in infantry-heavy engagements, with proper training it did not effect tank to tank engagement at any significant level.
StuG IV
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...ger/StuGIV.jpg
Hetzer, based an effective Czech platform, cutest tank of the war..
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...eger/35285.jpg
Jagdpanzer IV
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...agdpanzer4.jpg
Jagdpanther, best TD of the war..
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...agdpanther.jpg
and the enormous Jagdtiger..
https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y1...eger/00145.jpg
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Yep, those are the ones I read a bit about on wikipedia.
The bit about the american focus on AT destroyers I asked because some wiki article said the american leaders did not want tanks to face other tanks, they wanted to use tank destroyers and that's why it took them so long to field the Pershing. I took that as implying they simply made a "wrong" decision while the british fielded the sherman firefly to counter german tanks IIRC.
Now the germans had their share of tank destroyers but I find it noteworthy that the guns in the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II were pretty much antitank guns put into tanks, just like the guns in their tank destroyers which I guess is one of the reasons their tanks fared so well against the allied tanks while the pure infantry support tanks would have large caliber, low-velocity guns to destroy buildings etc., like the Brummbär for example or the earlier versions of the Panzer IV. The Panther and Tiger seem to me more like intermediate versions in the sense that they could destroy tanks but you can use pretty much any cannon to shoot a hole into a building when necessary, the ones they made were just smaller. The sherman however was apparently rather useless against other tanks, at least from the front so the american forces had more of a gap between tank destroyers and tanks if I understand that correctly.
Still curious about cannon stabilization though, does anyone know about that?
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yep, those are the ones I read a bit about on wikipedia.
The bit about the american focus on AT destroyers I asked because some wiki article said the american leaders did not want tanks to face other tanks, they wanted to use tank destroyers and that's why it took them so long to field the Pershing. I took that as implying they simply made a "wrong" decision while the british fielded the sherman firefly to counter german tanks IIRC.
Now the germans had their share of tank destroyers but I find it noteworthy that the guns in the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II were pretty much antitank guns put into tanks, just like the guns in their tank destroyers which I guess is one of the reasons their tanks fared so well against the allied tanks while the pure infantry support tanks would have large caliber, low-velocity guns to destroy buildings etc., like the Brummbär for example or the earlier versions of the Panzer IV. The Panther and Tiger seem to me more like intermediate versions in the sense that they could destroy tanks but you can use pretty much any cannon to shoot a hole into a building when necessary, the ones they made were just smaller. The sherman however was apparently rather useless against other tanks, at least from the front so the american forces had more of a gap between tank destroyers and tanks if I understand that correctly.
Still curious about cannon stabilization though, does anyone know about that?
Sherman had gyro stabilizers, but it didnt made much of a difference. Even novadays, MBT´s tend to stop when they want to take a clear shot.stabilizing betters the chance of hitting while on move, but the chance never exceeds the chance of a hit when firing while being stationary.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
If I may move a bit from tank discussions, I wanted to ask some more knowledgable people here about manpower of Germany and SU. People often emphasize Soviet huge manpower, expecially compared to the Germans.
Now, at the time of WW2, Germany had around 50 million population. Soviet Union had 120 million. If we count all satelite states of Germany (Romania, Hungary etc...) that is probably 10-20 million more. Now, before the war even started Soviets lost enormous amonts of territory, most notably Ukraine and a good deal of European Russia, which was most heavily populated territory. Furthermore, German started sieging even more big population centers like Leningrad for example.
So at the onset of the winter 1941, Germans are in front of Moscow, Leningrad is besieged, much of territory is lost. How much population was "left" in the SU? If I'm not mistaken, most of new soldiers were conscripted from behind the Urals, which wasn't your most densely populated area of the SU. I somehow think that this entire "huge manpower advantage" was a bit exagerated, and that the reason Soviets had so much more men was that they adjusted their entire country to "total war" concept from the start, while Germans haven't until some time later. Any insights?
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Now the germans had their share of tank destroyers but I find it noteworthy that the guns in the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II were pretty much antitank guns put into tanks, just like the guns in their tank destroyers which I guess is one of the reasons their tanks fared so well against the allied tanks while the pure infantry support tanks would have large caliber, low-velocity guns to destroy buildings etc., like the Brummbär for example or the earlier versions of the Panzer IV. The Panther and Tiger seem to me more like intermediate versions in the sense that they could destroy tanks but you can use pretty much any cannon to shoot a hole into a building when necessary, the ones they made were just smaller. The sherman however was apparently rather useless against other tanks, at least from the front so the american forces had more of a gap between tank destroyers and tanks if I understand that correctly.
Still curious about cannon stabilization though, does anyone know about that?
Well, the Tiger was originally planned as a breakthrough tank - heavy armor, heavy gun, and slower speed. As the name implies, it was meant to lead major offensives, soaking up enemy fire and eliminating whatever it encountered - infantry, guns, or tanks. By the time it was employed, however, it was mainly used to thwart the growing multitude of T-34s.
The Panther was a direct result of the T-34, and embodied the modern day main battle tank more than any other tank. It was heavily armored, heavily gunned, and pretty fast. The Panther was comfortable taking on fixed positions and tanks equally. It most clearly demonstrates the distortion between infantry support and AT AFVs that was so stark earlier in the war.
The King Tiger continued in that vein, as German armoured planning moved to the light/medium/heavy distinctions, instead of the role oriented ones. It was very similar to the Panther, only with heavier armour and a bigger gun.
Only American tanks had stabilizers during WW2. They were so effective that the British removed them and the Americans usually did not maintain them. They were removed from American tanks after the war. IIRC, the British were taught to fire on the move early in the war, but it was shown to be completely ineffective and discarded. As Kagemusha said, its still not an optimal situation today, although the Abrams, for instance, has a very good system.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrooK
I think reason is weakness of American and most of British tanks comparing to German ones. Sherman had no chance against Panther on open area. Panther had bigger range, heavier gun, better armour and was was smaller and faster.
Actually, the Sherman was smaller and faster. Which is why they traveled in "platoons" to outflank them. And the Panther wasn't used to a great extent (or I don't think so, correct me if I'm wrong)
Still waiting on your reply, btw :2thumbsup:
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
And the Panther wasn't used to a great extent (or I don't think so, correct me if I'm wrong)
On the contrary, there were about six thousand manufactured. :book:
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
On the contrary, there were about six thousand manufactured. :book:
Really? I must be thinking of the Tiger.......
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
Really? I must be thinking of the Tiger.......
About a thousand plus a few hundred of those, and five hundred-odd Tiger II tanks (pretty impressive for a year's production).
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
If I may move a bit from tank discussions, I wanted to ask some more knowledgable people here about manpower of Germany and SU. People often emphasize Soviet huge manpower, expecially compared to the Germans.
Now, at the time of WW2, Germany had around 50 million population. Soviet Union had 120 million. If we count all satelite states of Germany (Romania, Hungary etc...) that is probably 10-20 million more. Now, before the war even started Soviets lost enormous amonts of territory, most notably Ukraine and a good deal of European Russia, which was most heavily populated territory. Furthermore, German started sieging even more big population centers like Leningrad for example.
So at the onset of the winter 1941, Germans are in front of Moscow, Leningrad is besieged, much of territory is lost. How much population was "left" in the SU? If I'm not mistaken, most of new soldiers were conscripted from behind the Urals, which wasn't your most densely populated area of the SU. I somehow think that this entire "huge manpower advantage" was a bit exagerated, and that the reason Soviets had so much more men was that they adjusted their entire country to "total war" concept from the start, while Germans haven't until some time later. Any insights?
Here was an interesting link I came across last night as I was wondering about some of the casualty figures quoted in various posts. It contains some useful information to compare the relative strengths and losses estimated for many countries, even some of the more obscure ones.
http://www.worldwar-2.net/casualties...ties-index.htm
Here is what is claimed for both Germany and the Soviet Union:
Quote:
Germany - World War 2 Flag Germany
Status: Independent
Type of Government: Dictatorship
Religion: Christian
Population: 73,000,000 (1938)
Germans - 70,990,000
Poles - 1,000,000
Jews - 707,000
Russians - 200,000
Danes - 30,000
Gypsies - 28,000
Wends - 20,000
Frisians - 15,000
Lithuanians - 10,000 Alignment (1939 - 1945):
Axis Partner
1st Sep 1939 - 8th May 1945 Casualties (1939 - 1945):
Soldiers (Axis) - 3,350,000 Killed
Civilians - 3,043,000 Killed
Jews - 205,500 Killed
Gypsies - 20,000 Killed
Quote:
USSR - World War 2 Flag Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
Status: Independent
Type of Government: Communist
Religion: Atheist
Population: 190,000,000 (1939)
Russians - 100,000,000
Ukrainians - 15,400,000
Uzbekis - 10,000,000
Kazakhs - 5,000,000
Byelorussians - 4,400,000
Azerbaijanis - 2,500,000
Tajiks - 2,500,000
Georgians - 2,100,000
Turkmen - 2,000,000
Jews - 1,907,000
Kyrgyz - 1,500,000
Armenians - 1,300,000
Kabardins - 700,000
Ossetians - 600,000
Chechens - 350,000
Volksdeutsch - 340,000
Tatars - 300,000
Bulgars - 200,000
Greeks - 125,000
Gagaus - 100,000
Others - 38,678,000 Alignment (1939 - 1945):
Neutral
1st Sep 1939 - 22nd Jun 1941
Allied Partner
22nd Jun 1941 - 8th May 1945
Neutral
8th May 1945 - 9th Aug 1945
Allied Partner
9th Aug 1945 - 2nd Sep 1945 Casualties (1941 - 1945):
Soldiers (Allied) - 13,300,000 Killed
Soldiers (Axis) - 408,000 Killed
Civilians - 6,500,000 Killed
Jews - 1,000,000 Killed
As one can see, the Soviets outnumbered Germany by almost 3-1 in manpower. What is interesting is the disparity in casualties, with the Germans dishing out a better than 4-1 outcome in military casualties. Of course many of Germany's losses were suffered in the west, but over 75% were likely from the east front.
PS: I think that this shows that there wasn't a "huge manpower advantage". It was also the vast areas involved in the Eastern campaign and the fact that Germany was fighting in the west, and in Southern Europe and Africa as well that made it impossible for the German Army to keep up with the attrition.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Had the Soviets instead produced large quantities of a Sherman copy”: Especially when the Soviets were always complaining about the weakness of the Sherman. And the fact that the Sherman was design AFTER the T34, of course…
“It never quite reached the level of German military thinking”: We spoke about that before. The Soviet succeeded to change and improve in their tactics, the Germans never. From the Counter-offensive so costly at the beginning, ten the no-surrender battle, to the “shield and sword” tactic, follow by the huge offensives of 1944, the Soviets showed a constant and stunning adaptation during all the war. And you can add the Partisan Warfare in the back of the Germans. Exploiting the blitzkrieg (attacking the weak points) like in Stalingrad, huge attrition war like in Leningrad, trapping like in Kursk, mobility and aggression in Moscow (in 1942!!!!), the Red Army showed the Germans how to dance.
“Even after Hitler's stupidity at Stalingrad and Kursk” Stalingrad, at the end and the decision not to withdraw –even it is not sure Paulus could have done it- sure. Kursk, no way. It is a German GENERALS defeat. Repeating tactic the Soviets knew and took counter measure to defend, bad planning, all they could do wrong they did. When Hitler decided that was enough, the Russian had still 2 Armies in reserve…
“Kharkov”: And? Defensive like Stalingrad…But unlike Stalingrad, no counter-offensive, withdraw to Berlin, with almost no stop. Out manoeuvred and out classed by innovative general as Koniev, Rokosovsky and Zukov, the German were first stopped, stabilised then push back… Where the Soviets adapted, the Germans were never able to find an alternative to the Blietzkrieg.
“The sheer weight of Russian manpower practically eliminated the importance of tactics and manoeuvre in the East.” That is funny. Why this sheer weight didn’t eliminated the tactic and manoeuvre at the start of the Russian Campaign? The Russian had even more “weight”…:beam:
“It should be noted, though, that the Russian military was thouroughly exhausted by the end of the war”: That is new… The proof of this can be found in what event? The Russian Soldiers sit and went on strike?, their military production stopped?:laugh4:
“Many people blame Italian incompetence for the Axis defeat”: And many people are wrong. The Axis defeat is due to a lack of adequate material from a prolong war of attrition.
When the Germans failed to destroy the Red Army at the Russian borders, as planned by the Blitzkrieg, when they were obliged to go deeper and deeper in USSR, finally when they were not able to impose the rules any more (5 litres of petrol for one delivered at the front), when finally the lack of strategic bombers, real tanks (the Panther was an ANSWER to the T34) to confront a menace unforeseen, as general like Von Rundstedt predicted and feared, the Germans lost the war.
Like the French in 1940, the Germans lost the 1943-45 war because they were fighting the wrong war…
The Italians (but not only) were blame by the Germans for their own mistakes. Like if all the Allies units had the same qualities and equipment…
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
We spoke about that before. The Soviet succeeded to change and improve in their tactics, the Germans never.
Really? Is that why modern mobile warfare is based primarily on the ideas and tactics developed throughout the war by the Germans?
This ignores the enormous advancements made in command structure, mobile tactics, elastic defense, etc by the Germans. The time from when the OKW made a strategic decision to the time it was carried out was far shorter than in any other military. The Kampfgruppe concept would be a good example.
Compare Manstein's offensives around Zhitomir 1943 against far superior forces to those of Guderian during the onset of Barbarrossa. It is impossible to say that the offensive tactics used had not changed. :dizzy2:
The Russians, on the other hand, were never able to coordinate as well as the Germans, and had far less cohesive operations. These issues meant that they very often were unable to bring their severe numerical advantages to bear. That is why they continually lost tactical battles against much smaller German forces, even later into the war.
Examine their attacks against Model's forces during 1944. With the numbers of men, tanks, artillery and airpower involved, what should have been an easy push turned into a nightmare. Or for an easier example, look at Tali-Ihantala, also in 1944. The Soviets seemingly learned nothing from their previous experiences with the Finns.
Russia's war was one of attrition and numbers. This was acknowledged at the highest levels. The Red Army was certainly a far more skilled military than it was in 1941, but I'm not sure how you can objectively claim the German military wasn't. :inquisitive:
Quote:
Kursk, no way. It is a German GENERALS defeat. Repeating tactic the Soviets knew and took counter measure to defend, bad planning, all they could do wrong they did. When Hitler decided that was enough, the Russian had still 2 Armies in reserve…
Oh boy...
Kursk was completely the fault of Hitler, and was opposed by the German commanders. Manstein wanted to completely avoid the fortifications in the salient and attack elsewhere. It is rather difficult to win a battle when the time and place of your attack are forced upon you and well known by your enemy.
And, in fact, the plan concieved by the German command was the best possible for the limits imposed on them, and was far more successful than it should have been, considering the situation. How would you have done it?
I cannot understand how you could possibly blame the defeat at Kursk on anyone other than Hitler. He ordered his commanders, against their will, to assault a far larger force behind numerous layers of fortifications in which they had months to build.
Quote:
And? Defensive like Stalingrad…But unlike Stalingrad, no counter-offensive, withdraw to Berlin, with almost no stop. Out manoeuvred and out classed by innovative general as Koniev, Rokosovsky and Zukov, the German were first stopped, stabilised then push back…
What? It is still studied today as textbook example of mobile defence. Zukov, Rokosovsky, and Koniev were all competent commanders, but demonstrated nothing particularly innovative on the battlefield. With such huge numbers of men and machines, tactical prowess was unnecessary.
Quote:
That is funny. Why this sheer weight didn’t eliminated the tactic and manoeuvre at the start of the Russian Campaign?
It did. That is why the Germans lost. They destroyed enormous armies and captured great swathes of land, but exhaustion of manpower and machinery took hold. All the while, the USSR was replacing its losses at a rate far greater than Germany.
As I said, the Germans could pull off great tactical victories, but for little gain.
Quote:
That is new… The proof of this can be found in what event? The Russian Soldiers sit and went on strike?, their military production stopped?:laugh4:
Why their own military assessments my good man.
Quote:
The Axis defeat is due to a lack of adequate material from a prolong war of attrition.When the Germans failed to destroy the Red Army at the Russian borders, as planned by the Blitzkrieg, when they were obliged to go deeper and deeper in USSR, finally when they were not able to impose the rules any more (5 litres of petrol for one delivered at the front), when finally the lack of strategic bombers, real tanks (the Panther was an ANSWER to the T34) to confront a menace unforeseen, as general like Von Rundstedt predicted and feared, the Germans lost the war.
I completely agree. Weren't you just earlier claiming Soviet military superiority?
Quote:
Like the French in 1940, the Germans lost the 1943-45 war because they were fighting the wrong war…
I'm not sure I understand the comparison. The French lost the war because they had poorly trained soldiers led by unskilled leaders and a population with little motivation to fight for their own freedom. The Germans lost due to being completely outnumbered on all fronts. :shrug:
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
It is true that the Red Army improved greatly after the severe defeats of June 1941 thru the early part of 1942. That they survived to remain an Army was almost unbelieveable. No other nation on earth could have absorbed such a defeat with the exception of maybe China. That the Russians came back in 1943 with much improved weapons, tactics, and generalship is proof of their ability to adapt. To imply that they were superior to the German Army as a whole is somewhat eroneous however.
Even when one considers the disaster at Stalingrad, consider the rescources it required to defeat the 6th Army; something like 5 Tank Armies where required to envelop them. It was only Hitler's determination to hold the city that prevented them from breaking out-and they could have done so if they had immediately taken action before the opportunity for manuever was lost.
.....but I digress.
On anything like equal terms, the average German Panzer or Infantry Division could dish up their Russsian equivlant on any day of the week. Even in 1945, when the Soviets had JS IIs and T34/85s by the score, a German Panzer Battalion could take on any three similar sized Regiments (and a Russian "regiment" was in actuallity only battalion sized) before breakfast, reposition, and take on another such attack in the afternoon. I read, in Kenneth Macksey's Panzer Division: the Mailed Fist, of one German Tiger Platoon destroying around 40 Russian heavy tanks in less than an hour. Of course, when you have 100 more where that came from.....well, you see the picture.
Yes the Germans made some incredible strategic blunders, and true they were capable of making tactical errors as any army is. It must be said that for a Nation of 73,000,000, taking on the allies with a combined population of 300,000,000 plus, with an army that was never larger than 12 million, they certainly gave the allies a good dance at the party.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
On anything like equal terms, the average German Panzer or Infantry Division could dish up their Russsian equivlant on any day of the week. Even in 1945, when the Soviets had JS IIs and T34/85s by the score, a German Panzer Battalion could take on any three similar sized Regiments (and a Russian "regiment" was in actuallity only battalion sized) before breakfast, reposition, and take on another such attack in the afternoon. I read, in Kenneth Macksey's Panzer Division: the Mailed Fist, of one German Tiger Platoon destroying around 40 Russian heavy tanks in less than an hour. Of course, when you have 100 more where that came from.....well, you see the picture.
Too simplified.
Much of the superior score comes from the fact they were usually on defence.
Personally I could find half a dozen examples where German side failed terribly and suffered higher losses.
One of more troubling failures was the German inability to eliminate Soviet bridgeheads - almost every time before the Nazi side bagun their all too eagerly expected attack to eliminate one of those the Soviets managed to prepare themselves and the Germans were achieving another one grand, spectacular nothing.
I don't really know why was that, but more than once mechanical failures eliminated up to 50 % of the forces prepared for such an attack before it even started.
Certainly to the end of the war they were able to cut off and destroy Soviet units thanks to much better coordination (at least three tank armies in 1945 alone), but nothing more than a tactical victory was achieved this way.
Soviets replaced their losses, sent reserves and Germans had hardly any time to evacuate numerous tanks damaged during the victorious fighting - that more than once turned such a success into a defeat - losses couldn't be replaced, valuable tanks couldn't be repaired because it was the Soviet army which ended as a master of the battlefield in the end.
In a way and to some degree it was like the battles between French tank units and German forces in 1940. French divisions usually were able to cause much larger losses than they suffered, but because they were defeated in the end (partly thanks to Luftwaffe) they were losing equipment they couldn't evacuate and repair while the Germans could repair enough of their armoured vehicles to continue without much delay.
IN 1944 we have a nice reversal - individual superiority in tactical scale didn't matter in the end because the Allies and the Soviets could replace their losses quickly, use superior airforce and by exhausting German resources were winning on grander scale cutting off valuable units which couldn't be prevented because the German side ran out of reserves already.
It is so amazingly similar with Luftwaffe in the eastern front.
Sure it had impressive kill rate, sure its pilots were shoting down and destroying dozens of targets in the air and on the ground, but it didn't matter because as early as mid 1943 Soviet airforce could carry on their ground support missions without much problems.
Luftwaffe destroyed more, but it was the Soviet force which did what it was supposed to do and the Germans couldn't find a way to actually stop that from happening.
Soviets simply wrote off some more pilots and planes as the price for successful air missions - all those Hartmanns could note down another victory, but it was the Soviet airforce which was doing what it was supposed to do, not them.
Obviously it didn't happen against the Allies - here the Luftwaffe was just simply, ordinarily losing with increasingly higher and higher numbers of fighters and pilots eliminated from further combat.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach
Too simplified.
Much of the superior score comes from the fact they were usually on defence.
I pretty much agree with everything you said about attrition. However, I would argue this point.
The first years consisted of almost continual offensive activity, with the rush to Moscow in '41 and the Kaukus offensive in '42. Offensives were also conducted in '43, Kursk being the biggest but certainly not the only large one. Even in the last years, Germany continually launched offensives in the East up to Spring Awakening in 1945.
Also, a main tenet of German defensive warfare was the rapid counterattack, both in an operational and tactical sense.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Rotorgun - small (but important) correction to your data.
USSR was not neutral until 22nd June of 1941. This country was into close alliance with Germany and should be rather called Axis IMO.
I agree with Jager and Cegorach. Russian army was much bigger but not better. Of course into 1944 it wasn't same army like into 1945 but it cannot be compared to any western european army. Their commanders were not as bad as into 1941, but it doesn't mean good. Look at battle of Seelow Hills and battle of Berlin. Or on Russian way to reconeissance...
On the other hand we can't claim German army undefeated and proove that they lost only due to being outnumbered. Germans did many mistakes too and blaiming only Hitler is unfair. Their soldiers were worse than Russians. I don't mean training and experience but typical skills used to survive. For example survive Russian winter....
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
I compliment all on the excellent points brought up. Indeed the reasons for the German defeat were more complex than merely a question of numbers. That they made more mistakes in the latter part of the war was due in a large part to the very attrition that they suffered. Replacements being of a lower quality due to decreased training time, and less experience before being sent into battle. The allies experience level was increasing exponentially as a result.
Cegorach, certainly my example was rather simplified. I shall have to take time to look for more examples to support my claim, but in a majority of tactical situations, the German army performed better than the average Soviet unit of the same size. I would say that this was until after their defeats in the Ardennes and in the East by the Steam Roller winter offensive.
Still, your points are all valid to be sure and I shant take issue with them in the whole.
I would like to address a couple of areas you discussed. First there is this statement:
Quote:
I don't really know why was that, but more than once mechanical failures eliminated up to 50 % of the forces prepared for such an attack before it even started.
I saw an intersting program recently where a group recovered a German PZV Panther from a Polish River and restored it. It was one that was lost during the fighting retreat of the Germans during the dreadful Russian winter push.
They discovered that it likely was likely initially disabled as it tried to cross the river due to a transmission failure. It seems that the gears in the drive section of the transmission failed because the bolts that held them together to the drive axles sheared. The reason-sabotage . The slave laborers that were assembling these vehicles were sabotaging these bolts, as well as the gear teeth as well on many of the German tanks before they left the assembly line. This accounts for some of the many breakdowns experienced by the Germans.
This is also an good point as well:
Quote:
Soviets replaced their losses, sent reserves and Germans had hardly any time to evacuate numerous tanks damaged during the victorious fighting - that more than once turned such a success into a defeat - losses couldn't be replaced, valuable tanks couldn't be repaired because it was the Soviet army which ended as a master of the battlefield in the end.
Now the shoe was on the other foot for the Germans. This is what they had been able to do to their enemies previously. It was just one more way in which the allies were able to put another nail in the coffin of the German Army.
I would still say that the Germans must be considered as the best. Had they made a few less strategic blunders, such as invading the Soviet Union until after Great Britain had been nuetralized, perhaps they may have won (Thank goodness that they didn't) Declaring war on the United States prematurley was another mistake IMO.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Rotorgun, call me a stubborn Finn, but please define best, before calling the Germans as best.~:wave:
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
“It should be noted, though, that the Russian military was thouroughly exhausted by the end of the war”: That is new… The proof of this can be found in what event? The Russian Soldiers sit and went on strike?, their military production stopped?:laugh4:
I don't remember the source, but years ago I read something that suggested this was why the USSR chose to attack Japan at the end of the war rather than increasing their power in the west by invading Turkey. I'm sure this is an idea you guys can pull to pieces...
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Rotorgun, call me a stubborn Finn, but please define best, before calling the Germans as best.~:wave:
Heres my opinion, not that you asked for it. :beam:
The German military as a whole had highly advanced leadership, doctrines, training, organization, and any other measure you want to use.
To me, what really makes them the best, though, was their ability to coordinate operations. WW2 was a learning exercise in combined arms, and the Germans excelled in that area.
All of the measures mentioned above - leadership, doctrine, training, and organization - contributed to their ability to form complex plans, carry them out efficiently, and defeat far larger forces.
Their ability, especially later in the war, to quickly pull together highly trained soldiers from whatever forces were available, transcend normal chains of command, effectively plan complex operations, and carry them out with very few organizational issues, demonstrates a level of military skill simply not duplicated in the major operations of other combatants.
The Finns showed a certain degree of proficiency in this kind of warfare as well, but their strategic and material situations limited it to some extent, and the sheer scope and complexity of the German operations eclipsed those of the Finns many times over. (When you only have a few AFVs, its hard to gauge how well you would perform in mobile armoured warfare.)
Best is, of course, subjective. So thats just my opinion.
An equally interesting match up would be "Worst Military of WW2" between the major combatants. :yes:
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
Here was an interesting link I came across last night as I was wondering about some of the casualty figures quoted in various posts. It contains some useful information to compare the relative strengths and losses estimated for many countries, even some of the more obscure ones.
http://www.worldwar-2.net/casualties...ties-index.htm
Here is what is claimed for both Germany and the Soviet Union:
As one can see, the Soviets outnumbered Germany by almost 3-1 in manpower. What is interesting is the disparity in casualties, with the Germans dishing out a better than 4-1 outcome in military casualties. Of course many of Germany's losses were suffered in the west, but over 75% were likely from the east front.
PS: I think that this shows that there wasn't a "huge manpower advantage". It was also the vast areas involved in the Eastern campaign and the fact that Germany was fighting in the west, and in Southern Europe and Africa as well that made it impossible for the German Army to keep up with the attrition.
Well, it's not really 3-1. I mean it is on paper but not in practice. If we count only Hungary and Romania together that's 25 million more for the Germans. Before the real fighting even started SU lost Ukraine - that's 15-20 million less (possibly even more, IIRC a good portion of Russians lived in Ukraine). How much of the population was lost in the European Russia that was conquered before Soviets even knew what hit them?
I think in reality the difference in manpower was much smaller than 3:1, in winter 1941 I mean. At that time German pretty much had everything going for them. They practicaly reached Moscow, they cut off large population centers from the rest of SU and if I remember correctly, Germans also had higher production of coal, oil and steel than SU until 1943. It wasn't really David vs Goliath as it is often portrated to be.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Heres my opinion, not that you asked for it. :beam:
The German military as a whole had highly advanced leadership, doctrines, training, organization, and any other measure you want to use.
To me, what really makes them the best, though, was their ability to coordinate operations. WW2 was a learning exercise in combined arms, and the Germans excelled in that area.
All of the measures mentioned above - leadership, doctrine, training, and organization - contributed to their ability to form complex plans, carry them out efficiently, and defeat far larger forces.
Their ability, especially later in the war, to quickly pull together highly trained soldiers from whatever forces were available, transcend normal chains of command, effectively plan complex operations, and carry them out with very few organizational issues, demonstrates a level of military skill simply not duplicated in the major operations of other combatants.
The Finns showed a certain degree of proficiency in this kind of warfare as well, but their strategic and material situations limited it to some extent, and the sheer scope and complexity of the German operations eclipsed those of the Finns many times over.
Best is, of course, subjective. So thats just my opinion.
An equally interesting match up would be "Worst Military of WW2" between the major combatants. :yes:
I know this could be talked to death, but because in my philosophy there hardly cant be one answer to the question in hand, i would just like to once again raise the summer 1944 up.
When you say that tactically and strategically, Finnish had some proficiency, but it could not match the germans, id like to point it to you that Finnish headquarters was able to deploy half of its army into area which consisted about 1/ 8th of the whole front it defended. In a situation where enemy had almost complete control of skies, Finnish army was engaged on all sectors, lacked motorization and supplies notoriously. In these conditions the poor Finnish military was able to concentrate its forces to a sector, meaning Karelian Isthmus and in battle ready condition, while the fighting units in Isthmus and Eastern Karelia, were fighting a delaying action at the time against enemy which had:
450 000 men
10 500 guns
800 tanks and assault guns
1600 planes
with force of:
75 000 men
289 guns
125 tanks and assault guns
248 planes (the whole Finnish airforce)
The initial forces here to put it another way:
1:6 ratio for Soviets in personnel
1:37 ratio for soviets in guns
1:6 ratio for Soviets in tanks and assault guns
1:6 ratio for soviets in planes
The initial Finnish forces were pushed back to VKT- line, from the main line, between 9.6.1944 when the fourth strategic offensive started and 20.6.1944, for less then 100 kilometers, fighting a tenacious delaying action, without even a single battalion sized Finnish formation surrendering to the enemy. The only major plunder being the loss of city of Viipuri, when Finnish forces panicked and routed from the city afraid of being enveloped by the red army. The loss of city was not much strategically, but emotionally it was huge blow to Finnish.
mappy:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...sive-lines.png
Now when the Finnish army was deployed into VKT- line, it had been reinforced so that there was about 40% of all Finnish soldiers and guns and all their tanks deployed in the Isthmus, plus German troops: Detachment Kuhlmey: 70 german planes, 303rd assault gun brigade( half strength, 33 Stug III assault guns) and 122nd infantry division (10600 men). Together In total Figuring:
268 000 men
1930 guns
143 tanks
318 planes
agaist the forementioned enemy, which had also replaced its casualties after reaching VKT-Line by sending 6 new divisions and reinforcements:
450 000 men
10 500 guns
800 tanks and assault guns
1600 planes
so now the odds were:
1:2 in men for Soviets
1: 6 in guns for the Soviets
1:6 in tanks and assault guns to soviets
1:5 in planes for the soviets
With these forces started series of Finnish decisive victories, culminating in the battles of Tali- Ihantala, which is largest battle ever fought in Scandinavia and finally Battle of Ilomantsi, where first time since 1941 two Soviet divisions reached the Finno Soviet border of 1940 and were last ones to do so also during the war, before the Moscow armistice, but shortly after that were surrounded and decimated by the Finnish task force Raappana. The last 8 major battles of continuation war ended in Finnish decisive victories, thus giving Finnish army defensive victory over the attacking Red Army, which was halted on all sectors.
So Finnish leadership was able to concentrate 193 000 men and 1641 guns to the Isthmus from other sectors inside 11 days, while enemy had complete air superiority and the means for transportation for to best say, lacking. Also the enemy was active all along the front so the forces had to be taken by thinning deployments heavily in other sectors.
I would really like for you to give me one example of an Operation where a) Germans faced such odds,b) were able to move such percent of their forces across the field of Operations under battle conditions to another sector, c) Were victorious.~;)
Now i can accept that Finnish army lacked resources, weapons and even brute force compared to major armies, because of the size of the country and population.
But when it comes to the art of tactics,skill and strategy, or efficiency with the resources at hand, i cant accept your notion of Germany being superior, because if we want to go deeper into this we have the whole Northern front during Operation Barbarossa to talk about where Finnish and German armies were fighting alongside and comparisons of how normal Finnish infantry divisions performed compared to German Gebirgsjäger and SS formations can be easily made.:smash:
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Well, it's not really 3-1. I mean it is on paper but not in practice. If we count only Hungary and Romania together that's 25 million more for the Germans. Before the real fighting even started SU lost Ukraine - that's 15-20 million less (possibly even more, IIRC a good portion of Russians lived in Ukraine). How much of the population was lost in the European Russia that was conquered before Soviets even knew what hit them?
I think in reality the difference in manpower was much smaller than 3:1, in winter 1941 I mean. At that time German pretty much had everything going for them. They practicaly reached Moscow, they cut off large population centers from the rest of SU and if I remember correctly, Germans also had higher production of coal, oil and steel than SU until 1943. It wasn't really David vs Goliath as it is often portrated to be.
Well, then how can it be that the german army ran out of men, killed far more russians and was still outnumbered 20:1 toward the end? Did all those germans just surrender by the millions?
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Well, then how can it be that the german army ran out of men, killed far more russians and was still outnumbered 20:1 toward the end? Did all those germans just surrender by the millions?
I was talking about situation in winter 1941. Later another front in Italy was formed which tied up some German troops. Some German troops were also lost in Africa. But to be more precise, I was asking more than saying. I'm not an expert on ww2, at least not to an extent some guys here are, like Cegorach or PanzerJaeger.
But it seems to me that in the beggining of the war, Soviets didn't have that that much going for them... Just thought it would be interesting to know just how much population was in the SU, in the part that wasn't occupied by Germany, when Soviets started their counteroffensive. I'm guessing really, since there is no way to know how much population lived in that part of SU that Germany conquered at the beggining. I'm guessing at that time probably no more than 2:1. As the war went on and Germans were losing more and more soldiers in the eastern front but also in other theaters and Soviets were liberating more and more territory it's not so difficult to come to 20:1 Soviet advantage near the end of the war...
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Rotorgun, call me a stubborn Finn, but please define best, before calling the Germans as best.~:wave:
OK.....if you must lock me down:dancinglock: then I will define best as most capable of performing combined arms warfare in WW2. :charge: :turtle: :duel:
I will admit to you proud Finns, that after looking at all of the many excellent sources presented in your argument, I shall agree that Finland may indeed have had the best army in terms of consistent performance. Man for man the Finnish Army of WW2 was the toughest set of hombres in the land. :hmg: :smg:
Have you ever played Advanced Squad Leader? (ASL) The Finnish squads are represented in the game as Ubertruppen who don't even need leaders to rally, have very good morale, and a good mixture of support weapons (many of the German) to equip them. They get bonuses for winter warfare, and most can use skis. Many of the scenarios are from the war with the Russians, and in most they are victorious if played by a competent player. They are a joy to play, and a challenge to play against. They just keep coming back at you relentlessly. If ASL has depicted them right, I would dread to face soldiers such as these.
Of course this is a matter of opinion, and I still feel that for overall innovation and technique, the German Army was the best. I can at least admit that I might be wrong however, and am glad to concede to one who argues so thoughtfully.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
OK.....if you must lock me down:dancinglock: then I will define best as most capable of performing combined arms warfare in WW2. :charge: :turtle: :duel:
I will admit to you proud Finns, that after looking at all of the many excellent sources presented in your argument, I shall agree that Finland may indeed have had the best army in terms of consistent performance. Man for man the Finnish Army of WW2 was the toughest set of hombres in the land. :hmg: :smg:
Have you ever played Advanced Squad Leader? (ASL) The Finnish squads are represented in the game as Ubertruppen who don't even need leaders to rally, have very good morale, and a good mixture of support weapons (many of the German) to equip them. They get bonuses for winter warfare, and most can use skis. Many of the scenarios are from the war with the Russians, and in most they are victorious if played by a competent player. They are a joy to play, and a challenge to play against. They just keep coming back at you relentlessly. If ASL has depicted them right, I would dread to face soldiers such as these.
Of course this is a matter of opinion, and I still feel that for overall innovation and technique, the German Army was the best. I can at least admit that I might be wrong however, and am glad to concede to one who argues so thoughtfully.
Its a complex issue what makes men hard to win. I doubt that it is inherit to any set of peoples. When it comes to Finnish army of WWII, i would point two main reasons. First, the doctrine. When the overall command encourages soldiers to be creative from the single trooper level and show in their strategic decisions that they care about the soldiers they are commanding by not getting them killed in vain, because of heroism or stubborn principles which have no room in mobile warfare. There is enough heroism in dying for your country, there is no need to make heroes more then its absolutely necessary.
To point into this, my instructor when i was at petty officer school, put it like this:
"Motti, starts from a single individual soldier, if the enemy who you are facing cant predict your next move, you have the advantage, then its up to you how you use it. Out manouvering many men starts from out manouvering one man."
The second and more important reason in my mind was the early success in defensive victories. When a individual or group, no matter if its a squad, platoon, Battalion or a division, is successful, they start to think they are good in what they do and when a group thinks its good (in case its not hybris, but they have a reason to think so), suddenly it starts outperforming itself and indeed becomes better. When you combine, rugged training, with open atmosphere of inspirational thinking, with high self esteem and will to fight, such group is hard to beat, not impossible, but hard.
Now if Soviets could have been able to overrun Finnish like they planned in the start of Winter War, the morale would have probably collapsed and so would have Finland. There are many examples in history, when men from a certain countries have outperformed themselves, while in another war and time, have shown little spirit to fight. During WWII Finnish had the will and the determination to fight, but it doesnt change the fact that it could have been just as well otherwise.
But what i know for fact is that the "teräsmyrsky", steel storm like Finns call the fourth strategic offensive left a mark to every man who was there. As a little story i can mention my own grandfather, who fought both in Winter War and Continuation War. Before the war he liked to hunt, but when he came back from Continuation War he dismissed his hunting rifle and since then there wasnt any firearms in his farm. I guess he had shot enough for one life time. Also when i was a child i can still remember when some nights, in middle of the night suddenly he yelled in his dreams and that sounded like a yell of a wounded animal, not like a man yelling. I guess from that experience i think nothing creates pacifist like war, its just a shame that in this world we are, one can only hope for a peace, but have to prepare for war.
And about ASL, nope i havent played it. As Finland has still a citizen army,my experiences of Finnish infantry come from my military service in Karelian Jaeger Brigade as Sergeant of mechanized Jaeger infantry. Novadays im staff Sergeant in reserve, one more re-rehearsal and promotion to Warrant officer in reserve might take place with some luck.~;)
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Now .. a little bit off topic but I id the test what I found on the first page and ...
Quote:
In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
You scored as a British and the Commonwealth
Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.
British and the Commonwealth
100%
Poland
94%
Finland
75%
United States
69%
Italy
69%
Japan
69%
France, Free French and the Resistance
63%
Germany
50%
Soviet Union
44%
US and Japan are both 69%!!
Oh well .. it's good to be suicidal with good weapons .. right??
:focus:
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
To point into this, my instructor when i was at petty officer school, put it like this:
"Motti, starts from a single individual soldier, if the enemy who you are facing cant predict your next move, you have the advantage, then its up to you how you use it. Out manouvering many men starts from out manouvering one man."
A very astute observation. I shall pass this on to my fellow NCOs and soldiers.
Quote:
The second and more important reason in my mind was the early success in defensive victories. When a individual or group, no matter if its a squad, platoon, Battalion or a division, is successful, they start to think they are good in what they do and when a group thinks its good (in case its not hybris, but they have a reason to think so), suddenly it starts outperforming itself and indeed becomes better. When you combine, rugged training, with open atmosphere of inspirational thinking, with high self esteem and will to fight, such group is hard to beat, not impossible, but hard.
This reminds me of the mindset of some of our more famous units, such as the 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions. They have a sort of never quit attitude that makes them difficult to defeat.
Quote:
But what i know for fact is that the "teräsmyrsky", steel storm like Finns call the fourth strategic offensive left a mark to every man who was there. As a little story i can mention my own grandfather, who fought both in Winter War and Continuation War. Before the war he liked to hunt, but when he came back from Continuation War he dismissed his hunting rifle and since then there wasnt any firearms in his farm. I guess he had shot enough for one life time. Also when i was a child i can still remember when some nights, in middle of the night suddenly he yelled in his dreams and that sounded like a yell of a wounded animal, not like a man yelling. I guess from that experience i think nothing creates pacifist like war, its just a shame that in this world we are, one can only hope for a peace, but have to prepare for war.
Retired Major Dick Winters, of Band of Brothers fame, says he prayed after his first day in Normandy that if God would let him survive the war, he would "find a little piece of land someday and live out his days as a man of peace". This is exactly what he did, and a more gentle soul one rarely meets.
He and your Grandfather would have something in common.
Quote:
And about ASL, nope i havent played it. As Finland has still a citizen army,my experiences of Finnish infantry come from my military service in Karelian Jaeger Brigade as Sergeant of mechanized Jaeger infantry. Novadays im staff Sergeant in reserve, one more re-rehearsal and promotion to Warrant officer in reserve might take place with some luck.~;)
Congratulations! I too started in the Infantry many (too many) years ago. Now I am a Staff Sergeant as well in a National Guard Aviation Squadron. I hope to retire in 6 years. One or two more deployments should see me to the day.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
Retired Major Dick Winters, of Band of Brothers fame, says he prayed after his first day in Normandy that if God would let him survive the war, he would "find a little piece of land someday and live out his days as a man of peace". This is exactly what he did, and a more gentle soul one rarely meets.
He and your Grandfather would have something in common.
Congratulations! I too started in the Infantry many (too many) years ago. Now I am a Staff Sergeant as well in a National Guard Aviation Squadron. I hope to retire in 6 years. One or two more deployments should see me to the day.
Thank you for your kind words.:bow: My hat is off to you good sir, its one thing to talk the talk and another thing to walk the walk. (Hopefully i never have to walk the walk, because in that case the situation in world has changed drastically.)I have nothing but appreciation about the ones like you, who are ready to put their lives on the line, protecting their countries. I hope that you and your men will stay safe and one day when the time comes you can have your earned retirement and can pursuit other things in life.:yes:
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
Thank you for your kind words.:bow: My hat is off to you good sir, its one thing to talk the talk and another thing to walk the walk. (Hopefully i never have to walk the walk, because in that case the situation in world has changed drastically.)I have nothing but appreciation about the ones like you, who are ready to put their lives on the line, protecting their countries. I hope that you and your men will stay safe and one day when the time comes you can have your earned retirement and can pursuit other things in life.:yes:
That is most kindly said and gratefully received Sir! Thank you very much indeed. It's an honor to me to be able to serve my country. I wish it were for a better cause sometimes, but that can't always be helped. We fight for much more tangible things-the respect and love of our fellow soldiers. I wouldn't miss that for the world. :knight: We'll try to keep our heads down. With any luck, this will be our last deployment.
PS: I really enjoy our discussions.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
I would really like for you to give me one example of an Operation where a) Germans faced such odds,b) were able to move such percent of their forces across the field of Operations under battle conditions to another sector, c) Were victorious.~;)
Well, first we must nail down exactly what kind of victory the Finns won. I would call it a tactical defensive victory, as the Finns defeated the Soviets by superior fighting skills (tactical), but only largley maintained pre-battle positions (defensive).
The Eastern Front is replete with German defensive tactical victories against much larger forces.
To begin, I'll throw out Operation Mars in 1942 - which gets way too little attention by historians. A Soviet offensive involving more men and armour than the much more famous Operation Uranus, and Zhukov's largest defeat.
Or, if you'd like a curveball that really demonstrates German coordination, even on a cross-national basis, how about Narva and Tannenberg in 1944?
I feel those examples meet your conditions as they were defensive victories against enormous numerical superiority where large movements of men and machinery were required to achieve victory.
Quote:
But when it comes to the art of tactics,skill and strategy, or efficiency with the resources at hand, i cant accept your notion of Germany being superior, because if we want to go deeper into this we have the whole Northern front during Operation Barbarossa to talk about where Finnish and German armies were fighting alongside and comparisons of how normal Finnish infantry divisions performed compared to German Gebirgsjäger and SS formations can be easily made.:smash:
I would feel confident in comparing the combat performance of the original SS units against that of the best Finnish ones.
But that wasn't my point. The Finns simply did not engage in the type of large scale mechanized combat that required a higher degree of training, tactics, coordination and leadership - so I cannot say they were the best.
It is almost hard to compare Germany and Finland. Or the UK and Greece. Or the United States and Norway. The difference in the scale of operations is just too large.
I will say that the average Finnish soldier was the equal to his German all... co-fighter. (~;) ) That is a lot more that can be said for Germany's other allies.
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
You scored as a Finland
Your army is the army of Finland. You prefer to win your enemy by your wit rather than superior weapons. Enemy will have a hard time against your small but effective force.
Japan
94%
Finland
94%
Italy
81%
Poland
81%
British and the Commonwealth
69%
France, Free French and the Resistance
63%
United States
50%
Germany
44%
Soviet Union
13%
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
I was 96% on poland and finland, the tiebreaker won it for poland, i like a heroic defense against the odds (in desperation)
-
Re: For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2
Personally I think that it is almost impossible to compare the performances of various armies given the vast inherent differences between them.
An example a statement from one of the first posts: Finnish conscripts were able to drive out German forces out of northern Finland even while they had to demobilize their army. So when even finnish conscripts were able to defeat the famous German army it must be the best of world, or?
And here come the problems in a whole basket. First what were the strategic intentions of both sides and the ressources on which they could draw? If you give a closer look on the specific situation on this front it is clear that a fighting retreat combined with delaying actions and scorched earth tactics was the strategic intention since there was the real possibility of the encirclement of the whole German arctic front. A possibility which almost became reality with a brilliant Soviet offensive, the Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation which started roughly a month after the first skirmishes between German and Finnish troops.
So one can actually say that the German army was able to preserve much of its fighting strengh retreating from a unholdable position and thus achieving its strategic intent. Equally the Finnish army was able to achieve their own objective by forcing the Germans slowly out of Lapland and avoiding a Soviet invasion. Ironically only the Soviet army achieved not the stated aim of their operation: to wipe out the whole 20th Mountain army. That they would push it into Norway was given in october 1944.
So how do you want to assess now the strengh of "the German Army" which consisted mostly of mountain infantry with no tank support and little artillery and wanted to retreat and used just a fraction of their strengh against the Finns because a mighty soviet offensive aimed at destroying them was under way and the "Finnish Army" which were mostly new conscripts, often underaged with light weaponry who wanted to drive the Germans out to avoid a Soviet invasion?
Actually there are some interesting papers concerning both the specific Petsamo-Kirkenes operation and German winter warfare and ski manuals which cover the adaption of German tactics to the specific challenges of winter and the various landscapes. I would highly recommend a read. Especially the ski manual might interest you, as it builds on German experience in mountain warfare, finnish expertise of the Winter War and insights gained in the hard winter battles against the Soviet. Especially in the Tundra there was beside the static warfare near the coast a very fluid winter warfare on skis and snowshoes full of skirmishes and raids.
