Why so much speculations about Germany in WWII?

[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.

[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!

[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.