- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: Which country had the best soldiers in WWII? Which country had the worst?
Posted on 10/20/21 at 3:02 pm to grizzlylongcut
Posted on 10/20/21 at 3:02 pm to grizzlylongcut
Indeed they did work well side by side in WWI. And again in WWII they fought together in the Pacific.
There was not much difference between the Marines and Army in WWI because it was fought before the emergence of combined arms mobile warfare. Only in the final months of the war did infantry, armor, artillery, and close air support begin to resemble what it would columinate with in WWII.
During the interwar years, the US Army, along with most other major armies, began to intergrade the combined arms concept into it's war fighting doctrine. Thus many armies created the first mechanized and armored divisions. The Germans perfected this and we know know it as "Blitzkrieg".
The Marines though, while establishing armored battalions into their divisions, were still an infantry based force where tanks were used in an infantry support role similar to what was seen at the end of WWI. The reason they did not change into a heavy mech force was due to the nature of their primary mission, namely amphibious operations. So while the Marines did use tanks, they used them in a manner that was the norm in WWI more so than in WWII. But this worked for them because the Japanese style of land warfare was very much from the old WWI infantry reliant style.
There was not much difference between the Marines and Army in WWI because it was fought before the emergence of combined arms mobile warfare. Only in the final months of the war did infantry, armor, artillery, and close air support begin to resemble what it would columinate with in WWII.
During the interwar years, the US Army, along with most other major armies, began to intergrade the combined arms concept into it's war fighting doctrine. Thus many armies created the first mechanized and armored divisions. The Germans perfected this and we know know it as "Blitzkrieg".
The Marines though, while establishing armored battalions into their divisions, were still an infantry based force where tanks were used in an infantry support role similar to what was seen at the end of WWI. The reason they did not change into a heavy mech force was due to the nature of their primary mission, namely amphibious operations. So while the Marines did use tanks, they used them in a manner that was the norm in WWI more so than in WWII. But this worked for them because the Japanese style of land warfare was very much from the old WWI infantry reliant style.
1
Posted on 10/20/21 at 3:09 pm to Spaceman Spiff
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?
Good question. But we're kinda comparing apples to oranges. I say this because due to the terrain in Korea, the fighting styles seen in both Northern Europe by the Army and the Pacific by the Marines had to adapt. In fact, in some respects, the fighting styles honed in WWII had to revert back to more of a WWI style in Korea. By that I mean armored units, instead of having the role of exploiting breakthroughs to encircle an enemy with maneuver, shock, and firepower, were limited by terrain. For the most part tanks in Korea supported the infantry. But this was dictated mostly by terrain more than anything.
Posted on 10/20/21 at 3:12 pm to grizzlylongcut
quote:Exactly.
The Russians weren't some great badass military. They had numbers and were entirely propped up by U.S. and British money and equipment.
They literally sent soldiers into battle without rifles with the instructions to “Pick up the rifle from a fallen comrade.”
Posted on 10/20/21 at 3:16 pm to Darth_Vader
You have to wonder what happens if there's an incident and the US and USSR go at it in 1945 IN Central Europe.
The Russians are at the end of a very long logistical rope for one thing. And while those massive tank formations might make progress for awhile, they make a very tempting target for large bomber runs or even by this time getting nuked.
Conventionally, the US and Britain could put up massive fleets of fighters to sweep ahead of thousand plus bomber raids that could obliterate Zhukov's tank formations, what air battles there would be.
The Russians are at the end of a very long logistical rope for one thing. And while those massive tank formations might make progress for awhile, they make a very tempting target for large bomber runs or even by this time getting nuked.
Conventionally, the US and Britain could put up massive fleets of fighters to sweep ahead of thousand plus bomber raids that could obliterate Zhukov's tank formations, what air battles there would be.
This post was edited on 10/20/21 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 10/20/21 at 3:17 pm to antibarner
quote:
You have to wonder what happens if there's an incident and the US and USSR go at it in 1945 IN Central Europe.
Didn’t Gen Patton want to march into Moscow?
Posted on 10/20/21 at 3:22 pm to GreenRockTiger
Never would have happened, but they could have thrown the Reds back and history sure would have changed.
Posted on 10/20/21 at 3:23 pm to Liberator
quote:
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.
That’s the presumption though. We are comparing he Wehrmacht of ‘41-42 with the U.S. Army of ‘44-45. This includes established tactics, weaponry, doctrine, logistics, etc. I would argue the U.S. Army of 1944-45 was superior when all of those factors are taken into account.
quote:
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.
See the other guy’s reply to this. The French were no slouches and the Red Army, even in 1941, bloodied the Germans pretty good. Stiffer than expected Soviet resistance knocked the Germans off their timetable, particularly in the South, thus forcing the Germans to divert precious resources to Kiev instead of advancing onto Moscow.
quote:
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.
It’s not like the Germans could just flip a switch and build more vehicles if they needed them. The reason why they used horses is because they didn’t have the resources to build enough trucks whereas the U.S. never had that problem. The Germans invaded the Soviet Union with 600,000 horses out of necessity, not out of convenience. They also invaded the Soviet Union with captured French armor because they didn’t have enough tanks of their own.
quote:
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).
Once again…that’s exactly what we are doing. We are comparing the German Army of 1941-42 with the U.S. Army of 1944-45. I personally believe that the latter army was superior to the former due to logistics, doctrine, and industry. The best the Wehrmacht ever put on the battlefield was inferior to the best the Americans ever put on the battlefield.
Posted on 10/20/21 at 3:32 pm to antibarner
quote:
You have to wonder what happens if there's an incident and the US and USSR go at it in 1945 IN Central Europe.
The Russians are at the end of a very long logistical rope for one thing. And while those massive tank formations might make progress for awhile, they make a very tempting target for large bomber runs or even by this time getting nuked.
Conventionally, the US and Britain could put up massive fleets of fighters to sweep ahead of thousand plus bomber raids that could obliterate Zhukov's tank formations, what air battles there would be.
Had fighting broke out between the Allies and the Soviets in 1945, the Soviets would have had initial success perhaps for a few days. But it would not take the Allies long to establish air supremacy and decimate Soviet columns. Plus, and this is oftentimes overlooked, while the Red Army of 1945 was massive, it had also suffered massive losses in the closing months of the war as the Germans mounted an ever increasingly desperate defense of the Reich. Most of the Red Army's best formations were spent forces at the end of the war. Add in the fact a war between the Allies and the Soviets would have meant the end of aid to the Soviets, and the outcome becomes clear. The fighting would have lasted perhaps a matter of months but the Red Army would have collapsed. Had they last longer, all that would serve would be to give the Allies time to move the 8th Air Force and British Bomber Command to bases in Germany where that long supply line snaking back into central Russia would be obliterated in a rain of 500 lb. bombs.
Basically, Patton was right. We should have finished them while we had the chance.
This post was edited on 10/20/21 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 10/20/21 at 3:50 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Indeed they did work well side by side in WWI. And again in WWII they fought together in the Pacific.
There was not much difference between the Marines and Army in WWI because it was fought before the emergence of combined arms mobile warfare. Only in the final months of the war did infantry, armor, artillery, and close air support begin to resemble what it would columinate with in WWII.
During the interwar years, the US Army, along with most other major armies, began to intergrade the combined arms concept into it's war fighting doctrine. Thus many armies created the first mechanized and armored divisions. The Germans perfected this and we know know it as "Blitzkrieg".
The Marines though, while establishing armored battalions into their divisions, were still an infantry based force where tanks were used in an infantry support role similar to what was seen at the end of WWI. The reason they did not change into a heavy mech force was due to the nature of their primary mission, namely amphibious operations. So while the Marines did use tanks, they used them in a manner that was the norm in WWI more so than in WWII. But this worked for them because the Japanese style of land warfare was very much from the old WWI infantry reliant style.
Well, the size and nature of the USMC kind of forces it to fight in the manner it does. I understand what you're saying, and agree that in the European theater, the USMC would only be able to play a support role or at the very least like the Stormtroopers from WWI for the German side. They could support themselves in the Pacific, their size and funding disparities from the other branches is proof they wouldn't have been able to be a stand alone military unit in the European theater.
Posted on 10/20/21 at 3:57 pm to 308
My WWII paw paw in law, simply said, “the Germans were good soldiers, the Italians were not”.
Posted on 10/20/21 at 3:59 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Basically, Patton was right. We should have finished them while we had the chance.
Yes. The world without the Cold War - I can’t even imagine
Posted on 10/20/21 at 4:01 pm to grizzlylongcut
quote:
Well, the size and nature of the USMC kind of forces it to fight in the manner it does. I understand what you're saying, and agree that in the European theater, the USMC would only be able to play a support role or at the very least like the Stormtroopers from WWI for the German side. They could support themselves in the Pacific, their size and funding disparities from the other branches is proof they wouldn't have been able to be a stand alone military unit in the European theater.
Exactly. The Marines were structured and trained to fight a specific type of infantry based amphibious warfare in WWII. And they were damn good at it. In fact, from a purely infantry standpoint, I'd dare say they were rifle for rifle the finest infantry in the world.
This is why I always laugh at those who argue which is "better" between the Army or the Marines. It's like asking if Joe Montana was a better football player than Lawrence Taylor. Both were outstanding. But they do different things, serve different roles. Its the same for the Army and Marines in WWII, they filled different missions. And each of them were damn good at it.
Posted on 10/20/21 at 7:49 pm to GreenRockTiger
My thoughts exactly, we could have shoved them all the way back to their own borders. Churchill saw it,and Patton did too.
Without the Cold War....maybe no Korea and Vietnam either.
Without the Cold War....maybe no Korea and Vietnam either.
Posted on 10/20/21 at 9:17 pm to Bamafig
Kind of strange that the Italian navy was a pretty damn good one when their Army was shite. Maybe they were lead by German officers???
Posted on 10/20/21 at 10:01 pm to antibarner
No Cold War, does that mean no space program?
Posted on 10/20/21 at 10:10 pm to SportsGuyNOLA
quote:wrong
Worst- French (obviously)
Posted on 10/20/21 at 10:36 pm to Pfft
Just for the record. The 45th Infantry Division (A national guard unit) had 4 amphibious landings so it wasn't just limited to Marines.
Sicily, Selerno, Anzio and Southern France.
But I get the point.
I feel the the Marines in the Pacific differed from Army units in Europe due to they operated so closely with the US Navy and Naval operations.
Plus the climate difference.
Seems not much mention of the fighting in Italy. Totally brutal. Mountains, muche and mud.
The US army's best friend in Italy was The Mule (The animal) born, raised and trained at Fort Reno Oklahoma.
As to the Italian soldier.. those country men had no desire for a war. That was Mussolini alone. The Italian people did not want it.
As to the French... They put up a good fight, but the French leaders were still trying to fight WWI style.
The Maginot Line? Why the Germans just went around it. Then it was a little too late.
My understanding between the German and the US soldier is this. The Germans had a chain of command that you never broke.
The US soldier was allowed to improvise. In fact, the US Basic Soldiers handbook 1941 says this exactly: "Should the unexpected happen, use your head and do something, even if it is wrong, rather than ‘lie down, do something"
I'd like to discuss more, but I am not on a keyboard.
Sicily, Selerno, Anzio and Southern France.
But I get the point.
I feel the the Marines in the Pacific differed from Army units in Europe due to they operated so closely with the US Navy and Naval operations.
Plus the climate difference.
Seems not much mention of the fighting in Italy. Totally brutal. Mountains, muche and mud.
The US army's best friend in Italy was The Mule (The animal) born, raised and trained at Fort Reno Oklahoma.
As to the Italian soldier.. those country men had no desire for a war. That was Mussolini alone. The Italian people did not want it.
As to the French... They put up a good fight, but the French leaders were still trying to fight WWI style.
The Maginot Line? Why the Germans just went around it. Then it was a little too late.
My understanding between the German and the US soldier is this. The Germans had a chain of command that you never broke.
The US soldier was allowed to improvise. In fact, the US Basic Soldiers handbook 1941 says this exactly: "Should the unexpected happen, use your head and do something, even if it is wrong, rather than ‘lie down, do something"
I'd like to discuss more, but I am not on a keyboard.
Posted on 10/20/21 at 11:05 pm to WWII Collector
A little known fact about the Pacific War is that there were more U.S. Army combat troops fighting in the Pacific than there were U.S. Marines. The two largest operations of the entire Pacific War (the invasion of the Philippines and the invasion of Okinawa) were spearheaded by U.S. Army personnel.
Posted on 10/20/21 at 11:46 pm to TigerNlc
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/21/21 at 1:03 pm
Posted on 10/20/21 at 11:47 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
there were more U.S. Army combat troops fighting in the Pacific than there were U.S. Marines
Today I Learned…
Had no clue. Always equated the Pacific theater to the Marines. Nuts
ETA: off to troll my little brother(former Marine) about the Army having more of a presence than the Marines in the South Pacific.
This post was edited on 10/21/21 at 1:08 am
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News