A more capable German military in 1939
- Thread starter Faeelin
- Start date
maverick
Banned
As far as I know...
-Hitler eliminated the old prussian aristocracy (this is not an entirely bad thing considering they had been in charge during WWI)
-There was not a real war economy...there was a surprising low production of small arms and tanks and the vehicles could not be produced or replaced fast enough...that's why Czechoslovakia's industry was so vital to the war effort...
-The OKH was placed under the OKW, which in turn was under Hitler, effectively limiting the decision making decisions of the OKH and with no real General Staff, there was a real big political mess as Goering and the SS tried to eliminate the influence of the Wehrmatch (see Blomberg-Fritsch affair)
-The army was divided between those who were ready to fight WWI and those who actually knew how to apply modern military tactics, like von Manstein and Guderian...
-Incompetent people, like Goering, in the wrong places...
-Hitler eliminated the old prussian aristocracy (this is not an entirely bad thing considering they had been in charge during WWI)
-There was not a real war economy...there was a surprising low production of small arms and tanks and the vehicles could not be produced or replaced fast enough...that's why Czechoslovakia's industry was so vital to the war effort...
-The OKH was placed under the OKW, which in turn was under Hitler, effectively limiting the decision making decisions of the OKH and with no real General Staff, there was a real big political mess as Goering and the SS tried to eliminate the influence of the Wehrmatch (see Blomberg-Fritsch affair)
-The army was divided between those who were ready to fight WWI and those who actually knew how to apply modern military tactics, like von Manstein and Guderian...
-Incompetent people, like Goering, in the wrong places...
Riain
Banned
I've read at least one book that stated that the German army of the early 20thC was no big deal, just another European army. They backed this up with lots of stats and facts & figures which 'proves' this. What they don't explain is that such a crappy army wins breathtaking victories when outnumbered, and clings on with incredible tenacity in defence. Other books aknowledge this disparity and blame it on Allied bungling and German luck, as if these were one-off things, and often hype up the wow factor of it all without giving a good reason for this odd phenomenon. It's these facts rather which make me believe Martin Van Creveld's argument that the German army was organised and run in such a way that the end result was much greater fighting power than other, obstensibly similar, armies.
So the answer is to subtley change the nature of the German army so it doesn't generate this increased fighting power. How you'd go about this I don't know, but there it is!
So the answer is to subtley change the nature of the German army so it doesn't generate this increased fighting power. How you'd go about this I don't know, but there it is!
Markus
Banned
Hmmm, IMO they rearmed as fast as possible and given that the Allies took all the German bullshitting at face value there is little need to do better.
They could and should have adopted semi-automatic rifles. WW1 showed bolt action was tactically obsolete, but except for the USA nations retained bolt actions for this or that reason, so in that regard the Wehrmacht was as good as the rest.
Fighters with a longer range would have helped, too, but coming up with that requires hindsight. Introducing drop tanks a few months sooner is much less of a stretch, or maybe putting the He112 into production to avoid relying on just one type of fighter plane.
Something that was much more obviously flawed were the 37mm tank and AT guns. The gun was obsolete when it was introduced as the French R/HS-35 tanks had more armour than the Pak36´s shells could penetrate.
Still, I’m seeing no really big flaws that can be corrected without hindsight.
edit: I agree with maverick, the german command structure was pretty fucked up and got worse, but that was Hitler´s work and can not be changed as long as Hitler is in power.
They could and should have adopted semi-automatic rifles. WW1 showed bolt action was tactically obsolete, but except for the USA nations retained bolt actions for this or that reason, so in that regard the Wehrmacht was as good as the rest.
Fighters with a longer range would have helped, too, but coming up with that requires hindsight. Introducing drop tanks a few months sooner is much less of a stretch, or maybe putting the He112 into production to avoid relying on just one type of fighter plane.
Something that was much more obviously flawed were the 37mm tank and AT guns. The gun was obsolete when it was introduced as the French R/HS-35 tanks had more armour than the Pak36´s shells could penetrate.
Still, I’m seeing no really big flaws that can be corrected without hindsight.
edit: I agree with maverick, the german command structure was pretty fucked up and got worse, but that was Hitler´s work and can not be changed as long as Hitler is in power.
The Nazi system had a lot of bizarrely overlapping command structures and internal power conflicts. Key areas of the war economy were in the hands of unqualified people, or perhaps they were squabbled over by more than one incompetent. A more orderly and meritocratic command structure would probably improve things greatly, but Fascism relies very much on cronyism and finding ways to keep the chief cronies from ganging up on you ... so it's unlikely.
Markus
Banned
More and more micro-managing by Hitler. Like making himself Sec. of War(38), CG of the Heer(41). Plus the branches of the german military had almost always seperate command structures all the way up to the top. There was one one like Ike who was in charge of all, naval, ground and air forces in one theather. IIRC the invasion of Norway was the one and only operation with a real supreme commander.
The Eastern Front in particular was screaming out for a Supreme Commander, other than Hitler. Although before 1942, I dunno who that would've been for sure.
Riain
Banned
Sorry I misread the question.
To make the Wehrmacht more effective it needs more resources, and that is a political thing. For starters I'd have the Riechswehr use diesel vehicles exclusively from the 20s, that alone would allow more fighting and less support vehicle production. A proactive weapons development programme is a must; upgunned PzIII & IV in 1941, not '42, assault rifles, 4 engined bombers, jets, Type XXI uboats when they are practical not when a reaction is called for.
Given enough of the cutting edge weapopns that German research and industry could provide, and enough logistic support, I think the Wehrmacht could make better use of them than any other armed forces of the era.
To make the Wehrmacht more effective it needs more resources, and that is a political thing. For starters I'd have the Riechswehr use diesel vehicles exclusively from the 20s, that alone would allow more fighting and less support vehicle production. A proactive weapons development programme is a must; upgunned PzIII & IV in 1941, not '42, assault rifles, 4 engined bombers, jets, Type XXI uboats when they are practical not when a reaction is called for.
Given enough of the cutting edge weapopns that German research and industry could provide, and enough logistic support, I think the Wehrmacht could make better use of them than any other armed forces of the era.
Standarycation of production, focus on the panzer III and IV and not the Tigers and panthers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgewehr_44
Could maby have been adopted earlier, quite deccent numbers producde that late in the war, beter reltions ship with nat,china to get the some of the resourses the needed, going on war production earlier.
Under speer the german production increassed alte war, even under allied bombing campainges. Mabye more stug III `s too, cheaper than tanks after all.
Thougt the fully motorized wermacht would bee cool, but that really needs to be disel and not petrol.
Btw will the syntetci oil plant and rubber plants bee builtd nd in such a large scale whit out the nazis? They did som werid production stuff but still made carborde panzer-fauch and fanta frome bye products of chees.
Could maby have been adopted earlier, quite deccent numbers producde that late in the war, beter reltions ship with nat,china to get the some of the resourses the needed, going on war production earlier.
Under speer the german production increassed alte war, even under allied bombing campainges. Mabye more stug III `s too, cheaper than tanks after all.
Thougt the fully motorized wermacht would bee cool, but that really needs to be disel and not petrol.
Btw will the syntetci oil plant and rubber plants bee builtd nd in such a large scale whit out the nazis? They did som werid production stuff but still made carborde panzer-fauch and fanta frome bye products of chees.
The biggest single thing the Germans could have done was to get rid of Goering as CIC of the Luftwaffe. He pretty much single-handedly lost them the Battle of Britain and played a huge role in ensuring that Stalingrad would be the disaster it was for them.
Considering what they did with what they had, I'm not sure the 1939 Wehrmacht needed better tanks. What were they supposed to do with P4s? Beat France? That's what they did with P1s & P2s and a few P3s.
Perhaps they could have beaten France quicker but not by much, even if the whole German Army were motorised. They could perhaps mobilise and train more soldiers so they could take on France at the same time as they took Poland. But that would be a two-front war, which everyone thought was risky.
Besides the German motor industry was not up to the task of providing enough tanks, never mind sufficient lorries to motorise the whole army. The panzer divs which invaded France had a high proportion of Czech tanks in their OBs, thats how bad it was. They still did the business.
Just to reinforce the point, may I point out that during the year of Barbarossa, notwithstanding the dislocation, loss of resouces, movement of factories, etc, the Russians still managed to produce more tanks than the Germans.
BTW how come everyone slags off Goering? He may have been a lousy general and an unpleasant man, but he was a good organiser and had some highly capable subordinates. The superb German Air/infantry co-operation did not come about by accident.
Perhaps they could have beaten France quicker but not by much, even if the whole German Army were motorised. They could perhaps mobilise and train more soldiers so they could take on France at the same time as they took Poland. But that would be a two-front war, which everyone thought was risky.
Besides the German motor industry was not up to the task of providing enough tanks, never mind sufficient lorries to motorise the whole army. The panzer divs which invaded France had a high proportion of Czech tanks in their OBs, thats how bad it was. They still did the business.
Just to reinforce the point, may I point out that during the year of Barbarossa, notwithstanding the dislocation, loss of resouces, movement of factories, etc, the Russians still managed to produce more tanks than the Germans.
BTW how come everyone slags off Goering? He may have been a lousy general and an unpleasant man, but he was a good organiser and had some highly capable subordinates. The superb German Air/infantry co-operation did not come about by accident.
Yeah, Luftwaffe particulary was very missmanaged. Not only Goering himself was incompetent, most of his appointments were pretty bad as well, and Hitler blindly trusted him which made matters even more.
Hendryk
Banned
Indeed, this is what Ian Kershaw explains in his books: contrary to the popular perception of the Third Reich having a neat, tidy organization, in fact there were plenty of agencies working at cross-purposes, resulting in a muddled command structure. Decisions were taken through second-guessing and bureaucratic creep, except when Hitler personally stepped in to micromanage a pet project, and the result was usually worse than if he hadn't.
As regards military matters themselves, the only thing I can think of as a layman is, as Markus has said, giving the Wehrmacht a semi-automatic rifle.
The cezch skoda tanks the germans used made upp about 30% of the geramn tank force during the french invasion, and was beatter than the current germans ones. The germans did have an assault rifel late war, the Sturmgewehr_44.
Roughly 450.000 producde. Maby try to get more solider to aime? I recall reading that during ww2 only 10% of infantry actually aimde their weapons, this nuber had risen too roughly 50% during vietnam, these are ofcourse number for american but would the german be that different?
Oh and a wider use of camo smocks could well have been done, dont know if it was really had that much of an impact.
Roughly 450.000 producde. Maby try to get more solider to aime? I recall reading that during ww2 only 10% of infantry actually aimde their weapons, this nuber had risen too roughly 50% during vietnam, these are ofcourse number for american but would the german be that different?
Oh and a wider use of camo smocks could well have been done, dont know if it was really had that much of an impact.
One of the biggest counters against giving every soldier an automatic weapon was he'd be inclined to expend far more ammunition for the same result (albeit with slightly fewer casualties on his side) against rifle-armed opponents, thus putting greater pressure on resources.This would hold especially true for conscript armies.
Admiral Canaris
Banned
The Luftwaffe in particular could have used a lot of fine-tuning. Throw out the moronic concept of dive-bombers (they wanted even the heavy bombers to dive!
). Start mass production of FW-190s sooner. Don't waste money on jet fighters (not ever better than props during the war). Make a somewhat decent naval air arm; it won't be much of an aid, but might at least be useful for Search And Rescue over the Channel. A decent heavy bomber might also be useful for taking Britain, though given the Luftwaffe's primary role (ground support) that might cost more than it's worth. Decent night fighters earlier.
). Start mass production of FW-190s sooner. Don't waste money on jet fighters (not ever better than props during the war). Make a somewhat decent naval air arm; it won't be much of an aid, but might at least be useful for Search And Rescue over the Channel. A decent heavy bomber might also be useful for taking Britain, though given the Luftwaffe's primary role (ground support) that might cost more than it's worth. Decent night fighters earlier.burmafrd
Banned
Actually dive bombers work well- the problem was that the Stuka was so slow and vulnerable. Now if the Luftwaffe had had something like our USN dive bombers its another story.
BUT the best version of the Stuka was the one with the 37MM cannon.
The first faint version of the A-10 decades later.
Now if some bright person had figured out how to make a better P-39 (say with a large bore hollow crankshaft so that the actual breech of the cannon was behind the seat instead of the engine) you could fire from above and destroy any tank or vehicle. Ground support by aircraft was critical in WW2, and if the LUftwaffe had had better R & D where it counted (a better bigger bomber and fighters with more range) it could ha ve made all the difference.
BUT the best version of the Stuka was the one with the 37MM cannon.
The first faint version of the A-10 decades later.
Now if some bright person had figured out how to make a better P-39 (say with a large bore hollow crankshaft so that the actual breech of the cannon was behind the seat instead of the engine) you could fire from above and destroy any tank or vehicle. Ground support by aircraft was critical in WW2, and if the LUftwaffe had had better R & D where it counted (a better bigger bomber and fighters with more range) it could ha ve made all the difference.