The Soviet Union was able to, thanks to its enormous strategic depth, establish an industrial base far from Germany's military strike capability. The United Kingdom was able to keep her factories running at home, and had a vast colonial empire to supply her and her allies with raw materials. The United States had an industrial base entirely untouched throughout all of the war. Germany, on the other hand, had terrible troubles with her supply lines both for her military and for her industry, and failed to totally mobilize her industry in the way that the USA or USSR did, since doing so would be to admit the war wasn't going well to the German population.
Manpower
Germany and Italy picked a fight with what essentially amounted to the rest of Europe as well as the USSR. Germany had, at 1/1/1939, about 70 million people. The United Kingdom had 48 million. The USA? 131 million. The USSR? 168.5 million. Population alone, that's 347 million people against a nation of 70 million. And even considering that a nation cannot ever afford to simply arm every citizen to fling them into a war, that still leaves Germany vastly outmatched in terms of manpower. Wars are won not so much on how much you destroy, but on if you can destroy faster than they can replenish.
Technology
Now, bear with me here. Germany's military technology ranged anywhere between previous century (KAR98, for example) to bleeding-edge advanced (Such as the STG-44 and ME262). This was, however, a bit of a problem for them. We'll take the Panzer IV and the Panzer VI (The Tiger) as an example. The Panzer IV was Germany's signature medium tank: Solid, reliable, acceptable performance in all regards. Considered better than the USA's Sherman tank, but it wasn't a total out-class of the Sherman. The Tiger was a beast, it could take plenty of hits from a Sherman and destroy it at leisure. It also took an insane amount of time to build, approximately twice as long as a Panzer IV, so instead of 2 acceptable tanks, you have one 'good' tank. One plagued by chronic fuel shortages, breakdowns, and similar issues. By comparison, the Sherman was such a simple machine there are stories of tankers literally using rocks to beat parts back into shape to repair them. On a per-month basis, Germany's best rate of building Tiger tanks was a rate of 104 per month. The USA built, per month, 1,419 Shermans. German technology was powerful, but not quite what I'd call proven.
Strategic capabilities
The German blitzkrieg doctrine called for a high level of air support working very closely with ground units, and bombers to pummel forces a little beyond the front lines in advance of ground forces attacking. This works, on a tactical level, extremely well. It works so well, in fact, the USA took the concept and refined it for today's conventional battles. But it's only that: A tactical doctrine. World War 2 called for strategic level attacks as well, in particular the Air War persecuted by the RAF's Bomber Command and the US 8th Air Force, using long range bombers to destroy the enemy's industrial capabilities. Germany had no bombers able to reach deep into the USSR's territory to destroy factories, power plants, stockpiles, and the like, as it was assumed the Blitzkrieg would advance rapidly enough that such targets would not be beyond range for very long. The US, USSR, and UK, on the other hand, had the ability to reach into Germany and strike at her centers of industry.
Leadership
I'm not even talking about the generals, as Germany in particular had some outstanding and brilliant generals fighting for her. I'm talking about Hitler himself. Both Hitler and Stalin adopted what essentially became a "No Retreat Ever" stance on the war, even if the practical situation of the battle dictated a retreat would be a wise and sound decision. This lead to countless avoidable and wasted deaths on the part of both the USSR and Germany. The USSR was better able to replace these losses (See item 2, manpower.) By comparison, Eisenhower and Churchill were cautious and not particularly prone to throwing lives and material away on lost causes simply to save face.
Brutality
Germany, in her darkest days in history, made a science of it. The Soviet Union made an art of it. The approach of the German military, in particular the SS, was to try to essentially brutalize captured populations into submission. This worked against them in France and Ukraine in particular. In France, it is difficult to judge if the Resistance would have had quite the numbers it did if Germany did not seek revenge for the Treaty of Versailles, but in Ukraine it is less vague. The Ukrainians initially welcomed the German military as their saviors, who would at last deliver them from the iron fist of the Soviet Union. They greeted the German military with the sort of enthusiasm that one saw from the French upon the Allied landings on Normandy and the Liberation of Paris. The Germans squandered this, however. Ukrainians, like Russians, were essentially considered sub-human by the Reich, and treated accordingly. This brutality turned the Ukrainians against them, leading to the formation of resistance groups that harassed the Germans at every opportunity, much as the French Resistance did.
Logistics
This one, above all others, is perhaps the single most glaring weakness of the Third Reich's military. The British, American, and Soviet militaries generally used trucks and halftracks at every turn. Hollywood would have one believe the Germans did the same. Unfortunately for the Reich (And fortunately for the world) their logistics relied heavily on this:
That's a horse-drawn cart. Trucks were reserved for the most critical of supplies and were in constant shortage throughout the war. This worked against them for two reasons: The first is simple. A truck is faster, more reliable, and can handle a heavier load. The second was less simple. Which is a more inviting target for aircraft on patrol; a cart drawn by horses, or a truck? Guarantee you that a pilot told to patrol and harass enemy convoys will strafe the truck if given the choice, every time. This lead to those critical supplies being the subject of constant harassment by both aircraft and resistance forces.
That's all I've got for this one. Hope it helps. Any questions, plop a comment and I'll answer if I'm able.
Read other answers by Daniel Holland on Quora:
- Is it true that the Germans are considered to have been the best soldiers of World War II?
- Is it fair to compare the war on the Eastern Front (between the Russians and the Germans) with the war in the Pacific (between the Americans and the Japanese) in terms of ferocity, and lack of concern for the Geneva conventions?
- What did the German soldiers of WWII think of British, US, Canadian, and Soviet soldiers?
from Quora http://ift.tt/2a8uT2D
No comments:
Post a Comment