WW2 Did US ever fight Germany when they were in their prime?

In WW2 did America ever fight Germany when they were at their peak militarily? Or when they arrived in Europe they faced a weakened and worn out Germany? (I know they were losing at that point) or if there were any battles US lost in Europe to them.

For example Russia is defeated or instead for whatever reason they don't fight Russia and instead get a lend lease type of assistance from them (But no military assistance) how do America/Allies fair against Germany in Europe? Or would it be impossible for them to land in Europe?
 
for whatever reason they don't fight Russia and instead get a lend lease type of assistance from them (But no military assistance) how do America/Allies fair against Germany in Europe? Or would it be impossible for them to land in Europe?

Eventually yes, it doesn't matter how many tanks you can now put into France if it just means more targets for the RAF and USAAF. It will take longer but ultimately the strategy will be the same as OTL, achieve air supremacy over France, bombard the German army and their infrastructure, invade. The bomb might be ready prior to ITTL's Overlord being ready to go which could later create allusions to the Hiroshima debate. Was it better to destroy Hamburg and Nuremburg than avoid the casualties of invading France?
 

Deleted member 1487

In WW2 did America ever fight Germany when they were at their peak militarily? Or when they arrived in Europe they faced a weakened and worn out Germany? (I know they were losing at that point) or if there were any battles US lost in Europe to them.

For example Russia is defeated or instead for whatever reason they don't fight Russia and instead get a lend lease type of assistance from them (But no military assistance) how do America/Allies fair against Germany in Europe? Or would it be impossible for them to land in Europe?
No, not really. The one time where Germany was anywhere close to their 'prime' in terms of military skill/manpower/relative combat power was early in the Tunisian campaign, but even by that point the 10th Panzer division was still recovering from Eastern Front, the HG division was still forming, and Rommel's troops had been worn down in Egypt and were a shell of their former selves. Plus then the logistics, numbers, and supporting firepower was heavily on the side of the Allies by late 1942. From then on the Americans always fought at a major advantage over the Germans, even in Sicily and at Salerno when things got hairy. By Normandy the Germans were a shell, even if they did have some quality units, but none were up to ration strength and in terms of facing Allied air power and naval fire support the Germans couldn't even fight as cohesive divisions for fear of being smashed if they tried to attack.

The Soviets bore the brunt of peak German strength and wore it down over years only thanks to their virtually unlimited strategic depth, Lend-Lease, and huge pools of manpower. Had they been the size of Western Europe only they would have been defeated before they could learn the harsh lessons of modern combat. It cost them dearly, with probably around 30 million dead, by some estimates 14-15 million of those were soldiers or combatants out of uniform.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World...viet_Union#Russian_Military_Archives_database
That's not even counting wounded.

The UK too faced the Germans at their peak and were smashed repeatedly, starting in 1940 and running right until the Germans ran out of logistic support in Egypt in July 1942. They couldn't win until they built up a huge superiority in supply, air power, firepower, and manpower while sitting deep in their colonial territory, while Rommel was at the very end of his and worn down by lack of supply and replacements; then the US showed up in that situation and the Germans had to toss in barely adequate blocking detachments on the fly in November 1942. The US got all the benefit of the dying the Brits and Soviets had done to that point. Even in the air during the strategic bombing campaign the USAAF didn't really make a significant impact until 1943 when they started bombing Germany and that was past the prime of the Luftwaffe thanks to losses in the BoB and on the Eastern Front to that point. From them on the USAAF did the majority of Luftwaffe killing, but they had a well softened up target by then, aided by incompetent Nazi administrators (Udet, Goering, etc).

Eventually yes, it doesn't matter how many tanks you can now put into France if it just means more targets for the RAF and USAAF. It will take longer but ultimately the strategy will be the same as OTL, achieve air supremacy over France, bombard the German army and their infrastructure, invade. The bomb might be ready prior to ITTL's Overlord being ready to go which could later create allusions to the Hiroshima debate. Was it better to destroy Hamburg and Nuremburg than avoid the casualties of invading France?
It is a bit tougher to say if there never was an Eastern Front. The entire war would have changed and the US might never get involved. With Germany getting LL from the USSR and can structure their construction priorities to the needs of fighting the UK, both naval and air production would be a lot higher from 1940 on, as there is no preparation for Barbarossa, which sucked up a huge part of German resources post-BoB, plus there is no need for slave labor if they can demobilize their skilled labor from army service and have all the raw materials they don't need to produce themselves to build weapons. Britain probably is defeated then before the US can enter the war or at least make a major impact. The entire scope of the Mediterranean campaign changes without Barbarossa being planned or prepared for.

Now if Barbarossa happens and succeeds due to wild luck say with Stalin dying and the USSR falling apart in a power struggle to replace him, then things get interesting, because the Germans could secure Soviet resources, but need at least 2 million men to garrison/exploit the East, plus rebuild what was damaged in the war, maintain supply lines, enforce their slave labor policies, and probably fight the remnants of Soviet military units; it's been discussed before, but the Soviet partisan movement could not exist without support from Moscow and it was Moscow that fostered it from 1942 on with constant supply drops, parachuting in trained personnel, evacuating wounded, coordinating actions and groups, etc. Then the Germans can afford to demobilize probably 50 divisions to return labor to factories and the Luftwaffe/navy (that was the plan), shift build priorities, fight in the Medditerranean differently, husband their air strength (no pillaging instructors from flight schools to supply cut off units in the winter campaigns), plus have enough fuel not being use in the East or even by having captured oil fields to exploit to keep up the pilot training program and expand it. Then things are a bit different, because Rommel can be properly supported with all the things he asked for IOTL and never got and Malta taken down in early 1942 with effectively unlimited Luftwaffe commitments to cut off supply.

Then things largely come down to what happens in North Africa (if Egypt falls then it's likely the US panics and puts Operation Torch troops into the Middle East and may well even try and rush an invasion of France which will not go well in late 1942 with no Eastern Front; as it was by late 1942 the 8th Air Force had less than 300 bombers and had only started combat operations in August). The strategic air war kicks up and the Allies have to build up a much larger army, which is possible thanks to no LL to Russia, which could have equipped 60 additional US divisions. If the Allies don't rush into France they wait on the Mediterranean strategy and strategic air war, but without the expense of the East and instead access to those resources the Germans are a far different threat than IOTL. The war in Europe will be long and a LOT bloodier for the Wallies than IOTL. Operation Vegetarian might even happen. The air war isn't likely to be won by 1944 ITTL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't help but think about Monte Cassino. It was a straight up battle against the Allies versus eastern-front quality German divisions. The Germans were outnumbered 2 to 1 and exacted almost 3 to 1 casualties against the allies. They were forced to retreat because they were outflanked due to the landings at Anzio.

So, the long short of it is that German soldiers at their "peak," man for man, were the most effective of the war other than perhaps the Finns. But, for reasons others stated, they still lose because of logistics and such...just like at the Gustav Line.
 
American troops arriving in North Africa were confronted German motorised and armoured units, likewise in Western Europe they faced disproportionate numbers of panzer and panzer-grenadier type formations. If the Germans were not at their peak they were still putting their best forwards. The Americans were often introducing formations with large numbers of green units even when they had some leavening with veterans...if the US did not meet the Germans at their peak then it might also be remembered the Germans did not meet the Americans at theirs.
 
The USN fought German submarines when they were at their best.
The first USAAF units to operate from England fought the LW close to its prime.
On land they faced German units that were operating at excellent levels of efficiency on a few occasions. They never really fought German forces on land on circumstances were relative strength didn't condition the action.
 
American troops arriving in North Africa were confronted German motorised and armoured units, likewise in Western Europe they faced disproportionate numbers of panzer and panzer-grenadier type formations. If the Germans were not at their peak they were still putting their best forwards. The Americans were often introducing formations with large numbers of green units even when they had some leavening with veterans...if the US did not meet the Germans at their peak then it might also be remembered the Germans did not meet the Americans at theirs.
You mean, the Panzer divisions in France that did not even have a single tank? The average US infantry division had more tanks than a German Panzer division.
 

Deleted member 1487

American troops arriving in North Africa were confronted German motorised and armoured units, likewise in Western Europe they faced disproportionate numbers of panzer and panzer-grenadier type formations. If the Germans were not at their peak they were still putting their best forwards. The Americans were often introducing formations with large numbers of green units even when they had some leavening with veterans...if the US did not meet the Germans at their peak then it might also be remembered the Germans did not meet the Americans at theirs.
The Germans did fight the US at their WW2 in 1945 and since the Germans were already beaten in the East they were smacked around badly in the process. The US units that the Germans fought in Normandy had been in training for years by that point, at least since 1942 for all of them, some since 1940 even. They were equivalent to the German troops that fought in France or Barbarossa largely in terms of training and lack of combat experience (most Germans that saw combat in France didn't really have much combat experience, even in Barbarossa a large part of German troops were not really combat experienced). German troops still fought very well without combat experience thanks to a lot of training, which is exactly what the 'green' US divisions had a lot of by 1944. In contrast the Germans' 'best foot' was a broken, malformed one by that point, which had to contend with thousands of Allied aircraft while their own air force was absent, plus enormous logistics, numerical, and firepower disparities, not to mention the vastly different replacement situation; the US got fully trained replacements of high physical quality, while the Germans were at peak strength on June 6th and were not able to replace even a fraction of what was lost in combat, which is why they imploded by early August 1944 after 2 months of combat. Even the replacements that did come in were of subpar physical quality and very poorly trained.
 
I can't help but think about Monte Cassino. It was a straight up battle against the Allies versus eastern-front quality German divisions. The Germans were outnumbered 2 to 1 and exacted almost 3 to 1 casualties against the allies. They were forced to retreat because they were outflanked due to the landings at Anzio.

So, the long short of it is that German soldiers at their "peak," man for man, were the most effective of the war other than perhaps the Finns. But, for reasons others stated, they still lose because of logistics and such...just like at the Gustav Line.

That's simplistic. At the start of the war the Germans had a more efficient command structure at most levels thanks primarily to a superior peace time training system. Initial success meant that they accumulated experience with minimal casualties, giving them a very efficient officer/NCO corps.
No other country went through the same learning curve. Once they started losing lots of officers, they had the same training/experience issues as everyone else. By 1944 some allied units were as good as the best German units (2nd French armoured division, for example). In 1944 in Russia they were often outfought. In Bagration they were clearly beaten, one of the few occasion when they suffered far more direct combat casualties than the allies they faced.
 
You ignored the historical example in the post.
Mount Casino is one of those atipical battles were ground is everything. Eventually the German lines were breached, and not just because of the Anzio beachhead. Check the area on google earth and why it was held so long is self explanatory.
 
Mount Casino is one of those atipical battles were ground is everything. Eventually the German lines were breached, and not just because of the Anzio beachhead. Check the area on google earth and why it was held so long is self explanatory.
But there is more than just ground. The Allies had numerical superiority, air superiority, superiority in equipment, etc. Hiding behind fortifications does not avail inferior troops. So, my point is not that Germans could have beat the Wallies, but rather, the Wallies would have had a much harder go if they had to face the cream of the German crop, most of which was killed in Russian between 1941-1943.
 

Deleted member 1487

That's simplistic. At the start of the war the Germans had a more efficient command structure at most levels thanks primarily to a superior peace time training system. Initial success meant that they accumulated experience with minimal casualties, giving them a very efficient officer/NCO corps.
No other country went through the same learning curve. Once they started losing lots of officers, they had the same training/experience issues as everyone else. By 1944 some allied units were as good as the best German units (2nd French armoured division, for example). In 1944 in Russia they were often outfought. In Bagration they were clearly beaten, one of the few occasion when they suffered far more direct combat casualties than the allies they faced.
While that is true to a degree, by 1944 when Monte Casino happened the British had combat experience since 1940 and they were a major part of that battle, the Poles had been fighting as long as the Germans and they were there too. The US had combat experience since 1942 and had even made adjustments to training even earlier due to British and Soviet experience against the Germans. Before the US entered the war their training and preparations were already influenced by combat experience of the combatants. By 1944 in Italy the US had combat experience from 1942 and on in even less casualty producing combat than the Germans faced in Poland and France, they were experienced in their jobs, training, and combat command by then.

By 1944 though while you have Allied units that were as good as the best German ones, that is more of a function of how far the best German divisions had fallen by 1944 than Allied excellence in arms. In Russia it wasn't simply a matter of being outfought, but one of being badly outnumbered and outgunned, plus their production shattered by strategic bombing and air force stripped away to defend the homeland. So it wasn't even remotely equal terms to say they were outfought; they were brute forced:
https://www.amazon.com/Brute-Force-Allied-Strategy-Tactics/dp/0670807737
 
Top