German military perfection ww2 - when?

I've often wondered in what period oF WW2 did the german army come closest to military prowess - as in the effective use of its men on the field of battle. These are some of the campaigns i thought that they came closest.
41 operation barbarossa - center army/ invasion of the balkans before the attack on the USSR 1941/kursk 43/ defending Normandy 44

 

a) victory against a surprised and completely disorganised enemy, ground to a halt in front of Moscow and rolled back by a large counter-offensive.
b) victory against a surprised, inferior and disorganised enemy in the mid of a coup
c) objectives not achieved; 9th Army stopped dead after a dozen miles penetration, 4th Pz army veered off course and ground to a halt. Suffered a massive counter-offensive that drove it way back
d) Normandy not defended, the Allies only stopped on German soil.

 

a) victory against a surprised and completely disorganised enemy, ground to a halt in front of Moscow and rolled back by a large counter-offensive.
b) victory against a surprised, inferior and disorganised enemy in the mid of a coup
c) objectives not achieved; 9th Army stopped dead after a dozen miles penetration, 4th Pz army veered off course and ground to a halt. Suffered a massive counter-offensive that drove it way back
d) Normandy not defended, the Allies only stopped on German soil.

you are missing the point i know these were all defeats..im talking about at operational level.
a frozen supplied strapped army still able to poss a threat to moscow - was not completey routed/ nearly penatrated on the southern front a kursk mile upon mile of field fortifications/ was able to contain an army that had complete air control in the normandy countryside for nearly two month. i referring to the operational level in field tactics ( in both offensive and defensive operations)

 

If you are so convinced of the Truth why are you asking?

Even so maybe it will be me at fault, as being a non-native English speaker I am having some difficulties with your novel use of punctuation and capital letters, perhaps a 'moscow' will be some cattle breed I'm not aware of.

Also possibly the word 'operational' will have a different meaning to me other than to you, especially in the use of 'operational level in field tactics'. To me these are rather different concepts but if you manage to fuse them perhaps you should be teaching at Sandhurst. Nay, Bad Tolz.

May I repeat the the question put at post #54 of this recent thread?

Finally, "a frozen supplied strapped army still able to poss a threat to moscow", assuming that if written in a more classic fashion it would be "A frozen supply strapped army still able to pose a threat to Moscow"does not shine too bright a light on the commanders who put the poor army in such bad straits. If this is 'perfection' then I am Julius Streicher.

 

Again you're missing the point and having a 'grammar tantrum', so lets get over ourselves and give an opinion to the question rather than finding fault in someone's style of writing; but if you feel the need to continue down this path of belittling me then go for it.
Hoping your reply is not full of 'grammar put downs' or wishing to make a point about my choice of words 'operational, field tactics etc; but reflect your thoughts on the actual title of the thread. If this proves too much for you I'm hoping you don’t reply. Good day.

 

Za - there are ways of asking for clarification without being rude.

In some respects the essence of this question is one of those discussed in Andrew Robert's new book 'The Storm of War' - at least that's what I gather from the reviews, as I haven't got round to reading it yet.

Andrew Roberts, British historian, British history writer, Masters and Commanders, A History of the English Speaking Peoples since 1900

 

Za - there are ways of asking for clarification without being rude.

In some respects the essence of this question is one of those discussed in Andrew Robert's new book 'The Storm of War' - at least that's what I gather from the reviews, as I haven't got round to reading it yet.

Andrew Roberts, British historian, British history writer, Masters and Commanders, A History of the English Speaking Peoples since 1900

Thanks, I've just clicked on the link and it looks like a good read. I've just finished reading ' Death of the Wehrmacht' by Robert M Citino and it got me thinking on the lines of the thread I started.

 

So if you can write correct English after all why shooting yourself in the foot?

You know, the terms 'operational' and 'tactics' are not interchangeable so this reflects your knowledge on the subject. Perhaps this proves too much for you.

Enjoy as you wish, I'm not returning to this thread as the premise is useless.

 

Za is right.

Operational victories were rare for the germans. At the tactical level it happened more often.

At the Strategic level they had no victories.

 

Thanks for explaining to me without giving me flak. I joined this site not as some called 'military buff' which I'm clearly not before you say it Za but purely out of interest; thus if I get it wrong I don't mind being informed. Thus I'll start again :at a tactical level when or where did the Germans come closest to perfecting soldiering at a this level ?

 

So if you can write correct English after all why shooting yourself in the foot?

You know, the terms 'operational' and 'tactics' are not interchangeable so this reflects your knowledge on the subject. Perhaps this proves too much for you.

Enjoy as you wish, I'm not returning to this thread as the premise is useless.

You see Za you can be nice if you put your mind to it; and you're not to come back to this thread again because you did say you wouldn't.

 

Za is right.

Operational victories were rare for the germans. At the tactical level it happened more often.

At the Strategic level they had no victories.

I would agree with this statement and suggest that operationally their high point was the victory in France, both morally (for them) and militarily. Morally the Germans felt that the never lost WW1 and this was the rematch which allowed them to prove that they didn't deserve the label of the losers from the first war. Operationally, they basically could have concluded the war at this point. The Germans had occupied France and signed an armistice with the Vichy France. This was was a major success for Hitler. Britain stood alone, but what would have happened if Germany decided well were done now and none of this lebensraum crap had existed and the attack on the USSR never took place? Realistically, Britain could never have taken on Germany in continental Europe alone.

What I've always found interesting is that the Germans always seemed to reach this point where they teeter on the edge of complete success and then old Schickelgruber goes and buggers it up for them. The fact that Hitler was never satisfied, was never finished, this was the greatest service he paid the allies.

 

Tactically I'd say the Germans did their biggest breaktrough during WW1.

The fundamentals in mission command was already in place before that, but during WW1 they started to put together combined arms through de-centralised support for the infantry. The Stosstruppen emerged during this war aswell.

However the distinction between regular infantry and stosstruppen would be in the next war aswell. But in WW2 it was the Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions that got the best men and equipment.

During the war the gap between regular inf and Pz and Pzgren. units just grew.

For the German army the SOP's had little development (they were already good) but the kit issued went through some upgrades.

For the British the tactical side went through massive improvements.

What a lot of people fail to acknowledge is that the western Allies fought against the better german units for most of the war.

North Africa saw germany field pz and Leicht divisions, Italy saw them field Paras, Normandy saw them field pz/pzgren/paras etc.

Against regular german infantry the allies would have fared better.

If you read memoirs and some of the better historians work, you will quickly notice that the pz/pzgren did most of the heavy lifting on the eastern front aswell.

So to answer your question I'd say 1940.
Because the gap to other nations were greater.
The other nations had a long way to go before they mastered combined arms practice, and balanced their forces (particular British Armoured divisions)

yours
Jaeger

 

Thanks.

 

Just talked on the phone with a veteran who served at the Balkans, during Barbarossa, at Kursk and in Normandy, I told him about this topic and about the options TS gave. He wondered if he should laugh or cry. This whole topic is so darn far away from reality.

Kursk: "we drove into a knife and never recovered"

Normandy: "We wondered what we were doing there. JaBos and artillery, total annihilation, it was hell on earth. In Falaise I realized we did not stand an chance, the war was lost"

And that was the Leibstandarte. Makes you wonder how the others felt.

 

Just talked on the phone with a veteran who served at the Balkans, during Barbarossa, at Kursk and in Normandy, I told him about this topic and about the options TS gave. He wondered if he should laugh or cry. This whole topic is so darn far away from reality.

What do you mean by TS? I don't understand.

 

They may not have won but I don't think it gives us the right to scoff at the German Army like some have done above, they were essentially fighting a one man war in the European, the Eastern, and African fronts. The Italians did nothing but hinder progress for the German army thanks to a variety of factors.

Afterall, weren't we supposed to "be home for Christmas"?

On topic, Blitzkreg is a fine example, the invasion of France, also look into Afrika Korps particularilly under the command of Erwin Rommel (his effect on Morale, treatment of people, unnamed strategic maneuvers, etc).

 

Even right up to the last days of the war I would say any Allied commander would be a fool to still under estimate the prowess of the German army when particular fighting on home story. Now this is just a general opinion not a factual statement so please don’t ask that I give factual instances of such things happening.

 

What do you mean by TS? I don't understand.
Topic Starter

Still curious about the German "prowess" at Kursk and in Normandy.

 

Even right up to the last days of the war I would say any Allied commander would be a fool to still under estimate the prowess of the German army when particular fighting on home story. Now this is just a general opinion not a factual statement so please don’t ask that I give factual instances of such things happening.

I've recently been going through the Headquarters papers of British Divisions in Germany in 1945. I can assure you that they far from under estimated the ability of German troops, even when they were fighting fragmented formations.

However, British Divisions were highly trained, well led and tactically superior by this stage, so knew how to deal with them.