Best and worst commanders of WWII

[Henry IX]

Yet in 1944 every nation on pretty much every battlefield out performed the German Army. The German army of 1944 was losing everywhere consistently, from the top of my head, the only engagements where they were victorious were the battles of Hurtgen Forest and Market Garden (technically just the breakthrough to Arnhem).

Amateurs tactics, professionals logistics.

It doesn't matter if your junior leadership is better, if the other guy can call down an order of magnitude more firepower than you then you will lose.

I get kind of irritated by the idea that because the western allies solved many of their tactical problems by blowing them up with more firepower, that this is some sort of black mark against them, as if they are not playing fair or something. The enormous gap in strategic and operational warfare between the western allies and the Germans meant that the German finesse in tactical matters was not actually that important. They were clearly better but it just didn't matter. That's why the Germans lost the war about as badly as it is possible to lose a war.

On the eastern front things were more complex. The Soviets lost a number of engagements, however, their operational doctrine did not require success on all points - it was significantly about exploiting success wherever it occurred. Once again, clear tactical superiority by the Wehrmacht being overwhelmed by far superior operational and strategic planning and operations.

 

[pithorr]

Yet in 1944 every nation on pretty much every battlefield out performed the German Army. The German army of 1944 was losing everywhere consistently, from the top of my head, the only engagements where they were victorious were the battles of Hurtgen Forest and Market Garden (technically just the breakthrough to Arnhem).

The brute force mattered, the bulk of German army was already crushed and anihilated by then.

 

[Easy-Kill]

It doesn't matter if your junior leadership is better, if the other guy can call down an order of magnitude more firepower than you then you will lose.

I get kind of irritated by the idea that because the western allies solved many of their tactical problems by blowing them up with more firepower, that this is some sort of black mark against them, as if they are not playing fair or something.

Firstly, yes I agree with you. Adding to this, yes the allies had greater firepower, but Germany in 1940-41 generally had greater firepower, their munitions production in the period prior to the battle of France and Barbarossa completely crippled the civillian economy by robbing almost all of its coal and steel. The tactical superiority of the allies in the 1943 period onwards was the realisation of having superior firepower and ensuring that it was effectively employed to achieve tactical superiority.

My point about morale was that the soldiers and officer corps of all belligerents were completely different. Due to the indoctrinated nature and the point about defending the Reich, Germany was more robust to some of the more human factors and their leaders were less concerned about casualties (hence taking greater risks). This is seen incorrectly as being superior. The allies on the other hand (and particularly Britain) had severe problems that their forces were much more affected by loss in morale caused by high losses. Their tactical superiority was realising this and developing ways of overcoming this. Not only was allied artillery superb, but their forward air control, artillery observation and application of that firepower superb.

They were clearly better but it just didn't matter. .

I do however disagree with this. I am yet to see any evidence that post 1940 the Germans were any better tactically.

 

[bz249]

Amateurs tactics, professionals logistics.

It doesn't matter if your junior leadership is better, if the other guy can call down an order of magnitude more firepower than you then you will lose.

I get kind of irritated by the idea that because the western allies solved many of their tactical problems by blowing them up with more firepower, that this is some sort of black mark against them, as if they are not playing fair or something. The enormous gap in strategic and operational warfare between the western allies and the Germans meant that the German finesse in tactical matters was not actually that important. They were clearly better but it just didn't matter. That's why the Germans lost the war about as badly as it is possible to lose a war.

On the eastern front things were more complex. The Soviets lost a number of engagements, however, their operational doctrine did not require success on all points - it was significantly about exploiting success wherever it occurred. Once again, clear tactical superiority by the Wehrmacht being overwhelmed by far superior operational and strategic planning and operations.

Of course it is a fair tactic... on a lesser scale the Wehrmacht did the same, that was the reason why they achieved their miracle victories. And with a more professional army, the Americans also decided that this is how you can maximize your logistical advantage. Because that's where tactics comes into the play: to lob as much lead in the direction of the enemy as you can and logistics should provide the ammo for that job.

 

[bz249]

I do however disagree with this. I am yet to see any evidence that post 1940 the Germans were any better tactically.

Ok it is wiki but lets see how it was after the Normandy breakout
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_advance_from_Paris_to_the_Rhine

so 4.5 Mio men vs 1.5 Mio men
about 10.000 AFV vs 2000 AFV at most
air supremacy

So we have a setup which roughly as onesided as the Polish Campaign / Second Gulf War... Yet it took the Allies 9 month to achieve victory at last.

 

[Klausewitz]

Amateurs tactics, professionals logistics.

It doesn't matter if your junior leadership is better, if the other guy can call down an order of magnitude more firepower than you then you will lose.

I get kind of irritated by the idea that because the western allies solved many of their tactical problems by blowing them up with more firepower, that this is some sort of black mark against them, as if they are not playing fair or something.

No, it is a black mark against them because it was a cover for incompetence... which bit them in the ass in Korea. And already in WW2 (didn't the US nearly go bust two or three times in WW2?).

 

[Fanstar1]

No, it is a black mark against them because it was a cover for incompetence... which bit them in the ass in Korea. And already in WW2 (didn't the US nearly go bust two or three times in WW2?).

Korea was McArthur overextending into North Korea and his assumption that china wouldn't join. Bulge couldn't really have succeeded, as the Germans ran out of fuel far from their goal.

 

[Fanstar1]

Ok it is wiki but lets see how it was after the Normandy breakout
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_advance_from_Paris_to_the_Rhine

so 4.5 Mio men vs 1.5 Mio men
about 10.000 AFV vs 2000 AFV at most
air supremacy

So we have a setup which roughly as onesided as the Polish Campaign / Second Gulf War... Yet it took the Allies 9 month to achieve victory at last.

because those 4.5 million men and such took a while to get there and logistics were an issue until the Scheldt estuary was cleared after market garden.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Ok it is wiki but lets see how it was after the Normandy breakout
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_advance_from_Paris_to_the_Rhine

so 4.5 Mio men vs 1.5 Mio men
about 10.000 AFV vs 2000 AFV at most
air supremacy

So we have a setup which roughly as onesided as the Polish Campaign / Second Gulf War... Yet it took the Allies 9 month to achieve victory at last.

You make a very good point, however, I beleive that it may be an over simplification. The allied advance wasn't limited by fighting strength, but by two important factors.

The first was the ever present supply situation. The allied forces simply didn't have enough, each division requiring 600-700 tonnes per day, or about 35000 tonnes for the approx 50 divisions. Until Antwerp had been opened much of that material was brought over the single makeshift harbour on Normandy beach and then transported the 500 miles to the front, across an infrastructure that received no incestment for 4 years and had been completely smashed to bits. Incidentally, that 500 miles that the allies advanced in the first months of the invasion was the same distance as the initial German advance in Barbarossa, and about 1/3 of the distance than the Germans advanced to Warsaw in 1939.

The second factorf and the reason for the failure to breach Germany until spring the next year was a combination of factors, including the creation of around 20 new divisions (all in the west), allied consolidation of their logistical situation, the fact that winter makes fighting a lot harder and limits air support, etc. etc.

That the Allies reached the borders of Germany so quickly, from the beaches to the liberation of western Europe with a relatively light cost in human life is quite astounding in my opinion.

I would also like to point out that the Poland situation was different as Germany had a fixed logistical infrastructure to support it and the distance from the German border to Warsaw was only about 250-300km.

Also, the US invasion of Iraq in 1991 was preceded by about 9 months of logistical build up prior to the invasion.

I personally don't believe that there is a comparison of the allied invasion of Normandy and its subsequent breakout. It was an unprecedented operation in terms of scope and scale and has not been repeated since.

 

[James Hale]

Normandy and that was basically an US affair with British help.

I hope you realize that during Overlord, the majority of both soldiers and sailors were Commonwealth, not American, and the man who devised the operation and commanded all Allied ground forces was British.

 

[Easy-Kill]

I hope you realize that during Overlord, the majority of both soldiers and sailors were Commonwealth, not American, and the man who devised the operation and commanded all Allied ground forces was British.

You are new here right? I think she was being facetious.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Of course I was.

 

[Panzergruppe]

I hope you realize that during Overlord, the majority of both soldiers and sailors were Commonwealth, not American, and the man who devised the operation and commanded all Allied ground forces was British.

Not at all, in fact, D-day is a perfect example of good relations between The US and Germany.

 

[James Hale]

The full post was:

"None of these battles led to a real strategic advantage bar Normandy and that was basically an US affair with British help. I cant think of any land battle solely fought by the UK in ww2 which had a strategic effect."

 

[Easy-Kill]

The full post was:

"None of these battles led to a real strategic advantage bar Normandy and that was basically an US affair with British help. I cant think of any land battle solely fought by the UK in ww2 which had a strategic effect."

You mean like El-Alamein? Or the Battle of Britain, or the battle of Cape Matapan? or the Battle(s) of Burma

The thing with the western Allies was exactly that ... They were allies and there are few instances of where either ally fought completely in isolation against someone else.

 

[James Hale]

*shrugs*

I didn't post it, I was just replying to it.

 

[Director]

I can't see much of a case for anyone who argues that one of the western allies could have won without the others, and without the bulk of the Axis armies being stuck in Russia, Overlord would have either looked very different, happened in a different place or never occurred.

On a grand strategic level I see parallels between the Anglo-Dutch alliance against France and the US-Commonwealth alliance against Germany. In both cases the stronger partner developed its naval and economic power while the junior let its naval power decline and its empire slip away as it focused on providing armies for the conflict. Not an exact analogy, but one with some useful points of similarity.

 

[Easy-Kill]

I can't see much of a case for anyone who argues that one of the western allies could have won without the others, and without the bulk of the Axis armies being stuck in Russia, Overlord would have either looked very different, happened in a different place or never occurred.

I disagree ... I think that either the UK or USA would have won, simply by virtue of Germany not being able to beat them. All either country has to do is to starve Germany into the state that they are no longer a threat. Victory would look very different, but then so does the scenario in which the allies are fighting alone.

 

[pithorr]

I disagree ... I think that either the UK or USA would have won, simply by virtue of Germany not being able to beat them. All either country has to do is to starve Germany into the state that they are no longer a threat. Victory would look very different, but then so does the scenario in which the allies are fighting alone.

Except that with the whole continental Europe being a part of Thousand Years Reich or its puppet it rather would have been a hard task to starve Germany.

 

[Easy-Kill]

Except that with the whole continental Europe being a part of Thousand Years Reich or its puppet it rather would have been a hard task to starve Germany.

And as outlined about 50 bazillion times ... the German population (not to mention that of wider Europe) exists in a troglodytic hell hole by 1944. No amount of victory in Ukraine will solve that before 1950. It's simple economics and they were not on the side of Germany.