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

quote:

---

...dumb because artillery and air power are both major factors when it comes to the debate.

---

Yeah. But FIRST the American infantry (and Artillery) had to be set up -- which presumes established victories and held positions. Against the '41-'42 Wehrmacht? In their Western European back yard? No way.

quote:

---

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.

---

Against WHOM?? And WHEN? And that's the point; They had ZERO competent / prepared opposition in the Early Days. Whether on land or in the air.

quote:

---

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 Wehrmacht invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941 with 600,000 horses.

---

Yes, I agree. But again -- with little or no opposition to worry about from the air at that time, horses and cavalry *could* be utilized to help move war materiel.

quote:

---

The U.S. Army never had to rely on such a [horses, Calvary] system because the U.S. Army of 1944-45 was 100% mechanized....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.

---

Apples vs Oranges equipment timeline of rapidly advancing war tech (Germans were way AHEAD of the US /Allies) on this count. In yet another couple of years JET FIGHTERS would have been used by both sides (The P-51s were almost already becoming already obsolete by the late 40s).

He's on about French crumbling in 6 weeks. While missing the context that France just had WWI's western front entirely in their lands and that even though they prepared for the last war and made a lot of the same mistakes, inflicted major material and personnel loss that should have given the wermacht more of a backbone in dealing with Hitler's machinations.

France's sins come during the occupation with the just going with it, handing over citizenry, and then pretending they had a resistance movement as robust as the north countries.

quote:

---

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.


Against WHOM?? And WHEN? And that's the point; They had ZERO competent / prepared opposition in the Early Days. Whether on land or in the air.

---

Overall I agree with the points you're making. But I will disagree with you here. One of the most overlooked facts of the early days of WWII is that while the Battle of France lasted only about six weeks, if you look at the campaign from an objective standpoint, and set aside hindsight, you'll see that while the campaign was short, it was far from easy and in fact featured very brutal, hard, and bloody fighting.

Contrary to what many think now, France didn't just roll over and surrender without a fight. France, at least on paper, had a more powerful military than Germany. France had more artillery and more tanks. And in both categories French armaments were as good or better than what the Germans had. Only in the air did Germany hold an advantage. And if you look at the losses Germany suffered in it's conquest of France, you'll see it was no walk in the park. Germany suffered over 160,000 casualties and lost over 800 tanks and 1,200 aircraft. To put German losses in armor and aircraft into context, they entered the campaign with 2,500 tanks and a little under 5,700 aircraft. So as you can see the French put up a helluva fight and the Germans paid a high price for their victory.

quote:

---

Well, if they were fighting in Europe as a stand alone unit, possibly that might be true. But, I'm not sure that they wouldn't have excelled in major operations in Europe if they had support from the Army and Air Corps once they pushed further inland from the shores. The USMC has always prided itself on its ability to adapt. In a support role in Europe, the USMC would have been incredibly effective I believe.

---

It would have required a complete overhaul of the unit structure and training of the Marines. The Marines were trained to fight the war they fought in the Pacific. And they fought it well. However, the war in Europe was a different style war that required a different war fighting doctrine. Not saying the Marines could not have adapted their unit structure and training. But if they did that, why even have a separate Marine Corps since they'd essentially be enlarged US Army infantry divisions at that point.

Ethiopia had the best, Yemen obviously had the worst.

quote:

---

It would have required a complete overhaul of the unit structure and training of the Marines. The Marines were trained to fight the war they fought in the Pacific. And they fought it well. However, the war in Europe was a different style war that required a different war fighting doctrine. Not saying the Marines could not have adapted their unit structure and training. But if they did that, why even have a separate Marine Corps since they'd essentially be enlarged US Army infantry divisions at that point.

---

Well, isn't that essentially what the USMC did in the First World War?

quote:

---

Well, isn't that essentially what the USMC did in the First World War?

---

And Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.

They're trying to get back to their amphibious roots in anticipation of fighting China. Getting rid of their heavy tanks, etc.

quote:

---

Well, isn't that essentially what the USMC did in the First World War?

---

No. In WWI the Marines fought a very similar style war that they fought in WWI. The only real difference was the lack of amphibious landings in WWI. The fighting the Marines did in WWII was very similar to the final offensives of WWI in that they were still infantry assaulting an entrenched enemy with the addition of tank and air support. I'd refer you to the Meuse-Argonne Offensive in Sept-Nov. 1918 if you want to draw parallels between the fighting the Marines did in WWI and WWII, again, with the exception of amphibious landings.

However, the fighting in Europe featured far more combined arms and mobile warfare that was fundamentally different from either Northern France in WWI or the Pacific in WWII.

I'm not saying any of this to put down the Marines or say they were less than the Army. On the contrary, I believe the Marines of WWII were one of the finest fighting forces ever to take the field. All I'm saying is the campaign they fought was of a different nature than the one in Northern Europe. The Marines were structured to fight the campaign they fought in the Pacific and did it well. Likewise, the Army was structured to fight the campaign it fought in Europe and did it well.

quote:

---

But this is also why the Marines would have fared poorly in Europe where the nature of fighting was more mobile combined arms warfare. That’s the army’s bread and butter.

---

My thoughts exactly. Do you think they used the same tactics/mindset in Korea? Or adapt?