Which army was the most qualitatively superior between the Allies and Nazi Germany?

The particular engagement I am referring to in Nordwind is the battle around Herrlisheim (Jan 16-19 1945). 10.SS. Panzer divsion destroyed US 43rd Tank Battalion and 17th Armored Infantry Battalion of the US 12th Armored division. The German victory was not due to concentration of forces, but because the 10 SS Panzer was a more effective unit that equivalent Allied formations.

That "equivalent US formation" first entered combat on 5th December 1944, so very much inexperienced compared to 10th SS Panzer, with perhaps a week or so of combat experience.
 
Last edited:
Inexperienced compared to the 10 SS, but still six weeks of combat experience and more than 2 years of intense training, so hardly rookies. But I was making a point that VETERAN German formations remained a combat edge, and that is of course partly down to greater experience. But even American divisions with much more combat experience struggled, for example the 2nd Armoured Division, which was driven off the ridge at St Vith by German armoured units during the early stages of the Battle of the Bulge. Granted, it did beat the 2nd Panzer division at Celles, but the 2nd Panzers were virtually immobilised by lack of fuel and unable to make any significant tactical movements.
 
Inexperienced compared to the 10 SS, but still six weeks of combat experience and more than 2 years of intense training, so hardly rookies. But even American divisions with much more combat experience struggled, for example the 2nd Armoured Division, which was driven off the ridge at St Vith by German armoured units during the early stages of the Battle of the Bulge.

The 12th didn't have 6 weeks of combat experience, they were in reserve for a chunk of that time, and Herrlisheim may have been the first time they encountered a German armoured formation. If Arrancourt is anomalous because the German units were inexperienced then this is also.

But even American divisions with much more combat experience struggled, for example the 2nd Armoured Division, which was driven off the ridge at St Vith by German armoured units during the early stages of the Battle of the Bulge.

What was the force ratio? I suspect the US forces were significantly outnumbered.

The Germans did some things well on attack; use of surprise; concentration of force; willingness to accept casualties to achieve objectives.

However they also made mistakes; lack of recon; insufficient artillery support; poor logistics.

From mid 1942 onwards they had very few successes on attack against the western allies, although performing well on the defensive. Much of their perceived superiority is due to the fact they were on the defensive not on the attack.
 
The 12th didn't have 6 weeks of combat experience, they were in reserve for a chunk of that time, and Herrlisheim may have been the first time they encountered a German armoured formation. If Arrancourt is anomalous because the German units were inexperienced then this is also.

The German troops at Arracourt did not have air support, nor did they have any training as an integrated unit. The troops had little combat experience, and no effective reconnaissance. If the tanks that were given to the panzer brigades had instead been given to the 11 Panzer division nearby, the results would have been radically different. The 12 Armoured had more than 2 years of integrated training, had numerical superiority and air support. The Battle of Arracourt is unusual in that in that battle the American were more combat effective that the Germans. See the work of the Dupuy institute if you wish to confirm that this was far from the norm.
 
Last edited:
Much of their perceived superiority is due to the fact they were on the defensive not on the attack.

Is their perceived superiority when they had the initiative an error of judgement then? Those years between 1939 and 1942 that you gloss over.
 
See the work of the Dupuy institute if you wish to confirm that this was far from the norm.

There are well-known issues with that work; Numbers Predictions & War does not contain enough information to replicate the claimed results; data for the Italian campaign which was used to develop the model is not historically correct; US Army research into using it in the mid-80s identified numerous "anomalous results"; assumptions on secondary factors like weather can result in very large changes in combat values etc

An alternative approach is to look at where the Germans were attacking to even out the inherent advantages for defenders. For example the German counterattacks on D-Day; the Germans were operating on known territory, with full supply, on planned missions with little direct interference from the air, and in conditions which were closest to a meeting engagement. The counterattacks were all failures, and some were annihilating defeats.
 
Arracourt is a bad example, because there was actually air support, plus the Germans were basically untrained armor units without recon elements, so they walked into multiple ambushes thanks to fog, lack of recon elements, lack of experience and training, etc.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt

Oh gosh, in the same sentence you claim the presence of air support, then excuse the Germans because of the fog.
Guess what, fog = no air support.

Yes, during the overall operation there were on-and-off air support, on good-weather days.

On the key day, though, the one chosen by the Germans for their operation, there was no air support, and the Germans were pretty happy for the fog - they thought it favored them. Naturally today, after they were soundly beaten, it's a factor favoring the enemy.

As to the Germans being badly trained and rather inexperienced troops - yes. Exactly. That's the point. By that time in the war, that German unit was close to representing the average of the German army, due to the casualties suffered. There were veteran units that fared better - and they were few and far in between, a minority. On the contrary, the US unit involved was experienced - and it was close to representing the average of the US armored units by that time. Winning helps in developing experience.


Saying the Panther was some sort of trump card is like saying the T-34 meant the Soviets should have won.

Well, the Soviets had the T-34 and they did win...
Apart from that, I'm not the one glorifying hardware, ever. The point is that fans of Germany can't claim the poor Germans at Arracourt had inferior equipment. When the German tanks beat the much thicker French tanks in 1940, then that's all to the merit of German tankers. When the US tanks beat the much thicker German tanks in 1944, oh, it's because of air support and of the fog, at the same time. That, and the poor German tankers had the sun in their eyes too.

The reality is by late 1944 the German army was largely a shell of itself and was tossing in anything it had into combat regardless of preparedness and hoping for the best, much like the Soviets in 1941.

Yeah. So, do you remember what was the point I was objecting to? If you agree with me that for 1944, that defeat was normal given the shape of the German army, then you'll understand that point was simply wrong.
 
Almost every time this happened, the rookie formations, whether they were French, British, Soviet, Japanese, or yes, even German, usually lost.

Yeah. The problem is that this reasoning crops up when it's the Germans taking a beating. It seldom happens that a magnific German victory gets qualified by "oh, but they were facing rookies".
 
Yeah. The problem is that this reasoning crops up when it's the Germans taking a beating. It seldom happens that a magnific German victory gets qualified by "oh, but they were facing rookies".

Or they had superior numbers...
 
Is their perceived superiority when they had the initiative an error of judgement then? Those years between 1939 and 1942 that you gloss over.

No, in the earlier part of the war they did have advantages.

These included strategic surprise, better equipment, better doctrine, more experience, and superior numbers. The campaigns included Austria/Czechoslovakia (but with no fighting), Poland, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia and Greece. Only France was at war before being attacked.

It took the western allies some time to catch up, with Britain getting close to parity by the end of 1941, before failing completely at Gazala. From mid-1942 the Germans were going backwards.
 
Yeah. The problem is that this reasoning crops up when it's the Germans taking a beating. It seldom happens that a magnific German victory gets qualified by "oh, but they were facing rookies".

The point is that the Germans rarely were facing rookies in the west. On the Russian Front of course it was a different matter. Every American division had years of training before being committed to battle, and were generally committed to battle in overwhelmingly favourable circumstances. Also, they committed the bulk of their resources against a small portion of the German army which had been worn down in years of attritional warfare in the east. In the desert, most of the victories against the British were against numerically superior, trained and veteran troops, e.g. the Crusader offensive and the Gazala battles. As Liddell Hart pointed out, the British generally had better tanks, contrary to popular mythology.

The British did not achieve any sort of tactical parity with the Germans at the end of 1941. In the Crusader offensive, the British had twice the number of tanks, with a thousand in reserve, yet consistently lost every armoured engagement. They were saved by Rommel avoiding battle by making a dash to the frontier at a point where he was on the verge of a decisive victory.
 
Last edited:
Arracourt is not typical for the reasons stated. The battle between the 12 Armoured Division and the 10 SS Panzers in the otherwise ill-fated Nordwind offensive is more instructive. Here were two veteran formations with good leadership,

Er.
Seriously?
The first shot fired in anger by the 12th Armored was on December 7, 1944. The battle you refer to took place one month later, and it was the first serious battle for the division.

Yes, it had a month of experience against light opposition, which is more than what the Panzerbrigade mauled at Arracourt had... barely more. Veteran? Hell no.
 

Deleted member 1487

Oh gosh, in the same sentence you claim the presence of air support, then excuse the Germans because of the fog.
Guess what, fog = no air support.
The days there was air support the Germans got hammered, the days without for the variety of reasons (no recon elements, lack of fuel, lack of training, poor visibility etc.) the fog negated any advantages they had in equipment and amplified all the advantages of the defenders. So your point about no air support and Panthers meaning the Germans had an advantage in the situation was simply not true.

Yes, during the overall operation there were on-and-off air support, on good-weather days.
Indeed, but outside the area where there was good weather the Germans got hammered on the way to the battle and any cohesion for the 'army' disrupted. Then in the battle space the Germans were blinded by the bad weather and lack of recon elements, so were caught in multiple ambushes as a result.

On the key day, though, the one chosen by the Germans for their operation, there was no air support, and the Germans were pretty happy for the fog - they thought it favored them. Naturally today, after they were soundly beaten, it's a factor favoring the enemy.
Exactly, they were far too inexperienced to know better and thought that not having napalm and rockets dropped on them was the lesser evil. It is certainly debateable which was worse, because they got the worst of both worlds.

As to the Germans being badly trained and rather inexperienced troops - yes. Exactly. That's the point. By that time in the war, that German unit was close to representing the average of the German army, due to the casualties suffered. There were veteran units that fared better - and they were few and far in between, a minority. On the contrary, the US unit involved was experienced - and it was close to representing the average of the US armored units by that time. Winning helps in developing experience.
So what is the point then of this 'proving' the US was better? This was the point after the Germans fell off a cliff more than the Americans had come of age (though to some degree they had, but they really reached peak experience/skill in 1945).

Well, the Soviets had the T-34 and they did win...
Apart from that, I'm not the one glorifying hardware, ever. The point is that fans of Germany can't claim the poor Germans at Arracourt had inferior equipment. When the German tanks beat the much thicker French tanks in 1940, then that's all to the merit of German tankers. When the US tanks beat the much thicker German tanks in 1944, oh, it's because of air support and of the fog, at the same time. That, and the poor German tankers had the sun in their eyes too.
They didn't win in 1941, the survived and it wasn't because of the T-34. Actually a decent book on that exact argument was written relatively recently:
https://www.amazon.com/T-34-Mythical-Weapon-Robert-Michulec/dp/0978109104
You could certainly write the same book for the Panther.
You can't claim Arracourt is proof that the German equipment was poor because the weather negated the benefits of it as did the lack of training/experience of the formation, plus the lack of critical elements of combined arms within the German units. The thing with 1940 is that the Germans tankers didn't really beat the French tanks, it was air support, an operational plan that worked, 88mm guns, special AT units, etc. I wouldn't give the German tankers credit specifically, more like combined arms, massive operational/strategic luck due to the Allies walking into a trap perfectly as planned by the Germans to the point that Guderian was able to recycle training orders with dates and times changed, and a huge variety of French defects including in armor design. In fact if you look at the head-to-head engagements in Belgium French tanks, despite their deficiencies actually preformed really well all things considered. The French troops get too much shit IMHO for 1940 than they deserve, though their leadership deserves all the blame and more.

In the late 1944 situation the success of the Allies is as much to do with German attrition as Allied still by that point, for which most credit goes to the Soviets. In the air though the US really deserves a massive amount of credit for going head to head with the Luftwaffe and grinding it to pieces. Without a doubt in the air the USAAF was the best air force in the world by 1944 and it earned that title in brutal combat and took the belt from the shattered body of the Luftwaffe.

Yeah. So, do you remember what was the point I was objecting to? If you agree with me that for 1944, that defeat was normal given the shape of the German army, then you'll understand that point was simply wrong.
I assume this is the point you're referring to:
If we're judging armies, then if an army manages to force its enemy to fight on unequal, unfair terms, and wins thanks to that, that's the best army.
If that is the case then you should know that the reason battles like Arracourt were fought when and where they were in 1944 by the forces they were was because Hitler was pushing his forces to do incredibly dumb shit; that isn't the Americans forcing the Germans to fight there, that is higher command orders from a mentally deranged dictator ordering crazy plans and refusing the advice of his own generals (who had their share of flaws of course).
 
The days there was air support the Germans got hammered, the days without for the variety of reasons (no recon elements, lack of fuel, lack of training, poor visibility etc.) the fog negated any advantages they had in equipment and amplified all the advantages of the defenders. So your point about no air support and Panthers meaning the Germans had an advantage in the situation was simply not true.

My point on no air support being present the day the US ground forces destroyed the German ground forces at Arracourt was simply true. Look up any history of the battle.

I never claimed Panthers were that great an advantage. I just made a statement that the German forces had a fair proportion of Panthers, and that they were better than the Shermans they faced. They weren't fighting the Shermans aboard Pz IIIs. Everybody can draw his own conclusions from that, but one thing is certain, nobody can complain that inferiority in the hardware justifies the defeat. Given that a specific sort of WWII reader loves the Panther beyond reason, I find that very fitting.

So what is the point then of this 'proving' the US was better?

You should really keep track of what the post you are reacting to actually said.

I never made any claim about anybody being better. I find such discussions inane.

I simply countered the outlandish notion that an equal fight (already a childish notion in itself) would result in the US troops losing every time. And I provided a very clear cut example.

I won't be sucked in discussing hypothetical, ideal "even-field" comparisons. They don't exist in reality and to try to come up with any usually just shows the preconceptions of the guy attempting.
 

Deleted member 1487

My point on no air support being present the day the US ground forces destroyed the German ground forces at Arracourt was simply true. Look up any history of the battle.
I did. What day were they 'destroyed'? Because the battles went on long enough for air support to get involved and decide the battle. In fact it went on so long that the days air support was available were greater in number than the days it wasn't. In the first two days there wasn't air support, i.e. the 18th-19th when both sides were feeling each other out, while from the 20th-29th there was a lot of air support, i.e. the vast majority of the fight.

I never claimed Panthers were that great an advantage. I just made a statement that the German forces had a fair proportion of Panthers, and that they were better than the Shermans they faced. They weren't fighting the Shermans aboard Pz IIIs. Everybody can draw his own conclusions from that, but one thing is certain, nobody can complain that inferiority in the hardware justifies the defeat. Given that a specific sort of WWII reader loves the Panther beyond reason, I find that very fitting.
They weren't better at close range and in the face of air support; thanks to the fog the only advantage that they had in range was totally negated and when the weather cleared for it to be used, that was more than trumped by air attack. Plus the Sherman as a tank is criminally maligned by just about everyone and the 76mm version was around by this point, so they could kill Panthers are normal combat ranges. Claiming that the Germans had superiority in equipment during the fog that negated all the advantages of said equipment is really not understanding what happened. So you go ahead and argue with the strawman you've got in your head, I'll just continue to point out the facts of the engagement.

You should really keep track of what the post you are reacting to actually said.

I never made any claim about anybody being better. I find such discussions inane.

I simply countered the outlandish notion that an equal fight (already a childish notion in itself) would result in the US troops losing every time. And I provided a very clear cut example.

I won't be sucked in discussing hypothetical, ideal "even-field" comparisons. They don't exist in reality and to try to come up with any usually just shows the preconceptions of the guy attempting.
Except the example you provided about a 'equal fight' was anything but equal, in fact being lopsided in favor of the Americans for a variety of reasons. Gembloux 1940 this was not. I agree, it is nearly impossible if not outright impossible to find an example of an equal fight the US ever fought in during WW2. Even in the situation in Tunisia when things were materially more equal the US had a huge deficit of experience relative to the Germans making that an unequal fight, as the combat casualties demonstrated. Probably the closest things to an equal fight in terms of combat strength I've found was Gembloux in 1940 and arguably Kursk in 1943. Materially the equal fights in Tunisia went against the US because of complete lack of modern combat experience, while later when they had the experience there was never material equality in battles the US fought in Europe.
 
How about an army circa 1942 with...

American officers for infantry and armor units for battalion level and above, British officers for companies and platoons
Italian tanks supported by a handful of Finnish BT-42 assault guns
German G5 officers (civil relations)
French command structure and flexibility
German artillery units with Japanese field pieces
Soviet logistics officers with soviet trucks, backed by some Italian logistics officers
Japanese rations
Are the above really that bad?
I would have thought you would find far worse in none great power army's?
Personally I think the British trait (problem) should be in inter unit/arms cooperation between individually distinctive great/good/acceptable regiments sometimes trying to pretend they make up the same army....
 
I have read that at the beginning of the war for every one German you needed two Western Allied and six Soviet to defeat the German. By 1945 to defeat one Western Allied soldier you need to German and three Soviet.
 
The topic isn't a knightly tournament. It's war. In war you don't seek an equal fair fight. You seek the circumstances in which ideally you destroy your enemy without losing even one of your men. If we're judging armies, then if an army manages to force its enemy to fight on unequal, unfair terms, and wins thanks to that, that's the best army.

Now look up the armor battle of Arracourt. No US air support there on the crucial days. Superior German tanks, Panthers, versus the classic and often maligned mainstay, the Sherman. Guess who won.

We're comparing quality, we're not discussing the actual situation on the ground that occurred in WW2 which was the product of strategic and material factors. When you compare the quality of one particular versus another, you don't make the argument "Well even if X is better than Y, two Ys are better than X". The discussion about quality looks at who is the most capable in ideal conditions. If you matched up a German Field Army versus an American, the German wins, the same at divisional to platoon level. What does this say? It says the Germans had a better quality. Does it mean that the Germans were more powerful than the Americans? No, because the Americans could utilize their quantitative and strategic advantages. Arracourt is a poor example, try the Battle of Kasserine Pass.
 
Examples please of successful German attacks against the western allies from mid 1942 onwards.

There are relatively few, and most involve German concentration of forces at the point of attack.

Which has far more to do with strategic factors, not quality. The lack of fuel obviously making offensive operations nearly impossible.
 
Which has far more to do with strategic factors, not quality. The lack of fuel obviously making offensive operations nearly impossible.

No, the Germans were certainly trying to mount offensive operations through the end of 1944; they just were not successful, apart from a handful of special cases.
 
Top