OT: German vs Allied Tech in WW2

[Panther Al]

Allies where behind he curve right up to 1944.

Look t the British, we didn't even have a tank that could fire HE and AP untill we bought the American M3's! We had to have one tank in every squadrn equipped with a howitzer to provide smoke and HE shells because the 6 pounders on everything else could only fire AP.

The Firefly was a quickfix because nothing in the British inventory could carry the 17pouner and we had to turn it on it's side to squeeze it into the the sherman. Only one in eery 4 tanks was a Firefly at best and the Germans learned to knock them out first.

Exactly, which was what the Brits (And the yanks) learned to do in Africa when the long gunned IV's started showing up, so turnabout always sucks.

[Legbreaker]

It's worth noting that besides the American M1, virtually everyone else where using bolt action rifles. And the M1, although semi-automatic, had a bit of a serious drawback - that pesky "ping" announcing to the world it was empty.

[Sanjuro]

RN7 said

in electronics and radars the British were probably ahead of everyone.

True: and then there is computing and codebreaking. The world's first electronic computer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer , and a cryptology facility so advanced that for over thirty years no one even believed their achievements were even technically possible. Britain was even able to sell captured Enigma technology all over the world as "unbreakable coding machines" and then happily read everyone's encrypted messages...
On the subject of Gloster jets... in my first flying instruction job, there was a retired pilot who taught groundschool. He had been a Hurricane pilot early in WW2, then after several combat tours he was "rested" by being assigned to fly with the ATA delivering aircraft to combat stations.
One day he was ordered to collect a new aircraft- with two engines. Not having much multi-engine experience, he read all he could about multi-engine handling techniques on the train to the airfield. On arrival, he was told "it's behind the hangar, help yourself"- but was very confused because the aircraft had no propellors.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

...I'm sorry if that's ranty and I know people are going to jump on this post...

Um yeah, I am going to jump on a few things here but probably not the ones people think. In fact what I'm going to say means I am quite happy to jump to Raellus's defence for his original post in defence of the Red Army.

...The Germans never gave serious consideration to nuclear weapons. Yes, they had Heavy Water experiments in Norway, but even if the Allies had left them untouched and the war had dragged on (which the Soviets weren't going to do - they were after blood, the Western Front be damned), there's no way they'd have had a tested and working bomb before the Reds got to them...

Jury is still out I think on this, I've read statements from German scientists from after the war saying that they actively prevented the development of atomic weapons even though they believed that they could have achieved production. In particular, they claimed that by using technical language involving physics and higher math, they were able to confuse the issue enough that they never truly conveyed the power of atomic weapons to the Nazi regime nor the ability to produce them.

And I've also read claims that the Germans didn't have the knowledge to do so or that they didn't have the necessary uranium resources and so on, so it seems that the whole issue is never going to be particularly clear...

...The consequence of not living in a nightmare police state which is what everyone east of the Berlin Wall lived under until 1990, but rather a free and open society was that the Soviets were able to pre-position Spetsnaz groups and equipment throughout western europe...

I personally know Czechs, Russians and Poles who were living behind the Iron Curtain and yes indoctrination played a huge part in the development of their cultures and the secret police played a significant part in their lives (even more so with East Germany) but for the majority of people living outside the Soviet Union, life was actually pretty damned good some of the time. Free and I mean COMPLETELY free education and medical care and if you didn't have a job one would be found for you (if however, you were a lazy swine who didn't want to work, you would often be thrown in forced labour prisons or conscripted)

In Poland and Czechoslovakia for example, they had more freedoms than the Soviets and more consumer goods and generally more food, clothes and luxury items in the shops. My Czech work colleague used to be a coal miner and the liberties extended to miners would never happen in the West simply because the communist regimes relied heavily on the mines and gave the miners a lot of leeway - such as the ability to refuse conscription and the "exchange rate" was pretty good, three years in the Army or one year in the mines.

True the mines were dangerous but no more so than mines in any Western nation. My work colleague stayed as a miner for many years and was able to afford such luxuries as a brand new colour TV from West Germany - TVs that were regularly sold in Czechoslovak department stores.

Hungarians had a rather "too easy" time crossing the border into Austria during certain years of the Cold War because memories of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were still very strong and the border guards of both nations might sometimes be related by old family ties. Hungarians often went into Austria to shop for items that they then sold on to the Soviets!

... a dozen slave labor produced T72s...

Many Soviet workers actually took pride in their work and firmly believing the crap that the Soviet State indoctrinated them with, many of them felt that they were contributing to the security of the Motherland and helping to keep the world free. That plus the Soviets massive expenditure on Civil Defence shelters and training compared to the West convinced many Soviet citizens that the State did care about their ability to survive any aggression from the West.

You have to consider that despite the harshness of the State, the Russians in particular lived in a harsh land and were used to making sacrifices for Rodina (that plus the fact that they have been invaded by significant military forces nearly every two hundred years tends you make you more accepting of the need for sacrifice).

The Soviet Union did have significant problems, food & clothing shortages particularly, but the idea that everyone east of the Berlin Wall lived under a nightmare police state is hyperbole and propaganda and dare I say, indoctrination, from the West.

[Mahatatain]

The Western Allies were also much more reluctant to take casualties and so Eisenhower decided to let the Soviets earn Berlin with their blood. Stalin and the Red Army generals were more than willing to oblige.

If I remember correctly (I read this book quite a few years ago) in Stephen E. Ambrose's biography of Eisenhower (Eisenhower: Soldier and President) he says that Eisenhower resisted pressure to take Berlin and chose instead to engage the major remaining elements of the German Army, approaching his strategy from a military rather than a political point of view.

Ambrose then went on to say that when Eisenhower became President he recognised that the political point of view sometimes outweighs the military and that he may have made a strategic mistake in not driving straight to Berlin when he could have.

We will never know however.....

[copeab]

A few points:

The undergunning of the Sherman was largely the result of the flawed doctrine of the US in having tank destroyers (like the M-10, M-36 and M-18) kill other tanks.

The Arado Ar 234 was the blitz bomber Hitler wanted the Me 262 to be, but had it showed up a few months earlire in it's role as recon plane, the Germans would have almost certainly spotted the D-Day invasion fleet assembling (at that time, the Germans really had no effective air recon over England).

The Me 262, with engine development problems, probably would not have entered service much sooner even without Hitler's meddling.

The US viewed solders as interchangable pieces and had a disgraceful method of replacing dead/wounded soldiers with new ones. The "we'll sacrifice four Shermans for one Panther" was just an extension of this.

The M-1 carbine (and especially M-2) could be viewed as an early version of the PDW concept -- a light, handy weapon for use by troops whose primary job isn't a rifleman.

Although the Germans get all the attention, the US successfully used guided glide bombs in the Pacific, mostly for destroying bridges in the CBI Theater.

[RN7]

Yes, the 17-pounder was a badass AT gun. It was the gun the Germans respected, not the tank it what mounted on.

The Germans respected French tanks in 1940 because on paper they were better than their own, but their now just an afterthought in WW2 history. The Allies coverted 2,300 Sherman Fireflies which was probably equivalent to most of the German tank fleet in Western Europe from 1944-45.

Very true. But the Soviets still won. I only bring this up as it supports my premise in the Defense of the Red Army thread.

There are many reasons why the Soviet won and the Germans lost, and there isn't enough time or space in this thread to fully discuss it.

I don't think your first claim is very accurate. During the five weeks of Operation Bagration, launched in June of '44, the Red Army destroyed Army Group Center and bagged the Soviets 17 German divisions utterly destroyed and 50 others shattered. The Soviets claimed 400,000 Germans killed, 2000 tanks destroyed, and 158,000 prisoners taken. By contrast, the Germans lost about 200,000 men killed, wounded, and missing, and 250,000 men captured during the entire Normandy campaign, including the Falaise Pocket battles (all told, nearly three months of fighting). That's just the most glaring example.

German frontline strength during Operation Bagration were 400,000 troops, under 500 tanks and assault guns, with another 400,000 support and non combat personnel. The Soviets had over 2.3 million troops and 4,000 tanks and assault guns. The Germans were outnumbered 3:1 to one or 6:1 if you only count frontline German troops. The actually German casualties in Bagration were 400,000 total casualties (killed, missing and wounded) and the Soviets lost 780,000 men and 2,900 tanks.

In Operation Overlord from the 6th June until the 25th of August the Allies had over 2 million troops as opposed to just over 1 million Germans. German casualties were 209,000 troops and 2,200 tanks and assault guns, while the Allied casualties were 226,000 troops and 4,000 tanks. During Operation Dragoon, the other less well known Allied invasion of southern France in August 1944 200,000 Allied troops faced 300,000 Germans. Allies casualties were 20,000 as opposed to 27,000 Germans.

Basically the battles fought on the Eastern Front throughout the war were one a titanic scale, as whoever lost faced extermination due to the polar opposite ideologies and the Nazi racial element that was brought into the war. Losses throughout the war were staggering but the Soviet tended to lose a lot more even in victory until 1945 when Germany was all but defeated. For most of the war the German troops were far better trained and led than their Soviet counterparts, but were let down by supply problems and political interference from Berlin. However German land forces were less dominant throughout the war against Western forces excluding the catastrophic problems the Allies had in 1940 for various reasons. The casualty rates of German troops versus American and British troops are generally similar on both sides in North Africa, Italy and NW Europe after D-Day with a few exceptions, but in general the Allies inflicted heavier casualties against the Germans than what they received, and more importantly they generally won the battles and had manpower and supply problems that the Germans only dreamed of having.

The Western Allies were also much more reluctant to take casualties and so Eisenhower decided to let the Soviets earn Berlin with their blood. Stalin and the Red Army generals were more than willing to oblige.

Stalin had a lot less respect for human life than any Western General

[Panther Al]

RN7,

This might feel like I am bashing, but I swear, I'm not...


A couple more fallacies in the last one you put up. In 1940, on the whole, the French Tanks *was* the best out there. True, they did have problems (One man turrets anyone?), but by and large the latest generations (S35 and H35/39 - not to mention the Char B-1) of French tanks was much better than most of what was fielded by the germans. It was German Tactics - and french strategic stupidity - that allowed the Fall of France.

While manpower losses might be accurate for Overlord, the Tank loss numbers you have came from allied sources. Which are massively overstated by almost a factor of 10. I've seen the daily strength reports of the German Units involved in the normandy campaign, and while they did lose a lot of tanks, they never fielded that many in the first place on the western front at any one time. The strongest, and only up to strength, Panzer Unit there was the Panzer Lehr, and they only had 162 Panzers. The various SS Panzer divisions was averaging around a hundred each. The 21st was at a lower number. Replacements sent to the front from June to September amounted roughly 300 Panzers of all types (This doesn't include new units arriving). At peak: 31 August, the total Panzer Strength in the western front topped out at 784. Including those in workshops - which amounted to half of that number. Just taking Panthers alone, only 1130 was sent west before Sep 1, of those, 397 was still on the books as operational, 240 (I don't have the exact number for this handy, want to say it was between 240 and 250) in workshops, with another 124 withdrawn to other fronts.


Panthers accounted for half of all the panzers (including StuG's) on the western front between 6 June and 6 August. Of those present (484 with 1.SS-Pz.Rgt 1, 2, 9, 12; 1.Pz-Rgt 3, and 6, each of 79 (Save for Pz-Rgt6 with 89)) only 131 was wrote off as a total loss. By this time 32 was sent from ordnance depots, and another 73 from Mailly-le-Camp training school upping totals to 458 on hand. Oddly enough, it wasn't till August that Panthers stopped being the bulk of Panzers sent to the west - August to September was when the Panzer Brigades arrived, and they was only 1-3 in panther/other panzer strength.

Part of the accounting issue for German Panzer losses between German Sources and Allied, is that we counted Halftracks as Panzers: Which is stupid, but there you go. And the Lehr's Infantry Regiments was fully equipped to the last man with all the latest armoured halftracks for rides. The only division (Heer or SS) to be so equipped - and they took heavy losses in those rides while serving as fire brigades.

Granted, come november, the strength reports ballooned for the Ardennes offensive, but thats not important to this point.


Copeab is spot on as to why the Sherman was under gunned. It was never meant to take on tanks in the first place: it was supposed to be an Infantry Support Tank.

[Raellus]

If you're comparing German casualty figures on both fronts after June 6th, 1944, I think you need to take into consideration the fact that a lot of Germans surrendered to WA formations because they didn't want to be captured and/or killed by the Red Army. These voluntary surrenders would presumably be counted in the tally of overall casualties, skewing that number slightly in favor of the WA (making the WA look more effective than they actually were). I think that this is misleading, because it happened almost by default. If anything, this willingness of some German units to surrender to Western forces indicates that the Red Army was in some ways a force modifier, its mere existence helping the WA (in that they didn't have to fight Germans hoping/seeking to be captured by them). In other words, if it weren't for the threat posed by the Red Army, some of those German units in the west would have fought as hard as the ones on the Eastern Front did.

[LAW0306]

we have a differnt helmet because we do differnt things. with out getting into secrets on a forum. do your homework before you bash the best army in the world or the United States Marine Corps.

[LAW0306]

It's worth noting that besides the American M1, virtually everyone else where using bolt action rifles. And the M1, although semi-automatic, had a bit of a serious drawback - that pesky "ping" announcing to the world it was empty.

True leg it does make a ping....but as you know we fight in teams like you aussies do. So please stick your head up and my battle buddy will smoke you or the attached MG team. just not a very good point. we never fight one on one...thats tv and movies...we fight as teams....war is a team sport.

[Adm.Lee]

Something to consider when comparing the WW2 Wehrmacht and NATO's forces is that those German wonder-weapons were pretty rare on the ground.

They equipped only some of their formations as panzer and panzergrenadiers, the vast majority of German soldiers fought with the Kar98k, hardly any armored support, and artillery from captured Soviet 76mm guns pulled by horses.

The Western Allies in WW2, and NATO in the Cold War, had the wherewithal to back up their "just good enough" and "dependent on firepower" forces and doctrines when they fought. You can say that the King Tigers and Jagdpanthers were a luxury force, deployed in small numbers and overwhelmed by heavy odds, but the Leopards and Challengers and Abrams tanks were meant to equip *all* of the NATO armies.

Second item: check out the book Death traps by Belton Cooper. He was a WW2 Ordnance officer in the 3rd Armored Division. In his version, the Ordnance Corps offered Patton and others the Pershing tank in the winter of 1943-44, but they turned it down, not wanting to a) deal with the inevitable teething troubles, and b) have a disruption in the supply chain, especially one that would cut the number of tanks shipped by a factor of 2 or 3. Given the Allies' superiority in airpower, artillery, and the presence of 90mm TDs, that might be a compromise to consider.

[RN7]

RN7,

This might feel like I am bashing, but I swear, I'm not... .

Oh no fell free to contradict all you like!

A couple more fallacies in the last one you put up. In 1940, on the whole, the French Tanks *was* the best out there. True, they did have problems (One man turrets anyone?), but by and large the latest generations (S35 and H35/39 - not to mention the Char B-1) of French tanks was much better than most of what was fielded by the germans. It was German Tactics - and french strategic stupidity - that allowed the Fall of France.

Well I sort of presumed that you knew I knew the reasons why the French were so poor in the Battle of France as I think every knows them, hence why I said later in my reply to Raellus ,c,,oeexcluding the catastrophic problems the Allies had in 1940 for various reasons,c,,

While manpower losses might be accurate for Overlord, the Tank loss numbers you have came from allied sources. Which are massively overstated by almost a factor of 10. I've seen the daily strength reports of the German Units involved in the normandy campaign, and while they did lose a lot of tanks, they never fielded that many in the first place on the western front at any one time. The strongest, and only up to strength, Panzer Unit there was the Panzer Lehr, and they only had 162 Panzers.

I think I included September figures as well, strike that it,c,"s a typo.

From my sources Panzer Lehr had either 188 tanks (89 Panthers and 99 Pz IV and 41 Stug) or 144 tanks (52 Panther, 92 Pz IV and 40 Stug) on the 1st of June 1944. Obviously a few discrepancies in combat ready/short term and long term repair reports.

The various SS Panzer divisions was averaging around a hundred each. The 21st was at a lower number.

Off the top of my head at the start of D-Day the following German divisions had....

Panzer Lehr Division: 188 tanks (89 Panther, 99 Pz IV, 41 Stug)
1st SS Panzer Division: 88 tanks (38 Panther, 50 Pz IV, 45 Stug)
2nd Panzer Division: 166 tanks (70 Panther, 96 Panzer IV, 19 Stug)
2nd SS Panzer Division: 92 tanks (37 Panther, 55 Pz IV, 42 Stug)
3rd Fallschirmjager Division; 0 tank
10th SS Panzer Division: 39 tanks (39 Panther, 38 Stug)
12th SS Panzer Division: 148 tanks (50 Panzer, 98 Panzer IV, 2 Stug)
17th SS Division: 0 tanks
19th SS Division: 0 tanks (42 Stug)
21st Panzer Division: 112 tanks (112 Panther)
716th Infantry Division: 0 tanks

Replacements sent to the front from June to September amounted roughly 300 Panzers of all types (This doesn't include new units arriving). At peak: 31 August, the total Panzer Strength in the western front topped out at 784. Including those in workshops - which amounted to half of that number. Just taking Panthers alone, only 1130 was sent west before Sep 1, of those, 397 was still on the books as operational, 240 (I don't have the exact number for this handy, want to say it was between 240 and 250) in workshops, with another 124 withdrawn to other fronts.

Panthers accounted for half of all the panzers (including StuG's) on the western front between 6 June and 6 August. Of those present (484 with 1.SS-Pz.Rgt 1, 2, 9, 12; 1.Pz-Rgt 3, and 6, each of 79 (Save for Pz-Rgt6 with 89)) only 131 was wrote off as a total loss. By this time 32 was sent from ordnance depots, and another 73 from Mailly-le-Camp training school upping totals to 458 on hand. Oddly enough, it wasn't till August that Panthers stopped being the bulk of Panzers sent to the west - August to September was when the Panzer Brigades arrived, and they was only 1-3 in panther/other panzer strength.

Part of the accounting issue for German Panzer losses between German Sources and Allied, is that we counted Halftracks as Panzers: Which is stupid, but there you go. And the Lehr's Infantry Regiments was fully equipped to the last man with all the latest armoured halftracks for rides. The only division (Heer or SS) to be so equipped - and they took heavy losses in those rides while serving as fire brigades.

I believe German tank reinforcements for June was 48 Tiger I, 256 Panther and 121 Pz IV. Losses were 19 Tiger 1, 80 Panther, 125 Pz IV and 27 Stug.
In July they received 42 Tiger 1, 83 Panther, 31 Pz IV and 56 Stug. Losses were 14 Tiger 1, 125 Panther, 149 Pz IV and 68 Stug plus others.
In August they received 14 Tiger 1, 11 Pz IV and 59 Stug. Losses were 15 Tiger 1, 41 Panther, 49 Pz IV and 78 Stug plus others.

I believe the total German tank losses were 224 for June, 288 for July, 105 for August and 1,228 for September for a total 1,845. The September figure obviously increases total German tank losses.

[Panther Al]

Oh no fell free to contradict all you like!



Well I sort of presumed that you knew I knew the reasons why the French were so poor in the Battle of France as I think every knows them, hence why I said later in my reply to Raellus ,c,,oeexcluding the catastrophic problems the Allies had in 1940 for various reasons,c,,



I think I included September figures as well, strike that it,c,"s a typo.

From my sources Panzer Lehr had either 188 tanks (89 Panthers and 99 Pz IV and 41 Stug) or 144 tanks (52 Panther, 92 Pz IV and 40 Stug) on the 1st of June 1944. Obviously a few discrepancies in combat ready/short term and long term repair reports.




Off the top of my head at the start of D-Day the following German divisions had....

Panzer Lehr Division: 188 tanks (89 Panther, 99 Pz IV, 41 Stug)
1st SS Panzer Division: 88 tanks (38 Panther, 50 Pz IV, 45 Stug)
2nd Panzer Division: 166 tanks (70 Panther, 96 Panzer IV, 19 Stug)
2nd SS Panzer Division: 92 tanks (37 Panther, 55 Pz IV, 42 Stug)
3rd Fallschirmjager Division; 0 tank
10th SS Panzer Division: 39 tanks (39 Panther, 38 Stug)
12th SS Panzer Division: 148 tanks (50 Panzer, 98 Panzer IV, 2 Stug)
17th SS Division: 0 tanks
19th SS Division: 0 tanks (42 Stug)
21st Panzer Division: 112 tanks (112 Panther)
716th Infantry Division: 0 tanks




I believe German tank reinforcements for June was 48 Tiger I, 256 Panther and 121 Pz IV. Losses were 19 Tiger 1, 80 Panther, 125 Pz IV and 27 Stug.
In July they received 42 Tiger 1, 83 Panther, 31 Pz IV and 56 Stug. Losses were 14 Tiger 1, 125 Panther, 149 Pz IV and 68 Stug plus others.
In August they received 14 Tiger 1, 11 Pz IV and 59 Stug. Losses were 15 Tiger 1, 41 Panther, 49 Pz IV and 78 Stug plus others.

I believe the total German tank losses were 224 for June, 288 for July, 105 for August and 1,228 for September for a total 1,845. The September figure obviously increases total German tank losses.

*waggles his fingers* Those numbers are not the ones I have, though with all things when it comes to german records you never do know.

However, the 21st's numbers is *way* off. The 21st had NO panthers at all in its TOE. Also, while September was a murderous month for the Panzer forces, by this time there was only 3 Panther Regiments left by 9 Sept: they had all been withdrawn, so a lot of those losses was older models. Not to mention I do believe - though I have scant evidence, just enough to make me think this - that the loss numbers are slightly exaggerated. Most of my numbers come from actual strength reports as reported by the units, coupled with delivery information. While none are fully and totally reported, and there is always room for 'inflation' on the combat reports, I feel comfortable about them.

The Pocket trapped a lot of German Equipment, but the legend of all the Panzers being left behind is largely that: Legend. A lot was abandoned don't get me wrong, but the Germans knew how important it was to get the armour out, and they recovered more than was believed at the time. Not enough to make a huge difference, but...

Ritgen mentioned - at least I want to say it was him, but I know I read it one of the post war memoirs, that it was pretty common to have units overstate its losses to a slight degree in order to encourage the rear to increase its importance in receiving replacements. Early in the war, it was to the advantage to overstate strength, but by the time the war was heading to its conclusion, it was felt it was better to try to find any reason to get to the head of the line for replacements.

Its this, and the aformentioned scarcity of solid info due to the destruction of files and records that makes this such a point of debate.

[RN7]

*waggles his fingers* Those numbers are not the ones I have, though with all things when it comes to german records you never do know.

However, the 21st's numbers is *way* off. The 21st had NO panthers at all in its TOE.

Sorry that was a typo, the 2st had 112 Panther IV, I also made one with the 12th SS Panzer: Should be 50 Panther, 98 Panzer IV and 2 Stug.

I'm also looking at a German source (7AOK Kriegtagbuch from captured German documents) that show the 2nd panzer battalion of the 21st Panzer Division was still using some ex-French Somua tanks at the beginning of June, and the 3rd battalion was due to be refitted with Panthers.