T-34

Of course there is no such thing as a master race, I want this very clear, I don't think that any race can say they are better than others or more pure than others in general. However, there are some facets of all peoples where they have an advantage over others, simply because that is in their nature (and usually caused by their recent history and their culture).

The Germans are good at enduring war. That is their special trait, that is because of their militaristic Prussian heritage; when properly trained, they are simply better soldiers than a lot of other peoples can ever summon. You can argue that there is no such thing, but I believe that history shows it's so, and that is why it was so hard to slug it from Normandy to Germany. Few other peoples could have completed Speer's miracle in September 1944, when the ragged remains of an army simply stopped running, regained an order of battle and resumed the fight - even stopped the Allied advance.

So up to a point, Lyndon is right about the Germans being better soldiers. However, they can't do the impossible, and they have to be properly supported of course. Where the Allies had such support and Germany did not, the Allied numbers ad equipment simply overran them.

 

Gosh Lyndon, you are so generous to give me time!

The only thing that comes to mind, taking into account your fascination with the Tiger's, is the small counter attack by the Germans to stop the Soviet's advance in the Manych river area of the Don. This was January 15th, 1943. I am sure you can give us the name of the Captain that commanded these forces.

You know, picking out actions that most are not familiar with is very easy. All one has to do is pick up any good book, pick an obscure passage, and ask questions.

:smok:

 

Lyndon, I think the correct statement is that it took the Allies ONLY a year.

:smok:

 

Normandy and Italy were good defending country. If the Germans were that good why didn't they win? Why did they not drive the Western Allies back into the sea. The Allies just wanted to fight to go home, the Germans just wanted to fight. What would have happened if Horrocks of XXX Corps was allowed to continue to push the Germans out of Holland? No Market Garden, No German Ardennes offensive but instead High Command said stop because of the fuel supply even though he had 100km with him and another 100km within 24 hrs. The Americans could have done the same in their sector. The Germans were allowed to pull back to defensive areas rather than just keep pushing them. The German did not and more importantly could not hold a defensive position between the Seine and the West Wall. Why? Because they were crap. Yes, crap.
They lost in North Africa, Russia, the Atlantic and everywhere. A war is won by those who finish and they lost. That is how good they were.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but really that isn't going to stand up. Had the war broke out on 3rd September 1939 and been all over with German defeated by 4th September 1939 then you would be right however it wasn't was it?



Ladies and gentlemen you may now rip him to streds .

 

The Germans conquered the whole of Europe (except the UK and the bit of the USSR between Moscow and the Urals) and a chunk of North Africa in around a year*.

It then took the rest of the world combined 3 years to get them out.

Draw your own conclusions...


(* allowing for direct campaining time, and leaving out the 'Phoney War')

 

So much for the "Thousand Year Reich".

:smok:

 

Sorry Paul but this is completely out of touch with reality. The Germans lost because they were crap. Then why did they conquer everything in the first place, causing the Allies to fight three bitter years of liberation wars?

They lost in North Africa because it was a secondary combat area that was not provided with supply, replacements and support. However, Rommel did hold out for several years against a force many times the size of his, which was composed for a large part of totally worthless Italian units. As a matter of fact, in late 1942 he got within 50 kilometers of his aim for the campaign when he ran out of fuel. Not out of spirit, his troops did not revolt, his troops did not refuse to fight, his troops did not surrender: he ran out of fuel. Nothing in the quality of the soldiers can help that.

They lost in Russia simply because that country is too large to be conquered by anything smaller than it, and it is the largest country in the world. Its industries produced much more efficiently because industrial organization was not a German premium aspect, yet the quality of Soviet materiel was a lot worse; they won on numbers and later in the war on experience and numbers. The Germans were overstretched, outnumbered two to one over the entire front, exhausted and out of replacements but they held out for two years of steady withdrawals and recovered collapses before they were finally overwhelmed by numbers.

They lost in the Atlantic because of comparable factors: more enemies, and the lack of support weapons. All they had was submarines, because Hitler didn't give the Kriegsmarine time to fully equip itself. You can't blame the soldiers for that; blame Hitler!

In September 1944, after having been completely torn to shreds by the Allies, without replacements and practically without heavy equipment, the Germans stopped the Allied advance on all fronts. No one, nothing, no other people would have been able to do that at that time, in those conditions, with war at three fronts and a sick raving mad leader. They wer great soldiers, and the Allies respected them for it, and never expected an easy fight up to the last day because the Germans would hold out.

That is how good they were.

 

Roel,

I think we may have to agree to disagree on a number of points.

Time's short right now. Rommel in North Africa - If he was out of fuel, then how did he conduct one of history's most brilliant retreats?

That is not why he lost. Supplies was always a factor, but the main issue was being outnumbered 2-1 on land and 5-1 in the air, and fighting on a static front - the Brits best place to fight.

Gotta go.

:smok:

 

I did not say the Allies were good either but they did not want to fight. Nobody did. We had to build an army. The Axis powers rearmed in the 30's. What for? To go on a Sunday outing! After 7th December 1941, if you ask the average America about the war they still only wanted to get the Japanese back. It was Germany that declared war on the United States.
Horrocks has stated that the German Army he got to in Holland was the "Stomach Army", all those not fit for front line duty. He could of got to the Ruhr. We let them regroup they did not stop us.
The British during the America War of Independence won nearly all the battle but lost the war. The Union got knocked about by the Confeds but still won in the end. To be good you have to keep it and they did not. It is easy to knock someone down when they are not looking all you have to think about is will they get up. We got up.
If the Germans were that good tell that to the inhabitants of Oradour-sur-Glane or even the hundreds of villages across the Soviet Union that are not there anymore. Over 55 million people died in WW2 how can anyone say that they were good.
On a different thread someone stated the Japanese were viewed as liberators. Nanking!

 

Got of the T 34 topic slightly? Great thing FREE SPEECH is.

 

There's is one aspect I don't agree with: someone said that the Germans conquered almost all Europe but the UK and a part of Russia (the bigger part, which included Tankograd and the caucasian oil supply), and North Africa in little more than a year. First of all, it took them almost two years (the Third Reich's biggest extension was achieved in 1942, not '41), and it wasn't because they were too good, but because the Allies were too bad. I don't have to tell you that there tactics were ineffective, just thing of the Maginot line, or in the futile Soviet counterattacks during Barbarossa. The Germans were very good at war, I won't deny that, but they weren't invincible, and a change in tactics, new generals and weapons were enough to stop them. Think of England, were the RAF had less planes than the Luftwaffe but they resisted, or in Stalingrad, where the Russians had to defend the city with relatively few soldiers, because many of them were assigned to the special force that would counterattack.

 

Very good points, Poncho. And welcome to the forum.

 

poncho, check that asterisk from Ricky's post. In case you cant find it I quote it here

 

Poncho:

just one little point...

Which is more or less the point being made on the other side of the argument!

Paul:

Neither of your examples really compare.
The American rebellion ( ) was lost thanks to a mixture of arrogance, lack of troops to hold the ground won, and being minorly distracted by France, Holland etc declaring war!

The American Civil war was won by the side with the greater numbers and greater Industrial base. Sound familiar?

As to your last point - hell, nobody is claiming the Germans did nice things. The claim is that they were effective soldiers.

The Japanese were initially viewed as liberators in countries formerly under Empirical rule by European nations. An idea their propaganda was at pains to reinforce. China was different. Japan was actually fighting China, not the Colonial Power ruling China.


Anyway, good to hear from you guys!
Welcome to the forum.

 

Are you refering to Hauptmann von Kaphengst? Hauptmann Heilmann? Hauptmann Schmidt? Hauptmann Tebbe?

I wouldn't limit it to Jan 15th. The German advance began on the 6th and continued on and off and with various counter attacks and advances for over a week before withdrawal to Rostov. These actions around the Manych and Proletarskaja also involved SS Wiking and other units not just a small number of Tigers.

 

No, this is not true. It's just not true. In the first days of september, when Horrocks was advancing across Belgium, the Germans were regrouping quite effectively despite having no forces at all te regroup. Did you know that two Kampfgruppe ad hoc units, of no more than two batallions' size, held off the entire 21st Army Group's advance into Holland in those days? It gave a Fallschirmjäger division or two made up of inexperienced troops, and a coastal division made up of elderly men, time to move into their areas of defence, each holding off a corps of attackers in the process. This was in no way aided by the continuous pressure put upon them by the British and their Allies.

Just one week later, when operation Market-Garden started, the Germans had regained so much of their former order of battle that they were able to cut the corridor several times and effectively counterattack each of the units dropped and moved forward by 30th Corps and 1st Allied Airborne Army. Do you know with what forces the Germans stopped Market Garden? Do you have any idea? Well, let me tell you then. They had one SS Panzer corps with a total of 9000 men left, practically without tanks and heavy equipment, to beat a British airborne division that outnumbered them. They had two bedraggled remians of infantry divisions from the 15th Army coming in from the West. And then there was the castal division and three Kampfgruppen of approximately regiment size. No other army could have done what they did with what they had.

I meant that they were quality-good, not morally good.

 

This is in the wrong thread, isn´t it ? :-?

As for the share of PzKpfw IIIs etc. in German Divisions on the Eastern Front in 1943 :

30% of the German tanks and self propelled guns available to the German unist involved in the Battle of Kursk ( July 1943 ) were PzKpfw IIIs, "short" PzKpfw IVs, Pz 38s and PzKpfw IIs. This is my calculation based on the tables on p.22 in "Kursk 1943" by Mark Healy. These tables are based on divisional strenght returns, but should not differ too much from actual strenght. I would like to underline a couple of points though : 1. The total includes Flammpanzers and the total amount of assault and self propelled guns deployed as well, disregarding type. So the percentage was most likely higher, allthough 30% allready represents a large amount ( at least to me ). 2. I think we can assume that the units present at the Battle of Kursk had a higher percentage of "modern" equipment than other units present on the Eastern Front.

I have made the assumption that, in spite of the high production numbers of "long" PzKpfw IVs and Panthers in 1943, the share of PzKpfw IIIs etc. in German units on the Eastern Front by the end of 1943 still were between 20-30%.

As for what the norm was :

"Russian Tanks of World War II" by Tim Bean and Will Fowler presents a table ( on p.171 ) which suggests that 8.9% of all Soviet tanks and self propelled guns knocked out by the 75mm gun during 1943/44 were knocked out at ranges 1000m or more. Likewise for the 88mm, 19.3% at ranges 1000m or more. They might have been engaged at ranges well beyond 1000m, but it is clearly suggested that the norm for successfully knocking out Soviet tanks were well within a range 1000m.

 

Skua,

Most of the Panzer IIIs and 'stub' Panzer IVs were destroyed through attrition in 1943. Very few were left in action by the end of 1943 and into 1944.

If we were talking about Kursk then you'd be right that Panzer III's were prevalent but I was specifically refering to the winter 1943/44 period so sorry for the confusion. This was a period where long range engagements were common.

The difference in German armour makeup from early to mid 1943 and late 1943/early 1944 is astonishing. The majority of German armour in winter 1943/44 would have been long barreled Panzer IVs and Stug IIIs with an increasing amount of Panthers and of couse other newer types of which there are too many to mention.

 

I guessed something, probably totally wrong, but here it goes: the Germans knew in 1943 that the "short" Panzer IV (I think those were models upto Panzer IV G) and the Panzer III were obsolete against the Russian tanks (specially the T-34 and KV), but, maybe I have bad tanks ready for battle, but that's what I've got, so I would rather send them to the battlefield than let them rust in an abandoned depot. Maybe they weren't supereffective, but everything helped. The Germans were very interested (almost desperated) in controlling the Eastern Front once more after the overwhelming defeat in Stalingrad (at least for me, it was overwhelming) so they threw everything they could against the Soviets.
By the way, I didn't read the asterisk, I'm sorry. Good luck!