Why were the Germans superior militarily

[steverodgers801]

Himmler pretended to plan strategicly when he was in command of army group Vistula and when Goering promised to supply 6th army he got involved in strategy.

[Zart Arn]

The post title is, why were the Germans superior military?

Perhaps, I'm not in a right place with my comments, but is it actually evident, that Germany had superior military in WW2? Why not to try to prove the fact before asking about the reasons? As it has been stated above, Germany did manage to defeat only one player of its own league - France. And even in this case the victory became possible mostly due to the political choice made by French leadership.

[Graeme Sydney]

Himmler pretended to plan strategicly when he was in command of army group Vistula and when Goering promised to supply 6th army he got involved in strategy.

They sound more like operational matters to me.

[ChrisDR68]

I think the question posed is meant to say why were the Germans superior militarily in a tactical sense.

Strategically the Germans in WWII were mediocre to poor (partly because Hitler himself was a mediocre strategist). Gambling on ever greater conquests until your luck ran out is not sound strategy whichever way you look at it.

Tactically though the Germans were the equals and more often than not superior to their opponents during the war from what I've read. Von Manstein was outnumbered in the Crimea in 1942 by the Soviets and yet still managed to crush all resistance by the middle of the year including the storming of one of the most heavily fortified ports anywhere in the world.

Give the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe roughly equal numbers of troops, panzers and aircraft to their opponents in most tactical situations and the evidence suggests they would usually end up prevailing.

[Zart Arn]

Von Manstein was outnumbered in the Crimea in 1942 by the Soviets and yet still managed to crush all resistance by the middle of the year

So, it seems advisable to reformulate the question from "why the Germans were tactically superior" into "why the Soviets were tactically inferior". The reason is rather obvious: in general, the Soviets shunned former imperial officers, since they had reasons to question their loyalty. Hence, the Red Army had only a limited access to the old Russian military tradition. Consequently, the reliance on quantity (as opposed to quality) became the choice.
The fact, that the Germans were fighting primarily the Soviets (being able to outperforms them, as far as it came to fighting on equal terms), generates the illusion of Wehrmacht as a tactically superior force in any circumstances.

[ljadw]

Give the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe roughly equal numbers of troops, panzers and aircraft to their opponents in most tactical situations and the evidence suggests they would usually end up prevailing.

This is a very dangerous statement which will result in a lot of hostile reactions,and I would not qualify them as unjustified .

This statement is the usual defence of the fan-boys : in a situation of equality,the Germans would win ,meaning : the Allies won in an unfair fight .

1) There is nothing fair in war .

2)Situations of equality do not exist .

3) There are exemples where the Germans were winning,while they were numerically inferior, equal,or superior .

4) There are also exemples where the Germans were defeated/failed,while they were numerically inferior,equal,superior .

5) The distinction between tactical and strategical is arteficial .

[ljadw]

Von Manstein was outnumbered in the Crimea in 1942 by the Soviets and yet still managed to crush all resistance by the middle of the year including the storming of one of the most heavily fortified ports anywhere in the world.

From what I know,the Soviets were outnumbered at Sevastopol.

[steverodgers801]

The distinction between tactical and strategical is not artificial. The Germans were able to beat the Soviets in individual battles and yet still lost. There were two critical reason why the Soviets suffered in their command and control. Officers, especially in the smaller units were not allowed freedom of action and there was a lack of radios for effective communications.

[Art]

I
Von Manstein was outnumbered in the Crimea in 1942 by the Soviets and yet still managed to crush all resistance by the middle of the year including the storming of one of the most heavily fortified ports anywhere in the world.

I advice to be critical to Manstein's memoirs. Sevastopol wasn't a fortress designed to sustain a siege by ground forces, it had several concrete&steel coastal batteries built against naval targets, but most defenses were in fact field fortifications improvised after the war start.

[Zart Arn]

I wonder, will anyone quote Rommel's exploits as an example of German tactical superiority?

[Graeme Sydney]

I think the distinction between tactical, operational, strategical and Geo-policital are important distinctions. I think a good case can be made at the tactical and operational level for German excellence, where as at the strategical and Geo-policital level they were hopeless. Unfortunately battles are won at the tactical and operational level but wars are won at the strategical and Geo-policital level.

But when making comparisons distinction/definition should be made between which units and which period of the war, there was variation - it was a big army and a long war.

[RichTO90]

But when making comparisons distinction/definition should be made between which units and which period of the war, there was variation - it was a big army and a long war.

Quite. It is quite easy to demonstrate the tactical superiority of the Heer and SS in Normandy for example - in general. It is also easy to demonstrate how that changed over time and how difficult it was to achieve that change while in combat. The example of the US 90th Infantry Division is illuminating. Always held up as the poster child of American tactical incompetence it in fact was just slightly worse than the others, but then became one of the best of them all.

How?

I await an informed discussion. (While not holding my breath. )

[ChrisDR68]

I
Von Manstein was outnumbered in the Crimea in 1942 by the Soviets and yet still managed to crush all resistance by the middle of the year including the storming of one of the most heavily fortified ports anywhere in the world.

I advice to be critical to Manstein's memoirs. Sevastopol wasn't a fortress designed to sustain a siege by ground forces, it had several concrete&steel coastal batteries built against naval targets, but most defenses were in fact field fortifications improvised after the war start.

It was the campaign before it got to Savastopol that I was referring to. Once he got to the fortress Von Manstein took a risky direct assault route to taking it and was a little lucky that it was successful.

My main reference wasn't Manstein's memoirs. Osprey publishing's Savastopol 1942: Von Manstein's Triumph is an excellent if short book that details this campaign in an entertaining and concise way

[BDV]

It was the campaign before it got to Savastopol that I was referring to. Once he got to the fortress Von Manstein took a risky direct assault route to taking it and was a little lucky that it was successful.

It was not successful. Krim was a hollow, delayed and costly (Rostov, Kerch/Feodosyia) victory.

[David1819]

I have not been able to find an answer to this question.

Why were the Germans so darn good militarily? Germany took on most of the biggest economies in the world at that time. Thankfully, Hitler made many bad calls. If he had allowed his generals to run the war, there is not telling what would have happened.

It seems to me that they were just better at fighting than most everyone else. Why?

1. Most importantly the Germans realised (before the war) how effective mobile infantry and armour would be if used to its full capacity along with air support this became known as BlitzKreig. The French expected a repeat of WW1 trench warfare so they planned and prepared a static defence along the boarder. Once it had kicked off Germans simply moved their mobile divisions through the Arden forest and Belgium to penetrate deep into French territory from multiple directions causing confusion and chaos amongst the French and British army. One major factor was not the superiority of the Germans but more the psychological impact this new strategy had on the enemy as they had no answer to it and didn't know what was going on. The Russians also let themselves down by expecting a declaration of war from Germany if any conflict was to arise, This does not come into Lightning War strategy as its all about surprise.

2. They where told they were racially superior and the best fighters in the world this was indoctrinated into them at a young age. weather it was true or not it helps the moral of the men to fight better and to expect victory.

3. Once the Allies adapted to the new modern warfare that the Germans used it all went downhill for them plus after several defeats they began to have doubts as to what Hitler told them about the "Master Race" negative thinking sunk it then it was game over

All in All it was more about a new strategy plus a racial indoctrination that made them fight better