WWII Question...

[Alexian Cale]

I'm sorry, I didn't know where a question like this would go. I find WWII fascinating, but I've been curious as to the power of Nazi Germany. I can't find a single, supercredible source that explictly states how Germany compared to other countries at the time of World War II.

I've always assumed Germany was, at least, as strong as any individual nation on the planet, since it seems to me they practically fought against the Allies in Europe pretty much on their own. My social study books and stuff have said that the German military was the best on the planet, outstripping Britain and France and Russia and the US, individually.

Is this true?

It seems to me that they couldn't have fought as long and as well as they have unless they were pretty damn powerful (rivaling its enemies).

Essentially: Was Nazi Germany -- militaristically speaking -- the strongest nation during WWII?

[Broomstick]

Well....

I'm not a military expert - I'm sure our resident ones will show up soon - but there are more factors that just how many tanks and guns are available. Germany obviously had some advantages, otherwise they wouldn't have been as successful as they were early on, but it's not how fast you invade, it's how long you can hold onto what you take that matters in the end.

For example, Germany had bottlenecks on several vital resources such as oil and rubber. Towards the end, the massive manpower and natural resources that the US could wield made a huge difference - Germany couldn't adequately feed it's own citizens, but the US not only kept its own fed on two massive fronts, it supplied quite a bit to its allies as well. Starving soldiers do not fight well. At that point, the US was an exporter of petroleum, Germany was trying to find ways to make synthetic fuels economically. And so on.

So while initially Germany might have had superiority in weaponry they were weak in certain vital resources. The best gun in the world is useless without ammunition.

[Sea Skimmer]

The key thing is Germany was mobilizing its entire economy and population for war from 1934 onward, and to an extent preparation had been going on for several years before that. This total mobilization meant Germany was disproportional in combat power in 1939 compared to the size of her economy and availability of natural resources to sustain that economy. Meanwhile in the rest of Western Europe no one began serious rearmament until 1937, and it was carried out at a sedate peacetime pace until war had actually broken out.

The Germans then attacked a string of very weak states that could not have fought off anyone, and then France fell mainly owing to a clever German strategy (which was adapted only after a very conventional strategy that would have failed was compromised to the Belgians!) along with very inept leadership and bankrupt thinking on the allied side. If you simply lined up the Allied armies and the German Army in 1940, and had them go at it head to head, the Germans would have literally run out of ammunition before being totally crushed.

After that Germany was simply very hard to get at, and it had an immense strategic depth to play with. The Soviets crippled themselves after Stalin shot every competent officer in the entire military. However, had the allies not wasted so much time invading Italy, the war could have been ended a full year earlier in early 1944, following a 1943 landing in France.

Overall German military strength is in general vastly overrated by books and Hitler’s success was completely the result of an unusual strategic situation which was the result of insane and bankrupt prewar allied polices. You will notice however that the moment the Germans came up against a competent, united and at least partly prepared enemy, Britain, they hit a brick wall. The Luftwaffe could have never won the Battle of Britain. Books will tell you Hitler should have built strategic bombers to do this job, but that would have meant building far fewer planes that could not have properly supported his armies when they overran Poland-Norway-Denmark-Belgian-Holland-France.

The German economy overall was not the worlds strongest or even on a remotely equal footing to the USSR and USA. In addition, while Germany captured many resources and industries and territories in Europe, the Germans never even tried to mobilize the industry, and the resource portfolio had some crippling shortages. The Germans did not have any ability to feed the captured populations or even themselves, the food had to be imported from outside the continent, and it did not have enough coal or oil, which was vital to fueling absolutely everything. What was more Europe was not designed to have its economy totally supported by railways, but British sea dominance cut even coastal shipping to a minimal.

The Nazi empire was in fact on poor economic grounds even before the war cut off all imports, and part of Hitler’s reason for going to war was imminent German bankruptcy!

Hitler had to strike when he did because waiting even a few more years would have meant making drastic cutbacks in military spending, while allied spending would have accelerated and soon produced forces far in excess of what Germany could ever field. That’s exactly what happened from 1942 onward, with the result that Nazi Germany did not just lose the war, Nazi Germany was utterly crushed, destroyed and left divided between the victors for 44 years.

[phongn]

I'm sorry, I didn't know where a question like this would go. I find WWII fascinating, but I've been curious as to the power of Nazi Germany. I can't find a single, supercredible source that explictly states how Germany compared to other countries at the time of World War II.

As Sea Skimmer noted above, Germany benefited from moving to a partial war footing years before anyone else did. However, in terms of "warmaking potential," they were somewhat well matched with the USSR and the UK. A common cite from Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers summarizes the relative potential strengths of each nation as of 1937:

USA, 41.7%
Germany, 14.4%
USSR, 14.0%
UK, 10.2%
France, 4.2%
Japan, 3.5%
Italy, 2.5%

My social study books and stuff have said that the German military was the best on the planet, outstripping Britain and France and Russia and the US, individually.

Not at all. Their navy, for example, would be considered fourth-rate, at best (behind the USN, IJN and RN), and their vaunted submarine campaign did not succeed in its goals of severing the sea lanes connecting Britain from the United States. The Luftwaffe found itself unequal to the task of defeating the RAF (who essentially had the optimal strategy for the defense of England).

Essentially: Was Nazi Germany -- militaristically speaking -- the strongest nation during WWII?

No, not really. That honor goes to the United States by means of sheer industrial output.

[CaptHawkeye]

I think it depends on what area of the German army you are talking about. Pound for pound, the individual Wehrmacht Grunt was probably the most well trained and armed soldier in the world throughout the war. According to some members of the 101st, they had a pretty solid NCO core too. But in the end, any tactical advantage the Germans had simply wasn't enough to strategically defeat the Allies. The house they built was constructed without a foundation, or at the very least, a sound one. Industrial confusion and sheer lack of capability dogged Germany even during the early days of the war. And it only got worse as the pressure got stronger. Not to mention absurdly good luck.

Ironically, German infantry are often the LEAST wanked part of the German army. The Luftwaffe gets wanked too, but nowhere NEAR as badly as the Panzers and the Kreigsmarine. "Hurr hurr, they reserviced the old Bayern class and now they have ULTIMATE BB!" "Oh noez Panther pwned all Commie armor and if Germany had built 16372194 more of them teh wuld have won!1!!"

Edit:

USA, 41.7%
Germany, 14.4%
USSR, 14.0%
UK, 10.2%
France, 4.2%
Japan, 3.5%
Italy, 2.5%

I love this list. It's probably the best "be all end all" argument to throw down Axis wankers with. Germany may not have been totally outmatched by the individual Allied powers, but it just couldn't hack fighting several of them at once. Much less with the logistical support of the obscenely capable United States. And the other Axis powers? Well, one can only wonder exactly what Japan's leaders were smoking.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I'm sorry, I didn't know where a question like this would go. I find WWII fascinating, but I've been curious as to the power of Nazi Germany. I can't find a single, supercredible source that explictly states how Germany compared to other countries at the time of World War II.

I've always assumed Germany was, at least, as strong as any individual nation on the planet, since it seems to me they practically fought against the Allies in Europe pretty much on their own. My social study books and stuff have said that the German military was the best on the planet, outstripping Britain and France and Russia and the US, individually.

Is this true?

It seems to me that they couldn't have fought as long and as well as they have unless they were pretty damn powerful (rivaling its enemies).

Essentially: Was Nazi Germany -- militaristically speaking -- the strongest nation during WWII?

By the end of WWII, the Soviets had an excellent military and were using tactics similar to what the Germans had. The Soviets were working on the "Deep Exploitation" doctrine prior to the "Great Purge" where Stalin shot just about any officer that showed too much creativity. However, some in Siberia, by virtue of distance, survived this purging and one of those was Zhukov and his able subordinates. They gave the Japanese quite a whipping at Khalkhin-gol.

[Alexian Cale]

Okay.

But how did they manage to do as well as they did under an inept strategist like Hitler?

Surely the Nazis had to surpass the Allies in some ways since they managed to hold their own against them for so long.

[CaptHawkeye]

Okay.

But how did they manage to do as well as they did under an inept strategist like Hitler?

Because the Allies made almost zero effort to prepare for the war. And strongly believed that outdated field doctrines and planning would deter enemy attacks. Even though many of these counter strategies were obvious to the Axis. Their is no finer example of this than War Plan Orange. Although that applies more to Japan. A better example for Germany would be the Maginot Line.

Surely the Nazis had to surpass the Allies in some ways since they managed to hold their own against them for so long.

Yes, terrain. It's rather difficult to get tanks to swim across the English Channel.

[phongn]

Okay.

But how did they manage to do as well as they did under an inept strategist like Hitler?

For a whole bunch of reasons listed by Sea Skimmer in his post. And Hitler wasn't the only one formulating military strategy, remember.

Surely the Nazis had to surpass the Allies in some ways since they managed to hold their own against them for so long.

As Sea Skimmer noted before, the Allies made a series of very bad blunders which gave Hitler the perfect opportunity to do what he did.

[Alexian Cale]

So... German strategists were superior to those of the Allies? Sorry if I'm asking "obvious" or stupid questions, but I'm the type of person who needs definate, concrete answers.

[CaptHawkeye]

So... German strategists were superior to those of the Allies? Sorry if I'm asking "obvious" or stupid questions, but I'm the type of person who needs definate, concrete answers.

Meh, more "Allied Strategists were inexperienced and caught up in old habits".

[Broomstick]

Surely the Nazis had to surpass the Allies in some ways since they managed to hold their own against them for so long.

Yes, terrain. It's rather difficult to get tanks to swim across the English Channel.

But didn't the Germans actually try to design and build a submersible tank...?

They sure had some wacky ideas for weapons back in the day, they certainly weren't deficient in imagination.

[Alexian Cale]

Huh.

Well, I appreciate the answers, folks. I suppose it takes the glory out of the entire conflict. The History channel and everything led me to believe that German training and tactics and power were downright staggering, given the success they had.

I will say I'm still a bit skeptical to believe a lot of it came down to luck rather than some skill, but you all seem to know what you're talking about.

Thanks for the history lesson.

[phongn]

Well, I appreciate the answers, folks. I suppose it takes the glory out of the entire conflict. The History channel and everything led me to believe that German training and tactics and power were downright staggering, given the success they had.

Pay no attention to the History Channel for real history. Watch to be entertained and to mock all the errors they make.

I will say I'm still a bit skeptical to believe a lot of it came down to luck rather than some skill, but you all seem to know what you're talking about.

No, there was certainly a lot of skill involved; it just happened that they attacked at the right time and against the right foes. I'm not sure if that's "luck."

So... German strategists were superior to those of the Allies? Sorry if I'm asking "obvious" or stupid questions, but I'm the type of person who needs definite, concrete answers.

If you really want to learn about this, go to your nearest library (ideally, a university library) and start reading a bunch of books on the subject matter.

Their strategists weren't even that much better, either, but they had enough bright officers at the open of war and a confluence of events (like Stalin shooting a bunch of his officer corp) that let them succeed. It then took time for the Allies to go on the offensive - you need to train men and build water material - and fighting on the defensive side is usually an easier task.

[Broomstick]

Well, I appreciate the answers, folks. I suppose it takes the glory out of the entire conflict. The History channel and everything led me to believe that German training and tactics and power were downright staggering, given the success they had.

I will say I'm still a bit skeptical to believe a lot of it came down to luck rather than some skill, but you all seem to know what you're talking about.

It was a matter of both luck and skill - the Germans really did have a good military But that's true in any war, that luck plays a role.

[CaptHawkeye]

But didn't the Germans actually try to design and build a submersible tank...?

I was referring more to the Allies. Who couldn't carry out an immediete counter attack against Germany because the of the same barrier which had protected them.

They sure had some wacky ideas for weapons back in the day, they certainly weren't deficient in imagination.

Yes, but the Allies had quite a few of these concepts in mind as well. They just didn't use or cut back on their development because they were either inefficient or not required to win the war. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head the Axis had over the Allies was the Type XXI submarine, but the Allies never made much effort to build a boat like that because they didn't need to. The Axis powers had little going in the way of counter submarine warfare.

[phongn]

Yes, but the Allies had quite a few of these concepts in mind as well. They just didn't use or cut back on their development because they were either inefficient or not required to win the war. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head the Axis had over the Allies was the Type XXI submarine, but the Allies never made much effort to built a boat like that because they didn't need to. The Axis powers had little going in the way of counter submarine warfare.

As it was, the plans for the Type XXI were known to the Allies, and countermeasures planned if needed. The RN even modified some of their submarines to emulate its performance characteristics!

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So... German strategists were superior to those of the Allies? Sorry if I'm asking "obvious" or stupid questions, but I'm the type of person who needs definate, concrete answers.

Meh, more "Allied Strategists were inexperienced and caught up in old habits".

They learnt quickly though. Among the best Allied strategists were Bradley, Patton, and you have Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Konev etc. The Germans called Patton "Crazy America Cowboy" or something like that.

If by anything, History Channel is notorious for German wanking.

[phongn]

They learnt quickly though. Among the best Allied strategists were Bradley, Patton, and you have Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Konev etc. The Germans called Patton "Crazy America Cowboy" or something like that.

Bradley???

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

They learnt quickly though. Among the best Allied strategists were Bradley, Patton, and you have Zhukov, Rokossovsky, Konev etc. The Germans called Patton "Crazy America Cowboy" or something like that.

Bradley???

Erm.. did i mistake something?

[Sidewinder]

But didn't the Germans actually try to design and build a submersible tank...?

They did-- see My Tank Is Fight!

They sure had some wacky ideas for weapons back in the day, they certainly weren't deficient in imagination.

They had imagination, but fortunately for the Allies, not much sense in the practical development and application of these ideas.

[Adrian Laguna]

After that Germany was simply very hard to get at, and it had an immense strategic depth to play with. The Soviets crippled themselves after Stalin shot every competent officer in the entire military. However, had the allies not wasted so much time invading Italy, the war could have been ended a full year earlier in early 1944, following a 1943 landing in France.

IIRC something like 40% of all allied supplies in the Western Front came through Marseilles. The Italian campaign was vital to securing the Mediterranean, which was in turn needed for logistical purposes. The mistake wasn't in engaging in the campaign itself, but rather in thinking it was a viable avenue of advance.

[Sea Skimmer]

The biggest German advantage in tactics/training/planning was an unexplainabiul superiority in forming hastily organized combine arms battle groups to launch immediate counter attacks. When you go up to operational and strategic levels, the Germans had no advantage over any of the top allied thinkers even in 1940. Its just that the Germans gave these men more freedom to implement the ideas that had; heck Heinz Guderian based most of his writing and ideas off the writing of several allied tank experts.

No one BTW truly had the idea of tank operations down correctly at the start of the war. The allies under concentrated but had armored divisions forming in both the British and French armies. The Germans meanwhile put over 400 tanks in each Panzer division, which was an over concentration. The formations proved unwieldy and lacking in infantry support, the strength was dropped down to about 200; though in the last stages of the war it was more like 50, and only then on paper.

Ideally trial through combat has shown you want a ratio of about 1:1 in tank and infantry battalions, no one really had this during the war except some US Infantry divisions with multiple armor attachments.

Because the Allies made almost zero effort to prepare for the war. And strongly believed that outdated field doctrines and planning would deter enemy attacks. Even though many of these counter strategies were obvious to the Axis. Their is no finer example of this than War Plan Orange. Although that applies more to Japan. A better example for Germany would be the Maginot Line.

War Plan Orange by definition applies only to USN operations vs. Japan, and the plan was abandon even in 1939 since it clearly could not work. When the US got into the war in 1941 WPO had formally been replaced by the RAINBOW-5 plan, which was more or less the plan the Navy ended up following during the war. It assumed simultaneous Pacific and Atlantic war, as in Germany and Japan together, and the famous 2 Ocean Navy bill passed in 1940 was largely designed to meet the requirements of this plan.

IIRC something like 40% of all allied supplies in the Western Front came through Marseilles. The Italian campaign was vital to securing the Mediterranean, which was in turn needed for logistical purposes. The mistake wasn't in engaging in the campaign itself, but rather in thinking it was a viable avenue of advance.

You can argue that Sicily was needed to open the Mediterranean, but the landing on the mainland was 100% pointless. In fact the Anzio landing, an attempt to undue the utter fuckup that this campaign was, actually yet further delayed Normandy in 1944 by drawing off landing craft stockpiles.

The troops that landed in the South of France could have simply landed further south on the French Atlantic coast. Several cities in that area where NEVER captured, and held out until the end of the war because the allies simply didn’t need them and didn’t want to waste lives attacking (France eventually began a liberation campaign using only its own resources but it was not completed). Had the situation been different they could have been captured relatively swiftly.

Since the Germans will be stronger on land too, we wouldn’t have shot the bolt with anything like Market Garden either, and Antwerp will thus be captured and opened to supply traffic sooner. And of course the Panther will be almost unknown, the Tiger realtivly rare and heck even the long barrel 75mm gunned Panzer IV was still not the German standard in 1943. Allied troops with all the 75mm Shermans and 76mm M10’s they need will be vastly better off.

[FSTargetDrone]

But didn't the Germans actually try to design and build a submersible tank...?

They sure had some wacky ideas for weapons back in the day, they certainly weren't deficient in imagination.

Yes, it was called the "Tauchpanzer." It was a modified Panzer IV:

Tauchpanzer (1940, 42 converted): A "diving tank". Ausf D converted for Operation Sealion. All openings were sealed, commander's cupola, gun mantlet and machine gun mount covered with rubber sheeting, turret ring protected by inflatable rubber ring. Exhausts were fitted with non-return valves. Air was supplied via a flexible 18-meter hose held on the surface by a buoy. Maximum safe depth was about 15 meters, maximum underwater speed about 3 mph. Some were used by the 18th Panzer Regiment during River Bug crossing in Operation Barbarossa.

The crew was provided with breathing equipment--if the tank ran into trouble, got stuck, whatever, the crew was supposed to let it flood (so they could open the hatches) and escape using the breathing apparatus.

EDIT:

Replaced the picture with better ones. You can see the snorkel in the top picture, above the turret. In the second picture, you can see the coverings around the main gun, hull machine gun and the mount on the front of the turret for the seal illustrated in the top picture.

I think the Russians tried something similar.

[Sea Skimmer]

Tanks with snorkels are not that unusual really. Every single Russian tank since the T-34 has had the ability to snorkel, and they carry the things around at all times. For training the Russians even had a special oversized snorkel that went over the commanders hatch, so that in the event of a engine stall the crew could simply climb out, before divers went down to hook up tow cables. The US and some other European armies also tested snorts for tanks, but they never caught on. But then, no one else besides Russia has so many huge rivers to cross during realistic operations.