Why was the Wehrmacht so superior?

[Archduke Sven]

wehrmacht got fucked up whenever it lost momentum and got bogged down.

Could you perhaps elaborate with an example?

Battle of the Bulge. The Heer was best as a mobile strike force, not as a slowly advancing one. They took land quickly, holding it was... a different matter.

Inital german sucess in the bulge was due to bad weather that prevented the allies from using their air superiority. As soon as weather conditions improved and allied planes started supporting their ground troops, the battle turned agaisnt the Germans.

Obviously, this wasn't the only reason, but it was the main one.

I'd say the dumbest decision was actually using tanks in a dense forrest, not only a division, no, no, two Panzer armies thinking it'd be a re-run of 1940. Goes to show how idiotic Hitler was and how the OKW/OKH never dared say no to him.

if they were so good they would have won
Brits - 1
Germany - 0

Well if you look at the odds you'd notice that Germany was at a severe political disadvantage from the start. I'm more talking about how the army was frequently able to undermine that disadvantage using it's superiority.

[ClearlyInvsible]

Lets face it guys, Hitler won World War II for the Allies.

[DeoVindice61]

Even hitler isnt that bad, he killed Hitler! 

[LameHorse]

Lets face it guys, Hitler won World War II for the Allies.

or you know... those millions of russians...

[The Nutty Pig]

if they were so good they would have won
Brits - 1
Germany - 0

Well if you look at the odds you'd notice that Germany was at a severe political disadvantage from the start. I'm more talking about how the army was frequently able to undermine that disadvantage using it's superiority.

That 'severe political disadvantage' being under a fascist leader which never works, and the only people who think that a fascist leader or fascist government would work are edgy teens, uneducated people or rednecks

[Hawke]

if they were so good they would have won
Brits - 2
Germany - 0

Fixed.

[ClearlyInvsible]

Lets face it guys, Hitler won World War II for the Allies.

or you know... those millions of russians...

Germany could have actually won on the Eastern front if it just stopped advancing, or. Germany WOULD have won against Britain if Hitler hadn't interfered with the Luftwaffe. Also, if the Germans hadn't decided to mess with the Finns then they wouldn't have had to deal with a 3rd front against probably the scariest soldiers in World War II.

[Archduke Sven]

if they were so good they would have won
Brits - 1
Germany - 0

Well if you look at the odds you'd notice that Germany was at a severe political disadvantage from the start. I'm more talking about how the army was frequently able to undermine that disadvantage using it's superiority.

That 'severe political disadvantage' being under a fascist leader which never works, and the only people who think that a fascist leader or fascist government would work are edgy teens, uneducated people or rednecks

Actually i was referring to the fact that Germany was surrounded by political enemies, the USSR, and the Western Allies. And i would reply to your rather uneducated response claiming that fascism never works, but hence this is not a political thread and i would rather not have you divert it into one.

Lets face it guys, Hitler won World War II for the Allies.

or you know... those millions of russians...

Germany could have actually won on the Eastern front if it just stopped advancing, or. Germany WOULD have won against Britain if Hitler hadn't interfered with the Luftwaffe. Also, if the Germans hadn't decided to mess with the Finns then they wouldn't have had to deal with a 3rd front against probably the scariest soldiers in World War II.

Yes, i don't think many people realise how close the Germans actually were to winning in 1941, they had some extreme bad luck, and the huge amount of dumb Führerprinzips the generals had to deal with. Had Moscow been taken they would have controlled all of Western Russia, they controlled the baltic states, white Russia, captured Kiev and then the knockout blow could have come at Moscow. At which point i really believe someone would attempt to overthrow Stalin and leave a rump Soviet state behind east of the Urals.

As for the Battle of Britain, i'm not completly convinced the Germans would have taken Britain even if they had gotten across the channel.

Also Clearly Invisibruu, it was the Finns who declared war on the Germans as that was a part of the peace treaty they had with the Soviets.

[von_Bismarck]

I essentially agree with Nutty Pig's sentiment. People who praise for authoritarian regimes are often teens who never have paid taxes, and that's why they have the luxury to defend forms of government that would have a huge negative impact in their daily lives. Unsuccessful people finds a refuge in ideologies that blame their failure on rich people, and those who are unemployed find comfort in Nazism. Even though many of those people don't feel a real hate toward the minorities, they console themselves on that their precarious situation is the minorities' guilt. Many of those people also believe that it is the State's responsibility to give them their live hood, which isn't true. If the things were driven that way a country would find its coffers empty in an extremely short time.

On topic: Honestly, people, you're ridiculous. You seem to desperately hold on to the myth of the superior Wehrmacht. Probably 1941/42 the Wehrmacht was the best fighting machine in the world, but other nations started passing them up in 1943 and eventually surpassed their performance. By 1944, there were a number of divisions in the German Army that were of poor quality. For example, Luftwaffe field divisions were pretty bad and performed horribly on the battlefield. While it's fashionable to even look at the elite Waffen SS formations in 1944, one needs to remember they were the minority of the German armed forces at that point. And by 1944, the average US or British division was far better than the average Wehrmacht unit.

[ClearlyInvsible]

Due to wartime expenditures, the quality of troops did go down. The averaged allied troop was better than the average Heer soldier near the end of World War II, that goes without saying.

[Archduke Sven]

First off, fuck off with the politcal aspect, it's off topic, useless to the discussion, and end up starting a flame war.

On topic: Honestly, people, you're ridiculous. You seem to desperately hold on to the myth of the superior Wehrmacht. Probably 1941/42 the Wehrmacht was the best fighting machine in the world, but other nations started passing them up in 1943 and eventually surpassed their performance. By 1944, there were a number of divisions in the German Army that were of poor quality. For example, Luftwaffe field divisions were pretty bad and performed horribly on the battlefield. While it's fashionable to even look at the elite Waffen SS formations in 1944, one needs to remember they were the minority of the German armed forces at that point. And by 1944, the average US or British division was far better than the average Wehrmacht unit.

Ridiculous?

The main reason the allies kept defeating the Germans was overwhelmingly due to air superiority, the Heer still fought tenaciously despite always being outnumbered by the Western allies, and when the Allies had to fight on more even terms they would get mauled, example Battle of Hürtgen Forrest, Operation Market Garden, Dodecanese Campaign, Monte Cassino, Kasserine Pass. Once you removed the Allies' air superiority they were sub par, yet people forget the the Heer had to fight under these conditions during every battle they had with the US, and most of the time they faced the British Army. And you keep forgetting that the Brits and Americans often faced sub par divisions, and that they never had to be squeezed between two fronts, nor did they have the limited industrial capacity of Germany. Even the regular infantry divisions, who may not have been elite, were certainly more than a match for Allied formations, heck even the Volksgrenadiers filled with Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe personnel and young boys gave the US forces a bloody nose. When the Western allies met Germany at it's prime, you'd see the wonders they did with the little Afrikakorps taking on the entire British 8th Army, and later the American forces in Africa.

Not to mention on the Eastern Front where the Heer kept the Soviets at bay for 2 years despite being outnumbered 3:1. Even when the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine failed the Heer continued to put up a fight, and they fought with tenacity rarely seen before in the annals of history. Even when their training and education sunk below standards due to the difficulties Germany was having, they were still able to time and time again stem the advances on both fronts. Always outnumbered, always outgunned but still they fought, and that is not a myth.

And this was just post-43, if i were to go into the times when Germany still could afford to train their soldiers properly and before Hitler butted into all decisions, well you know that story well already. They conquered Europe, in my eyes they were much, much superior to other forces for the vast majority of the war.

[Wismar]

Because Master Race...

Spoiler

JK JK

[close]

[ClearlyInvsible]

Oskar, that stuff's onl gonna get you warned...

Spoiler

Funny ass joke though XD

[close]

[kpetschulat]

It is my understanding that the Wehrmacht and the Reichsheer was superior in everything except two of the most valuable things in a war; Air superiority, fresh troops.

Air Superiority - Due to the overwhelming about of late-war Allied planes, there was no chance for the Wehrmacht to hold off the thousands upon thousands of American and British planes. Even with the superior logistics and extraordinary transport systems, the Wehrmacht just couldn't produce enough anti-air firepower to withstand the constant bombings and attacks of the Allies and their air forces. The only good anti-air support the Wehrmacht had was the Luftlande Pioniers and the Fallschirmjaegers artillery and anti-air divisions. There helped a lot during the Battle of the Bulge, that's for sure, but couldn't maintain their support, especially since the Luftwaffe Heer was getting beat to shit all over.

Fresh Troops - This is more of a subjective point of mine, but do hear me out. Fresh Troops > Veteran Troops, especially in numbers. The Americans came into the war very late, but very well supplied, and often pretty well trained. Regardless that the Wehrmacht was pwning some Tommies and Frogs, they have been fighting for almost five years prior to the US joining the war, constantly being battered down, loss of suppiles (regardless of the logistics and supply superiority). The Americans came into the war with millions of soldiers, compared to the Wehrmachts few hundred thousand. That right there, is more than enough to support where I say, fresh troops in large numbers > veteran troops in dwindling numbers. Don't get me wrong, the Wehrmacht had crackshots and young men who have seen some fierce shit, but the Americans had a lot of young men, athletic, hunters, gun club members, mobsters, people who have been around guns for a very long time. So, it's not like the Americans didn't have raw recruits entirely, many of the soldiers new how to handle guns very well.

Just want to add, the Wehrmacht, when rapid advancing and using blitzkrieg tactics, was incredibly powerful and it was their strength. When holding frontline territory and having to slowly advance, it just didn't work, too often. The way the Wehrmacht was; form, blitz, form, blitz, form, blitz,. When the Wehrmacht was slow, it cost them lives, money, supplies, and ultimately morale. On top of this, as great a political leader Hitler was, he was just not commander-in-chief material. He "fired" and executed generals that knew what they were doing because he saw they're decisions, retreats, reformations, as treasonous or cowardly. He replaced his staff with young men who had very little command experience, instantly promoting to Generalfeldmarschall or some shit similar. This was also a tactical error, because these men sent they're soldiers to the slaughterhouse, in regards to their deaths. They lacked in intellect, tactical thinking, and strategic skills.

[Desert Thunda]

They were used to flexible and quick wars.


Blame the Italians, the Romanians, the Bosnian's...