Who was more effective against Germany, Western Front or Eastern Front?

I was under the impression that the Normandy campaign inflicted 300,000 (German records) up to 400,000 (including 200,000 prisoners).

 

I do not think this can be answered because the cream of the German divisions were lost through the grind of the Eastern Front. By the time the Allies made an impactful contribution (D-Day), the German division were shadows of what they were. The Italian campaign was second rate and the allies were being held in check successfully.

So it is difficult to measure due to the circumstances. The Russians did a down right fine job grinding down the German Army but at a very high price. The Western allies used a surgical type of strategy conducting campaigns that would reap great results with minimal losses. Putting them against a Germany Wehrmacht (land and air) with the quality and size of 41'/42' would be interesting.

 

I always thought this, too. Have a wargame between Allied forces 1944-1945 vs. German Armed forces 1941-1942 but with 1944-1945 era weaponry equipped on both sides. I would imagine that the German military would be far more motorized and have far more fuel reserves due to a longer military buildup.

 

The Russian Front was a significant drain on the Geman resources and the Western allies in my opinion have many thanks owed to the Russians. Consider the West having to face the whole of the Wehrmacht.

 

It's not even close. The Soviets won the war in Europe. We were losing the Battle of the Bulge until the allies convinced the Soviets to begin a offensive to relieve the pressure in the West. The world owes much to the Soviet soldier of WW2.

 

The Soviets might have beaten down the Germans but, in terms of effectiveness, they don't hold a match to the Western Allies. Man for man, unit for unit the Red Army was far worse in effectiveness than the British or Americans. It took them nearly 3 years of hard and very costly fighting to even reach a level of effectiveness that was close to now beated down Germans.

This isn't to belittle the Soviets or Russian people. It is simply a matter of the lack of technology in appropriate quantities, a population base that had the education and social background to use it, and the desperation of the times for them that forced poor choices on the Red Army. These in turn led to millions dying being traded for the orgainzational and technological advantages the Germans possessed.

 

By the time Americans and British arrived the Nazi forces were a shadow of their 1941 selves. Their best had already been killed and replaced by children and old men. You make valid points but the fact of the matter is America and Britian did not face the quality of the Nazis that the Russians had faced. It's not even close.

 

Actually, you don't see the tremendous drop in German quality, manpower-wise, until after the summer of 1944. The Germans in 1941 may have had some slight degree of manpower quality edge over what they had 2 years later but it certainly wasn't overwhelming. Their degree of material superiority was also no better and likely in many areas worse.
For example, the Germans invaded Russia with a combination of Pz II, III, IV and Czech 35 and 38t tanks. Motorization was always a problem for the Germans too.

The point here is that the Russians got better and the Germans slowly declined but not significantly until after Kursk, Salerno, and the fall of North Africa. Note that the last was a disaster on the scale of Stalingrad in terms of the troops that were captured.

While North Africa up to Alamein remained a side show for the Axis, it should be pointed out that the British / Commonwealth fighting with only a slight material edge much of the time eventually did build up their strength and defeat the Germans there and not once, but effectively, three times. First, at the first siege of Tobruk, Next, at Alamein. And then finially in Tunsia with US help.

German manpower really didn't hit rock bottom until the dual disasters of Falaise and Bagration in the Summer of 1944. After those two massive surrenders the Germans were left scrapping the bottom of the barrel, not before.
It should also be noted that the Western Allies kept between a quarter and a third of all German mechanized / motorized forces tied up in other theaters than the Eastern Front. It was these divisions that would win or lose the war for Germany and that proportion is not insignificant.

One can add to that that the bulk of the Luftwaffe was also not sent to the East. Most of the German's air power remained in the West or Med throughout the war. The Red Air Force simply didn't pose near the threat the Western ones did.

That is why I come back to saying that the Russians did most of the dying but, unit for unit they were nowhere near as efficent or effective as the Western Allies were. It was only in sheer numbers that their real advantage lay.

 

350,000 dead, wounded and captured. Some 200,000 more bottled up in coastal fortresses such as Brest under "stand fast" orders. They made no further contribution to the war except denying the allies the use of the ports.

 

Wasn't 1944 the year the USA and Britian really became involved in major ground warfare in Europe?

 

I remember reading that the Germans themselves felt that their offensive capabilities were severely weakened by as early as Moscow. Some 1/3rd of German officers and NCOs in the Heer perished by the conclusion of the Soviet counteroffensive. These men were completely irreplaceable, the cream, and with the Army in training and had accumulated combat experience in 1939-1941.

The Germans were then hit very hard at the conclusion of Stalingrad 1943 which heighted losses and lowered personnel quality (totales krieg).

But Post Kursk was when German personnel quality took a very steep dive. Training for new troops was cut drastically and new formations were generally composed of a veteran core leading a green and hastily trained body of troops.

By the conclusion of Normandy and Bagration 1944, the German Army took it's greatest and most massive dive in quality. The Officer and NCO core in new units of this period were usually greatly understrength and the new body of troops were generally nearly untrained.

I would say that the German forces were pretty good in 1939-1942. Afterwards, their formations were mostly undertrained.

 

No

 

When did the heavy divisions arrive then? I thought it was D Day.

 

Italy and North Africa came before.

 

And while North Africa is not part of Europe, Italy clearly is.

 

Let us not forget the Brits in France 1940

 

perhaps however the germans had a large concentration of elite and panzer forces in normandy and most of them were being destroyed in a battle of attrition with the british/canadians around caen ...

 

and i was labouring under the illusion that the luftwaffe lost a large number of experience irreplacable personell in the bob ... must be british propaganda i guess ..

 

what are you raving about ??????

 

I have never developed the impression that the increase in Soviet pressure in the Ardennes offensive changed the outcome of the Bulge battle.

I do not recall German volksgrenadier, Fallschirmjager, or Panzer divisions being withdrawn from the Ardennes and transported by rail to the East.