re: How were German armored divisions so much more elite than their US counterparts

quote:

---

This doesn't really touch on technological superiority.

---

It very much does, actually. Drawn-out warfare is not too different from evolution. German armor had been under the fiercest combat stress the world had ever seen to that point on the Russian steppe, and they learned a lot of lessons the very hard way.

The Tiger II came out in 1944 and was the greatest tank the world had ever seen to that point and would be technically superior to virtually everything else for at least another decade.

In addition, and just as importantly, the German armored units were like PhD's in small unit tank warfare by the time they started seeing American armor. Tactical superiority enhances technical superiority in some terrifying ways if you're on the receiving end of it - the Iraqi Army facing the American military machine in 1991 comes to mind here. The Iraqis probably could have stuck around and put up a hell of an insurgency, but they were simply overpowered and awed by the technical and tactical might.

We won bro

quote:

---

How did we get so far behind? How big was the gap?

---

Get behind? We started from behind. Think of the time period. The general idea, feel free to correct specific facts:

There wasn't a need for the US to launch a land assault. Ten years prior was the Great Depression. Germany, on the other hand, was trying to expand its borders. So Germany made tanks to take over the world. The US was overcoming economic collapse in attempt to establish;/re-establish?) itself as a world (economic) superpower.

The US Military at that time was close to a joke. That excludes the Navy, of course. Given the US's geography, an attack by land assault was far less threatening than an attack by sea. The US had no desire to launch assaults by land, either, as it is more resource-rich than its neighbors and focused more on global trade rather than production from whatever adjacent lands would have gained for them. We also had a policy at the time of letting Europe do what Europe does. And let Asia do what Asia does (prior to Pearl Harbor, of course). Thus, the US had a rather advanced Navy (mostly displayed on the Pacific Front in the form of carriers. Its submarines were also pretty inferior to the German U-boats), but surface ships were rather comparable. And they were quick to pump out surface ships loaded with depth charges to mitigate the U-boat threat.


Tl;dr: We played catch-up from the get go because we were a young, poor country.

Uh they were a lot more experienced.

quote:

---

If you are talking about WWII, the US was not even close to a world power. Britain and France viewed the US as a lot of bodies to get mowed down because in their eyes that is all we were. They also knew we could mass produce the shite out of machinery and equipment because we were the only country in the war not being bombed into the Stone Ages.

All in all Germany only lost the war because of her own stupidity. They were far superior in every way.

---

By WWII the US was very much established as a world power after WW1.

Deutschländers

quote:

---

By WWII the US was very much established as a world power after WW1.

---

The army was pathetic in the 1930s and 1940s. Not even close to a world power. The only reason we were a world power after WWII is there were only 2 countries not reduced to rubble (and frankly you can say one of them once).

quote:

---

German engineering was far superior.

---

Still is.

quote:

---

German tanks ran on diesel

---

Wrong, they were gas.

One of the sherman's biggest advantages that it had was that it could be worked on by GI's in the field who grew up working on pickup trucks. The Germans couldn't do that. The Americans also valued speed and mobility more than heavy tanks.