Was the German Army (Heer) really so superior?

[ljadw]

The big reason why Germany held the advantage at the beginning:

Volume of combat munitions production of the major belligerents, 1935-44
(annual expenditure in $ billion, U.S. 1944 munitions prices

1935 - 1939:

USA - 0.3
UK - 0.5
USSR - 1.6
Germany - 2.4

1940

USA - 1.5
UK - 3.5
USSR - 5.0
Germany - 6.0


Quite simply Germany at the beginning outspent everyone else on armaments.

I don't see the relevance :the allies were not short on ammunition in may 1940.I also don't see why the US +the SU are included(they were neutral in september 1939) and France not .About Britain:why should it outspent Germany before the war,as it only had a small army ?

[Gooner]

I don't see the relevance :the allies were not short on ammunition in may 1940.I also don't see why the US +the SU are included(they were neutral in september 1939) and France not .About Britain:why should it outspent Germany before the war,as it only had a small army ?

Uh, munitions is not referring just to ammunition, but to all armaments.

Outspending your opponent is usually considered a big advantage.

French pre-war spending was about a third of Germanys as I recall.

[Bravo Zero]

About the Normandy deception:if the Germans had known that Normandy was not a feint,the result would have been the same .
Immediately at DDay the Germans were sending to Normandy everything that was available,because,otherwise the allies would be in Paris on 25 june .

The initial success of the Normandy campaign was relied upon the US and British Airborne Divisions to take out coastal defences and prevent German counter attacks while the Allied ground forces were attacking the beacheads. But had the Heer and the SS fortified Normandy with a vast amount of troops and armour before the 6th June, the Airborne would of been massacred and the whole operation would of failed before it even began.

[ljadw]

There were no vast amount of troops and armour available before 6 june:the Germans were obliged to sent 2 SSPzD from Russia.
Besides:what is "before 6 june":5 june would be to late,the same for 4 june,the same for 3 june,2 june,.....

[Bravo Zero]

There were no vast amount of troops and armour available before 6 june:the Germans were obliged to sent 2 SSPzD from Russia.
Besides:what is "before 6 june":5 june would be to late,the same for 4 june,the same for 3 june,2 june,.....

There was over 1.5 million troops in western Europe and had the Nazis known the Allied plan to invade Normandy, they would of also had the time to send in the 1st and 2nd SS Divisions without the problems of being delayed, which is exactly what had happend.

[Aber]

The initial success of the Normandy campaign was relied upon the US and British Airborne Divisions to take out coastal defences and prevent German counter attacks while the Allied ground forces were attacking the beacheads. But had the Heer and the SS fortified Normandy with a vast amount of troops and armour before the 6th June, the Airborne would of been massacred and the whole operation would of failed before it even began.

The Germans did have an armoured division in Normandy and it did attack an Airborne Division, BUT it was not very successful.

How many armoured divisions in Normandy do you think would be enough to stop the invasion?

[150935]

About the Normandy deception:if the Germans had known that Normandy was not a feint,the result would have been the same .
Immediately at DDay the Germans were sending to Normandy everything that was available,because,otherwise the allies would be in Paris on 25 june .

I think the assualt would of been repelled at the beaches if there was a lot larger force defending them so I wouldn't think it would of been same result

[150935]

I don't see the relevance :the allies were not short on ammunition in may 1940.I also don't see why the US +the SU are included(they were neutral in september 1939) and France not .About Britain:why should it outspent Germany before the war,as it only had a small army ?

Well the SU were Netural in terms of the major combatants but they were fighting a war in Finland and they also advanced there forces into Poland to meet the carving up of Poland in the non attack contract between them and Germany and I would think Stalin wouldn't of trusted Germany or Hitler that much. I would think you could add the US at the early stage because they were most likely making weapons and supplies for Britain who was fighting the war in Europe alone at the time.

Well thats what I think any way

[150935]

The Germans did have an armoured division in Normandy and it did attack an Airborne Division, BUT it was not very successful.

How many armoured divisions in Normandy do you think would be enough to stop the invasion?

I am thinking you are referring to the counter attack to retake Carentan and wasn't what stopped the attack was the american armor?

[m kenny]

I am thinking you are referring to the counter attack to retake Carentan

21st PD at the extreme east of the beachead. The Orne bridges sector.

[Imperial Dane]

That was the 17th SS Panzergrenadier division, which had Assault guns but no Panzers. Not the 21st Panzer Division, that never really met the Americans.

There weren't any Panzer Divisions in the American sector, and the first panzers to have met the americans would have been the french tanks from the 100th Panzer training and replacement battalion.

When an actual Panzer division arrived it was the 2nd Panzer Division.

[lcm1]

Ah, good ol' Henry at Agincourt, gotta be the best one ever for motivating the troops.

Best delivered by sir Lawrence Olivier, if I recall correctly.

It certainly was, Larry had the perfect voice for that,you just had to listen. Our flotilla C/O said some of it when he wished us luck,didn't sound nowhere near as good as Larry though! lcm1

[ljadw]

There was over 1.5 million troops in western Europe and had the Nazis known the Allied plan to invade Normandy, they would of also had the time to send in the 1st and 2nd SS Divisions without the problems of being delayed, which is exactly what had happend.

The LSS only was the shadow of what it had been and was engaged only at the end of june.
Das Reich (stationed at Toulouse) received on 6 june the order togo to Normandy
A more exact figure of the Geman strength in France is 870000

[deterrumeversor]

Hello folks,

Originally Posted by deterrumeversor
We see how effective their help was in the winter of '42 don't we. Let alone how much of the German military was tied down defending them and their countries because they lacked the means of defending themselves?

I am not trying to denegrate the service or troops of any of the above countries, but lets face it, with the exception of Finland they were poorly equipped, poorly led, poorly used, and certainly of no more an aid than they were of a hindrance. But then that happens when your troops are in a war that is not popular with the peoples, and seeing as they were drug into the war in the east by Hitler, well you see what happens don't you.

Why do you think Finnish troops were more of an aid than Romanian troops? They did nothing but stop on the easily defended Karelian Isthmus. Given this difference, I also don't know how one can establish they were better led and used. They didn't have to fight much or at great distances beyond their borders.

My highlighting

My statement was as much socio-political as it was military in nature; and you pretty much answered it yourself with the line that I highlighted. With the exception of the Finns who wanted to be at war with the Soviet Union, the other Axis Minor Powers did not want to be. The average Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, etc... soldier was a long way from home, had no desire or motivation to be there, and it showed. They were in an unpopular war both with the soldiers at the front and their families back home. (Does this sound familiar?)

The Axis Minor Power's industrial capacity, and supply capabilities were inadequate to meet the needs of the war. Plus, the equipment they were able to produce was inferior to the Germans, and the Soviets during almost the entirety of the war.

Look at it from this perspective. If you were a soldier there.

You don't know in a broad sense why you are there. You do know however that you are out gunned and out manned by the Soviets, chronically under supplied and equipped, and that you are treated like an unwanted inlaw by your supposed Allies. Under these circumstances it would not , and did not; take long for morale to plummet. With that drop in morale went a corresponding drop in combat effectiveness! Napolean said it best "An Army's effectiveness depends on its size, training, experience, and morale. Morale is worth more than any of the other factors
combined."

Soldiers and units can only be as combat effective as their leadership and supplies allow them to be. Unfortunately for their men in the field, the Minor Powers were sorely lacking in both of these.
A good example of this same issue is what happened to France in 1940. They had a well trained, highly respected Army with above average equipment, but the morale levels of the average French soldier and civilian were so terribly low, and their leadership abysmal, that well.... Need I say more?

As much as you are correct that the Finns did not actively engage in major offensive operations against the Soviets after the winter of '41/42 they did mount enough minor ones to tie up an disproportionately large amount of Soviet manpower and equipment defending the positions that they did occupy. They had better morale, motivation, and equipment than the other Minor powers. Plus, they believed in the war; both at the front and back home. And arguably Mannerheim was a better leader than any other Commander of the Minor Powers and I think that he was better than the majority of the Commanders of the Wehrmacht.

Cheers,
Deter

[ljadw]

About the German strength in France,1.8 million is out of the question:the average strength of the 60 divisions was some 10000 men .
One exemple:the strength of the 7th Army(without 21 PzD) was 192000 men,but the strength of the 12 divisions of 7 army was 125000 with some 6000 HiWi
The Ist-Stärke of the units of OBWest on 1 june was:663,744
348,888 in the divisional units of the Feldheer
58,047 in the non-divisional combat units of the Feldheer
39,476 in the Falschirmjäger units of the LW
75,587 in WSS units
74,746 in units of the Ersatzheer
28,000 HiWi
39,000 Osttruppen
Total:663,744
This is without the LW strength (some 337000)
An other summary (from 23 july)
Army :728,000
WSS: 75000 (+ 37,0000 reinforcements)
Falschirmjäger:40,000(+12000 reinforcements)
LW :325,000
KM:100,000
OT,RAD,NSKK:between 70,000/90,000
HiWi +Osttruppen:67,000
Total:some 1,470,000
I used rough figures
Source:AHF:German forces in the West :ration strength figures
Also from the same source,the following post:
Many reports appear to include only Heer troops,others appear to include all troops meant for ground combat(Heer ,SS and LW),some include various paramilitary elements such as RAD,NSKK and OT and others may include some,but not all such elements,some include nonmilitary administrative and service personnel(Wehrmachtserfolge),and so on .Then,of course, there is the problem of which type of strength they mean:Ration,Ist,Tages,Gefechts,..