More capable: Panzer Division 1941 or US Armored Division 1944?

Tired Old Soldier;
"Allowed" is closer to the mark. The totalitarian armies had the ideological capacities to ignore medical science, and in their world burnout=cowardice. In most Western military systems it has been recognized that people do have their limits. The dictatorships of the mid 20th century were blind to the combat fatigue element, and soldiers were pretty much required to fight way beyond the bounds of human endurance.
JeffinMNUSA

 

German divisions and US divisions were organized differently as you know...the order of battle would not be matched tank for tank. Of course if you have five shermans vs five tigers or Panthers, it doesnt take General Guderian to figure out the outcome, and thats presumably not what you are talking about.

One huge reason that the US unit would have been far more capable is German Panzer divisions were never really fully mechanized. In a Panzer unit, or any other armored unit, the infantry are just as important as its tanks...an armored unit that has lost its accompanying infantry would be much easier prey for the defenders.
Due to a shortage of trucks, half tracks, and fuel, even at the beginning of the war most German Panzer troops walked to battle for most of the way. In the US units usually the troops travelled by truck whenever possible. The Germans used thousands of horses for supply and even such chores as pulling light artillery and they were used from the beginning of war to the end, doing jobs that in US units would again, be performed by trucks. In the Italian campaign sometimes mules were used by the US forces but generally only because of terrain and not due to lack of mechanized support.

I think the closest example that would answer your question would be what happened in the Battle of the Bulge. The Germans swept all before them for a few days but quickly ran out of fuel, ammo and support for all those now-broken-down supertanks. The moment the allies recovered from the initial shock, and the skies cleared it was the allies turn and they quickly turned the battle into a rout for the Germans.

 

Again, a great informative thread chaps. Great to read.

 

The Germans used MILLIONS of horses not just "thousands" during the war for many jobs. "Altogether on German side used in the Second World War of 2.800.000 horses" And they towed not just light artillery but medium and heavy like for example 170mm guns. Ambulances,food preparation and troop transport. Even towing aircraft and motor vehicles too. And IIRC about 80% of transport was horse drawn. This has been mentioned and discussed in the German High Tech thread and elsewhere in other threads.

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/24098-high-tech-german-military.html

 

Another couple of pluses for the US:
1) artillery doctrine. US fire control was much more flexible and responsive.
2) Communications: The US had a lot more radios. Not sure at what level but I've also read that they had a much more extensive EW program as well.

 

I know the Germans had some weaknesses and lacked resources but their boys were some well trained bada$$es.

 

I think the German ground troops that fought in Barbarossa 1941 were the best troops in the war. They continually fought better than their inferior numbers and material would generally allow them to.

This advantage was generally gone by late 1943/early 1944.

By late 1944 and 1945 their men (boys) were repeatedly outfought.

Their airmen were qualitatively superior until 1942. Even for some of 1943, then much inferior for the rest of the war. (even with the inclusion of their "experten")

I think their Tank Crews were also generally superior until mid 1944. Then they were of uneven/inferior quality for the rest of the war.

 

How often did they have inferior numbers? From what I recall the Soviet army wasn't all that much bigger and the Germans were able to concentrate against it. IE in 41 the Germans were superior operationally to their opponents. This doesn't help a whole lot in evaluating a generic division.

 

Never underestimate the importance of logistics in not only maintaining the flow of the battle, but exploiting it.

Here the US has a decisive advantage.

I read (somewhere, cant remember) that in the German army, the best and brightest went into the infantry. In the US, they went into the engineers. There's a lot of truth in that.

 

The Soviets fielded almost three times more servicemen in WW2.

 

So. The point is when if at all in 1941 did a German division face superior numbers in combat? I will say here as I've said before I'm no expert in this area but my impression is that the Soviet army wasn't a whole lot larger than the German army in 1941 and was spread out quite a bit more so that the Germans were able to defeat large formations in detail or pocket them. Indeed the German failure to take Moscow in 41 wasn't so much a failure of the German soldier as a failure of the German logistics planning and system. Note that this is an area where a US division is clearly supperior.

 

The Soviets fielded almost three times more servicemen in WW2.

Not all of them at the same time. Statisically for most of the fighting from 1941-1942 the Russians and the Germans were evenly matched at about 3 milion each.

At the outbreak of hostilities the Germans had 3 million troops at the initial line and the Russians from 2-3 million out of a total of 5 million, because the Red Army had to divide its forces between European Russia and the Far East.

Much of the force defending European Russia was arrayed in a crust along borders of occupied Poland that quickly sucumbed to German encirclement. There after the Russians were able to staunch the hemorrhage with raw recruits from the reserve armies but incapable of making their army grow in size. The battle losses at the First and Second Period of War were so high that the Germans were destroying Russian field armies as fast than they could be mobalized.

 

The figures seem to vary about this period but my statement about the quality of the 1941 German ground forces stems from the achievements of their motorized units and Panzer Divisions (which numbered only a bit more than 20% of the force) who achieved the great encirclements over enormous Russian combat elements on their own while the horse-drawn elements with their foot infantry was behind, struggling to keep up and were advancing into Russia at a very uneven pace.

 

I'm pretty sure there were a fair number of horses in even the panzer divisions. I look it up when the site comes back. Even if there wasn't they were dependent on corp and army assets which were at least partially horse drawn. Again a lot of their acomplishments in any case were due to them attacking at the right place, well supported, vs an unprepared enemy. Not saying they were bad just it's hard to tell how good they were in this situation.

 

there are 2 aspect conserning this debate:

first the equipment: the standardisation of vehicles used by US Armored division is unmatched in Panzer Division regardless of Type 1941 or Type 1944 (even Rommel recognised it after Kasserine battles); it was this standardisation coupled with a very good automotive of the sherman tanks and the rest of US vehicles deployed which proved decisive in liberation of France after the Normandy and in Germany 1945 after the Rhine crossing.

On the other hand, even with the "light configuration" the US Armored Division were too tank heavy compared with German Panzer Division: the number of armoured infantry battalions in US Armored Divisions was too small as the medical reports might sugest; due to the constant actions armored infantry suffered some of the highest casualties of any combat arm during the war in Europe (i.e. one unit had 150-180 percent replacements in 200 days, another had 100 percent turnover in 60-70 days); perhaps 2 tank battalions, 1 tank destroyer battalion with 4 armored infantry battalions (in HT) would have been a more balanced configuration.

best regards