Which was the better army in WW2-US Army or Wehrmacht?
-
actually, the waffen-SS were proper commandos. The problem is, people often mix the SS up with the concentration camp guards, who WERE a bunch of thugs.Originally posted by LazerLordz:I'd take the Wermacht.The Waffen were a bunch of motivated thugs.
In all honesty, the SS were a group of highly disciplined, trained, and motiveted soldiers. I've met a Brti WW2 war vet who was in that armoured column that Michael Wittmann destroyed single-handedly.
Anyways I reckon this is a good question to ask my younger brother. He has a deep interest in WW2 Nazi military structure and history. -
hard choice. but generally in my opinion, Wehrmacht was the better army up till about the final year of the war.
much of the veterans germans soldiers who perform so well in battle all over europe would have been kills in either europe or russians. this is clearly so in the battle of the bulge that dispite having outnos superiority they fail to gain bastogne. part of the reason was probably down to the inexperience of junior NCOs, officiers and soldiers who were newly drafted to replenish soldiers who had die either in russia , africa or europe.
Americans won in the efficiency of the logistics, manufacturing outnos the germans in every aspect -
US production of the Sherman tank alone outstripped the entire tank production numbers of Nazi Germany in WW2
-
Panzer II has 20mm cannon. Early Panzer III marks use 37mm. The Panzer IV has short 75mm as its original function is to support the 'anti-tank' Panzer III.Originally posted by |-|05|:To expand alittle
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.
With the increase in armor strength, the Panzer III was upgunned to 50mm and the Panzer IV has longer 75mm gun (to increase muzzle velocity = better armor penetration). The original 75mm can pierce armor but not very well. The Char B1 can only be destroyed by the 88mm AA gun.
The French and BEF do have more tanks and some of their tanks (on papr at least) are better such as the Somua S35, Char B1 and the Matilda. However they are scattered all around the front and not used en masse like the Germans. This dilution of strength cost the Allies dearly. -
The main thrust of Operation Wact am Rhein was entrusted to the elite and hardly inexperienced 6th SS-Panzer Army, consisting of the creme de la creme of the Waffen-SS : the 1st SS-Panzer Division 'Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler', 2nd SS-Panzer Division 'Das Reich', 9th SS-Panzer Division 'Hohenstaufen' and the 12th SS-Panzer Division 'Hitlerjugend'Originally posted by reyes:hard choice. but generally in my opinion, Wehrmacht was the better army up till about the final year of the war.
much of the veterans germans soldiers who perform so well in battle all over europe would have been kills in either europe or russians. this is clearly so in the battle of the bulge that dispite having outnos superiority they fail to gain bastogne. part of the reason was probably down to the inexperience of junior NCOs, officiers and soldiers who were newly drafted to replenish soldiers who had die either in russia , africa or europe.
Americans won in the efficiency of the logistics, manufacturing outnos the germans in every aspect -
Actually the battle of gembloux gap saw the French calvary corp (comprised of mechanised units and tanks) force the German 3rd and 4th armored division into retreat. So it was not true that they were not used en masse.Originally posted by khyron1:Panzer II has 20mm cannon. Early Panzer III marks use 37mm. The Panzer IV has short 75mm as its original function is to support the 'anti-tank' Panzer III.
With the increase in armor strength, the Panzer III was upgunned to 50mm and the Panzer IV has longer 75mm gun (to increase muzzle velocity = better armor penetration). The original 75mm can pierce armor but not very well. The Char B1 can only be destroyed by the 88mm AA gun.
The French and BEF do have more tanks and some of their tanks (on papr at least) are better such as the Somua S35, Char B1 and the Matilda. However they are scattered all around the front and not used en masse like the Germans. This dilution of strength cost the Allies dearly.
Though majority of the damage was probably done by french artillery. -
Well, using massed armor once in a while is not really en masse in my book...
-
The 'classic' Waffen-SS divisions - the creme of the crop (bear in mind that some have their own record of atrocities but mostly remembered for their combat record)Originally posted by HENG@:actually, the waffen-SS were proper commandos. The problem is, people often mix the SS up with the concentration camp guards, who WERE a bunch of thugs.
In all honesty, the SS were a group of highly disciplined, trained, and motiveted soldiers. I've met a Brti WW2 war vet who was in that armoured column that Michael Wittmann destroyed single-handedly.
1st SS-Panzer Division 'Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler'
2nd SS-Panzer Division 'Das Reich'
3rd SS-Panzer Division 'Totenkopf'
5th SS-Panzer Division 'Wiking'
9th SS-Panzer Division 'Hohenstaufen'
10th SS-Panzer Division 'Frundsberg'
12th SS-Panzer Division 'Hitlerjugend'
The bad, rotten apple of the Waffen-SS
3rd SS-Panzer Division 'Totenkopf' - many of the soldiers in this division serve as camp guards when convalescing from frontline combat and carried their gruesome reputation to the battlefield
13th Waffen-Gebirgs Division der SS 'Handschar' (kroatische Nr.1)
14th Waffen-Gebirgs Division der SS (Ukrainische Nr.1)
21th SS Waffen-Gebirgs Division der SS 'Skanderbeg' (albanische Nr. 1)
23rd Waffen-Gebirgs Division der SS 'Kama' (kroatische Nr. 2)
29th Waffen-Grenadier Division der SS (russische Nr.1) - previously known as Kaminski Brigade
36th Waffen-Grenadier Division der SS - previously known as Dirlewanger Brigade -
http://www.axishistory.com/
Website on the German military during world war 2. Information on major units, Orbats, campaigns/ops, uniforms, etc, etc. -
Agree that their higher casualty could be due to the difficult mission they draw. However, there is often situation where they could prevail with tactical withdrawal to reduce lost but they choose not to and hold ground.... Most of the upper echelon leaders in SS are probably chosen based on loyalty but this is probably not the case for the officer in its combat arm... like Paul Hausser, Sepp Dietrich and Felix Steiner...Interestingly, SS leaders seem to excel very much in tactical operation than strategy than their regular army counterpart... probably with the exception of Dessert FoxOriginally posted by |-|05|: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.
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!!! -
Yep my bad sorry. Was trying to do it all from memory and well guess i remembered some wronglyOriginally posted by khyron1:Panzer II has 20mm cannon. Early Panzer III marks use 37mm. The Panzer IV has short 75mm as its original function is to support the 'anti-tank' Panzer III.
With the increase in armor strength, the Panzer III was upgunned to 50mm and the Panzer IV has longer 75mm gun (to increase muzzle velocity = better armor penetration). The original 75mm can pierce armor but not very well. The Char B1 can only be destroyed by the 88mm AA gun.
The French and BEF do have more tanks and some of their tanks (on papr at least) are better such as the Somua S35, Char B1 and the Matilda. However they are scattered all around the front and not used en masse like the Germans. This dilution of strength cost the Allies dearly.
Oh another thing though, the German tanks had a huge advantage over the early French and British tanks in the design and operation. The German tanks had a crew of 4. A driver, Gunner,Loader and Commander. The French had 3 man tanks. Driver,Loader and Commander/Gunner.(Not sure if the comannder or loader doubled as the Commander. But from what i can recall, it's this way)
So while the German tank gunner could shoot while his commander picked a new target and manned the radio, the french had to shoot, pick target,shoot.
Meaning the Germans could effectively keep a shooting as long as there were targets, the French had to Shoot and then pick a new target then shoot again. Add that do the fact that the commander had to man the radio too, meant that the French tanks were usually very overwhelmed.Agree that their higher casualty could be due to the difficult mission they draw. However, there is often situation where they could prevail with tactical withdrawal to reduce lost but they choose not to and hold ground.... Most of the upper echelon leaders in SS are probably chosen based on loyalty but this is probably not the case for the officer in its combat arm... like Paul Hausser, Sepp Dietrich and Felix Steiner...Interestingly, SS leaders seem to excel very much in tactical operation than strategy than their regular army counterpart... probably with the exception of Dessert Fox
Agreed that some were good. However I believe alot of them were drawn from the wehrmacht themselves. Well apart frm Sepp Dietrich who was leader of the LAH since forever haha.
There have been times soldiers were choosen because they were loyal. Like Himmler who was put incharge of the SS army even though he was more a politician then a general. Heck Paulus was put in-charge of 6th Army was more with his political loyalties then his skills. Most of the more brash panzer commanders infact lost their commissions because they were not so politically relieable. Hence retreated when it was better unlike the SS units who held on because Hitler said so heh.
Btw i dont think Rommel was part of the waffen SS. Or even commanded them. He never had any while in Afarica.And they werent under his direct command in Normandy. -
Agree that their higher casualty could be due to the difficult mission they draw. However, there is often situation where they could prevail with tactical withdrawal to reduce lost but they choose not to and hold ground.... Most of the upper echelon leaders in SS are probably chosen based on loyalty but this is probably not the case for the officer in its combat arm... like Paul Hausser, Sepp Dietrich and Felix Steiner...Interestingly, SS leaders seem to excel very much in tactical operation than strategy than their regular army counterpart... probably with the exception of Dessert Fox
hi,
Meant to say that probably Rommel is the more notable leader whose style is similar to the SS officers.... Also I would consider Paul Hausser and Felix Steiner to be more of SS than regular army as they have volunteer their services way before the SS became a credible armed forces in the 30s...
Someone gave once a nice summary of why French lost in the 1940s....
"The French were ready to fight WWI all over again with the use of modern technology; the Germans were ready to fight a new war in a new way with modern technology" -
who is this Felix Steiner ?
Well i think Kurt "Panzer" Meyer is pretty damn good too. -
Felix Steiner is at one point of time the commander of the Wikings DivisionOriginally posted by |-|05|:who is this Felix Steiner ?
Well i think Kurt "Panzer" Meyer is pretty damn good too. -
Oh 5th SS er? ok...dint know that. Other then the LAH,Das Reich and HJ i hardly know the histroy of the other SS divs
-
You guys read this book before? Worth checking out if you wish to explore the thread question.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806136057/ref=pd_cmp_rvi_1_i/102-2514352-6399338?n=283155
-
Actually the french lost cos they panicked thought that they lost the war before they actually did. And the brits, hearing how the french panicked, panicked too and began to evacuate, leaving numerous fighting vehicles and AT guns behind. .Originally posted by Ritterkreuz:Agree that their higher casualty could be due to the difficult mission they draw. However, there is often situation where they could prevail with tactical withdrawal to reduce lost but they choose not to and hold ground.... Most of the upper echelon leaders in SS are probably chosen based on loyalty but this is probably not the case for the officer in its combat arm... like Paul Hausser, Sepp Dietrich and Felix Steiner...Interestingly, SS leaders seem to excel very much in tactical operation than strategy than their regular army counterpart... probably with the exception of Dessert Fox
hi,
Meant to say that probably Rommel is the more notable leader whose style is similar to the SS officers.... Also I would consider Paul Hausser and Felix Steiner to be more of SS than regular army as they have volunteer their services way before the SS became a credible armed forces in the 30s...
Someone gave once a nice summary of why French lost in the 1940s....
"The French were ready to fight WWI all over again with the use of modern technology; the Germans were ready to fight a new war in a new way with modern technology"
If the french leadership had a more intense resolve to fight to the finish, the British might have stayed and a combined French and British troop would have been able to repel the Germans. The war would have been over much earlier too. -
I would rather think otherwise cos after the German initial success in the Ardennes, the Allied forces would be really hard pressed to put up a new credible defence line. Coupled with the poorer organisation, doctrine, morale and training... any further resistance would probably increase the casualty on the German side but perhaps would not really change the course of the warOriginally posted by Shotgun:Actually the french lost cos they panicked thought that they lost the war before they actually did. And the brits, hearing how the french panicked, panicked too and began to evacuate, leaving numerous fighting vehicles and AT guns behind. .
If the french leadership had a more intense resolve to fight to the finish, the British might have stayed and a combined French and British troop would have been able to repel the Germans. The war would have been over much earlier too. -
I would disagree. The British soldier/army at that time was recognised by the known world to be a expert fighting force. British troops with their tanks and equipment would have made fighting much too costly for the Germans.
Neither was the French and Belgian air force push overs. All in all, the French, Belgian and Brits could be considered to be very well equipped. The Germans had not gone up against a similarly well equipped and determined foe with their "new" Blitzkrieg doctrine until the end of the war.
If the French alone could have held back 2 German armored divisions, and had an opportunity to counter-attack ( though spurned, what can I? Its the french after all), a combined force of the British and the French would definitely be more than a match for Hitler. -
It's the lack of an Army Central Planning Staff. This lead to tons of mis communications and the lack of a plan.
-
It seems more like the allies were either reluctant or unprepared to confront the germans, aptly demonstrated by Chamberlain's appeasement policy. And the fact that they let Germany break the Treaty of Versailles without any consequence.
-
germans have thisOriginally posted by MobyDog: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.
some say it might still be one of the best MG around today
-
Hmm... just to confirm... is that the MG-42?Originally posted by 12qwaszx:germans have this
some say it might still be one of the best MG around today
The MG-42 is stuff of legends... one of the first and the best GPMGs. Many of the current GPMGs you see today are based on it. Not that the weapons designers are lazy, but they simply can't really do much to improve upon its design. -
yeap
it's THE MG42 -
Would you like to elaborate which battlefield and which 2 German armored divisions you are referring to?Originally posted by Shotgun:I would disagree. The British soldier/army at that time was recognised by the known world to be a expert fighting force. British troops with their tanks and equipment would have made fighting much too costly for the Germans.[/quote]
If you are referring to the period when Germany invaded Poland on Sept 1939 then i would agree,but if it is May 1940 you are talking about it is another story.
Uh,where's the Soviets?
Neither was the French and Belgian air force push overs. All in all, the French, Belgian and Brits could be considered to be very well equipped. The Germans had not gone up against a similarly well equipped and determined foe with their "new" Blitzkrieg doctrine until the end of the war.
[quote]
If the French alone could have held back 2 German armored divisions, and had an opportunity to counter-attack ( though spurned, what can I? Its the french after all), a combined force of the British and the French would definitely be more than a match for Hitler.
Again,if you are referring to the period prior to May 1940 i would agree,but how is the above relevant by May 1940,when the Germans invaded and Churchill became the Prime Minister?Originally posted by Shotgun:It seems more like the allies were either reluctant or unprepared to confront the germans, aptly demonstrated by Chamberlain's appeasement policy. And the fact that they let Germany break the Treaty of Versailles without any consequence.