How good was the Wehrmacht really? I feel a lot of their reputation was developed post-WW2 by Americans

France is a very important adversary though, they had the strongest land army in the world at that time AND they had been anticipating the invasion for years and planning their defence. Defeating them was a triumph. I reject the idea that France surrendered intentionally because of the popular resistance that persisted for the rest of the war.

Occams Razor says that blitzkrieg was a killer tactic for the time, if you want to start making the argument that vichy france was an inside job you're straying in to revisionist history.

>In the end, the Blitzkrieg's efficiency is debatable
The Blitzkrieg was massively effective in small-front, shallow engagements. It wasn't until the Battle of the Bulge that the Western Front had an effective answer to it.

France was a very important adversary, and I believe the main reason Germans let Hitler rule over them, as his main goal -at least before becoming megalomaniac- was to humiliate France for Germany's WWI defeat. However, what France had was well mainly conscripts, but sure overall a good land army. Unfortunately, WWII's strategies were strongly influenced by air dominance. In that regard, the French were a bit behind (not as much as you would generally assume, since the Luftwaffe lost more planes during the Battle of France than during the Battle of Britain, but still a bit behind. 2 months behind to be precise. At the start of the BoF, the French had only 18 of their latest fighter, the D520. 2 months after they had over 500, which would have been sufficient to stand their "ground" in May.)

>I reject the idea that France surrendered intentionally because of the popular resistance that persisted for the rest of the war.

Pétain certainly surrendered intentionally. He was the French ambassador to Spain, and a fascist with that (well this you can google). When he was called back to save France, he told Franco: "Let's put an end to thirty years of socialism in France". Otherwise, the French resistance -as collaborationism- was limited to maybe 5% of the population.

>Occams Razor says that blitzkrieg was a killer tactic for the time, if you want to start making the argument that vichy france was an inside job you're straying in to revisionist history.
Well I've got simple facts (Pétain, fascism), and you've got data (Germany, win, fast). Not interpreting the data is, I feel, the real idiocy here.

Explain Lille, Hannut, Dunkirk. The Luftwaffe did half of the job. The supply lines, strongly defended with AA, did the rest. The German tanks? Nothing.

t. pole

I always got the feeling this board has more of a arrogant leftie cunt problem than stormfags but both are annoyingly present here.

>Explain Lille, Hannut, Dunkirk. The Luftwaffe did half of the job. The supply lines, strongly defended with AA, did the rest. The German tanks? Nothing.
The term is "Blitzkrieg," not "Panzerkrieg." Combined arms, rapid redeployment, and stressing weak points on the enemy lines are the elements of Blitzkrieg, not throwing tanks at the enemy until they fold.

Soviet tactics = endless zerg rush of mongols until the enemy runs out of ammo as seen on the german and finnish front
German tactics = outmaneuvering the enemy with quick units and looking for weak points. often men on foot or on horseback aided by artillery.
Allies before US = wait for america to show up and save them yet again.
US = Join the war when its easy pickings compared to the first years.

>endless zerg rush
Stopped reading there

You can dislike Nazism and be right-wing.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg
Blitzkrieg (German, "lightning war"About this sound listen (help·info)) is a method of warfare whereby an attacking force, spearheaded by a dense concentration of armoured and motorised or mechanised infantry formations with close air support

The tanks are maybe the most important component in the theoretical Blitzkrieg. In reality they were shit. So maybe the theory is not so great. That's all I'm saying.

enlighten me, how was the first soviet offensive not exactly this?

Is that a problem for you, Hans?

Nazism is left wing

Overrated as frick with rather mediocre or downright bad equipment that conquered a bunch of non-countries.they already had problems with poland,witht the french they lucked out because they were still in a WW1 mindset.
They were just propped up post war to make the allied victory more impressive and blunders or defeat less of a humiliation.The war was lost in 1941 when they failed to bum-rush the soviets.

Na, I like poles alot. The insane victim complex towards ww2 and all is just getting old to me.
We get it youre still mad, rightly so. But angrily flaunting it around all day cant be good for your mental health.

Fun fact, my middle name is actually Hans like my father and his father.

Discovery channel the post.

I wanted to meme something in terms "but they are mostly Eastern Germans, so they're germanised Polacks, that's why they look like mongols", but after researching their surnames, there is no fucking way that Western and Southern mongoloid Germans were Polacks/Slavs.

Really made me think. Some of them do have Slavic surnames though.

Prussian genes and bordering a lot of countries.

>Soviet tactics = endless zerg rush of mongols until the enemy runs out of ammo as seen on the german and finnish front
Soviets actually did very well and were inflicting more casualties than they were taking after 42, Just look at men like Rokossovsky and operations like Bagration.
>German tactics = outmaneuvering the enemy with quick units and looking for weak points. often men on foot or on horseback aided by artillery.
Mostly on foot, horses were used to mostly carry supply. There was one cavalry division in the whole of Barbarossa if I remember correctly and that got disbanded before the end of 41.
>Allies before US = wait for america to show up and save them yet again.
the Brits were fighting the Germans in Africa and the Japs in the Pacific before we joined, there was no way they could have done an invasion of France by themselves so you cannot blame them for that, also the Brits inflicted a huge defeat on the Luftwaffe with the Battle of Britain.
>US = Join the war when its easy pickings compared to the first years.
Again not true at all. The US only joined WW2 six months after the Soviets, in the same year in fact. If you want to say the US joined late you also have to say that about the Soviets.

t. uneducated burgergoblin

>the Brits inflicted a huge defeat on the Luftwaffe with the Battle of Britain.
As with Dunkirk or the war in general, they inflated their own importance a lot.

>Again not true at all. The US only joined WW2 six months after the Soviets, in the same year in fact. If you want to say the US joined late you also have to say that about the Soviets.
Technically the US was involved in war since the Battle of France (some P-36s were delivered to help the French Air Force live with the times). However, the full scale American engagement can be considered late, considering the damage they did by commercial trade with (pre) Nazi Germany. Eventually, US boots were not seen in Europe before 1944.

>The tanks are maybe the most important component in the theoretical Blitzkrieg. In reality they were shit. So maybe the theory is not so great. That's all I'm saying.
Panzer III's and IV's were great for their time and the theoretical underpinnings of Blitzkrieg were still solid at the Battle of the Bulge. The Allies learned to leverage their air superiority and to conduct deeper operations than they had at the beginning of the war, hence why the Allied lines in 1944/45 were able to bend so much without breaking entirely. Compare that situation to the Battle of France, where the Luftwaffe could attack almost at will and where retreating Allied forces would often regroup only to find that German elements were already behind their lines.

Just like in WWI, Germans were brilliant on the battlefield but completely lacking when it came to the greater picture.

Maybe between two blank posts you can read about the battle of Hannut.

Everytime

I do not see how the Battle of Britain is inflated. It was a huge defeat to the Luftwaffe. There were 3k to 4k German aircraft during Barbarossa, they lost around 2k aircraft and pilots during the Battle of Britain, it is especially bad when you consider they were fighting over an island and nearly all those losses were permanent.

Also, again with what I said about the British, it is true that the US was not fighting in France, but that is because France had already fallen so you cannot really blame them. However they were fighting in Africa by 42 and Italy by 43. The US advanced as fast as possible once they got into the war without being reckless.

>it is especially bad when you consider they were fighting over an island and nearly all those losses were permanent
Pro-tip: having a huge strategic benefit by being an Island does not equal "inflicting a huge defeat".

Had Britain been located next to Germany, like France, they would have lost the war within weeks.

But they were not located next to Germany, that is the point. And yes it does equal inflicting a huge defeat because the Germans wasted 2k planes and pilots permanently lost. Being on an island only makes it an even bigger defeat because the vast majority of those planes and pilots could not be recovered. I am not seeing your point.

Luckily we live in reality so what ifs like that don't apply and Battle for Britain happened the way it did and was a huge and costly defeat for Germany.
The rest of the world also wasn't overrun by nazi hordes which is really depressing because it means retards like you are alive and make dumb posts on Veeky Forums.

> they lost around 2k aircraft and pilots during the Battle of Britain,

They lost 1059 in the Battle of France (who refused to deliver the 1K pilots and crew they had captured to the Brits), and 1052 during the Battle of Britain (which last twice longer). Over Britain, they lost maybe 300 Stukas (dont recall the exact figure), which were obsolete anyway (they would not have changed Stalingrad for instance).

>France had already fallen so you cannot really blame them
The BEF retreated before the fall of France, and Churchill disengaged the RAF after 1 month (out of 2). In Dunkirk, the BEF deserted its positions, leaving gaps in the defence perimeter.

>The US advanced as fast as possible once they got into the war without being reckless.
Are you twelve?

Which part of the battle? The part where Germany fielded their training and stopgaps alongside their battle tanks, the part where Panzer IV's outperformed the SOUMA S35's, or the part where the German General Staff realized that a 35mm cannon was insufficient anti-tank armament and reformed their doctrine to have the IV's fill the battle tank role and have the III's to fill the support tank role?

Regardless, Blitzkrieg is a strategic doctrine and to gauge it's efficacy on single engagements is ludicrous.

>Had Britain been located next to Germany, like France, they would have lost the war within weeks.
And had Britain been located next to Germany they wouldn't have spent the better part of five centuries ensuring nobody can take a dip in their pond, so this kind of speculation is pointless.

Well trained, more or less decently equipped early in the war, and not nearly as mechanized as everyone thought.
They were tactically capable, but couldn't figure out logistics for shit.

Wrong.

>They lost 1059 in the Battle of France (who refused to deliver the 1K pilots and crew they had captured to the Brits), and 1052 during the Battle of Britain
Not true, see pic related. All sources I have seen but Luftwaffe casualties at 1500-2000 casualties for aircraft and 2000-2500 for pilots. That is 2k Pilots that they have to replace, I am also not saying that they would have changed the outcome in the Eastern theater I was just using how many planes were used in Barbarossa to compare to the Battle of Britain. Those 2k pilots would have however been extremely useful in protecting France from the USAAF and RAF
>The BEF retreated before the fall of France
I was saying how you cannot really blame the Americans, not the British for not being in France before 1944 as it had already fallen.
>Are you twelve?
Nope, but it is great when Wehraboos resort to insults. I am saying that the US advanced at a very good rate once they actually got into the war and the whole "reee US joins late and takes the credit" is a meme. They joined December 41, invaded Africa in 42, Italy in 43 and finally France in 44. This is also while fighting the Japanese in the Pacific as well.

Fuck forgot pic, sorry. Here is what I was referring to.

>Being on an island only makes it an even bigger defeat because the vast majority of those planes and pilots could not be recovered.
My whole point is that Britain lost roughly as many planes as Germany. The only reason why it turned out more costly to Germany was BECAUSE they were fighting an island and yet Bongoloids pretend it had something to do with their own war effort when factually Germany had better tactics, better aircraft, more experienced pilots, etc.

t.stormweenie

See pic related
The Germans lost many more planes than the Brits. The RAF was a match for the Luftwaffe and did very well all things considered.
>Germany had better aircraft
Again not true, the BF-109 was becoming outdated by the time the war started. Nearly all British and American aircraft were better than what the Germans had.

>1,744 aircraft destroyed[nb 8]
>1,977 aircraft destroyed, 1,634 in combat and 343 non-combat[14]

And the Bf-109 was superior to Britshit during the BoB. It had better performance at altitude and it was better armed.

The luckiest and most incompetent fighting force in the entire human history.

Your point? The Germans still lost more planes, and more importantly they lost around 500 more pilots, and while the Brit pilots could parachute back down to safety and fly another day the vast majority of German pilots ended up being prisoners of war.

And no it really was not. If we take the Spitfire and the Bf-109 the planes were pretty comparable to each other and neither really had any major advantages, however the British kept designing better planes while the Germans mostly stuck to modifying the Bf-109

>The Germans still lost more planes
Insignificantly more.

>they lost around 500 more pilots, and while the Brit pilots could parachute back down to safety and fly another day the vast majority of German pilots ended up being prisoners of war.
That is my whole point. The British success stems from a geographic advantage, not from outperforming the enemy on the battlefield.

>however the British kept designing better planes while the Germans mostly stuck to modifying the Bf-109
The workhorse of the RAF was not the Spitfire but the Hurricane and the Bf109 was a great aircraft until the end of the war.

>Insignificantly more.
Again, the pilots mattered the most, and the vast majority of German pilots were killed, or taken prisoner. While British pilots could land back and fight another day. That makes a massive difference in pilot casualties.
>That is my whole point. The British success stems from a geographic advantage, not from outperforming the enemy on the battlefield.
And your whole point does not matter at all. Terrain is an important part in warfare. All warfare. The Battle of Britain was an absolute disaster for the Luftwaffe and saying
>BUT IT IS ONLY BECAUSE THE BRITS WERE ON AN ISLAND
Does not make it any less of a disaster. You are trying to make excuses for an extremely incompetent Luftwaffe command that wasted 2k good pilots and essentially crippled it's ability to fight a long war. What you are doing is like a Persian going
>REEEEEEE THERMOPYLAE ONLY HAPPENED BECAUSE OF THE THE GREEKS HAD A PASS THEY COULD HOLD
When that was the whole fucking point.
>the Bf109 was a great aircraft until the end of the war.
It started getting outclassed by planes like the P-47 and P-51 as the war went on.

Nothing you say has anything to do with my point which is that Britfags weren't successful because they fought well but because they were located on an island.

>German tactics = outmaneuvering the enemy with quick units
*gets encircled*

But they did fight well, Germany lost more pilots than Britain what point are you trying to make?

>Germany lost more pilots than Britain
You said it yourself: because they were either taken prisoner or drowned in the channel.

In terms of aircraft losses the differences were minimal - and this was despite German fighters barely having enough fuel to fight over Britain.

>They joined December 41, invaded Africa in 42, Italy in 43 and finally France in 44. This is also while fighting the Japanese in the Pacific as well.
I think the problem is that you say they "advanced quickly" but Africa and Italy was literally Churchill dragging his feet as hard as he could against FDR and Stalin who were both interested in opening up a second european front.
In hinsight it's good that the US got some OJT prior to invading europe, otherwise it would have been a real mess.

Let's say for the sake of argument all of those pilots could get back across the channel and not get captured yeah? the Germans would still be losing more pilots and around the same amount of planes. But here is the thing, the British were outproducing the Germans in 1940 in aircraft production and in 1941 this gap gets even bigger. Even if those pilots who would have been captured get back across the channel and fight another day, the British are still outproducing the Germans and inflicting even casualties. The Germans still lose. So much for the Germans having "better tactics, better aircraft, more experienced pilots, etc."

Germans were at a disadvantage due to attacking so Britain having a slight upper hand is to be expected. However, it was not nearly as decisive as the fact that one side was located on an island.
German tactics being better is fact: Britain was still stuck in WW1 and it took them quite a while to adjust. German pilots had their Legion Condor experience which British pilots were lacking.

Reasonably capable if their goal was to defeat poland
Had a quality light machine gun but everything else was either still being tested or practically obsolete
The “blitzkreig” tactics are basically just old prussian tactics rebranded for tanks

A world conquering army they were not

>Britain was still stuck in WW1
You what? Britain's army was one of if not the most motorized army of the war when it broke out.
>However, it was not nearly as decisive as the fact that one side was located on an island.
The part about them being on an island is the whole point why it was so decisive

Meant to reply to

>gets BTFO by pajeets
>good
Pick one

>You what? Britain's army was one of if not the most motorized army of the war when it broke out.
Are we talking about the army now? I could have sworn we were talking about the air force.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_formation

>them being on an island is the whole point why it was so decisive
Then we are not in disagreement.

>However, it was not nearly as decisive as the fact that one side was located on an island.
You are implying it was not that decisive because they were on an island, the exact opposite it true, HOWEVER, if Britain was not an island, and let's say the German army does not overrun the British army. The Germans still lose the air war, it would not be as decisive but the British would still inflict equal casualties and outproduce the Germans.
>Are we talking about the army now? I could have sworn we were talking about the air force.
You keep saying how advanced German tactics were and how good their pilots were despite the fact they still lost more planes. Even if it was not a significant amount more losses in terms of aircraft it certainly was in terms of pilots.

I recommend you read "Achtung Panzer" by Heinz Guderian.

>call Soviet tactics "zerg rush"
>Blitzkrieg ends up being closer in tactics to a zerg rush

Besides total lack of strategy (as everyone has pointed out) the Wehrmacht lacked the capacity for improvement shown by the Allies. The most obvious difference was in treatment of aces. German tank or aircraft aces stayed in the field until they died. Allied aces could expect to go home and become instructors. There were other differences in culture too. If you look at the Red Army, it was common knowledge that they were bad and should feel bad after the Finland fiasco. Massive overhauls were started, veterans had their brains worked over, and an aggressive system of beating sense into soldiers was founded. When the Germans came there was a structure in place for getting better, one that didn't fade until well after the war. Even in Berlin itself officers were still getting long "this is every time you fucked up in the last month" reports and suggestions on how to stop being such a faggot. Germany, of course, never invested in such a structure. There was no expectation of a long war and therefore no need to account for years of attrition. Most of the Allies had larger manpower and industrial pools, and a culture of correcting mistakes and learning lessons before shots were first fired. Each time you beat up the Allies they bounced back with a better and inexplicably larger force. Each time you beat up the Axis you got a shrinking band of burnt-out aces.

tl;dr the Allies had an institutional focus of spreading elite operator wisdom while the Germans just handed them another medal and thanked them for their service.

I am implying that it WAS decisive BECAUSE they were on an island because the aircraft losses themselves were not. They should have been more one-sided because one side was defending.

>You keep saying how advanced German tactics were and how good their pilots were despite the fact they still lost more planes.
They lost insignificantly more planes despite being the attacker, despite having to return after ten minutes over Britain because they ran out of fuel, so clearly they were not doing a bad job given the disadvantages. The main disadvantage they faced was the fact that they were fighting an island.

Why didn't the Germans emphasize the use of special forces like the Allies?

wehrmacht peaked in 1940

1941-1942 saw gradual yet terminal reduction in leadership qualities, especially at the top

by the time 1943 came around, hitler had the okh's balls in his purse. they tried to compensate for manpower and NCO losses with technology and recruiting non-Germans, but neither the general staff nor the war economy could compete with soviet, and later anglo-american, strategic planning and war economy.

1944-1945 was essentially a prolonged death rattle.

Special forces were founded by veterans who had proven their exceptionalism so that new recruits could learn from their experience. German veterans weren't given those teaching opportunities, and so a special forces unit would either be drawing from the same manpower and education as the regular units or it would be a hodgepodge of ranks and units causing organizational chaos.

fpbp

No one on this board is capable of being objective on this subject.

They had FUCKING HORSES! What were they thinking!?

(Was it autism?)

It's called a scarcity of oil.

Redpilled as fuck! They killed niggers and jews! :D

THEY HAD HORSES AND CALLED THEMSELVES ARYANS

WHY DIDNT THEY USE CHARIOTS ON THE RUSSIAN STEPPE
JUST IMAGINE WHAT THE SS COULD HAVE DONE WITH THEM

>have terrain advantage
>use terrain advantage to win

Sounds like smart fighting to me.

Not just a German problem either. Japan had this same issue in spades, especially when it came to pilots.

I don't think it's honest to say that the Germans were super human strategists and military men, but I don't think they were weaklings and dullards, either. Somewhere in between, lol.

It was not like they deliberately picked said terrain, it was a direct consequence of their geographic disposition.

And it's not like the Nazi's picked the weather patterns, either, but they still made weather stations in Greenland and Canada to use to their advantage. Read Clausewitz and you'll understand that soldiery is just one part of "fighting well."

they were doing a nice job on ww1 with their assault infantry, but because of propaganda I don't know much
Could somebody enlighten me please?

t. schlomo shekelstein

t. John von Amerimutten

What everyone is missing is that "Blietzkrieg" wasn't a doctrine, or even a practical suggestion. It was more a "way of thinking" or something to strive for.

It definitely wasn't the dominant way of thinking in Wermacht during the Battle of France. That's why you have Guderian conducting his "recon in force" contrary to Kleist's(?) orders, and Rommel's 7th cutting itself from it's chain of command.

Basically there where a few forward thinking tank proponents, and they had Hitler's support, but most of the Wermacht was all in for a more conventional approach.

Now, what did make the Wermacht special was the fact it had incredible NCO's and officers, who acted with a huge degree of independence/tactical flexibility. (Read up on Mission type tactics). And they did get smashed by the super centralized approach of the Soviets, where front commanders could control every single aspect of their command and achieve strategic superiority over the flexible Wermacht forces.

Tl;dr Blietzkrieg was a meme.

Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the conversation.

In terms of overall aircraft shot down Britain and Germany were quite evenly matched. The difference was that one side could recover pilots, the other side could not, which was a direct consequence of the geographic conditions. Those however were not deliberately chosen. Britain did not deliberately choose to become an island in order to fight Germany. So it was not brilliant British strategy and tactics, superior aircraft and superior pilots that secured the battle but if anything it was short-sighted of Germany to pick a fight with an island without the proper equipment, i.e. heavy bombers and proper escorts and lacking the numbers (leaving aside the consideration whether there was strategic benefit in bombing Britain at all).

t. centrist

Germany had one of the finest armies in the world, top tier aces, motivated soldiers, excellent officers and good coordination at a low level between the air force, infantry and mechanized units. Particularly at the beginning of the war they were at a far higher state of military readiness. However at the upper levels they were disorganized and prone to blunders.

The thread is usual as shit.

>muh Blitzkrieg

That is actually a term foreign press used to describe the high mobility maneuver warfare the Germans employed.

So to answer OPs question:

No the Wehrmacht was really good.

Tactical leadership, troop cohesion and the general quality of the soldiers were the best during the early phase of WW2 and still in the top league in the later phase of WW2.

The real problems were retarded strategical goals (or more precisely the absence of a true strategy), the abuse of the Wehrmacht in a country that wasn't suited for the logistical capacities and the kind of warfare the Wehrmacht excelled in (the Soviet Union) and a badly managed economy to support this army.

not so good
False

French manpower was exhausted and there were strong infighting because French Communists supported Germans

>Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the conversation.
Yes, I have. You are attempting damage control over the outcome of the Battle of Britain, which was a crushing loss for the Luftwaffe. This is evident from the relative lack of air superiority that Germany had through the rest of the war.

Your argument hinges on the idea that Britain playing to their strengths, namely that of being a goddamned island, somehow invalidates the outcome of the battle. You are correct, Britain didn't choose to become an island. Instead they chose to use their fleet to fortify their island against enemy navies, their innovations in RADAR to alert them to enemy aircraft, and their distance from continental Europe to allow them sufficient time to respond. This let them win despite the Luftwaffe's alleged superiority. If that doesn't constitute fighting well then what does?

Again: Britain did not "play their strengths". They did not pick their battle. If anything it was Germany that played into their strengths. And the British "RADAR" was fairly primitive in comparison with what the Germans had. Innovative was not the technology but the response system behind.

>This is evident from the relative lack of air superiority that Germany had through the rest of the war.
Or maybe it has also something to do with Germany fighting on multiple fronts.

>Again: Britain did not "play their strengths".
Five hundred years of government policy stemming directly from being on an island doesn't count, I guess.

>Or maybe it has also something to do with Germany fighting on multiple fronts.
Tell me more about these multiple fronts in 1942/43.

>Five hundred years of government policy stemming directly from being on an island doesn't count, I guess.
No, because in the end the decision was up to Germany. They could as well have decided not to attempt to attack Britain and fight a defensive war. Certainly this is hindsight because the capabilities of aerial warfare were not well understood at that point, but the point remains that the conditions which caused Germany to lose were not brilliant British planning, tactics, etc. but plain geographic conditions that were not in their favour.

>Tell me more about these multiple fronts in 1942/43.

>through the rest of the war

>If I repeat myself without addressing any of their points maybe they'll leave me alone and I won't have to admit I'm wrong.
I'd call you a Wehraboo, but you'd just be obtuse over the Luftwaffe not being the portmanteau.

Overrated by the public, underrated here

The most overrated thing about them was their tanks and supposed "mechanization" and "efficiency" but their infantry really was great and doctrine-wise they were probably the most advanced in the world. There is a reason why the Soviets adopted a sort of combination of "blitzkrieg" and Tukhachevsky's idea's post-war.

If they had more efficient production and wasted less resources on "wonder weapons" they could have performed a lot better

>outproduce Germany in aircraft production
>train more pilots
>the Dowding System
>It was only geography that let them win

asking Veeky Forums is a bad idea if you want a real answer because most of the people here are ideologues who let their opinion dictate facts instead of the other way around

half will be stormfags talking about the master race and the other half will be assmad French and Poles who say it's the worst army ever