So this stemmed from a line in his WWI Countdown to Apocalypse about how he thought the WWI German army was better than the WWII German army. Thought many here might like to listen to it.
Post Reply
1 of 1
Dan Carlin: Which was better WWI or WWII German Army?
2,698 Views |
22 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by agforlife97
I'll have to listen, but I think it is no contest, 2 was better than 1.
It is an interesting discussion for sure. Worth the listen to pass time before Supernova 6 comes out
But after today what am I going to do for the next 3-4 months until then.
It's very difficult to compare the two, but I would agree with him (from his original hardcore series) that the 1st one was, overall, more disciplined/successful/durable and, on the net, impressive. The machinery was quite incredible. The WW2 army gets a lot of credit for striking out boldly/conquering France but really benefited from a few tactical advantages early, imho.
I think his line about "if you take the Nazis out of the equation, then WW2 is better" was very insightful. Hadn't thought of it like that before. He has a way of making me see things from a different perspective.
I know. Was really wanting to hear a bit of his style and this was a good appetizerJABQ04 said:
But after today what am I going to do for the next 3-4 months until then.
Well that wasn't what I was expecting, it was more which political system was superior for commanding the military, not which military was better. Basically he discounts 2 for being commanded by Nazis. I could flip that argument on him and say despite being commanded by idiots (especially Goering per Carlin), look what the 2 army did. To me the talk was not a comparison of the armies.
If comparing the armies and not the systems I still say WW2 was better. Despite equipment that was not as good as France's the German's wiped the floor with them. Carlin seems to want to give 1 credit for knocking Russia out of the war (I think the Communists had more to do with that) but none to 2 for knocking France out of the war, come on man! Yes, from 1914-17 the 1 army fought a two front war but 1 never had to fight with large armies in Africa, defend France, Italy and Greece while fighting on the Eastern Front.
The Germans holding off the Russians for three years with the latter superiority in men and artillery is more impressive to me than 1.
I think he gives more credit to the German army of 1914 than I do. They weren't the Bismarck machine anymore. All the 1914 armies were pretty fragile in my opinion and no one knew how to fight the war and not capable of sustained offensive operations (the best army of 1914 was Serbia but there weren't enough of them and their equipment sucked).
Where I would give props to 1 is they started pretty weak but learned and got more formidable by 1918 with innovations like the Storm Troopers. The 2 started on a high and worked its way down the curve. So one had a slight up tick where 2 was on a downward trajectory from the beginning.
If comparing the armies and not the systems I still say WW2 was better. Despite equipment that was not as good as France's the German's wiped the floor with them. Carlin seems to want to give 1 credit for knocking Russia out of the war (I think the Communists had more to do with that) but none to 2 for knocking France out of the war, come on man! Yes, from 1914-17 the 1 army fought a two front war but 1 never had to fight with large armies in Africa, defend France, Italy and Greece while fighting on the Eastern Front.
The Germans holding off the Russians for three years with the latter superiority in men and artillery is more impressive to me than 1.
I think he gives more credit to the German army of 1914 than I do. They weren't the Bismarck machine anymore. All the 1914 armies were pretty fragile in my opinion and no one knew how to fight the war and not capable of sustained offensive operations (the best army of 1914 was Serbia but there weren't enough of them and their equipment sucked).
Where I would give props to 1 is they started pretty weak but learned and got more formidable by 1918 with innovations like the Storm Troopers. The 2 started on a high and worked its way down the curve. So one had a slight up tick where 2 was on a downward trajectory from the beginning.
That's fair to say, I think he's pretty good at the history stuff (not a fan of his modern political takes).
Like any good/great historian, he does a good job at contextualizing a historical event into a narrative of personalities that really brings the story to life.
Thankfully, the nazi's overall had terrible/ineffective leadership when it mattered, both politically and militarily. The logistical/planning achievements of the earlier long gray line still seem incredible to me, though.
Most forget, for instance, that the 'german army' of WW1 was really comprised of units from 38 separate duchy's/kingdoms. Integrating all of that in a massive invasion of Belgium/France with the logistical tail involved is...an amazing feat with the communications/resources of the day. They never really ran out of ammo, either, despite producing something like 10 or 12 percent only of global industrial output and facing off against all of the other major industrial powers.
Like any good/great historian, he does a good job at contextualizing a historical event into a narrative of personalities that really brings the story to life.
Thankfully, the nazi's overall had terrible/ineffective leadership when it mattered, both politically and militarily. The logistical/planning achievements of the earlier long gray line still seem incredible to me, though.
Most forget, for instance, that the 'german army' of WW1 was really comprised of units from 38 separate duchy's/kingdoms. Integrating all of that in a massive invasion of Belgium/France with the logistical tail involved is...an amazing feat with the communications/resources of the day. They never really ran out of ammo, either, despite producing something like 10 or 12 percent only of global industrial output and facing off against all of the other major industrial powers.
I think the surprise of the Russian mobilization throwing a huge kink in the German plan in WW1 really shows how good that military was. They were able to pivot, attack and knock out the second front while still making headway in the west. Says a lot they were able to get the troops and resources where they needed them so quickly.
Yes, Tannenberg and the Masurian Lakes was very impressive with much smaller armies, even if it was the weak Czar led Russians, but the freaking Wehrmacht conquered all of Western Europe in less than two years, was still a force in Africa and about to knock the Soviets back to the gates of Moscow.
This is true, but they weren't able to finish it off because of the decisions to split armies for the pettiness of capturing the town named after the Russian dictator. Kind of plays into his point. Combine that with allowing the British to stay viable at Dunkirk it is pretty damning. I don't think the WW1 army would have done either of those.
By the way, this is exactly why I wanted to post the video. It is great for discussion.
By the way, this is exactly why I wanted to post the video. It is great for discussion.
And on the back end, when the Russians capitulated and all those troops were send back to the Western Front. If I have my timing correctly it was fortunate that the timing coincided with American troops entering combat. Even so the spring of 1918 was a damn close thing for the Allies
They actually had it planned down to the number of hours, for various units to be required to re-deploy via rail to the eastern front, in WW1.AgBQ-00 said:
I think the surprise of the Russian mobilization throwing a huge kink in the German plan in WW1 really shows how good that military was. They were able to pivot, attack and knock out the second front while still making headway in the west. Says a lot they were able to get the troops and resources where they needed them so quickly.
It was a very complex, and in such context incredible how well they succeeded/held on. Everyone, in general, denigrates WW1 generals for their stupidity WRT trenches etc., but properly contextualized again I think the Germans did about as well as one could possibly have expected given what they wound up facing, strategically and tactically. The French were by no means an easy foe but they did well vs. the 'toujours elan' or 'always attack' mentality.
Either of them would wipe the walls (tech being equalized) with the modern German Bundeswehr. Heck, the Texas National Guard could defeat any army in Europe except England or France (which is actually better than Germany, believe it or not).
My Aegis Security guys in Iraq in '07 '08 and '09 (All retired Guardsmen, Royal Marines and Paras) said that the British Army was pretty much castrated with the combining of all the Guards Regiments, County Regiments and the reduction of the "Armour" Brigades. I was in the British AO in Basra during that time and they were not conducting any offensive operations against the Iranians/Mahdi Army ('08),only reacting. It took the American Army to come in to take out them out of the game at that time. I remember it very well. LOTS of American Apaches showed up.aalan94 said:
Either of them would wipe the walls (tech being equalized) with the modern German Bundeswehr. Heck, the Texas National Guard could defeat any army in Europe except England or France (which is actually better than Germany, believe it or not).
Do you consider the reason the condition Bundeswehr is what it is because of the "we're are not going there again" attitude of the German population in general? I was not overly impressed with them in any of my encounters with them in Afghanistan. I do have to hand it to them though, each unit had its own pub and they didn't have Gen. Ord. No.1.
Those Brit OpFor guys are pretty good. No "Y" straps.ABATTBQ87 said:
I served in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were no Germans in Iraq. I was a German undergrad, so I got to know a few Germans in Afghanistan very well. True, these folks were not the front line material, but I also knew what they were doing in country. Separately, being fluent in German, I've had opportunities to work in a liaison role with them in the U.S.
I think there are German troops that would love to kick butt and take names, but as a country, Germany is highly risk averse and afraid of being militarist, so they're basically forced to be wimpy.
I was also in Iraq in 2007-8, and the Brits I knew were very good, but I think it very much depended by unit. But again, their public is risk averse, and I put that on the public more than the troops.
The allies who I think really are worth a darn (which you might not expect) are the Poles and the Rumanians. The Poles because they are so happy to have a country back and because they legitimately want to be brave and useful, and the Rumanians because they want to prove their worth to the Americans so that we'll never abandon them to the Ruskies.
I think there are German troops that would love to kick butt and take names, but as a country, Germany is highly risk averse and afraid of being militarist, so they're basically forced to be wimpy.
I was also in Iraq in 2007-8, and the Brits I knew were very good, but I think it very much depended by unit. But again, their public is risk averse, and I put that on the public more than the troops.
The allies who I think really are worth a darn (which you might not expect) are the Poles and the Rumanians. The Poles because they are so happy to have a country back and because they legitimately want to be brave and useful, and the Rumanians because they want to prove their worth to the Americans so that we'll never abandon them to the Ruskies.
Good post, obligatory 'western civilization might have fallen had it not been for John Sobieski at the battle of Vienna.' The world owes a debt to this day to the Poles.
I think the 1914 German Army was much better in the sense that it was trained much better. The German army of 1939 was not very well trained at all. Germany had only started rearming in earnest in 1936. The German high command was horrified at the performance of a lot of the army in the Polish campaign. In fact, most historians believe that if Hitler had launched the Battle of France any sooner that it would have been a disaster. Hitler had tremendous luck in that campaign as it actually happened as well.
agforlife97 said:
I think the 1914 German Army was much better in the sense that it was trained much better. The German army of 1939 was not very well trained at all. Germany had only started rearming in earnest in 1936. The German high command was horrified at the performance of a lot of the army in the Polish campaign. In fact, most historians believe that if Hitler had launched the Battle of France any sooner that it would have been a disaster. Hitler had tremendous luck in that campaign as it actually happened as well.
Is it not also true that France totally bungled an opportunity to seriously decimate the German invasion by bombing and strafing right as it started when they ignored reports and refused to send planes out to attack the army as it was gridlocked along the way into France?
Cool I'll have to listen to this video. I remember the allusion to this discussion and I think brief overview of his own opinion during one or some of his podcasts.
The French Army was so poorly led in 1940 that it is astonishing to read about. Equipment and size wise, the French Army of 1940 was a match for the German Army and should have performed much better on paper. The German victory was more about the failure of the French Army leadership and political system than anything else.XUSCR said:agforlife97 said:
I think the 1914 German Army was much better in the sense that it was trained much better. The German army of 1939 was not very well trained at all. Germany had only started rearming in earnest in 1936. The German high command was horrified at the performance of a lot of the army in the Polish campaign. In fact, most historians believe that if Hitler had launched the Battle of France any sooner that it would have been a disaster. Hitler had tremendous luck in that campaign as it actually happened as well.
Is it not also true that France totally bungled an opportunity to seriously decimate the German invasion by bombing and strafing right as it started when they ignored reports and refused to send planes out to attack the army as it was gridlocked along the way into France?
Featured Stories
See All
2025 Prosper offensive lineman Connor Carty commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
37:35
13h ago
4.5k
The Loochador Podcast: Maroon & White Game storylines abound
by Billy Liucci
6:33
13h ago
2.2k
In-Home Visit: Carty provides more Metroplex muscle for Maroon Goons
by TexAgs Recruiting
7:40
13h ago
18k
2025 OL Connor Carty calls committing to A&M a 'dream come true'
by Jason Howell
0:00
18h ago
4.8k
Leonard H. Stringfield
FTAB Halftime show for the t.u. game this year
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
12
rocketman1806
BSB: Thursday's A&M-Alabama game postponed, Friday DH
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
4