I read a book recently (forgotten the name, i'm such a nub) but it mentioned the logistical challenges behind the Blitzkrieg.
Could any of you German WW2 experts elaborate on these challenges?
Supplies are slow, former examples of blitzkrieg, like the Mongol invasion of Europe, proved that supplying a large army is indeed a task, it takes time for the supplies to reach.
The mongols lived of foraging of the enemy country.
But the bottom line is, is that with Blitzkrieg, if you're not really careful, you find yourself closer to your enemies, than to your friends....
wehrmacht got fucked up whenever it lost momentum and got bogged down.
wehrmacht got fucked up whenever it lost momentum and got bogged down.
Could you perhaps elaborate with an example?
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.
Riddles Sven, Thankyou very much, appreciated.
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.
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.
if they were so good they would have won
Brits - 1
Germany - 0
Lets face it guys, Hitler won World War II for the Allies.
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 rednecksif 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.
if they were so good they would have wonFixed.
Brits - 2
Germany - 0
Lets face it guys, Hitler won World War II for the Allies.
or you know... those millions of russians...
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 rednecksif 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.
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.
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.
They were used to flexible and quick wars.
Blame the Italians, the Romanians, the Bosnian's...
They were used to flexible and quick wars.
Blame the Italians, the Romanians, the Bosnian's...
I think you mean Croatians.
Then again, I doubt the Germans would have done any better invading pretty much all of Europa without any allies :pAgreed. They wouldn't have had enough manpower to both garrisson and protect their taken land. And invade the Soviet Union. Rather take allies and having them to join you then have to fight their partisans.
Then again, I doubt the Germans would have done any better invading pretty much all of Europa without any allies :pAgreed. They wouldn't have had enough manpower to both garrisson and protect their taken land. And invade the Soviet Union. Rather take allies and having them to join you then have to fight their partisans.
Wehrmacht was great for smashing other state armies, it fails once it has to deal with insurgency and rebellion.
I guess, however once they invaded the Soviets and been there for a year or so. (Lets say around Stalingrad - Kursk) they Germans already had more need of manpower most divisions were far under their original strenght. Lets say at that point that it also invaded an succesfully annexed Italy, Croatia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia. They would have had an even bigger lack of troops. Their front would most likely probably collapsed just because the lack of troops. And the war would probably quite a bit faster. (Also taking in account the Allies would land in Africa, Italy and France just as it did now)Then again, I doubt the Germans would have done any better invading pretty much all of Europa without any allies :pAgreed. They wouldn't have had enough manpower to both garrisson and protect their taken land. And invade the Soviet Union. Rather take allies and having them to join you then have to fight their partisans.
They did actually. The German troops occupied all of France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Croatia, Greece, Greek Islands for most of the war. Just in Western Europe there were 40 divisions there at any given time, don't underestimate the amount of soldiers the Germans had at their disposal.
The Italian soldiers may have been much braver than the Romanians, but the High Command was full of incompetent jerk offs who were lead by a flamboyant tough guy who knew nothing about strategy and the army (Mussolini).So were te Germans.
The Italian soldiers may have been much braver than the Romanians, but the High Command was full of incompetent jerk offs who were lead by a flamboyant tough guy who knew nothing about strategy and the army (Mussolini).So were te Germans.
read any books about war.
I can't help but note, Sven, you are really one of those excuse-types who continuously spam how great the German army, their officers and even Hitler were, while putting the blame for all failures on anyone but them, preferably Italians.
Hitler had no military background, education or experience. He was not a military genius - He was a politician. The statement that Hitler practically won the war for the Allies holds some truth.
Also, Hitler had a very good understanding of Economic warfare, he knew that without oil and industries, that you cannot build or drive your tanks. Without tanks you cannot wage modern warfare, something that many senior German generals overlooked. I'm not claiming he is a genius at all, infact many of his decisions were crazy and made no sense militarily as he became more and more megalomaniatic.
Also, Hitler had a very good understanding of Economic warfare, he knew that without oil and industries, that you cannot build or drive your tanks. Without tanks you cannot wage modern warfare, something that many senior German generals overlooked. I'm not claiming he is a genius at all, infact many of his decisions were crazy and made no sense militarily as he became more and more megalomaniatic.
I understand that too. Am I of very good understanding on Economic warfare now?
If Rommel had always been in surpreme command of the German army, I bet it would have been better for the Third Reich.
Hitler was too concerned of PR.
If Rommel was so great why wasn't he on the Eastern Front? Why was he never given what OKW thought was a prestigious and highly important command? In the West we like to "pretend" that North Africa and Western Europe were every bit as important as the Russian Front, but to the Germans the Russian Front was it. That's where they sent over 2/3 of their military and suffered 80% of their casualties. Rommel wasn't even privy to knowing that the invasion of the Soviet Union would be happening which is why he thought when he launched his attack across North Africa that he would quickly be given all the men and supplies he would need. Sadly for him this wouldn't be the case.
People judge Rommel to harshly for the German loss during D-Day. Truth is, if Hitler actually allowed Rommel's command staff to use the Panzer reserves they probably could have beaten the allied advance back.
I would just like to warn you guys about Section 11. Be careful with it, as your Topic may be locked.
if they were so good they would have won
Brits - 1
Germany - 0
The allies lost sixteen million men. The axis lost eight million.
Yep, I would call them superior.
The allies lost sixteen million men. The axis lost eight million.
Yep, I would call them superior.
Its the reasons behind the casualties that you have to question, not the statistics.
Wehrmacht wasn't so "elite" as everyone think's. Everyone thinks of it as a mechanised army, well it had mechanised infantry regiment, but so many horses...
I would type a massive post on why the Wehrmacht is so overrated, but it's just not worth it with the amount of Fascist's and National Socialist's we have in the community. Won't get through their thick skull's.
Reason: They were simply better.The allies lost sixteen million men. The axis lost eight million.
Yep, I would call them superior.
Its the reasons behind the casualties that you have to question, not the statistics.
Reason: They were simply better.The allies lost sixteen million men. The axis lost eight million.
Yep, I would call them superior.
Its the reasons behind the casualties that you have to question, not the statistics.
Reason: They were simply better.The allies lost sixteen million men. The axis lost eight million.
Yep, I would call them superior.
Its the reasons behind the casualties that you have to question, not the statistics.
So if 10 million men died of disease, and 4 more died of starvation, does that mean that the opposing army is better?
Reason: They were simply better.The allies lost sixteen million men. The axis lost eight million.
Yep, I would call them superior.
Its the reasons behind the casualties that you have to question, not the statistics.
So if 10 million men died of disease, and 4 more died of starvation, does that mean that the opposing army is better?
1:6 in combat.... Wehrmacht was obviously superior in quality to the Red Army.
Also are you claiming 14 million allies died of non-combat causes? ???
SpoilerReason: They were simply better.The allies lost sixteen million men. The axis lost eight million.
Yep, I would call them superior.
Its the reasons behind the casualties that you have to question, not the statistics.
So if 10 million men died of disease, and 4 more died of starvation, does that mean that the opposing army is better?
1:6 in combat.... Wehrmacht was obviously superior in quality to the Red Army.
Also are you claiming 14 million allies died of non-combat causes? ???[close]
It was an example Sven :p
There was a big difference in training between the nations, Germany took the most time training their soldiers and thus had a better quality but namely the Soviets and Americans took less time to train their soldiers but they had larger numbers.
Were the soviet or other allies given the same training, there would be no difference in quality.
The Wehrmacht was quality over quantity and you see how it ended for them, the Allies could mobilize more troops and smashed those fuckers.
I think you're just a little butthurt that you can't jerk off over the wehrmacht.
I'm merely talking to some fascists trying to give the Wehrmacht some mythical status, fuck that because they got curbstomped proper.
Would you care to give us a great detail of this "inferior" Soviet doctrine?
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?
My deer friend. The thing you wrote is the defence tactics.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.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.
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.
My deer friend.
Russians have always gone for quantity before quality :P
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
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.SpoilerMy deer friend. The thing you wrote is the defence tactics.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.
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.
I don't think you can tell the strategic sucess by showing the losses on both sides.Okay then.
Look at Stalingrad.
Germany
Dead: 150.000
Bolsheviks
Dead: 500.000
I don't think you can tell the strategic sucess by showing the losses on both sides.Okay then.
Look at Stalingrad.
Germany
Dead: 150.000
Bolsheviks
Dead: 500.000
1.130.780 USSR (including wounded)
near 860 000 Germany (including wounded)
near 250 000 pow
Sven, i believe he used the other sources?
I never said that. Don't feel sorry... I'm sure they are good at other things like...like cooking?Russians have always gone for quantity before quality :P
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'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.I don't think you can tell the strategic sucess by showing the losses on both sides.Okay then.
Look at Stalingrad.
Germany
Dead: 150.000
Bolsheviks
Dead: 500.000
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 never said that. Don't feel sorry... I'm sure they are good at other things like...like cooking?Russians have always gone for quantity before quality :P
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?Russians have always gone for quantity before quality :P
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.
Lol.
My propaganda source is a national socialist website called wikipedia.
The Germans had 150 000 dead soldiers and the Russians 500 000.
The total losses of the Germans including wounded, captured and missed soldiers is 841 000.
The Russians had including the wounded 1 130 000 losses.SpoilerPS: I'm sorry for using "." like in 150.000
It looks like 150.000 = 150[close]
I would type a massive post on why the Wehrmacht is so overrated, but it's just not worth it with the amount of Fascist's and National Socialist's we have in the community. Won't get through their thick skull's.
Woohoo for taking useless tundras of land yet failing to secure any area of importance.
Yet they couldn´t take the more important cities. Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad.Woohoo for taking useless tundras of land yet failing to secure any area of importance.
Sorry, didn't know western Russia was a tundra, and i didn't know that capturing the capitals of 5 SSRs, most of the industrial heartland and agricultural heartland of Russia was unimportant, not to mention the amounts of populated areas the Germans took. What exactly do you think is important? Moscow? if you believe Moscow is the most important you're a bit mislead. The only strategic advantages Moscow had was that it was the end point for many highways across the country. The rest of it is symbolic, and the Soviet regime would have set up a new capital elsewhere.
Most of factories from Western part were transfered to Eastern with all workers, so industrial suffer present, but not critical.Woohoo for taking useless tundras of land yet failing to secure any area of importance.
Sorry, didn't know western Russia was a tundra, and i didn't know that capturing the capitals of 5 SSRs, most of the industrial heartland and agricultural heartland of Russia was unimportant, not to mention the amounts of populated areas the Germans took. What exactly do you think is important? Moscow? if you believe Moscow is the most important you're a bit mislead. The only strategic advantages Moscow had was that it was the end point for many highways across the country. The rest of it is symbolic, and the Soviet regime would have set up a new capital elsewhere.
The Wehrmacht had disadvantages just like any army has disadvantages.Wehrmacht was superior to poorly trained French, Soviet, Polish etc. forces in early period. But, when it faced the skilled armies of middle and latewar periods, they were decimated and left behind in history.
The Blitzkrieg was a huge success, the Heer could takes large amounts of land quickly.
There were however, problems holding that land. Nevertheless, the Wehrmacht were a superior fighting force compared to some other world power at the time.
SpoilerMost of factories from Western part were transfered to Eastern with all workers, so industrial suffer present, but not critical.Woohoo for taking useless tundras of land yet failing to secure any area of importance.
Sorry, didn't know western Russia was a tundra, and i didn't know that capturing the capitals of 5 SSRs, most of the industrial heartland and agricultural heartland of Russia was unimportant, not to mention the amounts of populated areas the Germans took. What exactly do you think is important? Moscow? if you believe Moscow is the most important you're a bit mislead. The only strategic advantages Moscow had was that it was the end point for many highways across the country. The rest of it is symbolic, and the Soviet regime would have set up a new capital elsewhere.
Yet, the suffer from German forces, who terrorised the population of the Western USSR, was big, they scorched land during assault and scorched it second time during the retreat. I never viewed Whermacht or SS units no more then just killers of civil people, when villages were burnt with people alive, when cities were ruined and many people were sent to death camps or executed on streets.The Wehrmacht had disadvantages just like any army has disadvantages.Wehrmacht was superior to poorly trained French, Soviet, Polish etc. forces in early period. But, when it faced the skilled armies of middle and latewar periods, they were decimated and left behind in history.
The Blitzkrieg was a huge success, the Heer could takes large amounts of land quickly.
There were however, problems holding that land. Nevertheless, the Wehrmacht were a superior fighting force compared to some other world power at the time.[close]
Btw, what can you tell about quality of German tanks?
The whole series from Pz I to PzIV were good for the 30's but for the 1940-41 year they all become useless.
Panther tank was good, but the early and later versions too had plenty of mechanical issues, and there were no time to fix them, however, the crossing capacity of German tanks were really bad, and even improving of tracks didnt really play huge role.
Stug III/IV were the extremely good tank, having a lot of killed allied vehicles on his count. But lack of such machines in the mid and late periods played great role, as long as Germans focused on productions of Tiger series.
JagPanther tank with a good armour and slopes, but terrain crossing capacity made this tank not very reliable, as long as many technical issues migrate to it from original Panther made this tank good by firepower but not very reliable overall: size, speed, crossing. cap., unreliable suspension, constant engine failures.
Tiger. Very promoted tank, one of the most remebered tanks, but if we go deeper it opens very disgusting things. Crossing capacity (hello again) very bad, speed and manouverability of that tank was awfull. Amor of that tank is mostly rely on thickness, not to the slope (however the benefit of slope is that it can bounce shells). The 88cm kwk 41 was the awesome gun, that can give this tank an outstanding firepower, but gun cant go on the field itself, and Tiger seemed like not that good on move.
Ferdinand & Elefant
Monster, but on the sand legs. Unreliable suspension (it become the tradition for German tanks) and the most awfull terrain crossing capacity value (the only tank that was actually worse is Maus), engine can get failure any time. Make this tank very powerfull by firepower, btu very-very-very unreliable on move, it can just stuck in mud. Otherwise, the armor of this tank was very thick, but also relied on thickness itself, not on slope. But arriving of tanks like IS and IS-2 aswell as heavy tank destroyers like SU-152 and ISU-152 with better manouverability made Ferdinand series useless.
King Tiger or Tiger II
Jesus, so much myth's about this tank, but none of them are true. This tank wasnt something uncommon, as long as it hadnt anything superior to allied tanks. It can be easily penetrated by the T-34-85 tank 85mm gun from 300m, not even talking about higher penentration value 90mm, 105mm, 122mm, 152mm. So the invicibility of Tiger II was a myth.
Documents about Tiger II being pen:
http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/05/100-mm-gun-vs-tiger-ii.html
http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/03/suisu-152-vs-german-big-cats.html
http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/03/is-2-vs-german-big-cats.html
http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/03/soviet-85-mm-guns-vs-tigers.html
Panther disscussion:
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/ The Wargaming hired historian "The_Chieftain" viewing the Panther and judges it
http://www.nam.ac.uk/online-collection/detail.php?acc=1975-03-63-18-162
In the middle and late period of the war the German armour components and armour at all suffered in quality, without the needed materials, quality of steel greatly decreased and the armor of Panther, Tigers I and II cracked after even non-penetration shots. The composite metals of the armour componets were in poor quantity in the overall structure of armor.
Why i dont believe in German war statistics:
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/08/03/cheating-at-statistics/
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/07/28/please-dont-use-the-5-m4s-1-panther-myth/
it's a trench-warfare-like argument.
This argument will go on forever. We have a Fascist at one corner and a Communist at the other one, it's a trench-warfare-like argument.
Tiger II first saw combat on Eastern Front on 13th of August, 1944 near Sandomir. Germans made a combined attack of Tiger II and Tigers I. But Soviet forces with help of ari reconainse prepared ambush for them, using ISU 152 and heavy 122-mm AT guns. During the skirmish Germas lost 13 Tigers II, Soviet didnt lose any tank of AT gun. In battles near Stashuv and Shildov Soviet forces encountered another combined Tigers attack. Totally were destroyed 24 tanks (12 Tigers II). They stuck in mud and were overcicled by faster T-34-85's, crew abandoned tanks.
Had Marshal Tukhachevsky not been purged by Stalin, the germans wouldn't have been so lucky early on in Barbarossa.Well, he wasnt that skilled, and doesnt matter if he were purged or not, he couldnt do anything to Germans anyways.
As far as i read from documents, the first time Soviet army encountered Tiger II is Sandomir battle. Tiger II might be really good if the German made better steel, because the steel of late period was awfull and didnt have the benefits like the early or mid -period ones. They also made tanks in the great haste and that caused mechanical issues.
Also SS panzer divisions were superior in the early period of war, most of them died in snows near Moscow, they were beaten on Caucasus and destroyed in Kursk battle.
The success attributed to the SS is mostly based on their war diaries (Tigers in Combat). The diaries had little to do with reality (Tigers in Normandy). Even the Wehrmacht slashed the claims of the SS in half when estimating their performance, and Schneider’s research shows that even that was an optimistic figure. For example, Wittmann’s famous battle at Villers-Bocage where he is claims 20 kills only had 7 to his name. His victory was blown out of proportion by SS propaganda, since they were desperate for a tank ace among their own, routinely assigning an entire unit’s accomplishments to one tank/crew.
Most people focus on the three SS divisions that were LAH, Reich, and Totenkopf, which were equivalent to a Wehrmacht division at the best of times. The remaining SS divisions were barely Volkssturm quality, assigned to rear line duties such as executing civilians and fighting partisans.
In the early war during the Polish and French campaigns SS was superior, but after fighting on Eastern threater, SS lost all skilled and battle hardened soldiers and couldnt restore power to the end of war. I think from 1943 SS as a battle unit was weak.
In the early war during the Polish and French campaigns SS was superior, but after fighting on Eastern threater, SS lost all skilled and battle hardened soldiers and couldnt restore power to the end of war. I think from 1943 SS as a battle unit was weak.
if they were so good they would have won
Allies - 1
Germany - 0
I've never heard a Brit claim they could have done it alone. Yes, they are very proud on their part in the war, maybe a little bit too much (English elitism is a vital part of being..well...English), but being the only western nation fighting Hitler for months deserves some recognition.They also had the advantage of being on an Island...
Right on time, Gizmo. Jelly and I were waiting for that.So was I ;D
I smell the garlic.^
No, let's be serious. French tanks had state of the art reversing, you have to give them that.Ah, yes. Keep attempting to make me mad. It's priceless. :-*
I must agree, that Kriegsmarine had the best submarine personnel and their submarines were very strong opponents. They used very effective wolfpack tactics and had very skilled officers.
Well, one of the ideas of high command to turn submarine in AA submarine was total fail. And, casualties, you know, mainly there's no escape from sinking submarine.I must agree, that Kriegsmarine had the best submarine personnel and their submarines were very strong opponents. They used very effective wolfpack tactics and had very skilled officers.
Well until 1943, then the Allies broke the sub codes and could just ambush the Ubootwaffe whenever they wished. Fun fact, the Ubootwaffe sustained the highest percentage of casualties, with 75% of all servicemen dead.
I don't believe the Wehrmacht was superior.
If you look at it, really:
1. Britain's power was invested in sea where the Kriegsmarine was quite literally nothing compared to the RN in a fleet battle, and had began to rearm 1 year after the Germans started which doesn't help. They were also lucky because Mr.Neville gave so much industrial territory to Germany.
2. France was crippled by weak government. They had splashed resources on a defence line rather than on an advanced military. The French also had a weaker industrial base than the Germans and the British, and also started to rearm late.
3. The Soviet military was in a mess and the Germans were quite frankly lucky Stalin did something stupid in the USSR every 5 minutes it seems, and thus had somewhat of an advantage.
Wehrmacht Military Failures:
In the invasion of France, the British and Belgian armies stopped the German armies in Belgium until they were forced to retreat to Dunkirk because the idiotic French command forgot to defend the Ardennes, though the French soldiers fought ferociously.
The Germans and Italians failed to defeat the British in North Africa, where they suffered their first major land defeat during The Second Battle of El Alemein. (Spelling fail).
The Wehrmacht commanders knew it was a military impossibility to invade Czechoslovakia, which doesn't say much for the invincible Wehrmacht.
The tanks at Dunkirk ran out of fuel they didn't let the allies evacuate on orders from Mr.Hilter.
The entire German offensive plan was almost ruined completey when Matilda tanks almost cut off the German spearhead to the Channel in Eastern France, only to have them saved by the Luftwaffe.
K enough ranting about them, they were just lucky rather than superior. And I often feel their military prowess is overestimated, considering how much free land they were practically given before the war.
Luck isn't enough to conquer all of continental Europe in 3 years. It took skill, something that the Wehrmacht had.
That shows the initiative and innovative thinking the German soldiers had that was lacking in many contemporary armies.
QuoteLuck isn't enough to conquer all of continental Europe in 3 years. It took skill, something that the Wehrmacht had.
Except Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, Turkey, Finland and the Balkan over which the Germans never had full control. It's something, but not quite all of continental Europa.
Sven, what's the point of thread? It's not even a discussion. You just wait for people to not agree with the superiority of the Wehrmacht and then unleash everything you think.QuoteThat shows the initiative and innovative thinking the German soldiers had that was lacking in many contemporary armies.
Nice statement, but you'll find smart ideas coming from everywhere. Initiative and innovative thinking is not something that only Germans had.
I remember reading a book where the historian author pretty much detailed the following; whenever the germans fought the allies and it was a even match up, the germans won pretty much every, single, time.
Romania was independent enough to switch sides. Switzerland and Sweden harboured thousands of refugees including Jews. How where they 'dependant'.
not mentioning that the Axis could invade Switzerland at any given point, which once again forces them to follow Axis demands. To me that seems like they are infact dependant on Nazi Germany.
Quotenot mentioning that the Axis could invade Switzerland at any given point, which once again forces them to follow Axis demands. To me that seems like they are infact dependant on Nazi Germany.
At any given point? Switzerland probably had the best defensive position in Europa and an invasion was deemed too costly to be worth it. It's also landlocked, which makes a trade agreement with the countries it actually has borders with a very logical choice. It was caught in the politics of being neutral, but calling it dependent is, as far as I'm aware, very inaccurate. If Switzerland had not agreed to a trade agreement, do you really think Hitler would have mounted in invasion?
By the same logic, the Netherlands and Denmark were dependent on the German empire during World war 1. They shared borders and traded with them.
Romania was independent enough to switch sides. Switzerland and Sweden harboured thousands of refugees including Jews. How where they 'dependant'.I remember reading a book where the historian author pretty much detailed the following; whenever the germans fought the allies and it was a even match up, the germans won pretty much every, single, time.
That wouldn't make it an even match-up, would it? What's your definiton of an equal match-up? 1 tank versus 1 tank? There are thousands of factors that play a role in militairy actions. There is no such thing as a real even match-up.
I'd think you'd know more geography, both those countries share a border with the sea. Also, as far as i'm aware, neither of those countries had forced trade agreements placed on them. Furthermore, you're not following my train of thought at all if you think i'm comparing WW2 Switzerland with WW1 Denmark and Netherlands.
Operation Tannenbaum just had the lowest priority of all German operations, thus it was never implemented. Germany was constantly faced with bigger problems than the Swiss
The most logical choice in a war is to avoid it at all costs. Granted, didn't always work out. Right, Chamberlain?QuoteI'd think you'd know more geography, both those countries share a border with the sea. Also, as far as i'm aware, neither of those countries had forced trade agreements placed on them. Furthermore, you're not following my train of thought at all if you think i'm comparing WW2 Switzerland with WW1 Denmark and Netherlands.
Right, not sure how Denmark fared, but we Dutch had a shortage on anything. Ships were constantly either shot by German subs or captured and confiscated by the Brits. Everything was on coupons. That sea-border didn't help us that much.QuoteOperation Tannenbaum just had the lowest priority of all German operations, thus it was never implemented. Germany was constantly faced with bigger problems than the Swiss
So you agree that in '43, the Germans were in no position to take control of Switzerland, and thus were not in full control of Europe? Good.
So why didn't they do it, if they were fully capable?
Then there was of course the Eastern Front which always needed more soldiers.
They encountered countries, which can produce stuff faster and in bigger numbers, while their conquests didnt really give them that much.QuoteThen there was of course the Eastern Front which always needed more soldiers.
In other words, the Wehrmacht was not fully capable of holding all of continental Europa?
QuoteThen there was of course the Eastern Front which always needed more soldiers.
In other words, the Wehrmacht was not fully capable of holding all of continental Europa?
You know why they never invaded Switzerland? Because they couldn't. How do I know that? Because they didn't.
Well the nazis lost so they sucked gg everyone go homeWWII in a nutshell
Well the nazis lost so they sucked gg everyone go home
Well the nazis lost so they sucked gg everyone go home
Best K/D, also MVP m8
That's exactly how the Wehrmacht won the Battle of the Netherlands.
America: Winning wars by murdering civilians in their own homes.He says after Germany at the time actually used that tactic.
America: Winning wars by murdering civilians in their own homes.He says after Germany at the time actually used that tactic.
At which point am i denying the Luftwaffe not using area bombing tactics in conjuction with land operations?
QuoteAt which point am i denying the Luftwaffe not using area bombing tactics in conjuction with land operations?
Not sure what you mean with that last part. The Rotterdam Blitz was a bombardment aimed at civilians to get a quick Dutch surrender.
Well the nazis lost so they sucked gg everyone go home
Best K/D, also MVP m8
I'm pretty sure more Dutch served in the Waffen-SS than did in the government-in-exile's forces.
Furthermore the bombing wasn't counter-productive since the Germans were able to capitalise on it quickly. As the Dutch surrendered after the Germans bombed Rotterdam since they threatened to do the same to Utrecht. That is when they surrendered, not during the bombing.
I'm pretty sure more Dutch served in the Waffen-SS than did in the government-in-exile's forces.
Sure, but I'd like you to not draw conclusions out of just numbers.
There were 20.000 in both Wehr and Waffen-SS, which is less then the lowest estimation of people active in the resistance (25.000 in 1943). Interesting enough, most volunteers actually thought they were going to be an independent Dutch unit, allied like the Romanians or Hungarians. When their commander was told they would become Waffen-SS, he protested - To no avail. They believed in the anti-communist propaganda they were fed. One has to remember it was also a lot easier to join the Germans (A walk to the recruitment office) then sail to England which could mean certain death if captured. Not all of those 20.000 ever saw actions - Only one brigade did. The true hardened National-socialist didn't join the Waffen-SS. They joined the 'Nederlansche SS', which was a bad copy of the Germans and did not serve on any front and ceased to exist with the fall of the Nazi government.
The Dutch Free forces consisted of a few thousand men. Obviously, besides the Dutch colonial army, which consisted of over 35.000 soldiers, of which about 2/3 natives. Their loyalty different per national group, but there was no outbreak or 'stab-in-the-back' during the invasion - More 'let's make the best of the situation', just like the Dutch in the Netherlands itself.
I'd also like to name the Ambonese here, who actually were loyal as fuck and even joined the anti-Japanese resistance. Parts of the colonial army escaped, such as squadrons and ships, which joined the Americans or Australians. Dutch marines even had a training camp in the USA. Their numbers weren't spectacular or tide-turning, but you can't deny their existence.
I won't deny, of course, that many Dutchmen threw their lot in with the Nazi's and some even became Nazi-supporters. It's just something that goes a bit further then just looking at how big the units were.
Landstorm Nederland was a joke. And even including those I'm nearly sure the number did not went above 25.000.
Women were no longer included in the statistics so any women who remained out of work under the Nazi’s rule did not exist as far as the statistics were concerned.That's not job creation or the makings of a healthy economy. That is nothing less than a military build-up, a temporary bubble that cannot be sustained without of course, war.
The unemployed were given a very simple choice: do whatever work is given to you by the government or be classed as "work-shy" and put in a concentration camp.
Jews lost their citizenship in 1935 and as a result were not included in unemployment figures even though many lost their employment at the start of Hitler’s time in power.
Many young men were taken off of the unemployment figure when conscription was brought in (1935) and men had to do their time in the army etc. By 1939, the army was 1.4 million strong. To equip these men with weapons etc., factories were built and this took even more off of the unemployment figure.
the GLF increased the number of hours worked from 60 to 72 per week (including overtime) by 1939. Strikes were outlawed.The country underwent significant government investment, at the cost of dramatically increasing the debt of the country:
government income had been 10 billion Reichsmarks in 1928. In 1939, it stood at 15 billion. However, government spending had increased from 12 billion Reichsmarks in 1928 to over 30 billion in 1939 - a difference of 15 billion Reichsmarks. From 1933 to 1939, the Nazi government always spent more than it earned so that by 1939, government debt stood at over 40 billion Resichsmarks.
Nazi racial theorist Hans F. K. Günther identified the Aryan race in Europe as having five subtype races: Nordic, Mediterranean, Dinaric, Alpine, and East Baltic.[40] Günther applied a Nordicist conception that Nordics were the highest in the racial hierarchy amongst these five Aryan subtype races.[41] In his book Rassenkunde des deutschen Volkes (1922) ("Racial Science of the German People"), Günther recognized Germans as being composed of all five Aryan subtypes, but emphasized the strong Nordic heritage amongst Germans.
Since the military defeat of Nazi Germany by the Allies in 1945, most neo-Nazis have expanded their concept of the Aryan race, moving from the Nazi concept that the purest Aryans were the Teutonics or Nordics of Northern Europe to the idea that the true Aryans are everyone descended from the Western or European branch of the Indo-European peoples because it is believed that they most closely resemble the original racial stock of the Proto-Indo-Europeans.Lol, moving the goalposts. GG Nazis.
$46,000. M4 (Sherman) tank. 35 tons. 75mm main gun.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_cost_of_a_sherman_tank_in_World_War_2_dollars
$46,387. Panzer MkIVG (and later) tank. 75mm main gun. 50mm armor.
$60,000. Panzer MkV (Panther) tank. 75mm/70 main gun. 80mm armor.
$119,920. Panzer MkVIE (Tiger) tank. 88mm main gun. 100mm armor.
Refiguring the estimates, Chrysler put a cost per [Sherman] tank of $33,500.http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/Vehicles/Tanks/US/Sherman-tank/M4-Sherman.htm
44.556-49.997 $
= 11.000-12.500 £
= 99.000-111.000 RM
(https://i.imgur.com/1OKnayK.png)Allied/Axis ratio of GDP being the most telling here.
Military and WW2:
The German military was overrated. So elite, so professional and yet so many horses. 1/5th of the Wehrmacht were motorised, mechanised or armoured. 4/5ths of the Wehrmacht with the mechanisation used horses for logistics, particularly for artillery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_II
Now I open on talking about horses because it's always important to remember that while a country like Germany had elite divisions of panzers they did not have a lot. The German army was not a mechanised juggernaut, its backbone was regular infantry. The Eastern front was not a contest of tank vs tank or plane vs plane but of millions of soldiers on both sides facing off against each other with rifle and machine gun.
On another note, the Sherman tank was a successful design because it did exactly what it was designed to do: act as infantry support while the tank destroyers got the tanks.
An excellent summary of the Sherman: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110227030742AAD1SGB
Why mention the Sherman? Because of the cost comparison one can make.
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/20451-cost-of-ww2-weapons/Quote$46,000. M4 (Sherman) tank. 35 tons. 75mm main gun.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_cost_of_a_sherman_tank_in_World_War_2_dollars
$46,387. Panzer MkIVG (and later) tank. 75mm main gun. 50mm armor.
$60,000. Panzer MkV (Panther) tank. 75mm/70 main gun. 80mm armor.
$119,920. Panzer MkVIE (Tiger) tank. 88mm main gun. 100mm armor.QuoteRefiguring the estimates, Chrysler put a cost per [Sherman] tank of $33,500.http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/Vehicles/Tanks/US/Sherman-tank/M4-Sherman.htmQuote44.556-49.997 $
= 11.000-12.500 £
= 99.000-111.000 RM
Sherman was cheaper, not as cheap as you'd suspect but still demonstrably cheaper to produce. Remember that the Tiger and Sherman were designed with different roles in mind so the two are not directly comparable in a 1-1 fight.
Quantity must be compared with quality, they are not mutually exclusive. If you produce more expensive tanks you will have less. Less tanks means you lose, unless of course you kill all of the enemy tanks, but it's likely their more numerous, poorer quality tanks will overwhelm.
My point here is that the image of the Germany military as some elite, super powerful force is a myth. At the least you must recognised that every tiger equalled several tanks on the allied side. Essentially I am using the Sherman as just one example of where the Allies outproduced Nazi Germany even with the same costs given.
You're saying Germany only had 4 years of time to rebuild, and their industry was weaker then the allies, then why did Hitler start the war? He clearly pushed Germany through the door un-prepared. The war itself was a mistake then.
Also, you're claiming alot of stuff without evidence. I am not denying the German army's ability, I am denying it's elite-ness and professionalism. It's overrated as fuck, yet they lost the war.
yes, they were amazing, also take in effect that for a long time till 1942 i believe- they fed their armed forces amphetamines which made them perform rather great but then they started noticing addiction and how fucked up people get on amphetamines. aka tankerschocolate.
the allies did it aswel but not on the scale of the germans, holy shit.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/the-nazi-death-machine-hitler-s-drugged-soldiers-a-354606.html
yes, they were amazing, also take in effect that for a long time till 1942 i believe- they fed their armed forces amphetamines which made them perform rather great but then they started noticing addiction and how fucked up people get on amphetamines. aka tankerschocolate.
the allies did it aswel but not on the scale of the germans, holy shit.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/the-nazi-death-machine-hitler-s-drugged-soldiers-a-354606.html
Quite common among armed forces to use drugs and other substances to increase their soldiers' performance. It was used in the USSR up until the end of the Soviet-Afghan war.
If i were you, i'd post that in a different thread because 75% of what you posted is irrelevant to the discussion. So i wont bother answering that in this thread. I will answer the on topic parts:
If i were you, i'd post that in a different thread because 75% of what you posted is irrelevant to the discussion. So i wont bother answering that in this thread. I will answer the on topic parts:
Oh, I seem to have not read this part of your response. Please reply to my National Socialism post, Sven. I am very curious how you will defend it, honestly.
If i were you, i'd post that in a different thread because 75% of what you posted is irrelevant to the discussion. So i wont bother answering that in this thread. I will answer the on topic parts:
Oh, I seem to have not read this part of your response. Please reply to my National Socialism post, Sven. I am very curious how you will defend it, honestly.
Why would i defend Nazism? I'm a libertarian poodle.
Something coming from the web isn't wrong by default, just like something isn't by definition correct because you got it out of a book.
Something coming from the web isn't wrong by default, just like something isn't by definition correct because you got it out of a book.
No, not by default (looking at you David Crantz).They are just way more reliable for the reasons already stated on last page.
Soldiers in the ACW were given cocaine pills. In the Napoleonics and looong before that, men were given alcohol, sometimes to a point where they were nearly drunk. Maybe it's on a greater scale, but really, nothing new.
1. Most of the authors on internet websites have no professional careers, thus if they write wrong/and or biased information nothing happens to them, they don't have a career to lose.
2. The information isn't critiqued before hadn by a publisher.
3. Most of the writers on the web are unreliable in themselves.
Psst im gonna hop in here to ask you where you get the source for cocaine pills issued to ACW soldiers? Only heard of doctors giving opiums during surgery.
Or preferably, just do research yourself and use only primary sources.
Sorry Sven, butQuote1. Most of the authors on internet websites have no professional careers, thus if they write wrong/and or biased information nothing happens to them, they don't have a career to lose.
What that's supposed to mean? Someone who writes on the internet does sloppy research? I can throw hundreds of scientific books at you with bad research.Quote2. The information isn't critiqued before hadn by a publisher.
Publishers most of the time hardly know anything about the historical periods. An acquittance of mine made a book covering (part of) the Crimea war based entirely on primary sources, and the publisher kept making notes that came down to 'That didn't happen like that, I was thought that in high school'. Publishers check if the book is going to be sold well, not if things are historicaly correct. The publisher of previously mentioned book actually made a note that the book might be too 'anti-British' as it made short work of the various myths concerning the Crimea, and that made result in negative reactions. The author was, by the way, British.Quote3. Most of the writers on the web are unreliable in themselves.
That's a pretty shabby argument. It doesn't even mean something. 'You can't be trusted because you can't be trusted'.Psst im gonna hop in here to ask you where you get the source for cocaine pills issued to ACW soldiers? Only heard of doctors giving opiums during surgery.
Historic magazine. If you are sure that it didn't happen, I believe you. I never did much research into it, I just remembered it when people start talking about drugs.
Wiki answers and Yahoo answers are great sources. Would definetly use them on my history essays.
To be honest, for forum discussions i cant be arsed using sources, 2 much effort.
Wiki answers and Yahoo answers are great sources. Would definetly use them on my history essays.
It is certainly better then no links or citations at all.
To be honest, for forum discussions i cant be arsed using sources, 2 much effort.
The main superiority of Wehrmacht, that in war they invented new tactics, and rather old British and Soviet war tactics couldnt resist it, but when Allies learnt from their mistakes, and took many things from Whermacht, they started winning, that's all.
First, who invented Blitzkrieg tactics was Freidrich the Great, Prussian King, during Seven Years War he attacked Saxony without declaring war and with fast strikes of cavalry and infantry defeated Saxony. So Wehrmacht only advanced it, not invented. I'm talking about Wehrmacht tactics at all, tank tactics, air and ground support tactics, artillery and many other.The main superiority of Wehrmacht, that in war they invented new tactics, and rather old British and Soviet war tactics couldnt resist it, but when Allies learnt from their mistakes, and took many things from Whermacht, they started winning, that's all.
The Blitzkrieg was indeed the German's superiority. France would've been like the Russian front during WW1 without the Blitzkrieg.
That's the tactic of mobility. Alexander the Great already used that.
Blitzkrieg has been around for centuries, it's the exact same tactics as used by Napoleon (penetrate a single point, encircle, destroy) but with more advanced technology. The big thing that gave the Wehrmacht a massive advantage at the start of the war was inclusion of radios in Panzers to allow for incredibly efficient coordination. That, and the old Prussian ethos of mission tactics, with junior officers taking the initiative and not sticking to rigid battle plans. Blitzkrieg works fine in a relatively small theatre of war (Poland, France, etc.), but because of the vast distances involved they found it very difficult to implement successfully in the East.
Interesting, but how Russia maintained their army on the SAME roads? And, the unpaved roads was tactics of Friedrich the Great, he once said - "Let me walk with comfort by enemy roads, but in our country they will stuck in mood."Blitzkrieg has been around for centuries, it's the exact same tactics as used by Napoleon (penetrate a single point, encircle, destroy) but with more advanced technology. The big thing that gave the Wehrmacht a massive advantage at the start of the war was inclusion of radios in Panzers to allow for incredibly efficient coordination. That, and the old Prussian ethos of mission tactics, with junior officers taking the initiative and not sticking to rigid battle plans. Blitzkrieg works fine in a relatively small theatre of war (Poland, France, etc.), but because of the vast distances involved they found it very difficult to implement successfully in the East.
Not so much about distance, more about infrastructure. Russia being as backward as it was still had 80% of it's roads still unpaved which made logistics a nightmare and combat situations for German armor impossible.
Interesting, but how Russia maintained their army on the SAME roads? And, the unpaved roads was tactics of Friedrich the Great, he once said - "Let me walk with comfort by enemy roads, but in our country they will stuck in mood."Blitzkrieg has been around for centuries, it's the exact same tactics as used by Napoleon (penetrate a single point, encircle, destroy) but with more advanced technology. The big thing that gave the Wehrmacht a massive advantage at the start of the war was inclusion of radios in Panzers to allow for incredibly efficient coordination. That, and the old Prussian ethos of mission tactics, with junior officers taking the initiative and not sticking to rigid battle plans. Blitzkrieg works fine in a relatively small theatre of war (Poland, France, etc.), but because of the vast distances involved they found it very difficult to implement successfully in the East.
Not so much about distance, more about infrastructure. Russia being as backward as it was still had 80% of it's roads still unpaved which made logistics a nightmare and combat situations for German armor impossible.
If the Wehrmacht didn't consider the bad state of the Russian roads and how that would have an effect on Blitzkrieg warfare, then they're pretty stupid.
Then, that's a major fail of Axis invading Russia, they really believed it will fall like France and that they can capture the land more then 5 times bigger then Germany is, only for one summer. They didnt consider logistics problems, partisans and they didnt count on that retreating troops will cause as much problems, as they can.
Their supply lines were much closer than Germany's, they were in friendly territory as well (Germans had partisans sabotaging roads and train tracks), lastly the Russians had different rail gauges than German ones, so the Germans didn't have trains to supply their forces. They weren't in the same conditions.
The roads didn't turn into mud until October. The OKW took this into consideration and thus the offensive was supposed start in May, not late June. Due to delays that didn't happen but the offensive had to go on anyways.Roads, mud. If you cant plan your logistics well - dont go for war.
Then, that's a major fail of Axis invading Russia, they really believed it will fall like France and that they can capture the land more then 5 times bigger then Germany is, only for one summer. They didnt consider logistics problems, partisans and they didnt count on that retreating troops will cause as much problems, as they can.
Their supply lines were much closer than Germany's, they were in friendly territory as well (Germans had partisans sabotaging roads and train tracks), lastly the Russians had different rail gauges than German ones, so the Germans didn't have trains to supply their forces. They weren't in the same conditions.
The roads didn't turn into mud until October. The OKW took this into consideration and thus the offensive was supposed start in May, not late June. Due to delays that didn't happen but the offensive had to go on anyways.Roads, mud. If you cant plan your logistics well - dont go for war.
Crying about bad roads and partizns in woods, is not for triumphators of Europe ;)
They must count, that their terror tactics on captured lands and "New Order" is like adding oil to the fire, and it wont stay without payback. They achieved the full hate of local people. When people understood, that this is not just war - that's a war for survive, you know, something united them even more.
Please, give the references about partisans. From what i know, partisans groups were created even before the war, but due to disorganise of first month of war they self-disbanded. Partisan groups didnt consist only from people you stated, they were in majority consisted from regular people, who foguht their way to get invaders kicked of the country.Crying about bad roads and partizns in woods, is not for triumphators of Europe ;)
They must count, that their terror tactics on captured lands and "New Order" is like adding oil to the fire, and it wont stay without payback. They achieved the full hate of local people. When people understood, that this is not just war - that's a war for survive, you know, something united them even more.
Except that most of the Partisans weren't normal people, they were jews and ardent communists who would have fought either way. Many inhabitants of the USSR sympathised with the Germans, like those the Baltic states, Western Ukrainians, the Caucasus states.
Are you talking about militias or armed citizens by partisans? Because i'm referring to the latter.I'm refering to those, who were in woods, blewed up bridges and railroads. Those, who attacked garrisons and made raids on supplies, the partisans.
Why defend nazism and war crimes sweeen?? ::) ::)He wasnt defending nazis or warcrimes, he defended Wehrmacht superiority.
such nazivery wrongwow
#SarcasmWhy defend nazism and war crimes sweeen?? ::) ::)He wasnt defending nazis or warcrimes, he defended Wehrmacht superiority.
such nazivery wrongwow