3 ms·

80% of the German casualties happened in the eastern front, and there is where the war occurred and was decided. It doesn't matter if the Wehrmacht was superior

80% of the German casualties happened in the eastern front, and there is where the war occurred and was decided. It doesn't matter if the Wehrmacht was superior or inferior to the US army. A few months after the US was declared war, after the winter of 1941 to 1942, top German generals thought the war couldn't be won. Germany was stuck between two fronts and was unable to make progress in any. With enough time the high or low quality US troops would be joining the war. The Germans weren't close to getting the atomic bomb, so the quality of the US army respective to the German army was irrelevant to the outcome of the war.

rufus_foreman 5y ago
It doesn't matter to whom? Your example shows how important the outperformance of the Wehrmacht was. They lost how many million of their best soldiers in the eastern front? Then they fought the Western allies, they fought with a crumbling economy. And yet: "On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances ... This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost." It doesn't matter? It mattered. From the article: "this was an error of judgment that continues to cost America dear today. The shortcomings of American infantry in World War II were repeated in Korea, and in Vietnam. It is a great delusion to suppose that the Indochina war revealed unique, unprecedented problems in the U.S. Army. The American army created in World War II had suffered weaknesses and difficulties. These weaknesses, highlighted by media attention and by defeat, had existed since World War II".
- walkhour 5y ago
  I was making the point the US army being superior or inferior didn't matter when it came to deciding the winning side. That it mattered when considering different things, there's no doubt.

rufus_foreman 5y ago

It doesn't matter to whom? Your example shows how important the outperformance of the Wehrmacht was. They lost how many million of their best soldiers in the eastern front? Then they fought the Western allies, they fought with a crumbling economy. And yet: "On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances ... This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost." It doesn't matter? It mattered. From the article: "this was an error of judgment that continues to cost America dear today. The shortcomings of American infantry in World War II were repeated in Korea, and in Vietnam. It is a great delusion to suppose that the Indochina war revealed unique, unprecedented problems in the U.S. Army. The American army created in World War II had suffered weaknesses and difficulties. These weaknesses, highlighted by media attention and by defeat, had existed since World War II".

walkhour 5y ago
I was making the point the US army being superior or inferior didn't matter when it came to deciding the winning side. That it mattered when considering different things, there's no doubt.