German Wehrmacht vs. the Allies Military WW ll

Fighting Power of the Wehrmacht

The source seems to concur what I have read from the U.S. Army's War College papers over the decades. Some of the claims are open to debate but when you crunch the numbers, they look pretty accurate.

Fighting power of the German Wehrmacht (Part I)

According to calculations by the US Army the results of the battles in WW2 were only possible, when the soldiers of the Wehrmacht – man for man and unit for unit – were 20 to 30 percent more effective than was the British and American forces they faced.

Extrapolating the individual soldiers against each other – and although the Wehrmacht was far lower in numbers – so the German troops that faced British and American troops under all combat conditions (for assaults with the usual factor of 1.0 – in the defense in carefully selected positions with view by a factor of 1.3 – in prepared defense positions 1.5 – in fortified defense positions by a factor of 1.6) cause approximately 50 percent higher losses than they suffer.

This was accessible whether the Germans were in attack or defense, if they were locally in place with higher numbers or – what was the rule – in lower numbers, if they had air cover or not, whether they had won the battle or lost at the end.

Even in the bitter years of defeats on the Russian front, the German combat effectiveness superiority over the Russians was even more pronounced. In the early days of the campaign in the east, one German division could take up with three Russian divisions of comparable strength and power. And, theoretically, under favorable defense conditions one German division could stand against no less than seven comparable Russian divisions.

In 1944 this superiority was still about 2:1, and one German soldier at the front caused an average loss of 7.78 Russians for one German casualty. These figures need to adapted to the fact that the Wehrmacht in 1944 was almost always in the defense, had a relatively higher mobility and at this time the German weapons were better than the weapons of the Russians. But even if you take into account these considerations, the ratio for the infliction of losses was more than 4:1 and the German fighting power in battle was – man by man – about more than 50% better.

Moreover, from the available figures you could see, that the performance of the Polish army in 1939 was statistically better than the Russians in the later course of the war. In addition, the Poles suffered – unlike the Russians – under the disadvantage of limited space for retreats, and that they were attacked by the Russians in the back, although they had a non-aggression pact with them. If we assumes that the Poles were defending mostly and the defender has an advantage of 1.3, 100 Poles caused the Wehrmacht 0.4 losses per day. At the same time 100 Germans costs the Polish 1.52 casaulties. This results in the infliction of casualties a German superiority and of almost 4:1, and on the basis of other statistical surveys from WW2 the fighting power superiority was almost 2:1 for the Wehrmacht.

The difference between the referred effectiveness at the beginning of this report (20-30% in the West, more than 50% in the East) and inflicted losses (50% in the West, 400% in the East because of the additional thoughtless mass assaults) but also results probably from the more improved equipment of the Wehrmacht (especially the Panzer V Panther against the Sherman tank, 88 mm AA gun , Nebelwerfer rocket launchers, Sturmgewehr assault rifles, Panzerfaust and the MG42 machine guns which is still in use today) and has nothing to do with the fighting power of the individual soldiers or the individual units.

The fact that major strategic mistakes were done by Hitler and his Wehrmacht high command have not been interfered with this conclusion. The soldiers of the Wehrmacht fought unabated on for many years after all real hope for the ‘final victory’ in World War II was gone. Even in April 1945 the German units fought on unabated everywhere where the local tactical situation was at all bearable, so an Allied intelligence report for this month.

The main causes of the superior fighting power of the Wehrmacht
It can not lead to the inclination for wars, because since 1776 the U.S. were involved in 13 wars over a total period of more than 38 years – Prussia, the German Empire and Germany over the same period a total of 14 wars lasting total of about 29 years.

The social status of the military:
The officers and soldiers career in the German Reich until the end of the Second World War had a much higher social status and attracted more qualified applicants than this was the case in the United States.

Commanding principles:
The German commanding principles until the present is the ‘order tactics’, which means that the commander is commanding to his subordinates what they have to do, but not the way they have to do it (a principle against which the self-declared ‘greatest war leader of all times’ – Adolf Hitler – regularly broke on the strategic level).
In the US Army there was a tendency to anticipate every possible situation in detail and order for everything in detail, and the view that war is a kind of ‘industrial management’.

Proportion of combat troops
These are the actually fighting troops.

Continue -> http://ww2-weapons.com/fighting-power-of-the-wehrmacht/

Note: This is a four part article.

 

Nice article, honest and interesting.

It strikes me that, in spite of the over-abundance of topics from the subject, that WWII is still a taboo thing, from which we may not have taken enough temporal distance to tackle with objectivity. There are un-comfortable truths that are starting to come out - and I am not talking about the holocaust - such as this article, which is a step in the right direction.

The reason for this "vigilence" is the fact that WWII was the one event that shaped the society we live in - even moreso than any other war. Our structures, our values, our judicial systems and political ones, our outlook on the world, all that is a direct result of WWII and the end of imperial colonialism that it brought, and which is today replaced by economic colonialism.

I heard the WWII Greek soldiers were quite the fighters, too.

 

The problem with the Nazis was they wasted too much man power and resources on the Jews...

... had they not persecuted and killed so many Jews...

... they might have won the war.

 

That's a fallacy that is served with every sauce, depending on the pet subject of any given viewer.

IMO, the first reason for the Third Reich's loss was the Axis' failure to keep the UK on its side: Both Italy and Germany had a lot more grief for France, and the Brits (who signed the AGNA in 1935) were offered German cease-fire some times before 1941, including at Dunquerke and at Geneva.

Hitler was rather fond of the British and the nordic roots they shared, and in fact there was some sympathy for fascism coming from some highly visible individuals in the kingdom. Viewed with the wider angle of communism threat, Germany was a more natural UK ally for the Brits than the communist USSR, which birth the UK fought. As far as the German were concerned, anyway, the real ennemy, from the start, was to the east. Hitler got forced to intervene in both North Africa and the Balkhans - he didn't want to be there if it wasn't for his Italian allies' shortcomings.

It was, I believe, Italy that pushed the UK off the Axis' side and on France's, as both countries were colonial powers in the mediteranean parts that Mussolini claimed, and solidarity within fascist regime took importance over longer-term views. And the UK was in Japan's way, too, but I don't think they really tried to expend so far west of Japan: The pacific and west indies were their prime targets.

As sad as that may sound, the holocaust wouldn't have be the world-shaking event that it is now if Germany had won the war, but would rather be seem as a footnote to history like so many such events before.

 

Interesting view. I've never had reason to doubt that man for man (all things being equal) the Wehrmacht was a superior fighting force than the various allied armies. The allies ultimately had more men however. As to the specifics as to why they were effective I've heard it was because it had a strong NCO Corps. But I've heard that from NCO's so there may be a bit of self plugging there.

 

Nazi Germany simply spent more on their military than others in Europe, they were more prepared for war too.

 

German society was much like American and British society, modernized and with a solid 'middle class' of educated mid-level management and leadership talent at the operational levels. You can have 50 of the best generals in history at the top, but those would all be useless if they didn't have the skills at the operational levels to implement all those brilliant plans. Even mediocre generals will do better against the best if they have a deep talent pool if the 'best' don't have that.

As for WW II, early in the war the German military was at it's best, not so much later on, after losing entire armies and heavy attrition, but still even their later conscripts were better than the Russians, who even with almost total air superiority still had to rely on human wave attacks, even late in the war; it took them two or three tries just to take Warsaw, iirc. The Russian contribution to winning the war is highly over-rated to this day. They wouldn't have been in the war at all if it hadn't been for the British's early and timely aid shipments playing a key role at the battle for Moscow and the Kursk Pocket, along with the later Lend-Lease aid, they wouldn't even have had bullets without it, and the myth that the U.S. and Britain couldn't have won without them is easily disposed of as well. The Soviets are always way over-rated, the U.S. and Brits always way under-rated re WW II in the popular narratives, just as Viet Nam always has to be considered a 'loss' for the sake of political correctness.

 

Actually the German military wasn't prepared for war. Hitler jumped gun before Germany could build up it's military.

The Kriegsmarine (German Navy) sure wasn't ready for war to take on the Royal Navy.

Germany's aircraft carrier:

Hitler always had his eyes looking towards the east not France or England. It was France and England who declared war on Germany, germany never declared war on France or England.

After the war America and Brits debriefed all German officers from Field Marshals down to field grade officers. All were asked why do you think Germany lost the war ? Almost all blamed (Corporal) Hitler for micromanaging the war and Germany not going to a total war footing until it was to late and the war was already lost.

The UK went on a total war footing in 1939, America went on a total war footing in December of 1941, Germany didn't until 1943, by then it was to late.

Total war meaning that civilians back at home have to be 100 % part of the war effort. America has only fought two wars as total war in it's history, the American Civil War and the Second World War. From 1939 to 1943 the German people still wanted to eat their brats, drink their beer, eat Swiss chocolate and drive their cars on Hitler's autobahn .

As for the Germans, they have been known since Roman times as warriors. The "Ten Horns" or the Ten German tribes. They are warriors.

All western, northern, eastern Europe are nations of warriors. Some are just better at war than others.

Until just very recently America was known as a nation of warriors. Why ? Look at who the majority of America's immigrants came from. But what made America's warriors outstand from others ? Americans were known for their musket and rifle marksmanship. America also prevailed in seamanship. But with political correctness and the changing demographics in America this could all become history.

We Like War -> [video]https://youtu.be/GeZ3nCXyb_Q[/video]

 

Well, that was a very good analysis in the OP.

Germany had time to mass a very professional army. I think what really took them down was the Allies war power. Schweinfurt a city in Germany that I served in was blasted almost out of existence.

I served part of my duty at the airfield there and met in Amsterdam a former nazi pilot. He was a pilot for Dutch KLM he told me. He informed me that the airport I was working at, later on ... contained an underground hangar system with runways that exited underground. I did not explore all of the airfield since we had ammo dumps there. But when the beautiful dutch girls I hoped to snag for fun found out who he was, they told me they hated Germans. And of course told me as he went to the men's room.

I mean those girls were drop dead super hot. Man, don't get me started on those Dutch girls. LOL

 

I'm not sure how they calculated this in their reference in the article, but considering where we started from and how many fronts we fought on, how else could we have been in Europe? Logistics was definitely a lot easier for the German supply chain, a fact that makes the American and British efforts look that much better imo.

 

Yes, I like that site; don't always agree with their simplified conclusions, but they touch on a lot of factors most schools don't these days.

Yes. We were perpetually on the offensive, so it is obvious we would suffer more casualties and be less 'efficient', it all depends on how much weight a given number is assigned relative to others; I think our casualties were pretty low relative to our aggressiveness and how we had to enter Africa and Europe. Launching massive amphibious assaults on a continent 3,000 miles away should be far more impressive to history buffs than what Germany's military accomplished, in my book. It surpasses the Mongols for panash and sheer 'folly' of scale.

And, we did it across two oceans, and in the same war .... and even pulled it off and won; still amazes me to this day. Only the British Empire came close in that sort of thing.

My uncle was there a while, and he said the same thing about Dutch women. Best time he ever had overseas.

 

Probably the most important lesson to learn from Hitler, Stalin, and WW II and many smaller conflicts, is how ideologies are sure fire recipes for failure, and that's why I don't like ideologues on either 'wing' running anything; they are a form of willful stupidity and over-simplification for the mentally lazy.

 

Ridicules calculation as it spreads to an entire war. You can say something alike about one single battle. But you cannot expand these coefficients to an entire world war 2. In one case aerial superiority although present but is completely meaningless due to weather restrictions, in another case the aerial superiority is all that counts, when we are talking about carrier warfare.
WW2 shows absolutely clear trend with very little exceptions
- A novice army thrown against battle hardened army will fail or suffer extreme casualties and vise versa.
All else about German, American, Russian, African or Martian supremacy in an all out war (not single conflict) is kindergarden simplification

 

The standard issue rifle for the German Wehrmacht was the K98K Mauser, basically a WWI bolt action rifle.

The semi-automatic U.S. Garand was superior.

 

The Nazis had no real chance of winning the war. They were eventually going to get beaten.

 

The Germans didn't have to provide mechanics for thousands of vehicles in every corps like the US did.

Seriously, how did they think horse drawn carts were going to defeat 4 X 6 trucks?

- - - Updated - - -

The Germans didn't consider the primary weapon in an infantry squad to be the rifle, like we did. They centered their squads on a belt-fed machine gun and its firepower and they were vindicated in that. Even today, we teach infantry that the firepower of the squad machine gun is the single greatest casualty causing weapon a squad has.

 

Oh gosh

I said war power when I wanted to type air power.

Oh well, at least today I noticed it.

The air power of Germany was taken away from them.

 

I trained in the infantry and was well trained on the 30 cal machine gun. We fired them locked down. By that I mean a group of troops would spread out, left to right and each gun was at an aiming point. By having the guns on the right fire generally more left and those on the left firing generally right, not as steep angles, the idea was to shoot a cross field of fire hoping it stopped the advance.
We were told that despite this, in Korea the enemy was still able to get through, though in far fewer numbers.

The Garand was able to fire very quickly since each pull fired a round. The Mauser bolt action was a bit slower. But in combat, I am not clear that part matters if the bolt action is handled by a marksman who fires carefully vs some guy poking out his Garand and firing kind of wildly.

A surprising amount of ammo is simply wildly fired we were told by our training sgts. Those that trained me normally had experience in combat.

 

Not to mention had better chance at a Nuke.

 

You know, an empty Garand is no better than an empty Mauser. Supply of ammo is key here. The Garand could burn ammo faster but the real problem would be accurate shooting.

My uncle Gene fired the Garand in combat vs the Japanese and later got killed in the first push up from the South at Taejon, a city in the south. Gene wrote a final letter telling Grandma that he felt sorry for the new guys that his combat experience would greatly help him but the guys they sent to his unit to help had next to no training. Basic was to be 2 months but at the time due to the getting rid of troops post WW2, the new guys had next to no training.

Had I stayed in the Army, no doubt I could have been sent to Vietnam and again, though we did have training, Vietnam was not like the firing ranges at Fort Ord, Ca.

 

The Russians defeated the Wehrmacht, (the Germans lacked adequate Winter uniforms on the Eastern front) the U.S. and British defeated the Luftwaffe, long range fighter escort won the war of attrition over the skies of Germany. Once air superiority was achieved, they could protect ground forces in their advancement.

Aside from Hitler's ineptness, the Wehrmacht suffered from poor logistics, the Blitzkrieg tactics simply out paced the ability to keep them supplied.

 

I own both...a WW2 era Garand and a Karabiner 98K.

The Garand is highly accurate in the right hands, a big issue is the distinctive "ping" noise when the magazine clip is ejected. It let's the bad guys know you're out of ammo. The 98K made for a superior sniper rifle, but the M1, in the right hands was a very reliable and accurate battle rifle.

 

I sold my M-1 Garand to a guy living in New Jersey and included half a dozen clips and quite a bit of ammo.

I fired the Garand a lot when I was in the Army. I only got to fire the M-14 at Fort Ord during advanced training.

In Germany I was issued the M-14 but frankly was able to serve and never fire it. I got it new and left it to the next guy still new. I do recall the ping of the clips. But in combat the sound should not be a factor at all due to the surrounding noise.

The Garand indeed is accurate. I never fired the German weapons. The 30.06 ammo actually has a over 3000 ft per minute velocity and I believe that makes for more accuracy.

 

I served in Germany and can tell you that during the cold times, it stays cold for what seems like forever. Out in the field I often had very cold feet. Sleeping inside at a training place like Hohenfels, it was warm inside. But I spent 2 weeks trying to stay warm at night by sleeping with the duffel bags in the back of trucks. I hated the cold.

http://www.militaryinstallations.do...NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:1645,INSTALLATION

 

The bolt action on the 98K even for a weapon that was manufactured in 1936, is smooth. With practice, a Wehrmacht soldier could probably fire off all five rounds in seconds...though the recoil packs quite a punch to do this accurately. The semi-automatic Garand meant someone with less training could fire downrange at a faster pace. Both are well built, sturdy rifles, but I would still put the 98K behind both the Garand and British Lee Enfield for battle rifles carried in WW2.