January 1945 Germany was equal to or stronger than:

January 1945 Germany was equal to or stronger than:

  • a) January 1940 Germany

    Votes: 9 19.1%
  • b) August 1939 Germany

    Votes: 3 6.4%
  • c) September 1938 Germany

    Votes: 4 8.5%
  • d) January 1938 Germany

    Votes: 6 12.8%
  • e) January 1936 Germany

    Votes: 15 31.9%
  • f) None of the above, January 1945 Germany was weaker than a, b, c, d & e

    Votes: 25 53.2%

  • Total voters
    47

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
a) January 1940 Germany

[Germany had been through the Polish campaign but not the western campaign]

b) August 1939 Germany

[Germany had occupied Bohemia and Austria]

c) September 1938 Germany

[Germany had occupied Austria]

d) January 1938 Germany

[Germany had not territorially expanded]

e) January 1936 Germany

[German rearmament was less advanced than in any of the above and Germany had not yet placed military units in the Rhineland]

f) None of the above, January 1945 Germany was weaker than a, b, c, d & e

In answering the poll, for which you can select multiple responses, consider the power of Germany at one stage relative to Germany at another (in terms of things like population, GDP, infrastructure, technology and tactics) but also how Germany compared with its actual or potential enemies's power at any given time.

Germany of January 1945 obviously had a higher technology level than any prior Germany, but was exhausted by war, hurt demographically but it also had stored loot from other parts of the continent.

Here's a picture of what the German-held area looked like in January 1945:

220px-1945-01-01GerWW2BattlefrontAtlas.jpg
 
You do realise that a 1936 German army was actually supplied do you? January 1945 Wehrmacht could hardly keep up with 1936 demands.

All production was 1/5th from 1944, some production was at 0 even(like bombers). Sure its still insanely higher than 1939 figures but everything that had been produced was wearing out and what still was produced lacked in quality and trained personell.

GDP was below that of 1938 at least, probably below 1936 as well.

Infrastructure was practically gone.

They were in disarray, the strength had left them.

I might have chosen option F too soon as 1936 Germany is probably weaker, but not by much.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm not really sure you could make that comparison, because the technology and firepower of the military was substantially larger than that of the 1940 and earlier periods, but industry and manpower much less due to the damage of the war. Maybe it was 1936 levels, but that is hard to really quantify.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Based on firepower?

Option G. June 1941. Maybe even Option H. June 1942.

The Wehrmacht was still an enormously potent force 1/1/45.

The Luftwaffe had 1491 single engine fighters (the highest figure of the war, double what was available in 1939 and 61% higher than in June of 1941). All twin engine fighters had been converted to either night fighters or CAS missions. Night fighter number in January 45 were FIVE TIMES the figures for January 1941 and CAS platforms (which had replaced dive bombers as a category in Luftwaffe strength reports) were ~150% of the June 1941 figures. The only, and very significant, loss of strength was in multi-engine bombers with a 75% reduction in strength.

The KM had lost virtually all of its surface force, but the surface fleet was actually immaterial to the KM mission. The KM started WW II with 26 ocean going U-Boats. January 1941 that figure was close to 200 (120 U-boats were sunk in 1945 and well over 100 OPERATIONAL boats were surrendered at the end of the war).

The Heer was larger, by personnel, than at any point prior to 1942, and the Waffen SS had gone from a small, effectively show force to a well equipped force numbering well over 600,000 (end of war figures were much higher, but that included a large number of draftees who were not of the same quality as those entered prior to that time). Wehrmacht tank strength in 1941 totaled under 4,500, in January 1945 that figure was over 13,000. While many of the tanks in 1945 were poor quality Pz III (and even a few Pz II and Pz-38(t)), many of the others were very potent late production Pz IV and limited number of Panthers and Tigers.

While the Wehrmacht of January of 1945 was a heavily used force, it had remarkable unit cohesion, shocking good considering the overall war conditions. HAd the Wehrmacht had its 1/1/45 strength on 6/20/41 it would, very likely, have captured Moscow.


What had changed for the Wehrmacht was that it was no longer facing weak, disorganized, caught in mid-rearmament enemies who were struggling for funding (and in the case of the Red Army, for competent commanders who were still breathing and not in the Gulag). Instead it was facing a WORLD that was entirely dedicated to its defeat, with close to 70% of the planet's industrial production focused exclusively on the obliteration of the Nazis (around 10-15% of the WAllies production went to the Pacific, much more than that in warships, much less in heavy land weapons).

As has been said here many times, the Reich picked a rock throwing fight when in was in a well and the competition was standing around the perimeter.
 
Based on firepower?

Sure based on firepower. But the OP said:

In answering the poll, for which you can select multiple responses, consider the power of Germany at one stage relative to Germany at another (in terms of things like population, GDP, infrastructure, technology and tactics) but also how Germany compared with its actual or potential enemies's power at any given time.

Focussing on that last part, I think the OP literally means you need to look at power projection. Which, if i can be so blunt, was laughable.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Sure based on firepower. But the OP said:



Focussing on that last part, I think the OP literally means you need to look at power projection. Which, if i can be so blunt, was laughable.
As I noted the 1/1/45 Wehrmacht have wiped the floor with any of its opponents as late as June of 1941, arguably June of 1942. Vastly more and higher quality armor, close to 100% combat hardened (not broken, HARDENED) veterans who were also lucky (survivors always have more than their fair share). The KM has200 ocean going U-boats (it was late 1942 before the KM managed that IOTL and all of these boats have torpedoes that WORK), roughly half of them have snorkels. They would take 1941-early 1942 ASW tactics and pull them inside out.

Far more fighters, better fighters and ground attack aircraft that are actually properly equipped for the role. Putting an I-16 up against an FW-190A8 or D9 is like putting an Me-262 vs a F-22, not a fight, an execution. The lack of twin engine bombers doesn't really hurt the Luftwaffe that badly, it was designed to be a tactical support formation to begin with (which is why everything had a dive bombing capability designed in).

The only weakness would be fuel, even there it isn't as bad as might be thought. German production in 1944 (the last year I can find stats) was only down 5% from 1940 and just 10% from 1941.

Again, it wasn't that the 1/1/45 Wehrmacht was weak, it was anything but weak (the mere fact it held off the combined might of the Red Army and WAllies, even with Hitler running the show, until May of '45 demonstrates that). It was simply facing opposing forces that were orders of magnitude more potent than was the case as late as mid-1942.
 
Again, it wasn't that the 1/1/45 Wehrmacht was weak, it was anything but weak (the mere fact it held off the combined might of the Red Army and WAllies, even with Hitler running the show, until May of '45 demonstrates that).
Would you attribute the Wehrmacht (particularly the Heer) lasting as long as it did in 1944-45 to its sheer size and weaponry or its tactics/fighting power?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Would you attribute the Wehrmacht (particularly the Heer) lasting as long as it did in 1944-45 to its sheer size and weaponry or its tactics/fighting power?
Unit cohesion.

The Wehrmacht, especially the Heer, demonstrated personal dedication to each other at a level that was truly remarkable. From early February on the forces facing the WAllies fought on for only one reason, the were protecting the backs of their brothers fighting the Red Army. They knew, sure as the firmness of the Earth, that the Americans and British/Commonwealth forces were NOT going to burn every German village to the ground, kill all the men and rape, then kill, all the women (hell, even Goebbels didn't try to sell them on that), but they fought like the lives of everyone they ever knew depended on it. It wasn't until the very end, when the Red Army had mainly cut off the forces in the East from all communication (as much to keep the Wallies at arm's length from Berlin as any strategic reason) that the formations in the West began to surrender en mass, even then there were formations that fought like cornered honey badgers just to keep retreat lines open for whatever forces facing the Soviets who could still fall back.

The tragedy is that so many brave men labored, and in far too many cases, allowed themselves to be poisoned, by the most evil political movement in the last couple millenia.
 

Deleted member 1487

Unit cohesion.

The Wehrmacht, especially the Heer, demonstrated personal dedication to each other at a level that was truly remarkable. From early February on the forces facing the WAllies fought on for only one reason, the were protecting the backs of their brothers fighting the Red Army. They knew, sure as the firmness of the Earth, that the Americans and British/Commonwealth forces were NOT going to burn every German village to the ground, kill all the men and rape, then kill, all the women (hell, even Goebbels didn't try to sell them on that), but they fought like the lives of everyone they ever knew depended on it. It wasn't until the very end, when the Red Army had mainly cut off the forces in the East from all communication (as much to keep the Wallies at arm's length from Berlin as any strategic reason) that the formations in the West began to surrender en mass, even then there were formations that fought like cornered honey badgers just to keep retreat lines open for whatever forces facing the Soviets who could still fall back.

The tragedy is that so many brave men labored, and in far too many cases, allowed themselves to be poisoned, by the most evil political movement in the last couple millenia.
By late 1944 it was less unit cohesion and MUCH more fear of Allied retribution if they lost, belief that maybe the Wallies and Soviets might fall out, belief in some secret Wunderwaffe, and mass SS executions of 'malingerers'.
http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2012/01/end-hitler’s-germany-1944-45
 
As I noted the 1/1/45 Wehrmacht have wiped the floor with any of its opponents as late as June of 1941, arguably June of 1942. Vastly more and higher quality armor, close to 100% combat hardened (not broken, HARDENED) veterans who were also lucky (survivors always have more than their fair share). The KM has200 ocean going U-boats (it was late 1942 before the KM managed that IOTL and all of these boats have torpedoes that WORK), roughly half of them have snorkels. They would take 1941-early 1942 ASW tactics and pull them inside out.

Far more fighters, better fighters and ground attack aircraft that are actually properly equipped for the role. Putting an I-16 up against an FW-190A8 or D9 is like putting an Me-262 vs a F-22, not a fight, an execution. The lack of twin engine bombers doesn't really hurt the Luftwaffe that badly, it was designed to be a tactical support formation to begin with (which is why everything had a dive bombing capability designed in).

The only weakness would be fuel, even there it isn't as bad as might be thought. German production in 1944 (the last year I can find stats) was only down 5% from 1940 and just 10% from 1941.

Again, it wasn't that the 1/1/45 Wehrmacht was weak, it was anything but weak (the mere fact it held off the combined might of the Red Army and WAllies, even with Hitler running the show, until May of '45 demonstrates that). It was simply facing opposing forces that were orders of magnitude more potent than was the case as late as mid-1942.

Ah yes, compared to their 1941/1942 counterparts you are right. I thought at first the OP meant comparison of 1939 Germany and their counterparts with 1945 Germany and their counterparts.

My mistake. But now that i think about it. How would the 1945 Heer and Waffen-SS handle Fall Gelb or even Fall Weiss? Better or worse? I mean, taking into account their lack of bombers, feul and general preparedness.

Because a defensive drafted army is a whole different ballgame than an offensive standing army.

How would it then look in terms of "power"?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
@CalBear - so is Pacific Ordeal done for good?

It was simply facing opposing forces that were orders of magnitude more potent than was the case as late as mid-1942.

So let's take a look at the available opposing forces at the points described.

The January 1945, post-Bulge, Wehrmacht was capable of fighting the massive opposition they faced for five months, till May.

So, would it be fair to say that in 1940, 1939, 1938 and 1936 that although the Wehrmacht of the moment was weaker, the opposing military forces were also much weaker.

So, if a fight broke out with France over the Rhineland, with the Wallies over Czechslovakia, or if Fall Gelb fell short of defeating France, Germany probably would have lasted five months or more longer?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
@CalBear

So the Jan 1945 Germany was better armed and more tactically proficient than most of its earlier incarnations. How did it's manpower, fuel, food and other raw materials situation compare with the prior incarnations mentioned in the poll? Looking at Nazi held territory on the map in January 1945, it was a little bit bigger than what they held in January 1940 (after the Polish campaign but before the western), but not by a whole lot.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
@CalBear

So the Jan 1945 Germany was better armed and more tactically proficient than most of its earlier incarnations. How did it's manpower, fuel, food and other raw materials situation compare with the prior incarnations mentioned in the poll? Looking at Nazi held territory on the map in January 1945, it was a little bit bigger than what they held in January 1940 (after the Polish campaign but before the western), but not by a whole lot.
As I noted, the Wehrmacht was, in numerous categories, far more powerful in January of 1945 than it had been at the start of Barbarossa. There were, of course, some glaring exceptions, multi-engine bombers being the most obvious, although a good number of Ju-88 had been converted to the night fighter role and not simply lost. There had also been a considerable loss of top level talent, especially among fighter pilots, but also at the company leadership level.

All this being said, the Wehrmacht of January 1945 was stronger than the any force prior to early 1942, after the reconstitution following the winter battle around Moscow and prior to the disaster that was Fall Blau. Raw material it was slightly better off than the situation in July of 1940, but worse off, overall, than its situation just before Barbarossa (when it was still getting huge shipments of materials from the USSR). Food was an issue, but not overwhelmingly bad, primarily because the Reich was bleeding the remaining occupied stated dry. That would not have been possible by late March, after the Heer had been driver back across pre-war borders. Probably the greatest crisis was in draft animals and fodder, the Heer was remarkably reliant of horse wagons clear to the end of the war, with well over a million animals being used in the average month (a total of 2.75 million were procured, so loss rate was around 60%). The Heer had pretty much stripped the European Peninsula dry. so that would have become a serious issue.

Overall the Wehrmacht of 1/1/45 would have been a far more formidable opponent, even with the losses I've mentioned, than the force that overran France in six weeks and even the one tha came within artillery range of taking Moscow.

Difference is that, to use one example: In July of 1940 the RAF had under 750 operational fighters to face the Luftwaffe and that was the only opponent the Reich was facing. In January of 1945 just the USAAF had over 5,600 single engine fighters engaged against the Luftwaffe (the USAAF had over 2,000 P47 and over 2,200 P-51 operational, the Luftwaffe had under 1,500 total fighters operational) while the Soviets had over 5,000 (this is an estimate, total fighter operational strength was over 7,000, but I have not been able to find the number of aircraft dedicated to the Far East or Central Asia). Overall the Luftwaffe went from having a slight numerical advantage at the start of the BoB to being outnumbered around 9-1 in single seat fighters by 1/1/45, with the disparity in multi-engine bombers being almost ludicrous (around 30:1).
 
Top