Why was the Wehrmacht so superior?

[Riddlez]

I just have to make a remark on Rommel again.

It was Rommel who requested that the coast off normandy would be strengthened, Hitler, obviously, denied that, and chose to fortify Denmark even more.

If Hitler would have listened to Rommel and make the French coast stronger, and th allies would still have landed there, Omaha would most likely have been to least well defended beach.

Otherwise, they would have landed somewhere further away, which meant the Germans would have had more time to reinforce the coast. Also, if crossing the English channel meant losing all their tanks, what do you propose they would have been able to land, say, on the coast of denmark?

[Augy]

Vikings

[Archduke Sven]

I just have to make a remark on Rommel again.

It was Rommel who requested that the coast off normandy would be strengthened, Hitler, obviously, denied that, and chose to fortify Denmark even more.

If Hitler would have listened to Rommel and make the French coast stronger, and th allies would still have landed there, Omaha would most likely have been to least well defended beach.

Otherwise, they would have landed somewhere further away, which meant the Germans would have had more time to reinforce the coast. Also, if crossing the English channel meant losing all their tanks, what do you propose they would have been able to land, say, on the coast of denmark?

Maybe i'm just really tired but i don't quite understand what you are asking.

[Prince_Eugen]

Would you care to give us a great detail of this "inferior" Soviet doctrine?

One example of this is how Soviet divisions would attack. They used 2 infantry regiments up front and then a third far behind in support to exploit breakthroughs or fill gaps. This meant that the Soviets attacked with only 2/3s of their force, thus they attacked piecemeal, they only amended this much later in the war.

My deer friend. The thing you wrote is the defence tactics.

And lets go to the offensive tactics:
The Red Army in 1943 used such offensive tactics. Yes you wrote a bit right, but there's some differences (not a regiments - divisions)
1st. They mostly attacked following the fire support of artillery, tanks and aviation. Which greatly increasing the penetration value of such offensives.
2nd. The forces of thrid division werent so far like you said.
3rd. Beginning from July 1943 RA implemented tactics of reconnaissance with the vanguard forces to concentrate the firepower of the most defended places.

Examples of major offensives and loses.

Bellorussian offensive:
USSR:
178.507 killed
587.308 wounded

Germany:
near 381.000 killed
nearly 170-180 thousands wounded
160-170 thousands pow

Lvov-Sandomir operation

USSR:
65.001 killed
225 thousands wounded

Germany:
360 thousands killed
140 thousands wounded
32.360 pow

Polish offensive operation

USSR:
43.251 killed
115.783 wounded

Germany:
150 thousands pow

The Red Army broke through the german defences like knife through the butter in that operations.

[Turin Turambar]

I don't think you can tell the strategic sucess by showing the losses on both sides.
Look at Stalingrad.

Germany
Dead: 150.000

Bolsheviks
Dead: 500.000

[Archduke Sven]

Spoiler

Would you care to give us a great detail of this "inferior" Soviet doctrine?

One example of this is how Soviet divisions would attack. They used 2 infantry regiments up front and then a third far behind in support to exploit breakthroughs or fill gaps. This meant that the Soviets attacked with only 2/3s of their force, thus they attacked piecemeal, they only amended this much later in the war.

My deer friend. The thing you wrote is the defence tactics.

And lets go to the offensive tactics:
The Red Army in 1943 used such offensive tactics. Yes you wrote a bit right, but there's some differences (not a regiments - divisions)
1st. They mostly attacked following the fire support of artillery, tanks and aviation. Which greatly increasing the penetration value of such offensives.
2nd. The forces of thrid division werent so far like you said.
3rd. Beginning from July 1943 RA implemented tactics of reconnaissance with the vanguard forces to concentrate the firepower of the most defended places.

Examples of major offensives and loses.

Bellorussian offensive:
USSR:
178.507 killed
587.308 wounded

Germany:
near 381.000 killed
nearly 170-180 thousands wounded
160-170 thousands pow

Lvov-Sandomir operation

USSR:
65.001 killed
225 thousands wounded

Germany:
360 thousands killed
140 thousands wounded
32.360 pow

Polish offensive operation

USSR:
43.251 killed
115.783 wounded

Germany:
150 thousands pow

The Red Army broke through the german defences like knife through the butter in that operations.

[close]

Unfortunatly you're using Soviet sources of casualties, the German ones claim that 60 000 soldiers were dead, wounded, missing. Being, me, i trust the German ones more, and you probably trust the Soviet ones. It's kind of useless if we butt head with eachother. I know you know a lot more about the Red Army than i do, and i respect that.

also

My deer friend.

Spoiler

[close]

[Wismar]

Russians have always gone for quantity before quality

[Desert Thunda]

Russians have always gone for quantity before quality

Yes yes and they never used tactics to fight infact they charged in without thinking with no rifles because they couldn't supply the men yes yes same old story.

[Prince_Eugen]

I don't think you can tell the strategic sucess by showing the losses on both sides.
Look at Stalingrad.

Germany
Dead: 150.000

Bolsheviks
Dead: 500.000

Spoiler

Would you care to give us a great detail of this "inferior" Soviet doctrine?

One example of this is how Soviet divisions would attack. They used 2 infantry regiments up front and then a third far behind in support to exploit breakthroughs or fill gaps. This meant that the Soviets attacked with only 2/3s of their force, thus they attacked piecemeal, they only amended this much later in the war.

My deer friend. The thing you wrote is the defence tactics.

And lets go to the offensive tactics:
The Red Army in 1943 used such offensive tactics. Yes you wrote a bit right, but there's some differences (not a regiments - divisions)
1st. They mostly attacked following the fire support of artillery, tanks and aviation. Which greatly increasing the penetration value of such offensives.
2nd. The forces of thrid division werent so far like you said.
3rd. Beginning from July 1943 RA implemented tactics of reconnaissance with the vanguard forces to concentrate the firepower of the most defended places.

Examples of major offensives and loses.

Bellorussian offensive:
USSR:
178.507 killed
587.308 wounded

Germany:
near 381.000 killed
nearly 170-180 thousands wounded
160-170 thousands pow

Lvov-Sandomir operation

USSR:
65.001 killed
225 thousands wounded

Germany:
360 thousands killed
140 thousands wounded
32.360 pow

Polish offensive operation

USSR:
43.251 killed
115.783 wounded

Germany:
150 thousands pow

The Red Army broke through the german defences like knife through the butter in that operations.

[close]

Unfortunatly you're using Soviet sources of casualties, the German ones claim that 60 000 soldiers were dead, wounded, missing. Being, me, i trust the German ones more, and you probably trust the Soviet ones. It's kind of useless if we butt head with eachother. I know you know a lot more about the Red Army than i do, and i respect that.

If i'll use the Nazi sources i'll become a nazi, then i'll believe that USSR attacked harmless Germany and will fall before the portait of Hitler with tears and praising to save me from bolsheviks.
But on topic, i'm using ones that i have.

[Prince_Eugen]

I don't think you can tell the strategic sucess by showing the losses on both sides.
Look at Stalingrad.

Germany
Dead: 150.000

Bolsheviks
Dead: 500.000

Okay then.
1.130.780 USSR (including wounded)
near 860 000 Germany (including wounded)
near 250 000 pow

Sven, i believe he used the other sources?

[Archduke Sven]

I don't think you can tell the strategic sucess by showing the losses on both sides.
Look at Stalingrad.

Germany
Dead: 150.000

Bolsheviks
Dead: 500.000

Okay then.
1.130.780 USSR (including wounded)
near 860 000 Germany (including wounded)
near 250 000 pow

Sven, i believe he used the other sources?

Personally i haven't seen those sources, maybe it's the ones that the Germans used as propaganda during the war.

The ones i use the most are the internationally assesed ones that came after the war. If those aren't available i use the German ones, i honestly doubt many of the Soviet ones as the numbers don't add up in the end when it comes to total casualties, the German ones don't either but they are much closer, and the German ones are generally more accepted by other Western authors.

[Wismar]

Russians have always gone for quantity before quality

Yes yes and they never used tactics to fight infact they charged in without thinking with no rifles because they couldn't supply the men yes yes same old story.

I never said that. Don't feel sorry... I'm sure they are good at other things like...like cooking?

[Prince_Eugen]

I don't think you can tell the strategic sucess by showing the losses on both sides.
Look at Stalingrad.

Germany
Dead: 150.000

Bolsheviks
Dead: 500.000

Okay then.
1.130.780 USSR (including wounded)
near 860 000 Germany (including wounded)
near 250 000 pow

Sven, i believe he used the other sources?

Personally i haven't seen those sources, maybe it's the ones that the Germans used as propaganda during the war.

The ones i use the most are the internationally assesed ones that came after the war. If those aren't available i use the German ones, i honestly doubt many of the Soviet ones as the numbers don't add up in the end when it comes to total casualties, the German ones don't either but they are much closer, and the German ones are generally more accepted by other Western authors.

I'm not using the German ones as well, i dont believe in Western ones although, as majority were written in Cold War, but some of them are worthwhile and i can rely on some of them.

[Desert Thunda]

Russians have always gone for quantity before quality

Yes yes and they never used tactics to fight infact they charged in without thinking with no rifles because they couldn't supply the men yes yes same old story.

I never said that. Don't feel sorry... I'm sure they are good at other things like...like cooking?

You can't cook vodka 

[Kamov]

Russians have always gone for quantity before quality

Yes yes and they never used tactics to fight infact they charged in without thinking with no rifles because they couldn't supply the men yes yes same old story.

I never said that. Don't feel sorry... I'm sure they are good at other things like...like cooking?

I read a story somewhere about a tank crew using shermans(I think) that looked after crops.

I really think it's worth noting about the different tactics that you mentioned sven, about 2 brigades in front and 1 back, it wasn't a blitz obviously just a more methodical advance. British done that as well.