The weaponry of Second Rate German Divisions

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Freikorps, Reichswehr, Austrian Bundesheer, Heer, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Fallschirmjäger and the other Luftwaffe ground forces. Hosted by Christoph Awender.
User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: a dog's breakfast: the weaponry of Second Rate German Di

#46

Post by Appleknocker27 » 17 Jul 2013, 17:29

It seems to me that there is quite a bit gone astray here. The key German advantage throughout the war but especially early on was leadership doctrine, not weapons technology or even mechanized technology. The Germans had more or less the same technology available as the Western Allies and the Soviets to some degree, one substantial difference being communications equipment all the way down to platoon level. A very effective and refined tactical radio net coupled with an aggressive and initiative based leadership doctrine is what drove German victories early on and effective defensive operations later on.

The French tanks and Soviet mediums/heavies were technologically superior weapons on an individual basis, but pretty much blind tactically (poor doctrine, little or no tactical communications) and limited to what was in their fuel tanks (poor combat service support).

User avatar
Appleknocker27
Member
Posts: 648
Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 18:11
Location: US/Europe

Re: a dog's breakfast: the weaponry of Second Rate German Di

#47

Post by Appleknocker27 » 17 Jul 2013, 17:50

Hi Trackhead, just a couple nitpicks-
Trackhead M2"Dear Sid,
I would suggest the US had the best infantry Rifle as Standard, the M-1 and the best pistol as Standard, the M-1911.
Agreed, accept later in the war where the G43 was widespread and pretty equivalent to the Garand in performance and the MP44 clearly the future of Infantry small arms.
In terms of MGs, the Germans were working from a different theory and the mobility of the MG 34 and MG 42 arguably make them superior to the equivilent weapons carried by the Allies.
Agreed
In terms of tanks at the outset of the war, the Germans had no tank to match the T-34 and the best tank in German service was the Skoda 38-t.


At the time of Barbarossa the Germans had the PzIIIJ as their best tank, capable of destroying the T34 at 500 meters from the front and regular combat ranges from other angles. Considering crew quality, communications equipment and better integration into the combined arms team it was a superior operational weapon.
Aircraft are more problematic, the Spitfire and Hurricane were more manuverable than the ME-109 but the ME-109 was armed better and available in greater quantity. The Aichi Val was a better dive bomber than the Ju-87 Stuka in terms of payload, range, and while carrying similar armament the guns were better placed and the Val was a dogfighter that could defend itself. The He-111 and Ju 88 were underpowered, under armed and under armored. The Stirling and Lancaster Bombers had more range and higher payloads. The B-17 had range, armor. and armament and was superior to either German design.
Agreed.
I agree the superiority was a combination of superior tactical doctrine and also it is easier when you are going to strike first rather than try to defend all the possible area that could be attacked.
Yes and doctrine is only as good as the leadership executing its base principles.


User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

Re: The weaponry of Second Rate German Divisions

#48

Post by Marcus » 18 Apr 2014, 22:35

Tw off-topic posts nebelwerferXXX were removed.

/Marcus

nebelwerferXXX
Member
Posts: 1256
Joined: 31 Jul 2010, 07:39
Location: Philippines

Re: The weaponry of Second Rate German Divisions

#49

Post by nebelwerferXXX » 19 Apr 2014, 02:45

Marcus Wendel wrote:Tw off-topic posts nebelwerferXXX were removed.

/Marcus
Sorry sir and thanks...! Have a nice day...

Post Reply

Return to “Heer, Waffen-SS & Fallschirmjäger”