German Wehrmacht vs. the Allies Military WW ll

I once owned a Winchester Model 94 Featherweight, pre 1964 version.

It had the Mauser type action and was very fast to reload.

Talk about kick. The Featherweight is so light that it added to the kick.

I would only own the pre64 version if I were to get another.

 

I was stationed briefly at Rhein Main AB, Germany and the squadron was inactivated and merged with another at Scott AFB in Illinois about 15 miles from my parent's house and where I grew up. So I didn't get a chance to truly experience the German culture and area as much as would have liked to.

 

The plane I flew to Germany on landed at Rhein Main AB. I used to go back to fly the shuttle to Berlin. I imagine I arrived or departed that airfield at least 6 times, counting returning from Berlin.

When I was there, the Soviets still controlled Berlin on their side. Berlin was controlled at the time by 4 powers. France and England had shares.

 

Rhein Main was regarded as the gateway to Europe for incoming soldiers, I'm not surprised you're familiar with it. Of course it closed in late 2005 and now Ramstein has that honor.

 

The main problem was math the Allies combined focused on quantity sometimes over quality, if the German Tiger which was a fine tank in battle met say 20 Soviet tanks they were willing to sacrifice them all if you took out the Tiger who had often an elite crew. That was worth many T-34's with crews being wounded or killed. The American forces also did the same with more expectation their tanks would survive and developed to counter excellent cheap mobile tank destroyers. And of course air superiority was key once Germany lost the skies it was over on the ground. And Hitler' pre-occupation with super weapons didn't help either it was often the case his one big fancy tank was not good compared to several later American ones if one added in air support and artillery.

 

Nothing stopped the blitzkrieg in the West, except the ocean, and what stopped them in the East were minefields some 15 to 20 miles deep, 27 miles in some places around Kursk; these were some 2 thousand miles from where the blitzkriegs started. Without Western aid, particularly from the Brits early on, the Soviets would not have been in the war at all, and certainly had no means to launch any offensives whatsoever, and even with the Germans ceding air superiority across the entire front most of the Soviet planes were barely flyable, their fuel was too crappy and they relied on shipments of av fuel boosters from the U.K. If the Allies had stayed out of the war Moscow street signs would be in German, so no, the Russians didn't defeat the Wehrmacht; they were just the hired help.

The Russians launched their first real offensive out of Kursk in the summer of 1943, the D-Day landings took place some 10-11 months later; in the short time from then to fall of Berlin U.S. and Allied forces in the West inflicted over 40% of the casualties, and many more prisoners taken on top of that, all the while having to keep Soviet forces in the field; they were on life support the entire war.

 

There is something to what you say- but just something.

Absolutely the Soviets needed Western supplies- especially railroad equipment and trucks.

But they also shouldered the bulk of the fighting against the Wehrmacht, tying up, and destroying the bulk of the Axis troops. Without the Soviets, it would have been years before the Western Allies could have invaded Europe- and I include the invasion of Italy with that. If the Germans had defeated the Soviets in 1942- the war would have been far, far different for the West.

I get tired of the continual back and forth from both sides that either wants to discount what the Soviets did- or over inflate what the Soviets did.

The reality is that the Western allies and Soviets defeated Germany and its client states together.

 

The K98 is still an extremely reliable and capable rifle. They are different.

 

That's because they have a Mauser action. The 03 Springfield has a Mauser action.

I own a 8 mm Kar-98, it's excellent rifle.

Own a pre 64 Winchester Mod -70 chambered for the Winch. 270. It's my deer rifle. It's action is a Mauser action.

Some years ago "Guns and Ammo" magazine ran a story, The Best Infantry Rifles ever produced. They had them all and guess what made thee top three out beating the M-1 Garand, M-14, FNL's, AK-47 and the M-16.

The 303 Enfield, the 8mm, Kar-98 Mauser and the 03 Springfield.

The 303 Enfield came up as # 1.

The 8 mm Kar 98 Mauser as # 2 with a side note, a great hunting rifle.

The 30-06 03 Springfield as # 3 with a side note, a great target rifle.

But the 98 Mausers have to be one of the best rifles ever produced, it performed extremely well on the battlefield and is an excellent hunting rifle in the field.

But I digress:

Back to the Wehrmacht vs. the Allies.

The German tactics were opposite of the American's and Brits. The Americans / Brits used their general purpose machine guns as a support weapons providing suppressive fire for the infantry. Where as the German rifleman supported the German machine gun. The German rifleman with his M-98 Mauser protected the machine gun. That's why there was no need for the Germans having a semi auto rifle like the M-1 Garand.

I have five uncles who fought in the European theatre against the Germans during WW ll and two of them were WIA by a German 1,200 rpm MG-42 machine gun.

Most of todays general purpose machine guns are based upon the German's MG-42, the M-60 MG is one of them.

 

Perhaps I just have a soft spot for Mausers and Mosins because it is strongly illegal for me to own an M1. Australia and all that.

I don't want to be too disappointed. Have heard they are fine rifles.

 

Most of us figured out what you meant, no big deal.

You might like this series of pdf's re the western front and Patton's Third Army; they perfected air-ground operations in some unfavorable terrains and under stressful conditions. Chapter 7 is self-descriptive, but all of them are worth downloading and having around.

https://archive.org/details/AirPowerforPattonsArmy

A lot of stuff is gradually being de-classified and providing new info for analysis, including secretly recorded interviews with people like Zhukov, that are blowing holes in the Soviet narratives and commonly accepted myths, including the myth that the 'Russians won 90% of the war' and other nonsense, mostly to minimize the U.S. contributions, a wildly popular pastime with modern academia and leftist spin doctoring. It's looking much more like the western Allies 90%, Russians 10%'.

 

Minefields… 27 miles deep… Just trying to imagine those… Snow and wolves howling in background…
Secretly recorded interview of Guderian:
- “Panzer-Marsch, Tome 2 – Lost in a 27 mile minefield”…
- “that will blow holes in WW2 commonly accepted myths”…
- Now comes in convenient .pdf format…

Sorry, just couldn't resist

 

I am moving today and scanned some of it. Good stuff so I bookmarked it.

I have Patton's book, War as I knew it, his diary.

 

The Germans lost 75% of their land forces on the Eastern Front. I don't see how it's possible to say the Red Army didn't contribute the bulk of the defeat, at least in terms of the Wehrmacht.

The war was lost even before it began, the key to sustaining a German centric empire in Central and Eastern Europe was having access to the Caucuses oil supplies in Russian territory. Even if the Red Army was defeated, there is no possible way the Germans could have held on to the territory...it's too vast. Ask Napoleon about his attempt to conquer Russia.

It was the blueprint of a mad man, and for whatever reason...otherwise reasonable German citizens fell for it, they actually thought they were the ubermensch, the superior race destined to control the inferior races after exterminating 30 million Jews, Slavs and rid their society of homosexuals, the mentally ill and infirmed..

Look up Gerneralplan Ost.

Exterminating every single ethnic Jew in Central and Eastern Europe was only the beginning. Other phases included the genocide of 80% of the Poles, sparing those who exhibited Aryan traits...making Slavic peoples subservient to their Overlords...

Seriously...did they think this would work?

They didn't have the manpower to carry out this plan, Stalin had 34 million Soviets in reserve...motivated by one thought...

Kill the Germans.

 

lol ... In any case, here's a site that goes into some details on the minefields and casualties they inflicted on the German drives. Keep in mind they rely heavily on Soviet sources for numbers and stats, but it more or less gives a good idea of the preparations and Belt Defense system.

http://reocities.com/armysappersforward/kursk.htm


I scanned it briefly through the first half, but I didn't see it mentioned anywhere about the 800+ M3's,M4's, and British armor units in that pocket, just as the Soviets made no references to the 500+ British armor units that arrived in the nick of time to allow them to launch those 'winter counter-offensives' around Moscow they like to brag about, either, as is typical with Soviet versions of their war efforts, which of course claim the aid and Lend-Lease shipments were useless n stuff, the line most academics have just parroted endlessly for decades. At the time the Soviets were down to less than 500 tanks, having lost some 4,000 to the German invaders.

They also dismiss the effect of the western threat in the West that caused Hitler to withdraw divisions and aircraft from the eastern front at that critical time as well. They were completely out of the war without western aid, which makes the U.S. and Britain the primary cause of Hitler's defeat, not the Soviets. The tide had already turned months before Kursk and the first Soviet offensives ever left the trenches. The more that comes out, the more it becomes obvious. Some people just have serious emotional problems discarding comfortable old narratives they've memorized and vested in for decades and hate learning new ones, I guess.

 

A Marine we know said the main reason Germans were superior in WWII was due to the strength, unity and relative independence of each indivual squad. They weren't crippled waiting for orders coming from on high nor felt obligated to act stupidly. He was a Marine squad leader in the Helmann district of Afghanistan, where there was the most challenges and he followed that model for his squad. Whenever possible, they disregarded rules and directives he saw as pointless, foolish or counter productive. For example, having to wear Kelvar gloves on your shooting hand while in a potential or actual firefight was BS he and his squad did not comply with. They weren't a bomb disposal unit.

They were hunters. An ace college student, he instead joined the Marines for a specific reason. He grew up in the country and had hunted about every kind of animal there is to hunt. Within the legal context of war, he wanted the ultimate hunting experience. To hunt men, the enemy, armed and fully capable of fighting back. He treated his patrols - some which were extensive - as hunting expeditions. At first they had many engagements. Their response was not defensive, but always offensive.

However, after a while, no one would engage them and it became more difficult coaxing them out. His squad suffered no casualties or injuries. He said the insurgents couldn't shoot worth a damn, they just sprayed out bullets. Knowing the unlikelihood of getting hit by AK47 rounds being sprayed out from a few hundred yards away, in a sense they would use themselves as bait - to then know where the next enemy was. They then would use automatic fire to cause the enemy to hunker down, while the rest of the squad would flank them. He is one of the very few people I know if you dropped me with a rifle at one end of a woods and him at the other to hunt each other, it'd be all but certain he'd prevail. A natural hunter all his life, including understanding the prey. He was offered a significant promotion to re-enlist, but said the Marines have become so bureaucratic that it is just too intolerable and annoying.

Bureaucratically managed wars and battles is an inferior tactic. If Hitler had let the German military call the shots, the war could have gone quite differently. Near the end, the British did get a sniper team into the Wolf's Lair (Hitler's mountain retreat) dressed as SS, but were ordered not to kill Hitler at that time. They had decided that Hitler was totally incompetent and on borderline insanity and preferred fighting his decisions rather than decisions of the German military command.

This was particularly true with Hitler usually ordering the Germans to stand their ground even if that meant getting slaughtered, where the Germans were extremely skilled as successful retreating to new positions - causing huge ally casualities at each advance. Kill the enemy, pull back before overrun, kill the enemy, pull back was a particular ability of the Germans. Just standing ground against massively overwhelming forces is something no military can withstand. To be effective, the German military had to be flexible and mobile, where allies tended to be crippled in acting fast waiting for orders of on-high in only mass actions determined by distance commanders.

 

Kursk, oh yeah. Lessons learned or is it lessons not learned yet ?

I still see today even with professional soldiers and airmen who confuse "close air support" with "battlefield air interdiction." Two completely different types of actions.

 

The link does not work, help
Do you understand that a minefield alone is useless? It is a system that includes minefield (and minefield is the cheapest and simplest part) that stops enemy advance?

Googled Battle of Moscow (winter offensive)
By December 9th, British military mission reported that 90 British tanks are in action… Out of 1000 local?

Till 1941 USSR received vs produced
Artillery – 82 weapons 0.15% out of 53700 locally produced
Tanks – 648 12% out of 5400 locally produced
Airplanes – 915 or 10% out of 8200 locally produced
115 of 466 British tanks did not make it to the front lines in 1941…

I do not understand. You criticize people that unreasonably exaggerate Allied input in favor of USSR and it seems to me that you are doing absolutely the same in favor of US and England… What is exactly the difference between you people?

 

Works fine for me, but I'll paste it again, from when I clicked on the first one:

http://reocities.com/armysappersforward/kursk.htm

Your hero Putin probably has that site blocked from Russian innernutz users. Contact your local Pravda Commissar for better propaganda.

You misread the data, and yours is obviously old and inaccurate to boot.

http://www.historynet.com/did-russi...ase-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm

You do understand that the mines accounted for most of the disabled German armor, and forced those few who did make it through into narrow channels and prepared defensive positions, and at a very slow rate of advancing? And, the Soviets also continued to lay mines in front and behind as well. They were the major and critical factor in shutting down German offensives.

Soviet armor losses to German advances:

 

Pssst. There was no such thing as the Blitzkrieg. It literally didn't exist. German officers just did whatever they wanted. The Allied media didn't understand what they were doing so they just threw everything the Germans did under the blanket term of Blitzkrieg.

 

Ha Ha . And I was wondering who is that guy wearing Ushanka and a Balalaika loitering my house lately… It’s a KGB agent overlooking my internet activities!!! Though both cats like him, strange, they are British and they do not like humans much . Though he drank all my alcohol reserves, and his Mosin rifle lays all around when I do house cleaning… Those damn russkies
Nope, the link is not working, strange…

I have found the article that you refer to as a second link in Google page but I thought you would not like it as it starts with statement contradicting your own:
- That the Soviet victories of late 1941 were won with Soviet blood and largely with Soviet weapons is beyond dispute.
Think it is strange that you refer to it on the matter

But anyway.
The battle of Moscow consists of three stages(From Russian side) :
Defensive 30 Sept – 4th Dec
Counterattack 5th Dec – 7Jan 1942
Large offensive 7Jan 1942 – 20April 1942


Defensive 30 Sept – 4th Dec
Defensive operation was:
Western Front, Reserve Front, Bryansk front. Totaling 1044 tanks, apparently 90 of them are British. Kalinin front was formed from right wing of Western front, it was a separate force but it was created out of Western Front forces.
As you see from the article you have posted, by the end of Defensive operation, USSR has managed to engage 90 British tanks in action. 90 out of 1000. We can say that Russians have managed to stop Germans by themselves. Although, undoubtfully, Russians praised every tank they could use, and they are grateful for all support there is (all this is their Newspapers of the time with complete list of supplies received). In other words 10% is 10%. This is a lot as it is.

Counterattack 5th Dec – 7Jan 1942
Counterattack was feeded with reserves from the Far East which was moved in well, from the Far East, they had zero chances to be reinforced with British armor. Initially they wear a part of force designated to counter Japanese threat.
Western front has received three Far East armies 1st strike, 10th and 20th . 11 inf and cavalry divisions, 6 tank brigades and specialized forces. It was the Western front alone that numbered 774 tanks among them 200 heavy tanks. Not the entire defensive group of fronts. And they did not defend, this was only a part of counter attack group.

All out attack 7Jan 1942 – 20April 1942
All out attack period leaves some time to employ British armor at least partially (train crews, create reserves, move in the tanks by themselves). Total forces mowed from Far East is considered 1700 tanks (armor only). Total losses during all three operations are 4100 tanks. Among them British armor (photos available). A lot of Russian lives wear saved due to British support. But you cant say that British support was decisive. Well, no one does except you

If you do have any contradicting info – please provide. I also did not have much time to dig in…

 

I was adressing what somebody else who used the term. Take it up with them.

 

lol ... I'm suspicious of people that cats like. You should be, too ...

Might have something to do with those cats ...

Nobody said the Soviets didn't get slaughtered; they used human wave attacks throughout the war after all; that isn't the same as 'winning the war'; they would have been defeated without western aid and handouts, no matter how many of their people Stalin sent to be slaughtered. And, people paying homage to orthodoxy in contradiction to reality is common, and not really a point; it's obvious even in the article. There was other aid besides tanks, like ammo, etc. that weren't produced 'largely by the Soviets'.

They were however very good at producing land mines and anti-tank guns, and had some truly talented engineers at bridge-building, about their only unique strong points.

As you can see from the link, there 468 British tanks involved, not just '90'. Again you're misreading what is said.

Your own data contradicts that; see again the number of Soviet tanks available on all of the fronts.

I'm used to reading fantasy histories, so no problem; I don't care what 'most historians' say about anything, just the ones who are right. Same with economists and tax accountants.

I have other sources, but not being a full time astro-turfer poster, I usually don't feel it worth my while to type out entire chapters of books and studies, especially since there isn't much to contradict the new research that has come out in the last couple of decades that most people seem determined not read or analyse objectively. I also no longer have clearance and access to War College archives, either, which contain a lot of very detailed studies by highly critical analysts, and not just from Americans. But nobody has been able to seriously address what is available publicly, so that isn't much of problem anyway.

 

If the above link is still not working for some, here is the report; maybe it shows up elsewhere when Googled or something.

MINE AND COUNTERMINE OPERATIONS IN THE BATTLE OF KURSK

FINAL REPORT

25 APRIL 2000

Prepared for U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command,

Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate, under

Prime Contract DAAB07-96-D-H753, Subcontracts 116056-24695 and 116149-30898.

The principal analysts for this study effort were

Mr. Andrew Remson and Ms. Debbie Anderson

 

I see you are not really proficient with history documents
I will try to keep it as simple as possible

4th Dec 1941 – End of Defensive operation of Soviets
8th Dec 1941 – Hitler orders Wermacht to go defensive (if I am not mistaken with the date)
9th Dec 1041 - Brithish Mission in Moscow, reports 90 British tanks in action.

See? By the 9th of Dec, in time of Defensive operation, Soviets employed 90 British tanks in the field. Not 600, not 1000, not the majority, they employed 90. They have stopped Germans with wery little help from Britain. OK?

Well you are wrong in some places…
Soviet mines are not any much different from German or Allied, there is not much to invent.
ATG artillery was nothing much till production of 57mm was re-established, this gun could be called the best ATG of the war but in numbers it came late, personally I prefer the 88mm . In total in ATG field, it is Germans, than US and Brits, and Soviets are last.
T34 tank – unmatched, best tank of the war. IS2 – excellent machine.
Yak and La fighter family – excellent at low level, possibly the best, but only at low level. Though Soviets lagged behind Allied and Germans till 1944.
Field artillery was very good in general. Probably the best if you look at it as a system.
Sniper school techniques wear copied by Germans not the other way.
Front line missile system. SVT gun is considered as an ancestor of FN-FAL. Ah, there is a lot of good stuff achieved by Russikies. Only an idiot can think that best fighting force of ww2 can be stopped, crippled and defeated by human waves. Sorry…

Excelent read! Many thanks. But I do not understand the fuss about mines… but it will take some time to read it all .