3 ms·
After skimming the article, I can't shake the feeling that the author fell for Wehrmacht propaganda when it comes to equipment. The Wehrmacht lacked auto and se
by hef19898 4y ago
After skimming the article, I can't shake the feeling that the author fell for Wehrmacht propaganda when it comes to equipment. The Wehrmacht lacked auto and semi automatic infantry weapons, the main rifle was bolt action . SMGs were not half as widespread as propaganda reel made it look and having the first true general purpose MG is not a war winner in itself. The only German tank from 42/43 onwards, when the US started to see combat angainst the Nazis, that could outgun Western allied tanks was the Tiger (great gun, but no longer up to date on armor), Panther (mostly used on the Eastern Front, inreliable and with weak side armor) and the Tiger II (available in homeopathic doses). The occassions where Tigers were encountered in France are far less numerous than believed, also because a barely on-par Panzer 4 kind of looks like a Tiger I. The bulk of the Wehrmacht was on foot, horse drawn, barely above WW1 infantey force. The highly mechanized army fielding invincible super tanks and vehicles is a propaganda myth.
And everything beyond heavy weapons, like boots, load bearing equipment, trucks, rubber, food, sweets, you name it, the Western allies were lightyears aheaf of the Nazis. And since those things hint at highly effecient supply chains, the Allies also out performed the Nazis on spare parts and medical supplies.
EDIT: That the author was a WW2 vet doesn't mean he couldn't fall for some scewed view of the enmies capabilities, because of course you can. Not war related, but the things that go well are taken for granted while the things not going well, in reality or just perception, stand out.
- gerikson 4y agoFussell references the belief among GIs that the Germans had better kit. It's one thing to objectively assess this after the fact, it's quite another to get hit by an 88mm in Normandy and not see the Hurricane obliterate it. The Wehrmacht fought tenaciously in Western Europe using second-rate troops compared to the Eastern front where the real struggle was. Defending is easier than attacking, and the defenders were inching closer and closer to their homeland. This counts for a lot in warfare.
- hef19898 4y agoI missed the believe part being explicitly mentioned, thabks for pointing it out. So I agree with Fussel then.
- yamtaddle 4y agoYou can see the effect of this perception today—the MG42, the 88 gun, and a couple of prominent Nazi tank models are still top-of-mind when one thinks of what the real terrors, the real killers on the ground were, the things you'd have been horrified to encounter, if one has absorbed a decent amount of pop- and actual-history of the war. I don't know of any allied equivalent in the Anglosphere short of The Bomb (which the author of the piece calls out for the same reason!), which makes sense even if our stuff was actually better, as "our boys" weren't facing our own weapons.
- Nomentatus 4y agoRight. The big panzers were terrible to encounter if they ever managed to get to the front line, but they rarely did, and there they broke down quickly and were often abandoned. They were also more vulnerable than they looked. On the Russian front the tankers learned to pop the turrets off by radio-controlling their fire and hitting the turret at roughly the same time with 3 or four smaller tanks or guns. The sheer vibration would pop the turret off since the Germans had never designed for that much vibration. The Russians never did tell the Americans or Brits about this technique, however; interestingly.
- Nomentatus 4y agoRe that vibration: steel is the most elastic substance we know of. The Germans were relying on gravity to keep the heavy turrets on the tank, and that works if they're hit by only one shell at a time.
- kwertyoowiyop 4y agoWe also had gas and oil in abundance, which the Axis were always short on.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]