How did the Germans do it?

[GaryChildress]

Why were German casualties apparently almost always less than those of their opponents in most battles in WW2? Was it better training? Better leadership? Better equipment? A combination of the fore mentioned or some other factor(s)?

[zakblood]

A combination of all i'd guess

[sullafelix]

There are several books by Dupuy that go into the mathematics of German abilities over the Allies.

It has been awhile, but I believe he worked it to 30%.

He also states the various reasons he believes was the reason behind it.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: sulla05

There are several books by Dupuy that go into the mathematics of German abilities over the Allies.

It has been awhile, but I believe he worked it to 30%.

He also states the various reasons he believes was the reason behind it.

Interesting. Do you happen to remember any of the reasons he gave?

[Poopyhead]

The opponents the Germans faced were each deluded into complacency by their own strategies. All were negatively affected by the carnage of WW I.

The Polish pinned their defense on action by England and France. After Hitler took over the remaining Czech state, the Poles had too long of a border to defend until the Allies arrived. The Molotov-Ribbentropp sealed Poland's fate.

The French spent most of their defense efforts on the Maginot Line. For the same price, they could have built more armored Divisions than the Germans possessed.

The English thought that long range bombers would win any war. IIRC, Hobart refused to use these aircraft to close the gap in the Atlantic with patrols to spot U-boats. This nearly allowed the U-boats to starve the U.K. while Bomber Command was dropping their loads on empty German fields at night.

Stalin had created an enormous military, but he then distrusted it's leadership. His paranoid purge decapitated the army that might have protected the Soviet Union. Stalin ran the state and thought he could run the army.

The U.S. was the arsenal of Democracy. So we produced 24k obsolete Stuart tanks and even more Shermans long after these were also behind the power curve. Adm King stubbornly refused to use convoys on the east coast, allowing the U-boats to have a "happy time". I hardly think that the Allied merchantmen that were dying were happy to hear that we were building Liberty ships faster than the U-boats were sinking them.

Essentially, and fortunately, the world's three great industrial powers, the U.K., U. S. and USSR crushed the Germans with numbers.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

The U.S. was the arsenal of Democracy. So we produced 24k obsolete Stuart tanks and even more Shermans long after these were also behind the power curve.

Nicholas Moran says otherwise. Did you know USA forces in Korea replaced new Pershings with old Shermans becouse Pershings [edit] broke down frequently like Panthers?

[Poopyhead]

The Sherman was a fine tank...in 1942 when it showed up in North Africa. Then it stayed the same tank until the end of the war, so that we could produce a lot of them. Some were finally upgraded to the E8 with the British 76.2 mm gun and some extra armor. Yes it was able to drive for long hours without breaking. However the rubric for tanks, armor, firepower and mobility, were not met with the Sherman.

One Tiger stopped a column of Canadian Shermans from taking Caan.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

Some were finally upgraded to the E8 with the British 76.2 mm gun

Where did you got that info from? Show me your source.

[Poopyhead]

My reference would be the 100+ books I've read on WW II, but here is a link to an E8 Sherman:

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Tank:M4A3E8_Sherman

Less than 10% of the Shermans were upgraded to E8's.

[sullafelix]

It was called and "easy8: and was able to knock out even Tigers.

[Jagdtiger14]

Personally I like the M18 Hellcat in the US arsenal. Nice gun, 55mph.

[Gilmer]

I think I read in the book D-Day that the Germans would have their mortars sighted in on their own trenches, so that when they retreated, the attackers (British, Canadians, and Americans) if they used the same trenches, they caught holy hell from the German mortars.

I'm sure they had plenty of little tricks like that to cause as many casualties as possible.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

My reference would be the 100+ books I've read on WW II, but here is a link to an E8 Sherman:

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Tank:M4A3E8_Sherman

Let's see...

It also has an upgraded 76mm gun

Nothing about 76,2mm nor nothing about british

Does anyone in here know about Sherman E6?

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead

My reference would be the 100+ books I've read on WW II, but here is a link to an E8 Sherman:

http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Tank:M4A3E8_Sherman

Let's see...

It also has an upgraded 76mm gun

Nothing about 76,2mm nor nothing about british

Does anyone in here know about Sherman E6?

What was the Firefly?

[sullafelix]

Firefly was a British Sherman equipped with a 17pounder gun.

This was even a better gun than the 76mm.

[sullafelix]

The main points of Dupuy were about training and mission oriented objectives, the latter which is standard now in all armies.

The German word is Auftragstaktik. Literally you are given an objective and a time frame and the troops and you are on your own to come up with your own plan of attack. Instead of following some rigid plan.

The officers and NCOs of the German army were also trained two levels above their grade, at least that is what I remember.

Dupuy said that was why German troops that should have fallen apart, say after the intense bombing of Caen, didn't.

[Fallschirmjager]

From late 1941 onwards the Wehrmacht was on the defensive a majority of the time except for some offensive actions both major and minor.
In that era of technology, weapons still favored the defender and the Germans were experts at preparing defensive areas with mines, machine guns, mortars and earthworks.
When the Germans were on the offensive after 1941 they were cut down like wheat in almost every instance.

Attacking that area meant a lot of casualties and the Allied armies were on the offensive almost always due to Germany having taken such a large swath of Europe from 1939 to 1941.

[Capt. Harlock]

Why were German casualties apparently almost always less than those of their opponents in most battles in WW2? Was it better training? Better leadership? Better equipment? A combination of the fore mentioned or some other factor(s)?

I think the general answer is that when the Germans were attacking, they were usually against unprepared, less well equipped, and/or less trained troops. By the time both sides had the experience and the updated kit, the Germans were often on the defensive, and defenders can generally inflict more casualties on the attackers.

This is not an iron-clad rule, of course, but then there were also cases where the Germans suffered considerably more casualties than their opponents. (e.g. Falaise Gap)

[Mobeer]

ORIGINAL: sulla05

Firefly was a British Sherman equipped with a 17pounder gun.

This was even a better gun than the 76mm.

To confuse matters, the 17-pounder in the Sherman Firefly was a British 76.2mm gun. The 77mm in the Comet was also a (different) British 76.2mm gun.

[marcpennington]

Keep in mind German casualty figures are a bit suspect. One major source (*which I am forgetting the exact name of at the moment, but hope to place in here shortly), argues compellingly that military casualties were under-reported while civilian ones exaggerated.

And as far as equipment goes, Valery Zamulin in his book "Demolishing the Myth" on the Battle of Kursk talks of how the Germans would not count a tank as destroyed even if it was basically a smoking husk and being sent by train to Germany to supposedly be repaired (but obviously really turned into scrap metal. )