Why were the Germans superior militarily

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
Locked
ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#226

Post by ljadw » 30 Jan 2015, 12:27

Erwinn wrote:
pugsville wrote:

No.

Take a look at the production numbers before and after "Totaler Krieg"

You would think that a nation which is planning an Operation like Barbarossa would gear up it's production to meet the demands and make more vehicles for it's army.
.
1)Both were not related

2)Germany was gearing up its production,its army was going up from some 150 divisions to some 200 divisions .

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#227

Post by BDV » 30 Jan 2015, 17:16

ljadw wrote:"BDV":
Surething, because Russia sponsoring the Sarajevo atrocity was just an awful misunderstanding.


Something for which there is no proof and ,besides,Sarajevo had nothing to do with the outbreak of WWI .
The wording of KuK ultimatum + shooting of Apis + the testimony of Ciganovic are proof enough to me. To each his own standards.

The besides, also your subjective opinion. Behaviour of KuK leadership after the death of Kaiser Franz Joseph, and the historically well known Heir-Hotzendorf frictions point to a different unraveling of events if this key decisiomaker is alive in the 1914-1918 timeframe.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion


User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#228

Post by BDV » 30 Jan 2015, 17:20

ljadw wrote:2)Germany was gearing up its production,its army was going up from some 150 divisions to some 200 divisions .
There is no need for such, French weapons industry could have easily provided for 50 divisions. Is just a question of developing the ersatz tactics to properly use the French equipment and of German-directed adjustment of French production priorities, instead of the historical wholesale dismantling of French weapons production capacity.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#229

Post by Guaporense » 31 Jan 2015, 20:23

pugsville wrote:"Both UK, France and Soviet Union had armies comparable to the Wehrmacht - in the case of the SU their army was several times bigger in war materiel. Not to mention that Germany was the last state in WW2 to align their production to war status. "

Are you seriously saying the UK army was comparable to the Wehrmacht? IT was much smaller.
Neither the US and the UK had armies comparable to the size of the German army, their field armies were much smaller as they allocated most of their resources to the Navy and the Airforce, while Germany allocated most of their resources to the field army. UK's army was 1/4 of Germany's, US's was 55% of Germany's size:

German army 1944:
296 divisions, manpower slice of 14,500 men per division, size of the field army: 4,290,000

US army 1944:
91 divisions, manpower slice of 26,000 men per division, size of the field army: 2,370,000

UK's army in Europe was 35 divisions by the end of the war, that's ca. 900,000 men, less than a quarter of the size of the German army. Germany produced more ammunition than the US or the UK because their larger army needed it: UK production of heavy caliber ammunition was 64 million rounds from 1940-44, German production was >300 million rounds, 5 times larger, to supply an army that was 5 times larger and engaged in more intense combat.

German vs American production of army ammunition:
Image

Total military expenditures were similar, in billions of 1939 dollars converted using official exchange rates:

United States -------------- 189.24
Soviet Union --------------- 86.56
Germany ------------------ 210.70
sources: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1923931

Germany spend most of that on their ground forces (85%, considering the Luftwaffe had significant ground forces and AA battalions), US and UK, much of it the navy and airforce.

Notice also that according to mathematical models used to predict outcome of battles (i.e. Numbers Prediction and War), the German army was ca. 150% more efficient than UK and US forces in Italy in 1943-44, Zetterling arrived at similar conclusions using the data from Normandy battle (also ca. 150%), which means that to defeat the 4.3 million men German field army, the Allies would need to put an army of 6.5 million men in Europe (without USSR's help), that's nearly 3 times the total size of the United States army, including the divisions in they deployed against Japan, in Europe the US deployed 61 divisions out of their 91 divisions army.

To win the war against Germany without Soviet help the Western Allies would need to cut back expenditures on navy and airforce and focus their resources on the army. Notice that actually both the UK and the US were fully mobilized:
Image

Notice that even though the US and the UK had much smaller armies than Germany, they had numerical superiority because most of the German field army was deployed in the Eastern front and some of it occupying Norway and Yugoslavia. These forces would never have survived if the Eastern front wasn't active in 1944-45.

Relative size of armies facing Western Allies:

1940 - France, 143 divisions of 21,000 men each, or 3,000,000 men
1944 - Normandy, 37 divisions of 14,500 men each, 540,000 men

Allied daily losses in 1940 were 12,000 men daily, compared to Allied losses of 2,900 men daily in Normandy.

The USSR managed to defeat the bulk of the German army but at enormous cost in casualties: 29 million counting wounded, killed, sick, missing and frostbitten. Without the USSR, the Western Allies wouldn't have a large probability of defeating the army that Germany deployed against France in 1940 and that was defeated by the USSR (at an exorbitant cost).

Facing that half a million men for 3 months implied in casualties of 240,000 men for the Western Allies. If they had to fight the whole German army their casualty rate would have been much higher, maybe around 5 times higher, or 1,200,000 men lost over 3 months (considering size of the field army and rates of ammunition consumption in the Eastern front versus Normandy). That's about the size of the whole field army the Allies deployed in France by the end of August.

The Allies won the war but overall they suffered several times the number of killed and wounded than Germany did (German KIA+WIA was ca. 7 million by January 1945, Allied KIA+WIA (including French, Dutch, Belgian, Polish casualties) was 4 times larger up to the same point in time.
Image
The Germans always had more of their economy geared to their war effort. The Myth that they were not on war footing till later in the war is just that a myth. (you can agree that it was badly organised different debate)
German production of aircraft and ammunition was much smaller in 1941 compared to 1944 (respectively, 3 and 5 times) because they did not need that much since the consumption of ammunition was smaller and losses of aircraft were small.

German production levels: --- 1941 --------- 1944
aircraft ------------------------- 11,000 ------- 40,000
army ammunition ------------- 550,000 ------ 3,350,000

Though that's reflected in losses of aircraft and consumption of ammunition in the fronts, the Eastern front consumed about 580,000 tons of ammunition in 1941, but 2,100,000 tons in 1944, I estimate the Western front consumed 500,000 tons and Italy, 300,000 tons, plus 350,000 tons in the AA defense of Germany. Consumption of ammunition increased from 580,000 tons in 1941 to ca. 3,250,000 tons in 1944.

But it is true that Germany mobilized a larger fraction of their resources towards war in 1943-44 than in previous years. Taxation rates in occupied France were 37-38% in 1941-42, increasing to 55% in 1943-44. Military expenditures were 74 billion marks in 1941, in 1944, were 120 billion marks, while GNP increased only 10%. Germany started mobilizing more resources to the war effort after they started losing the war.

Production of armaments in Germany's case increased greatly from 09.1939 to 06.1940 and declined after peaking in June 1940, beginning to increase fast again after January 1942. In other words, Germany had two periods of military mobilization: start of the war up to the defeat of France, a period of "cold war" from June 1940 to June 1941 (including some small military operations such as terror bombing of the UK), and resumption of large scale war with Barbarossa, and resumption of mobilization of industry after Barbarossa failed to knock out the Soviet Union. So it's true that Germany did not mobilize for total war in the first 2 years of the war, as they did not expect that would be needed to do so to defeat the Soviet Union, after Barbarossa failed they did but it was too late. They lost the war due to overconfidence.
Last edited by Guaporense on 31 Jan 2015, 21:07, edited 3 times in total.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#230

Post by Guaporense » 31 Jan 2015, 20:37

BDV wrote:
ljadw wrote:2)Germany was gearing up its production,its army was going up from some 150 divisions to some 200 divisions .
There is no need for such, French weapons industry could have easily provided for 50 divisions. Is just a question of developing the ersatz tactics to properly use the French equipment and of German-directed adjustment of French production priorities, instead of the historical wholesale dismantling of French weapons production capacity.
Thing is that Germany itself already had more than enough factory capacity to supply the Wehrmacht during the war. During the whole war German industry ran on a single shift basis, while American ran on a double shift basis, British on a double or triple shift basis, Soviet on a triple shift basis.

Number of machine tools installed in industry in 1940, good indicator of size of the armament related industries' capital stock:

Germany ---- 1,178,000
US -------------- 942,000
UK ------------- 400,000
USSR ----------- 200,000

UK and USSR estimated based on the USSBS report on the german war economy, first case, USSR estimated based on their relative stock of lathes (1/6 of Germany's).

Germany taxed France heavily and used the money to purchase army supplies from German industry itself, that money turned out as money used to finance Germany's trade deficit during the war with it's occupied territories, which supplied Germany's industry with raw material inputs and labor. Germany did not need additional factory plant.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#231

Post by ljadw » 31 Jan 2015, 20:40

Germany was lacking factory capacity : what is the proof that during the whole war German industry ran on a single shift basis ?

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#232

Post by Guaporense » 31 Jan 2015, 20:53

USSBS Report on the German War Economy: it shows 92% of German industry in 1942 was running on a single shift basis, 8% was running on two or three shifts.

Industrial output could be increased by up to 3 times using the installed industrial capacity, just using the factories 168 hours a week instead of 45 hours a week. Although that would increase rate of depreciation of industrial equipment, the scale of investment was such that they could still be replaced.

By comparison, the Soviet Union did miracles with their tiny industrial capital stock.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
Der Alte Fritz
Member
Posts: 2171
Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 22:43
Location: Kent United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#233

Post by Der Alte Fritz » 31 Jan 2015, 21:19

Germany and the Second World War Volume V Part II discusses the single shift patterns.
It is true that Germany ran for most of the war on a single shift pattern which effectively meant that the machine tools were under utilized. But that is only a part of the overall picture. German production methods were geared to individual item construction with time consuming re-machining of parts that did not fit, etc. We see further evidence of this in short production runs, numerous mid run design changes, numerous different models of the same vehicle, things like that. At one point there were so many design changes to the Panther tank that no two Panthers came off the production line the same. By comparison, US and USSR factories were designed for series construction by conveyor belts methods (like a modern car factory) which meant that the number of shifts made a huge difference to the output. They produced large numbers of identical items with changed in between runs banned or very restricted in order to maximise production. Similarly the administration favoured lots of different types of say utility vehicles or military cars which added to the spares problem especially when produced by a range of small producers, all of whom guarded their patents and knowledge. This is one reason why Germany has so many machine tools, as they used multi purpose machines for their work which were highly flexible while other nations used specific tools for one task and jigs in production which was inflexible but efficient for production.

Changes in shift pattern were possible but that meant more workers were needed and the use of women was considered and rejected and labour was always short even when foreign labour impressed or voluntary, was used. The limiting factor was labour not machine tools, so their seeming under utilisation pales into insignificance beside the other factors.

One other feature to bear in mind is the self serving nature of German industry. At the end of the Great War they had been left with a lot of expensive plant, built for war production that was useless in peacetime. So in the Second World War, they were reluctant to expand too much and preferred to switch orders to foreign factories that had capacity and which they could run (and hence claim the profits) and could avoid purchases of the plant themselves that might be useless in a few years even if Germany won the war.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#234

Post by ljadw » 31 Jan 2015, 23:09

Guaporense wrote:USSBS Report on the German War Economy: it shows 92% of German industry in 1942 was running on a single shift basis, 8% was running on two or three shifts.

Industrial output could be increased by up to 3 times using the installed industrial capacity, just using the factories 168 hours a week instead of 45 hours a week. Although that would increase rate of depreciation of industrial equipment, the scale of investment was such that they could still be replaced.

By comparison, the Soviet Union did miracles with their tiny industrial capital stock.
1942 is not the whole war . :P

It is totally wrong to say that the industrial output could be increased by up to 3 times using the installed industrial capacity ,because to increase the industrial output more workers and raw materials were needed ,something which was out of the question .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#235

Post by ljadw » 31 Jan 2015, 23:11

Der Alte Fritz wrote:Germany and the Second World War Volume V Part II discusses the single shift patterns.
It is true that Germany ran for most of the war on a single shift pattern which effectively meant that the machine tools were under utilized. But that is only a part of the overall picture. German production methods were geared to individual item construction with time consuming re-machining of parts that did not fit, etc. We see further evidence of this in short production runs, numerous mid run design changes, numerous different models of the same vehicle, things like that. At one point there were so many design changes to the Panther tank that no two Panthers came off the production line the same. By comparison, US and USSR factories were designed for series construction by conveyor belts methods (like a modern car factory) which meant that the number of shifts made a huge difference to the output. They produced large numbers of identical items with changed in between runs banned or very restricted in order to maximise production. Similarly the administration favoured lots of different types of say utility vehicles or military cars which added to the spares problem especially when produced by a range of small producers, all of whom guarded their patents and knowledge. This is one reason why Germany has so many machine tools, as they used multi purpose machines for their work which were highly flexible while other nations used specific tools for one task and jigs in production which was inflexible but efficient for production.

Changes in shift pattern were possible but that meant more workers were needed and the use of women was considered and rejected and labour was always short even when foreign labour impressed or voluntary, was used. The limiting factor was labour not machine tools, so their seeming under utilisation pales into insignificance beside the other factors.

One other feature to bear in mind is the self serving nature of German industry. At the end of the Great War they had been left with a lot of expensive plant, built for war production that was useless in peacetime. So in the Second World War, they were reluctant to expand too much and preferred to switch orders to foreign factories that had capacity and which they could run (and hence claim the profits) and could avoid purchases of the plant themselves that might be useless in a few years even if Germany won the war.
The use of women was considered and accepted :in terms of percentage,the Su employed the most women,than Germany,than Britain and last the US .

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#236

Post by ljadw » 31 Jan 2015, 23:16

The theory that Germany lost the war by overconfidence has been debunked by all serious historians .

Aber
Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: 05 Jan 2010, 22:43

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#237

Post by Aber » 01 Feb 2015, 00:06

Numbers Predictions and War is problematic as a source for proving German military superiority, as reproducing the data on forces employed and casualties has proved difficult - the U.S. Army asked another team of independent historians to check the data and they came up with significantly different totals.

User avatar
Der Alte Fritz
Member
Posts: 2171
Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 22:43
Location: Kent United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#238

Post by Der Alte Fritz » 01 Feb 2015, 01:00

The use of women was considered and accepted
Boog says that additional women were not accepted as an additional source of labour, particularly middle class women. One of the reasons that Germany comes out so high for female labour is that she already had a high proportion before the war and this was principally in agriculture. German agriculture was family based, not mechanised and so involved the women in the family to a high degree, a situation that got worse when their menfolk went off to war.
There is also the question of whether these women went into industry or into some other work such as the Reichsbahn which was deemed less ruinous to their health.
So I think that Boog's statement can be reconsiled with your figures.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#239

Post by RichTO90 » 01 Feb 2015, 01:41

Guaporense wrote:German army 1944:
296 divisions, manpower slice of 14,500 men per division, size of the field army: 4,290,000

US army 1944:
91 divisions, manpower slice of 26,000 men per division, size of the field army: 2,370,000
Defective data, as usual...

June 1944 there were 294 German divisions, size of the field army including Waffen SS and Foreigners, 4.95 million, divisional "slice" = 16,837
June 1944, there were 89 US Army divisions, size of the field army, 3.492 million, divisional "slice" = 39,236
German vs American production of army ammunition:
You've been corrected so many times on the false assumptions and faulty data you are using that I think I won't bother this time.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Why were the Germans superior militarily

#240

Post by RichTO90 » 01 Feb 2015, 01:44

Aber wrote:Numbers Predictions and War is problematic as a source for proving German military superiority, as reproducing the data on forces employed and casualties has proved difficult - the U.S. Army asked another team of independent historians to check the data and they came up with significantly different totals.
Yes, they did, because they weren't "independent historians" (they were US Army OR analysts) didn't have a clue what they were doing. Some of the "errors" they "found" were things like "the 1st Infantry Division (Big Red One" wasn't at Anzio so none of the data could be correct on those engagements...except the division actually fighting the engagements was the British 1st Infantry Division. :roll:

Locked

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”