Poll: Which WW2 battle was more instrumental in defeating Germany?

[The Epicosity]

Yeah, the US education sucks from a (Sadly) 11 year old standpoint. Our history books covered only one page on WWI and one page on WWII, same for the Cold War, just talking about who's name was who and showing a picture of something. The Civil War had a whole chapter and a chapter leading up to it acting like the war didn't have anything to do with slaves, but still managed to talk about none of the battles except for mentioning Gettysburg and Antietam.

The US revolution has around 5 or 6 chapters leading up to it but has a chapter on it only telling the advantages and disadvantages of either army, went over the fact that the Americans apparently went all pwnzors, and goes over the treaty.

Again, it is really early in the morning and I probably am not able to be understood.

 

[Cabisco]

Something i'd like to point out, England should really be called the 'commonwealth' when talking about World War 2 or at least I think so (aside from BOB) because of the huge sacrifices made by troops from the various Empire colonies, most of 'Englands' battles will of had Indians Canadians Gurkhas free polish free Norwegians etc.

Just a thought

 

[Vandenberg1]

Battle That busted the Germans in Russia was Kirsk. BIGGEST TANK BATTLE EVERRRRR. Germans kicked ass as usual with their superior crews and tanks, but numbers and reliablity of T-34 of Russia was just enough to finally break em in the East. If won perhaps they could of sued for some peace since Russia could not sustain such losses (roughly 15 to 1 at the beginning!!) forevor. In the West, ever since the failed blitz of England 9thanks to effing Barborosa) there was no way of winning England which would would have put the U.S. at an awkward spot.

What about Canada?

...or Australia?

...or India?

Uhm... well what about Canada?

Australia? Good luck getting there with the Japanese still owning the land around it.

India?... really?.. Burma campaign was all British pretty much, and with England conquered how would they get there?

I don't even talk like that! Haha, the U.S. once again just waited onthe sideline after a few years before stepping in. Although they were supplying England and Russia with much needed crucial supplies.
You talk about it like America is the only country that helped in the war that was not in Europe.
Canada exists and had troops that were a part of D-Day and many other operations.

Australia was never fully surrounded, only having enemies to one side of itself, and still being able to airlift things out if needed.

India was another country in which England would've drawn troops from, all of these are, and were English territories, among probably alot of other smaller ones, this would put them in an even more awkward position, like being a dog and having your owner just die. You wouldn't have any command, because all of it is based in England, other than the territorial people, but they really only kept order, I think.

Sorry if I just wrote this horribly, it is really early in the morning and I should probably not be on the computer and in bed.

Canadians barely had a role in WW2, I know of a landing they did pre-Dday that was absolutely terrible..

If England had fallen Burma never would of held against the Japanese which they were too busy fighting. I dont see how British troops bogged down in India can fight the Germans in Europe but ok.. Austrailia again without British Support and then U.S. would of been invaded and was only saved after midway from such a threat.

 

[adro91]

As someone has rightly pointed out, Barbarossa was an operation, not a battle. Also, (again, I realise someone has pointed this out but it seems worth reiterating) Barbarossa was the codename given to the first major German push into the Soviet Union. If you're looking for a battle to poll, try Kursk (1943). Kursk saw the largest clash of armoured forces in history, as well as the costliest battle in terms of aerial losses in history. After defeat by the Soviets at Kursk, the Wehrmacht was unable to mount any major strategic offensive in the east for the rest of the war, and the Soviets gained the initiative that eventually allowed them to roll on to Berlin.

Therefore I would posit that D-Day vs Kursk is a more appropriate poll. Then again, I would also include Operation Torch (1942) the Allied landings in North Africa, which eventually gave the Allies almost total control of the Mediterranean and the Oil resources of North Africa. These in turn led to the Allied invasion of Italy in 1943, which split Axis forces between the Eastern Front and the front in Italy, and allowed the Western Allies to link up (in terms of supplies) with the Soviets through the Balkans. Perhaps more importantly, Torch was implemented as an alternative to the initial American plan for an immediate invasion of Europe, which would almost certainly have failed. It also gave US forces, who were otherwise very green, to gain combat experience against the Axis, and led to some vital changes in both American and British tactics, supply structures etc.

On a side note, as a Brit I have to say something for the Battle of Britain (1940). If Britain had fallen, the outcome of the entire war would have been very different indeed.

 

[adro91]

Battle That busted the Germans in Russia was Kirsk. BIGGEST TANK BATTLE EVERRRRR. Germans kicked ass as usual with their superior crews and tanks, but numbers and reliablity of T-34 of Russia was just enough to finally break em in the East. If won perhaps they could of sued for some peace since Russia could not sustain such losses (roughly 15 to 1 at the beginning!!) forevor. In the West, ever since the failed blitz of England 9thanks to effing Barborosa) there was no way of winning England which would would have put the U.S. at an awkward spot.

What about Canada?

...or Australia?

...or India?

Uhm... well what about Canada?

Australia? Good luck getting there with the Japanese still owning the land around it.

India?... really?.. Burma campaign was all British pretty much, and with England conquered how would they get there?

I don't even talk like that! Haha, the U.S. once again just waited onthe sideline after a few years before stepping in. Although they were supplying England and Russia with much needed crucial supplies.
You talk about it like America is the only country that helped in the war that was not in Europe.
Canada exists and had troops that were a part of D-Day and many other operations.

Australia was never fully surrounded, only having enemies to one side of itself, and still being able to airlift things out if needed.

India was another country in which England would've drawn troops from, all of these are, and were English territories, among probably alot of other smaller ones, this would put them in an even more awkward position, like being a dog and having your owner just die. You wouldn't have any command, because all of it is based in England, other than the territorial people, but they really only kept order, I think.

Sorry if I just wrote this horribly, it is really early in the morning and I should probably not be on the computer and in bed.

Canadians barely had a role in WW2, I know of a landing they did pre-Dday that was absolutely terrible..

If England had fallen Burma never would of held against the Japanese which they were too busy fighting. I dont see how British troops bogged down in India can fight the Germans in Europe but ok.. Austrailia again without British Support and then U.S. would of been invaded and was only saved after midway from such a threat.

Your undervaluing of the Canadian, Indian and Australian contributions to WWII does them a great disservice. Canadian and ANZAC troops formed a vital component of the Allied effort on D-Day. Canadian divisions attacked along Sword, Gold and Juno beaches, and actually faced some of the toughest resistance from German troops. Juno Beach was as heavily defended as Omaha, and advancing Canadian troops faced a sea wall twice the height of that at Omaha, as well as embedded concrete defences in the form of pillboxes, machine gun nests etc. Despite all this, the Canadian troops were in land within hours, and were the only force on the first day of Overlord to actually achieve their objectives.
ANZAC troops were heavily involved in the campaign for North Africa and Italy, and over 13,000 Australians served in RAF Bomber Command, and were thus involved in the major campaign of bombing that helped to greatly weaken Germany's military-industrial complex. Aussie troops were also involved in operations in Borneo, the Philippines and other areas of the South Western Pacific.
India contributed the largest all volunteer force in history, with some 2.5 million men under arms by the middle of World War 2, and Indians were awarded some 30 Victoria Crosses during the War. Indians were heavily involved in the liberation of Italy, being the 3rd largest force in the country after the Americans and British, playing a vital role in major engagements such as Monte Cassino. The British Indian Army essentially halted the Japanese advance into South-East Asia, and through the Burma Campaign (following engagements at Kohima and Imphal), pushed the Japanese back in the region.

As I said, you appear to greatly undervalue the contribution that these nations provided. More than this, industry and supplies from the Empire was one of the major components in the Allied victory, as well as the actual soldiering. Please tell me you don't fall into the cliched position of thinking that the US was the be all and end all of the Second World War? Many nations played their part in defeating the evil that was the Axis powers, America included, and you should remember that next time you post.

 

[Max Lazer]

For the fall of the Reich:

Battle of the Atlantic: Ensured that supplies and troops could be delivered from America to it's allies and the front.

North Africa Campaign: Barely a footnote for the Germans; the vast majority of Axis soldiers were Italian. The loss of the North African campaign was mostly a blow to German prestige, but did set up....

The Italian Campaign: Italy is taken out of the war (not that they contributed much). Germany, first because of its alliance with Italy, then out of strategic necessity, ties the Allies down with a minimal number of troops.

Operation Barbarossa: Not really a Nazi defeat so much as a failure. Despite advances and inflicting casualties never before seen in war, the likes of which would make nearly any other nation would immediately sue for peace, the Germans fail to reach their objectives. The causes are many, chief among them Hitler's meddling, the slowing pace of the advance, the famous Russian winter, and the success of Zhukov's campaign against the Japanese, securing the USSR's eastern flank. This allowed veteran troops to be shifted to the front and counterattack the Germans, who had just been held up by fresh conscripts.

Battle of Stalingrad: The equivalent to the Battle of Guadalcanal in the Pacific, this battle was a major setback for the Axis, it wasn't the "point of no return," per say. However, it set the Red Army on the offensive, and the Reds proceeded to clear the Germans out of an area nearly the size of France in a matter of weeks. Which led to....

The Battle of Kursk: The European equivalent to the Battle of Midway. Here, Germany's last offensive strength was shattered by the Red Army in the largest tank battle in history. From here on out, the Germans could only try and defend against the growing numbers of Soviet troops, and growing superiority of Soviet personnel and materiel.

Operation Overlord (the Normandy Campaign): Finally opened the Western Front, effectively speeding up the fall of the Third Reich, and securing Western Europe against Soviet domination.

Operation Bagration: The Soviet supplement to Operation Overlord. In true Eastern Front fashion, it made Operation Overlord look like a minor battle. In effect, if any doubt remained about Germany's ability to hold out, this ended it. The Red Army utterly destroyed the German Army Group Center in one of the largest military operations in history. So devastating was the German defeat that the Red Army was actually able to take its time conquering Southern Europe before making the final push into Germany, while the Western Allies struggled to reach the Rhine. It should be noted that this campaign provides a great example of how the USSR and USA contributed to the war. While it was Soviet troops who were doing the killing, what enabled the offensive to achieve such penetration of the German lines, and maintain its momentum, was the fact that the Red Army was mechanized by American trucks, and had ample American supplies.

Battle of the Bulge: Another one with an analogous battle in the Pacific (the Battle of Leyte Gulf). Hitler's last, desperate attempt to win a war he'd already lost. Like just about every other enterprise the Germans went into after 1940, this one had no real chance of succeeding. Ever. If anything, it made the war end quicker by handing irreplaceable men and equipment over to the Allies.

All in all, there was never really a way for Germany to win the Second World War. Either it would be ground down by the combined might of the Western Allies, or crushed under the heel of the Red Army. Germany took a third option, and got ground down by both sides simultaneously. And for the huge oversimplification of roles in the European theater: Soviets fight the war, Americans bankroll the war, while the British and Commonwealth forces provide the Heart.

 

[imperialus]

Canadians barely had a role in WW2, I know of a landing they did pre-Dday that was absolutely terrible..

If England had fallen Burma never would of held against the Japanese which they were too busy fighting. I dont see how British troops bogged down in India can fight the Germans in Europe but ok.. Austrailia again without British Support and then U.S. would of been invaded and was only saved after midway from such a threat.

Dieppe? Yeah, that went badly... 1 Division plus some commandos were thrown against a fortified beach/town. They had almost no air or navel support other than fighter bombers laying a smokescreen and covering fire provided by destroyers. There is actually very strong evidence to suggest that the Dieppe raid was never intended to be a success since there is no evidence that there was ever a follow up plan to re-enforce or breakout from the beachhead that the Canadians were in theory supposed to create. What this amounts to is that the Canadians were sent on a suicide mission largely to gauge the strength of German resistance along the beaches in France and to help the allied command plan a full strength attack.

 

[Vandenberg1]

Canadians barely had a role in WW2, I know of a landing they did pre-Dday that was absolutely terrible..

If England had fallen Burma never would of held against the Japanese which they were too busy fighting. I dont see how British troops bogged down in India can fight the Germans in Europe but ok.. Austrailia again without British Support and then U.S. would of been invaded and was only saved after midway from such a threat.

Dieppe? Yeah, that went badly... 1 Division plus some commandos were thrown against a fortified beach/town. They had almost no air or navel support other than fighter bombers laying a smokescreen and covering fire provided by destroyers. There is actually very strong evidence to suggest that the Dieppe raid was never intended to be a success since there is no evidence that there was ever a follow up plan to re-enforce or breakout from the beachhead that the Canadians were in theory supposed to create. What this amounts to is that the Canadians were sent on a suicide mission largely to gauge the strength of German resistance along the beaches in France and to help the allied command plan a full strength attack.

Yes Dieppe. Raids are done BEHIND enemy lines, not at their fu**ing gates!

 

[Korolev]

The vast, vast, vast, vast, VAST bulk of the German armies were destroyed in the East, not the West. Hell, a fair number of German Divisions in the West weren't even German - they were made up of Prisoners of War from the East.

The most decisive battle would have to either be Stalingrad (which destroyed the German 6th Army), Operation Zitadel, which is also known as the Battle of Kursk, the LARGEST land battle EVER, in the history of humanity, which involved millions of soldiers, thousands of tanks and airplanes and pretty much destroyed German offensive capabilities in the Soviet Union, and then Operation Bagration, which broke the back of the German Army, ensuring the Soviet Union would reach Germany.

D-Day WAS an important event though. But it wasn't decisive. Hitler simply could not have held out against the Russians. Without the Americans, the war against Germany could have dragged on for some years more, but they would have still been defeated anyway. Also, D-Day would not have been successful without the destruction of most German armies in the USSR. If the Germans had the 6th Army stationed in France, if the Germans hadn't lost so many men in the East, the Western landings would never have worked.

But even so, the Americans were developing the Atomic Bomb. So regardless of any battle, the Nazis would always have lost. Even if D-Day had failed, even if the USSR had fallen, the US would have just.... NUKED Germany to the ground.

 

[Sandernista]

The invasion of Russia was the only move Germany could make.

 

[Kargathia]

Spoiler

True, but you're mainly looking at paper facts there - which also say that few of the units were at full operational capability. Even fewer were capable of engaging straight away.

But we're talking comparisons here, and on a one-on-one basis these units were arguably better than their allied counterparts. With a few exceptions the entire U.S. army was greener than grass - and did not even have the advantage of experienced combat commanders.
The British partially saw action in Africa, but at least two of the veteran units weren't exactly doing well. The Black Watch started out embarrassingly bad, and the Desert Rats weren't exactly doing home runs either. (My memory on the other units that served in Africa is a bit hazy though). The entire British army was doing pretty badly for that matter, but it's debatable whether that was due to inexperienced units.
On an absolute basis the German troop quality wasn't perfect, and later on severly lacking supplies and reinforcements. But they did an excellent job with the limited means they had.

A side note here: the Leibstandart Adolf Hitler was pulled out when the battle for Normandy was all but decided. As we were discussing that particular battle I felt they were worth listing.
I can't fully remember whether the Panzer Lehr was an SS division, and I'm honestly just too lazy to do a fact check on something like that. Point was that when compared one-on-one with it's allied counterpart it'd definitely be the better unit.

To circle back around to the original question though, do you think that the absence of any of those units had an effect on the outcome of the Eastern front? I'm claiming that with the exception of Das Reich, the Germans committed no forces to fighting the allies that weren't there anyhow. Ultimately its a fairly straight forward pair of scenarios.

The first scenario is the one that actually happened. The allies invaded, and the Germans unsuccessfully defended their territory in France with a combination of the 5th, 7th, and 12th armies which included the 1st, 2nd, and 12th SS Panzer divisions.

Now if we assume that the allies had not invaded France lets see how things change... Since the 2nd SS Panzer division had originally been sent to France to rest and re-equip, it can likely be assumed that had the allies not invaded, they would have returned to the Eastern front. The 3 main armies however were likely to stay put. The 12th army had never left France, the 7th had been there for 3 years already, and the 5th was placed there after its defeat in North Africa.

I did a bit more digging through my books and realized I'd made an error in the OB for the SS during Normandy... And before you ask, yes I'm a hex and chit wargamer, and yes I have books on the order of battle for dozens, if not hundreds of different campaigns and battles lying around... I also realize this makes me a huge nerd but I'm OK with that. At any rate the SS force that was present in Normandy at the time of the invasion was the 1st SS Panzer Corps. This consisted of the 1st SS Panzer Division (Adolph Hitler), the 12th SS Panzer Div (Hitlerjugend), the 17th SS Panzergrenadier div (Gots von Berlichingen), the 101st SS Heavy Panzer battalion, and the Panzer Lher div, which was technically a part of the Wehrmacht but had been placed under SS command.

At the end of the day what this means is that the entire European campaign, at least until the Battle of the Bulge, was fought with its native troops. Those troops were in France. It did not matter at all if the allies invaded or not, those troops would be in France. This means that the Normandy invasion did not draw any assets away from the fighting on the Eastern front which was my original argument.

First of all: don't worry, you're not exactly the only one with an interest in military history ^_-

We do seem to have been talking slightly past eachother, as I can't remember making any statement about the war in Normandy drawing any troops from the eastern front. I originally replied to somebody who was under the impression that there were only second-rate troops present in Normandy.
The battle for Normandy was fought with troops already stationed in France - which was not very surprising either, as pretty much anyone could've seen an invasion coming, in all likelihood in France. Due to the rather overwhelming success of Operation Fortitude there neither was any major influx of troops.
But nonetheless: the force deployed in France was roughly comparable to the force fighting on the eastern front - even though the geographical area concerned was much, much smaller.

But to make a note on your question: I find it hard to believe that the invasion in France did not have a noticeable effect on the Russian war effort, as by 1944 Germany was already starting to run out of fuel, ammunition, and reinforcements. I doubt the Russians noticed overnight there had been an invasion, but it'll certainly have helped them, both in terms of morale, and a gradual indirect weakening of their opponent.

Cheers for clearing up the thing about the Panzer Lehr though. I thought it a bit weird to hear it was a Wehrmacht division, as it's pretty much always referred to as being SS.

 

[imperialus]

Spoiler

True, but you're mainly looking at paper facts there - which also say that few of the units were at full operational capability. Even fewer were capable of engaging straight away.

But we're talking comparisons here, and on a one-on-one basis these units were arguably better than their allied counterparts. With a few exceptions the entire U.S. army was greener than grass - and did not even have the advantage of experienced combat commanders.
The British partially saw action in Africa, but at least two of the veteran units weren't exactly doing well. The Black Watch started out embarrassingly bad, and the Desert Rats weren't exactly doing home runs either. (My memory on the other units that served in Africa is a bit hazy though). The entire British army was doing pretty badly for that matter, but it's debatable whether that was due to inexperienced units.
On an absolute basis the German troop quality wasn't perfect, and later on severly lacking supplies and reinforcements. But they did an excellent job with the limited means they had.

A side note here: the Leibstandart Adolf Hitler was pulled out when the battle for Normandy was all but decided. As we were discussing that particular battle I felt they were worth listing.
I can't fully remember whether the Panzer Lehr was an SS division, and I'm honestly just too lazy to do a fact check on something like that. Point was that when compared one-on-one with it's allied counterpart it'd definitely be the better unit.

To circle back around to the original question though, do you think that the absence of any of those units had an effect on the outcome of the Eastern front? I'm claiming that with the exception of Das Reich, the Germans committed no forces to fighting the allies that weren't there anyhow. Ultimately its a fairly straight forward pair of scenarios.

The first scenario is the one that actually happened. The allies invaded, and the Germans unsuccessfully defended their territory in France with a combination of the 5th, 7th, and 12th armies which included the 1st, 2nd, and 12th SS Panzer divisions.

Now if we assume that the allies had not invaded France lets see how things change... Since the 2nd SS Panzer division had originally been sent to France to rest and re-equip, it can likely be assumed that had the allies not invaded, they would have returned to the Eastern front. The 3 main armies however were likely to stay put. The 12th army had never left France, the 7th had been there for 3 years already, and the 5th was placed there after its defeat in North Africa.

I did a bit more digging through my books and realized I'd made an error in the OB for the SS during Normandy... And before you ask, yes I'm a hex and chit wargamer, and yes I have books on the order of battle for dozens, if not hundreds of different campaigns and battles lying around... I also realize this makes me a huge nerd but I'm OK with that. At any rate the SS force that was present in Normandy at the time of the invasion was the 1st SS Panzer Corps. This consisted of the 1st SS Panzer Division (Adolph Hitler), the 12th SS Panzer Div (Hitlerjugend), the 17th SS Panzergrenadier div (Gots von Berlichingen), the 101st SS Heavy Panzer battalion, and the Panzer Lher div, which was technically a part of the Wehrmacht but had been placed under SS command.

At the end of the day what this means is that the entire European campaign, at least until the Battle of the Bulge, was fought with its native troops. Those troops were in France. It did not matter at all if the allies invaded or not, those troops would be in France. This means that the Normandy invasion did not draw any assets away from the fighting on the Eastern front which was my original argument.

First of all: don't worry, you're not exactly the only one with an interest in military history ^_-

We do seem to have been talking slightly past eachother, as I can't remember making any statement about the war in Normandy drawing any troops from the eastern front. I originally replied to somebody who was under the impression that there were only second-rate troops present in Normandy.
The battle for Normandy was fought with troops already stationed in France - which was not very surprising either, as pretty much anyone could've seen an invasion coming, in all likelihood in France. Due to the rather overwhelming success of Operation Fortitude there neither was any major influx of troops.
But nonetheless: the force deployed in France was roughly comparable to the force fighting on the eastern front - even though the geographical area concerned was much, much smaller.

But to make a note on your question: I find it hard to believe that the invasion in France did not have a noticeable effect on the Russian war effort, as by 1944 Germany was already starting to run out of fuel, ammunition, and reinforcements. I doubt the Russians noticed overnight there had been an invasion, but it'll certainly have helped them, both in terms of morale, and a gradual indirect weakening of their opponent.

Cheers for clearing up the thing about the Panzer Lehr though. I thought it a bit weird to hear it was a Wehrmacht division, as it's pretty much always referred to as being SS.

It was me that suggested that the troops in Normandy were second rate and I still stand by that for the most part. I'll get back to it in a second but I'm wondering where you're getting your numbers from? I'm away from my books right now so I had to rely on Wikipedia but Operation Barbarossa at the outset apparently involved 3.9 million axis troops while the entire Western Front of WWII involved 3.3 million. Even the 3.3 million seems high from other stuff I remember reading so I'm wondering if the Wiki author included troops that fled west to surrender to the allies rather than the Russians in his numbers. At the end of the day the Eastern campaign involved 3 army groups, each with 3-4 armies (a Panzer group was effectively army sized) while the western campaign involved one army group consisting of 3 armies. I realize that "army" is a rather fluid way of calculating troop totals (though now I'm interested in seeing how it breaks down to the divisional or at least corps level) but the numbers just don't seem to add up.

Regarding the quality of the troops, I still believe that the 3 armies fighting in Western Europe were not of the same caliber as the armies in the East based on combat experience alone. I'll circle back to the 12th army as an example. The army had been a static garrison force in France since its formation in 1941. I mean really other than dealing with a few French partisans they had almost no combat experience. Its possible that individual divisions or corps within the army were rotated in and out to the fighting in the East but German tactical doctrine discouraged this sort of practice since they wanted their armies to remain as cohesive groups with as little disruption to their orders of battle as possible. There were exceptions such as the 2nd SS Panzer but by and large my understanding is that once a division or corps was attached to an army it remained there for the bulk of the war. *edit* I'll add though that the SS units were an exception to this. SS units would bounce around from army to army pretty regularly as they were needed.

This is not to say that the Western armies were slouches by any means, 12th SS Panzer was a particularly tough nut to crack, mainly because they were fighting in the same location and terrain as they had been training in for months, but for the most part the combat experience and training simply was not there, particularly at the Wehrmacht level. At the end of the day you really have to ask yourself if the 12th army was anywhere near as effective as say the 9th army which defeated the Soviets in Operation Mars, fought the largest concentration of Soviet troops at Kursk, and fought a fighting retreat all the way back to Berlin before elements of the army broke through the Soviet encirclement and surrendered to the Americans.

This is also not to say that every Axis unit in Russia consisted of some sort of supermen. Heck, there is a pretty strong argument to be made that had the Romanians not been the units protecting the 6th army's flanks at Stalingrad the army would have been able to make an organized and effective withdrawal from the city, but overall I maintain that the units in the east were simply of a higher caliber than the units in the west.

 

[Ubermetalhed]

Hopefully someone has already mentioned this but Barbarossa and D-day were campaigns not battles.

Regardless of real reasons for their loss and in terms of what you are asking between these two Barborossa was more costly.

And if you really want to see some clear reasons for German defeat economic factors are arguably the most important.

 

[Purple Dragon]

like to point out d-day was mainly planned by the british the americans wanted to attack in 1942, it would have been suicide, and yeah uranus was the name of the russian operation that broke the siege of stalingrad and pushed the germans back

 

[Private Custard]

Aahhh, international dick-measuring contests and WWII debates going hand in hand, as per usual!

My answer...buy this

http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-At-War-Ultimate-Restored/dp/B003IN7YQE/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1309458508&sr=8-3

Watch it all, ask no more questions!

 

[Kargathia]

Spoiler

Spoiler

True, but you're mainly looking at paper facts there - which also say that few of the units were at full operational capability. Even fewer were capable of engaging straight away.

But we're talking comparisons here, and on a one-on-one basis these units were arguably better than their allied counterparts. With a few exceptions the entire U.S. army was greener than grass - and did not even have the advantage of experienced combat commanders.
The British partially saw action in Africa, but at least two of the veteran units weren't exactly doing well. The Black Watch started out embarrassingly bad, and the Desert Rats weren't exactly doing home runs either. (My memory on the other units that served in Africa is a bit hazy though). The entire British army was doing pretty badly for that matter, but it's debatable whether that was due to inexperienced units.
On an absolute basis the German troop quality wasn't perfect, and later on severly lacking supplies and reinforcements. But they did an excellent job with the limited means they had.

A side note here: the Leibstandart Adolf Hitler was pulled out when the battle for Normandy was all but decided. As we were discussing that particular battle I felt they were worth listing.
I can't fully remember whether the Panzer Lehr was an SS division, and I'm honestly just too lazy to do a fact check on something like that. Point was that when compared one-on-one with it's allied counterpart it'd definitely be the better unit.

To circle back around to the original question though, do you think that the absence of any of those units had an effect on the outcome of the Eastern front? I'm claiming that with the exception of Das Reich, the Germans committed no forces to fighting the allies that weren't there anyhow. Ultimately its a fairly straight forward pair of scenarios.

The first scenario is the one that actually happened. The allies invaded, and the Germans unsuccessfully defended their territory in France with a combination of the 5th, 7th, and 12th armies which included the 1st, 2nd, and 12th SS Panzer divisions.

Now if we assume that the allies had not invaded France lets see how things change... Since the 2nd SS Panzer division had originally been sent to France to rest and re-equip, it can likely be assumed that had the allies not invaded, they would have returned to the Eastern front. The 3 main armies however were likely to stay put. The 12th army had never left France, the 7th had been there for 3 years already, and the 5th was placed there after its defeat in North Africa.

I did a bit more digging through my books and realized I'd made an error in the OB for the SS during Normandy... And before you ask, yes I'm a hex and chit wargamer, and yes I have books on the order of battle for dozens, if not hundreds of different campaigns and battles lying around... I also realize this makes me a huge nerd but I'm OK with that. At any rate the SS force that was present in Normandy at the time of the invasion was the 1st SS Panzer Corps. This consisted of the 1st SS Panzer Division (Adolph Hitler), the 12th SS Panzer Div (Hitlerjugend), the 17th SS Panzergrenadier div (Gots von Berlichingen), the 101st SS Heavy Panzer battalion, and the Panzer Lher div, which was technically a part of the Wehrmacht but had been placed under SS command.

At the end of the day what this means is that the entire European campaign, at least until the Battle of the Bulge, was fought with its native troops. Those troops were in France. It did not matter at all if the allies invaded or not, those troops would be in France. This means that the Normandy invasion did not draw any assets away from the fighting on the Eastern front which was my original argument.

First of all: don't worry, you're not exactly the only one with an interest in military history ^_-

We do seem to have been talking slightly past eachother, as I can't remember making any statement about the war in Normandy drawing any troops from the eastern front. I originally replied to somebody who was under the impression that there were only second-rate troops present in Normandy.
The battle for Normandy was fought with troops already stationed in France - which was not very surprising either, as pretty much anyone could've seen an invasion coming, in all likelihood in France. Due to the rather overwhelming success of Operation Fortitude there neither was any major influx of troops.
But nonetheless: the force deployed in France was roughly comparable to the force fighting on the eastern front - even though the geographical area concerned was much, much smaller.

But to make a note on your question: I find it hard to believe that the invasion in France did not have a noticeable effect on the Russian war effort, as by 1944 Germany was already starting to run out of fuel, ammunition, and reinforcements. I doubt the Russians noticed overnight there had been an invasion, but it'll certainly have helped them, both in terms of morale, and a gradual indirect weakening of their opponent.

Cheers for clearing up the thing about the Panzer Lehr though. I thought it a bit weird to hear it was a Wehrmacht division, as it's pretty much always referred to as being SS.

It was me that suggested that the troops in Normandy were second rate and I still stand by that for the most part. I'll get back to it in a second but I'm wondering where you're getting your numbers from? I'm away from my books right now so I had to rely on Wikipedia but Operation Barbarossa at the outset apparently involved 3.9 million axis troops while the entire Western Front of WWII involved 3.3 million. Even the 3.3 million seems high from other stuff I remember reading so I'm wondering if the Wiki author included troops that fled west to surrender to the allies rather than the Russians in his numbers. At the end of the day the Eastern campaign involved 3 army groups, each with 3-4 armies (a Panzer group was effectively army sized) while the western campaign involved one army group consisting of 3 armies. I realize that "army" is a rather fluid way of calculating troop totals (though now I'm interested in seeing how it breaks down to the divisional or at least corps level) but the numbers just don't seem to add up.

Regarding the quality of the troops, I still believe that the 3 armies fighting in Western Europe were not of the same caliber as the armies in the East based on combat experience alone. I'll circle back to the 12th army as an example. The army had been a static garrison force in France since its formation in 1941. I mean really other than dealing with a few French partisans they had almost no combat experience. Its possible that individual divisions or corps within the army were rotated in and out to the fighting in the East but German tactical doctrine discouraged this sort of practice since they wanted their armies to remain as cohesive groups with as little disruption to their orders of battle as possible. There were exceptions such as the 2nd SS Panzer but by and large my understanding is that once a division or corps was attached to an army it remained there for the bulk of the war. *edit* I'll add though that the SS units were an exception to this. SS units would bounce around from army to army pretty regularly as they were needed.

This is not to say that the Western armies were slouches by any means, 12th SS Panzer was a particularly tough nut to crack, mainly because they were fighting in the same location and terrain as they had been training in for months, but for the most part the combat experience and training simply was not there, particularly at the Wehrmacht level. At the end of the day you really have to ask yourself if the 12th army was anywhere near as effective as say the 9th army which defeated the Soviets in Operation Mars, fought the largest concentration of Soviet troops at Kursk, and fought a fighting retreat all the way back to Berlin before elements of the army broke through the Soviet encirclement and surrendered to the Americans.

This is also not to say that every Axis unit in Russia consisted of some sort of supermen. Heck, there is a pretty strong argument to be made that had the Romanians not been the units protecting the 6th army's flanks at Stalingrad the army would have been able to make an organized and effective withdrawal from the city, but overall I maintain that the units in the east were simply of a higher caliber than the units in the west.

I'll also go check my original numbers to see what's going on, as a quick internet check tells me as well that Germany had 3.1 million troops on the eastern front in 1944, it being 57% of all they had. Only clear figure a quick internet search could give me for France numbers was some 70.000 on D-Day. Chances are somewhere along the way something got exaggerated, as the actual troop concentration in the west was higher - the eastern front being quite a bit longer than Normandy's.
Generally speaking I prefer to compare army strength by divisions, as it feels like the middle way between the rather varying strength of army groups, and the sheer bloody numbers of platoons.

The Germans did, however, deploy large numbers of Osttruppen and other second class units on the eastern front. It's hard to say whether they fought better when facing Russians (They certainly surrendered less easily), but generally speaking I'd venture a guess that average unit quality would be roughly equal on the eastern and western fronts, with combat experience of the former being somewhat offset by unit losses. It'd be rather interesting to look up though.

I did originally read your statement as "second-rate in the general sense", which explains my previous answers.