- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Hardcore History Youtube Video - "Which Had the Superior Military: 1st or 2nd WW Germany?"
Posted on 10/24/17 at 11:45 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Posted on 10/24/17 at 11:45 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Just realized that in my previous post I did not address the OP's original question.
The German army of WW1 was an excellent one, to be sure, but it was not a revolutionary one. They fought in pretty much the same way as the other armies of the time; they were just more efficient at it. They achieved a large portion of their initial success because their enemies played right into their hands. France's overall plan for war with Germany - Plan XVII - could not have been more poorly designed to counter the Schlieffen Plan if they had let the Germans write it for them. And the Russians, apart from fielding an army of mostly illiterate peasants who did not understand what they were fighting for, made horrible choices about who should lead it. There's a decent chance that Russia could have ended the war in August 1914 if their own war plan, which called for a simultaneous advance by their 1st and 2nd Armies into East Prussia, had been effectively carried out, as Germany did not expect Russia to be ready for any kind of offensive action until the following month at the earliest. But the commander of the Russian 2nd Army (Samsonov) loathed the commander of the 1st Army (Rennenkampf) and refused to wait for him to be ready to move, instead heading into Prussia on his own. The resulting gap between the two Russian armies allowed Hindenburg and Ludendorff to concentrate their own outnumbered forces against each of them in turn, defeating them in detail at Tannenburg and the Masurian Lakes.
The Wehrmacht of WW2, on the other hand, was revolutionary. It wasn't their technology that made them so - it was their operational doctrine. The blitzkrieg concept completely changed warfare. They don't get enough "credit", if that's what you want to call it, for the complete obliteration of France in 1940. France was seen as the strong man of Europe prior to that, and indeed on paper they were, but Germany made complete fools of them. We only laugh at France in hindsight because they were so completely and easily defeated, but that was Germany's doing, not France's.
The German army of WW1 was an excellent one, to be sure, but it was not a revolutionary one. They fought in pretty much the same way as the other armies of the time; they were just more efficient at it. They achieved a large portion of their initial success because their enemies played right into their hands. France's overall plan for war with Germany - Plan XVII - could not have been more poorly designed to counter the Schlieffen Plan if they had let the Germans write it for them. And the Russians, apart from fielding an army of mostly illiterate peasants who did not understand what they were fighting for, made horrible choices about who should lead it. There's a decent chance that Russia could have ended the war in August 1914 if their own war plan, which called for a simultaneous advance by their 1st and 2nd Armies into East Prussia, had been effectively carried out, as Germany did not expect Russia to be ready for any kind of offensive action until the following month at the earliest. But the commander of the Russian 2nd Army (Samsonov) loathed the commander of the 1st Army (Rennenkampf) and refused to wait for him to be ready to move, instead heading into Prussia on his own. The resulting gap between the two Russian armies allowed Hindenburg and Ludendorff to concentrate their own outnumbered forces against each of them in turn, defeating them in detail at Tannenburg and the Masurian Lakes.
The Wehrmacht of WW2, on the other hand, was revolutionary. It wasn't their technology that made them so - it was their operational doctrine. The blitzkrieg concept completely changed warfare. They don't get enough "credit", if that's what you want to call it, for the complete obliteration of France in 1940. France was seen as the strong man of Europe prior to that, and indeed on paper they were, but Germany made complete fools of them. We only laugh at France in hindsight because they were so completely and easily defeated, but that was Germany's doing, not France's.
2
Posted on 10/24/17 at 11:47 am to fr33manator
quote:
I think i’d Honestly be okay with that. The sheer amounts of dead arising from that conflict, and the resulting conflict, would be a good enough exchange for a slightly slower pace of our rise. Plus the destruction of Europe and so many historical sites wouldn’t happen. Not to mention the Middle East doesn’t get fractured down arbitrary lines so maybe we don’t see the endless conflicts there because they remain under a strong thumb.
Its hard to second guess whats best. The fact that the human race has not obliterated itself with nuclear weapons (yet) makes me grateful we exist in the current timeline of events.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 12:19 pm to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
The Wehrmacht of WW2, on the other hand, was revolutionary. It wasn't their technology that made them so - it was their operational doctrine. The blitzkrieg concept completely changed warfare.
You do realize that the German's blitzkrieg "concept" came from what they learned from the French at the end of WW I? The French combined arms use was what pushed the German's back and led to the armistice.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 12:27 pm to TigerDeacon
Having heard "Blueprint for Armageddon" in it's entirety, I already know the answer Carlin gives, and I agree.
Hitler's army was a poor re-creation of the Keiser's monster.
Hitler's army was a poor re-creation of the Keiser's monster.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 12:33 pm to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
It wasn't their technology that made them so - it was their operational doctrine. The blitzkrieg concept completely changed warfare.
I would say the opposite...the tanks (superior in every way to what we had) were what made the Blitzkrieg possible.
...until they out-ran their own supply lines and allowed the biggest mistake Hitler made: Allowing the Dunkirk Evac to succeed.
That and Hitler refusing to give the Luftwaffe a serious crack at Dunkirk sealed his fate.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 12:49 pm to 19
quote:
I would say the opposite...the tanks (superior in every way to what we had) were what made the Blitzkrieg possible.
One on one, the Panther and Tiger were both a match for the Sherman and T34 both. Although later versions of both (M4A3E8 and T34/85) evened out the scales somewhat.
However, if you look at the full scope of what a tank is and not just how thick the armor is and how powerful it's gun is, then you see the Germans were actually at a huge disadvantage with their Panzer Arm comparative to the armored forces of the Allies. Allied tanks were:
1. More reliable
2. More maneuverable
3. Easier to maintain
4. Easier to produce
These factors allowed the Allies to completely crush their German enemies on the battlefield.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 12:55 pm to Darth_Vader
The Sherman was, for sure. But they arrived late in the war, and we had been getting our asses kicked by the Panthers and Tigers vs. Abrams for years.
The gun on the Abrams had to be field mod'd to even penetrate German tanks. Smaller and quicker didn't amount to shite when one direct hit fried the entire crew in an instant.
ETA: It was the Pershing that arrived late. It was a match for the Germans...the M4 Sherman was a death trap.
The gun on the Abrams had to be field mod'd to even penetrate German tanks. Smaller and quicker didn't amount to shite when one direct hit fried the entire crew in an instant.
ETA: It was the Pershing that arrived late. It was a match for the Germans...the M4 Sherman was a death trap.
This post was edited on 10/24/17 at 1:05 pm
Posted on 10/24/17 at 1:02 pm to 19
quote:
The Sherman was, for sure. But they arrived late in the war, and we had been getting our asses kicked by the Panthers and Tigers vs. Abrams for years.
1. The Sherman saw its first action in North Africa in 1942 when the British used them and M3 Lees against Rommel's Afrika Korps. At this time neither the Panther or Tiger were operational. The main adversaries for the Sherman at that time were Pz. mk. III and IV's which the Sherman was more than a match for. In fact, it was the Germans who realized they need to upgrade their Panzers after they encountered the Sherman.
2. Not sure what you're talking about with the Abrams. The Abrams did not become operational until almost 40 years after WWII.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 1:04 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
In 1865, the Union Army might be the most advanced military relative to the rest of the world. Proto-automatic weapons (Gatling gun), semi-automatic infantry rifles (Sharps rifle), ironclad warships with steam, telegraph, widespread use of rail to move troops and supplies. Even the industrial production methods the North used.
ETA: Turreted cannons on the Monitor was revolutionary.
ETA: Turreted cannons on the Monitor was revolutionary.
This post was edited on 10/24/17 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 10/24/17 at 1:08 pm to Darth_Vader
I edited.
I meant the Pershing was the improvement over the M4 Sherman, arriving late in the war. Abrams was far, far down the line.
The Sherman was no match for any Tiger or Panther. It could ping away like a bb gun while the German gunner just needed one well-aimed shot.
I meant the Pershing was the improvement over the M4 Sherman, arriving late in the war. Abrams was far, far down the line.
The Sherman was no match for any Tiger or Panther. It could ping away like a bb gun while the German gunner just needed one well-aimed shot.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 1:15 pm to 19
quote:
Having heard "Blueprint for Armageddon" in it's entirety, I already know the answer Carlin gives, and I agree.
I’m on my 7th relisten. I never get bored. Always get something new each time
Posted on 10/24/17 at 1:15 pm to 19
quote:
I edited.
I meant the Pershing was the improvement over the M4 Sherman, arriving late in the war. Abrams was far, far down the line.
The Sherman was no match for any Tiger or Panther. It could ping away like a bb gun while the German gunner just needed one well-aimed shot.
Ah. OK. That makes much more sense.
You're right that a Sherman was no match face to face with either a Tiger or Panther. However, especially in the case of the Tiger, thecSherman held a huge advantage over them due to its speed and maneuverability. A skilled Sherman crew coudl(and time and again did) use fire and maneuver tactics to get around a Tiger or Panther and engage from the rear or flanks where the German tanks were vulnerable.
And lets not forget that the German's primere tank ace, Micheal Whitman, was killed along with his entire crew when his Tiger I was knocked out by none other than a Canadian crewed Sherman Firefly.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 1:47 pm to Havoc
quote:
It's hard to say how a Germany-dominated Europe would have played out.
well... they lost twice and they still hold the purse strings in the EU today.
it's the Treaty of Versailles that really set the stage for the nazis' rise to power. The loss of life would be less with the success of the schlieffen plan, but WW2 might not happen without the bitter, vindictive treaty the Germans were forced to sign.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 9:08 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
I think most of y’all listened for the most part, I think that what Carlin’s viewpoint is is very simple yet we tend to gloss over it. The main point of his was that the WWII German military was run by an ideology, and an ideology that wouldn’t allow for them to win the war. If you give the German military of WWII the high brass of German’s WWI military, I think you’d have a hard time trying to beat them. But when you’ve got guys like Goering and Adolph Hitler and Himmler running things, and pretty much said “frick having a navy” they couldn’t win.
I mean think of the generals that the Wermacht had Rommel, Guderian, von Rundstedt, List, von Kluge, von Reichenau, von Leeb, von Manstein, Paulus, etc.
The German field generals in the Wermacht was possibly the most talented group of generals ever on one side of a war. But they didn’t have the guys leading the nation that would’ve allowed for them to win, they were fricking morons.
I mean think of the generals that the Wermacht had Rommel, Guderian, von Rundstedt, List, von Kluge, von Reichenau, von Leeb, von Manstein, Paulus, etc.
The German field generals in the Wermacht was possibly the most talented group of generals ever on one side of a war. But they didn’t have the guys leading the nation that would’ve allowed for them to win, they were fricking morons.
This post was edited on 10/24/17 at 9:16 pm
Posted on 10/24/17 at 9:21 pm to Swoopin
quote:
One stretched from France to Russia to N Africa.
One got held up east of Paris
One was fighting the greatest land power in Europe (France) combined with the greatest empire the world had ever seen (Britain)... one was fight shells of these former greats.
This post was edited on 10/24/17 at 9:22 pm
Posted on 10/24/17 at 9:32 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Mackensen and Hindenberg were the only two WW1 generals that were the equals of the WW2 Wermacht generals. Ludendorff was an idiot and that general of the Somme and Verdun was incompetent as well.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 10:04 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Mackensen and Hindenberg were the only two WW1 generals that were the equals of the WW2 Wermacht generals. Ludendorff was an idiot and that general of the Somme and Verdun was incompetent as well.
I think it's a bit harsh to call a lot of the generals from WWI idiots. Think of the time period that they came up from the ranks in. Hell, there were French cavalrymen that looked every bit as what Napoleon's cavalrymen looked. They were learning a completely new form of warfare on the fly and had nothing to compare what they were doing to. Now, towards the end of the war you can argue that they carried on the same battle tactics as they did in 1914, and I would agree with you on that, they weren't learning quick enough.
And to be honest, how else were they supposed to fight those battles? They had tanks but they weren't reliable and weren't as effective as the tanks of the second World War. The airplanes weren't anywhere near as effective as the second World War. There wasn't a very efficient form of communication to the front lines so people would take their initial target and then would have no clue what to do after the fact.
Also, you did see some beta type of fighting that they would see in WWII in the Western Front of WWI. The German stormtroopers for example. And the British and French creeping barrage that would allow the infantrymen to follow behind it.
They get a bad rap because of the carnage, but if you didn't have the technology advancements, how would you fight that war?
Posted on 10/24/17 at 10:41 pm to fr33manator
quote:
The sheer amounts of dead arising from that conflict, and the resulting conflict, would be a good enough exchange for a slightly slower pace of our rise.
Think about all of the loss of life avoided if Germany quickly wins WWI and WWII and other subsequent wars never happen.
The loss of life alone in the 2 world wars was so substantial. Imagine if all those millions and millions of people didn't die and they reproduced and their offspring reproduced. Where would we be now, could the earth sustain that population?
This post was edited on 10/24/17 at 11:43 pm
Posted on 10/24/17 at 11:57 pm to RedFoxx
Guess you forgot about the final solution and the plans for Eastern Europe.
Posted on 10/25/17 at 12:00 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Germany in WWII was designed for quick strikes. They quickly became overextended and folded under sustained pressure.
WWI Germany could sustain pressure, but only had one real breakthrough which they squandered.
Tough call.
WWI Germany could sustain pressure, but only had one real breakthrough which they squandered.
Tough call.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News