Germany's Early WWII Victories....Were They Really All That They Seemed To Be ? ? ? (1 Viewer)

[PanzerAce1944]

During Germany's early victories during WWII such as the conquests of Poland, France, Denmark, Holland, etc. were these a sign of their military dominance and superiority or simply victories over a weaker opponent ? The Polish campaign was an easy conquest. France a little more involved as they had a larger army to deal with. Denmark, Holland, were done in a blink of the eye. But then comes Britain. Germany tried ever so desperately to invade the UK, but first they had to cripple the RAF. This was obviously a task that the then mighty Luftwaffe was not able to accomplish.Hitler was forced to back down from operation "Sea Lion" the invasion of the English coast and settle for the continued air raids on innocent civilians in London during the Blitz.This proved a costly mistake as rather than focusing on the RAF and its airfields they took their eye off of the ball and went for bombing the civilian populace. BIG MISTAKE !.Then we have the Russians. Early victories during Operation Barbarossa made Hitler believe that the Russian campaign would be over within the first year. But mother winter set in and changed all of that. If their strategy would have been to bypass STALINGRAD and head straight for Moscow, they would have achieved a much greater bang for the buck.If Germany Reduced Moscow to ruins as they did in Stalingrad the Soviet Union and its people may have considered even surrender, as their capital would have been over taken. But another brain storm idea of Hitler was to again take his eye off of the ball and slug it out in Stalingrad. Even though going all of the way to Moscow would have stretched the German lines, if they reached the city and forced it to capitulate,bring it to ruins and if needed pull back and rearm during the winter months it would have paid much greater dividends than the slugging match in Stalingrad.So going back to the theme of this thread, were Germany's victories due to the weakness of certain enemies or were adversaries such as the UK and USSR too much for the German war machine to handle ???? The mention of the U.S. in this thread is left out as the focus is discussing countries that were directly attacked by German forces with the intent of being conquered . Your thoughts on this topic ............

 

[Terp152]

France was not viewed as a weak opponent at the time, although experience showed their obvious flaws. Many aspects of the German military were superior. They developed technological advances which enabled battlefield victories against a locally superior enemy. This included development of the shaped explosive charge and rehersals using Polish forts to practice for attacks against Dutch forts. These surrendered to inferior German numbers due to advanced weapons technology and tactics (use of gliders). Chris

 

[chillywill]

I believe it was a combination of both. The German military had been rehearsing for war since the early 1930's and it's future opponents wanted to have nothing to do with war. The so called "Lightning War" was made possible by superior training, tactics and wepons. In Russia the same thing happened as we know in the beggining until Soviet numbers and the T-34 began to stifle the Germans and of course Hitler's interference did not help matters. Great topic for discussion.

 

[PanzerAce1944]

I believe it was a combination of both. The German military had been rehearsing for war since the early 1930's and it's future opponents wanted to have nothing to do with war. The so called "Lightning War" was made possible by superior training, tactics and wepons. In Russia the same thing happened as we know in the beggining until Soviet numbers and the T-34 began to stifle the Germans and of course Hitler's interference did not help matters. Great topic for discussion.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/business/2010/04/27/pkg.uk.elex.hk.toy.soldiers.cnn.html

 

[Mitch]

German training was superior to many allied armies at that time but, that training took them only so far much luck ran with them through the early victories and on another day if things had gone differently history would well be very different. Had France attacked when germany attacked poland and not waited the german lines in the west were whofully undermanned and, germany would have had to withdraw forces from the polish campaign.

the russian campaign was not really coherant enough too much indicison take Moscow which, most of the generals wanted would have probably broken the russians long enough for the germans to regroup and defend what they had as there was never much intention of going a whole lot farther into russian territory. But, the obfuscation over whether to destroy russian field armies grab vital war materials or capture symbolic targets was a strech to far for the entire german army.

I think german tactics and training remained very high through the war on all fronts and, the way they could adapt to dire circumstances in fluid battles can be seen clearly in how long it took the world to defeat them with all the resources at their disposal.

Hitler was our greatest weapon
Mitch

 

[Louis Badolato]

I think the German (and its ally Japan) army wisely gave itself an advantage early in the war that the Western Allies (France, Great Britain and the Commonwealth and the United States) would never have the opportunity to attain: giving its troops the opportunity to become battle tested against weak opponents before having to fight a legitimate opponent. Germany's conquest of Poland (and Japan's conquest of large portions of China) gave its troops experience and confidence against opponents who were in no position to beat them. The experience (particularly that of the pilots) and the tactical developments from these early conquests gave them a huge advantage in the early stages of the war. Green troops from France, Great Britain and (later) the United States took an initial beating from Germany's (and Japan's) battle hardened forces in places like France, Belgium, North Africa, Pearl Harbor, the Philippines, and the Kasserine Pass, before developing the skills, tactics and confidence to eventual defeat the German and Japanese forces.

 

[Thompyt]

Germany prepared for war with its eye on repatriation of the Versailles treaty. The NSDAP considered it a great insult from the home front not supporting the soldiers at war. Next for Lebensraum and bring lost Germanics back into the fold. Using false claims and the blitzkrieg won over the Polish and annexed other countries. Not wanting to confront Germany on war footing by the British and French assisted Germany in annexations. The Polish easily conquered by the lack of armor support, cavalry, and the mainstay for fast movers. Outdated equipment and tactics being the norm of the invaded countries forces set the table for overcoming the foe. Three dimensional tactical awareness and use where the enemy still thought in two dimensions, the use of joint force coordination for support overcame any early resistance. Long supply lines and lack of climate ready personal gear and equipment stalled the movement to Moscow by 16 miles. Russian continued development of the American Christie Tank into the T-34, and Russia’s ability to industrial capability to mass-produce overcame Germany’s original advances. Great Britain’s resolve and support of the RAF, tracking RADARS, access to the enigma code, and the use of German radio guidance signal from Mainland Europe to Britain helped win the Air war. Close coordination of on ground controllers and the aircraft lead to more downed A/C by the Brits. If the Luftwaffe had pushed harder for longer, the faltering RAF would have become at most non-existent as a force.

 

[PanzerAce1944]

German training was superior to many allied armies at that time but, that training took them only so far much luck ran with them through the early victories and on another day if things had gone differently history would well be very different. Had France attacked when germany attacked poland and not waited the german lines in the west were whofully undermanned and, germany would have had to withdraw forces from the polish campaign.

the russian campaign was not really coherant enough too much indicison take Moscow which, most of the generals wanted would have probably broken the russians long enough for the germans to regroup and defend what they had as there was never much intention of going a whole lot farther into russian territory. But, the obfuscation over whether to destroy russian field armies grab vital war materials or capture symbolic targets was a strech to far for the entire german army.

I think german tactics and training remained very high through the war on all fronts and, the way they could adapt to dire circumstances in fluid battles can be seen clearly in how long it took the world to defeat them with all the resources at their disposal.

Hitler was our greatest weapon
Mitch

I viewed not too long ago a documentary discussing all of the plots to kill Hitler. The allies had a plan to snipe adolf at his Berghof mountain retreat. But ultimately the decision was made to call off the sniper attack as Hitler was doing more harm to the German cause than the allied planners were ! Were they so right. {sm2}

 

[Terp152]

I think the German (and its ally Japan) army wisely gave itself an advantage early in the war that the Western Allies (France, Great Britain and the Commonwealth and the United States) would never have the opportunity to attain: giving its troops the opportunity to become battle tested against weak opponents before having to fight a legitimate opponent.

Excellent point Louis, had not thought about the experience factor. Add Germany's participation in the Spanish Civil War to their early combat superiority. Combat experience is a huge force multiplier. Chris

 

[binder001]

Lots of reasons for the early victories; the Germans took ideas from others (paratroops or mechanized warfare for instance) refined them and applied them. They managed to keep the Allies responding to their moves - as importatnt in war as in chess. Poland was weaker but wasn't helpless. The Germans managed to use their superior training, offensive spirit, and technological advantages to become what we now call "force multipliers". They caught France at one of the weakest points in its history. The Luftwaffe was a mighty TACTICAL weapon, but it proved incapable of the strategic mission. The panzers were often weilded with great skill but German logistics never caught up to their tactical brilliance. Gradually the Allies shook of their depression-era lethargy, caught on to the new tricks and surpassed the Germans at their own game. Both the Soviets and Americans showed a mastery of the deep penetration with mechanized forces, an technique that the Germans had taken from theories (proposed by Lidell-Hart, et al much earlier) to practice. The USAAF and RAF taught the world lessons in strategic bombing and the effects of aerial dominance. The former being an area that the Germans never did get right, the latter being an area that they initially excelled at but they lost their edge.

So the early German victories were a culmination of very hard work by the German military, new techniques, a powerfully agressive spirit and a bit of luck.

 

[Louis Badolato]

I think the German (and its ally Japan) army wisely gave itself an advantage early in the war that the Western Allies (France, Great Britain and the Commonwealth and the United States) would never have the opportunity to attain: giving its troops the opportunity to become battle tested against weak opponents before having to fight a legitimate opponent.

Excellent point Louis, had not thought about the experience factor. Add Germany's participation in the Spanish Civil War to their early combat superiority. Combat experience is a huge force multiplier. Chris

Chris,

You make an excellent point. The Spanish Civil War was for the Nazi's what the Mexican American War was for the Union and Confederate forces during the U.S. Civil War: a place to test strategies, and get officers and men battle tested. That's one of the reasons I have been collecting John Jenkin's Condor Legion vehicles and aircraft.

 

[PanzerAce1944]

Lots of reasons for the early victories; the Germans took ideas from others (paratroops or mechanized warfare for instance) refined them and applied them. They managed to keep the Allies responding to their moves - as importatnt in war as in chess. Poland was weaker but wasn't helpless. The Germans managed to use their superior training, offensive spirit, and technological advantages to become what we now call "force multipliers". They caught France at one of the weakest points in its history. The Luftwaffe was a mighty TACTICAL weapon, but it proved incapable of the strategic mission. The panzers were often weilded with great skill but German logistics never caught up to their tactical brilliance. Gradually the Allies shook of their depression-era lethargy, caught on to the new tricks and surpassed the Germans at their own game. Both the Soviets and Americans showed a mastery of the deep penetration with mechanized forces, an technique that the Germans had taken from theories (proposed by Lidell-Hart, et al much earlier) to practice. The USAAF and RAF taught the world lessons in strategic bombing and the effects of aerial dominance. The former being an area that the Germans never did get right, the latter being an area that they initially excelled at but they lost their edge.

So the early German victories were a culmination of very hard work by the German military, new techniques, a powerfully agressive spirit and a bit of luck.

Germany's determination to spend large amounts of money on wonder weapons would have been better spent on more and more aircraft. Once they lost air superiority to the allies it was all just a matter of time. Tiger and Panther Tanks did not fair very well against the Typhoons !!! {sm2}

 

[binder001]

Germany's determination to spend large amounts of money on wonder weapons would have been better spent on more and more aircraft. Once they lost air superiority to the allies it was all just a matter of time. Tiger and Panther Tanks did not fair very well against the Typhoons !!! {sm2}

Actually the tanks did fine - WW2 rockets were highly inaccurate weapons. It was the shock and drain of constant air attack, plus the devastation of their supply trucks and trains. Even the finest panzer won't go far on an empty gas tank.

 

[chillywill]

Latter in the war the allies were masters of deception causing the Germans to stay off balance. I feel ultra was the mighty wonder weapon of the war. The lack of raw materials slow the germans down alot it was also a vital pre-occupation in their planning as the campaign in Russia showed. Can one only imagine B-17s or Lancaster's in the German arsenal. Ouch!

 

[Terp152]

Latter in the war the allies were masters of deception causing the Germans to stay off balance. I feel ultra was the mighty wonder weapon of the war. The lack of raw materials slow the germans down alot it was also a vital pre-occupation in their planning as the campaign in Russia showed. Can one only imagine B-17s or Lancaster's in the German arsenal. Ouch!

Hey Chilly, we're practically neighbors! Hope you enjoy the Forum, and the 95 deg temps. :wink2: Chris

 

[chillywill]

Hey neighbor, great discussions and I really enjoy this forum. Are you originally from Shelbyville?

 

[PanzerAce1944]

Hey neighbor, great discussions and I really enjoy this forum. Are you originally from Shelbyville?

Which one did the Germans attack first ????? Shelbyville or Louisville ???? {sm5}

 

[chillywill]

Ha! Ha! PanzerAce these cannot be conquered. My wife is from Texas so I wish the Germans would have attacked there first. Take care

 

[UKReb]

Interesting thread with many valid comments.

The likes of Manstein, Guderian and Rommel were true visionaries of a completely new set of battle tactics that the Allies had never faced before. The Allies themselves were firmly embedded in trying to align a WWI strategy to a modern lightning war and as we know it didn't fit. The swift fall of France was achieved by superior German tactics assisted enormously by the ditherings of the weak and divided French Third Republic government who were simply unable to get to grips with a swiftly moving crisis. If not for the geographically positioned La Manche and the Battle of Britain-the end result for Western Europe does not bear thinking about..

Hitler was indeed an exceptional leader for the German people during the 30's but as has been mentioned on this thread the war swiftly evolved into a one man show where meglomania threw out any common sense. And yet curiously these brilliant aforementioned German commanders and the ordinary German soldier stayed fiercely loyal to this mad-man (apart from Valkyrie) right up until the last days in the Berlin Bunker. Why? through fear, blind faith; dogma; indoctrination-Who really knows?

Reb

 

[Mitch]

I think a large part is down to the mentality of the german people at the time and, the oath of loyalty they swore which was almost real to them. They were brought up to not question authority and to do as you were told or ordered. I have spoken with veterans from the SS and Heer and their oath is as strong in their old age as it was when they swore it. add that to the rest you mentioned and many were like automatoms
Mitch

Interesting thread with many valid comments.

The likes of Manstein, Guderian and Rommel were true visionaries of a completely new set of battle tactics that the Allies had never faced before. The Allies themselves were firmly embedded in trying to align a WWI strategy to a modern lightning war and as we know it didn't fit. The swift fall of France was achieved by superior German tactics assisted enormously by the ditherings of the weak and divided French Third Republic government who were simply unable to get to grips with a swiftly moving crisis. If not for the geographically positioned La Manche and the Battle of Britain-the end result for Western Europe does not bear thinking about..

Hitler was indeed an exceptional leader for the German people during the 30's but as has been mentioned on this thread the war swiftly evolved into a one man show where meglomania threw out any common sense. And yet curiously these brilliant aforementioned German commanders and the ordinary German soldier stayed fiercely loyal to this mad-man (apart from Valkyrie) right up until the last days in the Berlin Bunker. Why? through fear, blind faith; dogma; indoctrination-Who really knows?

Reb