- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/16/14 at 9:39 am to Champagne
République française.
They got to fight for every side.
So you need us to round up some "undesirables" and bring them to Stade de Roland Garros?
Bien sûr, il n'y a pas de problème!
They got to fight for every side.
So you need us to round up some "undesirables" and bring them to Stade de Roland Garros?
Bien sûr, il n'y a pas de problème!
Posted on 11/16/14 at 9:54 am to Ponchy Tiger
quote:
Your basing this statement on?
they had a more refined training structure. We adopted their structures in many ways after ww2.
Now we train more like how they trained then.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 10:50 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Message
Posted by GeauxxxTigers23
United States Marine Corps
The U.S. marines were excellent infantrymen and that served them well in the Pacific against the Jap who were basically an army designed to fight a WWI style infantry based war. HOWEVER, had the Marines been thrown into battle with something like the 1st SS Panzer Dividion they would have been torn to shreds. Nothing against thd Marines, it's just they were not structured or trained to fight a mobile armored foe.
As for the question, I say the "best"overall formation of the war would be either the American 12th Army Group or perhaps the the 1st SS Panzer Div.
This post was edited on 11/16/14 at 10:51 am
Posted on 11/16/14 at 11:12 am to Darth_Vader
Calm down guys. I was just being a Homer.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 11:13 am to Champagne
Germany had the best army, but it wasn't better than the combined armies of the Commonwealth, United States and Soviet Union. Therefore, the best army lost the war.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:03 pm to H.M. Murdock
quote:
Russia is laughable in terms of quality. Germany, France, the uk, Australia, the us, and so one had some very fantastic units. But, as most understand, military logistics win wars and the us supplied all the fighting allies.
Lol, by the end of WWII, Russia was arguably the most elite land force in the world. They were ferocious fighters and had some of the best military minds in the entire conflict.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:12 pm to Redbone
quote:
Best by what criteria?
By "best", I mean "most effective in combat".
This post was edited on 11/16/14 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:15 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
As for the question, I say the "best"overall formation of the war would be either the American 12th Army Group or perhaps the the 1st SS Panzer Div.
Discuss best army, not best unit or Army Group.
"What was the best division in WW 2?" is a separate thread. I'll start that one next week unless somebody beats me to it.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:19 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Calm down guys. I was just being a Homer.
No, you raised a good point that is too easily overlooked. What armed force had the best infantry in WW 2? The correct answer may very well be: USMC.
Why wasn't the USMC the best "army" in WW 2? Because the USMC combat units' TO&E lacked the anti-tank, artillery, heavy weapon and armor assets necessary to compete against the armies of that war.
But, yeah, I dare anybody to find better infantry during WW 2.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:20 pm to Champagne
quote:
No, you raised a good point that is too easily overlooked. What armed force had the best infantry in WW 2? The correct answer may very well be: USMC.
Why wasn't the USMC the best "army" in WW 2? Because the USMC combat units' TO&E lacked the anti-tank, artillery, heavy weapon and armor assets necessary to compete against the armies of that war.
But, yeah, I dare anybody to find better infantry during WW 2.
Again you should read-up on some of the Russian exploits in WWII. By the end of the Eastern front the Germans were absolutely terrified of the Russians, considered them superhuman.
This post was edited on 11/16/14 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:22 pm to FootballNostradamus
quote:
quote:
Russia is laughable in terms of quality. Germany, France, the uk, Australia, the us, and so one had some very fantastic units. But, as most understand, military logistics win wars and the us supplied all the fighting allies.
Lol, by the end of WWII, Russia was arguably the most elite land force in the world. They were ferocious fighters and had some of the best military minds in the entire conflict.
The only area where the Russians enjoyed superiority was In numbers. Case in point, look at the pathetic number of troops the Germans had to defend Berlin and compare that to the massive numbers the Soviets threw at Berlin. The Gernan defenders were mostly old men and young boys with no artillery and very little armor. They were faced with be the very best formations the Soviets had. The soviets outnumbered the German defenders of Berlin in numbers that were nothing short of astounding. The soviets enjoyed total air supremacy on top of everything else. Disputes all this the Soviets still suffered close to half a million casualties just to take Berlin.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:24 pm to Champagne
quote:
Posted by Champagne quote: Calm down guys. I was just being a Homer. No, you raised a good point that is too easily overlooked. What armed force had the best infantry in WW 2? The correct answer may very well be: USMC. Why wasn't the USMC the best "army" in WW 2? Because the USMC combat units' TO&E lacked the anti-tank, artillery, heavy weapon and armor assets necessary to compete against the armies of that war. But, yeah, I dare anybody to find better infantry during WW 2.
SS panzer grenadier
This post was edited on 11/16/14 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:30 pm to yellowfin
quote:
US had more natural resources too . . . .oil
An overlooked resource was the almost limitless supply of teenage farmboys who grew up in the Depression keeping old worn out trucks and tractors chugging along with spit and baling wire. It took time for the US to gain a true war footing but the starting point was a group of potential draftees exceptionally well suited for the new warfare.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:31 pm to FootballNostradamus
The Russians took massive ungodly losses. The Germans devasted the Russian populace.
What the Russians had was sheer numbers, Stalin didn't mind throwing division after division up against the Germans regardless of how many losses they were taking.
Add in to that mix the strategic blunders of Hitler, the main one being was trying to caputure major cities rather than cutting off the oil supplies of the Russian Army. IF the Germans would have captured the oil fields in southern Russia, Russia would have been brought to her knees.
The German Army had been trained & equipped for conventional warfare. They were not prepared for the house to house, street fighting that they encounted in Stalingrad and other major Russian cities.
Other factors were in involved.
The US & the Brits were supplying the Ruskies with food, guns, ammo, trucks, tanks...
The Russians were fighting for their very homes. They were willing to fight to very last man, woman & child to save their homes, much like you & I would.
And yes, the Russians were very fierce fighters and had a an extreme hatred of the Germans.
What the Russians had was sheer numbers, Stalin didn't mind throwing division after division up against the Germans regardless of how many losses they were taking.
Add in to that mix the strategic blunders of Hitler, the main one being was trying to caputure major cities rather than cutting off the oil supplies of the Russian Army. IF the Germans would have captured the oil fields in southern Russia, Russia would have been brought to her knees.
The German Army had been trained & equipped for conventional warfare. They were not prepared for the house to house, street fighting that they encounted in Stalingrad and other major Russian cities.
Other factors were in involved.
The US & the Brits were supplying the Ruskies with food, guns, ammo, trucks, tanks...
The Russians were fighting for their very homes. They were willing to fight to very last man, woman & child to save their homes, much like you & I would.
And yes, the Russians were very fierce fighters and had a an extreme hatred of the Germans.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:35 pm to Champagne
Germany
Posted on 11/16/14 at 12:44 pm to shinerfan
At the beginning of WWII, the US Army had a little more than a 100K troops that were active and was ill-equipped.
The US populace was very much against US involvement in European affairs because they remembered the huge losses that the US took in WWI just 20 years earlier.
They still remembered the brutal aspects of trench warfare and seeing their sons coming home several disfigured for the horrors of chemical warfare.
Plus the US got little if anything of value from WWI.
The US populace wanted no part of the wars that was going on in the 1930-40s in Europe.
The biggest mistake the Germans made was declaring war on the US right after the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor.
To the OP, I would have to say the German had the best Army, at the beginning.
The US, in the end, was the baddest dog on the block.
The US populace was very much against US involvement in European affairs because they remembered the huge losses that the US took in WWI just 20 years earlier.
They still remembered the brutal aspects of trench warfare and seeing their sons coming home several disfigured for the horrors of chemical warfare.
Plus the US got little if anything of value from WWI.
The US populace wanted no part of the wars that was going on in the 1930-40s in Europe.
The biggest mistake the Germans made was declaring war on the US right after the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor.
To the OP, I would have to say the German had the best Army, at the beginning.
The US, in the end, was the baddest dog on the block.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 1:04 pm to FootballNostradamus
quote:
Lol, by the end of WWII, Russia was arguably the most elite land force in the world.
The Soviets basically threw numbers at the Nazis. It worked thankfully but the Germans still killed WAY more of them than Soviets did Germans. Something comparable would be us in the Korean War when China got involved. We had MUCH better soldiers but they thew numbers at us and stonewalled us.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 1:28 pm to Champagne
quote:
"What was the best division in WW 2?" is a separate thread. I'll start that one next week unless somebody beats me to it.
I support this thread
Posted on 11/16/14 at 1:33 pm to Champagne
quote:
"What was the best division in WW 2?" is a separate thread. I'll start that one next week unless somebody beats me to it.
To be followed by 'Best Division Commander".
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News