Who was the better WW2 army: the US Army or the Wehrmacht? see for more details.?

Question

I am not talking in terms of quantity. Also I don't mean all the armed forces just the land armies. Let us leave out politicians in this discussion.

Which was the better army in terms of quality:

-senior commanders/staff
-officers
-team-oriented
-conditioning/training
-morale
-experience
-weapons/hardware

I am curious to know what others think.

I personally believe that the German staff were better strategists, had slightly better troops, but inferior hardware compared to the Americans.

That's not to take anything away from the US Army, but they were far different from the current US army.

Answer 1

The answer that question you need to slowly go through time of the war and look at the effect of politicians on the war

-First of all the Germans senior commander were greater then the Allies at their ability to command, but they were either removed or died thanks to Hitler

- The officers of Germany were told to plan your actions on how you need to do the job, you don't need to follow the order. Later on they were stuck at performing the battle-plan no ifs, ands, or butts about it. The Americans were know for adapting on the fly and if the battle-plan is crud, ditch it and make one up on the fly

- both were great at team-orientation, but their were stresses in the Allies.

- Morale was good only as long as they were getting their supplies, not losing, and was still in the fight. Morale was not a problem for both sides

-experience was on the Germans for a while until a lot of their earlier troops were being killed off and then the Allies were the more experienced troops

- Weapons/Hardware- this is the rough spot in some areas like Machine guns and good quality tanks the Germans win, but in great fighter, bombers, and rifles the US wins it just more depended more on who was getting supplied and who was praying that Santa was coming with more ammo for their gun.

Answer 2

Well, heres the break down.
-Senior Commanders/Staff- kinda equal. Von Runstedt (spelling) and Rommel were amoung the greatest German commanders in the field. Rommel of course was genious. Runstedt was also a strong leader. However the Americans (and British) had just as strong commanders, like Ike, Patton and Bradley who had his moments.

-Officers- again, equal. Every army is going to have its good leaders and its bad ones. However, the US did train its officers a little bit better.

-Team oriented- if I get what you're asking here, Bubba hit it dead one. The American's were way better than the Germans in that they had the ability to react. The Germans tended not to overly deviate from the major plan whereas the US Lt. or Sgt could see an opening and take advantage of it at that moment. D-Day for example, Rommel had his 21st Panzer in Caen, not far from Sword Beach (Brits) had Rommel been American he could have EASILY unleashed his 21st onto the beach and destroyed the Allies left flank. However he needed permission from the Furher.

-Conditioning/Training- Americans had more of a practical training, they learned how to fire a rifle while the Germans learned how to dance and eat at formal occasions, and this was well into '44.
-Morale- prior to Kasserine Pass, the Germans were "kickin' a" so to speak. German morale was very high, while US wasn't that great (not near mutany though). We do quite well and our high point was after the Breakout of D-day and then on.

-Experience- yet again, depends on the time. Early '42-'43 the Germans are VERY experienced. Near '44-'45 the Germans are pumping out conscripts, old men, and kids.

-Weapons/Hardware- The Germans had superior tanks and planes. They came up with both the first assault rifle and jet. However, the US weapons were more plentiful. As one liberty ship was sunk by a U-Boat (another plus to the Germans) 3-4 more were launched. The US also had the first semi-automatic rifle, the Garand (but they get the K-43) plus all of our ammo was either .45 cal, 30.06, or .30 cal. The Germans had so many types of ammo that by Berlin, it was too much to keep up with.

hope that helps :)

Answer 3

German hardware was superior to the Americans. The Sherman was always sucking hind tit to the Tigers and Panthers. The M1 was a fine all around rifle, and superior to the standard issue K-98, but the newer german assault rifles were probably as good or better. Comparing aircraft is an apples and oranges proposition, because aircraft design and tactics go hand-in-hand. Overall, I'd say we reached parity with the Luftwaffe, but their best pilots got attrited away.

Senior commanders: I'd say equal. Both had brilliant commanders (Patton, MacArthur vs. Rommel, Guderian), but both were handicapped by bureaucracies. If Patton had been given SHAEF, the war would have been over by Christmas '44. The German advantage was that their senior commanders were given more autonomy in the early part of the war. The Allies had a tendency to promote Commanders for publicity (Montgomery) or political (Eisenhower) reasons, rather than capability.

Officers: By the time of the American involvement, the german Army had weeded out most of it's deadweight of officers. The war for America was too short for this process to run its course int he American army. Point goes to Germany.

Team-orientation: Parity. I was going to say Germany, but ther is a cultural tendency in the German to carve out and defend little feifdoms. The realities of Combat made these short-lived, but the tendency was there. The American is naturally independent, but understands teamwork on an intellectual basis.

Conditioning - again, Parity, with a tendency for the Germans to be a bit better. Both sides had elite units which could walk you into the ground. The bulk of the American army was motorized by European standards. Germany was mostly footsoldiers. Americans were more well-fed.

Morale: Apples and oranges. German morale was high by European standards. They were well-equipped and well led. On the other hand, an American was more likely to bail out of a bad situation and save his skin. Given a german and an American who had both broken and run, the American was more likely to turn and resume fighting, because he hadn't experienced as much to make him break in the first place.

Experience- Germans, hands down. Both cultures are very innovative. The germans just had more years of war, and a more rational replacement system. Germany would leave a unit in combat until it was bled white, then pull it back and reconstitute it with replacements, the veterans forming a cadre of experience. The Americans fed their replacements directly into the line. This system was described as "If the German command could have designed a replacement system for their enemies that would have caused the greatest amount of inefficiency, they couldn't have done better than what the Americans already had."

Rommel remarked that he had never seen a more ineffective combatant in their first engagement as the Americans -- nor one that had learned so much by their second engagement.

The American army of WWII was indeed different than today's, but America was also much different. Most American boys in WWII were farm boys, or factory workers. The average education level was lower than it is today (note I said AVERAGE!).

Answer 4

German Army NO CONTEST

Remember we are talking about field tested troops. Not only against European armies but also battle hardened against Russian troops.

German were the BEST

Hay come on for crying out loud they conquered most parts of Europe and Fought a two front war.

1. They were first to invent. Blitzkreig
2. Best tanks at the beginning of World War 2.
3. Most Organized Army.

Again NO CONTEST

Answer 5

There were several post war studies done on this subject......you have left out a critical factor

"Initiative" "Depth"....What made the American military so effective is the fact killing the leaders did not stop the unit..... In the German Army the individual soldiers could only function if led......
In the American Army when the platoon leader was killed..... someone stepped up and took command.....and they were capable of getting the job done down to the lowest rank....

BTW Some of those studies also disclosed German soldiers were very bad night fighters..... could not seem to understand the value of light and noise discipline

Answer 6

The elite German divisions were superior to the Americans, such as Panzer Lehr, Gross Deutchland, the 'classic' Waffen SS divisions, as well as the heavy tank battalions of the latter part of the war. The Americans had air superiority and numbers which proved the decisive factor in the end.

You could have good morale, experience and weapons, but you couldn't last long under carpet bombing, air superiority and overwhelming numbers.....and leadership by a Bohemian Corporal locked away in East Prussia....who couldn't even be awakened during the critical hours of D-day...but that's another discussion.

Answer 7

THE US HAD BETTER SENIOR COMMANDERS ONLY BECAUSE THE POLITICIANS ALLOWED THE COMMANDERS TO COMMAND WITHOUT INTERFERENCE UNLIKE HITLER COMMANDERS. THE NCO'S OF BOTH ARMIES WERE ABOUT =. THE CONDITIONING OF THE US MILITARY WAS SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER ARMIES DUE TO THE LUXURY OF THE LONGER BASIC TRAINING AND BEING THE BEST FED ARMY DURING THE WAR. AS FOR MORAL, BY THE TIME TAHT THE US ENTERED THE WAR, THE GERMANS MORAL WAS ALREADY SUFFERING FROM THE DEFEATS AT STALINGRAD, BATTLE OF BRITTAN AND THE BRITTISH OFFENSIVES IN NORTH AFRICA. EXPERIANCE WENT TO THE US BECAUSE THE GERMAN UNITS WERE USED UNTIL THEY NO LONGER EXISTED AND HENCE VERY FEW EXPERIENCED TROOPS LEFT, WHERE THE US USED A FORM OF ROTATION WHERE UNITS THAT WERE IN EXTENDED COMBAT WERE REMOVED FROM THE FRONT AND RESTED AND REFITTED. AS FOR WEAPONS, THE GERMANS HAD BETTER ARMOR THAM THE US, BUT NOT BETTER THAN THE RUSSIANS.BETTER MG BUT INFERIOR RIFLES BUT THE US HAD THE BIGGEST ADVANTAGE IN FIELD ARTILLERY IN THE USE OF CORIDNATED FIRE AND SUPERIOR LOGISTICS

Answer 8

I think the German soldier was better in the early years of the war, but by the time Europe was invaded in 1944 it was pretty much even up on troop quality.

As for commanders, I'd give the edge to the Germans...of course there are exceptions on both sides.

As for equipment, I'd say the Germans were quite superior early on but did not update their models, or produce the improved ones in the quantity they needed. As time went on, the US was quite happy to use 5 US tanks to kill one Tiger.

Morale is tricky, because the Americans had the stronger moral purpose but the Germans were fighting for their homeland....so hard to say on this one. The Germans sure did fight to the bitter end.

Answer 9

it extremely is an extremely hard assessment. The Germans had tanks and autos and motorcycles and planes, on a similar time as all of the Romans had have been horses. that's why it took lots longer for them to triumph over issues. The Romans and Germans have been the two ok geared up and had great techniques. The Germans used blietzkreig to step forward hard armies, on a similar time as the Romans have been the 1st to apply generals and cohorts of their battlefields for max enterprise. The Romans confronted specially unordered barbarians, on a similar time as Germany confronted properly geared up civilizations with effective rigidity. besides the actuality that, the Roman's innovations finally extra approximately prevalent conflict and additionally made the German military greater suitable. settle on for your self.

Answer 10

The German Army was better trained then ours in all the areas you mention above. But it was also there use on new doctrine involving air/land battle that the German army truly excelled at and some of there commanders that used it were very successful.