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

Logistics to me is the practice of organizing the flow of supplies; for the US it wasn't necessarily that they were better than anyone else, they just had endless resources to throw at any problem and much weaker foes that were primarily engaged with American allies instead of focusing any strength on the Americans in particular (with the exception of Operation Drumbeat and Wacht am Rhein).
and? Having both the resources and the ability to get the gear you need to the front line in enough numbers to outmatch the enemy is a hell of a strength. Not to mention, while the US might not have made the absolute best of any particular category, the gear we made was all pretty reliable. If I have 20 Sherman tanks with enough gas and ammo, and you have 12 Tiger tanks of which 4 are down for maintenance at any given time and you are short on ammo and gas, my force is qualitatively better.
 

Deleted member 1487

and? Having both the resources and the ability to get the gear you need to the front line in enough numbers to outmatch the enemy is a hell of a strength. Not to mention, while the US might not have made the absolute best of any particular category, the gear we made was all pretty reliable. If I have 20 Sherman tanks with enough gas and ammo, and you have 12 Tiger tanks of which 4 are down for maintenance at any given time and you are short on ammo and gas, my force is qualitatively better.
I'm saying they weren't actually anything special compared to any other nation in terms of logistics. They just had greater means than any combination of great powers that existed at the time to lavish their forces and use them when and where they wanted because their allies soaked up the bulk of enemy combat power. That's war on easy mode, not an example of skill. Tigers and Shermans were tanks designed for different purposes, comparing them is pointless. Compare the Pershing and Tiger and that's more fair and Pershing reliability does not come out on top. Pz IV and Sherman reliability is more comparable. The shortages of ammo, gas, and maintenance for the Germans and Japanese isn't so much a function of poor logistical planning (though in the Japanese case it certainly was, less so in the German case and more related to specific campaigns), more a problem of production caused by lack of access to resources and strategic bombing.
 
I'm saying they weren't actually anything special compared to any other nation in terms of logistics. They just had greater means than any combination of great powers that existed at the time to lavish their forces and use them when and where they wanted because their allies soaked up the bulk of enemy combat power. That's war on easy mode, not an example of skill. Tigers and Shermans were tanks designed for different purposes, comparing them is pointless. Compare the Pershing and Tiger and that's more fair and Pershing reliability does not come out on top. Pz IV and Sherman reliability is more comparable. The shortages of ammo, gas, and maintenance for the Germans and Japanese isn't so much a function of poor logistical planning (though in the Japanese case it certainly was, less so in the German case and more related to specific campaigns), more a problem of production caused by lack of access to resources and strategic bombing.
again... and? We're not looking at which army had the most luck, we're looking at which was the most qualitatively superior. If I have access to greater resources and make use of them to get more stuff on the front line, then my army is superior. You can argue all you want about how your tanks are better and your training is better, but if you're short on bullets and gas and you are still using horses to haul your guns around, you are not qualitatively superior...
 

Deleted member 1487

again... and? We're not looking at which army had the most luck, we're looking at which was the most qualitatively superior. If I have access to greater resources and make use of them to get more stuff on the front line, then my army is superior. You can argue all you want about how your tanks are better and your training is better, but if you're short on bullets and gas and you are still using horses to haul your guns around, you are not qualitatively superior...
You're clearly not understanding what I'm saying. In the discussion of which side is qualitatively superior people seem to be confusing quantitatively superior for qualitatively. Having masses of equipment because of industrial resources doesn't mean the military was qualitatively superior, it means it has access to a lot of material. What I'm saying is that the US military built it's reputation on how much material it has access to, rather than it's specific fighting prowess. It's logistic 'superiority' was not a function of tremendous administrative skill, rather the huge industry behind it providing it with enormous amounts of material. That doesn't mean the US military was inferior or that I'm trying to malign it, but a lot people in these discussion don't seem to understand the difference having access to large amounts of material and actually skill in combat or administration. Not having enough equipment and supplies isn't the same as being qualitatively inferior, it could well mean having industrial deficits, which is not the same thing. You could have more equipment and supplies and still lose, as the Allies in 1940 demonstrated. They outnumbered and out-gunned the Germans, but do to their deficits they lost decisively.

To take one non-US example, Poland had on the whole a better trained army than Germany and man for man was probably more combat capable than the 1939 German army (with some exceptions like the Panzer divisions). Where Germany then was able to beat them was through having a lot more equipment/firepower, more advanced technology, and more men, plus of course Soviet help invading from the East. Even the Germans recognized that their army had severe issues in the Polish campaign and spent about 9 months focused on intensive training, which really helped during the French campaign in 1940. Hitler was furious when told that the Kaiser had a better army than he did in 1939, which was a function of having a rapidly expanded army deficient in training. Certainly elements like the Panzer divisions, which were the elite of the army and parts of the Luftwaffe had a lot of training and experience, but as a whole the German military was not ready for war as they were later and used the Polish campaign as a live fire training mission that really exposed a lot that was wrong with their military. It's highly debateable whether the army of 1938 fighting Czechoslovakia would have performed as well as the 1939 army did for the same reason, while the German 1939 army vs. France would have had a lot of issues that the 1940 army did not.
 
My old Defense, Security, & National Intelligence professor had been a company officer in the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion in the Second World War, and, it was generally understood, in the OSS as it became the CIA afterwards; he had acquired a bride during the Occupation (one of the Countesses von Kielmansegg) and thus an in-law in General Johann Adolf Graf von Kielmansegg.* To this in-law, he attributed the following answer, when asked what the Bundeswehr would most wish for in another war: "British uniforms; American rations; Soviet weapons; ... and the Italians on the other side this time."

YMMV, but it's a judgement from a Wehrmacht staff officer turned Bundeswehr general officer, so....

_____
* He was von Fritsch's nephew.
Ah, yes, the old "the Italians lost the Germans the war". I mean, it's obviously the Italians that attacked the Soviets, and obviously the Italians that put a strategic inept in command of the North African armies, and obviously the Italians that fed the Italians false info about British presence in the Mediterranean, and obviously the Italians that caused the Holocaust too, why not. Why admit your whole war planning was shit, when you have an ally to push every single fault on?
 
You're clearly not understanding what I'm saying. In the discussion of which side is qualitatively superior people seem to be confusing quantitatively superior for qualitatively. Having masses of equipment because of industrial resources doesn't mean the military was qualitatively superior, it means it has access to a lot of material.
and on this point, we are going to disagree to the bitter end. The quality of an army depends on training, equipment, leadership, and logistics... the US wasn't the best at all of these, but what they had was good enough, and it was all backed up by a logistics chain that was second to none. Not that it happened overnight of course, and it took some practice and winnowing out of some leaders/equipment, but once it got going, the US ended up with a fully motorized army that was equipped to the max and operating from Iwo Jima to France, carrying out operations that ranged from big naval battles to amphibious invasions of far flung islands to invading the Continent. I would put the superb logistics train as the thing that made the US army the most qualitative one in the field...
 
Expanding in another topic,what about officers and NCO's?

My opinion:
The Germans were,IMO,the best in this area until late 1943 and early 44 when Hitler purged the general staff
The Soviets follow closely behind because,despite the purges there were some great commanders like Zhukov,,Vassilevsky,Konev and Vatutin
The British follow in 3rd,because there were great officers but none of them had been exposed to the intense fighting in the Eastern Front.Some good officers of the top of my mind are Slim,Montgomery(i personally dislike him but nevertheless a great commander) and Auchinlek
The Americans are in 4th because for what i have saw,their strength was based in numbers and when the shit hits the fan,they just call the USAF.But to point some we have George Marshall,Eisenhower,Macarthur(a piece of shit IMO) and Bradley

When i have more time i can expand this answer
 

Deleted member 1487

Expanding in another topic,what about officers and NCO's?

My opinion:
The Germans were,IMO,the best in this area until late 1943 and early 44 when Hitler purged the general staff
A large part of the general staff was actually one of the worst aspects of the German officer corps because leading up to the war and during it it was constantly purged and honed into a passive element of Hitler's will and in the cases that it was not, it was eventually replaced by people that were more willing to work with Hitler's demands. The so-called 'Steher' (line-holders) of 1943-44 post-Kursk and of course just about everyone that rose to command OKH or were senior officers in OKW post-Blomberg/Fritsch affair. Halder and Zeitler both had some skills, but were not particularly fantastic officers in Hitler's presence. At the corps level and below the Germans had a host of great officers, while their junior officers and NCOs were probably the best in the world on average until later in 1944 due to casualties. They were probably the single reason that Germany lasted as long as they did. Certain army level officers were good as well, but once you get into the level where Hitler promoted politically 'safe' officers there are a lot problems.

In terms of the Soviets they only got better as the war went on and had a lot of excellent personnel at all levels, though even as last as 1945 there were still a bunch of poor officers in the foot infantry. Their biggest problem, besides training, was the lack of educated citizens, which crippled their NCO class, leaving it quite weak throughout the war until the end as enough people were surviving longer and longer to build up experience to make up for the lack of longer training programs and secondary education. Post-war the Soviets of course fixed all of these deficits so that by the 1950s-60s they were second to none in the tactical realm.

In terms of the Brits, their NCOs in WW2 were competent, but not extraordinary. The junior officers probably could have the same said about them, but as the war went on they all gained experience and closed the gap with the Germans entirely. Also in terms of associated nationalities like the Canadians and Aussies, they were pretty solid throughout the war. The British divisional/corps/army level was really a mixed bag, but the bad officers were largely filtered out throughout the war, leaving a solid hard core of officers at that level. The British general staff of course has had much ink spilled about it's abilities, I'll leave that up to others to parse out.

In terms of the Americans, they finished the war very strong, but took time to learn their trade and didn't have as much combat experience in Europe as their allies. Not really sure how they would have stacked up against the Soviets or Germans in their prime in a fair fight at the peak of either, were that even remotely possible, but by 1945 I wouldn't underestimate US forces' capabilities, especially in the air. Their performance in 1942-44 leaves a lot to be desired, but one critical thing you can say is they learned fast in combat and kept pushing. Probably the weakest element of their effort was their replacement system, which AFAIK was never really fixed post-war until post-Vietnam (Vietnam being a weird situation due to the conscription and tour system). Likely though the US system was adaptable to whatever pressure it had to face, so say if things went hot with the Soviets, even if they got beat up pretty bad initially they'd learn, adapt, and comeback stronger than ever.
 
A large part of the general staff was actually one of the worst aspects of the German officer corps because leading up to the war and during it it was constantly purged and honed into a passive element of Hitler's will and in the cases that it was not, it was eventually replaced by people that were more willing to work with Hitler's demands. The so-called 'Steher' (line-holders) of 1943-44 post-Kursk and of course just about everyone that rose to command OKH or were senior officers in OKW post-Blomberg/Fritsch affair. Halder and Zeitler both had some skills, but were not particularly fantastic officers in Hitler's presence. At the corps level and below the Germans had a host of great officers, while their junior officers and NCOs were probably the best in the world on average until later in 1944 due to casualties. They were probably the single reason that Germany lasted as long as they did. Certain army level officers were good as well, but once you get into the level where Hitler promoted politically 'safe' officers there are a lot problems.

While i must accept that there was a large bucket of shit in the German General Staff,there were men like Manstein,Guderian,Rommel,Model(which AFAIK opposed Hitler) and so on
 

Redbeard

Banned
Martin van Crefeld has written a very interesting book "Fighting Power, German and US Army performance 1939-45" and come to a very clear conclusion - the German army was best. And no, he is not a nazi, I actually think he is an Israeli.

Crefeld not at least compare the doctrines or "spirit" of leadership in the two armies (tactical and operational level), and IMHO has some very interesting points that even are relevant today. And even if you would never agree to anything American being inferior to anything his book still has some good data.

The older I get the less I care about what conclusions or opinions an author might have - but if he provides data I'm happy - give data, data and more data!
 

Redbeard

Banned
Urban warfare in 1945, I'd say the Americans were the best.Mainly due to the 8" siege gun,it was accurate enough and powerful enough to flatten Enemy strong points so a lot of nasty house to house was avoided in the Ruhr Valley.

8" Siege gun?! Do you mean the 8" M1 Field Howitzer?

All the major armies had field howitzers in that category and there is an often shown film clip showing the Red Army using their 8" field howitzer in urban combat. In the Wehrmacht each Infantry Division had companies of infantry guns incl. 15 cm (5,9") infantry guns being superb for knocking out pill boxes and built up structures (ie urban combat). Most prominent however would be the Pioniere (Combat Engineers) who were extremely competent in that kind of combat. The Sturmgeschutz (StuG) originally was thought of as a mobile and armoured infantry gun (and manned by artillerymen) but when their final developments (Brumbär and SturmTiger) were ready the Wehrmacht really didn't assault any pillboxes or cities any longer - they were in the pillboxes and in the cities. And BTW put up a very tough fight utilising combat engineer experience and weapon systems like the Panzerfaust.
 
Martin van Crefeld has written a very interesting book "Fighting Power, German and US Army performance 1939-45" and come to a very clear conclusion - the German army was best. And no, he is not a nazi, I actually think he is an Israeli.

Crefeld not at least compare the doctrines or "spirit" of leadership in the two armies (tactical and operational level), and IMHO has some very interesting points that even are relevant today. And even if you would never agree to anything American being inferior to anything his book still has some good data.

The older I get the less I care about what conclusions or opinions an author might have - but if he provides data I'm happy - give data, data and more data!

IIRC he started with the premise that the German army was better and discussed why; there was little of his own data.
 

Deleted member 1487

What makes you say that?
The one area that Germany excelled at throughout most of the war relative to their enemies was on the tactical level, which was more than just a function of equipment. As manpower declined and casualties increased that advantage fell away, including of course due to their opponents getting more experienced and improving training, but the gap wasn't really closed until Germany fell off in the 2nd half of 1944.

IIRC he started with the premise that the German army was better and discussed why; there was little of his own data.
He was influenced by the work of Dupuy, which was the basis of his book.

While i must accept that there was a large bucket of shit in the German General Staff,there were men like Manstein,Guderian,Rommel,Model(which AFAIK opposed Hitler) and so on
Rommel was a tactician that was probably out of his depth above division command, Manstein was good in the right circumstances, but was no strategist, Guderian had a bunch of failures to his name and is IMHO somewhat overrated. Model was quite good, but no more so than the best of the Soviets.
 
Rommel was a tactician that was probably out of his depth above division command, Manstein was good in the right circumstances, but was no strategist, Guderian had a bunch of failures to his name and is IMHO somewhat overrated. Model was quite good, but no more so than the best of the Soviets.

IMO the problem with the Stavka is that for what i have saw,they majority of them don't cared for the lives of their men,throwing them in dubious offensives that often resulted in horrendous casualities
 

Deleted member 1487

IMO the problem with the Stavka is that for what i have saw,they majority of them don't cared for the lives of their men,throwing them in dubious offensives that often resulted in horrendous casualities
You could say the same about Hitler and some of the German generals. I've seen someone argue that about Mark Clarke and Monty in specific situations. STAVKA and the large body of Soviet generals were not one and the same of course, so blaming Soviet army or Front commanders for Stalin's demands is unfair. Plus in terms of the Eastern Front it was a horrible bloodbath anyway and the Soviets were at a tactical disadvantage throughout much of the war, so attacking was going to be a bloody proposition no matter what.
 

Redbeard

Banned
IIRC he started with the premise that the German army was better and discussed why; there was little of his own data.
I certainly don't hope there were ANY of his own data, I expect them to be compiled from relevant sources ;)

But anyway I think he covers quite well the differences in how the US Army and the Wehrmacht fought and I don't think he is derogatory towards any of the parts. The US and German ways of fighting were different but well suited to each, the remarkable thing is how much the tightly scheduled and instrumentalist US way still dominate modern business, not at least public, and educations too. What we over here call "New Public Management" appear to have a direct lineage back to US logistic management in WWII, and was introduced for similar reasons - to control an overwhelmingly big public sector. Being more "mission-orientet" IMHO might be a good idea, and in that context too I find studying WII management theory very interesting (surprisingly little has happened since).
 
what about officers and NCO's?....The Americans are in 4th ....George Marshall, Eisenhower

Not sure I would have Marshall or Eisenhower in 4th place!

They may not be field generals but if you had to pick somebody to organize your mobilization from a very small start or to make an international alliance work I'm not sure you could do much better? I would also think that Supreme command that I would rate as the most important should get just as much a separate category as junior officers from ordinary generals and colonels?
 
Top