PDA

View Full Version : Top Soldiers of WWII



Strangy
09-07-2007, 07:06 AM
I know this thread can be taken many ways, and every soldier, even though told he isnt, is an individual. But based on training, equipment, and the culture of war, what nation in ww2 do you think had the best overall soldiers.

alephh
09-07-2007, 08:13 AM
My list would go something like this...

1) Germany
2) UK (lacking fierceness)
3) Japan (lacking flexible thinking)
4) Finland (in WWII blocked USSR attack twice, drove Nazi Germany out of Lapland - considering how many smaller nations were overrun by bigger (and more technological advanced) superpowers that's not bad achievement). (oh my god, I'm starting to sound like a real pro-fin person, I need to start some sort of "let's trash finland" thread or something %-D).
...

Surprisingly difficult to say which nation had "worst" soldiers, since there are so many factors to consider... own gear vs enemy gear, airpower superiority, motivation, training...


_

Strangy
09-07-2007, 10:43 AM
I agree with germans being at the top of the list.
but heres my top

1.Germany (Culture)
2.USA (Supplies and Training)
3.UK



hmmm
haha maybe the french as the worst?
They boasted state of the art tanks, impenetrable defenses, and thousands upon thousands of troops. Yet, i will say this in there defense, even though their goverment surrendered and went into exile, the french military was able to get away to fight another day. And French resistance was crucial, but had france not surrendered. hahaha


anyways


Go Germany. haha

Firefly
09-07-2007, 01:58 PM
Pretty subjective topic. Overall I think that the Germans probably had the best soldiers in the beginning. Over time I think most of the Allies caught up and the Germans, outside of elite units became less effective. What we have to bear in mind is that Culture thing though as the German youth had been literally brainwashed into a military mindset, Hitler Youth programmes etc.

Still though, when you look at the German soldiers in the Ardennes, they werent very effective in a real lot of situations.

However, mission led orders and good unit cohesion does make them stand out more.

Nickdfresh
09-07-2007, 02:08 PM
Pretty subjective topic. Overall I think that the Germans probably had the best soldiers in the beginning. Over time I think most of the Allies caught up and the Germans, outside of elite units became less effective. What we have to bear in mind is that Culture thing though as the German youth had been literally brainwashed into a military mindset, Hitler Youth programmes etc.

Still though, when you look at the German soldiers in the Ardennes, they werent very effective in a real lot of situations.

However, mission led orders and good unit cohesion does make them stand out more.

Very true. The Germans are largely overrated in this respect. Many of the American GIs mowing down Wehrmacht and SS using ameteurish, horrid offensive infantry tactics during the Battle of the Bulge (basically doing their best early-WWI infantry assault impressions) hardly regarded them as supermen...

Or that instances such as the average soldier in the British 8th Army being pretty much the equal of the average Africa Corp soldier on the whole. But they were not led nearly as well initially. So, were the German soldiers "better" individually, or were they fighting under better leadership which made them more effective?

Panzerknacker
09-07-2007, 08:35 PM
1.Germany (Culture)

Uh..? you lost me with that. Did the culture fights in a war ?

Strangy
09-08-2007, 12:46 AM
no no no, i mean, the reasons they thought they were fighting, to make germany great, to exalt the German race and empire. Also, the revenge for the humility of WW1, which many Germans were still mad over. If you think im wrong, please correct me, id love to learn.

overlord644
09-08-2007, 02:03 AM
1)america- best small arms, exellent training (Rangers and Paratroopers especially), exellent supplies
2)British- dispite lack of fiercness, good small arms, decent supplies
3)Germany- too many old men and young kids, crappy K98, spotty supplies
4)russians- crappy training, bad supplies (if any)
5)Italians- crappy supplies and even worse track record
6)japanese- don't even get me started

Strangy
09-08-2007, 02:33 AM
1)
3)Germany- too many old men and young kids, crappy K98, spotty supplies



lol your thinking of the sturmvolks as far as the old men and young kids. But the "crappy" Kar 98k was one of the most powerful and accurate rifles of the war. I believe German small arms were better then all. Heres some info on the Kar.



-Wikipedia

Description

The Karabiner 98k was a bolt-action rifle with Mauser-type action holding five rounds of 7.92 x 57 mm (also known as 8 mm Mauser or 8 x 57 IS) on a stripper clip, loaded into an internal magazine. It was derived from earlier rifles, namely the Karabiner 98b, which in turn had been developed from the Mauser Model 1898. The Gewehr 98 or Model 1898 took its principles from the Lebel Model 1886 rifle with the improvement of a metallic magazine of five cartridges. Since the rifle was shorter than the earlier carbines, it was given the designation Karabiner 1898 Kurz, meaning "Short Carbine Model 1898". The standard Karabiner 98k iron sights could be regulated for ranges from 100 m up to 2000 m in 100 m increments.

The rifle was noted for its good accuracy and effective up to 500 meters (547 yards) with iron sights. For this reason, rifles selected for being exceptionally accurate during factory tests, were also fitted with a telescopic sight as sniper rifles. Kar 98k sniper rifles had an effective range up to 800 meters (875 yards) when used by a skilled sniper. Improvement beyond this standard was possible with the help of German Luftwaffe (Air force) 7.92 mm high velocity machine gun ammunition which achieved a higher muzzle velocity due to a more powerful smokeless powder charge. German snipers sometimes used this high velocity round to gain an extra 150 meters (164 yards) effective range and increased accuracy at closer ranges.

The 98k rifle was designed to be used with a S84/98 III bayonet[2] and to fire rifle grenades. Most rifles had laminated stocks [3], the result of trials that had stretched through the 1930s. Plywood laminates resisted warping better than the conventional one-piece patterns, did not require lengthy maturing and were less wasteful.

The 98k had the same disadvantages as all other turn-of-the-century military rifles in that it was comparatively bulky and heavy, and the rate of fire was limited by how fast the bolt could be operated. Its magazine had only half the capacity of Great Britain's Lee-Enfield rifles, but being internal, it made the weapon less uncomfortable to carry. While the Allies (both Soviet and Anglo-American) developed and moved towards standardization of semi-automatic rifles, the Germans maintained these bolt-action rifles due to their tactical doctrine of basing a squad's firepower on the unit's light machine gun and possibly their problems of mass producing semi-automatic rifles.

In close combat, however, submachine guns were often preferred, especially for urban combat where the rifle's range and low rate of fire were not very useful. Towards the end of the war, the Kar98k was being phased out in favour of the StG44 assault rifle, which fired a round that was more powerful than that of submachine guns, but that could be used like a submachine gun in close-quarters and urban fighting. Production of the StG44 was never sufficient to meet demand, being a late war weapon, and because of this the Mauser Kar98k rifle was still produced and used as the standard infantry rifle by the German forces until the German surrender at the end of World War II in May 1945.

[edit] Combat use

[edit] World War II

The Mauser Kar98k rifle was widely used by all branches of the armed forces of Nazi Germany during World War II. It saw action in every theatre of war involving German forces, including occupied Europe, North Africa, the Soviet Union, Finland, and Norway. Resistance forces in German-occupied Europe made frequent use of captured German 98k rifles. The Soviet Union also made extensive use of captured Kar98k rifles (and other German infantry weapons due to the Red Army experiencing a critical shortage of small arms during the early years of World War II) and rifle factories during World War II, as they were somewhat familiar with the weapon's technology after buying the licences and machinery necessary to manufacture them from the Nazi Germany during the time of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. However most of these factories were converted to produce Mosin-Nagant rifles and carbines as Soviet forces gained stable territory and were able to establish supply lines for production. Many German Soldiers used the verbal expression "Kars" as the slang name for the rifle.

[edit] Post-World War II

Panzerknacker
09-08-2007, 11:12 AM
no no no, i mean, the reasons they thought they were fighting, to make germany great, to exalt the German race and empire. Also, the revenge for the humility of WW1, which many Germans were still mad over. If you think im wrong, please correct me, id love to learn

Ok, now I see it.

I dont think tou are wrong there was some of the feelings that you ve descrived.

By the way having the M1 Garand and the K-43 I woulnt get much excited about the K-98.:roll:

Nickdfresh
09-08-2007, 02:38 PM
The K98 was crap, not just because it was a bolt action rifle facing ever increasing semi-automatic rifles, but because it was less accurate and reliable than even most other bolt action rifles...

Panzerknacker
09-08-2007, 08:18 PM
I wasnt crap but it was definately overrated.

overlord644
09-08-2007, 08:55 PM
the k98 was a good rifle when it comes to accuracy and penetration, but comparatively i would much rather have an M1 or even an Enfield, i probably should have phrased that better

Chevan
09-09-2007, 06:42 AM
Guys i have to say this is rather funny thread- whom soldiers were the best.
I mean we all are not the objective here and our post will express the ONLY tupical stereotypes and propogandas in every YOUR states.
So this is rather senseless to poll what army/soldiers was the best.
One could thingk that the US army supplies was the best - this's true.
However all we know that during the all the WAR the NO ONE bomb was dropped to the USA. Moreovere the USA industry had the BOOM of the production due to the war in Europe.
So this is the rather doubt to say that the US army was the best in the WW2 simply coz they has a best supplies.
However there is the majority of the Americans - so they could not agree....:)

Nickdfresh
09-09-2007, 12:44 PM
Guys i have to say this is rather funny thread- whom soldiers were the best.
I mean we all are not the objective here and our post will express the ONLY tupical stereotypes and propogandas in every YOUR states.
So this is rather senseless to poll what army/soldiers was the best.
One could thingk that the US army supplies was the best - this's true.
However all we know that during the all the WAR the NO ONE bomb was dropped to the USA...

Not true!

A Japanese "Balloon Bomb," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon) ingenious bombs carried via balloons riding the Jet-Stream to North America were designed to start forest fires in the western US and Canada, killed a family on a picnic...

Chevan
09-09-2007, 01:40 PM
Not true!

A Japanese "Balloon Bomb," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon) ingenious bombs carried via balloons riding the Jet-Stream to North America were designed to start forest fires in the western US and Canada, killed a family on a picnic...

oh my god the whole one family perished during the war in America.What's a serious damage for the working power.;)
I think the MUCh more people died every year to be killed by the Tornado , floods and fires.

Cheers.

Chevan
09-09-2007, 02:28 PM
1)america- best small arms, exellent training (Rangers and Paratroopers especially), exellent supplies

Did you ever hear sir that the Hitler thought about ability of the American army to fight?
When he planned the Ardenn offencive- he told the Keitel that the Americans is the most weak section among the allias i.e. he considered the americans troops worse than the Britains and Soviets.
Also we know his statements about American armored wearponry that "the One tiger is equal of the 20 Shermans".
Sure it was just the Hitler's subjective oppinion;)
And he had been mistaken not once about the ability of Britain and Soviets to resist.
For instance he believed in 1940 that he could force the Britain to capitulate via the Bombing compain, and he believed in the 1941 that he could captured the Moscow for the 4 month.
However it was oppinion of the men who managed the German army;)

George Eller
09-09-2007, 05:29 PM
Did you ever hear sir that the Hitler thought about ability of the American army to fight?
When he planned the Ardenn offencive- he told the Keitel that the Americans is the most weak section among the allias i.e. he considered the americans troops worse than the Britains and Soviets.
Also we know his statements about American armored wearponry that "the One tiger is equal of the 20 Shermans".
Sure it was just the Hitler's subjective oppinion;)
And he had been mistaken not once about the ability of Britain and Soviets to resist.
For instance he believed in 1940 that he could force the Britain to capitulate via the Bombing compain, and he believed in the 1941 that he could captured the Moscow for the 4 month.
However it was oppinion of the men who managed the German army;)
-

Hey, Welcome back :)

And you forgot to add Chevan - after the Ardennes Offensive failed, he was mistaken about the ability of Americans to resist. ;)

I'm out for the rest of the day. Back tomorrow.

Cheers.

-

Chevan
09-09-2007, 05:51 PM
-

Hey, Welcome back :)

And you forgot to add Chevan - after the Ardennes Offensive failed, he was mistaken about the ability of Americans to resist. ;)

I'm out for the rest of the day. Back tomorrow.

Cheers.

-
Hey George.
Sure you right the Ardenn offencive ( without the reserves of fuel and ammos and without the aviation) was a full adventure. As we know the germans planned to cupture the american stores of fuel:)
This was a bold but a desperate idea from the most beginning.
Nevertheless the Germans had a tactical success initially.IMO they still had the experience superiority in the Western front in this stage of war.

Cheers.

overlord644
09-09-2007, 07:18 PM
Did you ever hear sir that the Hitler thought about ability of the American army to fight?
When he planned the Ardenn offencive- he told the Keitel that the Americans is the most weak section among the allias i.e. he considered the americans troops worse than the Britains and Soviets.
)

ah but youre forgetting one thing, not only was hitler insane but "The Corporal" was also a moron

Chevan
09-10-2007, 02:34 PM
ah but youre forgetting one thing, not only was hitler insane but "The Corporal" was also a moron
Well probably this true;)
However it hard to believe the Insane could captured the Whole continental Europe for the 1 year, terrorized the Britain for three , and vanished out the Red army for the 4 years.
If he was insane - who were the other in this way?;)

Just kidding....
Cheers.

tankgeezer
09-10-2007, 06:58 PM
I'll go with the Ghurkas. Well motivated, well trained, had great courage. There is a story, (dont know if it is a true story, but if it isn't, it aught to be.) A group of Ghurkas were informed that they would be going on a jump mission, and that the jump altitude was to be 3,000Ft. They grumbled about it until someone clued them in about parachutes.....

Sergeant Dorr
09-11-2007, 12:09 PM
I saw one vote for Russia up there and i got to ask one thing. What are you thinking? Probobly the last time Russia was good in battle was when Peter the Great was Tsar. Sorry if anyone is sensitive to what I just posted

Sergeant Dorr
09-11-2007, 12:11 PM
but get used to it.

Egorka
09-12-2007, 03:23 AM
but get used to it.

Frankly speaking, a guy who made just 13 post in a forum is not, IMHO, in a position to tell other members "get used to it".

But it maybe just me being wrong. Huh?

Kovalski
09-12-2007, 06:28 AM
Frankly speaking, a guy who made just 13 post in a forum is not, IMHO, in a position to tell other members "get used to it".

But it maybe just me being wrong. Huh?
I hope you're not wrong Igor.

Sergeant Dorr
09-12-2007, 11:51 AM
Frankly speaking, a guy who made just 13 post in a forum is not, IMHO, in a position to tell other members "get used to it".

But it maybe just me being wrong. Huh?


Your not wrong. Mabey I should have thought before I spoke.

and Ijust found out that I voted Russians. I thought I clicked on somting eslse like Americans.

Sorry Igor and Kovalski

Egorka
09-12-2007, 02:08 PM
Sorry Igor and Kovalski

it is ok:)

Egorka
09-13-2007, 06:41 AM
and Ijust found out that I voted Russians.

You see! Mystery solved! :mrgreen:

BTW, "Russians" is the right answer! ;)

Strangy
09-13-2007, 07:33 AM
haha maybe in terms of snipers, but i dont know if i would be able to agree for the average russian conscript in terms of training and average fighting ablilty. It really wasnt until late in the war the russians started to really hammer on the germans, but i think pre 1943, red army was disorganized garbage. Stalin wiped out generals and most of his good officers, so the new officers took a while to learn what war was about.

George Eller
09-13-2007, 09:27 AM
haha maybe in terms of snipers, but i dont know if i would be able to agree for the average russian conscript in terms of training and average fighting ablilty. It really wasnt until late in the war the russians started to really hammer on the germans, but i think pre 1943, red army was disorganized garbage. Stalin wiped out generals and most of his good officers, so the new officers took a while to learn what war was about.
-

I seem to remember reading a German assessment of the Russian soldier years ago that said something to the effect that the Russians were first rate fighters from the start and in time they became first rate soldiers as well.

-

Egorka
09-13-2007, 09:43 AM
Stalin wiped out generals and most of his good officers, so the new officers took a while to learn what war was about.

Here about

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=101858&postcount=78

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=105753&postcount=139

Egorka
09-13-2007, 09:46 AM
haha maybe in terms of snipers, but i dont know if i would be able to agree for the average russian conscript in terms of training and average fighting ablilty. It really wasnt until late in the war the russians started to really hammer on the germans, but i think pre 1943, red army was disorganized garbage. Stalin wiped out generals and most of his good officers, so the new officers took a while to learn what war was about.

Both Moscow and Stalingrad happened in 1941 and 1942 respectivly. So it is not that simple.
But I do agree that in average Soviet conscript was less educated than lets say German one. In a way it was a fight between a pesant and a factory worker.

But who won at the end?

Sergeant Dorr
09-13-2007, 10:50 AM
haha maybe in terms of snipers, but i dont know if i would be able to agree for the average russian conscript in terms of training and average fighting ablilty. It really wasnt until late in the war the russians started to really hammer on the germans, but i think pre 1943, red army was disorganized garbage. Stalin wiped out generals and most of his good officers, so the new officers took a while to learn what war was about.

Hey! If it wasn't for Russian Involvement in WWII than wepons like the AK-47 or the RPG might not have ever been invented. I even know why the AK was invented.

Sergeant Dorr
09-13-2007, 10:52 AM
The AK-47 was invented as a result of high russian casualties. so some random soldier (he is still alive today) created a wepon that you could get wet and still fire it the next day.It has a killing range of 200 meters and a tirty round clip. Compare that to the M-16.

Drake
09-13-2007, 12:39 PM
Both Moscow and Stalingrad happened in 1941 and 1942 respectivly. So it is not that simple.
But I do agree that in average Soviet conscript was less educated than lets say German one. In a way it was a fight between a pesant and a factory worker.

But who won at the end?

The allies.

Drake
09-13-2007, 12:49 PM
Hmm, totally biased, but I think overall on average the german soldiers were ahead of the pack in both world wars. My grandfather who fought in france 40+44 and russia 42-43 said the russians were the tougher opponents but more for fighting spirit and ferocity while the western allies were better when it came to tactical skills (british, canadian, i don't know if he ever met GI's). And of course his memory could be tainted by bad weather :D.

Egorka
09-14-2007, 03:24 AM
The AK-47 was invented as a result of high russian casualties. so some random soldier (he is still alive today) created a wepon that you could get wet and still fire it the next day.It has a killing range of 200 meters and a tirty round clip. Compare that to the M-16.

Mihail Kalashnikov was not exactly a "random" soldier. A random soldier can not just start making weapon deign and become the General Designer of small arms for the Soviet Army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Kalashnikov

Egorka
09-14-2007, 03:29 AM
Hmm, totally biased, but I think overall on average the german soldiers were ahead of the pack in both world wars. My grandfather who fought in france 40+44 and russia 42-43 said the russians were the tougher opponents but more for fighting spirit and ferocity while the western allies were better when it came to tactical skills (british, canadian, i don't know if he ever met GI's). And of course his memory could be tainted by bad weather :D.

It is because we are peacefull people and know how to collect berries anf mashrooms in the forest rather than the war tacktics.
It is only when an enemy comes to our house we put the sickle and hammer aside and take the rifle. ;)

Digger
09-14-2007, 07:46 AM
Naturally I'm going to be parochial and say Aussie soldiers and also Kiwis, Canadians and Ghurkas. Their exploits during the war were often overlooked or deliberately ignored.

But I will stick to Aussie soldiers who were definitely superior to Italians, gave the Germans some bloody noses in North Africa and from the end of 1942 were superior to the Japanese in all aspects of infantry warfare.

Regards digger.

George Eller
09-14-2007, 09:31 AM
Naturally I'm going to be parochial and say Aussie soldiers and also Kiwis, Canadians and Ghurkas. Their exploits during the war were often overlooked or deliberately ignored.

But I will stick to Aussie soldiers who were definitely superior to Italians, gave the Germans some bloody noses in North Africa and from the end of 1942 were superior to the Japanese in all aspects of infantry warfare.

Regards digger.
-

Years ago, I read an article about the Japanese assessment of their opponents during WWII. They rated the Australians at the top, followed by the Americans and so on down the list.

-

Egorka
09-14-2007, 10:05 AM
OK, I will drop my 5 cents to into this controvercial thread:

The best were those who won the war. It is a natural selection, if you wish.

And anyways it is like pairs and apples.

Chevan
09-14-2007, 10:35 AM
It is because we are peacefull people and know how to collect berries anf mashrooms in the forest rather than the war tacktics.

That's holy true;)
And yet we very do not like when somebody try to steal our berries anf mashrooms.
That why we has invented the compact and ready to battle Hydrogen bomb first;) - to protect the our magic mashrooms.


It is only when an enemy comes to our house we put the sickle and hammer aside and take the rifle. ;)
Why do hammer and sickles put aside?
This is the excellent wearpon of the close hand-to-hand battle as it was proved by the handres of military conflict in from the ancient times.;)

Chevan
09-14-2007, 10:37 AM
-

Years ago, I read an article about the Japanese assessment of their opponents during WWII. They rated the Australians at the top, followed by the Americans and so on down the list.

-
Hi George.
I think it becouse the Ausians really hated the Japanes and fierced fought with them.
They was a good motivated after the Japanes war ctrimes toward the Australian civils ( look for instance in the Banka island military mass crime).

George Eller
09-14-2007, 10:53 AM
Hi George.
I think it becouse the Ausians really hated the Japanes and fierced fought with them.
They was a good motivated after the Japanes war ctrimes toward the Australian civils ( look for instance in the Banka island military mass crime).
-

Hi Chevan,

That was probably a good motivator, but the Australians have had a reputation for being tough soldiers for a long time. The Germans had great respect for them during the First World War. And in current times their SAS are in great demand in Afghanistan.

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200704/r136680_463862.jpg

-

Drake
09-14-2007, 11:29 AM
OK, I will drop my 5 cents to into this controvercial thread:

The best were those who won the war. It is a natural selection, if you wish.

And anyways it is like pairs and apples.

True, it's for example much harder for both russian and german troops to build and maintain high standards, as they were in a deadlock struggle with numbers involved the others could only dream of.

Sergeant Dorr
09-14-2007, 12:41 PM
1)4)russians- crappy training, bad supplies (if any)
5)

Crappy training is true (at times) But the suplies they did recive were american supplies and most of them didn't get there because of german U-boats. so bad supplies not true

Chevan
09-14-2007, 12:52 PM
Crappy training is true (at times) But the suplies they did recive were american supplies and most of them didn't get there because of german U-boats. so bad supplies not true

So that's true - the american supplies for the Russian was a full crap.;)
Especially with the comparition of the american supplies of Britain that absorbed the over 65% of lend lease. ( the Soviets - ONLY 23% and France about 6%).

Nickdfresh
09-14-2007, 01:31 PM
Did you ever hear sir that the Hitler thought about ability of the American army to fight?
When he planned the Ardenn offencive- he told the Keitel that the Americans is the most weak section among the allias i.e. he considered the americans troops worse than the Britains and Soviets.
Also we know his statements about American armored wearponry that "the One tiger is equal of the 20 Shermans".
Sure it was just the Hitler's subjective oppinion;)...


The piles of dead German soldiers in front of US foxholes on the outskirts of Bastogne attested to what a self-deluded fool Hitler really was...


Hey George.
Sure you right the Ardenn offencive ( without the reserves of fuel and ammos and without the aviation) was a full adventure. As we know the germans planned to cupture the american stores of fuel:)
This was a bold but a desperate idea from the most beginning.
Nevertheless the Germans had a tactical success initially.IMO they still had the experience superiority in the Western front in this stage of war.

Cheers.

Partially correct -but- even in their initial tactical successes, a fact that is often lost in history is, the Germans suffered heavy casualties even against the "weak," new American divisions in both men and machines even before both the American counterattacks and fuel really became an issue. the Wehrmacht and SS units surely did drive the US Army back, but the suffered heavily in several delaying actions, fought by US troops with no air support, for it. So history's version of 'panicky' green American soldiers 'bugging out' as the Germans approached is not entirely correct. In fact, I think the numbers of panzers lost is quite substantial...

And the recurring comments I've heard by US troops that took part in the battle was how poorly the German infantry, both Army and SS, conducted their assaults as they were essentially mowed down in the snow...

Nickdfresh
09-14-2007, 01:38 PM
oh my god the whole one family perished during the war in America.What's a serious damage for the working power.;)
I think the MUCh more people died every year to be killed by the Tornado , floods and fires.

Cheers.

Oh yes well, I was just making the point that both Germany and Japan thought of ways in which to strike the US mainland, with little real success.

The balloon fire bombs were probably the closest they came to a real effective weapon. Of course, as ingenious and creative as they were, there was little real chance of success (with the intent of causing mass forest fires)...

If the Japanese had done more damage at Pearl Harbor, well things may have favored more attacks on the US west coast, possibly even incursions of small naval infantry units and the conquest of Hawaii...

As a side note, there were over 11,000 US civilian casualties in the War, with the caveat that these were Merchant Marine sailors that were technically civilians that died after their liberty ships and other transports were torpedoed by U-boats...

Nickdfresh
09-14-2007, 01:51 PM
I saw one vote for Russia up there and i got to ask one thing. What are you thinking? Probobly the last time Russia was good in battle was when Peter the Great was Tsar. Sorry if anyone is sensitive to what I just posted

I respectfully disagree...

By the end of WWII, the Red Army was one of the finest maneuver forces on the planet - one of few armies able to completely strategically envelope their foes...

Drake
09-14-2007, 01:51 PM
The piles of dead German soldiers in front of US foxholes on the outskirts of Bastogne attested to what a self-deluded fool Hitler really was...

Indeed he was. But the 102nd Airborne wasn't exactly average joe afaik. Generally when it comes to Hitler, his disrespect for his opponents is imho a crucial (of many) character flaw(s), which led to the ultimate disaster. The whole "we only need to kick down the russian door and they will fall like a house of cards" shows not only in hindsight, but probably even back then to many sane persons, how much out of kilter that guy was. You don't need to be a prophet to ask yourself: What were the russians supposed to do, mercifully ask to be extinguished by the master race?? Of course they will fight, for them it's a struggle for survival.
I think what amazes many people today is the obvious disparity between his early success and his actual capabilities.

Nickdfresh
09-14-2007, 01:57 PM
So that's true - the american supplies for the Russian was a full crap.;)
Especially with the comparition of the american supplies of Britain that absorbed the over 65% of lend lease. ( the Soviets - ONLY 23% and France about 6%).

Over 200,000 Dodge trucks for a mechanized army was no small thing. However would supplies have kept up with the T-34s?..

Nickdfresh
09-14-2007, 02:04 PM
Indeed he was. But the 102nd Airborne wasn't exactly average joe afaik. Generally when it comes to Hitler, his disrespect for his opponents is imho a crucial (of many) character flaw(s), which led to the ultimate disaster. The whole "we only need to kick down the russian door and they will fall like a house of cards" shows not only in hindsight, but probably even back then to many sane persons, how much out of kilter that guy was. You don't need to be a prophet to ask yourself: What were the russians supposed to do, mercifully ask to be extinguished by the master race?? Of course they will fight, for them it's a struggle for survival.
I think what amazes many people today is the obvious disparity between his early success and his actual capabilities.


I think you mean the 101st Airborne. :D

In any case, you are correct that they were an elite formation. But keep in mind, they were thrown into battle completely unprepared with little in the way of supplies and ammunition...

And I'm also speaking of the the units of the 1st American Army that the Germans overran, including the 106th ID, which essentially ceased to exist. But they still managed to inflict significant casualties on the Wehrmacht/SS formations and they slowed the advance.

I don't have my favorite WWII overview by Keegan, so I'll have to get back to you. But the statistics of losses inflicted on the German ground forces, even in the opening days, surprised me somewhat...

Drake
09-14-2007, 02:14 PM
Ups, of course 101st :) seems my memory mixed it up with 82nd, hehe
Well as you know infantry battles are always high casualty battles and have the attacker at a severe disadvantage. So if we want to compare them, we need to compare the offensive actions of all sides and the defensive actions, not offense vs. defense. So relatively high casualities don't really surprise me, not even in 39-40.

Drake
09-14-2007, 02:18 PM
Over 200,000 Dodge trucks for a mechanized army was no small thing. However would supplies have kept up with the T-34s?..

This might Chevan piss off a little, but imho the red army would have been incapable to mount serious large scale offensives without american lend lease. Without lend lease, the eastern front would have become a strategic stalemate as no side would have been capable to achieve anything decisive. It would have been a little more tactically mobile version of ww1 western front who bleeds more scenario.

Nickdfresh
09-14-2007, 10:50 PM
True. And then there were the French made trucks the Germans were stuck with...

Digger
09-15-2007, 03:44 AM
Thanks George I've heard of that Japanese assessment as well, but would not vouch for it's accuracy. I think there were plenty US soldiers and marines who gave a very good account of themselves.

There are probably many reasons why Australian forces were held in high regard and without making them sound like supermen, they did impact heavily on the German army in WWI and were instrumental in Germany's defeat. The breakthrough of the Hindenburg line was a case in point.

Perhaps the old Aussie mateship has a lot to do with the esprit de corps of Australian forces and survives to this day. Perhaps RS will have some fairly good opinionated views.

Digger.

Drake
09-15-2007, 05:20 AM
True. And then there were the French made trucks the Germans were stuck with...

Ah, now it all makes sense, I always wondered how the french thought they won the war :lol: :twisted: :lol:

Chevan
09-17-2007, 08:23 AM
Ah, now it all makes sense, I always wondered how the french thought they won the war :lol: :twisted: :lol:
He he
Nice joike Drake;)

Chevan
09-17-2007, 08:41 AM
This might Chevan piss off a little, but imho the red army would have been incapable to mount serious large scale offensives without american lend lease. Without lend lease, the eastern front would have become a strategic stalemate as no side would have been capable to achieve anything decisive. It would have been a little more tactically mobile version of ww1 western front who bleeds more scenario.
Not so.
sure you right the LEnd leas helped the Red Army a lot in 1943-45 in its great strategical offensives.
However do not forget that the Lend lise was just a small compensation of the industrial and manpower damage due to the Gemrns cupturing of the East USSR industrial areas of USSR and unhuman policy toward the civil population and TOTAL destraction during the German retreat in 1943-44.( so called the policy of burned off land)
The USSR lost about 50% of its unductry ability. So we why sould not to use the American goods ( especially if the US industry was not damaging by the war).
If you think that the red army was not able to attack without lend lise- i hope you will not deny the obvious fact the WITHOUT the Romanian oil, without the Czech/France military industry and finaly - without the 6 millions of slaves from the Eastern Europe the Germans Army will not able to EVEN to RESIST and protect the GErmans border.
Coz if not the millions of slaves in Germans plants- who would produse the Super/Uber Wearponry like the Nonstrous tanks, Rocketry V-1/2 and other famouse Hitler's toys?

Drake
09-17-2007, 10:38 AM
Not so.
sure you right the LEnd leas helped the Red Army a lot in 1943-45 in its great strategical offensives.
However do not forget that the Lend lise was just a small compensation of the industrial and manpower damage due to the Gemrns cupturing of the East USSR industrial areas of USSR and unhuman policy toward the civil population and TOTAL destraction during the German retreat in 1943-44.( so called the policy of burned off land)
The USSR lost about 50% of its unductry ability. So we why sould not to use the American goods ( especially if the US industry was not damaging by the war).
If you think that the red army was not able to attack without lend lise- i hope you will not deny the obvious fact the WITHOUT the Romanian oil, without the Czech/France military industry and finaly - without the 6 millions of slaves from the Eastern Europe the Germans Army will not able to EVEN to RESIST and protect the GErmans border.
Coz if not the millions of slaves in Germans plants- who would produse the Super/Uber Wearponry like the Nonstrous tanks, Rocketry V-1/2 and other famouse Hitler's toys?

Never said Germany didn't need to import raw materials or didn't profit from the earlier conquests. But they also still had some other situations to worry about, while russia could put all effort in one direction.
But that doesn't change the global situation let's say autumn '41. No lend lease, no victory against germany, it's that simple. Of course Germany would not have the capabilites to win a military victory either, the land is simply to big. You nevertheless tremendously underestimate the impact of lend lease and overestimate the raw numbers of the few goods russia actually produced themselves (the weapons mostly). It's not only the mere shifting of numbers. The necessary diversification of production capacity would put a strain on russian economy which I doubt they would have been capable to handle easily. I only need to remove some of the actually delivered goods (locomotives, trucks communication equipment, railroads) and russia is paralyzed beyond recovery when it comes to serious large scale offensives. I indeed believe russia could have coped without the stuff from the USA defensivly, but not offensively without all those small things that make a modern war possible in the first place without actual killing capacity.

Chevan
09-17-2007, 02:37 PM
Never said Germany didn't need to import raw materials or didn't profit from the earlier conquests. But they also still had some other situations to worry about, while russia could put all effort in one direction.

Its a tupical mistake, Drake.
Even during the hot battles in Stalingrad the USSR still hold the over 1 million soldiers in the FAR East against the possible Syberian Invasion of the Kvantung Army.
This was the fully complected troops, some of them Saved the Moscow in the winter of 1941 from the GErmans offensive being re-moved to the West of USSR.
Besides you forgot that till the mid 1944 the 70-80% of the German war mashine was "busy" in the East. So the "other situation to worry " like the adventure of the African corps and terrorising the Britain via the Bombing and sinkind the transports was'n so importain as the destiny of the 180+ Germans division in the East.
True ,the situation for the Germany has been worsen after the beginning of the intensive Strategic bombing compain since 1944., when they were forced to direct the big part of the AAA-artillery for defence and some of the Luflwaffe.


But that doesn't change the global situation let's say autumn '41. No lend lease, no victory against germany, it's that simple. Of course Germany would not have the capabilites to win a military victory either, the land is simply to big. You nevertheless tremendously underestimate the impact of lend lease and overestimate the raw numbers of the few goods russia actually produced themselves (the weapons mostly). It's not only the mere shifting of numbers. The necessary diversification of production capacity would put a strain on russian economy which I doubt they would have been capable to handle easily. I only need to remove some of the actually delivered goods (locomotives, trucks communication equipment, railroads) and russia is paralyzed beyond recovery when it comes to serious large scale offensives. I indeed believe russia could have coped without the stuff from the USA defensivly, but not offensively without all those small things that make a modern war possible in the first place without actual killing capacity.
I've never told that underestimate the lend lise- i said this help a lot int he 1943-45.
I just noticed you the obvious fact that the Lend-lise ONLY PARTLY compensated ( in different field more or less) the giant 50% damage of Soviet economy and military proiduction after the summer of 1941-42.
Both the western Allies Britain and USA simply avoided the capturing its territories ( althought the Britain lost the colonies in asia). But nevertheless the economic damage was't so serious like as for the USSR after catastrophical 1941.
Plus the behavour of Germans in the occuped Eastern territories rather differed from its action in the Western Europe ( for instance in France).
And sure you right that the some of critical materials that was so need for soviet industry ( for instance alluminium) were delivered from the USA. However this JUST coz the own soviet industry was lost due to the GErmans offensive.

Cheers.

Drake
09-17-2007, 03:40 PM
Its a tupical mistake, Drake.
Even during the hot battles in Stalingrad the USSR still hold the over 1 million soldiers in the FAR East against the possible Syberian Invasion of the Kvantung Army.
This was the fully complected troops, some of them Saved the Moscow in the winter of 1941 from the GErmans offensive being re-moved to the West of USSR.
Besides you forgot that till the mid 1944 the 70-80% of the German war mashine was "busy" in the East. So the "other situation to worry " like the adventure of the African corps and terrorising the Britain via the Bombing and sinkind the transports was'n so importain as the destiny of the 180+ Germans division in the East.
True ,the situation for the Germany has been worsen after the beginning of the intensive Strategic bombing compain since 1944., when they were forced to direct the big part of the AAA-artillery for defence and some of the Luflwaffe.


It doesn't matter that some russian troops were still in siberia (which I knew), some german troops were elsewhere in europe not fighting, too. What matters is the focus of the industry where russia only had to think rather one dimensional compared to everyone else. This is the reason for the impressive numbers in certain areas such as tanks.



I've never told that underestimate the lend lise- i said this help a lot int he 1943-45.
I just noticed you the obvious fact that the Lend-lise ONLY PARTLY compensated ( in different field more or less) the giant 50% damage of Soviet economy and military proiduction after the summer of 1941-42.
Both the western Allies Britain and USA simply avoided the capturing its territories ( althought the Britain lost the colonies in asia). But nevertheless the economic damage was't so serious like as for the USSR after catastrophical 1941.
Plus the behavour of Germans in the occuped Eastern territories rather differed from its action in the Western Europe ( for instance in France).
And sure you right that the some of critical materials that was so need for soviet industry ( for instance alluminium) were delivered from the USA. However this JUST coz the own soviet industry was lost due to the GErmans offensive.

Cheers.

We're still talking about stalemate in the east without lend lease, aren't we. The situation is as it is in 1941 and I said russia would have been incapable to change the strategic situation in precisely that scenario without help. I fail to see how complaining about a 50% loss of economy or about atrocities helps you to support what I assume is your point, namely the USSR could have.

bt3au
09-19-2007, 10:46 PM
Naturally I'm going to be parochial and say Aussie soldiers and also Kiwis, Canadians and Ghurkas. Their exploits during the war were often overlooked or deliberately ignored.

But I will stick to Aussie soldiers who were definitely superior to Italians, gave the Germans some bloody noses in North Africa and from the end of 1942 were superior to the Japanese in all aspects of infantry warfare.

Regards digger.
stopped the SS cold in Greece, bit of a shock for the SS

bt3au
09-19-2007, 10:49 PM
Crappy training is true (at times) But the suplies they did recive were american supplies and most of them didn't get there because of german U-boats. so bad supplies not true

Actually British first up, the first Murmansk convoy was sent a few months after Barbarossa

bt3au
09-19-2007, 10:59 PM
Never said Germany didn't need to import raw materials or didn't profit from the earlier conquests. But they also still had some other situations to worry about, while russia could put all effort in one direction.
But that doesn't change the global situation let's say autumn '41. No lend lease, no victory against germany, it's that simple. Of course Germany would not have the capabilites to win a military victory either, the land is simply to big. You nevertheless tremendously underestimate the impact of lend lease and overestimate the raw numbers of the few goods russia actually produced themselves (the weapons mostly). It's not only the mere shifting of numbers. The necessary diversification of production capacity would put a strain on russian economy which I doubt they would have been capable to handle easily. I only need to remove some of the actually delivered goods (locomotives, trucks communication equipment, railroads) and russia is paralyzed beyond recovery when it comes to serious large scale offensives. I indeed believe russia could have coped without the stuff from the USA defensivly, but not offensively without all those small things that make a modern war possible in the first place without actual killing capacity.
I think eventually the Russians would have had the same outcome but would have taken them a lot longer to build up that "head of steam" that eventually smashed through the Germans.Production capacity would have had to have been diverted from tanks to trucks that sort of thing, Lend lease enabled the Russians to concentrate more production on teeth than tail

Chevan
09-20-2007, 01:08 AM
It doesn't matter that some russian troops were still in siberia (which I knew), some german troops were elsewhere in europe not fighting, too. What matters is the focus of the industry where russia only had to think rather one dimensional compared to everyone else. This is the reason for the impressive numbers in certain areas such as tanks.

The reason of the Great soviet Tank production was not the Syberian inactive army.
The reason of the numerical effective superiority was the Soviet approach to the Tank industry whan on the chassis of the T-34 were prodused over 90% of all armoured track vehicles.
You know it , to thw contrast of he USA and USSR who was concentred to the one-two basic tanks models , the Germany developed at the same time the 5-6 different models.This additionally created the problems for the German army with spare parts and ets.
To tell about the Lend-lise effect do not forget that althought the Germany did not recieved the materials/wearpon outside - the industry capacity of the territories that Germany controlled was enourmous. For instance the only one Chehoslovakia prodused in the 1941 as much wearpon as the whole Britain in that period.( even the Me-262 were prodused here).Plus the manpower of the conquered territories was also great( over 100+ million peoples)
So the situation of the 1941 when the Germans temporary neitralized the Britain via the Bombing compain and concentrated over 80% of its army ( +armies of satellites) on the Eastern front COULD not be Tupical for the all war especially after the USA joining the allies.


We're still talking about stalemate in the east without lend lease, aren't we. The situation is as it is in 1941 and I said russia would have been incapable to change the strategic situation in precisely that scenario without help. I fail to see how complaining about a 50% loss of economy or about atrocities helps you to support what I assume is your point, namely the USSR could have.
I do not thinl that the strategic situation of the 1941 would not be changed during the all war. The reason of the soviets initial loses was not the Material/wearponry/Numerical Germans superiority but the pure Tactical professionalism of german hight and medium officer corp plus the positive combat experience of the german soldiers that was based ion the succesfull previous compain in the Western Europe.
Even if the Allies did not help the Red Army by Lend lise and prefered to formed and armed the own troops by their wearpon and materials ( the situation that WOULD much better IMO) and directed those troops to the Africa/Italy or opened the Second front in Frace alredy in the 1942-43- i this way the GErmany could not be concetrated its armies on the East and thay inevitably have to withdraw form the great eastern territories.And the Red Army without the Lend lise could be able to liberate the Soviet territories.
In this way i/m sure the allies could win already in the 1944. However they prefered to make the Stalin stronger by the sending him the Lend lise instead to fought with Gemarny more intensive and saved the Eastern Europe from the Sovet l"iberation". Sure in this way the Allies would have a much more casualties - that's wat they feared.

Drake
09-20-2007, 07:26 AM
I think eventually the Russians would have had the same outcome but would have taken them a lot longer to build up that "head of steam" that eventually smashed through the Germans.
Production capacity would have had to have been diverted from tanks to trucks that sort of thing, Lend lease enabled the Russians to concentrate more production on teeth than tail

Yeah, like it's that easy to divert a little production in reality. It's not a slider change in a computer game.

Drake
09-20-2007, 07:47 AM
The reason of the Great soviet Tank production was not the Syberian inactive army.
The reason of the numerical effective superiority was the Soviet approach to the Tank industry whan on the chassis of the T-34 were prodused over 90% of all armoured track vehicles.
You know it , to thw contrast of he USA and USSR who was concentred to the one-two basic tanks models , the Germany developed at the same time the 5-6 different models.This additionally created the problems for the German army with spare parts and ets.
To tell about the Lend-lise effect do not forget that althought the Germany did not recieved the materials/wearpon outside - the industry capacity of the territories that Germany controlled was enourmous. For instance the only one Chehoslovakia prodused in the 1941 as much wearpon as the whole Britain in that period.( even the Me-262 were prodused here).Plus the manpower of the conquered territories was also great( over 100+ million peoples)
So the situation of the 1941 when the Germans temporary neitralized the Britain via the Bombing compain and concentrated over 80% of its army ( +armies of satellites) on the Eastern front COULD not be Tupical for the all war especially after the USA joining the allies.

I do not thinl that the strategic situation of the 1941 would not be changed during the all war. The reason of the soviets initial loses was not the Material/wearponry/Numerical Germans superiority but the pure Tactical professionalism of german hight and medium officer corp plus the positive combat experience of the german soldiers that was based ion the succesfull previous compain in the Western Europe.
Even if the Allies did not help the Red Army by Lend lise and prefered to formed and armed the own troops by their wearpon and materials ( the situation that WOULD much better IMO) and directed those troops to the Africa/Italy or opened the Second front in Frace alredy in the 1942-43- i this way the GErmany could not be concetrated its armies on the East and thay inevitably have to withdraw form the great eastern territories.And the Red Army without the Lend lise could be able to liberate the Soviet territories.
In this way i/m sure the allies could win already in the 1944. However they prefered to make the Stalin stronger by the sending him the Lend lise instead to fought with Gemarny more intensive and saved the Eastern Europe from the Sovet l"iberation". Sure in this way the Allies would have a much more casualties - that's wat they feared.

You still completely miss the point. The weapons were not the decisive factor of lend lease, although probably helpful. Russia could produce the weapons it needed. What it couldn't produce was basically everything else needed for sustained offensive operations, from trains and railroads over trucks to electronics. More than 2/3 of the soviet trucks in ww2 were american lend lease trucks. This figure alone is so significant, that you don't even need to look at other figures, as trucks are the lifeline of any army.

Chevan
09-20-2007, 08:29 AM
You still completely miss the point. The weapons were not the decisive factor of lend lease, although probably helpful. Russia could produce the weapons it needed. What it couldn't produce was basically everything else needed for sustained offensive operations, from trains and railroads over trucks to electronics. More than 2/3 of the soviet trucks in ww2 were american lend lease trucks. This figure alone is so significant, that you don't even need to look at other figures, as trucks are the lifeline of any army.

No Drake i/m very well understand your point.
The Lend lise realy helped but it was not the MAIN thing that DEFINED the ability of Soviets to fight .
If the Soviets did not get the lend lise truck, locomotivs and materials - they coul prodused it themself.
Certainly the payback should be the decrease the Military production: tanks , artillery and ets.
But it wasn't critical for the Soviets.Coz in the 1941 when the Lend lise was still insignificant they were able to stop the GErmans near the Moscow.
You say that without lend lise the Eastern frons would be strategic stalemate.
I can't agree coz as we saw if the Soviets could stopped the Germans in the 1941-42 ( and they really did it) then later the Allies opened the second front in the France the Germans would forced to withdraw troops from the East. Thus there vero no any reason to prevent the Soviet strategic offensive at least on the territory of captured USSR.
Sure without lend lise the Soviet were NO able to reach the Berlin or even the German Border.
But they were still able to beat the Germans in the USSR territory and probably in the Eastern Europe.

Cheers.

bt3au
09-20-2007, 08:18 PM
Yeah, like it's that easy to divert a little production in reality. It's not a slider change in a computer game.

which is why I said it would take longer :roll:

Drake
09-21-2007, 08:26 AM
which is why I said it would take longer :roll:

Russia needs its teeth, they just cannot afford the time to retool the machines to produce locomotives and trucks, yet they need that stuff asap. They don't have even close to enough capacities in communication electronics and cannot produce production machines themselves. And several of the things delivered by LL were completely inaccessible to russia otherwise.
The longer would rather look like an 8 from the side.

@Chevan: Russia is the soil, where the logistical problems are worst, especially after scorched earth. It matters little who occupies the area, as soon as the front would be pushed west by russia, they would have the same problems as the germans the other way around. They need those trucks, they need them badly. Russia can beat the germans on any given sector in an offensive, but cannot exploit the breakthrough properly, if they lack transport capacity. My bet would be that if germany would be defeated in the end by the allies there would still be german troops on russian soil. Russia would still have had given and taken the highest losses to and from germany, though, but couldn't have taken the fight back to germany.