Which was the better army in WW2-US Army or Wehrmacht?
-
The floor is open!
-
How do you define 'better'? Better weapons, tactics, successes, etc?
-
That's for whoever who wants to post here to define.After which hopefully,an engaging discussion will take place.Originally posted by fudgester:How do you define 'better'? Better weapons, tactics, successes, etc?
P.S:I am more of a sea lion and bird rather than a land rat.So I think I don't know as much as some forumites here.Nevertheless,I thought this would be an interesting topic for discussion. -
I'd say the Wehrmacht. Like now,I believe, the US is primarily is a naval power not really a land power.
-
All things being equal in WWII.
Wehrmacht are indeed better soldiers than any allied forces. Lead by competent Officers, Soldiers listens to orders, high degree of discipline and initiative. -
I agree with MobyDog.
The contributing factor I believe was that the Wehrmacht had a higher Officer and NCO to men ratio. -
So another question is,btw Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS which one is better army?
-
I'd take the Wermacht.The Waffen were a bunch of motivated thugs.Originally posted by liuzg150181:So another question is,btw Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS which one is better army? -
Wermac. Highly efficient..
-
Though within SS-Waffen there were also able commanders like Otto Skorzeny and Micheal Wittmann.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I'd take the Wermacht.The Waffen were a bunch of motivated thugs. -
I 'm kinda in agreement with this statement. The Waffen-SS win most of their battles through sheer fanaticism and reckless tactics. They win, but at a great cost.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I'd take the Wermacht.The Waffen were a bunch of motivated thugs.
However, since they are the most politically reliable troops in the German armed forces, they tend to get the best equipment first. -
Wehrmacht, I say. They were better-trained and more disciplined than the Yanks.
They were done in only by the utter stupidity of Hitler himself. That upstart corporal let his ego get in the way of decision-making. Attacking Russia created the suicidal two-front war he was so desperate to avoid. Declaring war on the Yanks (when he didn't actually have to) was the carving on his tombstone. -
Wermacht - Technologically Advanced
Air
- Me262
- Me263
- Fw190
Land
- Tiger
- Tiger II
- Panther
- 128mm Flak40
- 128mm Pak44
- PanzerFaust
USA - Mostly Numerical Superiority
Air
- P-51
- P-47
- B-17 (Thousand bomber sortie)
Land
- Sherman M4A3 (6 tanks to 1 panther)
- 90mm M1
- 76.2mm M5
- M1A1 60mm Bazooka -
How about a comparison in terms of leadership at the staff,junior officer and NCO levels?
-
btw Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS.
It depends before or after 1943, The SS are elite troops with ultra fanatic political loyalty, but after 1943 abide Russian front, they started to include all other scums from the occupied Lands.
How about a comparison in terms of leadership at the staff,junior officer and NCO levels?
Well, the whole german army are war veterans, while the US army are "green".
The German rank discipline, in my opinion, does not defer much from the Japs, an Imperial model, their respect and obedience to their superiors are curved in stone. But each soldier are able to conduct on their own, without much supervision... there their NCO ranks shows, they also react decisively to tactical considerations, without compromising orders (as best).
If each germans are equip with SLR, have enough fuel ( the main cause of lack of air cover, and armour ), no Hitler's meddling ( the main cause of defeat ) and that Germany starts their War production level before 1943. History will be very different. -
It may not be fair to compare between the US and the Wehrmacht as their military doctrine is rather different. US tend to be more material and logistic inclined compared to the German(hence its ability for certain division to stay in the fight even when its losses are pretty heavy) while the German stressed on tactical skill and initiative of officer and men, hence breeding many talented officer using unconventional tactics and organisation, eg Panzer division and adoption of Battle Group. In fact, some say that early formation of Israel army is based on the German model
However, towards the end of the war, US troops have also improved dramatically while the quality of German troops is on the decline with the exception of Waffen SS. Individual US division like the 101 Division did perform very well in adverse condition too. But admiration should be given to the German soldiers who show tenacity in the long fight
Between Waffen SS and Wehrmacht, in terms of leaders, Waffen SS does have it share of brilliant tactical leaders who employed daring and unconventional tactics and equipment(SS invented camouflage uniform for helmets, bagpack and rilfe), coupled with the bravery and ferocity of SS troopers. They perform much better compared to the Wehrmacht especially in the late stage... However, there is doubt on their style of their fighting by senior general in Wehrmacht, especially with the high casualty rate SS usually suffered. Also as SS expand itself, not all the newer SS division are actually on par with older established one. It is hard to compare the contribution between Waffen SS and Wehrmacht.... However, I must say Waffen SS probably inspired more fear to the enemy it faced compared to the normal Wehrmacht unit -
The SS suffered a higher casualty rate because they usually ended up getting all the tougher missions. And were used without much regard to their lives.Originally posted by Ritterkreuz:It may not be fair to compare between the US and the Wehrmacht as their military doctrine is rather different. US tend to be more material and logistic inclined compared to the German(hence its ability for certain division to stay in the fight even when its losses are pretty heavy) while the German stressed on tactical skill and initiative of officer and men, hence breeding many talented officer using unconventional tactics and organisation, eg Panzer division and adoption of Battle Group. In fact, some say that early formation of Israel army is based on the German model
However, towards the end of the war, US troops have also improved dramatically while the quality of German troops is on the decline with the exception of Waffen SS. Individual US division like the 101 Division did perform very well in adverse condition too. But admiration should be given to the German soldiers who show tenacity in the long fight
Between Waffen SS and Wehrmacht, in terms of leaders, Waffen SS does have it share of brilliant tactical leaders who employed daring and unconventional tactics and equipment(SS invented camouflage uniform for helmets, bagpack and rilfe), coupled with the bravery and ferocity of SS troopers. They perform much better compared to the Wehrmacht especially in the late stage... However, there is doubt on their style of their fighting by senior general in Wehrmacht, especially with the high casualty rate SS usually suffered. Also as SS expand itself, not all the newer SS division are actually on par with older established one. It is hard to compare the contribution between Waffen SS and Wehrmacht.... However, I must say Waffen SS probably inspired more fear to the enemy it faced compared to the normal Wehrmacht unit
The SS were generally better because they were an elite formation who got the better men,pick of equipment and commanders.
However most of the commanders in the SS especially it's upper staff officers were pretty much choosen for their political loyalty rather then anything else. (Himmler comes to mind).
And over all while the fought differently, the Wehrmacht was way better in terms of ability. However the US simply won by sheer weight of numbers in air power and overall firepower!!! -
Actually, you know, sometimes I wonder how it felt to be in position in a fire fight. Where my squad is only armed with a 5 shot bolt action rifle K98, while my opponents are all armed with 8 round M1 garand semi auto Rifle.
-
Rather than comment directly on a topic which I have no first-hand knowledge of....
I quote from a synopsis by The Washington Post's Book World of a work called "Armageddon - The Battle for Germany 1944-45" by Max Hastings...
Quotes from synopsis
"Hastings, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, has a low opinion of the U.S. and British strategy and conduct of the war. He concedes that not much could have been done to prevent Stalin's takeover of Eastern Europe but laments the lack of energy displayed by American and British soldiers. Hastings argues that the Anglo-Americans -- with a few outstanding exceptions, including some elite units -- were poorly trained, lacking in motivation and led by generals who were mediocre or, at best, competent but unimaginative. Better leadership from such generals as Montgomery and Eisenhower and less cautious troops would have prevented the disasters of the Battle of Arnhem (where Montgomery launched an extraordinarily badly planned attempt to end the war by grabbing bridges on the Rhine) and the Battle of the Bulge (where Eisenhower failed to destroy the reeling Wehrmacht before it had time to regroup); it also might have spared many lives by ending the war in 1944.
Indeed, without the Soviets' immense sacrifices, the Americans and the British would have never defeated Nazi Germany. But the Red Army's far superior fighting power and generalship went hand-in-hand with extraordinary brutality toward its own troops, as well as against enemy soldiers and civilians. Hence Hastings's admiration for the Soviets' military accomplishments is tinged with his contempt for Stalin's policies and for his soldiers' innumerable crimes.
Hastings has no doubt that the best army of World War II was the Wehrmacht, which displayed outstanding professionalism and determination even in the final weeks. Awareness of the atrocities committed by Hitler's soldiers has hardly diminished the admiration of many military historians, professional soldiers and military history buffs for this seemingly perfect tool of war. This fascination with the Wehrmacht has a long tradition, going back to the influential British military historian and theorist Basil Liddell Hart's flattering 1948 portrait of Hitler's generals, which conveniently left out their crucial role as instruments of conquest, enslavement and genocide. This view is rooted in a depoliticized understanding of German soldiers that dismisses their ideological motivations and seeks to attribute their performance to skills or organization that could also be acquired by the armies of the democracies.
Hastings does acknowledge the fanatic resistance of hopeless foreign SS men and deeply indoctrinated Hitler Youth teenagers. He concludes that the democracies' less effective armies (and heavy reliance on industrial might) was the flip side of their soldiers' greater humanity, despite the unavoidable excesses by some men and the unnecessary destruction of German cities toward the end of the war. But such humanism was, of course, facilitated by what Hastings sees as a pact with the devil; the Anglo-Americans could fight a relatively moral war only thanks to the Soviet Union's terrible sacrifice and subsequent vengeance. This is, at best, qualified morality." -
I dunno how he can interprete until so drama.
All i can see is that there Germans were better at fighting Defensive battles. -
Your comment already acknowledges that they're better!...
because defensive battles are the hardest to fight when there's limited resources to fight against the attacker!...
Anyway, note the last para of the comment.... It's all a matter of what you define by "better"... this topic is too loosely defined in the first place...
If:
Fighting tactical skills & competency - German
Fighting strategy & generals - German
Technology & Equipment Quality (Armor) - German
But if:
Morality - Not German!
Logistics - Not German!
But overall which Army is better... that is... IF both resourced to similar levels (exclude for air, naval support)... which will win over the other... then the answer is obvious! -
Uh,i am a bit slow here,who is so drama?Originally posted by Shotgun:I dunno how he can interprete until so drama.
So example that Germans were better at fighting Defensive battles?
All i can see is that there Germans were better at fighting Defensive battles. -
Depends on which timeline you are talking about,ironically despite Wehrmacht being aligned to 'Blitzkrieg'(armoured warfare) in many people's mind,Wehrmacht in reality had quite few tanks and mechanized/motorized infantry,thus its main composition is actually foot-borne infantry,and horses were still being used.Originally posted by jackryan888:Technology & Equipment Quality (Armor) - German
The low percentage of tanks and mechanized/motorized infantry in the German land forces were partly due to Nazi Germany's reluctance to wage a 'Total War'-one that fully utilizes every manpower and material for war effort. Also note that the generals of the Wehrmacht prior to th war were so conservative that they refused to believe in tank warfares,though it was pretty typical in many part of Europe.
Also early in the war German tanks lacked firepower and armour protection,in fact prior to Operation Barbarossa when the Soviet generals were shown by the Germans the best tanks they had durnig an exchange,the Soviet generals looked in disbelieve and thought that the Germans were hiding some secret weapon as something as such.
-
To expand alittleOriginally posted by liuzg150181:Depends on which timeline you are talking about,ironically despite Wehrmacht being aligned to 'Blitzkrieg'(armoured warfare) in many people's mind,Wehrmacht in reality had quite few tanks and mechanized/motorized infantry,thus its main composition is actually foot-borne infantry,and horses were still being used.
The low percentage of tanks and mechanized/motorized infantry in the German land forces were partly due to Nazi Germany's reluctance to wage a 'Total War'-one that fully utilizes every manpower and material for war effort. Also note that the generals of the Wehrmacht prior to th war were so conservative that they refused to believe in tank warfares,though it was pretty typical in many part of Europe.
Also early in the war German tanks lacked firepower and armour protection,in fact prior to Operation Barbarossa when the Soviet generals were shown by the Germans the best tanks they had durnig an exchange,the Soviet generals looked in disbelieve and thought that the Germans were hiding some secret weapon as something as such.
When invading Poland, the main German tank was the PzI and the PzII. With the PzII using a 25mm twin cannon and 1 machine gun.
When invading France, contray to popular believe, the French had MORE tanks and BETTER tanks. The Char B1 and Renualts being better then the PzI and PzII as well as the newer PzIII which had a 35mm gun if i recall correctly.
Heck up till late 1942 or early 1943 the German main battle tank the PzIV had a 75mm gun that was bloody terrible. Being very very short.
Ok well the K98 and the M1 were vastly different rifles. And well the base composition of each respective units were different. Each weapon had it's pro and con so i dont think u can compare them like that. -
tactics, weapons, training and equipment-wise, wehrmacht.Originally posted by Marco_Simone:The floor is open!
but their logistics were sorely lacking. and as the war went on, the level of training deceased as the need for more soldiers to replace those injured or killed over-rode the time needed for training.