Why so much speculations about Germany in WWII?

[CBR]

The German army had some serious shortcomings in the material as they still used horses in their infantry divisions throughout the war. Their tanks were also very light in the beginning of the war.

But their blitzkrieg tactics and superior training made up for these shortcomings in the early years. The Soviet army ended up being a good army that nearly was of the same standards but of course with a much larger army compared to what the Germans ever had. Their attack in Manchuria in 1945 was very much a typical blitzkrieg attack.


CBR

[edyzmedieval]

Sorry guys.... I'm a bit dizzzy today....

Goering was indeed a bad commander.... Paulus had the complete responsibility for losing Stalingrad......
Brilliant commanders of the Third Reich: Heinz Guderian(not very famous, but he had invented the tank warfare in Germany), Albert Kesselring( which I admire) and Model(forgot his complete name).... Also, Gerd von Runstedt(not brilliant, but good)

At the end of the war, they really had some technology going, although they haven't had the resources and time to make them in large numbers...... The advantage of the Germans was clearly the Blitzkrieg.... Indeed, as you say, the had inferior technology when they attacked Poland and Russia( they had many Czech light tanks of inferior quality) but as the war progressed, they made many improvements to the army.... They made new tanks to equip the army, and they were good ( Panzer Kmpfw 4 and Panzer III and IV)but I think it was a bit too late... The Soviets got their T34 going.... It was the rescue of the Soviet Union....

[CBR]

King Tigers came way too late in the war to have made any difference. Tiger tanks were in general very expensive as they were very complicated to build. But the King Tiger was no doubt the most heavy of all tanks and its long 88 mm gun was deadly.

V2 missiles could only make attacks on large cities and the development of the industry to build them was very costly (they could have built around 10000 more fighters during 1944 instead, for the same resources used) and it was simply not worth the effort.

Germany had built up a good military industry before the war but amateur management of it cost them the war as it was only in 1943 they started to get it up and running and by then it was too late to catch up.


CBR

[Franconicus]

Ulrih,

do not know what exactly your questions is. Is it only about the power at the beginning or during the whole war?

In the beginning Germany was stronger than Poland, Denmark and Norway ... for sure. More difficult are France and GB.
German Luftwaffe had an excellent fighter. StuKa was o.k. too; rest was medium quality. There were no heavy bombers. France was a little bit weaker but not that big difference. GB had excellent fighters, too, and even heavy bombers. German pilots were more expierienced and better trained. The tactic of airbattles and airsupport was more advanced.
Germans Heer
Tanks were light and fast but bad armored and only with small tanks. But they had a superior tactic and were equipped with radio. France seems to be equal at tanks. They had more heavy ones but only two independant units. Rest was devided to the infantry units. British was much smaller and could not meet the Germans.
German Navy was much weaker that the French or the British one. Only their subs were better in quantity. However, they were still few and operating from Germany would not have been a big success. Only after having the french harbors they were dangerous. Brits unterestimated the subs because of their ASDIC. However, when the subs attacked on the surface it did not help.
Fundament:
German armies well built in a very short time. There was a lack of trained people and equipment. (during the battle of England GB produced more fighters and trained more pilots than Germany did). Germany production potential in 1940 was big but wasted. The industry did not work as effective as the US or Soviet.
Russia had a big army. A German study stated that the Russian tanks were not equal to Germans and that it would take years until they could launch a better tank. This was in 1941, when the first T34 was produced. Russia had much more planes. Even though most were old, they had some new disigns that were as good as the Germans.

[Ulrih fon Jungingen]

Franconious,

In most history books there is said that Germany had great army, with newest equipment (better than had oponents) and that german oponents had no chances against Germany and only some luck (russian winter, late development of better equipment etc.) saved world. I want to know your opinion why there is such myth?

And why you compare German army to France (which collapsed in very short time and had no large effect on whole war) and not Soviets?

I really think that only ones that were ready for war were Soviets and actually it`s very big luck, that Germans striked first on Soviets, but not Soviets striked Germany. In this case Europe (and perhaps not Europe only)will know better Soviet crimes against humanity, but now Germans.

[Ulrih fon Jungingen]

" I want to know your opinion why there is such myth?"

With this I meant opinion of everybody that writes here:)))

[Franconicus]

Franconious,

In most history books there is said that Germany had great army, with newest equipment (better than had oponents) and that german oponents had no chances against Germany and only some luck (russian winter, late development of better equipment etc.) saved world. I want to know your opinion why there is such myth?

Germany was the strongest power in WW1. However, after the war it was so poor and his military was so restricted that no one really thought they could be a real threat to Europe. Furthermore most of the military thought that the time for offensive warfare is gone (-> France built that Maginot line)
Imagine the surprise. Germany won easily and after the France campaign Germay seemed to be unstoppable. Why? The explynation was not that the nations that had to surrender were bad equipped, had the wrong military doctrines and poor moral. The explanation was much simpler: Bad Germany had built up a huge war machinery. France and other nations were helpless victims of this machinery. Was kind of hysteria. I think even the US expected Germans or Japanese to land at their coasts. So the myth was born.

I really think that only ones that were ready for war were Soviets and actually it`s very big luck, that Germans striked first on Soviets, but not Soviets striked Germany. In this case Europe (and perhaps not Europe only)will know better Soviet crimes against humanity, but now Germans.

SU was not prepared to enter the war in 1941. This is a lie the Nazis told to explain that this was a good war. And many of the veterans and Neonazis still repeat it. In fact it is not true. There is no doubt that Stalin tried to take advantage of the war. He wanted to get even more territories than Hitler had agreed before. He was in the position to wait an see what would be best for him. He was well aware that the SU was not ready for a war. His order to the troops told them to avoid anything that could provoke the Germans.

[cegorach]

SU was not prepared to enter the war in 1941. This is a lie the Nazis told to explain that this was a good war. And many of the veterans and Neonazis still repeat it. In fact it is not true.

So I am a german veteran or neo-nazi, because I am sure the SU would attack - certainly before 1943, most likely in 1942, possibly in 1941.

There are very many facts to see the red tide coming e.g. the Soviets were trying to create Polish 'liberational' army in early 1941.

The 2nd WW was a clash between two mass murderers and two mad empires where the western allies had only a relatively small share of the entire fighting....

[Franconicus]

SU was not prepared to enter the war in 1941. This is a lie the Nazis told to explain that this was a good war. And many of the veterans and Neonazis still repeat it. In fact it is not true.

So I am a german veteran or neo-nazi, because I am sure the SU would attack - certainly before 1943, most likely in 1942, possibly in 1941.

There are very many facts to see the red tide coming e.g. the Soviets were trying to create Polish 'liberational' army in early 1941.

The 2nd WW was a clash between two mass murderers and two mad empires where the western allies had only a relatively small share of the entire fighting....

Common! I said the SU was not prepared in 1941. I did not say they would not have tried to enter the war later. I think Stalin was just watching and wondering when to enter the conflict. If the Germany would have been invating GB successfully maybe he would have attacked India. If GB would have been able to defend he might have chosen to attack Germany.

[English assassin]

IMHO its because whilst its easy to get all excited whether a Tiger tank had thicker armour or a bigger gun than, say, the Sherman or the T34, its not easy to get excited about the fact that the Sherman and the T 34 were easier to maintain, operate, and actually get to a battlefield. Nor is it easy to get excited about production statistics, and the fact that whereas the total production of the Tiger was about 1400, more than 40,000 T 34's and Shermans were produced (ie over 80,000 in total).

I take the point you are making. The Battle of Britain is another such myth, with even the British thinking it was a stereotypical story of British improvisation, courage and sheer luck overcoming German efficiency. In fact the British air defence system was exactly worked out, in detail, years in advance, and it was the Germans who improvised and had a more "romantic" view of the air war. Likewise Britain was building Spitfires faster and more efficiently that the Germans were making Me 109's and so on. But of you ask the average man in the street he'd tell you it was all won by a few dozen public schoolboys in spitfires taking on hordes of highly trained but unimaginative Germans.