Is that because the Germans are so uber and powerful and skilful? Wow. Must be the aryan DNA huh?
One factor I never see raised in these slightly dubious discussions is that the fight was by no means even because Germany essentially had a twenty year advance over everyone else with equipment and tactics. They started with no legacy weapons, a completely re-structured military a huge R&D budget and used the Spanish civil war and other naughtiness to test elements of a new approach as far removed from the previous trench warfare as possible. It was indeed innovative but let's not forget why it was motivated. In the interwar years Europe was fumbling with the concept of trying to move to a world peace philosophy - so outraged were most NORMAL people and governments about the horrors of the first world war. Just look at the arts movements and social developments of the day. Look at the policy of appeasement and that poor deluded fool Neville Chamberlain. Hitler and the other fascists took advantage of this movement to rearm with a vengeance while externally promising peace. The back-stabbing, lying, monotesticular, scumbag.
Britain did not have the capacity immediately after the BoB to counterattack anything interesting and Germany's U-boat blockade was to try and forestall the inevitable and Hitler bloody-well knew it. Had America stayed out it's highly likely Britain would eventually have closed the technological and tactical gap - even it it would have taken to the late 50s - and some kind of different landscape of Europe would have eventually announced. There is evidence for this if you compare equipment towards the closing of the war. They were never going to leave Hitler unmolested if they could. This was an ethical as well as political objection. Go listen to Churchill's speeches.
But by no means let any of those factors disturb your Luftwining, slightly racist, unobjective delusions that Nazi Germany was noble and uber alles and that Britain is and always was the bad guy in every possible scenario. A not uncommon point of view as it deserves to be, apparently.
Wrong, only their airforce, and infantry were largely modernized. Very few Panzer III's and IV's were fielded when Germany rolled up every major military power in Europe through 40 and 41. Only in 42 did Panzer III's really start to form sizeable portions of the panzerwaffe. Prior to that, they were heavily reliant on the already obsolete Panzer I and II's.
And large portions of their artillery arm remained obsolescent throughout the war. Only the leFH 18, 10,5cm K18, and 15cm K39 could be called truly modern designs, and not even all of them were the modernized version suited for mobile warfare. Some still had wooden spoked wheels.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they were übernehmen, but saying Germany didn't start with any legacy weapons is only technically true.
The number one reason they performed as well as they did was their tactics. They were decades ahead of anyone else. Literally nobody else had even the slightest inkling of how to handle their equipment.
Number two was that they were willing to field new equipment the absolute instant it got off the assembly line. Only have 12 of the new Tigers? Perfect, gas em up and throw em at the Russians.
New 190 has problems with the cockpit temperatures? Use them anyway.
The German military is always made out to be far more robust than it actually was.
And the third reason they performed as well as they did was that they were motivated. Morale is huge.
