WW2 Did US ever fight Germany when they were in their prime?

[Yodasgrandad]

In WW2 did America ever fight Germany when they were at their peak militarily? Or when they arrived in Europe they faced a weakened and worn out Germany? (I know they were losing at that point) or if there were any battles US lost in Europe to them.

For example Russia is defeated or instead for whatever reason they don't fight Russia and instead get a lend lease type of assistance from them (But no military assistance) how do America/Allies fair against Germany in Europe? Or would it be impossible for them to land in Europe?

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Welcome to the forum

The US fought Germany in North Africa from the Autumn of 1942.

[stg 44]

Welcome to the forum

The US fought Germany in North Africa from the Autum of 1942.

They were not in their prime then, certainly the forces that fought in Tunisia were not at their peak either, none of those were even at full TOE, while the HG Panzer division was still forming. Plus that was right after Rommel got beaten at El Alamein.

I'd argue no, the US never fought German forces in their prime other than the Uboat force.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

They were not in their prime then, certainly the forces that fought in Tunisia were not at their peak either, none of those were even at full TOE, while the HG Panzer division was still forming. Plus that was right after Rommel got beaten at El Alamein.

We can argue about when an army is at its peak (a very litteral interpretation would mean that either Poland, France and England, or Russia were the only ones to do so), but I thought it proper to underline that the US fought German prior to the landings in Europe.

[stg 44]

They were not in their prime then, certainly the forces that fought in Tunisia were not at their peak either, none of those were even at full TOE, while the HG Panzer division was still forming. Plus that was right after Rommel got beaten at El Alamein.

We can argue about when an army is at its peak (a very litteral interpretation would mean that either Poland, France and England, or Russia were the only ones to do so), but I thought it proper to underline that the US fought German prior to the landings in Europe.

I thought the discussion was about if the Americans ever fought the Germans at their peak? The first contact was in North Africa in November 1942 which by anyone's definition was past their peak. The army's peak was at the start of Barbarossa, the Luftwaffe's peak was before the Battle of Britain in terms of experience and training, and the Uboat arm was probably at their peak in early 1942.

[Graeme Sydney]

Another badly phrased pointless juvenile question.

Start by defining what you mean by "peak". But it is pointless anyway. Germany 'stole the march' on everyone in 1939 and got an advantage. They peaked early, say 1941, and it was all down hill after that - with the inevitable result.

The USA was diametrically the opposite. Completely unprepared in 1941 and peaked in May 1945, with more to come (A-bombs, jet fighters, Patton tanks etc etc. - and everything in eye-watering quantities, with the fuel to run it and the logistics and means to deliver it).

All in all a pointless question unless you are a Nazi/Hitler fanboi looking to indulge in an orgy of Nazi awesomeness. Hitler and his Nazis had their moment of self congratulatory indulgence too in 1940-41. The more intelligent went on to call it Victory Disease.

[BDV]

Definitely from the start of Kasserine Pass battle to the closure of the Falaise Gap the Wehrmacht was as top to its fighting ability as ever. Only after the twin debacles in Byelorussia and Normandy did Germany lose so much troops and materiel that the force could be described as "not in the prime."

It's just that Adolf's overpromoted bootlicker-cum-field exterminators could not come with viable counter to Soviet and Anglo-American advances in operational art. But when either WAllies or the Soviets made a bad step, they paid for it - as late a 1945.

[Stiltzkin]

All in all a pointless question unless you are a Nazi/Hitler fanboi looking

The same can be said about "overpatriotic" Americans (or "insert your Western country of choice here"), with the existing ethnocentric biases embedded in their perceptions of World War 2, who cannot comprehend that their contribution was less than that of other belligerents, primarily the Soviet Union or of the Slavic nations. The forum had such a debate in the "What if" section and it led to its shutdown.

On the other hand I have come across a lot of discussions initiated by Soviet revisionists, mainly Russians (one has to observe the "conflation" with Russia and the whole USSR, ethnic Russians made up about 49% of the Soviet forces) who wanted to tell me that the USSR was neither industrially nor tactically weaker than the Wehrmacht and that KIA cannot be directly compared - it certainly goes both ways.
These debates are immature, especially taking into account the average age of the posters in this forum.

Say something positive about the Axis performance and you will be called a Nazi fanboy.
Let me tell you that I have seen a lot of Nazi fanboys, in fact in my country there is a variety of so called "Rechtsradikale/Reichsbürger" or "Skinheads" (some of them denying the holocaust) or other political organizations and right wing parties like the NPD (or left wing for that matter Roter Morgen, KPD, Antifa), who certainly share sympathies for the 3rd Reich or Marxists (and both sides are ironically, supported by the Kremlin, these financial boosts have been traced and uncovered).

The OP probably wanted to know if the US had to prove itself successful against the German Army , he seems to have doubts about its proficiency. To this I have to add that it depends on how you define "prime".
I am well aware that it seems to be awfully popular to be anti-american these days, many attempt to ridicule their input towards total victory in WW2 but judging by their economical power, the production of a substantial amount of the total of Ally weapons, the Lend-Lease aid, their battles in Africa, the MTO and ETO, the Air War and the most significant part, their war against the Japanese Imperial Forces, their influence cannot be downsized. They tipped the war into the USSRs favour. It is the current political climate that initiates such disputes.
Contemporary literature and the "entertainment sector" depict the Axis as bullies or cavemen or falsify performance to bathe in further illusions (WT or WoT would be a good example), with the German imperfections being multiplied and the Soviet or American performance exalted beyond historical accuracy, because it is politically correct to do so.
Russian schoolbooks have been rewritten, including little to no information about western help. Totalitarian systems always shared similarities and that regardless of existing ideology, their dictatorial regimes operating in a similar fashion. With this in mind, the Soviet Union should be treated accordingly, as a despotic military dictatorship (minus the racial aspect), for many countries it was an exchange from one oppressive system to another.
I am well aware that the ultimate reason for Europe not being brown or red today, are the Western forces, one should always keep that in mind.
With that said, the US never had to engage over 80% of the Germany Army, they occupied about 60 Divisions in total, they did not have to pay such a high price in manpower, thus we cannot fully predict what would have happened.

It is true that understanding the war is more than just dividing it into the geographical and chronological order, it is important to see the whole picture, the material, ideological, historical, political parameters involved.
Additionally, history should not be perceived emotionally, we have to analyze everything and even if it is politically incorrect to state that faction A was tactically superior to faction B, we have to do so regardless of personal preference. I am still surprised that we are still talking about it. In retrospect, a long war of attrition emerged with the ultimate determinant being demography (also resulting in a demographic gap for the USSR), it is hard to believe that performances can be described as symmetrical and on the other side of the spectrum, military studies indicating a low experience in waging total war for the US.
These discussions lead nowhere.

[Graeme Sydney]

I agree with 98% of what you wrote but then you spoiled it with a backhanded compliment to America and one that shows poor historical understanding or judgment;
"With that said, the US never had to engage over 80% of the Germany Army, they occupied about 60 Divisions in total, they did not have to pay such a high price in manpower, thus we cannot fully predict what would have happened."

Germany can be eternally grateful that she did NOT face the full weight of America's industrial, technological and human resources and fury. America barely raised a sweat fighting WW2 where as Germany fought a total war and then some, feeding into the war its future in the form of 12yo's with guns.

[rays]

Yodasgrandad,

In my opinion, the Americans never faced the Germans at the peak of their military capabilities but I would like to preface this.

Experience counts for a lot and it is an underrated quality that is not given its due consideration. The German military of 1939 was just as green as everyone else it faced. It gained experience in the Polish Campaign and I would argue was lucky in the campaign in France to be in a position to capitalize on the French mistakes (over committing its reserve). This allowed the Germans in 1941 to have two campaigns of experience before entering Russia. In 1941 it destroys the standing Red Army which had mobilized and increased in size drastically from 1939 to 1941. While you could argue that the Russians gained experience against Finland (800,000 men participating) and Japan (70,000) these just a percentage of the army that was engaged in 1941 (4.8 million). The Russians largely lose this army in 1941 and in 1942 it is still a relatively "green" army but quickly gaining experience. From 1943 onwards it is largely an experienced army.

The Germans on the other hand enter Russia with an experienced army (whether it is 3.7, 3.2 or 2.7 million is inconsequential to this argument). The Germans take 850,000 casualties in 1941 (including approximately 300,000 dead and missing). The Germans lost 500,000 irrecoverable losses in 1942 which does not include wounded in action. The German army entering 1943 was therefore not the same as the German army of 1941 because of the loss of experienced personnel. I am not saying that all the experienced disappeared, just that it was on the decline entering 1943 and would further decline in 1944 and 1945.

The American army of 1942 was inexperienced. Anytime inexperienced troops fight experienced troops they are at a disadvantage. Can you over come this disadvantage, yes, of course, but there is a cost. The Americans did fight the Germans in 1942 onwards. They did land and fight German Panzer and SS divisions which they defeated. So did the US fight the German Army at its "Peak", I would argue no. Did it fight "Peak" formations. Yes, and it won against these formations.

-A.R.-

[Stiltzkin]

The German military of 1939 was just as green as everyone else it faced.

But not its general Staff and they had experience from WW1, so did Russia, France and Britain.

The German army entering 1943 was therefore not the same as the German army of 1941 because of the loss of experienced personnel. I am not saying that all the experienced disappeared, just that it was on the decline entering 1943 and would further decline in 1944 and 1945

That might be true to some extent, but in 43 they were actually stronger than before, the contribution of their Axis allies was nigh to nonexistent. This is the essence of the war, they had too few men before it even started. Why is that so difficult to understand. Quality is a relative term, the Soviets had to replace almost every unit, hence this cannot be the reason for their defeat. If anything they were probably better than in 41, but so were probably the Soviets. The casualty infliction rate still indicated a high quality gap, but not enough to knock the Soviets out of the war.
Let me illustrate:

replacements late 1943 period

USSR 2,000,000+
Germany 280,000

If the Americans would have faced the whole German Army, they would have taken serious casualties, just compare the losses in regard to combat intensity and how many units faced them respectively, even if we would calculate by these standards, casualties would have been higher, so in hindsight it is the US citizen who can be happy about not participating in a stupid war overseas. I do not know where this notion comes from that the Wehrmacht would have been annihilated in a way like Saddam's Army was.

I can see where this is going: Germany sucker punched its way until 1941 and then the Americans and Soviets proved to be better....in case anyone still does not get it, let me find a suitable analogy, as parallels do exist (Cornelius Nepos, Dickinson College Commentaries, Mulligan):
"Hannibal now fielded the best-trained and equipped army in the ancient world; the Romans enjoyed complete naval superiority, which they could use to invade Carthaginian territory at will."

"Outside of the strategic town of Cannae, however, Hannibal annihilated both consular armies: as many as 70,000 Romans and allies were butchered in a single afternoon—among the worst defeats ever suffered by Rome, or indeed by any army."

Hannibal's army and his allies had killed upwards of 175,000 Roman and Italian soldiers in just over 20 months
...
With the immediate crisis averted, Rome's superiority in manpower and organization eventually began to turn the tide. During the decade from 215 to 205 BC Rome fielded as many as seven and never fewer than four two-legion armies every year in Italy. At its peak mobilization in 212 BC, Rome fielded 25 legions and a massive fleet with over 200,000 men, which it used to conduct simultaneous operations from Hispania to Africa to the Aegean. Hannibal, who was never able to field more than three large armies at a time, was thus constantly made to react to Roman operations against his new Italian allies.

To answer the OP question: The US fought the Luftwaffe and parts of the Ground forces. If you include Africa, then they had to fight the Afrika Korps on their "prime", but that can be considered a sideshow (it did occupy formations which could have been utilized elsewhere though, like mentioned before).
Yes they did fight Germany on their prime, but never the majority of forces, this is reflected in their losses compared to that of other nations.

[offizier1916]

1. no the US never met the whole fighting power of the Wehrmacht. THe Wehrmacht fought on 4 fronts on the same time (east, west, south and home front, were the allied were bombing day and night cities and the armaments industry), furthermore had to fight especially on the eastern fron, the balkans and in italy against strong partisan armies. E.g. in the time between july and september 1942 just 50% of the supplies arrived at the front of the heeresgruppe mitte beacause of partisans. More than 174 locomotives were destryoed by partisans in that interval and nearly 180 villages were destroyd by partisans, because partisans suspected those villages to collaborate with germany. And that situation went even more serious in 1943 for germany. lots of supply for the operation zitadelle in summer 1943 didnt even reach the frontlines due to partisans. In Italy, up to 6 Wehrmacht Divisions were in combat against Partisans behind the front.

2. AMerica alawys had a great supperiority of men and especially tanks, artellary and planes. Especially the air supperiority of the allies was just breathaking. Most german tanks/motorized units didnt even arrived at the front lines, due to allied bombing raids.

3. Dont forget that the german soldiers and pilots couldnt rest as their allied counterparts. they wasn replaced in the way as the allied soldiers.

4. Afrika? The Africa Corps fought a lost battle on two fronts against heavy superior british and us armies. The allies had especially a great advantage in tanks, artellary and planes.

5. My head swims, when i see what the UDSSR got from the land and lease contract. thats jut incredible. Im pretty sure that UDSSR NEVER EVER could have recovered as quciks as they did after those heavy losses between 1941-43 without the land and lease. If you just take raw numbers/loss ratio of the operation Zitadelle e.g., being called a german "desaster", you see that the russians, despite of the fact that they knew for month that the german would attack at Kurs/orel and so had an incredible defence in depth concept (100km deep and more), had way more losses in tanks/planes/artellery and men
. Russians lost so many men and material (even in the 1944-45 campagins) but could always recover. Germany lost over 350.000 in Stalingrad operation (which is of course and horrible loss of young men), while nobody talks about the fact, that russia lost nearly 1.2 Mio soliders in the whole Stalingrad operation .And way way way more panzers, planes etc. But for Germany the loss of 200.000.-350.000 men was not replacable, why the russians could replace 1.2mio men

The Wehracht wasnt prepared for a long-term war. Just for Blitkriege. The "goales" of the so called "4 Jahres-Plan" remained far from being achieved. The so called "Tiefenrüstung" didnt start until 1943 with Albert Speer taking command and couldnt reach is maximum due to the non stop allied bombing raids. addiotionally, germany always lacked on fuel and from 1944 on it was a disaster for the panzer/motorized troupes

[BDV]

1. no the US never met the whole fighting power of the Wehrmacht. THe Wehrmacht fought on 4 fronts on the same time (east, west, south and home front, were the allied were bombing day and night cities and the armaments industry), furthermore had to fight especially on the eastern fron, the balkans and in italy against strong partisan armies. E.g., in Summer 1943, only 48% of the supply for the Heeresgruppe Mitte arrived, the rest being destroyed by partisan actions. Partisans destroyed dozens and dozens of trains, bridges,railroad tracks etc. pp. In Italy, up to 6 Wehrmacht Divisions were in combat against Partisans behind the front.

2. AMerica alawys had a great supperiority of men and especially tanks, artellary and planes. Especially the air supperiority of the allies was just breathaking. Most german tanks/motorized units didnt even arrived at the front lines, due to allied bombing raids.

3. Dont forget that the german soldiers and pilots couldnt rest as their allied counterparts. they wasn replaced in the way as the allied soldiers.

4. Afrika? cmon. What was men power, tank, artellary, planes power compared to the Afrika-Corps?

5. My head swims, when i see what the UDSSR got from the land and lease contract. thats jut incredible. Im pretty sure that UDSSR NEVER EVER could have recovered as quciks as they did after those heavy losses between 1941-43 without the land and lease. If you just take raw numbers/loss ratio of the operation Zitadelle e.g., being called a german "desaster", you see that the russians, despite of the fact that they knew for month that the german would attack at Kurs/orel and so had an incredible defence in depth concept (100km deep and more), had way more losses in tanks/planes/artellery and men
. Russians lost so many men and material (even in the 1944-45 campagins) but could always recover. Germany lost over 350.000 in Stalingrad operation (which is of course and horrible loss of young men), while nobody talks about the fact, that russia lost nearly 1.2 Mio soliders in the whole Stalingrad operation .And way way way more panzers, planes etc. But for Germany the loss of 200.000.-350.000 men was not replacable, why the russians could replace 1.2mio men

The Wehracht wasnt prepared for a long-term war. Just for Blitkriege. The "goales" of the so called "4 Jahres-Plan" remained far from being achieved. The so called "Tiefenrüstung" didnt start until 1943 with Albert Speer taking command and couldnt reach is maximum due to the non stop allied bombing raids. addiotionally, germany always lacked on fuel and from 1944 on it was a disaster for the panzer/motorized troupes

These excuses are besides the point. The American forces encountered the Wehrmacht and repeatedly achieved their objectives and the Wehrmacht units confronting them did not achieve their objectives. This happened when the Wehrmacht was at the peak of its fighting power in 1942-43. It may not have been peak relative fighting power, but that is no concern to US because you fight a war to win.

[offizier1916]

ok from this point of view you are right.

BTW: Imo Germany lost the war in 1941 after they failed to blitzkireg the USSR. Maybe, with someone like von seydlitz-kurzbach or von Manstein as the chief of OKH and with the very important carte blanche/having full rein, germany could have beaten the USSR in a long war, while using the "flexible defense" as Manstein did in the begnning of 1943.

[Michael Kenny]

1. no the US never met the whole fighting power of the Wehrmacht. THe Wehrmacht fought on 4 fronts on the same time (east, west, south and home front, were the allied were bombing day and night cities and the armaments industry), furthermore had to fight especially on the eastern fron, the balkans and in italy against strong partisan armies. E.g., in Summer 1943, only 48% of the supply for the Heeresgruppe Mitte arrived, the rest being destroyed by partisan actions. Partisans destroyed dozens and dozens of trains, bridges,railroad tracks etc. pp. In Italy, up to 6 Wehrmacht Divisions were in combat against Partisans behind the front.

So the mighty Wehrmacht was laid low by bunch of partisans?

2. AMerica alawys had a great supperiority of men and especially tanks, artellary and planes. Especially the air supperiority of the allies was just breathaking. Most german tanks/motorized units didnt even arrived at the front lines, due to allied bombing raids.

Do you realise these 'planes/tanks/guns ' were all part of the Allied Armies?

3. Dont forget that the german soldiers and pilots couldnt rest as their allied counterparts. they wasn replaced in the way as the allied soldiers.

But was not the fact that Allied armies were a lot smaller than the might German Army one of the often used reasons for claiming they were not as good as the mighty German Army?

4. Afrika? The Africa Corps fought a lost battle on two fronts against heavy superior british and us armies. The allies had especially a great advantage in tanks, artellary and planes.

I thought Italy was an Axis partner in NA? How does the Tunisian POW bag compare to the Stalingrad bag?