The "myth" of superior German equipment?

[Fallschirmjager]

One thing that has not been mentioned is that in the latter half of the war the Germans fought on the defensive almost exclusively and this led to some impressive unit records.

[Ronald Wendt]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

Does anybody know in what way allied artillery was better than the German?

More accurate?

Better logistics?

-

Numbers and the range also mattered. Russia produced over 100.000 pieces of the ZiS-3 alone. That was half of the Axis total artillery and the Russians had more models.
And then again doctrines and tactics were decisive to make that advantage effective.

Maybe this is interesting:

Productions on Wikipedia

Even though there are some figures you can argue about the message is still correct.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: sulla05
The reason that German equipment was " better " was that the German idea was to make weapons that were better and capable of surviving during the war. The Allied thought process was that quantity and ease of manufacturing outweighs quality. The Germans knew that it would be one tank of theirs against 5-10 of the Allies and were building them to win in those instances.

Actually they didn't know that. They estimated wrong. At the beginning of the war they thought that the Soviets had them at a 3:1 advantage in guns and tanks. But thought a high percent were obsolete. In reality the Soviets had them at a 6:1 advantage and a good percentage were better.

[Terminus]

Not when Barbarossa kicked off. Then, only the T-34 was "better", and the human element was catastrophically bad on all levels.

[decaro]

Slightly off-topic, but when war games model equipment, how can they depict equipment in various states of disrepair?

For example, PG would limit the range of German heavy tanks to compensate for the fact that a good percentage of them were not always fully operational.

So though technically an Axis tank may be superior to its Allied counterpart as far as specs, it may not always be availble for duty, and a superior but broken-down tank is usually no match for an inferior one still in working condition.

[sullafelix]

I was talking about the better German tanks ie second and third generation and some other weapons. If you read about German production and their ideas behind it you will see.

[Shawkhan]

A myth is not based on facts. If one looks at each individual item of equipment, piece by piece you can make a comparison that is valid on a tactical level. At a strategic level, quantity comes into its own as the Stalin quote reminds us.
There is little doubt that certain German weapons were superior to their allied counterparts on a one to one basis.
The MG 42, the Panther tank, the Me-262 and the stg44 despite what Patton said about the M-1 Garand, were superior to anything the allies possessed. The Germans simply didn't have enough of them, and thanks to Germany's policy of usng slave labor, quality control wasn't very good either. And don't get me started on the 88, by far the most battlefield dominating weapon of WWII.

[ezzler]

No one has asked the important question.
Is the Tie Advanced Interceptor, better than the X-wing?

{Lucas said he modelled Star wars on Axis/allied. That's why the Imperials have cooler stuff.  Better uniforms, Armoured elephant walkers, Stormtroopers instead of Teddy bears.. And that's what the original question was about I think. Is Axis stuff 'superior' because it looks better. }

Lucas liked the way Nazi equipment had hard lines, whilst allied had soft. It doesn't always work, but he meant

Helmets - coal scuttle to allied tin hat
Grenades - stick to pineapple
Jackboots- to ankle puttees
PZ square hull/turret - Crusader/Sherman
109 -spitfire
Stuka - Fairey Battle
88 - 25 pdr
Me262 -P-51

Sure, it can be done the other way, but you must admit, he had a good eye, and in general, its a good observation.

[Cyber Me]

The Germans used combined arms very successfully at the start of the war and blitzkreig gave them a doctrinal advantage that took their enemies a long time to catch up. But blitzkreig wasn't flawless and the German's early victories hid some of their errors until it was too late for the generals to correct. Also the Germans planned for a short war which lead to them being totally unprepared to fight large numbers of enemy armies and machines and planes.
The biggest difficulty though was that Hitler promised his generals and admirals that the war would start in 1942. So when the war started in Sept 1939 many of the German's weapons were not superior to their enemies', and barely equal. Like Mk I, Mk II, virtually no Mk III or IV. Do 17 and He 111 has front line bombers. But blitzkreig doctrine with radios gave them enough edge to overcome their early enemies- who were using WWI doctrine and often deployed on the wrong part of the front. In the air the Germans had the advantage of flying in four aircraft formations that gave them a greater flexibly over the vic-formations of Allies. The navy built the big ships first thinking they had enough time to finish them and then begin the U-boat construction after the capital ships. But with the war starting in 1939 the navy was caught out with only 57 subs- and most of these were old types and training models. This short coming wasn't 20 per cent of the force Donitz had judged to be the minimum needed for victory in the Atlantic. (Also a lack of co-operation between Luftwaffe and navy lead to an acute shortage of search planes flying over the Atlantic or flying CAP over subs traversing the Bay of Biscay.)
These short-comings caused the Germans to wage the war without a sufficient reserve of weapons, ammo, and trained specialists like pilots. And minor set-backs caused the Germans delays in their campaigns and eventually forced onto the defence.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

I think it's a mixed bag...in part the myth has been exagerated ...

Like the myth of the German scientist, although different Allied factions raced to capture these researchers for themselves at the end of the war.

Touche'

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

I think it's a mixed bag...in part the myth has been exagerated ...

Like the myth of the German scientist, although different Allied factions raced to capture these researchers for themselves at the end of the war.

Touche'

And where is this relevant quote from?

David Jones: The Russians put our camera made by *our* German scientists and your film made by *your* German scientists into their satellite made by *their* German scientists.

Bonus points if you know the ID of "David Jones".

[reg113]

Ice Station Zebra

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: reg113

Ice Station Zebra

We have a winner!

[Alfred]

Some German equipment was better than the equivalent Allied equipment.
Some German equipment was inferior to the equivalent Allied equipment.
Some German equipment was inferior to the equivalent equipment of other Axis countries.
Some German equipment simply failed to do the job it was designed for.

It is a myth to simply say German equipment was superior full stop.

Alfred

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: reg113

Ice Station Zebra

Dang, I haven't seen that movie in a long time.

[06 Maestro]

There is another aspect to the OP assumption; what could have been/should have been made available to the Wermacht at earlier dates. For instance, the high velocity 50mm gun for PZ Mk III's. In late '38 PZ commanders (generals) were pushing for the 50mm tank gun. It was not chosen due to input by the QM General-the argument being that the infantry were being fully equipped with the 37mm already and there was a need to standardized ammo requirements. Hitler came up with the compromise the the new tank would be equipped with the37mm gun but the turret would be modified to be compatible with the 50mm at some later date-if needed.

The result of the above situation was that Germany entered the war with an average main tank. It could have entered the war with a very superior tank. The weapon was available, it was in production (for corps AT Bn's) and could have been utilized as those with the knowledge wanted. With one little decision going the other way, the battle for North Africa would certainly have turned out much different-there would be little discussion as to who had superior equipment. Although the different gun would not have had such a great impact during Barbarossa, it certainly would have made things much easier for German tank forces.

Another silly part of the above situation is that when the order came to re-equip the MkIII's (in mid 1940) with the 50MM gun, the wrong one was installed. You can take your pick as to the reason, a general misunderstanding instruction, Hitler bumbling his sentence, or perhaps a high level clerical error-I don't know if it was ever pinned down as to what went wrong. The bottom line is that what would have been a vastly superior tank for the first 18 months of the war was not properly armed until 2.5 years into the war. By mid '42 is was clear that the Mk III was rapidly becoming useless.

The above situations were played out in other area's as well-especially regarding aircraft-not even considering the lost possibilities of jet aircraft which Germany did in fact have an impressive lead in.

I read somewhere, perhaps true, that German manufacturing companies were controlled by designer/engineer types whereas the western Allied manufacturing CEO's were more of the production type manager. It seems that there is some truth in this. Germany had fully developed over 40 new a/c during the war-while the US created about 10 IIRC. The number and superiority of the new German designs are impressive. However, the reality is that effort was a horrible waste-one that could not be afforded. All the development took a/c plant space that could have been used for production. The time involved for a new design was also much longer than to simply improve existing types-more waste.

Germany was lacking the organization that was prevalent in the Allied nations that was required to make sound decisions as to just what to invest in. The result was an impressive amount of stuff that was not ever even put into production-some of it was foolish anyway.

Germany did have a clear superiority in some areas. However, that does not mean that all their equipment was better. The Allies developed the weapons that they knew would win the war; superior long range fighter, the proximity fuse for AA, sonar, early development of radar, excellent trucks and so on. On average, I think the western Allies would have to get the prize for superior and useful technologies.

About the US Army artillery; I am under the impression that it was the "best" during WW2. It was not that the guns were better or crews better trained. It had to do with the amount of time that artillery could be brought to bear on demand. This was not always a case of all the guns a commander could want being present, but a very good flow of information from recon, forward observers and tactical intelligence. There were several cases of planned German attacks blown to bits-before they had a chance to leave their assembly area's. Of course, during several battles the amount of ammo available was astounding-even for battle hardened veterans.

[Keunert]

another thing about production: if if the german designs would have been a bit more simple, how much more tanks and airplanes would they have produced? with a gdp roughly 40% of the allied one i guess the only way was to attack early and knock out allied economies fast. waiting for 1942 would probably just made everything even harder.

[DTurtle]

I'd say it comes down to the impression that the Germans looked at the war on an operational/tactical level, while the Allies looked at the war on a strategic level.

And in a six year war fought with millions of soldiers on both sides, incorporating a massive part of the economy in the war effort, etc it is clear which of the two is the correct and superior view.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: DTurtle

I'd say it comes down to the impression that the Germans looked at the war on an operational/tactical level, while the Allies looked at the war on a strategic level.

Hitler planned on a short war. Which meant that to him, the strategic was less important.

When it became a long war, the Germans were sure to lose.

The Japs too had planned a short war.
-

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Lützow

German uniforms were tailored by Hugo Boss. [:D]

Ah, here's a 1933 ad from Hugo Boss (found in wikipedia).