How effective were German armament/vehicles in the early part of WW2?
Theres a thread on reddit about this, most upvoted answers are implying all the German equipment sucked and the only reason that Germany was able to make large gains was from dumb luck. I don't think that answer makes sense.
Were German tanks, aircraft, small arms much better than the opposition? What about the professionalism of the German military and its tactics?
>>30208381
They were certainly better in some aspects, but as the war went on they were drained of resources and production. Plus allies technology wasn't that far behind in some places, or even ahead in some.
Is 'german stuff was unreliable shit' a meme?
Seems like the stuff was the same as allied stuff but suffered from fuel shortages and replacement part trouble due to allied bombing more than the actual vehicles having drastically incorrectly made components.
German AFVs for the most part had wildly disproportionate kills to losses.
>>30208381
First of all, to get it out of the way
That said, German tanks at the start of the war were absolute garbage when compared to their competitors. Little armor, TIIIINY guns (they started the war with tanks whose main armament was either a machinegun or a 20mm autocannon, who were never desired to see combat, but instead be training tanks). They did have one key advantage, which was the cause of their success- each and every tank had a radio and their commanders were well trained. The advantages in maneuvering this gave led to all of Germany's victories in the early war. They outmaneuvered their opponents on the operational level. This was only possible due to the speed and coordination of its panzer divisions.
Their planes were pretty good. Infantry equipment was decent. Artillery was sufficient as well.
>>30208418
>Is 'german stuff was unreliable shit' a meme?
Yes, it is a meme, but there is truth behind it. The Big Cats did suffer rather large losses from operational causes. For just one example, take a look at the Panther's interleaved road wheels. A bit of mud gets between an inside and outside road wheel, it's going to have a bad time, especially if it freezes. Furthermore, it meant removing two road wheels to perform maintenance. Then you have the Pz IV, whose suspension was never meant to hold the weights it did. You get the picture.
>>30208381
>Were German tanks, aircraft, small arms much better than the opposition?
Not that much of a advantage over their enemy.
>What about the professionalism of the German military and its tactics?
Significant advantage over their enemy.
>>30208381
>Were German tanks, aircraft, small arms much better than the opposition?
There were advantages in some areas, but on paper German tanks were generally worse than those of the Allies (particularly French tanks). However, they were used more effectively (by being concentrated rather than spread out), and elements of their design (the multi-man turrets and radios) made them far more successful.
As far as aircraft go, it was a bit mixed. The Bf 109E series that was the mainstay of the Luftwaffe at the outbreak of war generally was better than anything else it encountered, and, while France and Britain did possess fighters that were on par with it, they were either too few in number or not deployed to the front. Their bombers were less impressive, with the Do 17 and later Ju 88 designed around the obsolete fast bomber concept and inadequately armed to defend themselves. Compared to the bombers of the RAF, the Luftwaffe's bombers generally had a shorter range and smaller payload capacity. Armament was inadequate, but so was the armament for most bombers at the time.
Really though, the Luftwaffe's success came from the same thing that made their tanks so successful - good doctrine and training. You could have switched the equipment of the Luftwaffe and Armee de l'Air for the war, and France still would have gotten their shit slapped.
And small arms are generally irrelevant on the strategic scale. As long as your guns kill whatever they're pointing at and you can build a lot of them, your small arms are good enough.
>>30208381
>How effective were German armament/vehicles in the early part of WW2?
Extremely effective, as evidence by them quickly defeating anybody and everybody until they got bogged down in Russia.
Firepower was on-par with other nations at the time, (20mm-47mm guns) as was armor (with the exception of French tanks, which were more heavily armored) but the critical advantage the Germans had, was the layout of their tanks with each of the crew members having a limited specific duty, in particular a tank commander who didn’t have to load or fire the main gun as in other tanks of the time. In addition, the Germans attempted to have both receiver and transmitter radios in all tanks, allowing coordination between tanks within the platoon and with high command.
Finally and most importantly, the Germans developed effective combined arms tactics and unburdened their tanks from having to stick with slow plodding infantry units, allowing them wreck havoc behind enemy lines once a break-thru happened.
>>30209780
I'd argue that their equipment wasn't really all that ground breaking (and in many aspects was actually sub-par), but their doctrine was what made them so effective.
>>30208418
>german AFVs for the most part had wildly disproportionate kill claims to losses
ftfy
Germany weaponry for the most part was sub par the best of their opponents but break even or a little bit better than the average.
The Char bis shit all over your average German tank but Renault 17 tanks from WW1 were the most common tank in the French armed forced by the outbreak of war. Even their replacement, the R 35 which was a decent improvement, was only fielded in a strength of 765 at the start of the war and it was roughly on par with the Pz III in a lot of aspects.
And the Char bis, although well armed, well armored and well put together suffered from design flaws, namely it being a two man turret giving it extremely poor situational awareness, and French tank doctrine in general was the biggest problem they had, it being a defensive, WWI oriented doctrine of how tanks should be used and deployed.
The KV-1 and T-34 were heads and shoulders above German tanks but the average tank the Russians were using were BT-5s at the time of Barbarossa.
By and large German equipment especially in the form of armor was pisspoor, but so was the average of their opponents, and superior training and doctrine helped them with the small number of significantly better vehicles they had to face.
In the air they had a distinct hardware advantage in the early war though. Not until the RAF got its shit together with later Spitfire and Hurricane designs did they achieve parity or superiority in aircraft designs. The bf109 was a very solid aircraft and very few competing aircraft of the time could compete on even footing. The Dewontine was good but only around 300 were fielded before France capitulated.
>>30208452
Shows over people, go home.
>>30210014
The FT-17s were mostly out of usage by the French. Only a couple battalions got reequipped with them as a last ditch effort. Thus, the average French tank was substantially better than your average German tank. The Pz IIIs weren't out in numbers quite yet.
>>30210096
>a couple
You mean eight?
People like to say French tanks were better, but they had less than 400 Char bis. There were over 2000 panzer IIs in the early part of the war.
What is the point in saying the French tanks had better armor and firepower if the end result was that they really sucked?
>>30210307
It was partially the German difficulty dealing with French heavy tanks that lead them to desire things like the Tiger. And then the German heavies fell to the same fault the French ones did: there wasn't enough of them to counter higher numbers of enemy armor and the systems to maintain them fell apart.
Thing like the Char B1 and Tiger are phenomenal to have when going tank vs tank against earlier Pz's or T-34s. The problems with heavy tanks arise when you take things from the tactical level to the strategic one.
>>30210116
Yep. Not many at all, after they had already lost their equipment.
>>30210440
Eight battalions is a lot of tanks, guy.
>>30208381
Germany rushed into war preparation ahead of its opponents (all but bankrupting itself in the process), whose own rearmament plans were developed with projections that war would begin in 1941 or 1942.
Had the French and British had the confidence and rudimentary preparedness to attack Germany during its Blitz against Poland the war would have been over by 1940.
It was the phony war that literally created the true threat, and the subsequent easy victories in the rest of Europe meant they gained control of an entire continent's resources. This is where the Nazi war machine we know came from.
German equipment at the beginning of the war was often on the poor side of average but they compensated for it with good training, teamwork and aggression.
>>30210450
Not really, no. Especially not when you consider the size of the French armored force. At the start of the war, France had 21 battalions of R35s.
>>30210307
The R35 and S35 were "superior" to the German tanks, with the noted exception of the commander and radio. Obviously that was enough to be the advantage.
>>30208381
Later war tanks suffered from mechanical problems due to rushed production, lower grade/ more brittle steel (due to a shortage of mineral resources) as well as some tanks being too heavy for their engines and/or tracks (which broke often due to the lower grade steel used).
>>30210494
Of course I forgot the H35 as well. Too many -35 designations, sorry.
>>30208381
>Were German tanks, aircraft, small arms much better than the opposition?
Much better? Not particularly.
What mattered more was how they employed them. For example, French tanks were considered second to none and were generally very well regarded, the Char B1 for instance had great armor and armament for its time, but the Germans negated that advantage entirely with their doctrine and tactics they employed.
>>30208381
The Czech stuff they took was far superior to anything they fielded in the early war.
>>30210798
A lot of it remained superior even later in the war. Of all the artillery they brought to bear at Sevastopol, for example, it was the Czech guns that did most of the heavy lifting. All the German artillery was either too small to get the job done or massive meme pieces that couldn't hit shit.
Ironically enough, both Germans and Soviets collaborated before the rise of Hitler. Secret research and production facilities were created in the Soviet Union to bypass the Treaty of Versailles limitations.
Officer training sites where the core Tactics, doctrines and strategies of both the Red Army and the Wehrmacht were also built. Training for pilots, training for tank crews etc.
>>30208381
They had good mobility, line of sight, and communication equipment. Turns out these were far more relevant than your STR and DEF stats.
>>30208418
It's more like "krauts can't into infostructure" problem. The allies content bombing raped thier ability to transport parts to the front. So a compare blessed mechanical problem that would cripple a german tank, wouldn't brick an allied one for long
>>30211790
>infostructure
It's so sad when people try to sound smart but fuck up so badly.
>>30208381
Panzers I and II were mostly shit, however the nazis were lucky and captured the Czech LT-35/38 as others pointed out, which were perhaps the best light tanks in the world at the time. The Panzer III and IV, while undergunned and not very well-armored were mobile, had adequate crew space, a commander's cupola, radio equipment, and an efficient turret layout.
Then there was the Luftwaffe which, aside from the Soviets, had been the only air force in Europe to gather significant doctrinal advances in the past years from the Spanish civil war. Their experiences with attackers, dive bombers and most importantly fighter tactics proved invaluable in forming the Blitzkrieg myth.
Then they rested a little on their successes and development of new arms got complicated with all the brass and nepotism in the nazi leadership, which might explain why they were so lagging behind in key factors until more advanced arms came mid- to late war.
>>30208381
They had a knack for outflanking and encircling, but no, their guns weren't allocate great. The 7.5 cm guns that caused so much damage weren't a thing until mid war and they didn't start getting it on vehicles until late 42 to mid 43.
That said, they were better in some regards than Slavshit and most early war Bongmobiles, but around mid war the Bongs had parity, the Burgers were gaining supremacy, and the Slavs were drowning them in men and machines with something near enough to parity to get the job done.
>>30208381
>How effective were German armament/vehicles in the early part of WW2?
You could put it this way: It's better to have a tank with 30mm of armor and a 37mm gun with a three man turret, a cupola and a radio than it is to have a tank with with armor twice as thick and a gun twice as powerful with none of those things.
>>30213432
If only the pz3a didn't have that shit gun handling it'd be as fun as the pz38t
>>30208381
Stop blaming reddit for you being wrong.
They're right, German tech and "professionalism" was overrated. Their early gains were a mix of their opponents being incompetent, luck, and surprise.
This is obviously a crypto-/pol/ thread where we're supposed to just masturbate to muh wehrmacht. But fortunately there's some actual informed answers in this thread
>>30214142
So you're saying they were superior to their opponents in a different wording? Great contribution to the discussion brother. The rest of what you said is completely bullshit btw. The Germans didn't unexpectedly attack anyone really. The way they executed the attack was the surprising part. Which means they had superior leadership and tactics early on.
What's the best book I can get that details the development of most German armor, including paper designs? I especially want to see the Panzer IV development and Tiger development
>>30214202
They did surprise attack the Soviets and the Poles.
Poles never got to mobilize before they ran out of space to trade. The Soviets had tons of space to trade, and once they got their shit together, thrashed the Wehrmacht.
The germans were fantastically effective on the tactical scale, then increasingly inept as the scale of the conflict expanded.
Their strategy was just "win every tactical battle, then win the war". Once they stopped winning tactical battles, they lost. Everything about the German war machine outside of the combat arms was complete trash
> trash war production
> trash logistics
> trash intelligence
> trash counter intelligence
> trash high command
> trash operational planning
>>30216095
But their uniforms are so spiffy :(
>>30216057
http://www.amazon.com/Germanys-Tiger-Tanks-D-W-Modifications/dp/0764310380
Jentz and Doyle are what want. Nothing else comes close in as being well researched and detailed.
>>30208418
Well they still haven't learned how to make a reliable gearbox or diesel that doesn't gas you like a Jew in the shower, so no.
Early-war german tanks had little going for them other than mobility. If I'm not mistaken, Panzer Is, Panzer IIs, and a limited number of Panzer IIIs partook in the very first western german offensives. None of these tanks, even the 37mm cannon armed Panzer IIIs, were that capable of fighting the French armor of the time. Believe it or not, but the French were known to have some of the world's most advanced tank designs at the time, and their armor and armaments were nothing to joke at.
Two things made German advances in the early-war a success, radios, crew training. The radio was Germany's best, most important weapon. Every tank would utilize one, allowing for complex maneuvers to be performed with large teams of tanks, flanking and outmaneuvering other formations. Enemy armor the Germans were too weak to fight could simply be skirted around, or flanked for an easy victory.
The commander had his own designated role in the tank in most models of armor at the time. He could focus entirely on giving orders and viewing his surroundings while the Driver, gunner, loader, and radioman performed their own duties. I believe the Panzer I and Panzer II had combined roles for some crew members, but this really showed in the Panzer III.
German tank design became archaic quickly. Instead of sloping their designs' armor, they kept it stepped and simply slapped more on the flat angled parts. Suspension designs were rarely changed either, leading to largely overweight and mechanically unreliable vehicles. I also believe Hitler truly thought the 50mm long-barrel cannons were all that tanks needed to fight enemy vehicles, which was untrue. As soon as the M3 Lees, and later on the Shermans, began showing up in Africa, German armor was totally outclassed, save for maybe a few minute areas in design. Germany's enemies had switched to sloped armored, 75mm cannons, radio equipped vehicles, with designated commanders, and Germany was left in the dust.
>>30216107
Thanks mate!
>>30210014
> The Char bis shit all over your average German tank
De Gaulle, please.
The ONLY advantage French tanks had over the Germans was heavier (though not invulnerable) armor.
The Char B1 in particular was a shitty tank; outdated design from the last war, tank commander also has to load and fire gun, driver (?!) has to aim other gun, radio operator has load gun, slow as fuck and unreliable as fuck.
>>30209896
5 shermans killed for a tiger
or was it 10
or 50?
I forget
>>30208452
>Little armor, TIIIINY guns (they started the war with tanks whose main armament was either a machinegun or a 20mm autocannon, who were never desired to see combat, but instead be training tanks).
it wasn't that terrible. the p38t was actually a decent tank at the start of the war and carried the german up to the early stage of Barbarossa
>>30216095
The German attack on SU wasn't really a surprise to anyone. The Soviet military just sucked dick at that point in time.
>>30216265
>radio operator has load gun
It got a loader for that, it's a 4-men tank. Loader that also loads the 47mm in the turret.
The rest of the post is of the same ilk. Do some research next time.
>>30216768
It was the best tank on the german side, but it's a czech design.
Its low maintenance requirements (a third of the Pz.III requirements) allowed for most breakthroughs during the blitzkrieg.
>>30216768
They didn't have many 38ts at the start
>>30208418
>>30208381
>Were German tanks, aircraft, small arms much better than the opposition? What about the professionalism of the German military and its tactics?
The german designs were unsuited for the conditions but far from inferior.
This became apparent on the eastern front where relatively few tanks were expected and/or that the germans would be able to capture or cripple most production sites.
This was also reflected in anti armour capabilities as anti tank rifles were still issued and in the light of the russian counter offensive mostly refitted as genade launchers making them pretty collectable.
The unreliability is a no brainer when you have no infrastructure to supply spare parts and the tank crews have to improvise but earlier production did not suffer from those shortages.
In general you can sum it up as the russians having had the best tanks by cost/effectivity, the british having the best aircraft engines (Mustang) and the americans having the best small arms with the M1.
The germans however were only able to compete because of their brilliant strategists as everyone worth mentioning was pitched against them. Arguably Hitler fucked it up by constantly interfering with the planning of his generals and trying to get Churchil back to the table. Sure some ideas he had were pretty nice like the flaktowers that to this day tower over vienna but shit like that long range artillery bunker that could only target england that they tried to build in france during airraids or the heavy gustav were just moronic.
