Tweet
Best Army of WWII?
I had this E-mail exchange with Mikael Andersson regarding who had the best Military & Tanks during WWII... I thought it was quite interesting and could open the door to more discussions, though it is not directly related to a specific Civ2 scenario. The exchange started as a result of Mikael asking me if an actual alliance existed between Germany and Japan
Captain Nemo:
Japan officially joined the Axis through the "Tripartite Pact" signed the 27 of September 1940
Mikael Andersson:
Coool . Have you seen that document anywhere??? what was the name of the japanese representatvie . i guess the german one was Von Ribbentropp.
You did not have civ2 any more right. Verdammt i say . Because your scenario is awsome never seen any better.
Captain Nemo:
I have not seen the document I just read in my book "2194 Days of War" when it was signed.
I don't understand about not having Civ2 anymore? I still have Civ2 and I am working on another scenario right now... Which on did you play? Red Front or 2194 Days of War? Soon I will release "Second Front" for Civ2.
Mikael Andersson:
Where will it be released do you know any other rather new scenarios ?
do you only do ww2 scenarios ?
As i said earlies i will need your help with my ww2 site later on i know nada about pacifik war . only what i learned from your scenario
Captain Nemo:
I worked with Alex "The Magnificent" on Spartacus and I made the scenario "1861: The American Civil War". Right now I am concentrating on finishing Second Front.
Harlan Thompson's "WWII in the Pacific" is quite good.
Mikael Andersson:
Where can I find Harlan Thompson ?? and the second front is that D-day ?? and you are not interested in ww1 ?
And i want to ask you so i can see if your historical.....
Where the German Armies superior trained, better equiped, had better tanks . but not as good fighters as the rest of the world . The Allied did not win by skill they won by quantity.
Am i right ??? same in Pacifik.
Captain Nemo:
Harlan Thompson scenarios are in the CsC (Civilization Scenario Collection) on Apolyton. You can also find them in most sites that have a decent size collection of scenarios since they are recognized as some of the best work on Civ2. He also made Mongols, Vikings and Lord of the Rings, all very good scenarios. If nothing else you can reach him by E-mail at harlant@earthlink.net
Now regarding the WWII outcome:
There were many reasons for the outcome.
Undeniably the Germans had the best strategy early in the War and faced very inferior enemies: Poland had nothing that could stand up to the Germans. The French had a big army but really poor strategies. The British had a very small Army and Airforce. The Dutch, the Danes, the Belgians, the Norwegians were absolutely not prepared for war. The Germans had the best Airforce in 1939 and 1940 but their tanks were not that great. The French Char B-1 for example could knock out anything the Germans used in June 1940 but the French spread them so thin they were isolated and most of their crews abandonned them.
By late 1940 the British had built an Airforce that could definitely challenge the Germans and from then on they never had a numerical or technical superiority in the air on the Western front. By 1943 the American planes had arrived and were much better, in average, than anything the Germans could produce. A few fantastic German planes like the Me262 could not make up for 1000s of excellent American planes like the P51, P47, B24s and B17s.
Also after the initial successes of 1939-1941 when German infantry faced the best British and American troops like in Africa, Italy, Normandy they fought pretty close to an even battle. And in cases where the Allied were outnumbered and in desperate tough situations they beat the Germans (Bastogne, Anzio, El Alamein) or at least inflicted tremendous casualties before they gave up (Arnheim). It is true that the situation created by Hitler by attacking more enemies than Germany could handle precipitated the fall of the Axis but ultimately he was doomed from the time the Americans started supporting Britain with the Lend-Lease program. Even without attacking the Soviet Union he was up against the combined US-British industrial potential and it was just a matter of time before the Americans would intervene, even without Pearl Harbor.
In the Soviet Union there was a very different situation. They faced troops as fanatical as themselves and because of their inhuman treatment against Soviet prisoners they were only able to capture large groups of prisoners until the Fall of 1941... After that the Soviets fought to the last man and that made HUGE holes in the German army. The key to a great military success is to trade casualties 10-to-1 or 20-to-1 which is possible when the enemy is encircled and surrenders but not when they fight to the last man. So even defeating Soviet armies would require destroying them almost to the last man and the casualties started running a ratio of 2-to-1 which meant that all the Germans would be dead and the Soviets would still have 20-30 million soldiers left... That closed the deal.
Hitler himself was also one of the main ingredients of the defeat. An effective (Though totally Evil) political leader, he was an idiot as far as mititary strategy and matters. He blundered away the bulk of the German army by setting unrealistic goals, issuing "No retreat" orders and dismissing all his effective Generals when they could not accomplish the impossible, controlling the issuing and development of new weapons. (He did himself order that the best German fighter designs, the Fw190 and Me262, be used as bombers exclusively...one of his most idiotic decisions)
The Soviet War industry also took off to an incredible extent after 1942... For example the big Tankograd factory in the Urals alone produced more tanks than the entire German-Austrian tank industry. The same was the case with the Americans. They produced over 40,000 Sherman tanks from 1943 to 1945 alone... More than the entire German tank output from 1938-1945...In the aircraft industry the numbers were even more staggering, so you are right, pure numbers also contributed to the outcome.
By 1943 I think the US, British, Soviets and Germans all had well trained, well equiped armies and would fight on an equal footing. The German tanks would rate 2nd behind the Soviets who had T-34/85s and IS-2s by then... The German aircraft were well designed but too few and not so good they could even come close to compensate. The US had huge numbers of very good heavy bombers that could effectively cripple the German industry.
The early parts of the battle for Normandy give a good idea of the relative valor of the soldiers on both sides. For about a month the Allies were outnumbered in Normandy until they landed enough troops. A lot of the fighting was man to man because there was no room to maneuver tanks and heavy equipment on the narrow country roads. The Allies had total air superiority but they could dislodge infantry from hedgerows and forests... So it came down to infantry against infantry... At the end the Allies beat back the Germans but the losses were about even. The German tanks destroyed a lot of British tanks, the American fighter-bombers knocked out as many German tanks... Way at the end the Germans collapsed and ran and the Allies captured most of their equipment and 250,000 prisoners, but that's a good indication that in 1944 both sides were very equal in quality, courage, training and determination.
In the Pacific it was very different:
The Japanese gained ground initially by surprise and by being well prepared... They outnumbered their enemies in all their victories. Their equipment was poor except for some of their planes and they too were also quickly outclassed when newer US planes entered the theater. After getting beat at Guadalcanal in 1942-43 they didn't win any significant victory and just slowly crumbled to the end. They fought with determination and fanatism but NOT WELL and got killed in terribly bad ratios (4 or 5-to-1) which doesn't make sense when you are the smaller country. In the last few air battles of the war (Over the Phillippines) the USAF shot down Japanese planes in ridiculous ratios like 10-to-1 and even higher.
IMHO, they lost the war when they dropped the first bomb on Pearl Harbor... and they did it because they mistook Western "pragmatism" for weakness. They didn't understand that the Americans would be just as determined as them to make war after the attack (They should have applied their own mentality to the Americans to project how the Americans would react to the attack, then they would have known that there would be no peace, no settlement, no compromise until they were defeated)
That's my view on the subject!
Yes I am interested in WWI and all other history but I know WWII better than anything else in history.
Mikael Andersson:
The Americans where as they where in WWI . Ill prepared . Many troops but not as good as the british or the Russians and not the Germans either.
Captain Nemo:
Please note first that I am NOT American
I take exception to your assessment. In the beginning of the War, they were certainly ill-prepared but by 1943 they were better than any of the other nations.
Their kill ratios were much higher than any of the other nations in the war, meaning they inflicted more casualties on the Germans and Japanese than they took by a factor of 3 or 4... or even as high as 10 against the Japanese. The reasons why:
-They used their best troops, only 18-25 year-olds when the Germans were down to enlisting 14 year-olds and 60 year-olds.
-They had the overall best equipment by far. Their tanks didn't break down, their transport vehicles were reliable and available by the 10,000s, they had the best planes and enormous numbers of them. Huge supplies of ammunition and fuel as well.
-They were the best organized... In Normandy they were totally radio coordinated. They had observation planes talking to artillery fire control to fighter-bombers in the air. The Germans said they couldn't move or fire at the Americans because they would reveal their positions and immediately be annihilated by artillery barrage or bombers... That's part of having the best Army, using it efficiently.
-Most German witnesses in Normandy said that as soon as they had been up against the Americans they knew the war was over. Like fighting an invincible enemy... And not like in Russia where they still could manage to inflict higher losses on the Soviets than they took themselves even at the end of the War.
And this was using their best forces: the Panzerlehr, the 1st, 2nd and 12th SS-Panzers, 17th SS-Panzergrenadiers, the 3rd Fallschirm division etc... The best divisions of the German army were destroyed by the Americans in Normandy.
-They were the most inventive in finding new solutions to war problems... The British continued with the same tactics and continued to lose massive numbers of troops; the Americans changed tactics when the old ones weren't working. They won the battle of Normandy without much help from the British and caused 4 times as many casualties to the Germans as they took.
My conclusion is that they had the best army of any nation in the War by 1944.
But let me know why you think they weren't?
Mikael Andersson:
Well first of all 10 American tanks on one German tank . All Historians . on tv in books says this .
Second of all . The americans where not used to war . The Germans had a lot of skillfull troops . .
The German army was better.
But in the end of the war the people that normaly would be used for troops where hard to find so they had to go down in ages and therefore the wehrmacht started to be bad.
And as for Japan . All know that an country with an goal , moral , Example . An Country that says" Fight for the Emperor" Fight better than . "Lets Revenge Pearl harbour". Maybe the Japanese Land army was not as good but they where better in sea. But they had too few ships.
Captain Nemo:
I didn't understand the ten American Tanks, on one German tank? Did you mean that the Germans were outnumbered 10-to-1 or the losses were 10-to-1? Actually the tank losses in Normandy were almost even. About 2,500 on each side. While Wittmann made about 20 kills by himself (Against the British) the 2nd SS-Panzer lost over 150 tanks before they even arrived on the front because of the American P-47s bombers knocking them out. Wittmann was killed in Normandy by a RAF Typhoon that hit his Tiger I in the rear deck and instantly killed him and his crew. Also many German tank losses were due to mechanical breakdown and impossibility to recover them. The Falaise pocket escape cost them nearly all their Panthers and Tigers on the Western front. They even lost about 30 Tiger IIs and 14 Jagdpanthers in the disaster... So you are right, 1-on-1 with both tanks operational and no other factors the German Tigers and Panthers were much better than the M4A3 Shermans which were almost all the American tanks in Normandy. But overall the Americans compensated with air superiority and better coordination for the fact their tanks were poor and by August 20th when the German army in France collapsed the losses in tanks were even but the Germans had lost approx. 2.5 times as many soldiers as the Allies. Then, in the rout, the Germans running away left behind most of their equipment and tanks having no gasoline or spare parts to repair them and by then their were totally demoralized. This gave the Americans their greatest victory.
As for the M-26 Pershing it only appeared in April 1945 so there are very few records of its capability in battle against the German tanks, but it was superior to the Panther and Tiger I, outgunned them with a more powerful 90mm high velocity cannon, was heavily armored, very fast and reliable. It's main battle record was in Korea were it was intensively used. It was the direct predecessor to the M-60 Main Battle Tank that is still in service with the US army today along with the M-1 Abrams.
Ideology, like "Fighting for the Emperor" does not make good soldiers or an effective fighting force. Besides that, the Americans had the better ideology... they were fighting for freedom and democracy and believed they were right. The Japanese were fighting for a Military dictatorship which wanted to expand it's Empire. Even Admiral Yamamoto, the best Japanese Naval Commander knew that were on the wrong side after commanding the attack on Pearl Harbor. After hearing that he had attacked without a declaration and in the middle of peace negotiations with the Americans he said: "We have awaken a sleeping giant and made him really mad... We will not endure his wrath" .
In every area of the Pacific, even against much smaller American forces like on Guadalcanal the Japanese were completely outmaneuvered and beaten tactically. As to their Navy, at Midway 3 American aircraft carriers with a few escorts annihilated a much larger Japanese Force sinking 4 aircraft carriers, cruisers, transports and destroyers losing only one Carrier themselves. In the Island landings, like Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan etc... where the Japanese were entrenched and fortified the Americans landed and destroyed the defenders with loss ratios of 1-to-4 or 1-to-5... That can only be explained by far superior tactics and much better trained troops...
After their initial victories at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines and Indonesia due to surprise, the Japanese were not able to stop or slow down the Americans a single time. In the Pacific the Americans had better land troops, better tanks, better ships, better aircraft, better submarines, a better Navy, better pilots and much better commanders... This is unquestionable.
A good example of this is Okinawa... heavily fortified, defended by 120,000 Japanese troops with over 5,000 artillery pieces. The Americans landed only 116,000 Marines... at the end of the battle 7,500 Japanese surrendered the other 112,000 were dead. The Americans had 15,000 killed and 28,000 wounded... Most of the other island invasions had similar scores.
Numerical superiority cannot explain why the Americans had lower losses than the Soviets for example. In 1944 and 1945 the Americans were fighting the Germans from the West and the South (Italy) while the Soviets were fighting them in the East. On the Eastern front the losses ran approx. 2-to-1 in favor of the Germans but they were still losing because the Soviets had 5-6 times more troops than the Germans and more like 10-1 advantage in tanks and artillery.
On the Western and Italian front the losses generally ran 2-to-1 in favor of the Allies... How do you explain that? A lot of the best German divisions had been shifted West (At the regret of many German generals who hoped the Allies would reach Germany before the Soviets) so most of the elite SS panzerdivisions fought in Normandy in 1944... The elite Fallschirm divisions fought in Normandy and in Italy. The only possible explanation is that the Americans (Which formed 80% of the Allied troops and almost all the equipment) were much more effective than both the Soviets and Germans by 1944... Better tactics, better coordination, better equipment and especially a much more inventive way to fight. A excellent book on the subject is "Citizen-Soldier" by Stephen Ambrose, it gives an excellent recounting of the American campaign from Normandy to Germany with many eyewitness stories from both sides.
I know that many people have a semi-mystical view of the "invicible" German Army of WWII but I don't believe it's true. In 1939-40-41 yes! 1942 maybe... By 1943 the Americans had picked-up most of the German ideas and made them better, the Soviets had done the same though they used brute force without regard for the cost...The troops that landed in Normandy were battle veterans from North Africa and Italy. The Germans they faced were battle veterans from the Eastern Front.
Mikael Andersson:
Even tho . The Americans won the war they did one mostly by quantity.
They could have been good fighters. But Fanatism is something americans have trouble with (VIETNAM) .
Captain Nemo:
I think the picture of Vietnam is very different from WWII. I consider Vietnam a little colonial war fought against the people's will, with only limited involvement (The Americans couldn't win without starting WWIII)... They fought without heart, without being right, without real goals and without their full might.
In WWII they fought for freedom and democracy and they fought completely evil regimes.
They were truly more numerous and had more equipment but they also had the best Military in the World. Having higher numbers will lead to victory but with high casualties. The Americans did it with minimal casualties. They fought 2 wars simultaneously (Pacific and Europe) against both the Japanese and the Germans, had the most impact of any nation in the defeat of the Axis and did it with much lower casualties than any other nation... That cannot be explained by higher numbers alone. About fanatism you are right. They were less fanatic than the Germans and Japanese but fanatism does not win Wars. Smart strategy does. If you say the Americans were less fanatic than the Germans or Japanese. Yes! But they were also much smarter and organized their military much better. They never won by brute force, they always looked for option with the least costs to them and used them. Normandy is a perfect example: They landed, started moving forward and saw that the Germans entrenched in the hedgerow country would not be dislodged without enormous casualties. They brought in bulldozer tanks to clear lanes throught the hedgerows, white phosphorus shells to incinerate any German positons that revealed themselves, equipped every unit and tank with radios so they could call in planes and artillery when they ran into resistance, brought in a great number of observation planes to locate the Germans so they paralyzed any movement during the day... Greater numbers, no! Better organized and much better tactics, yes!
Regarding the "Best Tank of WWII"
I completely agree that if we talk tank-to-tank the American tanks were far inferior in Armor and Armement. Fighting a pure tank battle the German tanks would win. But it doesn't take into account that many German tanks were lost due to mechanical failure before getting to the front and that the Allies also inflicted tremendous casualties on the German tanks using artillery, infantry and planes. Here is a typical engagement described in one of my WWII books. 12 Germans tanks (Panthers and Pzkw IV) protect a causeway near St-Lo. American Shermans try to cross. The Germans hit the first and last tank in the column and then systematically destroy the 6 tanks between them. The Shermans return fire but can't harm the Germans tanks. One Sherman drives into the river to avoid certain destruction. About a dozen Shermans from the American side of the river exchange fire with the Germans without getting any kills, but the Americans also call in air and artillery support. Within 10 minutes 155mm shells start raining on the Germans and within ten minutes 9 German tanks are in flames and the 3 last tanks must withdraw and the rest of the American column crosses without further resistance. Final Score 8 American tanks, 9 German tanks destroyed... but the Americans then recover the damaged Shermans and within 3 days 4 of them are back in action.
The other aspect is that a tank's "value" is not only judged by it's pure tank to tank tactical value. The Americans continued to use Shermans because they were great tanks in street fighting, they were fast, extremely reliable and better than the Germans tanks in many of the auxiliary roles like infantry support, operating radius, cross country movement...
The Tiger II, very well protected by 150-200mm armor and equipped with a gun that could kill any Allied or Russian tank at 1000m, was heavy (70,000 kg) had the same engine as the Panther so it was slow, difficult to maneuver, to heavy for small roads and country bridges, too big to maneuver inside cities, extremely prone to mechanical failure (More than half the Tiger IIs made were lost when they broke down and had to be abandonned) and they were extremely complicated and expensive to produce. Peiper, who spearheaded the Ardennes offensive in Dec 44 had approx. 70 Tiger IIs in his force... He left them behind because they couldn't keep up with his Panthers and Pzkw IVs which lead the offensive. They only saw fighting after the Germans started retreating and the advancing Americans caught up with them... Several were destroyed in fighting but about 55 were abandonned when they broke down or ran out of fuel...
Hitler was obsessed with making a miracle weapon that would change the war and that's where "bad ideas" like the Tiger II came in. Nothing more than a slow moving bunker. I think the Germans would have been better off building 3 Panthers instead of each Tiger II (Which was the ratio of the work required to make them).
So aspects like production cost, mechanical reliability, speed, operating radius and maneuverability have to be taken into account when you rate a tank. My score card:
Best tank of the War: T-34/85 without a doubt
Next 5: Panther, Sherman, T-34/76, Pzkw IV, Pzkw III (Including StuG variants)
This is based on overall impact not just pure killing power.
In the pure tank-to-tank fighting category:
1.Tiger II and JS-III
2.JS-II, M-26 Pershing, JagdPanther and Su-100
3.Tiger I, T34/85, Panther
Mikael Andersson:
OK...Who was first in war science ??? Germany or America ???
Acording to me Germany , v-1 . Rocket fighter , etc etc.
your opinion?
Captain Nemo:
That is very debatable also. Certainly, the Germans were ahead in rocket and jet engine research but only about 1-2 years. The Soviets were actually ahead in rocket artillery. The Americans and British both had operational jets in 1945 but nothing as good as the Me262. The Americans were many years ahead in nuclear research as they proved in 1945. They also were far ahead in production technology (The average factory worker in the USA produced 2-3 times more than anywhere else in the world) In the design of surface ships the US were ahead of everybody, while the Germans were the first to develop a truly modern submarine. In war tactics the Americans were ahead both in amphibious and airborne warfare. The American led air-sea invasions in North Africa, Sicily and Normandy were great successes while the German similar attack on Crete was an dismal showing. Both Germans and Americans had an operational helicopter design by the end of the war. The Americans were far ahead in the design of high altitude bombers and heavy bombers. The Germans were ahead in tank design even if many of their designs were impractical, however the Soviet JS-III, which had almost no impact on the War because it only became operational in April 1945 should probably be considered the most "modern" tank of the War because it remained the most powerful tank in the World until the 1960s. The Americans were far ahead in radar and sonar design.
Captain Nemo:
Japan officially joined the Axis through the "Tripartite Pact" signed the 27 of September 1940
Mikael Andersson:
Coool . Have you seen that document anywhere??? what was the name of the japanese representatvie . i guess the german one was Von Ribbentropp.
You did not have civ2 any more right. Verdammt i say . Because your scenario is awsome never seen any better.
Captain Nemo:
I have not seen the document I just read in my book "2194 Days of War" when it was signed.
I don't understand about not having Civ2 anymore? I still have Civ2 and I am working on another scenario right now... Which on did you play? Red Front or 2194 Days of War? Soon I will release "Second Front" for Civ2.
Mikael Andersson:
Where will it be released do you know any other rather new scenarios ?
do you only do ww2 scenarios ?
As i said earlies i will need your help with my ww2 site later on i know nada about pacifik war . only what i learned from your scenario
Captain Nemo:
I worked with Alex "The Magnificent" on Spartacus and I made the scenario "1861: The American Civil War". Right now I am concentrating on finishing Second Front.
Harlan Thompson's "WWII in the Pacific" is quite good.
Mikael Andersson:
Where can I find Harlan Thompson ?? and the second front is that D-day ?? and you are not interested in ww1 ?
And i want to ask you so i can see if your historical.....
Where the German Armies superior trained, better equiped, had better tanks . but not as good fighters as the rest of the world . The Allied did not win by skill they won by quantity.
Am i right ??? same in Pacifik.
Captain Nemo:
Harlan Thompson scenarios are in the CsC (Civilization Scenario Collection) on Apolyton. You can also find them in most sites that have a decent size collection of scenarios since they are recognized as some of the best work on Civ2. He also made Mongols, Vikings and Lord of the Rings, all very good scenarios. If nothing else you can reach him by E-mail at harlant@earthlink.net
Now regarding the WWII outcome:
There were many reasons for the outcome.
Undeniably the Germans had the best strategy early in the War and faced very inferior enemies: Poland had nothing that could stand up to the Germans. The French had a big army but really poor strategies. The British had a very small Army and Airforce. The Dutch, the Danes, the Belgians, the Norwegians were absolutely not prepared for war. The Germans had the best Airforce in 1939 and 1940 but their tanks were not that great. The French Char B-1 for example could knock out anything the Germans used in June 1940 but the French spread them so thin they were isolated and most of their crews abandonned them.
By late 1940 the British had built an Airforce that could definitely challenge the Germans and from then on they never had a numerical or technical superiority in the air on the Western front. By 1943 the American planes had arrived and were much better, in average, than anything the Germans could produce. A few fantastic German planes like the Me262 could not make up for 1000s of excellent American planes like the P51, P47, B24s and B17s.
Also after the initial successes of 1939-1941 when German infantry faced the best British and American troops like in Africa, Italy, Normandy they fought pretty close to an even battle. And in cases where the Allied were outnumbered and in desperate tough situations they beat the Germans (Bastogne, Anzio, El Alamein) or at least inflicted tremendous casualties before they gave up (Arnheim). It is true that the situation created by Hitler by attacking more enemies than Germany could handle precipitated the fall of the Axis but ultimately he was doomed from the time the Americans started supporting Britain with the Lend-Lease program. Even without attacking the Soviet Union he was up against the combined US-British industrial potential and it was just a matter of time before the Americans would intervene, even without Pearl Harbor.
In the Soviet Union there was a very different situation. They faced troops as fanatical as themselves and because of their inhuman treatment against Soviet prisoners they were only able to capture large groups of prisoners until the Fall of 1941... After that the Soviets fought to the last man and that made HUGE holes in the German army. The key to a great military success is to trade casualties 10-to-1 or 20-to-1 which is possible when the enemy is encircled and surrenders but not when they fight to the last man. So even defeating Soviet armies would require destroying them almost to the last man and the casualties started running a ratio of 2-to-1 which meant that all the Germans would be dead and the Soviets would still have 20-30 million soldiers left... That closed the deal.
Hitler himself was also one of the main ingredients of the defeat. An effective (Though totally Evil) political leader, he was an idiot as far as mititary strategy and matters. He blundered away the bulk of the German army by setting unrealistic goals, issuing "No retreat" orders and dismissing all his effective Generals when they could not accomplish the impossible, controlling the issuing and development of new weapons. (He did himself order that the best German fighter designs, the Fw190 and Me262, be used as bombers exclusively...one of his most idiotic decisions)
The Soviet War industry also took off to an incredible extent after 1942... For example the big Tankograd factory in the Urals alone produced more tanks than the entire German-Austrian tank industry. The same was the case with the Americans. They produced over 40,000 Sherman tanks from 1943 to 1945 alone... More than the entire German tank output from 1938-1945...In the aircraft industry the numbers were even more staggering, so you are right, pure numbers also contributed to the outcome.
By 1943 I think the US, British, Soviets and Germans all had well trained, well equiped armies and would fight on an equal footing. The German tanks would rate 2nd behind the Soviets who had T-34/85s and IS-2s by then... The German aircraft were well designed but too few and not so good they could even come close to compensate. The US had huge numbers of very good heavy bombers that could effectively cripple the German industry.
The early parts of the battle for Normandy give a good idea of the relative valor of the soldiers on both sides. For about a month the Allies were outnumbered in Normandy until they landed enough troops. A lot of the fighting was man to man because there was no room to maneuver tanks and heavy equipment on the narrow country roads. The Allies had total air superiority but they could dislodge infantry from hedgerows and forests... So it came down to infantry against infantry... At the end the Allies beat back the Germans but the losses were about even. The German tanks destroyed a lot of British tanks, the American fighter-bombers knocked out as many German tanks... Way at the end the Germans collapsed and ran and the Allies captured most of their equipment and 250,000 prisoners, but that's a good indication that in 1944 both sides were very equal in quality, courage, training and determination.
In the Pacific it was very different:
The Japanese gained ground initially by surprise and by being well prepared... They outnumbered their enemies in all their victories. Their equipment was poor except for some of their planes and they too were also quickly outclassed when newer US planes entered the theater. After getting beat at Guadalcanal in 1942-43 they didn't win any significant victory and just slowly crumbled to the end. They fought with determination and fanatism but NOT WELL and got killed in terribly bad ratios (4 or 5-to-1) which doesn't make sense when you are the smaller country. In the last few air battles of the war (Over the Phillippines) the USAF shot down Japanese planes in ridiculous ratios like 10-to-1 and even higher.
IMHO, they lost the war when they dropped the first bomb on Pearl Harbor... and they did it because they mistook Western "pragmatism" for weakness. They didn't understand that the Americans would be just as determined as them to make war after the attack (They should have applied their own mentality to the Americans to project how the Americans would react to the attack, then they would have known that there would be no peace, no settlement, no compromise until they were defeated)
That's my view on the subject!
Yes I am interested in WWI and all other history but I know WWII better than anything else in history.
Mikael Andersson:
The Americans where as they where in WWI . Ill prepared . Many troops but not as good as the british or the Russians and not the Germans either.
Captain Nemo:
Please note first that I am NOT American
I take exception to your assessment. In the beginning of the War, they were certainly ill-prepared but by 1943 they were better than any of the other nations.
Their kill ratios were much higher than any of the other nations in the war, meaning they inflicted more casualties on the Germans and Japanese than they took by a factor of 3 or 4... or even as high as 10 against the Japanese. The reasons why:
-They used their best troops, only 18-25 year-olds when the Germans were down to enlisting 14 year-olds and 60 year-olds.
-They had the overall best equipment by far. Their tanks didn't break down, their transport vehicles were reliable and available by the 10,000s, they had the best planes and enormous numbers of them. Huge supplies of ammunition and fuel as well.
-They were the best organized... In Normandy they were totally radio coordinated. They had observation planes talking to artillery fire control to fighter-bombers in the air. The Germans said they couldn't move or fire at the Americans because they would reveal their positions and immediately be annihilated by artillery barrage or bombers... That's part of having the best Army, using it efficiently.
-Most German witnesses in Normandy said that as soon as they had been up against the Americans they knew the war was over. Like fighting an invincible enemy... And not like in Russia where they still could manage to inflict higher losses on the Soviets than they took themselves even at the end of the War.
And this was using their best forces: the Panzerlehr, the 1st, 2nd and 12th SS-Panzers, 17th SS-Panzergrenadiers, the 3rd Fallschirm division etc... The best divisions of the German army were destroyed by the Americans in Normandy.
-They were the most inventive in finding new solutions to war problems... The British continued with the same tactics and continued to lose massive numbers of troops; the Americans changed tactics when the old ones weren't working. They won the battle of Normandy without much help from the British and caused 4 times as many casualties to the Germans as they took.
My conclusion is that they had the best army of any nation in the War by 1944.
But let me know why you think they weren't?
Mikael Andersson:
Well first of all 10 American tanks on one German tank . All Historians . on tv in books says this .
Second of all . The americans where not used to war . The Germans had a lot of skillfull troops . .
The German army was better.
But in the end of the war the people that normaly would be used for troops where hard to find so they had to go down in ages and therefore the wehrmacht started to be bad.
And as for Japan . All know that an country with an goal , moral , Example . An Country that says" Fight for the Emperor" Fight better than . "Lets Revenge Pearl harbour". Maybe the Japanese Land army was not as good but they where better in sea. But they had too few ships.
Captain Nemo:
I didn't understand the ten American Tanks, on one German tank? Did you mean that the Germans were outnumbered 10-to-1 or the losses were 10-to-1? Actually the tank losses in Normandy were almost even. About 2,500 on each side. While Wittmann made about 20 kills by himself (Against the British) the 2nd SS-Panzer lost over 150 tanks before they even arrived on the front because of the American P-47s bombers knocking them out. Wittmann was killed in Normandy by a RAF Typhoon that hit his Tiger I in the rear deck and instantly killed him and his crew. Also many German tank losses were due to mechanical breakdown and impossibility to recover them. The Falaise pocket escape cost them nearly all their Panthers and Tigers on the Western front. They even lost about 30 Tiger IIs and 14 Jagdpanthers in the disaster... So you are right, 1-on-1 with both tanks operational and no other factors the German Tigers and Panthers were much better than the M4A3 Shermans which were almost all the American tanks in Normandy. But overall the Americans compensated with air superiority and better coordination for the fact their tanks were poor and by August 20th when the German army in France collapsed the losses in tanks were even but the Germans had lost approx. 2.5 times as many soldiers as the Allies. Then, in the rout, the Germans running away left behind most of their equipment and tanks having no gasoline or spare parts to repair them and by then their were totally demoralized. This gave the Americans their greatest victory.
As for the M-26 Pershing it only appeared in April 1945 so there are very few records of its capability in battle against the German tanks, but it was superior to the Panther and Tiger I, outgunned them with a more powerful 90mm high velocity cannon, was heavily armored, very fast and reliable. It's main battle record was in Korea were it was intensively used. It was the direct predecessor to the M-60 Main Battle Tank that is still in service with the US army today along with the M-1 Abrams.
Ideology, like "Fighting for the Emperor" does not make good soldiers or an effective fighting force. Besides that, the Americans had the better ideology... they were fighting for freedom and democracy and believed they were right. The Japanese were fighting for a Military dictatorship which wanted to expand it's Empire. Even Admiral Yamamoto, the best Japanese Naval Commander knew that were on the wrong side after commanding the attack on Pearl Harbor. After hearing that he had attacked without a declaration and in the middle of peace negotiations with the Americans he said: "We have awaken a sleeping giant and made him really mad... We will not endure his wrath" .
In every area of the Pacific, even against much smaller American forces like on Guadalcanal the Japanese were completely outmaneuvered and beaten tactically. As to their Navy, at Midway 3 American aircraft carriers with a few escorts annihilated a much larger Japanese Force sinking 4 aircraft carriers, cruisers, transports and destroyers losing only one Carrier themselves. In the Island landings, like Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan etc... where the Japanese were entrenched and fortified the Americans landed and destroyed the defenders with loss ratios of 1-to-4 or 1-to-5... That can only be explained by far superior tactics and much better trained troops...
After their initial victories at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines and Indonesia due to surprise, the Japanese were not able to stop or slow down the Americans a single time. In the Pacific the Americans had better land troops, better tanks, better ships, better aircraft, better submarines, a better Navy, better pilots and much better commanders... This is unquestionable.
A good example of this is Okinawa... heavily fortified, defended by 120,000 Japanese troops with over 5,000 artillery pieces. The Americans landed only 116,000 Marines... at the end of the battle 7,500 Japanese surrendered the other 112,000 were dead. The Americans had 15,000 killed and 28,000 wounded... Most of the other island invasions had similar scores.
Numerical superiority cannot explain why the Americans had lower losses than the Soviets for example. In 1944 and 1945 the Americans were fighting the Germans from the West and the South (Italy) while the Soviets were fighting them in the East. On the Eastern front the losses ran approx. 2-to-1 in favor of the Germans but they were still losing because the Soviets had 5-6 times more troops than the Germans and more like 10-1 advantage in tanks and artillery.
On the Western and Italian front the losses generally ran 2-to-1 in favor of the Allies... How do you explain that? A lot of the best German divisions had been shifted West (At the regret of many German generals who hoped the Allies would reach Germany before the Soviets) so most of the elite SS panzerdivisions fought in Normandy in 1944... The elite Fallschirm divisions fought in Normandy and in Italy. The only possible explanation is that the Americans (Which formed 80% of the Allied troops and almost all the equipment) were much more effective than both the Soviets and Germans by 1944... Better tactics, better coordination, better equipment and especially a much more inventive way to fight. A excellent book on the subject is "Citizen-Soldier" by Stephen Ambrose, it gives an excellent recounting of the American campaign from Normandy to Germany with many eyewitness stories from both sides.
I know that many people have a semi-mystical view of the "invicible" German Army of WWII but I don't believe it's true. In 1939-40-41 yes! 1942 maybe... By 1943 the Americans had picked-up most of the German ideas and made them better, the Soviets had done the same though they used brute force without regard for the cost...The troops that landed in Normandy were battle veterans from North Africa and Italy. The Germans they faced were battle veterans from the Eastern Front.
Mikael Andersson:
Even tho . The Americans won the war they did one mostly by quantity.
They could have been good fighters. But Fanatism is something americans have trouble with (VIETNAM) .
Captain Nemo:
I think the picture of Vietnam is very different from WWII. I consider Vietnam a little colonial war fought against the people's will, with only limited involvement (The Americans couldn't win without starting WWIII)... They fought without heart, without being right, without real goals and without their full might.
In WWII they fought for freedom and democracy and they fought completely evil regimes.
They were truly more numerous and had more equipment but they also had the best Military in the World. Having higher numbers will lead to victory but with high casualties. The Americans did it with minimal casualties. They fought 2 wars simultaneously (Pacific and Europe) against both the Japanese and the Germans, had the most impact of any nation in the defeat of the Axis and did it with much lower casualties than any other nation... That cannot be explained by higher numbers alone. About fanatism you are right. They were less fanatic than the Germans and Japanese but fanatism does not win Wars. Smart strategy does. If you say the Americans were less fanatic than the Germans or Japanese. Yes! But they were also much smarter and organized their military much better. They never won by brute force, they always looked for option with the least costs to them and used them. Normandy is a perfect example: They landed, started moving forward and saw that the Germans entrenched in the hedgerow country would not be dislodged without enormous casualties. They brought in bulldozer tanks to clear lanes throught the hedgerows, white phosphorus shells to incinerate any German positons that revealed themselves, equipped every unit and tank with radios so they could call in planes and artillery when they ran into resistance, brought in a great number of observation planes to locate the Germans so they paralyzed any movement during the day... Greater numbers, no! Better organized and much better tactics, yes!
Regarding the "Best Tank of WWII"
I completely agree that if we talk tank-to-tank the American tanks were far inferior in Armor and Armement. Fighting a pure tank battle the German tanks would win. But it doesn't take into account that many German tanks were lost due to mechanical failure before getting to the front and that the Allies also inflicted tremendous casualties on the German tanks using artillery, infantry and planes. Here is a typical engagement described in one of my WWII books. 12 Germans tanks (Panthers and Pzkw IV) protect a causeway near St-Lo. American Shermans try to cross. The Germans hit the first and last tank in the column and then systematically destroy the 6 tanks between them. The Shermans return fire but can't harm the Germans tanks. One Sherman drives into the river to avoid certain destruction. About a dozen Shermans from the American side of the river exchange fire with the Germans without getting any kills, but the Americans also call in air and artillery support. Within 10 minutes 155mm shells start raining on the Germans and within ten minutes 9 German tanks are in flames and the 3 last tanks must withdraw and the rest of the American column crosses without further resistance. Final Score 8 American tanks, 9 German tanks destroyed... but the Americans then recover the damaged Shermans and within 3 days 4 of them are back in action.
The other aspect is that a tank's "value" is not only judged by it's pure tank to tank tactical value. The Americans continued to use Shermans because they were great tanks in street fighting, they were fast, extremely reliable and better than the Germans tanks in many of the auxiliary roles like infantry support, operating radius, cross country movement...
The Tiger II, very well protected by 150-200mm armor and equipped with a gun that could kill any Allied or Russian tank at 1000m, was heavy (70,000 kg) had the same engine as the Panther so it was slow, difficult to maneuver, to heavy for small roads and country bridges, too big to maneuver inside cities, extremely prone to mechanical failure (More than half the Tiger IIs made were lost when they broke down and had to be abandonned) and they were extremely complicated and expensive to produce. Peiper, who spearheaded the Ardennes offensive in Dec 44 had approx. 70 Tiger IIs in his force... He left them behind because they couldn't keep up with his Panthers and Pzkw IVs which lead the offensive. They only saw fighting after the Germans started retreating and the advancing Americans caught up with them... Several were destroyed in fighting but about 55 were abandonned when they broke down or ran out of fuel...
Hitler was obsessed with making a miracle weapon that would change the war and that's where "bad ideas" like the Tiger II came in. Nothing more than a slow moving bunker. I think the Germans would have been better off building 3 Panthers instead of each Tiger II (Which was the ratio of the work required to make them).
So aspects like production cost, mechanical reliability, speed, operating radius and maneuverability have to be taken into account when you rate a tank. My score card:
Best tank of the War: T-34/85 without a doubt
Next 5: Panther, Sherman, T-34/76, Pzkw IV, Pzkw III (Including StuG variants)
This is based on overall impact not just pure killing power.
In the pure tank-to-tank fighting category:
1.Tiger II and JS-III
2.JS-II, M-26 Pershing, JagdPanther and Su-100
3.Tiger I, T34/85, Panther
Mikael Andersson:
OK...Who was first in war science ??? Germany or America ???
Acording to me Germany , v-1 . Rocket fighter , etc etc.
your opinion?
Captain Nemo:
That is very debatable also. Certainly, the Germans were ahead in rocket and jet engine research but only about 1-2 years. The Soviets were actually ahead in rocket artillery. The Americans and British both had operational jets in 1945 but nothing as good as the Me262. The Americans were many years ahead in nuclear research as they proved in 1945. They also were far ahead in production technology (The average factory worker in the USA produced 2-3 times more than anywhere else in the world) In the design of surface ships the US were ahead of everybody, while the Germans were the first to develop a truly modern submarine. In war tactics the Americans were ahead both in amphibious and airborne warfare. The American led air-sea invasions in North Africa, Sicily and Normandy were great successes while the German similar attack on Crete was an dismal showing. Both Germans and Americans had an operational helicopter design by the end of the war. The Americans were far ahead in the design of high altitude bombers and heavy bombers. The Germans were ahead in tank design even if many of their designs were impractical, however the Soviet JS-III, which had almost no impact on the War because it only became operational in April 1945 should probably be considered the most "modern" tank of the War because it remained the most powerful tank in the World until the 1960s. The Americans were far ahead in radar and sonar design.
Comment