Why so much speculations about Germany in WWII?

[Ulrih fon Jungingen]

How typical for years and years of writing in history (especiall from Soviet historians) and german former generals:)))) Germany had superpower, better tanks, planes, guns etc. Russians were stupid etc:)))

You`re saying that russian great losses in early war were because of this German superiority? I will say "No". Great losses were because Russians were ready for strike too but not for defence. There are thousends of documents (films, photos etc.) where you can see hundreds of russian planes burning near the border. Why? Why russians bring 90% of all military aviation to borders just before German strike? And this question is even more interesting if you`re checking what germans did in the same time. The same:)

Same with tanks, supplies, infantry etc. Imagine what will happen in Russians will strike first? German planes would be destroyed, armies would be surrounded in Belostok etc. near the border (where they were concentrated), all supplies (that germans bring to border, closer to their forces for faster resupply) would be in russian hands etc. Just exactly same what`s happened to Soviet army in beginning of "Barbarossa".

All other countries main weapon for "Blizkrieg" - tanks used as support units for infantry. Except two countries - Germany and Soviets Union (Soviets had the same tank groupes as germans, just with little bit different structure). Main difference is that Soviets had heavy infantry supporting tanks (KV-1) for assaults on rugged defence lines (germans had no such tanks), medium tanks for surrounding, break outs etc. (T-34). Again germans had no such tanks. And thousand of light tanks for other tasks.
Same situation is with military planes which was another key to "Blitzkrieg".

You`re speaking about "Bismarck", but what this ship did for victory? It`s only one ship, whit this you can`t conquer the world. Ok, there where another "Tirpiz", but situation with this is even worth. It was sunk in the harbor.

Aaaa, yes, germans were not ready for Russian winter, but this is MAIN prove that they were not stupid, but only not READY for war. They had to strike, otherwise Soviet army will just run over germans forces near the border. And actually this is written in Hitler`s and Gebels`s diaries and the same was written in oficial declaration of war for Soviet Union.

Again I will repeat that there is thousands and thousands of facts that Soviets were preparing assault on germany and concentrating all military power near the border (same as germans did). It`s only luck for Western civilization that Hitler striked first, because he couldn`t conquer the world (at least by economical possibilities), Soviets could.

[Papewaio]

The way Russia used its soldiers during WWII and purged a lot of its officers before WWII sort of indicates a lack of long term planning on the behalf of the leader.

[cegorach]

THe purges WERE to prepare the attack - Stalin needed loyal commanders and was sure he will able to train new generation of these - the purges were in 1937-38 - not later.
THe Russians do not care about losses - never did - so this is not important too.

[AggonyDuck]

Well the Soviets did know theoretically how to stop the Blitzkrieg strategy.
They knew they key was to stop the German armoured spearhead with their own armoured reserves. Of course to do this air superiority was also crucial.
But unluckily for the Soviet Union, the two main components in stopping the Germans were quite weak and mostly incapacitated during Operation Barbarossa.These two forces were the newly formed Mechanised Corps (31 of them) and the Soviet Airforce.

As we know the Soviet Airforce was totally mauled during the opening phase of the Operation Barbarossa at their airports which pretty much gave the Germans total air superiority.
When it comes to the Mechanised Corps the story is different, but still as ill-fated. I must admit that my knowledge of them is a bit lacking, so please correct me if you can. At June 1941 the Mechanised Corps were generally far away from their strength on paper. They're vehicles were outdated (except the KV-1's and T-34's) and their training was far from sufficient. You could call them pretty much a flop, but I haven't really found anything of how they were used during the Operation Barbarossa. From what I've read they were quite often ambushed by German Panzer divisions and the Luftwaffe was also did its share of destruction thanks to the lack of aircover. Also a lot of the T-34's suffered from breakdowns during the movement to the front at the summer of 1941 and thus never saw action.

Anyways the Russians were ill-prepared for a defense vs the Germans in June 1941(77 divisions were still on the way to the front during June 22nd 1941) and it shows in the German successes during the first months of fighting. The lack of preparation was mostly caused by the fact that the Russians believed that they would be the ones on the offensive and even if they were attacked they would be using a mobile defense to halt the enemy and then perform a counter-offensive. So when the Germans did attack in June 1941, the Russians were caught off-guard and the Soviet Airforce was destroyed and the Mechanised Corps who were meant to halt the offensive had a lot less effective power compared to their German counterparts. This pretty much meant that after the failure of the Mechanised Corps the Soviets lacked a proper method to stop the Blitzkrieg and the encirclement of the Soviet forces couldn't be hindered, which then caused the great losses to the Red Army.

Also I've read that the Russians were planning to attack the Germans the same summer, but somehow I can't see any reason why the Russians would do this, except if they severely overestimated their power (which is highly likely) and still they'd have almost no real chance to pull of a successful Blitzkrieg against the Germans during the summer 1941.

Anyways please do correct me, because especially my sources of the role played by the Mechanised Corps are quite scarce.

[IliaDN]

Just one fact :
one of russians spies informed his goverment about german's plans , but gov. just ignored his message , so main russians forces were caugth unprepared and were destroyed in the first HOURS of war ...
Also USSR had lot's of troops on the border with nazi , so it is quite possible they were planning to attack germans ...

[PanzerJaeger]

You`re saying that russian great losses in early war were because of this German superiority? I will say "No". Great losses were because Russians were ready for strike too but not for defence. There are thousends of documents (films, photos etc.) where you can see hundreds of russian planes burning near the border. Why? Why russians bring 90% of all military aviation to borders just before German strike? And this question is even more interesting if you`re checking what germans did in the same time. The same:)

A skilled Russian military would have had plans for defence and been able to quickly turn the situation around. A decent Russian military would have been able to fix the situation before German troops got only a few miles from Moscow.

Your excuse doesnt hold up. Germany had defense plans that could have been implimented withen hours even against Poland. Strong armies do not take the time and lose the land and manpower the Russian military did to recover from an attack.

[Papewaio]

THe purges WERE to prepare the attack - Stalin needed loyal commanders and was sure he will able to train new generation of these - the purges were in 1937-38 - not later.
THe Russians do not care about losses - never did - so this is not important too.

Yes Stalin needed loyal commanders. The Soviet Union needed great commanders.

Stalin choose his need above that of the Soviet Union.

That is not an act of brilliance it is an act of fear of what the great commanders could have done to his rule.

Not caring about losses is not an act of brilliance either. Wars are often won by who can outlast the other, squandering resources is not smart. As Paton said it is not the job of you to die for your country it is your job to make the other guy die for his country. Any commander who squanders his men for personal glory is a vain idiot.

One of my favourite generals, Sir John Monash stated:

The true role of infantry is not to expend itself upon heroic physical effort, not to wither away under merciless machine-gun fire, not to impale itself on hostile bayonets, but on the contrary, to advance under the maximum possible protection of the maximum possible array of mechanical resources, in the form of guns, machine-guns, tanks, mortars and aeroplanes; to advance with as little impediment as possible; to be relieved as far as possible of the obligation to fight their way forward.

The Russia tactics if anything where the opposite of this.

[Ulrih fon Jungingen]

2 1pain1Duck,

Exactly:) Why they need to prepare for stopping of Blitzkrieg if they were preparing for attack and even Hitler knowed that he can`t beat Soviets if they have another front against UK. He said that couple times and this was just the same as was told by Bismarck.
And WWII showed that Germany was not ready for war against Soviets, even in such situation when Soviets had best forces near the border where they were smashed in the early period of war.
Nothing would stop Soviets if they had attack before germans. German Luftwaffe would be burned near the border just like Soviets and all army groups would be surronded just like Soveit groups in the early days. And one more thing, Soviets main strike was planed for Rumanian oil fields, and this means, that Germany would lose all oil supply in the beginnign of war. I think there is nothing to explain what will happen then with mechanic units. This would mean that there is no serious force against Soviets till the British channel.

2 IliaDN,

IliaDn this spy (Rihard Zorge) had a failure before, therefore Moscow ordered him to return already year before. He knew exactly what this means in such country as Soviet Union and refused to come back. Would you believe such spy`s info? Especially when he says that Hitler will done most stupid thing in the world - attack Russia whith his light tanks, no tactical bombers, shortages of oil, no weapons, armor, dresses for Russian winter etc.

2 PanzerJager,

Does Germany had defence plans against Soviets when they started Barbarossa? And how these plans (if they had) would work when all forces are on the border, with supply, planes etc, right after their backs?

2 Papewaio,

Stalin acts was against old generals and oficiers that were from Civil war and thinked like that - massive cavalary against peasents etc. They know nothing about modern warfare and actually most of them received promotions during assasin actions in Civil war. These comanders thinking was the same as French old comanders etc. Instead of these comanders (Uborevich, Blicher, Jakir etc.) raised new ones - ZHukov, Shaposhikov, Timoshenko, Konev etc. So he did everything correctly, because he was preparing for modern warfare.

[AggonyDuck]

I disagree with your view of the Soviets being unstoppable if they were the ones to attack first. Firstly the level of tactical surprise would be a lot lower, because infact the Germans were expecting to me attacked. Also if the Soviets had attacked in late summer 1941, then I'd be surprised if they had pulled off a successful blitzkrieg. Firstly the quality of the training that the Soviet Airforce had was quite crap and their planes were mostly crap too. (just look at the successes of the Finnish Airforce in the Winter War and early continuation war vs a numerically larger force)
Also I'm highly sceptic about the quality of the Soviet Mechanised Corps.
They failed in Operation Barbarossa vs a lot smaller foe and somehow I can't see them beating the German Panzer Divisions in 1941.
With the failure of these two parts, I can't see a reason why the Soviet Offensive would work properly. If the Soviets had 50% of their armoured forces as T-34's, then they prolly would be able to pull it off. But in 1941 about 10% were these and the rest were outdated light tanks like the BT-7's and so on.

[Ulrih fon Jungingen]

2 1pain1Duck,

:))))))))))))))
Please compare BT7 etc. with German tanks on 1941. Or other outdated tanks:)) Germans had nothing like these, more than half of 3500 German tanks were T-I, T-II and (t)38. And then look at the number of Soviet tanks 14 000 against 3500 German, including 1000 of T-34 and KV-1. Such tanks had no country for that time in the world. Lucky for Hitler he stiked first and this ment that airforces were destroyed, which means that Soviet tanks had no airsupport and no info where to move, strike etc. (airforces in "Blitzkrieg" as you know are "eyes" of mobile corps), this meant that they become easy target for German planes, just like German tanks were for Allies after D-day. Especially if lot of them were also on trains, moving to border in that time.

Airforces were week, of course, but look at the number. Imagine Soviet strike on German airfields in June 21th! All planes would be destroyed, and this means that Soviets would fight again some remains of Luftwaffe and if there is 10 planes against 1, then they don`t need good pilots, because 10 against 1 is 10 against 1.

Just some more facts:

1. Soviets had better tanks than German`s, and also outnumbered them
2. Soviets had better tactical bobmer (Il-2) than German "Stuka" and also lots of other planes. Here is too quantity on side of Soviets.
3. Soviets had 3 eshelons of ready for strike army on border, Germans only 1.
4. Soviets had more than 300 000 paratroopers (which is only attacking force), Germans 4000.

And so on.

And look who win the war even suffering enourmous casualties and took half Europe and this was after Germans success in the beg of war. Imagine what success would be if Soviets would strike first?

[PanzerJaeger]

Does Germany had defence plans against Soviets when they started Barbarossa? And how these plans (if they had) would work when all forces are on the border, with supply, planes etc, right after their backs?

The Germans did have plans for a soviet attack and would have been able to halt such an event long before it reached Berlin.

Just some more facts:

1. Soviets had better tanks than German`s, and also outnumbered them

Tanks? The soviets had a better tank for a short time, the t-34, which still didnt prevent them from being mauled by Pz.IVs because of the better training the Germans had. If the soviets had such a great military, why couldnt they train their tankers to even come close to the skill of German ones? The Pzs. V, VI, and VII clearly outclassed anything the soviets had including the IS-2.

2. Soviets had better tactical bobmer (Il-2) than German "Stuka" and also lots of other planes. Here is too quantity on side of Soviets.

Why were to top aces of the entire war German? Do you again blaim this all on the surprise attack? Stuka pilots far outscored Il-2 pilots.

3. Soviets had 3 eshelons of ready for strike army on border, Germans only 1.

That still didnt stop them from being decimated.

4. Soviets had more than 300 000 paratroopers (which is only attacking force), Germans 4000.

After Crete, the Germans chose not to invest much in more paratroopers. Thats hardly a measure of who had the superior military.

And look who win the war even suffering enourmous casualties and took half Europe and this was after Germans success in the beg of war. Imagine what success would be if Soviets would strike first?

You completely ignore the war in two other theaters Germany was having to fight. Kursk - if you remember - had to be called off because of the Italian invasions. Dont forget how badly Stalin wanted a second front, even in 1944.

The truth is that the Soviet army had every advantage in the book and yet only barely managed a victory with a huge amount of help from the other allies.

As I said before, the technical edge swung back and forth, but German soldier quality was always better than that of their soviet counterparts - officers to line infantry.

[Husar]

And look who win the war even suffering enourmous casualties and took half Europe and this was after Germans success in the beg of war. Imagine what success would be if Soviets would strike first?

You see that as a good point? If winning a war with high casualty rates is a good thing in your opinion, maybe you should ask Pyrrhus or the families of the dead soldiers.(yes,the first may be difficult to do ) You cannot say a nation is more glorious or better than another just because it has 20times as many people and can simply overrun the smaller nation. It´s like talking about a glorious german victory in the Netherlands, who didn´t even have tanks(well, you may count bicycles as motorized divisions, but..... ).

[cegorach]

The Germans did have plans for a soviet attack and would have been able to halt such an event long before it reached Berlin.

>>>>>>>>> I thinks so, but the Soviets NEVER HAD ( before) which is their problem.



Tanks? The soviets had a better tank for a short time, the t-34, which still didnt prevent them from being mauled by Pz.IVs because of the better training the Germans had. If the soviets had such a great military, why couldnt they train their tankers to even come close to the skill of German ones? The Pzs. V, VI, and VII clearly outclassed anything the soviets had including the IS-2.


>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but noone should tell that German tanks were all superior - especially in 1941.



Why were to top aces of the entire war German? Do you again blaim this all on the surprise attack? Stuka pilots far outscored Il-2 pilots.

>>>>>>>>>> And why were the top ALLIED aces Soviet - not British, Polish or American ?
The Germans were fighting ALL THE time and even beeing shot down didn't mean you could have some time free.





After Crete, the Germans chose not to invest much in more paratroopers. Thats hardly a measure of who had the superior military.

>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the Soviets were superior, but German army wasn't the perfect warmachine it is often believed to be.



The truth is that the Soviet army had every advantage in the book and yet only barely managed a victory with a huge amount of help from the other allies.

>>>>>>>>>>> Mainly thanks to the German blunders e.g. Kursk.

As I said before, the technical edge swung back and forth, but German soldier quality was always better than that of their soviet counterparts - officers to line infantry.

>>>>>>>>> Who cares and who cared in the SU - Russia never had army of superior quality.

[Franconicus]

Excellent analysis, Panzer!
Just some comments:

Tanks? The soviets had a better tank for a short time, the t-34, which still didnt prevent them from being mauled by Pz.IVs because of the better training the Germans had. If the soviets had such a great military, why couldnt they train their tankers to even come close to the skill of German ones? The Pzs. V, VI, and VII clearly outclassed anything the soviets had including the IS-2.

T34 was a good tank. He was fast and very good on bad ground. And he was much cheaper than the German tanks. He was not made to fight German tanks, but he was excellent to blitz.

Why were to top aces of the entire war German? Do you again blaim this all on the surprise attack? Stuka pilots far outscored Il-2 pilots.

Soviet soldiers were supposed to die after a few fights. Il2 killed a lot of German tanks but they had increadible losses. But the Russians could afford. Il2 had better weapons and better armor than the Stuka.

After Crete, the Germans chose not to invest much in more paratroopers. Thats hardly a measure of who had the superior military.

There were no big airborne operation at this front. So paratroops are not the key to judge the military potential.

As I said before, the technical edge swung back and forth, but German soldier quality was always better than that of their soviet counterparts - officers to line infantry.

Soviet soldiers had some advantages however. There equipment was more primitive - and more reliable in the wilderness and cold. They managed to take their planes off when the German planes were frozen. They could suffer. They had a brilliant moral, fighting after all those desastrous battles at the beginning. They adopted a lot of German tactics.
Do you know these pages :
http://www.iremember.ru/index_e.htm
http://luthier.stormloader.com/home.html

I think you will like them!

[AggonyDuck]

2 1pain1Duck,

:))))))))))))))
Please compare BT7 etc. with German tanks on 1941. Or other outdated tanks:)) Germans had nothing like these, more than half of 3500 German tanks were T-I, T-II and (t)38. And then look at the number of Soviet tanks 14 000 against 3500 German, including 1000 of T-34 and KV-1. Such tanks had no country for that time in the world. Lucky for Hitler he stiked first and this ment that airforces were destroyed, which means that Soviet tanks had no airsupport and no info where to move, strike etc. (airforces in "Blitzkrieg" as you know are "eyes" of mobile corps), this meant that they become easy target for German planes, just like German tanks were for Allies after D-day. Especially if lot of them were also on trains, moving to border in that time.

Airforces were week, of course, but look at the number. Imagine Soviet strike on German airfields in June 21th! All planes would be destroyed, and this means that Soviets would fight again some remains of Luftwaffe and if there is 10 planes against 1, then they don`t need good pilots, because 10 against 1 is 10 against 1.

Just some more facts:

1. Soviets had better tanks than German`s, and also outnumbered them
2. Soviets had better tactical bobmer (Il-2) than German "Stuka" and also lots of other planes. Here is too quantity on side of Soviets.
3. Soviets had 3 eshelons of ready for strike army on border, Germans only 1.
4. Soviets had more than 300 000 paratroopers (which is only attacking force), Germans 4000.

And so on.

And look who win the war even suffering enourmous casualties and took half Europe and this was after Germans success in the beg of war. Imagine what success would be if Soviets would strike first?

The BT's were at best on the same level with Pz.II, but when it came to the training of the crews the difference was huge. This generally meant that the advantage on the German Panzer divisions was a lot bigger. Also the other main stay tanks were pretty much on the same level as the Germans, not superior. The only tanks that were superior to the German ones were the KV-1's and T-34's. But the training that the T-34 crews received wasn't satisfactory and T-34's suffered from severe reliability issues in 1940-41.

Also now lets play answer some more of your facts.

1. Nope. Only the T-34's and KV-1's were superior and this superiority was offset by the capability of the German Panzer crews. Also as mentioned the T-34's still had issues in early 1941.

2. At the summer of 1941 the Russians had about 300 Il-2's, so I can't see them being that much of a threat at that time..
Also none of the Russian fighters were anywhere close to the efficiency of Bf109's and the training of the pilots was again nowhere near the training of the German pilots. So in a situation where poorly trained Russian pilots in their somewhat weaker fighters were supposed to beat the experienced German pilots flying in their Bf109's, then I can't really see the Russians beating Germans. Even if they would had a big quantitative advantage.
This changed of course later in the war with the advent of better Soviet airplanes.

3. Actually from what I've read those echelons were meant to halt the German advance in the case of an unlikely invasion. Also I can't really see the usefulness of deploying your invading force in three echelons.
Even then the number of echelons is certainly not a good way of comparing the forces arrayed on either side.

4. Firstly even if Soviets had 300 000 paratroopers, I doubt they would own the needed planes to transport these men. The Soviets would have to possess atleast 5000 transport planes to get all of them to the front and even then airborne operations on that scale without air superiority is total madness. (and a convenient slaughter for the Germans)

You should also note that my argument is that in the year 1941 a Soviet invasion would be doomed to fail, not that a Soviet invasion later on would be. In 1942-43 an Soviet invasion would have a lot better chances of success, due to the fact that the Red Army was still in the process of reforming itself in 1941.

[Brenus]

And here again… The fact that the German are considered as THE superior war machine is based on two facts: First because they were the better trained and better motivated troops during the 1st phase of the war, two because the post war (cold war) western historians denied to the Russian (USSR) military skills and underestimated their material.
The Germans were prepared for one kind of war, the Blitzkrieg, and all their weapons were designed of this goal. But, by the same token, these weapons became their weakness. A Stuka is good for his use, when the sky is clear, but too slow when the enemies have fighters. Heinkel 111, Ju 88, Dornier 17 were good for their purpose, but the lack of long range heavy bombers able to destroy the factories far behind the lines will doom their attack on Russia. The Me109, or 110, and even FW190 hadn’t enough petrol to be engage on a dogfight and during the battle of England, some pilot finish in the Channel just because they didn’t take care about their fuel level…

According to von Rundstedt, who had fought in Russia during the WW1, the Blitzkrieg couldn’t work in Russia due to the immense landscape and the huge amount of men and material needed. He was proved right…
Ulhrih fon Jugingen, where did you read that the Russian were ready to attack Germany?
August von Kageneck, German historian and, if you believed what he wrote and said several times, was one of the fist to enter in USSR, being in the recon of the 9th Panzer, stated than the Russians were absolutely not prepared for what happened…
This story of German pre-emptive strike is just a lie...
The Russian tactic during the first months of the war was to counter offensive, what ever the cost. But, because the German ability and skills, they weren’t able to match. They had first to learn to defend, to put a halt to the German speed, which they did.
At the end of the day, all the skills of the German officers can’t hide one thing: Barbarossa was a failure. It was indeed a catastrophe for the Russians, but even with all the tactical success, the tactical goals weren’t achieved… Between Barbarossa na Operation Typhoon (attack on Moscow) the Germans lost 830 903 casualties. They will never recover.
Then the Russians (Rokosovsky,) developed the concept of the mechanised war, infantry and tanks working together (Moscow) and the Shield and the Sword (Koniev in Kursk).
The T34 was not in use during Barbarosa, only in small number with ill trained crews (+ no radio, no proper command, no co-ordination).
I think you mix-up the KV1 wit KV 85. The KV1 was a disaster.

Cegoarchi1, the BT and T26 were light tank, equivalent to the Panzer I and II. The Germans deployed 3439 Panzers, you are right. However, on this amount 965 were Pz III, 439 PzI V (106 Pz 35(t), 181 Pz I (mainly in the Engineers), 476 Pz II, and 230 Pz III Befelswagen), plus all the autonomous units (panzerjager, Sturmgeschutz), Some French Somua S35 will be used in the occupied rear zones.
The Russians had between 20 000 - 21 000 tanks. However, recent studies show that 29% of the old tanks needed heavy reparations and 44% light reparations. In fact, the Germans will have to face 15 000 tanks (967 T-34, 508 KV-1 & 2). On 13 500 tanks on the Western Front (for the Russians) only 5000 were really ready to fight. Which is still more than the Germans, but they were not ready…
Be careful of figures, they don’t tell all the truth and reality…

And the Germans planes in 1939 were better than most of their counterparts: Spifires, Breguet 693, Dewoitine d520 or other planes able to match with the Me109 were too few and too late…
The Soviet planes during Barbarossa were mainly Polikarpov I16, and other biplanes or plane built in wood…

Electric Celt, the German never develop the A bomb. They choose the wrong path. For what I read, they still needed long year of studies before to succeed something on this path. No country produced A bomb wit Heavy Water…

Edyzmedieval, the support for the allies was a great support for the Russians in term of trains, lorries, jeeps and other logistic. The Russians weren’t so happy with the Grant, Matilda, Hurricane or Kitty-hawk they received which were inferior from their own Yack, Lavochkine, Mig, T34, KV85, JSU and other Joseph Stalin… When the US entered in the war, the Soviets had yet stopped the German and inflicted several blows to the Wehrmacht…
The Koening Tiger was too heavy, too slow and too big, so to vulnerable to air strike, as it was proved during the Battle of the Bugles… If the Germans Tanks were so good, why they were not produced after the WW2?
Of course it would have beaten the T-34 just because the T-34 conception was in 1935.
The V2 was only useful against town, at cost a lot. One of the most Unecessary and expensive weapons never made…

PzJg, we had this debate before. I didn’t convince you, you didn’t convince me. The German soldier was better, but the Russians were stronger more resilient. Never the Germans endured the lost of the Red Army and kept fighting… And Paulus wasn’t a good general. All his career was in the administration… No blame, but he was no match against Zukov, Vatoutine Vassilevsky or Rokossovsky.

Papewaio an Soda, if Russia had only one front (but quiet a huge one) it is also because Zukov defeated the Japanese in Galing Gol…

[Watchman]

Eh, there's a simple enough reason to assume the German military machine (which includes stuff like leadership, organisation, etc. besides the actual troops and equipement in the field) - until about -42 or so they kicked the rear end of anyone they could actually get their hands on. The Brits they couldn't, as the Channel and British air and naval superiority made any edge in terms of land army irrelevant; the Soviets they tried very hard to, but the buggers turned out to have just plain too much material they could afford to lose and territory they could afford to give up (I understand military jargon knows this as "strategic depth") to obligingly drop before the Germans exhausted themselves.

That aside, early in the war the Red Army was something so pitifully undequalified for any real military application it's just plain tragic. Stalin's political fickles and mass purgings had pretty much crippled it, most of its equipement was crap, and the troops supposed to use them had only a very vague idea of how. What quality remained in the officer corps was pretty effectively throttled by direct political control over their operations in the form of the infamous Comissars and other political officers directly supervising everything.

There's a telling anecdote about some low-ranking courier or somesuch who was told to take a message to some officer in his HQ, and given a pair of NKVD soldiers as escorts since others weren't available. (For the record the NKVD were political troops under Party control, and usually the ones who got to act as "plug units" to keep line troops from fleeing; the Germans found them fanatically stubborn adversaries.) When he entered the hapless officer thought he was a political officer come to execute him for failure, and pretty much pleaded in tears that he hadn't done anything, had only followed orders, all the mistakes had been made by someone else, etc.

Ought to tell something about how well the command structure worked at the time. Stalin gave the military a looser rein as a sort of reward once the front began to stabilize, which proved to be a generally good move.

Compared to *that* the German equivalent was a smooth-running Swiss clockwork crafted by a master of the art, even when Hitler was telling his hapless commanders to do stupid things.

The Soviets were actually pretty familiar with the Blitzkrieg idea - they pretty much invented it around the time they were secretly doing joint military research with Die Reich. However, Stalin's little political maneuvers put the pioneers of the idea into the camps and restored the organization of Red Army assets to the same, obsolete standards as about everyone except the Germans used at the early parts of the war. Once the Blitzkrieg idea (the Soviets called their version the "deep combat doctrine", apparently) got proven to be workable in Poland and France Stalin hastily ordered its adoptation in the Red Army too - and when Barbarossa struck the hapless army was in the middle of reorganisation, and to boot one carried out with the usual Stalinist adminstrative competency...

No wonder the poor bastards didn't do all that well.

As a side note, the T-34 was a bit of a miracle piece of engineering. Not by any particular sophistication by any means past the sloped armour; German tanks for example had by far superior gunsights (although it didn't hurt that their crews were actually *trained* before being sent to the battle either...), and the Soviets never had anything akin to those prototype elevation gyrostabilizers the Americans built into some tanks. But it was fast, sturdy, reliable, had decent enough firepower, and was easy to produce in bulk. The /85 upgrade, although it apparently reduced speed and operational range a bit, provided the sound basic design with sufficient firepower increase and some other fixes (like having a three-man turrent instead of two, leaving the tank commander free to concentrate on his main job) to keep it perfectly battleworthy until the end of the war.

The only serious competitor in the same wight class, the PzKpfW V Panther, was overall better, but had an in the context crippling flaw - it had about as three or four time as many parts... And we all know how good straits the German war industry was generally in to begin with. In general they seem to have had a bit skewed, over-engineered approach to hardware developement their factories couldn't quite cope with.

[Papewaio]

After Crete, the Germans chose not to invest much in more paratroopers. Thats hardly a measure of who had the superior military.

There were no big airborne operation at this front. So paratroops are not the key to judge the military potential.

Not sure if you are referring to Crete or Russia... for Crete:

The battle of Crete was the largest German airborne operation.

On April 25, Adolf Hitler signed Directive Number 28, ordering the invasion of Crete. The Royal Navy's forces from Alexandria retained control of the waters around Crete, so any amphibious assault would be quickly decided by the nature of an air-versus-ship battle, making it a risky proposition at best. With German air superiority a given, an airborne invasion was decided on.

This was to be the first truly large-scale airborne invasion, although the Germans had used parachute and glider-borne assaults on a much smaller scale in the invasion of France and the Low Countries, and Norway. The intention was to use Fallschirmjäger (Luftwaffe paratroopers) to capture key points of the island, including airfields that could then be used to fly in supplies and reinforcements in the usual way. The XI Fliegerkorps was to coordinate an attack by the 7th Air Division, which would insert its paratroopers by parachute and glider, followed by the 22nd Air Landing Division once the airfields were secure. The assault was initially scheduled for 16 May; it was postponed to 20 May and the 5th Mountain Division replaced the 22nd Division.

It was also the last due to the amount of casualties sustained. It could have been worse if Freyburg had been given free reign to destroy the airfields before the gliders landed.

The Germans admitted losses of 6,200 men: 3,714 dead and 2,494 wounded. Today however, there are around 4,500 German graves at Maleme alone. Allied soldiers claimed to have buried 900 German corpses in Rethimnon and 1,250 corpses at Heraklion by the fifth day of battle. German losses may have been considerably higher than admitted. Winston Churchill claimed the Germans must have suffered well over 15,000 casualties and Admiral Cunningham felt that 22,000 had become casualties. Christopher Buckley in the book "Greece and Crete 1941" gave a cautious estimate of 16,800 casualties.

The Allies lost 3,500 soldiers: 1,751 dead, with an equal number wounded, and an enormous number captured (12,254 Commonwealth and 5,255 Greeks). There were also 1,828 dead and 183 wounded among the Navy. A total sum of 3,579 dead and 1900 wounded.

A large number of civilians were killed in the crossfire and died fighting as partisans. Many Cretans were murdered by the Germans in reprisals, both during the battle and in the occupation that followed. One Cretan source puts the number of Cretans killed by German action during the war at 6,593 men, 1,113 women and 869 children.

In the end the British (New Zealanders) lost the island, however it did show the stance of the British with regards to troops vs equipment:

During the evacuation Admiral Cunningham was determined that the "navy must not let the army down", when army generals feared he would lose too many ships Cunningham said that "It takes three years to build a ship, it takes three centuries to build a tradition".

Which is in strong contrast to that of WWII SU of throwing lives away.

[Csargo]

The one reason Germany lost in WWII is Hitler it's that one reason they lost because Hitler thought he was a great commander and he wasn't if there would have been a better leader of Germany during WWII they could have destroyed UK and Russian.

[Marquis of Roland]

Some comments:

1. Whoever said that there is no glory in winning with mass numbers obviously came from a country/region where that is not their strength, i.e., Europeans.

2. T-34s were American-designed. So whoever the idiot was who picked building Shermans instead of T-34s ought to be shot, and then shot again.

3. T-34s initially had no radios. That was why Panzer-III/IV's could destroy them. If both tanks had radios and same training for the crew, T-34's will win everytime.

4. Paratroopers fight rather well even when not jumping out of airplanes.

5. German ships of the line were better made than their British counterparts. The crews were probably better-trained too.

6. The Kriegsmarine were unduly afraid of the British Royal Navy. True the Royal Navy outnumbered them, but the Germans did not realize they were qualitatively better then their British counterparts.

7. It is possible for the Soviets to survive a two-front war. They would've wiped the floor with the Japanese with minimal forces. The Japanese had inferior equipment in every category except airpower. The fact that the Japanese didn't like to retreat would've

8. Soviet war materiel was not CRAP. They had the best tank (overall), the best fighter/bomber, a very good submachine gun, decent machine guns and rifles. Best of all their stuff was made a lot more cheaper than other nations and was still very effective, and sometimes even superior.

9. Panther had a bum fuel-pump. It broke down a lot on the way to battles, which is not good but further exacerbated by allied air power.

10. Soviets still did not use modern tactics, they used WWI tactics. Just imagine a WWI commander with real tanks, and presto you have the same tactics.

thats it for now I think......

[edyzmedieval]

Hot topic indeed.... This topic is practically a book of WWII German history.....

Back to the topic.

Germany was a powerful war machine. They had well trained crews and they got some good medium tanks(well, they didn't withstand the T-34).
Don't forget, Germany in 1942-1943 was fighting on 3 fronts: Britain, North Africa and Russia. They suffered a big blow at El Alamein in 1942 then followed the Kursk, which practically was the turn of the war. This demonstrated that the German tanks were of inferior quality than the T-34. This made the Germans to rethink their strategies and equipment. They started the building of heavier and more powerful tanks( The Tiger tank was practically the only tank which could withstand the T-34). In parallel, the Russians developed also the T34-85, a better T34, heavier and with better armor and gun. The King Tiger, although it was slow, heavy and big, it was better than the KV85. It's 88mm gun was totally deadly.

The Luftwaffe were the best in the air. Even the British couldn't face them. They had great pilots and much better, planes. They really had some masters of engineering like the Messerschmitt BF109 and Focke Wulf 190, apart from the Junkers 87 Stuka and Junkers 88 Night plane.

As for infantry, they were very well trained and equipped. Unfortunately, Germany is of smaller size than Russia, and also the cold winter, that caused the collapse of the Wehrmacht.

[Marquis of Roland]

edyzmedieval, if the luftwaffe were better than the RAF, then why did they lose the Battle of Britain? They had numerical superiority against the RAF.... and if you say they had better pilots as well, shouldn't they have won?

The spitfire is a better fighter than the ME-109.

The T-34 was never an easy kill for the panzers. German tactics made it seem easy.

Lives are like foreign currency. In some countries lives are worth more than in other countries. So using mass infantry swarm tactics when you live in a country where lives are considerably worth less than say, a rifle, is not necessarily throwing lives away, its more like they're saving the limited assets they have while using assets they had in abundance, which makes sense. This kind of tactic beat the Germans in WWII and the Americans in Korea, two countries where technology and equipment are cheaper than lives, so you might even say this tactic is superior.

Anyone that doesn't agree with this, lets make a simple example/test: millions of ethnic African tribespeople died in Rwanda back in the 90's, and it wasn't as big a deal as 3000 Americans dying in New York on 9/11, or 700 injured in London a couple days ago.

[Kagemusha]

Very good points here.
I just would like to point out a one more weapon from German arsenal.The 88mm AntiAircraft gun,that could penetrate any used armortypes in 1941.Its range made in some cases possble to destroy Soviet tanks while they couldnt even shoot back.

[AggonyDuck]

Where did you read that the T-34 was designed by Americans?
From what I know only the suspension system was designed by an american, Walter Christie.

[TosaInu]

edyzmedieval, if the luftwaffe were better than the RAF, then why did they lose the Battle of Britain? They had numerical superiority against the RAF.... and if you say they had better pilots as well, shouldn't they have won?

I recall that the Germans almost did.

The Brits had some advantages:

-radar.
-fight on homeland. No need to fly a couple of hours first and then engage. Defend your home or die.
-radar.
-German pilots who were shot down either died or got captured. British pilots could survive and jump into another plane.
-radar.
-German pilots had to travel the Canal twice. Even when they managed to do this, this left less time for the actual fight (planes need fuel).
-radar.
-Despite all these advantages, the situation was pretty grim for UK (would this be because there were so many great German planes?). I recall there was an incident with bombing civilians by the Germans (not planned, I believe something went wrong due to stress/bad weather). The English sent some planes at night for a counter bombing. Hitler got outraged and ordered another civilian counter bombing (this was planned). This gave the RAF just a second to regroup and avoid total disaster.
-radar.
-I guess Hitler finally acted like a spoiled kid who didn't get his cookie in time and cancelled the invasion.
-radar.

This is the story I know. I am interested to hear whether this is correct, more or less.

[Husar]

The British also had a lot of foreign pilots for example from Poland or the US.

About the pilots fighting over Europe, you may want to compare these figures of the US and Germany.

Hmm, just found a site with long lists.

[PanzerJaeger]

They suffered a big blow at El Alamein in 1942 then followed the Kursk, which practically was the turn of the war. This demonstrated that the German tanks were of inferior quality than the T-34. This made the Germans to rethink their strategies and equipment. They started the building of heavier and more powerful tanks( The Tiger tank was practically the only tank which could withstand the T-34). In parallel, the Russians developed also the T34-85, a better T34, heavier and with better armor and gun. The King Tiger, although it was slow, heavy and big, it was better than the KV85. It's 88mm gun was totally deadly.

By Kursk, we had Panthers and Tigers in significant numbers.

The Panther's initial mechanical problems were more trouble for the Panzer crews than the T-34s which they blew by. The Tigers had very little problems.

In fact, the pz.IV did well at Kursk due to their extreme skill. My grandfather died in a pz.IV during the battle.

I personally believe, even though Hitlers Kursk plan was extremely ignorant and allowed the soviets to build up huge defenses, the battle could have been won had the allies not landed at Italy and Hitler called off the battle. Of course thats all speculation.

[edyzmedieval]

I recall that the Germans almost did.

The Brits had some advantages:

-radar.
-fight on homeland. No need to fly a couple of hours first and then engage. Defend your home or die.
-radar.
-German pilots who were shot down either died or got captured. British pilots could survive and jump into another plane.
-radar.
-German pilots had to travel the Canal twice. Even when they managed to do this, this left less time for the actual fight (planes need fuel).
-radar.
-Despite all these advantages, the situation was pretty grim for UK (would this be because there were so many great German planes?). I recall there was an incident with bombing civilians by the Germans (not planned, I believe something went wrong due to stress/bad weather). The English sent some planes at night for a counter bombing. Hitler got outraged and ordered another civilian counter bombing (this was planned). This gave the RAF just a second to regroup and avoid total disaster.
-radar.
-I guess Hitler finally acted like a spoiled kid who didn't get his cookie in time and cancelled the invasion.
-radar.

This is the story I know. I am interested to hear whether this is correct, more or less.

Roland, Tosa said everything needed to say.....

[Marcellus]

I guess Hitler finally acted like a spoiled kid who didn't get his cookie in time and cancelled the invasion.

Hitler cancelled operation Sealion in late September because it was clear by then that he could not gain air superiority before the weather deteriorated, making an invasion impossible.

[edyzmedieval]

I know....

Hitler really was an idiot..... He didn't let the smart guys to do his plans... He wanted to do the plans, and that caused the downfall, especially at Operation Barbarossa.