Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Finest Army of the 20th Century |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 45678> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|
DreamWeaver 
Colonel 
Suspended Joined: 02-May-2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 555 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Finest Army of the 20th CenturyPosted: 26-Jun-2010 at 05:12 |
|
|
The German Tiger you say...................Im gonna throw in the British Comet into the mix.
|
||
 |
||
|
Maximus Germanicus I
Knight 
Suspended Joined: 26-Jun-2010 Location: US Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 07:05 |
|
|
||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke 
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 07:09 |
|
On Iwo Jima especially, the marines were facing a well trained and incredibly fortified enemy (which they completely reduced in one month). The Germans were held up for weeks or months by Soviet militia units fighting from hasty fortifications at Stalingrad's grain elvator, Pavolv's house, and tractor factory. While the Soviets could be reinforced, the Germans at Stalingrad simply did not have the ability of the U.S. Marine Corps.
I did not mean to impy bad performance, only that the Germans and British got better performance from ordinary units. Though all were conscript based, airborne divisions had volunteers, other "big name" divisions (Big Red One, Ivy etc) probably had access to more hand picked conscripts
The Germans and the British got better performance from their "average" units than the U.S. did. This is due to may reasons:
-German combat experience and advanced preperation to WWII
-British regimental system** (built in sociological and psychological advantages)
-Bad U.S. practices ("repl depot"* replacement system was terrible, practice of keeping divisions continous combat with out re building periods etc)
*"big name" division personnel officers and NCOS probably combed the repl depots for quality conscripts. Also, more motivated conscripts may have volunteered for assignments in famous divisions
**US later copied portions of the regiemntal system. Some successful U.S. conscript units "Thunderbird Division" already had elements of it (localized recruiting, common cultural roots (Native Americans), distinct badge etc. Edited by Cryptic - 26-Jun-2010 at 07:33 |
||
|
||
|
Maximus Germanicus I
Knight
Suspended Joined: 26-Jun-2010 Location: US Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 07:29 |
|
|
The repl depot was horrible--Instead of putting soldiers back into the old units, they were put in a first come first serve type thing. But that effected all units.
The Brits and the Germans were also at war longer, had more battle exp troops. By the End of the war US armys were better on average then thier counterparts.
ps--I have been in the Big Red one (along with the 101 and the 82nd) Great history--But my favorite unit I have served with is the 1st CAV.
The 101 were getting the same conscripts in 44 that everyone else was getting. They were no better or no worse. I agree that up to 42 early 43 the US was the weaker of the 3 in terms of training but by the end of the war they were the best Army in the war or at least the most powerful.
|
||
|
||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 08:03 |
|
I would agree with the most powerful part. I am definelty not saying that average U.S. units were noticably inferior or poor performing when compared to British or German equivelents.
But the German experience and advance preperations and the British Regimental system gave them some pretty good intangible advantages when applied to average units. By 1945, the gap had narrowed, but I dont think it had closed.
Actually.....
The British may of had a hidden advantage. My theory is that after WWI, their leadership had a social contract of "no more Sommes". That meant that say... a 35 year old British clerk, married with three kids was not conscripted into a combat position, even if meant having fewer divisions.
Edited by Cryptic - 26-Jun-2010 at 08:15 |
||
|
||
|
Maximus Germanicus I
Knight
Suspended Joined: 26-Jun-2010 Location: US Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 08:35 |
|
|
I like the British reg system. The only drawback is that it sometimes holds back talent-it doesn't spread talent around. But the huge advantage is cohesive units, a brotherhood, and a ton of institutional knowledge.
|
||
|
||
|
Maximus Germanicus I
Knight
Suspended Joined: 26-Jun-2010 Location: US Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 09:16 |
|
|
When we talk the German army are we talking the Wehrmacht or the SS and other named units. Becuase they were not the same thing and not under a unified command. If we are talking SS by themselves it is whole diff thing. The non named German divs were not that good as atested by Sayer in the forgotten soldier.
The Waffen-SS (German pronunciation: [ˈvafən.ɛs.ɛs], Armed SS) was a military force of the Third Reich.[1] It constituted the armed wing of the Schutzstaffel ("Protective Squadron") or SS, an organ of the Nazi Party. The Waffen-SS saw action throughout World War II and grew from three regiments to over 38 divisions, and served alongside the Wehrmacht Heer regular army, but was never formally part of it. It was Adolf Hitler's will that the Waffen-SS never be integrated into the army, it was to remain the armed wing of the Party and to become an elite police force once the war was won
The Brandenburgers
Regiment Brandenburg evolved out of the Abwehr's 2nd Department, and was used as a commando unit during the first years of the war. Initially the unit consisted mainly of former German expatriates fluent in other languages. Until 1944 it was an OKH unit rather than a unit of the regular army (Heer). The unit steadily expanded until it was reallocated to the Großdeutschland Panzer Korps to be used as a frontline combat unit.
A lot of the best German units were not part of the Heer, it was only towards the end of the war that they were integrated. |
||
|
||
|
Domen
Pretorian 
Joined: 13-Apr-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 170 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 10:08 |
|
Let's check German ammunition consumption data (only ground forces - without Luftwaffe):
1) Westfeldzug May - June 1940 (Fall Gelb + Fall Rot): "Der Gesamtverbrauch an Munition betrug in Westfeldzug 88 460 t." 2) Polenfeldzug September - October 1939 and the "Phoney War" 1939: "Bis zum 10. Oktober hatte man 87 694 t. Munition verbraucht. An der Front im Westen waren es in dem gleichen Zeitraum 2008 t., weitere 2730 t. wurden vom Heer dann bis zum Ende des Jahres verbraucht." 3) Norwegen and all other fronts (including the German-French border) January - April 1940: "Lediglich der Munitionsverbrauch des Heeres fuer die ersten vier Monate des Jahres 1940 wurde mit 8499 t. ermittelt." Source: Fritz Hahn, pages 197, 200 and 204. As you can sea defeating Poland (and large part of the Polish army was annihilated by the USSR) cost the German Heer as much ammunition as defeating much stronger and much more numerous Western Allies, and all of that despite the fact that German army in Westfeldzug was much more numerous than German army used in Polenfedzug. This shows that Poland was a swift but intense and difficult for the Germans campaign. Enemy was fighting fiercely even in hopeless situations (caused by poor high level leadership) and had to be annihilated with use of superior firepower. Edited by Domen - 26-Jun-2010 at 10:09 |
||
|
||
|
Domen
Pretorian
Joined: 13-Apr-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 170 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 10:14 |
|
|
Maybe you are talking about WW1 and stupid "human wave frontal attack" tactics.
There was hardly any battle in WW2 in which the attacker had got such a favourable troop ratio (by the way troops are nothing - just cannon meat - what is really important is firepower superiority, you need 3 times or 5 times more artillery guns and bombers and ammunition - but not troops).
Read the 1st post by Guaporense in this thread (interesting on military principles too):
I don't agree with everything he posted (which you will notice after reading this thread), but some of his points are quite correct.
Maybe you didn't notice but beaches on Okinawa were NOT defended by the Japanese.
And now answer yourself why they were not defended (I can tell you that it resulted from Japanese experiences from previous battles - lessons given by US Navy and US Air Force). Edited by Domen - 26-Jun-2010 at 10:23 |
||
|
||
|
opuslola
Tsar 
suspended Joined: 23-Sep-2009 Location: Long Beach, MS, Online Status: Offline Posts: 4620 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 13:15 |
|
|
If I may interrupt this great conversation at this point, I would just like to suggest that I have read (don't remember the source or sources) that the Western armies, of the Americans, Brits, Canadians, Free French, etc., were not exposed to the "best and brightest" German troops! I was told that in many instances the Western armies, especially in France, etc., were exposed to "home defence" units or as we might say in America "national guard units!"
In some cases, nothing but old (35-50 year olds) but wise men, and young 12-16 year old boys! Contrary to TV shows like Hogans Heros, etc., the German army's best troops were deployed against its greatest threat, that is the USSR! But, since I am not an expert on this war, I shall have to defer to the experts here! |
||
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
||
|
||
|
Maximus Germanicus I
Knight
Suspended Joined: 26-Jun-2010 Location: US Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 13:33 |
|
|
Domen-
Based on your own statements the Germans had superior firepower- It is true that FP is a force multipler-However that ratio is what any miltary strategist will tell you is what is required for a offense against a dug in enemy.
|
||
|
||
|
Maximus Germanicus I
Knight
Suspended Joined: 26-Jun-2010 Location: US Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 13:36 |
|
|
WW1 --my friend that is modern military tactics.
|
||
|
||
|
Domen
Pretorian
Joined: 13-Apr-2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 170 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 14:26 |
|
WW1 is a completely different tactics than WW2.
Even organization and tactics of WW1 infantry was completely different than organization and tactics of WW2 infantry.
Just to notice that at the beginning of WW1 the smallest organizational unit of infantry was battalion - there were no companies, platoons and teams, experiences of the battlefield led to creating these units.
Only by the end of WW1 (in 1918 - not before that) infantry tactics and organization started to have something (at the beginning not much) in common with what later existed in WW2.
Also infantry formations on the battlefield looked very differently in both conflicts - typical extended line of an infantry platoon from WW2 was much more extended than "extended lines" from WW1. In WW1 infantry fought in more dense formations and relied less on firepower in attack. German late WW1 infiltration tactics and Stosstruppen can be considered as prelude to WW2 infantry tactics but still crawling on all fours as such.
And still the defender suffers most of its losses in counterattacks (which are necessary to hold the frontline because for the attacker it is often enough to break defences in one point, while for the defender it is essential to hold the entire line - otherwise the entire defensive position is useless because it can be outflanked or attacked from behind) and during the so called exploitation phase as well as in withdrawal or breakthrough attempts.
For example if it comes to Okinawa - certainly not entire Okinawa was fortified - there were only some certain defensive lines (basically 3 - Machinato, Shuri and Oroku lines) and not entire Okinawa was favourable for the defenders - terrain on Okinawa was suitable for tank operations and US forces were widely using large amounts of tanks and other AFVs to support infantry on Okinawa (over 1,000) - and suffered considerable losses in tanks (if it comes to M4s alone, at least ca. ~225 were lost in combats on Okinawa, despite shortage of Anti-Tank weapons on the Japanese side).
But those tanks were deadly for the Japanese - especially flamethrower tanks.
There were heavy combats for the Shuri Line for many days, but in the end it was overcame - if I remember correctly - by just one infantry company, which found its weakly defended point and broke through there. This opened the way for the entire army behind Japanese positions and Japanese forces had to abandon the entire Shuri Line and withdraw to the Oroku Line to avoid encirclement:
Moreover some forces had to be sacrificed during that withdrawal to slow down American pursuit. Edited by Domen - 26-Jun-2010 at 14:55 |
||
|
||
|
Maximus Germanicus I
Knight
Suspended Joined: 26-Jun-2010 Location: US Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 15:47 |
|
|
Domen You don't remember correctly --You also stated that there were no concrete bunkers on Okinawa. You fail to master the basic military strategy of offense vs defense in depth. You fail to master even the most rudimentary principle, that even first year cadets learn --that of METT-TC. If you are going to quote me, quote me correctly- 3 to 1 5 to 1 is the formula used today, it was also used for staff planning in WW2 - Not WW1 Further the Japanese Army at OK used a strong point defense-which considering the terrain was the right call. So of course you don't fortify the whole island-He who defends everything defends nothing. Once again my first year cadets know this. |
||
|
||
|
Mosquito
Caliph 
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Location: Sarmatia Online Status: Offline Posts: 2537 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 17:12 |
|
|
Maximus could you please stop copying and pasting wikipedia articles? I find it annoying. First of all it is not a reliable source and second - i would rather like to read what members of this forum think instead authors of wiki articles which I can read anytime if I wish.
|
||
|
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
||
|
||
|
Maximus Germanicus I
Knight
Suspended Joined: 26-Jun-2010 Location: US Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 17:48 |
|
|
When you do the battlefield calculus you have to figure force multipliers for each side. Air is generally not a consideration against fortified opponents. The German were dug in, with fortified positions, fighting a defensive war on familiar terrain. When you figure they were conducting a beach head and had to maintain a LOTS operation the BFC should be in the area of 5 to 1 to ensure victory Based on the BFC (assuming a viable beachhead and the use of improved ports) the allies needs a 3x1 Troop Ratio the either man power or by technological advantage to maintain the offense. In terms of equipment the advantage was even. The Germans had better weapons-I think Domen you and I can both agree on this. But they were also fatigued by a long war and short of repair parts. Of course logistics figures into this, as well is other factors, interdiction etc, etc So what does this mean? On the western front the allies never had that advantage; therefore they doctrinally out performed the Germans. I also agree that the allies didn’t see the best of the German Army- But the poll asked about the Heer not the named divisions or the SS that really weren’t part of the Heer. Remember the paratroopers were Luftwaffe However, once again the Russians fought them on the plains, in easy terrain. The Western Allies had to conduct a much more complex mission. Based on the terrain and the well fortified positions the US and UK had the harder row to hoe. The Eastern front was just mass carnage, with two inept general staffs just wasting good soldiers by putting them in a meat grinder, a slug fest. A slugfest for which the German Army was not built for. By the way to compare the complexity of the Pacific war to the brainless slugfest in the east shows a lack of military knowledge and understanding the complex joint enviroment of the pacific war.
Domen I could put you in charge if the Russian Army in 44 and you would win-it doesn't take much. Look at Grant V the South-The South was the better trained army-Who won The North becuase much like the Russians Grant was a blunt object that would beat you till you died. |
||
|
||
|
Maximus Germanicus I
Knight
Suspended Joined: 26-Jun-2010 Location: US Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 17:54 |
|
|
The problem here is that most posters make statements with out being able to back them up-I use some wiki articles out of conveince. However, the whole posting on Okinawa did not come from Wiki. Wiki is reliable enough if you verify the cit's (which i do)Everyting I post is backed up by numbers/facts or doctrine. How else do you argue, do you just make things up?
Otherwise you get some one saying there was no concrete used in the forts... at Okinawa.
Edited by Maximus Germanicus I - 26-Jun-2010 at 17:57 |
||
|
||
|
DreamWeaver
Colonel
Suspended Joined: 02-May-2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 555 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 18:35 |
|
|
What quality of troops did the Allies find confronting themselves in Africa then?
|
||
|
||
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended Joined: 23-Sep-2009 Location: Long Beach, MS, Online Status: Offline Posts: 4620 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 18:57 |
|
|
In Africa it seems they faced the "master!", and not the "master race!"
With reliable supply lines, and newer equipment, there is little doubt in my mind that Rommel might have tied up the Brits and Americans for some long months! Maybe another year or more? But, Germany just did not have the navy or airforce or the industry left to fight so many fronts! Maybe even our good luck? Although sea and air power, from the West whould have eventually caused the loss of the Afrika Corps! |
||
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
||
|
||
|
Maximus Germanicus I
Knight
Suspended Joined: 26-Jun-2010 Location: US Online Status: Offline Posts: 85 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 19:15 |
|
|
The Key to Africa was the Med, once the allies gained controll of the Med I say gained-they never lost it, they just wern't able to impose thier will.
Although some historians will argue that Malta was not that important, and had little strategic value (it was called WW2s Verdun, due to the dis por amount of forces used on it/for it) I argue that it prevented a complete resupply and helped keep out re enforcements from Italy.
. Edited by Maximus Germanicus I - 26-Jun-2010 at 19:16 |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 45678> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.
