Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was the German Army (Heer) really so superior?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    Allied forces landed on D-Day - 156,000

    German forces in the West - 1,873,000

    That's a nothing figure. Those troops are hardly useful if i) they are waiting for the second part of the invasion that never came and ii) if they cannot get to where they need to be because the transport system has been blown to hell and marching in daylight is a suicide mission.

    They didn't have have 1.8 million troops in Normandy.
    Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the cheesemakers

    That's right bitches. I'm blessed!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ShAA View Post

      The Finns pretended to fight the Nazis while the Nazis pretended to retreat. When the SU finally told the Finns it was not going to take any crap from them any longer, the Finns had to stop playing their favourite game of slimy weaseling and sort of attacked the Nazis. A few thousand were killed on both sides, but that's about it. A great "turn on" indeed.
      Same time SU pressured us to really attack Germans they demanded us to demobilise. So we were fighting against Germans with PEACETIME army and green recruits when Germans had old veterans. Also do you happen to know huw much there were passable roads and intact bridges in Lappland, or even intact buildings? None. Germans mined everything they could, blowed up every bridge, burnt nearly every building (expect churches). You simply do not follow them very fast in those kind of conditions.

      Also I'd say Russian bitterness against us due to 1941-1944 is simply hilarious and ironic. Who they can thank for Finnish participation in operation Barbarossa? Why themselves of course. Without Winter War, and every kind of provocation they made after it and before Continuation War, it simply would not had happened. Even small nations can be fed up and enraged against big bully over the border. (Especially as our politicos got to know from Germans some of Soviet demands to Hitler in 1940, considering status of Finland while we were officially at peace.)

      Every time Russians whine why their border neighbours don't like them very much they can look in mirror.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Rojik View Post
        That's a nothing figure. Those troops are hardly useful if i) they are waiting for the second part of the invasion that never came and ii) if they cannot get to where they need to be because the transport system has been blown to hell and marching in daylight is a suicide mission.

        They didn't have have 1.8 million troops in Normandy.
        Yeah it's a nothing figure because it turns your statement " taking Normandy as the example, to hold up and inflict as many casualties on the Allies as they did for as long as they did was a pretty good effort considering what they had to work with."

        The Germans in the West had over 1.5 million troops to work with. Inflicting 200,000 casualties and being able to avoid crushing defeat in less than 11 weeks is not a great achievement.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tiberius Duval View Post
          Same time SU pressured us to really attack Germans they demanded us to demobilise. So we were fighting against Germans with PEACETIME army and green recruits when Germans had old veterans.
          The Finnish Army was not demobilised. What are you speaking about?

          Also do you happen to know huw much there were passable roads and intact bridges in Lappland, or even intact buildings? None. Germans mined everything they could, blowed up every bridge, burnt nearly every building (expect churches). You simply do not follow them very fast in those kind of conditions.
          Nevertheless they did advance pretty fast in Karelia in 1941 against the Red Army. It's all about motivation.

          Also I'd say Russian bitterness against us due to 1941-1944 is simply hilarious and ironic.
          Yes, very hilarous for the 10 thouasand civilians you first declared subhumans and then starved to death and executed in your camps in Karelia for your dream of "Greater Finland". This is not speaking of the abysmal treatment of Soviet POWs worse than even the Germans.

          Counting 1,2,3 to the usual denial

          Who they can thank for Finnish participation in operation Barbarossa? Why themselves of course. Without Winter War, and every kind of provocation they made after it and before Continuation War, it simply would not had happened. Even small nations can be fed up and enraged against big bully over the border. (Especially as our politicos got to know from Germans some of Soviet demands to Hitler in 1940, considering status of Finland while we were officially at peace.)
          Finland has always been thoroughly hostile to the SU since its independence, and the irredentist movement had strong positions in the country's ruling elites. The effect of the Winter War on the Finnish participation is thoroughly arguable, as Finland had already allowed Germans on its soil, and it would have definitely allowed them to attack the SU from its territory again. Especially seeing the Red Army cripple under Barbarossa strikes on the Soviet Western border, it is beyond any doubt they would not resist a German offer to retake the lands they wanted so badly. Mannerheim himself promised he wouldn't "put his sword in his scabbard until [Soviet] Eastern Karelia would become Finnish".

          Being "little" doesn't automatically mean not being hostile and aggressive.

          Every time Russians whine why their border neighbours don't like them very much they can look in mirror.
          Maybe for the "little neighbours" it's also time to stop whining and reexamine their less than honest and innocent past? Trust doesn't go one way.

          All they need to do is stop barking at Russia from behind the fence.
          www.histours.ru

          Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Bravo Zero View Post
            Joseph Stalin...'The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.'

            Shows what little he thought of his Army.
            In fairness to Stalin, I haven't found any evidence he said that. I read that those around were of the opinion he didn't think in those terms.

            As for the Red Army, recall that there were times when STAVKA was near the bottom of its manpower barrel, or lacked numbers in the critical fronts, when facing 3-4 million Axis at any given time. While Red Army losses were staggering, Stalin, who depended on those troops to push back the wehrmacht, was not apathetic to losses.

            He was amoral, but smart enough to know he needed lots of troops.
            "There are only two professions in the world in which the amateur excels the professional. One, military strategy, and, two, prostitution."
            -- Maj. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

            (Avatar: Commodore Edwin Ward Moore, Republic of Texas Navy)

            Comment


            • I chose option 6 because I believe the Red Army and at times the Western Allies bettered the Heer in some areas:

              *Blitz-type operations in 1944 were better supported logistically than those in 1941 (BAGRATION and COBRA vs. TYPHOON)

              *The Allies used both strategic and tactical bombing to good effect; the Luftwaffe's strategic bombing, while deadly, was conceptually inept. (I don't think the Wehrmacht employed strategic bombers in a tactical role, as far as I know, as the Allies did for GOODWOOD, CORKSCREW and COBRA.)

              *In the West at least, campaigns, once they were undertaken, went generally according to plan. Tunisia and northern Italy were delayed, but in general the second half of North Africa (January-May 1943) and the Continent went more or less according to schedule, perhaps a little more.

              *The United States also had to devote 10 to 15 percent of its resources, and a larger portion of its amphibious assault resources, to the Pacific (which also went, after Midway, more or less according to timetables predicted by the JCS and CCOS, occasionally (by the Marianas campaign) even faster than predicted).

              I realize the above mixes air, navy and land, but from the west's perspective, the three services could not be separated because large-scale amphibious operations were necessary. And the German advances of 1939-41, and the Soviet advances of 1944-45, were due to land-air cooperation, of course.
              "There are only two professions in the world in which the amateur excels the professional. One, military strategy, and, two, prostitution."
              -- Maj. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

              (Avatar: Commodore Edwin Ward Moore, Republic of Texas Navy)

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=ShAA;2166613]The Finnish Army was not demobilised. What are you speaking about?

                Finnish army was demobilised due to Russian demands 5.12.1944. After that it had only peace time forces in use.
                Nevertheless they did advance pretty fast in Karelia in 1941 against the Red Army. It's all about motivation.
                Less defences and more force.


                Yes, very hilarous for the 10 thouasand civilians you first declared subhumans and then starved to death and executed in your camps in Karelia for your dream of "Greater Finland". This is not speaking of the abysmal treatment of Soviet POWs worse than even the Germans.
                Nothing less than Stalin did for Finnish minorities in said areas, and Russians have nothing to boast in POW treatment either.

                Finland has always been thoroughly hostile to the SU since its independence, and the irredentist movement had strong positions in the country's ruling elites.
                Thoroughly hostile? Maybe, but why? Nothing to do with Soviet subversive activities, spying, weapons trafficking to communists, agititation for commie uprising, no of course it was just irrational hostility.

                The effect of the Winter War on the Finnish participation is thoroughly arguable, as Finland had already allowed Germans on its soil, and it would have definitely allowed them to attack the SU from its territory again.
                Oh did we really have German armed forces on our soil prior to Winter War? Oh yes during 1918 we had, though I don't think they were there after WW1 ended. And yes we had Germans here in 1941, they were asked to be here because we needed some powerfull friends against peaceloving Soviet Union. We already had seen how much THEY honored neutral position. And how much they honored peace agreement, like by shooting down civilian airliner....

                Especially seeing the Red Army cripple under Barbarossa strikes on the Soviet Western border, it is beyond any doubt they would not resist a German offer to retake the lands they wanted so badly. Mannerheim himself promised he wouldn't "put his sword in his scabbard until [Soviet] Eastern Karelia would become Finnish".
                With what forces we could have taken East Karelia, without Winter war army would still have austerity budget to build on, it was only after that war when government realised need to build up real capability for armed forces.

                Maybe for the "little neighbours" it's also time to stop whining and reexamine their less than honest and innocent past? Trust doesn't go one way.
                Yeah like getting occupied and annexed to great socialist motherland, that really builds trust, like in Baltics. Or getting "liberated" and force fed communism for 50 years, like in other eastern European states. Or being betrayed like Poland, or Finland (we had nonagression pact valid until 1940)

                All they need to do is stop barking at Russia from behind the fence.
                And all Russia needs is to take responsibility for their history and stop behaving like biggest dimwitted schoolyard bully.
                Last edited by Tiberius Duval; 06 Feb 12, 08:21.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                  He rather stops his analysis before the rout and destruction of the German armies in Normandy though, doesn't he?

                  There is one glaring fact concerning his calculations, but nevertheless it is a very good book imo, and includes a breakdown of casualties in all German divisions. He uses the Dupuy method, a book of which I own is this. Zettering uses the available forces to both sides in Normandy, when he should be using which forces actually faced each other in a particular battle.

                  Originally posted by Rojik View Post
                  Well, if they constantly gave better than they got they would have won the war. But, taking Normandy as the example, to hold up and inflict as many casualties on the Allies as they did for as long as they did was a pretty good effort considering what they had to work with.

                  The allies held just about every advantage once they got off the beaches, and they sheer effort and violence they put into the landings meant that they were always going to do that.

                  Give them equal numbers in the air and an unshattered line of reinforcement and supply and an allied victory in that campaign becomes a pretty iffy thing at best.
                  The Boccage was a major element in holding up the W Allies, an event they had not foreseen, since every planner believed the Germans would play to their major strength in pin point accurate fire over long distances. This also gave the advantage of not facing naval gunfire. Normandy was a battle of attrition, and just as in WW1, the side with the most troops won it. The Germans also had some of their very best troops here eg Panzer Lehr, as well as some extremely fanatical holding troops in the form of the teenage 12th SS division. Combined with the terrain, going was always going to be tough as a result. Even so, casualties came out remarkably even, not bad for an attacking force against extremely defendable terrain.

                  Airpower over Normandy has always been overestimated in its effect in most quarters, and had a significant reduced impact than that usually claimed (25% iirc).

                  Concerning supply and aircover, we only need to look at the Tunisian campaign where the Allies also had difficult terrain to cross, but with reduced air capability and supply compared to the Axis at this time. The same devastating defeat occured to the Heer, but just took longer.

                  There is no doubt that the Heer up to 41 was the dominant land based force. Afterwards it could still be very effective, but began to get out-fought and out-thought as time went on, and not just by Brute Force.

                  As usual all imo
                  How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                  Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Purist View Post
                    Kiev Sept 1941.
                    Hello everyone,
                    I would have choosed, Manstein counter offensive to retake Karkhov. As the Heer was very present and did his task. I precise it for the ones who believe that this battle was an nearly exclusive SS victory.
                    Corsair
                    The day not half over and ten thousand slain
                    and now there's nobody remembers our names
                    and that's how it is for a soldier
                    Lemmy Kilmister in 1916

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

                      Normandy was a battle of attrition, and just as in WW1, the side with the most troops won it. The Germans also had some of their very best troops here eg Panzer Lehr, as well as some extremely fanatical holding troops in the form of the teenage 12th SS division. Combined with the terrain, going was always going to be tough as a result. Even so, casualties came out remarkably even, not bad for an attacking force against extremely defendable terrain.
                      Well the battle for Normandy was decided well before the Germans ran out of troops and one result of the battle for Normandy was very lopsided casualties in the Allies favour for several weeks to come ...

                      Comment


                      • I would have choosed, Manstein counter offensive to retake Karkhov. As the Heer was very present and did his task. I precise it for the ones who believe that this battle was an nearly exclusive SS victory.
                        As I suggested a while ago, I think that one is discounted because of substantial and relatively independent SS presence. This thread has to some extent arisen out of the Wehrmacht innocence question and hence the inclusion of an SS Corps is unlikely to count as a 'Heer' victory for the purposes of this discussion.

                        2nd Kharkov is probably the best suggestion so far, though as an operational victory the defeat of Operation Mars could also be considered
                        History is not tragedy; to understand historical reality, it is sometimes better to not know the end of the story.

                        Pierre Vidal-Naquet

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ShAA View Post


                          Wow, fanboys are such fanboys.

                          It's so typical of these fanboys

                          never-ending Nazi fanboys' wankfest
                          WOW, 3 times you in one post... that must be some kind of record or something.

                          It is amazing that anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi fanboi.....

                          I is one thing to be a patriot, that I can understand and respect. To resort to mud slinging at the first sign that someone is not going to drink your flavor of Kool-aid is not something that I can understand or respect.

                          You are a respected member of this forum and have collected a great volume of information; as I have said before I have seen you post it and learned from it. This should be beneath you.

                          If you want people to see things from your point of view; or if you have knowledge to share, it is easier to reach people by teaching them not insulting them.

                          Here is a perfect example:

                          Originally Posted by m kenny
                          If Baxter made a statement that we have 5 fingers per hand I would only accept it after I had checked several thousand hands.
                          Baxter is a terrible author and nothing he says should be taken on trust!
                          mkenny disagrees but, makes his point very diplomatically!


                          Your obvious hatred and contempt for the nations around Russia/Soviet Union colors your opinions terribly though.

                          Deter

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by m kenny View Post
                            The 'fought to the last bullet' version.
                            If you check you will find over 100 German divisions surrendered in SE Europe and the Danish and Norwegian garrisons surrendered almost intact. They all could have fought on but they did not.
                            Too much is made of the Berlin siege and it must be remembered the commader of that fight was insane and they were reduced to hanging their own troops from lampost.
                            It was only a surrender in the 'last final hours ' of the war because it was their surrender that made it the 'last final hours'.
                            Are you asking me to check? I don't have to check,I was there in Northern Germany and saw it and it happened just as I have described it in the closing hours of the war.In their thousands,they could have swamped us,we were so few in numbers in comparison but they had 'had enough' they did not want to know any more. What a lot of people do not realise is that a large contributing factor to this was lack of supplies, from fuel and ammunition to food. The whole system appeared to have broken down, they were in low spirits of course but still well regimented and under efficient command of senior NCOs and officers and in that manner surrendered themselves to us. lcm1
                            'By Horse by Tram'.


                            I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                            " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by deterrumeversor View Post
                              mkenny disagrees but, makes his point very diplomatically!
                              MKenny diplomatic ?
                              Either he is having an off day or someone else is posting under his username .
                              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                                Well the battle for Normandy was decided well before the Germans ran out of troops and one result of the battle for Normandy was very lopsided casualties in the Allies favour for several weeks to come ...
                                Unless of course you witness the young men being picked up and buried and then you wonder. lcm1
                                'By Horse by Tram'.


                                I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                                " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X