Originally posted by Gooner
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Was the German Army (Heer) really so superior?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by ljadw View PostI 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 ?
Outspending your opponent is usually considered a big advantage.
French pre-war spending was about a third of Germanys as I recall.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ljadw View PostAbout 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 .
Comment
-
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,.....
Comment
-
Originally posted by ljadw View PostThere 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,.....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bravo Zero View PostThe 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.
How many armoured divisions in Normandy do you think would be enough to stop the invasion?
Comment
-
Originally posted by ljadw View PostAbout 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 .
Comment
-
Originally posted by ljadw View PostI 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 thats what I think any way
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aber View PostThe 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?
Comment
-
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.Looking for CoH Commentary ? Why not check out the Propagandacast ?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Exorcist View PostAh, 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.lcm1
'By Horse by Tram'.
I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
" Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bravo Zero View PostThere 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.
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
Comment
-
Hello folks,
Originally posted by Imperial View PostOriginally 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 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
Comment
-
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,..Last edited by ljadw; 09 Feb 12, 03:26.
Comment
HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II
ACG Gaming
ACG Network
Latest Topics
Collapse
-
by MassenaI never cared much for Holder as AG, but he is right on the money about Barr.
1.https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...rmer-attorney-...-
Channel: North America
Today, 13:27 -
-
by ImperialRoxette's Joyride was one of the first music videos I watched as a schoolboy after the collapse of the Iron Curtain.
Coming home from school, fixing...-
Channel: The Barracks
Today, 13:03 -
-
by asterixIn keeping with recent naval tradition, the Russian aircraft carrier Amiral Kouznetsov caught fire while in port. Repairs and regular maintenance have...
-
Channel: Naval Warfare
Today, 11:19 -
Comment