Was the Wehrmacht overrated?

I never really got the feeling that Rommel was "not good with logistics". He was constantly arguing with Hitler for more of everything, and from what I've read, seemed to be pretty good at stretching things out so that his troops had gas/ammo/parts to continue the attack wherever possible. The fact that a lot of his supplies ended up sitting around at the bottom of the Med was not his fault. He also made use of a lot of captured British equipment and supplies, and drove around in a British staff car himself (which saved his butt once when he toured a field hospital...and about half-way through realized it was a British hospital, not a German one...he simply finished out the tour and drove off in his obviously British car, while the staff there wondered what country this strange allied General was from, since nobody could understand him. Except the wounded German POW's, of course...). As for the Germans re-using allied equipment, I recall reading a story about some US troops during/after the Battle of the Bulge who were tramping along through the snow and fog across a field, and fell in next to a Sherman. They were thankful for its bulk/firepower, until one guy got a closer look at it, and realized the star had been painted over with a swastika. Someone climbed up on the tank, politely knocked on the hatch, and proceeded to take the commander/crew captive. There's also a story of straggling bombers in Italy who would mysteriously disappear, word got back that a P-38 was seen escorting one or two...after some investigation, they found out that it was a P-38 that had been forced down and captured before the pilot could destroy the craft. It was repaired, put back into service, and piloted by an English-speaking pilot who would get on the radio to single bombers and fall in behind them, then open up from point-blank range. It was soon shot down (with vengeance, I would imagine).

 

Excellent point. Too many people don't seem to realize this was the case and many others seem to routinely forget it.

 

There were even more than 5 nations but I just chose the 4 main ones; IMO Britain, Canada, France and of course the US.

Not sure that the I would consider the beach heads "fairly small" none the less; the landings had many challenges of their own. I was more referring to the resistance which the allies encountered in France and in the air. The German ground forces stationed in France in 1944 were insignificant in comparison to the men which Germany had there in 1940. Also the skies over France were virtually free of the Luftwaffe.

Yes, there were of course the battle hardened troops in some parts but they were far the minority. IMO, had the Luftwaffe been present in France in the same numbers which she had been in 1940, the landings would have been far more troublesome (not even going to mention the presence of the sixth army). I fully understand that the lack of the Luftwaffe and other divisions in France was a result of Germany taking a beating by many means, I guess im just trying to remind others that the Wehrmacht of 1941 and 1944 were night and day. IMO, had the Normandy invasion been attempted in 1942 for example (I know that wasnt possible) and the allies used everything they historically had in 44', I do not think that the landing would have been a success; at that time Germany was just too powerful.

Even though such a thought is irrelevant

 

double post

 

It must be reminded that Hitler said "no" with the help of two little birds who were whispering in his ears. The first was Goering who reasured Hitler that the Luftwaffe would be capable of resupplying the 6th from the air and the the second was Manstein who convinced Hitler that he was more than capable of breaking through to the 6th. IMO, Hitler actually went out of character and listened to his generals

As for a general breakout, I agree with Ptimms. This simply wasnt possible (not in the condition the Germans were in) such an attempt would resemble the Korsen Pocket (know as little Stalingrad). Human waves on T-34's and artillery is not a good idea.


I too think that Paulus was a capable commander and showed his worth. His ability to halt and they destroy the 28th and 57th Russian armies at Kharkov earned him the Iron Cross. The Don crossing was also impressive. I think that judging Paulus based on Stalingrad doesnt do him justice. The encirclement of the 6th was inevitable. IMO, had Rommel been in charge he would have suffered the same fate.

 

Could you give more detailed explanations about "Hitler's idiotic order",because,Afaics,there was no such thing in the period we are discussing ?

 

The US was the only fully mechanized army of the war. The Russians used some horses and would have used many more if not for land lease.

 

I'm not quite sure but I guess Ulrich is talking about an "order" that has never been issued. As far as I know, Führer has just issued instructions for winter and had declared in a public speech (in the Berlin Sportpalast) on 30 September 1942 that the German army would never leave the city. That's all I can recall.

 

As beach heads go I wouldn't consider them small either but when compared to the German frontiers of Holland, Belgium, and France quite small. Which was my point. The German invasion of France was conducted from the start over a broad front. The Allied one started on a very narrow front and had to break out of that.

Well let's see. Using Wiki at Battle of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia both sides had about 3.3 million troops in 1940 and Invasion of Normandy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has the allies with ~1.3 million in late July and the Germans with about 1/3 of that. However at the time of the landings the allied force was considerably smaller and the Germans were able to form a coherent defence for a while. The same cannot be said for 1940.

Indeed but is that a point for or against the Wehrmacht? If they can't put more than a handful of planes over a critical battlefield at that point in the war then doesn't it say something about their capabilities?

I should make it clear that rating forces such as this almost has to be relative and it's not just compared to the Western Allies that I think the Wehrmacht of 44 shows some serious deficencies. Operationally, logistically, and on the strategic level the Red Army demonstrated a pretty clear superiority over the Wehrmact as well. While the Wehrmact could on occasion still pull out some tactical victories and one can make a case for them still being better at the small unit level once you get above that it starts becomeing harder and harder to make that case.

 

All true.

I don't think you can take away from the Wehrmacht what they were and what they accomplished. It's been awhile since I read this long thread, so I'm not about to reiterate all of what has already been said. The original question was, were they overrated? I'm not sure anybody ever tried to define the question. They certainly had an excellent military tradition to build upon and carry forward. They then built a huge war machine (in "secret" and against the Treaty of Versailles) and while there were some bigger armies surrounding them, they carried doctrine to a new modern level, while still stuck to the past in some aspects, as exemplified by their dependence on the horse. Then after "peace in our time" had been achieved, they proceeded to go on the offensive with limited warnings, at least making some big gains through surprise to some extent. With France and Poland both out of the way and the Soviet Union placated for awhile (not sure that is the best way to describe that), they began a slugfest while all of the Allies then began to build up armies, air forces and navies that could compete with them. Once the Allies were truly able to take the offensive stance, the Wehrmacht then had some time to play the defense, which certainly bought them more time but truly only staved off the inevitable.

At the risk of oversimplification, they had a huge well-trained armed force with a lot of modern equipment when no one else was really ready to fight this kind of war. It's hard to ignore the dichotomy of Wunderwaffe vs. the time, money and resources they devoted to veterinary pursuits. While most everybody here is historically informed, most better than myself I would note, much of the world has only heard of the Nazi super-warrior aspect (propaganda) about the Wehrmacht, which IMO tends to overrate much of what they really were.

 

The US did use some horses and mules I believe. The British also were mechanized/motorized to a fairly large degree. I doubt the Soviets would have used more horses without lend lease as I suspect they were using pretty much all they had in any case. Now exactly how that would impact the Russians I have no idea.

 

That is correct Mules were used in Italy . The Goumiers used those too at Monte Casino and sometimes moved faster than others armies with motorised vehicles, so their example was imitated in mountainous areas by other belligerants, not as a matter of economy as it was the case for the Goums, but as a matter of tactics.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-MTO-Cassino/img/USA-MTO-Cassino-p350.jpg

 

The US army only used horses and mules in very specialized roles e.g. mountain and jungle warfare, to replace motor transport where there was no roadnetwork.

 

After a second look at the picture I'm wondering whther the soldier escorting the mules could be a Goumier or a Newzealander. he seems to be wearing a Brodie helmet as opposed to the U.S. soldiers digging.

 

Believe or not: even camels were used at Stalingrad:

 

The British Army was fully motorised even in 1940, the BEF needed no horses, I saw a stat somewhere that the Canadians had most trucks per soldier.

 

At Stalingrad, führer's instructions for winter demanded that the majority of Sixth Army's draught animals should be sent over a hundred miles to the rear to save on the supply trains required to bring forward the huge quantities of fodder. Altogether some 150,000 horses, as well as a number of oxen and even camels, had accumulated between the Don and the Volga. Motor transport and repair units were also moved back. This means that units in and near Stalingrad were irrevocably immobilized by the Führer's instructions shortly before Red Army has started operation Uranus. That was a real point of no return: without the draught animals and trucks Wehrmacht was paralyzed, regardless what they do.
It is interesting that also Chuikov was not aware of his real purpose in Stalingrad. However, his instinct has told him he was a bite in a large trap as soon as Stavka has reduced his allocation of artillery ammunition. Paulus lacked that capability.

 

I think its safe to say that we both agree on the majore points. By 1944 the Wehrmacht was no longer the force she had been in 1940.

I do remember reading somewhere that at the time of Normandy invasion, the Wehrmacht only had about 60K troops along the coast on the wall (if anyone else has any info on this I would very much like to read it again).

 

I think it must also be mentioned that while the U.S. and Britain were fully mechanized they were also considerably smaller than the Russians... If im not mistaken both U.S and British forces had about 150 divisions in Europe compared to 250 from the Russian side?


By this time the Wehrmacht was done even if both sides only had cavlary.

 

Well US and British divisions were bigger and I think some of the US divisions weren't completely motorized with organic trucks. The US also had a bigger logistics tail. Best bet would probably be to compare numbers of troops and combat vehicles to the number of trucks to get a feel for it. From what I remember the Soviet did have more uniformed personel than the US in any case.
Looking at World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia the US and British had ~80% of the number of people in uniform for the entire war as the Soviets did but the substantially higher Soviet casualties suggest that by 44 the militaries of Britain and the US combined were probably about equal to that of the Soviets. The western allies would of course have a lot more people in their navies. Not sure where to go with this though.