re: Which country had the best soldiers in WWII? Which country had the worst?

quote:

---

The French weren’t cowardly in surrender monkeys like adolescent me originally believed, but they also weren’t in contention for best army or military in WWII

---

Their common soldier certainly deseves our respect. But when you dissect their command structure, you realize the French were far from modern in terms of coordination of efforts. Most local Generals acting in their own self interests rather than work together.

Japan's army was terrible. They are given credit for the land mass they captured but when you look at their effectiveness against well organized, modern armies they paled in comparison. Japans tanks were notorious bad, their soldiers were like the USSR attacking en masse without great technique. Their only true win against a modern power was defeating an under supplied and terribly managed UK at Singapore

Italy has to be the worst of the major powers though. They couldn't even defeat Ethiopia

Finland gets a tip of the cap for their effort in The Winter War. They held the USSR at bay far longer than they theoretically should have

quote:

---

...the Germans had the best soldiers until attrition began to take a heavy toll by mid-1942.

---

Absolutely the case.

quote:

---

In cold weather, the open steppe or in cities, the Russians were monsters. Once they got a little experience, American troops were formidable.

---

Sounds right.

Most effective soldiers from "minor" countries in WWII

Fins: Killed 380K soviets with only 70K losses. Their 300K soldiers fought off 760K USSR

Greece: pushed Italy out into Albania before Germany stepped in. Greek citizens in Crete killed Germans with literal sticks and stones. Nearly 25% of Greece's citizens fought in the resistence

British Indian Army: Google them. They were hardcore badasses

Australia: They have a general who tore off his own gangrenous fingers while in a combat zone

Great info.

Those Finns efficiency stats are mind-blowing.

(Yes, but by that time of the war, that was mostly against Wehrmacht second and third-stringers.)

quote:

---

Okay. So? The Germans weren't going to win any major campaign against the Allies without air superiority.

---

True. But this debate isn't about air or sea; It's about mano a mano group troops and their respective performance.

quote:

---

You can pit the 1941-42 Wehrmacht against the 1944-45 U.S. Army and the results would still be the same due to America's superiority in manpower, doctrine, logistics, and industry.

---

Gotta disagree big time on this count, pardner. By 1941-42, that Wehrmacht and their leadership were a well-oiled, veteran, and still largely intact mean fighting machine.

If we're comparing apples-to-apples here (as during the epic Wehrmacht vs Soviets head to head battles in eastern Europe), the '41-'42 personnel and leadership would have chewed up and spit out America's courageous but still way too raw and inexperienced infantry and field officers. Our logistics weren't refined till early 1944 and the bulk of infantry would still not be hardened and experienced enough by '45 to seriously challenge German counterparts c. '41-'42.

quote:

---

Poland getting a bad rap on here. The Poles fought really hard. It was like a dude off the street going 2 rounds with Mike Tyson in 1987.

---

What's more, resistance movements in occupied Poland began cropping up almost immediately after the fall of Warsaw. It took almost two years for resistance movements to begin cropping up in France. The Poles were brave resistance fighters and the vast majority of Polish military and civilians who died in the conflict died AFTER the German invasion had ended - mostly due to resistance fighting and German reprisals. That's excluding those Polish civilians who died in the Holocaust.

quote:

---

True. But this debate isn't about air or sea; It's about mano a mano group troops and their respective performance.

---

Which is dumb because artillery and air power are both major factors when it comes to the debate. Part of what made the Wehrmacht so unstoppable in the early days of the war was its ability to coordinate air and ground operations at a tactical level. The absolute most important doctrine of the German army was air supremacy. Without it, their armor and infantry was stuck in the mud.

Mano-a-Mano there was nothing separating the German soldier from any other soldier in any other army in the world. What made the German soldier better than his contemporaries were the doctrines that governed him.

quote:

---

Gotta disagree big time on this count, pardner. By 1941-42, that Wehrmacht and their leadership were a well-oiled, veteran, and still largely intact mean fighting machine.

---

That still relied on horses to move supplies and ammunition - which often caused the German armor to have to halt for long periods of time, exposed and alone, while they waited for the infantry to catch up. The U.S. Army never had to rely on such a system because the U.S. Army of 1944-45 was 100% mechanized. The Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941 with 600,000 horses. Pit a fully mobilized United States Army against the German Army of 1941-42 and the Germans get flat out steamrolled due to their logistical issues and the inability of their planes to gain control of the air. Their panzers would have been easy pickings for our P-51 Mustangs.

quote:

---

Once Stalin purged his military leadership of arse kissing Communist yes men and replaced to em with competent war time generals, the red army was possibly the best infantry and tank/armored force in the war.

---

Of course once those generals could exploit a war of attrition and sacrifice the average Russian infantryman as expendable cannon fodder, it helped any perception of "best" anything immensely (just sayin').

And even at that -- without American war materiel and especially armor, the Soviet generals would not nor could not have pushed back the Wehrmacht and taken the offensive.

quote:

---

I would hate to see the casualty numbers had America declared war on Russia immediately after the war. It would basically be the eastern front but ratcheted up several notches due to the population and industrial might competing.

---

Yes, would have stung a bit. Especially any clean-up op. And been epic.BUT...

Wouldn't overwhelming and repeated American air power have easily bludgeoned standing Soviet army encampments? (Moreover, the American supply lines that had been steady, keeping the Soviets moving, replenished AND alive would also have been cut off. THEN WHAT??)

I believe Patton was right. If timed right, the operation to go on the offensive and prevail against Stalin and the Soviets would have been easier than thought.

quote:

---

U.S. Marines in the pacific were no joke.

---

They were perfectly trained and structured to fight the type of war in the Pacific, and not just because they’re trained in amphibious warfare. Set aside the amphibious nature of the fighting in the Pacific and you’ll see it was not dissimilar to the trench warfare of WWI in that you had infantry, supported by artillery, attacking an enemy entrenched in extensive field fortifications. The Marines excelled at this sort of warfare.

quote:

---

Artillery Mass Fire: Soviet Union

---

Meh