Ok, Hitler in his infinite wisdom declared war on the us shortly after Pearl Harbor, i know that Germany thought that japan was a lot stronger than they actually were and i also know that shortly before world war 2 the us army ranked 17th in size, right behind Romania, but how much of a fight did Hitler expect the USA to put up, I know Germany was counting on the US mainly focusing on Japan and Japan was counting on the Us focusing on Germany, but did Germany know about the Industrial power of the US and the massive part they would play in the European theater, or did they expect the US to just keep supplying Britain with munitions and planes like before
Hi overlord
i think the Hitler did not underestimate the war and industrial potential of USA.
He simply hoped to the qiuick finish of the war in the USSR in the end of 1941. In fact the germans were close to Moscow ( and to the victory).
Knowing that Hitler simply wish to support the agressy of the Japanes in the far east to involve and tied the USA as much as they could.
His intentions were not a stoopid - if the USSR losed the war the Germany could get the enourmouse resource ( mans and materials) for the continie the war. Having the Kavkaz oil the Germany could able to led the continious war.
In this perspective ( the quick defeat of USSR) the allie’s chances for the victory should be much worst. And Germany would have a great chances for the final victory.
This was a lottery IMO- Hitler bet for the wrong horse - the Wermach was not able to take the USSR in 1941-42.
I fully agree with Chevan.
But what did the Germans thought when the war was declared on the US?
My granfather told me, that his father said - righty quoted: Jetzt sind wir am Arsch!
His father must had been a very civilized person, but he was right - translated it means like: Now we are f*cked!
I think the most other reasonably thinking Germans thought like he was doing.
LOL LMAO true, i think every germen thought hitler was crazy maybe but i never knew we had a small army but we are still the best tacticed, stragetict, and strong nation…take a look at the win of our first war{USA}…agaisnt the biggest naval fleet, the most domanating country britain, then we kicked there @$$ for freedom, no offense to the british, to tell you the truth, i love british and european peeps
Well … you really think?
I think quite many admired him, but there always have to be some other thinking people - that’s humanity.
And the part about the best tacticed and strategic nation in World War II … i think you should really think about that, even when you are patriotic 
well even if hitler knew about the us industrial power the german people probably didnt know as much, although i’m sure many of them recalled what basically ended world war 1
well true the us is not the best stragistict am just a little to patriotic and i guess the people of germany did like hitler…i guess i just got ahead of my self, sorry
Talking to German veterans, while they had an emormous respect for the American industrial capacities and very envious of their supplies, they generally didn’t consider the American troops as the best fighters. They had a grudging respect for the British and Russians, but considered the American tactics of calling in a massive artillery barrage or an airstrike as soon as ground troops would encounter the least bit of resistance in fact cowardly.
Jan
Without the American interference WW1 would have probably ened in a stalemate among exhausted countries. The sudden impact of fresh troops and plenty of supplies on the Allied side changed the outcome. Don’t forget that WW1 was already going on for 3 years before American troops appeared on the scene.
Jan
The American revolutionary war was fought on land, not at sea. While Britain used to have a huge professional navy, the army was until the end of the 19th century rrather small and badly organised.
Jan
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=73555&postcount=1
PARTIAL QUOTE:
German and American infantry tactics differed in significant ways. The German infantry squad was trained to use their MG 42s as the centerpiece of their tactics, based on World War I experiences which emphasized the importance of machine-guns in infantry combat. In a platoon action, one of the squads would often be equipped with the headquarters’ machine-gun, allowing it to serve as the focal point. US tactical doctrine placed emphasis on the individual rifleman, armed with the semi-automatic MI Garand rifle, rather than the BAR squad automatic rifle. Although the US MI Garand had a higher rate of fire than the bolt-action German 98k rifle, US infantry squads were seldom able to achieve firepower superiority over their German opponents due to the lethality of the German machine-gun tactics.
Nevertheless, US infantry formations often enjoyed significant firepower advantages over their German opponents. What the squad and platoon lacked in organic firepower was made up in artillery support. While German and American artillery divisions had similar artillery strength on paper, in reality the US divisions were more likely to actually have their establishment of weapons and more often had adequate ammunition supplies. However, the real advantage in infantry combat was communications, especially in mobile operations. The US infantry had far better and more lavish radio equipment than the Germans. At platoon level, the US Army used the SCR-536 “handie-talkie”, a small hand-held AM transceiver. At company level, they used the man-pack SCR-300 “walkie-talkie” FM transceiver to communicate with the battalion and higher headquarters. The German Army had no platoon radios, and their older AM man-pack radios were deployed no lower than at company level. The widespread use of dependable radios meant that US infantry could call for fire support during mobile offensive operations much more easily than their German counterparts.
The US Army deployed better communication equipment, and it was more widely distributed. The SCR-536 was a small hand-held originally designed for paratrooper use. The US Army was the only force in World War II to use radios such as this widely at platoon level. This assisted in coordinating fire support, such as the 60mm mortar seen here in action near Perriers-en-Beaufice on 12 August 1944.
In another important tactical innovation, the US Army in Europe regularly deployed an artillery forward observer team with forward infantry companies. The officer was equipped with a man-portable radio linked to the artillery net, and was assigned both to call in and to correct fire. American units in key sectors also enjoyed the added firepower of corps artillery, and infantry divisions often had additional artillery battalions allotted to their support for special missions. US infantry also had better armored support, often having a tank battalion and tank destroyer battalion added to each division.
The German infantry tended to hold a disparaging view of American infantry, judging them to be less aggressive in close-combat tactics. This was in part a reflection of the stagnation in German infantry tactics. Experienced US infantry units, painfully aware of their firepower shortcomings when up against German infantry squads, were perfectly happy to use the killing power of artillery when it was available instead of suffering needless casualties. This difference in outlook was in part a cultural clash: the pragmatism of the GI versus the romantic fighting spirit of the German Landser (fighting man).
Source:
An interesting comparison of the German and U.S. Armies in the Autumn of 1944 from the book Lorraine 1944 Patton vs Manteuffel by Steven J. Zaloga (Osprey, 2000, pp 19-30)
Actually the British had their WS 38 Wireless set at platoon level, which got introduced in 1943. They were carried in canvas pouches by the radio operator instead of the Bren pouches, with one containing the transceiver, while the other one contained the battery pack. Frequency range was in the 40-30 meter band, with a power output of 0.2 watts, with the rod antenna the range was about 1 mile. Modulation was AM voice. The drawback was that the frequencies were not quarz stabilised and tended to wander, so that the radio operator had to adjust them constantly.
Before the British used the WS 18 set (introduced in 1940), which was a backpack set, quite heavy and cumbersome. It operated in the same frequency range, with about the same power.
Pictures from
http://home.wxs.nl/~meuls003/wireless/wireless.html, which also gives more information about the British WW2 wireless sets.
Jan
Here is a picture of the SCR-536 /BC-611 radio transceiver:
Picture from http://www.greenradio.de/e_bc611.htm
Jan
yeah and it was the thousands of fresh troops that broke the stalemate
well i was just making an opinion but the british army in the revoultnary was still a large and destructive army
Sorry guys, a bit off topic and incorrect America won WWI. The majority of US forces were still being trained up and prepared for the planned 1919 offensives when the final breakthrough battles were fought in the last months of 1918.
Those units that saw action gave a good account of themselves and were wanted for Monash’s last great offensive, but were refused on the grounds American forces should not fight under a ‘foreign’ commander.
I think any further comments on this subject should be posted under the WWI threads.
Regards digger
Attacking the USSR seems extremely stupid on the part of Germany and declaring war on the US even more so. Such great idiocy seems unprecedented and incomprehensible to me.
Germany already had the vast resources of most of Europe. They had overrun Poland, Belgium, Holland, Norway and France and were allied with Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.