Scrapper_511 Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Just caught a few minutes of Military Channel (Secrets of WW2?) and just learned that Von Manstein was pulled out of prison to serve as an advisor for NATO. His skill in maneuver was that great of an asset. Everything on that channel seem to be reruns for me so I was surprised about this one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer_Leader Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Just caught a few minutes of Military Channel (Secrets of WW2?) and just learned that Von Manstein was pulled out of prison to serve as an advisor for NATO. His skill in maneuver was that great of an asset. Everything on that channel seem to be reruns for me so I was surprised about this one.Yes, I've often wondered about this. If the Germans couldn't beat the Soviets with superior equipment and tactics but numerical inferiority what made NATO think they could? Nukes? Wishful thinking? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemolitionMan Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 I read that NATO, in particular US and UK were very impressed by the Wehrmacht's performance on the Eastern Front in 44/45(Moving Encirclement, Mobile Defense and so forth) and tried to gain knowlege and gather as much information from first-hand tactical and strategical reports and interviews of the commanding officers. Hence many reading tours and study seminars of Generals like Mellenthin, Manstein and Manteuffel in the USA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Companion Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Yes, I've often wondered about this. If the Germans couldn't beat the Soviets with superior equipment and tactics but numerical inferiority what made NATO think they could? Nukes? Wishful thinking?NATO had to, so every little bit helped. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrapper_511 Posted June 6, 2012 Author Share Posted June 6, 2012 ...If the Germans couldn't beat the Soviets with superior equipment and tactics but numerical inferiority what made NATO think they could? Nukes? Wishful thinking?This is my sentiment exactly after studying the Eastern Front. However, is it naive to think that NATO air-superiority can be maintained and make a big difference in the ground war? Or does this issue with air-superiority remain along the lines of what existed in the Eastern Front also? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furia Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 Yes, I've often wondered about this. If the Germans couldn't beat the Soviets with superior equipment and tactics but numerical inferiority what made NATO think they could? Nukes? Wishful thinking?Some of the main reasons the Germans could not completely defeat the Soviets and they were quite close to make it, had nothing to do with tactics or maneuvering art from the Soviet side, but with some other factors such as the intelligence provided by Enigma from London that gave them plenty of information in advance about the Wermacht upcoming operations like happened in Kursk.Other reasons were that Germany was fighting in several fronts at the same time. A very serious political error.Another very relevant factor was war production. While German factories and cities were reduced to rubble, Soviet factories east of the Urals were working at full production and counting with the additional material support from the Allied.So as tactical and strategically wise, Von Manstein knew very well how to handle Soviet Armies as he clearly demosntrated it, provide the Soviets didn't had Enigma, spies, someone else bombing German factories for them and so :biggrin:All of course IMHO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonm Posted June 6, 2012 Share Posted June 6, 2012 And of course no longer hamstrung by the Austrian Corporal and his brain waves. Writing off Armies in battles over cities just because they are named after the other dictator is never a good basis for operational planning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 7, 2012 Members Share Posted June 7, 2012 Well, the remaining Wehrmacht generals had all the incentive in their memoirs to lay blame for everything that went wrong on the one guy who a) was clearly out of his mind at the time b) had conveniently committed suicide c) was burnt to ashes d) didn't leave a diary or other contradicting point of view At the same time the public was all too willing to ignore that it was the same great generals who were a) appointed by said corporal b) were all falling over themselves to carry out his lunacy Hopefully no longer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Also remember that some of the this "Superior" equipment was untried and untested. (I.E. Panther) Okay they ironed out most of the bugs before '45, but still fixing it took resources away from the front. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted June 7, 2012 Members Share Posted June 7, 2012 ...but that was a problem with which every army had to deal, just think of the many Sherman variants, or the evolution of the T-34. Sure, nothing as excessive as, say, the Panzer IV, but still. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.