How effective was the Nazi Army?
>I would like to know in terms of training regimen
>Military strategy
>Technology in terms of Weapons and vehicles
How did they compare to other nations? Were they elite but just too few in numbers? Or were they elite but Inept? Or just Inept and too few in numbers?
The Wehrmacht, kriegsmarine and the luftwaffe were very capable by troop quality (degraded as the war went on) but germany has always suffered from a chronic lack of long term manpower, hence the lebensraum, very good equipment to a certain degree (tends to be complex to manufacture and overtly complicated) and insufficient quantity of everything leading to severe supply problems, great officer core which degraded hard after '41 there you go.
They just did not have quite enough of anything when it mattered.
Also on the SS, their training was even more rigorous and political. Their equipment early war was hastily cobbled together since they did not have access to army stuff. Late war they got priority access to good equipment.
>Throw like half your military at Russia in the winter
>They all freeze or die of hunger
>Losing 10% of your troops in a fight is a catastrophic lose
>Lost like half in a single season over a 15 year war
Most of their advantage was in tech, and their economy recovered from the depression in that era first, so they had the funds to gear their entire military and conquest, while others were still gathering potatoes and bread to survive.
>Inferior technology
>God tier NCOs and lower level officers
>Bad high level officers with no insight outside of purely military matters
After versailles treaty, german army was limited to only 150k men, so only the best were let in. Also every man was trained to operate 2 ranks above his rank in weimar army. Germans innovated a lot because conventional strategy failed them in ww1. Thats the same reason the french got stuck with old military doctrine.
Greatest problem were manpower reserves. In countries like france or ussr had conscription and every male went through at least a year of military sevice. Germans couldnt do it due to versailles treaty and after the bulk of the wehrmacht was obliterated in first soviet counteroffensive at moscow, german army had chronic manpower shortages and most of new soldiers were raw recruits
>inferior technology
Hardly inferior, they were ahead of the rest of the world until 1941 when the war literally forced the Allies to drag their tech forward.
Pretty much this.
However the greatest failing of the National Socialist leadership was not realizing the extent to which international Jewery had infiltrated Great Britain and the United States. The Soviet Union would have fallen without technical assistance and military aid from the United States and that assistance wouldn't have been possible had Germany successfully invaded Great Britain.
>But Operation Sealion is impossible!!
Germany should have waited until they were better equipped to deal with Britain before they invaded Poland.
After 2nd sentence the post becomes bullshit.
First of all German strategy was extremely conventional while French was super innovative.
Take for example the understanding of manuever. Germans defined it as movement of units on the battlefield, French as movement of firepower - regardless of whether it involved moving the troops or just telling artillery to shell different position in range. Germans adopted new developments into 'oldschool' doctrine while the French developed completely new doctrine to fit their new gear.
Secondly reserves were never a problem as far as war with France was considered simply because Germany had larger and younger population.
Thirdly manpower problems became a thing in late 1943 not, as your post suggests 1941. In fact by the start of war against the USSR Germany had more frontline troops than the Soviets
you forget population. It was 1 german for every 10 russians. They never stood a chance.
Once America joined the war with almost the same amount as the russkies, it was over.
They were shit mate
They lost to Slavic levies with sub-par weapons tactics and political commisars
For all the new doctrine the French developed, it didn't seem to do them much good. It it ain't broke don't fix it.
Let's think.
German radial engines? Inferior to allied ones across the board.
German prop airplanes? Comparable until 1942 or so. Then inferior. The very big ones like Greif were absolute shitshows in comparison to Lancasters or B17s.
German tanks? Heavy. Sherman at 28 tons had frontal armour of efficiency equivalent to 56 tonnes Tiger, nuff said. And theb you step into factory and realize that Germans, with their hand fitting on mass scale were centuries behind Americans who, as noted by the Brits, had no vices in their factories (every single part fitted every single tank, no hand fitting was involved).
Small arms? Out of lack of machineguns they've invented GPMG which was one of the two good ideas they've had. At the same time they never had decent semi-automatic rifle while soviets and americans were producing theirs since mid 1930. Their SMGs led to nothing post-war. Potentially beneficial design choices were simply redundant. They were one of the first to recognise their usefulness though.
Artillery was behind the times, radios were good but the rest of electronics was shit etc. I'm not going to mention naval stuff because it stops being funny. Germans were for the most part behind the times.
My point is that the idea that French were stuck in the past is retarded. French had incredibly futuristic view of warfare, and many of their shortcomings came from manpower issues, geography and short service time for drafted soldiers. Even more there are wars that were fought as they envisioned with current Ukrainian conflict being the newest example - tanks get wrecked by atgms, air force outside of drones is grounded, artillery reigns supreme etc.
Germans invented the blitz too and had they stopped at Poland would have enjoyed the good times today.
Instead they had a supreme leader who tactically continuously fucked himself against his generals better judgement.
They had the absolute greatest NCO and field grade officer corps in modern world history. To become an infantry officer in the army was an incredibly difficult and demanding process which ensured only the absolute best leaders filled the ranks, and the kriegsschulen where officers were educated in tactics and leadership were the best in the world at the time, owing to the old Prussian "culture of excellence" concept that made the Prussian army so dominant. This allowed their junior leadership to utilize the Prussian concept of Auftragstaktik to be much more adaptive and dynamic than their adversaries, especially in the attack. Decentralization of command with the concept of "commander's intent" allowed these superior junior leaders to take the initiative in battle when other armie's leaders would hesitate without direct orders from higher.
The senior leaders were mostly good strategists, and they were aided by an atmosphere of encouraging creativity and "thinking outside the box" that Hitler actually fostered, despite being a poor strategist himself.
They were innovative and applied some revolutionary concepts in maneuver warfare that are now common practice in conventional combat, such as all armored divisions, close air support, the concept of bypassing enemy strongpoints and encircling them into pockets to liquidate later etc. etc.
As far as tech, they were less mechanized than any other great power at the time. France had significantly more tanks than Germany in 1940, however most of these were dispersed through the infantry divisions as infantry support vehicles, removing the asset of speed that tanks provide.
A major reason they ultimately lost was over extension, fighting a multi front war, and the fact that Germany was not really a nation well suited for mass production like the US and Soviet Union were. The massive casualty count in the USSR post 1942 was also very devastating.
Also they gave amphetamines to their troops to make them more aggressive and focused during attacks, which may have resulted in a double edged sword.
Since you're a pole i thought you were just going to meme but every point you mentioned is entirely valid, i should add that the germans did try some things out first, for better or worse for them. First IR nvg's, guided bombs, jet aircraft, assault rifles etc. Of course having some fancy stuff is worthless when you have so many other problems. Also you did not mention that the germans only ever had one factory making tanks on an assembly line.
Nazi Germany's brief success was in their mobilization capability or "blitzkrieg"
Especially in contrast with Russia/USSR which had long standing mobilization issues.
Unfortunately for them once Russia did mobilize full force their impressive stats and performance evaporated and it became a losing campaign.
British bombing crippled infrastructure a bit and then the USA delivered a fatal blow. But the "multi front" war is largely exaggerated. For the majority of it they were basically 1v1 against Russia and they lost. But dont tell Sup Forums that.
The blitz is literally the method of performing warfare that functioned at least since the days of Alexander but now with gigantic numbers of industrial warfare and the new mobility given by combustion engine.
Also Hitler was right more often than he wasn't. The events of Barbarossa show it perfectly. Hitler's generals wanted Leningrad and Moscow, because that would maybe cause soviets to surrender. Perhaps. Hitler wanted fertile soil in Ukraine and oilfields in Caucasus to allow Germany to continue waging war in case they wouldn't surrender.
In direct combat yes, the fighting in the west cannot compare to what took place on the eastern front. However the main intent of the western allies was to tie up German resources elsewhere to prevent them from being used in the east. Minor British commando raids in Norway resulted in Germany stationing a quarter million combat troops there for the duration of the war that could have been used on the eastern front.
They fought one war and lost.
So yeah they were shit.
Organizationally, in terms of training and reserves and political ideology it was lot worse than the Imperial German army that preceded it.
This is correct.
Some of the other posts itt are correct.
The Luftwaffe was kinda shit I think it's important to mention. Aerial warfare became retardedly important in WWII.
Also it cant be overestimated how perfidious anglos are. Our espionage and shit was hilariously good at disrupting everything germans were doing, and without Turing breaking the enigma code the war might have lasted longer and been bloodier for the allies.
This is also correct.
USSR would have lost without lend lease providing food, trucks and trains. That and the industrial crippling campaign by UK. Once moscow would have fallen the shitshow would have fallen apart. Also it was a multiple front. Germany was fighting allies in the air, in the med, in africa, and in the balkans lol
>1 german for every 10 russians.
wrong.
not why they lost
why they lost was because it was 1 German tank to every Russian tank
while Germany was taking their time hand crafting the more advanced and more expensive Tanks in German warehouses Russia was pumping out cheap tank after cheap tank on assembly lines in tank factories.
So even though tanks like the German Tiger II were basically indestructible to the inferior Russian tanks at a certain range there were just too little of them and they were being built so slowly that it didn't matter
also a big problem with the tiger II was that it was too complicated for field maintenance and more of them were destroyed by German tank crews abandoning them and preventing them from being used by Russians because they didn't have time or the know how to fix them.
a similar story happened with their aircraft
some people speculate that if they didn't waste all their resources and manufacturing time on the extremely advanced Messerschmidt Me 262 and Heinkel HE 178 (the world's first jet planes) and just built more tested and simpler air superiority fighters like the Messerschmidt Bf 109 (conventional propeller plane) they might have won the war
when the German fighter jets finally did come out they were unmatchable.
able to zoom in and out of combat at speeds far greater than any other plane and easily take out allied bombers but it was just too little too late
they had basically lost the war by this time
why did they make stupid mistakes like this?
Mostly because of Hitler who wanted big flashy military vehicles that would stun the world and show everyone superior Nazi technology and engineering
despite so many of his generals telling him not to rely on undeveloped technologies and focus on speeding up manufacturing he refused to listen and so that idiot's choices cost them the war
>A major reason they ultimately lost was over extension, fighting a multi front war, and the fact that Germany was not really a nation well suited for mass production like the US and Soviet Union were.
because Hitler was an idiot and purposefully focused on fancy tech rather than speeding up manufacturing
they could have done it if he didn't tell them not to
Lmao, they would have won regardless of the west's ridiculously pathetic care packages. Stalin would have won at all costs
The German soldier had a more rigorous training regimen for longer in their lives and a superior diet to starving Russians or depression-ravaged Western Europe
We had 80 years old generals who thought the Germans would not violate Belgian neutrality.
We had some good theoricians but our top generals (Gamelin and Weygand) were Italy-tier
Luftwaffe was good but it was very badly used
nope. not if Germany put effort into making tank assembly lines
>French was super innovative.
>French had incredibly futuristic view of warfare
What in the absolute fuck am I reading?
>Most of their advantage was in tech
This is blatantly untrue, the Germans were technologically behind the allies in almost every field.
>Be using bolt action rifles when both Americans and Russians have semi-automatic rifles in widespread service
>Americans develop gyrostabilized tank guns before you
>British develop APDS ammunition allowing lower pressure 76mm guns to match the penetration of higher pressure 88mm German guns
>British far ahead in Radar through most of the war
>Americans develop nuclear weapons before Germans
The only field Germany led in was rocketry, even when it came to jet engines the western allies were generally on the same technological level as the Germans.
Eastern Europeans were at the time considered to be timid giants.
>Germans invented the blitz too
Blitzkrieg is just a vague concept the idea of rapid mechanized warfare was pioneered by the British in the 1920s.
France had some of the most advanced military hardware in development when it fell. Le maginot line meme is retarded since the line did its job of freeing up additional forces to be relocated to the north. The reason the German breakthrough succeeded was primarily due to inefficient doctrine and lack of initiative among French and British commanders. Had the French and British responded quickly to the German breakthrough the German offensive likely would have been cut off and destroyed ensuring a relatively rapid German defeat.
Well, they lost the war... what do you think?
Of the 322 German Army and SS divisions extant in Nov 1943, only 52 were armored or motorized. Of the Nov 1944 total of 264 combat divisions, only 42 were armored or motorized. The great bulk of the German combat strength-the old-type infantry divisions-marched into battle on foot, with their weapons and supply trains propelled almost entirely by four-legged horsepower.
Bitch please. It took 3 of the major powers of the world along with countless allies to stop them
The Maginot Line was a technical leader in fortress technology.
Vive Verdun!
The Germans were great fighters but they failed in terms of man power and supplies. Their lack of supplies is the reason most of them froze to death on the way to Moscow.
Keep in mind Germany was not an empire spanning such enormous territory like Russia or America - both of these countries had enormous populations to pull troops from.
Even today, a country like China would do exceptionally well in war because they have a nearly limitless amount of nationalistic manpower in comparison to other countries.
There's a book called I believe seeds of disaster or something (I've been up for almost 24 hours sorry) it delves very deeply into it.
They've put huge effort into combined arms operations etc. Except they were misguided in a way. You see, French believed firepower is a king to the point of excess. As such the advance was only possible under the umbrella of your own artillery and exploitation of breakthroughs was something they theorised about(eventually the 'methodical advances would push the enemy out of good defensive positions and allow for it) but never created any training program for this.
>along with countless allies
Outside of the big three the contributions of the rest of the world were negligible. Besides you make it sound as though it was required that all three work together to defeat Germany. If three professional fighters beat the shit out of a cripple would you say "wow that cripple was a badass it took three professional fighters to defeat him."
americans confiscated as much of their training and organizational material as possible, particularly on health, troop training, exercise, focus on the body and spirit and so on. almost all of it has been adapted into their military.
they had to attack and defeat russia, who was forming ont he border and preparing to attack them. there were numerous air fields and build up happening. a surgical strike ends russia on the spot and they can hold out throughout winter in the city. italy fucked them over when they decided to do something to show they werent just german vassals and brought allies into the oil fields, which the germans had to clear out, delaying the russian attack by about 6 weeks. they woudl have won that battle if not for fucking italy
Gassing and crematoria technology was superior to the allies. For example, the Germans invented the world’s first oven roller coaster. Allies never came close.
Americans used jackshit of their training regimen as post ww2 discipline in us army collapsed
>How effective was the Nazi Army?
THEY LOST.
Thanks a lot Italy.
Best allies for life(or until you sperg out)
>It literally took the whole world to beat them
>I wonder if they were effective?
Effective AF but not as farsighted as they needed to be to win
Don't mention it user, I'm glad to be of help.
Germany never really understood the concept of a blue water navy. Their whole naval strategy in both world wars was interdiction. It's doubtful that Hitler would have given enough priority to a naval buildup to effectively challenge the UK in any reasonable timeframe.
>rare flag
yeah but think it this way man 1 country vs like a fuck ton while fightin off the hordes of commie cunts from the ussr
any other country in the world would of got destroyed less than an hour of fightin under that type of pressure.
and the japs didnt help shit they got nuked twice in 2 days while Italy sat in the fence while doin absolutely nothing.
>The Wehrmacht
The land component, their army, was actually called the Heer. The Wehrmacht (Defense Force) was the name of the entire armed forces.
This is a common mistake that I used to make even to last year.
>British bombing crippled infrastructure a bit and then the USA delivered a fatal blow.
No it didnt, they moved production underground and from 1943 until the end of the war production of war machines was steadily rising, to the point when the allied forces inventoried the factories they realised that they would have lost the war if it continued for four months.
The Heer was also NOT highly mechanized. They still did a lot of grunt work, including pulling guns, with horses.
>Germany stationing a quarter million combat troops there for the duration of the war that could have been used on the eastern front.
That was because they had their largest air fields there to land the junkers at that could reach nyc for when they completed their bomb.
I will say that the Germans seemed to have a policy of making officers out of talented enlisteds as a policy and not just necessity. In the u.s. military, the way to become an officer is primarily a college education.
They tested atomic weapons first, they had better sublimation methods for producing u-234, they invented the ir detonators needed for nuclear weapons, the invented the transistor, and they also invented thermobaric weapons which were used extensively on the eastern front.
They fucked everyone up.better tanks..better guns..noone looks good fighting the whole god damn world
>lack of manpower
Only when fighting a 2 front war and also against Russia. In a 1v1 Nazi Germany would have defeated any other nation in the world.
They fucked up unprepared or weaker armies. An attacking army will always put you on your heels at first. They’re ready and you’re not. But the soviets fell back until the Germans were to spread out.
Your argument is that German tech was inferior because their armor lost to an endless flood of low cost light tanks? That meme has made you all so unreasonable. It's like saying high end gpu A is technologically inferior because more people buy gpu B due to better cost ratios. Just no.
I'm not even going to engage the rest of what you said, especially after the 'nuff said'.
>Americans develop gyrostabilized tank guns before you
Panzer tanks were feared on the battlefield. The only advantage Shermans had over the German Panzer IV was sheer numbers. In a 1on1 firefight the Panzer would win like 8/10 times.
>Be using bolt action rifles when both Americans and Russians have semi-automatic rifles in widespread service
The Germans were not just using bolt action rifles, the STG 44 and the MP 40(not a rifle i know) were both fully automatic and the Gewer 43 was semi auto. They were all near the top of their class in terms of performance.
>Americans develop nuclear weapons before Germans
While this is true lets not forget Einstein was a German.
Im not even taking into account all the German black projects that there is little evidence of, but i will say that there is a reason operation paperclip was willing to forgive horrific atrocities in exchange for the Germans scientific knowledge. They were very far ahead of us technologically, we just outspent them to win the war.
Wehrmacht squad tactics are the basis for all tactical theory we teach today around the world. SS developed these even further attaching extra machineguns to all their troops. Modern warfare is all pretty much a variant of German strategic theory. Combined Arms also comes from WW2 Germany.
>While this is true
But it isn't, they tested a bomb on rugen before us, invented the ir detonators for the bomb and invented more effective ways to sublimate fissile material thanks to manfred von ardenne.
I stand corrected. The Germans were even more advanced that I thought. Either way the guy I replied to got BTFO as he should have for being an ignorant slut.