Was the Wehrmacht actually that good or has it been overblown? Most of their quick early victories were against small nations who had no chance against anyone, let alone a first rate nation with Prussian military heritage. Their victory in France has been attributed to French war weariness and poor leadership, while the early eastern front was a shitshow on the part of the red army. Seems like when their enemies got their act together, they were doomed to fail.
Tbh the Kaiser's army in 1914 seemed a better army that could actually withstand their foes.
Not sure where I read this but I believe that their officers had more command in what they did on the battle field, that and they always counterattacked after a defeat, no matter what.
Anyone confirm is this is true?
Gavin Morris
Yes they were the best by far
Cooper Martin
>make thread that normal people don't really give a shit about but Stormtards from /pol/ obsess over
Wonder how this thread will turn out
Sebastian Parker
I'm sure it's going to be fabulous.
Anthony Howard
The war started with French assuming that the defensive tactics that won them the Great War would still be dominant.
The Whermacht with Hitler (he instructed a secret task force including Mannstein to come up with a rapid offensive war through belgium and nederlands) and Mannstein developed the counter attack to the defensive strategy.
French sat behind static defense, put infantry with big slow moving tanks to advance through machine gun fire.
The Germans used panzers like cavalry and put them in their own divisions and created fast moving light tanks. The Panzers would push easily through the slow moving French tanks and scatter infantry breaking the defensive lines allowing the jagers to clean up.
Goerring despite turning in to a fat degenerate by the end of the war was very smart when he tried. He basically made air power useful in war. The luftwaffe provided close support to the panzers and infantry, a completley new concept.
The French got BTFO.
In addition the Wehrmacht had a high evolved and long running Prussian military tradition that meant highly disciplined army.
This created the extremely high KDR of nearly 10-1 you saw in the eastern front.
I know this is basically a meme but the REd army jsut kind of Zerg rushed and the Germans slaughtered them and outmeneuvered them until late in the war when they didnt have the men and the REd army started using German tactics against them combined with fake intel.
By the time the Americans entered the war though the Wehmacht was effectively dead.
The US fought old men HItler found to use in his last ditch effort to recreate his adrenne offensive in the battle of the bulge and 15-19 year olds of the SS Hitlersjegund.
So yes, the Wehrmacht was really good while it was properly supplied and had proper men.
Personally I don't subscribe to clean Wehrmacht but also don't think killing partisans is that big of a crime.
anti-/pol/ faggots are honestly worse than /pol/ fags
Xavier Cooper
The German military was severely limited in size by the Versailles treaty. As a result the bar for joining was incredibly high and training individually focused. As conflict began to look inevitable this same group was groomed into officers and leadership positions, creating an exceptionally well-trained and motivated officer and NCO corps with experience and training allowing them to adapt and take initiative. The downside being that the attrition of this group snowballed the lessening effectiveness of the Wehrmacht in Russia as the war dragged on.
Caleb Martinez
>This created the extremely high KDR of nearly 10-1 you saw in the eastern front. ebin
Nathan Roberts
Australian soldiers were the true GOATs of ww2
Easton Cook
> germans > good Um Gottes Willen
Oliver Allen
>It was good until it met an enemy that wasn't horribly shit.
Easton Clark
THIS >stop the germans at tobruk >stop the japs at kokoda
Had a good showing in ww1 too. Light horse at beersheba, combined arms at Hamel.
Ryder Foster
>Not sure where I read this but I believe that their officers had more command in what they did on the battle field, I recall Barbara Tuchman saying similar in 'The Guns of August'.
Jaxson Allen
Overblown. 60% of Wehrmacht was 40 year old untrained conscripts with mismatched weapons and donkeys and horses pulling supplies. By German general staff's own admission, they were useless for anything except holding ground, i.e. existing.
Caleb Diaz
Australians fought pretty good in both WW's. Unlike exaggerated Canadian feats, they earned their reputation.
Andrew Ward
>The Germans used panzers like cavalry and put them in their own divisions and created fast moving light tanks. French and Brits had formed tank divisions long before Germany did, and German tanks weren't any faster than French and British cavalry tanks.
>The Panzers would push easily through the slow moving French tanks German panzers got slaughtered whenever they actually came across French tanks.
>and scatter infantry breaking the defensive lines allowing the jagers to clean up. Infantry made the breakthrough, and the tanks went in after.
>The luftwaffe provided close support to the panzers and infantry, a completley new concept. Every air force had tactical, CAS bombers.
>This created the extremely high KDR of nearly 10-1 you saw in the eastern front. KDR was nowhere near 10:1. It was closer to 2:1.
>I know this is basically a meme but the REd army jsut kind of Zerg rushed Yes it's a meme.
You know literally nothing except memes. Why are you even posting on a Veeky Forumstory board when you obviously have no interest in history?
Jace Sanchez
>their officers had more command in what they did on the battle field
Auftragstaktik und Fingerspitzengefühl
>The terms originate from the German military, from around the early-19thC and mid-20thC respectively. They would translate approximately as:
>auftragstaktik – literally ‘mission tactics‘, though also now often combined with more strategic ‘commander’s intent‘
>fingerspitzengefühl – literally ‘fingertip-feel’, though conceptually more situational-awareness, an intuitive moment-by-moment sense and mental-map of the state and dynamics of the context-space
The US Army calls this style 'Mission-Type Tactics"
Basically in WW2 the German unit commanders were told generally what they needed to do, and they were free to choose how to do it based on the tactical situation at the time. They were encouraged to show initiative and think creatively.
Other militaries used the old style:
>You will go here and do it this way no matter what, even if it's stupid and all your men die in the process. You will not show initiative and try to think outside the box.
Logan Baker
This is the answer to your question OP
Logan Mitchell
>Analysis by the US Army of the 1939 German campaign in Poland found that "The emphasis which the Germans placed on the development of leadership and initiative in commanders during years of preparatory training brought its rewards in the Polish campaign. With confidence that these principles had been properly inculcated, all commanders, from the highest to the lowest echelons, felt free to carry out their missions or meet changes in situations with a minimum of interference by higher commanders." They recognized that "initiative, flexibility and mobility" were the essential aspects of German tactics.
>good showing in WW1 Our single biggest outmaneuver got us stomped by roaches. No need to flatter us or make excuses, we acknowledge this.
Christopher Rodriguez
I would add to this that the Germans had an amazing degree of inter-arm coordination, well in advance of anyone in 1939-42 or so, and probably only rivaled by the very very late war western allies.
Things like rapidly sending the information to the proper battery as to where and when you needed artillery support, or relaying to your armor that look, there's a weak spot they can break through, go for it.
Owen Diaz
>this cancerous post Never ever discuss history again. Jesus Christ.
