The German Army

[Jingles]

"Why do people have a fixation with the German military when they haven't won a war since 1871?" - Tom Clancy

Good question, I think. Considering, in the case of world war 2, the nature of the regime that it served, it's always put me off getting too fascinated by ze Germans. And really, what is there to be so excited about? All their fancy hardware of destruction didn't save them from the allies, so what the hell are we doing still drooling over it 70 years later? It's not as if mankind hasn't built better and far more senselessly destructive weapons since then.

I don't know, maybe it's those Hugo Boss uniforms. You can pillage and exterminate, but it's not so bad if you look good whilst you do it? In any case, alot of the German army fetishism one sees amongst circles of military historians doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

[Poach]

Tom Clancy makes a flawed statement. The German Armed Forces may not have won a major war in a long time, but they performed excellently in all the wars they fought. They only really lost the Second World War because of poor political leadership, not military ineptitude. The First World War was lost because their Home Front was in an advanced state of collapse and their armies could no longer be reasonably supported in the field. Largely this is the German Navy's fault for not taking the North Sea, though that can in turn be blamed on German political leadership for not building a fleet that could take the North Sea.

To put it simply, the German Armed Forces have been pioneers in many respects: in both World Wars their Armies have always performed fantastically. Their stormtrooper tactics in the First World War were deadly and effective, if somewhat casualty-heavy. Their Blitzkrieg in the Second World War destroyed France in a mere 6 weeks: France was regarded as one of Europe's Major Powers! Barbarossa was, to start, wildly successful and the Soviets were roundly thrashed and battered all the way to the gates of Moscow. Even when the tides were against them, the Wermacht proved skillful at conducting fighting retreats and forming ad-hoc defensive positions or engaging in local counter-attacks. In terms of raw skill and excellence, the German Army certainly has a good argument for taking first place in the Second World War.


It has nothing to do with Hugo Boss uniforms or fancy weaponry, it's simply because they were so damn good at fighting.

[Jingles]

It has nothing to do with Hugo Boss uniforms or fancy weaponry, it's simply because they were so damn good at fighting.

This here is where I have issue. It supposes that the other combatants weren't, and I don't think you can blame all their faults on the politicians, frankly. The Battle of Britain was not lost by Germany because of the Nazi party's leadership. In my view, in the early years of the war, they didn't triumph so much through absolute martial excellence, so much as simply profiting from the haplessness of their foes, and it showed, I think, when it came to Britain in 1940, who actually stiffened up and mounted a credible defence, unlike those who had already been crushed by the Nazis. It seems to me in the case of both the Western Allies and the USSR, it was once they got their act into gear, so to speak, the Wehrmacht found itself on the run.

I, of course have no doubt that the German army was a highly capable military machine, but it seems to me that they harbour a vastly inflated reputation that at times just seems to smack of the winning combatants wanting to give themselves an extra big pat on the back for winning.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

This here is where I have issue. It supposes that the other combatants weren't

In Normandy in 1944 the Germans destroyed 2.7 tanks for every tank they lost. Considering the allies had complete air superiority and vastly superior numbers, that's a huge achievement. Also bear in mind this was 1944 - Germany had lost most of its experienced troops and was in disarray.

Also consider the Battle of the Bulge. A bunch of poorly trained and unfit conscripts, most outside regular military age limits, attacked two whole Army Groups and managed to cause about 1.4 casualties for every man they lost.

The Germans were also the main pioneer of modern armoured warfare.

The other combatants weren't as good at fighting as the German army. Of course the same can hardly be said of the Luftwaffe or Kriegsmarine.

[Rolling Thunder]

In Normandy in 1944 the Germans destroyed 2.7 tanks for every tank they lost. Considering the allies had complete air superiority and vastly superior numbers, that's a huge achievement.

Not when you're fighting in the most easily-defended terrain in the world it isn't. Bocage wasn't exactly favourable offensive terrain.

The Germans were also the main pioneer of modern armoured warfare.

How? Everyone else did the same things as they did.

The other combatants weren't as good at fighting as the German army.

Sources? Evidence? Analysis?

Of course the same can hardly be said of the Luftwaffe or Kriegsmarine.

The Luftwaffe, meh, but the Kriegsmarine was utterly outclassed from the start of the war.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Not when you're fighting in the most easily-defended terrain in the world it isn't. Bocage wasn't exactly favourable offensive terrain.

I'd hardly call it that

it's like terrain anywhere else in Europe - fields, hedges, woods and hills. The terrain here in the west of Ireland could be called bocage and it's similar to terrain in Germany and Italy etc. The most easily defensible is probably the scottish highlands.

How? Everyone else did the same things as they did.

Armoured breakthrough warfare was all heavily based on Guderian's analysis of WWI.

Sources? Evidence? Analysis?

the statistics I gave

[Abendstern]

the Kriegsmarine was utterly outclassed from the start of the war

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD-Rf...eature=related

[Poach]

This here is where I have issue. It supposes that the other combatants weren't, and I don't think you can blame all their faults on the politicians, frankly. The Battle of Britain was not lost by Germany because of the Nazi party's leadership.

Arguably, it was, in a way. Hitler ordered the bombing campaign to switch to cities and away from airfields, which gave the RAF breathing room.

That said, the Battle of Britain was not Britain's last chance at survival. Operation Sealion was outwith German capability and even if they somehow managed to get a landing operation underway, British defences would've seen them massacred and the invasion would have been a catastrophic failure.

And that said, again, the RAF was undefeatable: any attempt to bomb airfields in Central England would've incurred horrendous bomber losses, as no fighters could escort them. Not very difficult for the RAF to shoot down unescorted bombers who are easy to find because they're flying straight toward you!

Though the Battle of Britain, as it turned out, may have been Hitler's fault: the RAF could have been forced out of the Southern England airfields, but they could never be forced from the skies completely.

In my view, in the early years of the war, they didn't triumph so much through absolute martial excellence, so much as simply profiting from the haplessness of their foes,

Incorrect. Poland, you have an argument for, their Army simply wasn't modern enough, but not France and the BEF. They beat France and forced the BEF to evacuate through sheer military prowess: the Blitzkrieg (which contrary to popular opinion had not been employed against Poland, Fall Gelb and Fall Rot were the first true uses of the doctrine) was revolutionary and the Allied attempts to counteract it wholly inadequite. The Wermacht ran rings around us because we had no idea how to stop it.

This was, ofcourse, corrected fairly quickly by the concept of Defence in Depth being recognised as a fantastic way to stop a Blitzkrieg, but that wasn't realised until after France was lost.

and it showed, I think, when it came to Britain in 1940, who actually stiffened up and mounted a credible defence, unlike those who had already been crushed by the Nazis.

Unlike? The French Army, despite being cut into small chunks and surrounded, fought heroicly and the casualty list for Fall Rot (~ 4 week operation) exceeded the casualty count for the first 4 weeks of Barbarossa.

It seems to me in the case of both the Western Allies and the USSR, it was once they got their act into gear, so to speak, the Wehrmacht found itself on the run.

You mean after Hitler (the politician) wrecked Barbarossa by interfering heavily in the planning and re-opened the Western Front by declaring war on the United States?

I, of course have no doubt that the German army was a highly capable military machine, but it seems to me that they harbour a vastly inflated reputation that at times just seems to smack of the winning combatants wanting to give themselves an extra big pat on the back for winning.

You are, ofcourse, entitled to your opinion. I, for one, have great respect for the German Armed Forces of both wars (militarily, that is, I'm obviously no fan of the war crimes) for being innovative, extremely professional and a worthy advesary for not only 1 Great Power, but 4 including the 2 soon-to-be Superpowers of the Cold War.



Also, ireland threw some good figures and statistics at you a few posts up.

[MaximiIian]

This here is where I have issue. It supposes that the other combatants weren't

Says who? Admitting that the German armed forces were damn good at fighting doesn't mean that we're denying that their opponents were too.

[Tiberios]

Says who? Admitting that the German armed forces were damn good at fighting doesn't mean that we're denying that their opponents were too.

Actually I'd say that ackowleding the quality of the Germans in a way also ackowledges the quality and skill of the allied armies that defeated them. I know there were other factors but still.

[HansDuet]

I do like the uniforms.

[Nik]

I think what historians fascinates is how Germany in WWII could wage a war against the 3 largest Nations (with 2 far beyoned them in terms of raw production values and population) and still needing 5 Years to be defeated. That strategical balance translated down to the tactical level, where the germans were usually out-numbered, out-equipped and/or out-teched (with the notable excepton of late war tank designs and a trickle of jet and rocket designs).
And even on the retreat, the german army put up a tenacious defence, with a high small unit coherence and morale, as opposed to their enemies.
I think it are these qualities that fascinate military historians, and gets a lot of research directed into the german way of training and leading military formations.
Another point of interest is the social-psychological aspects of the german officer class. Their political views and their blind loyalty to Hitler at the fore.

But for all that, the "german military fetish" you ascribe, is rather less a problem of historians but rather of a beevy of self-proclaimed military internet experts and wacky reenactors (the kind that portray SS-Units and such, not all of them. Just to say before the torches start flying).

[eisenkopf]

The biggest fanboys of the German Army hail from the US. I know that from experience, I have had a glimpse at their community.

I don't have an explanation for it, except that maybe many people secretly admire the "no constraints" type of warfare, and would like to be like the evil bad-asses they think the Wehrmacht was. If not in reality, then at least in their dreams and in their basement when wearing that old SS-Uniform.

Otherwise I can not understand why someone would hail the cult of the Waffen-SS, for example. It must be the fascination of evil. You could just as well ask why "The Empire stikes back" ist the most liked of all Star Wars episodes.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

"Why do people have a fixation with the German military when they haven't won a war since 1871?" - Tom Clancy

Well... From the regular {clueless} Joe perspective, besides all the neat hardware and gadgets they got to use, Look at what the organization accomplished against the odds and then take a greater look at what they "almost" accomplished against the odds.

Just take a look at the numbers... impressive in that sense.

Look at Napoleon, technically he was a loser in the end, but look at what he "might" have accomplished. The same with Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy. Look at what they accomplished against all odds and numbers and look at what they "might" have accomplished with greater manpower and materials....

All these folks capture the fascination of many a "Regular Joe" like myself. At the top of the list is the seemingly pseudo invincible, timeless,
German war machine....

[cottontail]

Because the German army has a history of fighting against humongous odds, battling against pretty much every single other power in Europe at the same time, and still managing to keep its enemys at bay, and even launch offensives into their land, for a time that many would not believe possible?

I mean, they did it in the Seven Years War, World War 1, and World War 2

They also were able to defeat pretty much any other European power one on one, as seen by the Austria-Prussian war and the Franco-Prussian war. The latter being especially exemplary because Prussia defeated a France that was supposed to have the most advanced army on the planet, and were able to march all the way to Paris.

Face it, the German military has a history of being very well trained and having great combat doctrines. It is able to hold off numerous nations at once for a time. What other nations can say that they could have held off the combined might of Russia, America, Britian, France, and other nations for as long as the Germans did. The German military was good, and it is a military that all others should aspire to be like ( in terms of resiliency, not brutality like in WW2 ( and no, Im not saying all Germans were monsters, nor that all of the allied units were fluffy liberators that could do no harm, its just that the German army has more incidents of intentional slaughter of civilians than the allied militaries))

Plus, the Germans have cool uniforms and weapons. And they name their tanks well. Tiger, Panther, Leopard, come on, those are awesome names

But yeah, I respect the German military for being one of the most resilient on the planet. The German policy makers ( with the exception of Bismarck) might have always made the mistake of fighting too many enemies at once, but the Germany military has shown that it takes all of those powers to defeat it. A very admirable achievment in my eyes.

[gsoxx]

It's strong in the US and any other involved country. Until someone more badass comes along, this fixation will remain. All wars since 45 do not even remotely compare to the awesomness that was WWII. And the uniforms were pretty neat too.

[Visna]

It's strong in the US and any other involved country. Until someone more badass comes along, this fixation will remain. All wars since 45 do not even remotely compare to the awesomness that was WWII. And the uniforms were pretty neat too.

You can't go wrong with Hugo Boss.

[Boyar Son]

It's strong in the US and any other involved country. Until someone more badass comes along, this fixation will remain. All wars since 45 do not even remotely compare to the awesomness that was WWII. And the uniforms were pretty neat too.

wrong.

[Dr. Croccer]

"Why do people have a fixation with the German military when they haven't won a war since 1871?"

- Tom Clancy

Because they've been one one of the most efficient and modernizing fighting forces since the second half of the 19th century, if not even before that. Modern Western military organisation, especially on the level of command, was first invented by Prusso-German military thought. That, and other factors, made them a massively powerful nation that was able to almost win a war against and hold off for considerable length of time a coalition of countries which had a combined population almost three times it size (excluding colonials and the US), larger production, larger militaries, and the benefit of encirclement and aid from the US in WWI. Roughly the same in WWII.

[Darkhorse]

Considering Germany's early war exploits were with a 70% horse-drawn army, and up against 2 of the most mechanised armies in the world (Britain being the only 1939 power with a fully motorised and mechanised army) it is quite impressive. That said, their exploits should not shadow the equally impressive exploits from all parties involved.