Why so much speculations about Germany in WWII?

[Husar]

If they were prepared, how could they be driven back to Moscow(almost)?
They even had to build new factories in Sibiria to be able to produce anything. Germany´s only chance to win anything was indeed the Blitzkrieg-strategy, because the german economy was not able to produce in such masses as Russia or the USA. If you want to know why, just compare some figures about landmass and number of people. German equipment was superior and they had plans/prototypes for even better stuff, they just didn´t have enough of it. Two nights ago I watched an old german movie(1954 IIRC) about Canaris, who was an older admiral in charge of the "Abwehr"(secret service) and gathered information for the army. He didn´t want the war and wanted Hitler to go, without bloodshed, but as some kind of patriot he still served and collected data. As the german invasion in Russia stopped due to the russian winter(yes, they weren´t prepared for that, although they knew about Napoleon´s fault, they thought they could do better just because they were Germans), the generals and Hitler just refused to listen to anything negative he found out, and in the end he was killed in a KZ because of his links to some traitors. Now as we all know, Hitler was crazy and so were many Nazis who were indoctrinated by him and his followers, they just didn´t mention or think of the possibility of a defeat and made a lot of errors due to that. How can you command your troops effectively if you don´t have any information about the enemy because that´s too negative for you to hear?
And don´t forget that Germany had the most fronts, they even needed troops to keep the opposition in conquered territories down.
And as was said here already, Russian equipment was NOT superior, I don´t know where you got that myth from? Why do you think was the MG42 used as an example for the american M60 and the german MG3 after the war? The Sturmgewehr 44 was also the first assault rifle produced.
German ships were also not bad, the Bismarck sunk the british Hood in less than 10mins and the british bombarded the unmaneuverable bismarck for 90 minutes with a whole fleet before the crew sunk the ship.(yes, I was laughing my ass off when I first heard that )
I know there´s a rumor of a german 4-engined bomber prototype that got unnoticed as close as 20km to New York.

I think it´s no wonder Germany lost the war, because it was fighting several superpowers at once who had a better economy over the long term, more territory and more men. But that doesn´t mean that all german equipment was inferior.

[econ21]

Ulrih, I don't understand your point. Given how the German army outperformed the Russian one in 1941 - IIRC it captured or killed more than half of it - isn't it obvious, even a truism, that it was superior? It's no myth or speculation - the German military in 1939-41 was proven to be vastly superior to the military of all other countries in the world.

Now if you are saying that Germany was not seen at the time as a military "superpower" in the way that the US now is, then you are right. The qualitative superiority of its army was not obvious at the time to the Allies, until it was (almost) too late. However, I am always impressed by the way Hitler and a few other German leaders do seem to have realised the strength of the hand they were holding. Hence their strikingly ambitious and successful warfighting plans. Maybe Hitler was just a gambler or had delusions of power, but some generals like Guderian and Manstein did have admirable insight into the effectivess of their military machine.

You seem to be talking about only hardware[1], as you acknowledge the German superiority of tactics and leadership. But the striking thing about the German early war successes is how far the "soft" factors like tactics and leadership could take it. I tend to agree with Electric Celt - Germany was the powerhouse in early WW2 because of its innovative way of fighting, centred around air superiority and the panzer division. When air superiority ended and the Allies learnt to cope with (and copy) the panzer division, then numbers and hardware told and the Germans were massively outgunned.

[1]Even in terms of the quality of hardware, the German army of 1939-41 was about the best equipped. One German infantry squad was probably worth about three Russian ones, thanks to their impressive LMGs (ok, I'm probably including soft factors here too). The Russian armour only started to clearly exceed the German armour when the T-34 came on stream - most of its stuff (eg the T-26) in 1939-41 was obsolete or clearly inferior to the German tanks. The PzIII and short barrelled PzIV were state of the art tanks for their time. The French had some heavy tanks that caused problems, but the British certainly struggled against them early on in the desert. The Messerchimdt109 was about as good as anything else flying in the same period (only the Spitfire matched it) and far better than most. The stuka was very good for the job it was asked to do. German artillery was up there with the best. Only at sea were the Germans clearly they were outclassed in hardware.

[Grey_Fox]

Why is Germany considered a superpower in WWII? Because it took half the world six years to beat it (even then most of the defeats were due to Hitler's meddling, if his generals had been left to their own devices, an allied victory would be far from certain).

Between 1939 and 1921, British and French tanks were actually superior to German tanks, it was just that the Germans had better tank doctrines than the Allies.

Going off-topic for a second, but I really think you guys are being too harsh on Paulus. He had a brilliant military career up to this point. He repeatedly requested permission to withdraw, and was always told that the Sixth Army would be relieved shortly. He told Hitler he could only hold out if he got 500 tons of supplies per day, and Goering told him that he would get them (in the event, the most that ever reached him was 50 tons per day). Manstein and Paulus had worked out plans for a breakout that had a good chance of success, but Hitler overruled them and ordered that the Sixth Army fight to the death.

I just do not think it is right to blame him of a catastrophe that his superiors created.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why there is so dominating thinking that Germany had superior military machine than other countries in WWII?

A lot has been said about equipment and blitzkrieg, but the simple fact is German soldiers were clearly superior to Russian soldiers.

Now in this day of political correctness, putting one group of people over another is a no-no, but its the truth.

Germans during ww2 were better trained, better motivated, braver, smarter, more capable, more organized, and more willing to fight hard. This was the case in both the officer corps and the ordinary infantry.

Tasks that Russian commanders wouldn't dream of giving an entire regiment were given to undersupplied, undermanned German units and accomplished.

Besides the utter brilliance of German commanders, who argued against Hitler on almost every decision he made including Stalingrad and Kursk, some of the missions completed in Russia were astounding. (See: Manstein's retaking of Kharkov)

The reason the history books, which you seem to be arguing about, talk about Germany's great army is because historians realize that with any sort of equality in numbers and supplies, the Germans would have easily defeated the USSR. And lets not forget about the West and the Mediterainian.

Sometimes Germany had the technical edge, sometimes Russia did - but German troop quality was generally always better than Russian... and thats no insult. There are many reasons for that.


Oh and your claim that Russia had better tanks is somewhat misguided. In actuality Russia had tank superiority for only a very short time between the introduction of the Pz.IV and the Pz.V. Before and after that German fielded much stronger tanks, and im not even mentioning Tiger units.

[PanzerJaeger]

Going off-topic for a second, but I really think you guys are being too harsh on Paulus. He had a brilliant military career up to this point. He repeatedly requested permission to withdraw, and was always told that the Sixth Army would be relieved shortly. He told Hitler he could only hold out if he got 500 tons of supplies per day, and Goering told him that he would get them (in the event, the most that ever reached him was 50 tons per day). Manstein and Paulus had worked out plans for a breakout that had a good chance of success, but Hitler overruled them and ordered that the Sixth Army fight to the death.

Great analysis. The mess at Stalingrad was Hitler's creation.

[PittBull260]

germany had the best trained soldiers, and very smart commanders

[soda]

A lot has been said about equipment and blitzkrieg, but the simple fact is German soldiers were clearly superior to Russian soldiers.

Now in this day of political correctness, putting one group of people over another is a no-no, but its the truth.

Germans during ww2 were better trained, better motivated, braver, smarter, more capable, more organized, and more willing to fight hard. This was the case in both the officer corps and the ordinary infantry.

German's greatest strenght lay with her (his :D) commanders. The infantry might have been better than the Russian one but they were not nearly as superior as you're making them out to be. The Germans developed superior tanks but late and not enough of them because they lost resources to build them. It wasn't the technology or the training as much as it was leadership. Rommel was outmanned and outgunned and he still managed to fight the Brits. His soldiers were tough but he was the main reason behind the German success in Africa.

Sorry this is one of my pet peeves and shows typical arrogant eurocentric thinking that the only place in the world is europe.

The British Empire at the time covered a 1/4 of the globe. Some of which was in East Asia and at war with Japan, a major power given what they where doing in China, Singapore and Hawaii. Japan was a very credible threat and was on the verge of taking over the whole of the Western Pacific.

If the Japanese had attacked the Russians instead of the Americans and British, Russia would have had its back against the wall. No American aid, and a two way front. Very hard to relocate factories to Siberia if it was flying the Japanese flag.

Germany was fighting a multi-front war, it was up against the British Empire and the USA eventually (minus that fighting Japan). That was not a good position to be in given the British Navy, Radar and the British 'lucky' ability to read the codes faster then the enemy commanders got them (first by mathematicians later by actually having the machine, some of the first computers).

Russia on the other hand was against one foe on one front, with the backup of two major players keeping the Japanese from them.

You're talking about number of fronts, why not talk about number of men. Japan could have attacked Siberia but it didn't. When it comes to the war with Germany, the Soviet Union was key. The US provided an incredible amount of vehicles and weaponry to the Soviet Union. When the Allies invaded in 1944, there were about three times as many German troops in the east compared to the west. This is after whole German armies had been destroyed (Stalingrad etc.). With American industrial aid, the German threat was stopped and destroyed in Russia.

[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.

[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.