Is it true that Germans had better strategies than Allies?

[nolphmann]

Well, someone told me that Germans had better equiptment and strategies than Allied nations..

And I have no idea about the strategies that were better than Allies.. ( I can't get much books here so.. -_-;; )

Can anyone tell me the example about this?

Tks.

Best, Jaan

[Lkefct]

I think quite a few people would argue the point with you on both counts.

First, Strategy is the general conduct of the war or area of the war. TBy most accounts Hitler was pretty hapahazard in this area. . If for no other reason that Germany did not seem to have the resources avaiulble to take on and defeat the allies overall, I think this has to be a resounding failure for Gemnay.

The other levels on which you could focus the conduct of the war is the operational level, As the name suggest, this is the high level employment of men and material Ie specific operaions. At this level I think the Germans where genreally better then their allied euqivilents. There where not a lot of examples of German Corp and Armies being outmanuvered consistently. Whne it did, it was usually in the face of overwhelmingly disasterous strategic situation.

The final level is known as the tactical level, so the individual and small unit employment of wepaons and weapon systems. I think wher ethe Germans did prety well too. In studies that have been conducted, Generally, the small units the germasn had gave better then they got. They emplyed their resources very well, often in the face of enourmous odds. Even before they where totally on the defensive, the German offensives often inflicted much heavier losses then they took early in the war, often without a large numerical advantage (although some of that falls into the categor of operational manuvers).

Many people do not consider the operational level a level unto itself, which is why many think of the Germans as being at least passible strategists. Their employment of troops and the large scale manuvers where gernerally superior. Of course by late in teh war, the allies, (east and west ) had largely caught up, and the germans had slipped due to all the causalties they had taken.

[[email protected]]

"Well, someone told me that Germans had better equiptment and strategies than Allied nations.. "

This is true on both accounts: as for strategy I agree with Lkefct entirely, regarding equipment: certainly better in general. With the exception of RADAR, which cost them very dearly, the Germans were way ahead of the Allies. Lack of materials and metallurgical problems affected the quality, but their designs were far ahead...

[badenbaden]

I do not know as for strategy.
It is today's common sense that German equipments were not necessarily better than the Allies'(Britain and France). For example, German tanks' gunns were below 37mm and tanks equiped with 37mm were less than half of all tanks, which could not crush B&F's heavy tanks(Matirda).
Luftwaffe had Bf109, but RAF had Spitfire as well. French planes were not the newest.
It is specific that German point superior to the Allies was tactics, that is, they concentrated troops on French weakest spot to the north of the Magino.

[LWD]

In some cases they had better equipement. As the war went on the allies tended to match or exceed the quality of equipment in most areas. As for stragtegy ultimatly the allies won and convincingly, that certainly implies a superior strategy on the part of the allies.

[faf_476]

The Germans had thier own strategies since the Roman Empire,
As for equipments they are above the technology than the Allies had. They are given the best and gifted Generals than our country can afford. Every land they conquered has the capacity to defend it at all cost. This account shows that the Germans had won if they were not "Outnumbered" by the Allied countries who later used thier lands at thier own good.

[Lkefct]

Early on you can certainly argue that some of their equipment was not necessarily any better. the 37 mm At gun is very similar tot eh 2 pdr and 37 mm guns almost everyone else used. But in terms of tactics, look at how many tanks the Russians lost. Literally tens of thousands in 1941, at a time when everyone including the Germans would have admitted that those guns where verging on horribly obsolete. Yet, they where able to use thier AT guns and tanks, along with infantry and artillery very effectively together. SO much so that even late in the war, the allies coordination was never up to the early war proficiency.

I guess i would probably argue that the equiment is probably not that much tecnically superior as the German military had a very clear idea of how to make the best use and incorporate the equipment (new or otherwise) toit's best advantage. That is what most would call tactics.

[LWD]

Well starting a war that you can't win is a very bad strategy.

Looking at technology.
As far as ships go:
The U-boats were probably at the top of the heap as far as subs go at least for use in the Atlantic. One could argue that US boats were better for the Pacific so the Germans in this are the Germans have a debateable lead. Torepdos the UK has an early lead. Sub launched the Germans get one later in the war. Air launched the Germans found that Italian torps were better than theirs early on late war the US air launched torps are pretty much top of the heap.
As far as BB go it could be argued that they had a lead for a brief period of time the Bismark was the best BB. But that didn't last long as the KGV, Richileu, Vitirio Venito, and later South Dakota classes were as good or better and the Iowa and Yamato were definitly superior.
Cruisers - No lead here. None of the German CAs were as good as the Baltimores and the US Brooklyn and Cleveland classes could have given the German CAs a lot of trouble and completly outlcassed the German CLs.
DDs - Again not up to the US or Japanese DDs/.
Smaller combatants - Only the E-boats were truly superior for the whole war. Others were on a par at best with their equivalants.
CVs one unfinished means they were inferior to US, Japan, and Britain.
Misc ships (transports, landing craft, ice breakers, etc) if they had them few up to the standards of their opponents.

So as far as the navy goes clearly no general superiority andby late war generally inferor to their opponents.

Air war- At the start of the war German planes are competative in the fighter, light bomber, and recon areas at the very end of the war they take a lead in the fighter and recon areas with their jets although that was vanishing quickly. No Heavy bombers, no long range fighters, minimal long range recon aircraft etc. Again at times the LW might have had marginally supperior equipement but except for the Jets nothing really significant and they are actually inferor in some areas and clearly so for the entire war.

Again not a lead in enough areas for long enough to claim a general superioirity.

Ground war - Their light and medium tanks are on a par or inferior to the best of their oppositon for most of the war. For a while the Panther has a claim at best medium tank and the Tiger has a better claim for best heavy for a longer period of time. Artillery is basically on a par with other countries. Trucks inferior or on a par with their opponents horses and wagons certainly inferior to US trucks. Panserfaust does give them the lead of light ATW for a period of time but the Bazooka and Piot held it before. K98 is inferior to the M1 and on a par with the Springfield and Enfield.

Same conclusion as above.

Misc. Radar noted German lead for a short while early on then fell way behind. Radios inferior to allied sets. Proximaty fuses allies have them Germans don't. Sonar and ASW equipment on a par with or inferior to allied equipment. ECM and EW in general allies seam to have been ahead most of the war.

ditto.

Overall conclusion: Hypothesis of general superiority of German quipement not supported by the evidence.

[badenbaden]

faf and lke, say what arms are better than the Allies concreatly.

Panther<Tiger=Stalin1/Stalin2
Fw190<P51

[Lkefct]

You left out one of germany's great advnatages in small unit combat. THe mg34/42 vs any allied lt/mmg. The heavy MG might be debateable, but since german light MG are avalible in such large numbers the germans where able to generate a ton of extra firepower that was a lot more useful then wha the allies could generate on tactical lelve. Add in infantry guns (whihc hte allies have no equivilent) and the emplyment of mortars, they are defeintely superior not inecessarily in the technical sense, but in thier employment. I would again argue that the technical superiority is not large enough, but the tactics emplying them at the point of contact are.

[LWD]

Well in the defence the US had a lot of medium and heavy mgs. In the offence it had the BAR which while it lacks the rate of fire of the mg34/42 is a lot more portable. The British had the Bren which is sort of between them. As for infantry guns and mortars the US and Britain had a far more responsive artillery doctirne as well as a lot of movile guns that were often attched to US units.

Especially early in the war the Germans had a clear lead in tactics but that wasn't what the question asked in the thread title.

[Lkefct]

NO but it is an answer to the question

The German weapons generate the type of firepwoer that the Allied guns cannot, espeically since they are not any more numerous then teh german guns, and not truely crew served (at least for the BAR).

[LWD]

As for how numerous they were a lot depends on the unit, the time, and whether or not you count attachements. For instance if you look at a USMC defence battalion (Type B 27 FEb 1941 it has the following mgs and heavy weapons:
BARs - 30
.30 cal mgs - 30
50 cal mgs - 30
3" AA guns - 12
5" guns - 6
In 42 their firepower goes up but they loose the BARs

I have a German air landing infantry Batalion equiped with
36 LMGs
12 MMgs
6 81 mm mortars
9 50mm mortars

A gun company with the following
6 75mm Inf guns
2 150 mm inf guns

If we look at a US airborne tank battalion and don't count the tanks
29 - 30 cal mgs
23 - 50 cal mgs
3 75mm pack howitzers

US armored infantry regiment ((divide by 3 for battalions
9(3) 75mm guns
17(5) 37mm portee
37 (12) 37mm towed guns
27 (9) 60mm mortars

Marine infantry regiment (1941 agaub battlion slice in () Brigade slice not included
2 (0) 75mm guns
18 (6) AA/AT guns
12 (4) 81mmm mortars
18 (6) 60mm mortars
18(6) 50 cal mgs
90 (30) 30 cal mgs
186 (63) BARs

All from the Tacitical notebook

[Andreas]

Add in infantry guns (whihc hte allies have no equivilent)

The US regiments had a 105mm cannon company. How often the lIG18 and the sIG33 was used in direct fire mode is anyone's guess. Mine is - not that much, considering they replaced a lot of them with 120mm mortars later in the war. Also, British infantry battalions had an organic AT platoon, which later in the war could use 6pdr guns as infantry guns.

and the emplyment of mortars, they are defeintely superior not inecessarily in the technical sense, but in thier employment.

Interesting - please explain how the German employment of mortars was superior to the allied use - or what I am not getting about this statement.

Regarding technicalities, I feel I have to point out that the British 3" mortar in its Mk 2 version was probably the best of the bunch of battalion mortars in terms of putting HE load onto your target, since it had the highest shell weight. For platoon mortars, the 60mm seems to be better than the 50mm everybody else went for, demonstrated by amongst other things, the continued use of that calibre.

All the best

Andreas

[Lkefct]

I have alway understood the Germans employing various mortars down to smaller and smaller units, giving the local comanders more control over them. If you look on paper, on interesting stat is that German mortars appear to have shorter range, but in fact many of them are using a "slow" round that is subsonic, so you don't hear anything before the shell hits. Making them more useful in small unit actions in ambushes. The 120mm mortars are probably going to be used in place of the IG because they are much easier to produce and have in quantities, than if for no other reason. I don't hav ethe price of the leIG, but even a small simple weapon like the Pak 36 costs something like 6,000 RM (5730 from see Panzerworld), vs 1,200 RM for the 12cm Gr.W 42.

As far as battalion mortars and the like, I would suppose the main reason for the Western allies to be envious of the 120mm mortar, for which there is not an allied equivilent. The US 107 is a good wepaon, but similar to the 10 cm nebelwerfer are not issue to combat troops, but rather to lay smoke. There is also the sawed off 8.1cm mortars the germans issued to some smaller units, which gives more useful throw weight then a 50 or 60 mm. It has always been my imprssion the US really just uses them as small unit organic artillery, rather then more up close and personnal. Much of that may not be as much doctrine on intention as it is Gemran units being thrown into battlegroups and ad hoc defenses.

US units generally used the 105 mm guns (which where not issued to all units) to provide extra batteries of guns, and they where rarely used over open sights (although in the pacific even medium artillery was used over open sights at times). US troops abondoned the 57 mm AT guns and usually where used as rifle platoons, although some contnued to serve, but they mostly used a shrapnel shot rather then a true HE round, at least according to Norm MacDonald (Time for Trumpets, when refrering to AT units in the battle of the bulge). I was also unde rht impression that for a long period of itme the AT units did not have HE rounds for the 57 mm. I suspect that the units would scrounge them up, but do they have enough of them. Also, I doubt the allies ever would get into using any of those as much as they would the prefered direct fire weapon, the tank. Not muhc point in any of the other methods if you have one. It has always been my impression that Mainstrein's meeting (1936?) where he suggest the StuG, he really sees them replacing the leIG and sIG with an AFV, although I have nothing to back that up.