Jump to content

Best soldiers of WWII?


Recommended Posts

This is a silly topic, but check out the First Special Service Force (Devil's Brigade). The most highly motivated and combat-effective force the Allies had.

They were trained in amphibious warfare, parachute drops, mountain fighting, skiing (and excelled at all).

At Anzio they held a section of the line out of all proportion to their numbers and were feared as much as the Gurkhas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 248
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh boy .... the myth lives on ... and besides. They beat up on minor powers. When push came to shove, they got their butt kicked"

They stomped France, and England most of the war. If the Soviets didnt have such a large population they probably would have stomped them also. And if the US didnt get involved I highly doubt England or the Soviets would have survived.

I fail to see how that is the myth.

My grandfather fought on the Western Front. He said they are about the toughest SOBs he has ever seen. He said nobody knows what war is like until they went up against the Germans. But of course would not go into details.

Anywho i nominate the US soldier. For some reason we always seem to find a way to win smile.gif

Always inflicting more casualties than the enemy.

Gen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Gen-x87 wrote:

They stomped France, and England most of the war. [ . . . ] And if the US didnt get involved I highly doubt England or the Soviets would have survived.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sick of hearing this idea – and from someone who holds it, this statement is not at all surprising:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anywho i nominate the US soldier. For some reason we always seem to find a way to win :) Always inflicting more casualties than the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds like a learned and accurate appraisal. Not just short-sighted jingoism or anything, of course not.

France fell because its defensive strategy hinged on the Maginot Line, which was maybe a bad idea considering the Germans simply restaged the Schlieffen Plan they used in the First World War and outflanked it. I'm not French, but I see too many ostensibly in-jest comments about the French's inability to fight.

The British Expeditionary Force was defeated by the advancing Germans and had to evacuate back across the Channel. The British Army did not return to France in force until Overlord. But too many people seem to be ignorant of the fact that we were fighting in Africa and Asia/Australasia, as well as fending off German air attacks at home, and supporting resistance and partisan operations.

It is true that the USA was a major contributor to the defeat of Germany and Japan. But it did not somehow save the other Allies from destruction. Germany might have invaded Britain after Dunkirk, but it didn't. Operation Sealion never happened. It might also have defeated the RAF, but it didn't. We were having a bit of trouble, but Göring lost the initiative when he switched attacks from airfields to cities. Britain was quite able to sustain itself and conduct military operations in other theatres. It is doubtful that we could have defeated the Axis powers on our own, but would those who regard the USA as the saviour of the free world kindly get their facts right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U.S. Army in European Theatre of Operations:

1st Infantry Division

4th Infantry Division

36th Infantry Division (Audie Murphy & fought in Africa, Italy, France, and Germany)

4th Armored

U.K:

All ANZAC troops

Finland:

First class army

Germany, Western Front 1944-45:

Panzer Lehr

9th SS Mountain Division (formerly in Finland)

1st SS Panzer

10th SS Panzer

12th SS until the end of Normandy at which point it was basically destroyed and rebuilt - a shadow of its former self

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Keith:

U.S. Army in European Theatre of Operations:

1st Infantry Division

4th Infantry Division

36th Infantry Division (Audie Murphy & fought in Africa, Italy, France, and Germany)

4th Armored

U.K:

All ANZAC troops

Finland:

First class army

Germany, Western Front 1944-45:

Panzer Lehr

9th SS Mountain Division (formerly in Finland)

1st SS Panzer

10th SS Panzer

12th SS until the end of Normandy at which point it was basically destroyed and rebuilt - a shadow of its former self<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd have to add the 29th Infantry Division (Omaha and inland), the 28th Infantry Division (Bulge), the 1st Marine Division and the Marine Raiders.

BTW, Audie Murphy served in the 3rd Infantry Division, not the 36th, when he won his MOH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

It is doubtful that we could have defeated the Axis powers on our own, but would those who regard the USA as the saviour of the free world kindly get their facts right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everything you say sounds utterly reasonable to me, David. Well said.

I think that if you want to point to a period where the US did play a leading and crucial role, it would be after WW2, when Europe was exhausted but the US persisted with involvement with Europe, launched the Marshall Plan, faced down the Stalinist Soviet Union over Berlin, etc.

I'm proud of what my country did then, not retreating back into its isolationism, but realizing that it was part of a global system and that it had a responsibility to Europe and to its own citizens to use its energy and industrial base to try to repair the damages of the war.

But even _that_ should not be used as a club to beat anyone with.

It was an astonishingly mature and sober realization that Germany and France were shattered, the Soviet Union was run by a madman who was threatening the West, that after the slaughter of the First World War, Britain had sacrificed another generation of men (workers) and was teetering.

And so anyone who says "Ha ha we had to bail you out after WW2," is minimizing the sacrifices that Europeans made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian:

Oh boy .... the myth lives on ... and besides. They beat up on minor powers. When push came to shove, they got their butt kicked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. Brian,

Your ideas on the German Military in World War II are always a bit over shadowed by your personal feelings. I recognize your many excellent contributions to this forum and do try and understand the why of your bias.

Nevertheless with personal feelings aside and a military perspective I heartily disagree with your claim that the German Military’s excellence in battle is myth. Man for man the German soldiers were a match for any countries military.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My heavily biased choice: The U.S. Marines.

While all the nations fielded some outstanding forces I have two comments to make. It's been my understanding from various documentaries & readings that the Italian soldier was generally not respected (surrender, anyone?). But the average Italian soldier was able to excel under good leadership such as the Germans in the Afrika Korps. I'm not saying they're all elite, but someone made a comment of the Italians earlier.

And my second comment and suggestion is not a land based force. The German U-Boat service. They started off quite well in WWII but were not at full strength. Of course, as the war dragged on and the Allies gained better resources to combat the U-Boats things became heavily lopsided in favor of the Allies. With more escort carriers and the investment of B-24s as patrol aircraft for instance, and along with other technological factors, it was pretty much suicidal to be a U-Boat sailor in the late war period. I commend this service that they still kept doing their patrols with little likelihood of returning home. A documentary on the History Channel here in the U.S. about the U-Boats said that one of the reasons they needed to keep the U-boats going despite their futility is the aforementioned Allied use of carriers and long ranged bombers to try to find/hunt them. These bombers/aircraft could have been used instead to bomb German cities. Just another example of "taking the bullet for the team." Don't remember the exact figures but of roughly the 40,000 men(volunteers) who served as U-Boat crews, only 10,000 survived. Dying isn't pleasant but dying in a sub has to rank up there in one of the worst ways to die in combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This realy gets my goat, my grandfather would tell me that out of 20 friends that joined up on the same day only 5 made it back home. I realy do not believe that the general U.S. public and some on the forum get the fact that the war started in 1939 rather than 1941. It may be the beer but I do not like the fact that the sacirfice of the first part of the war seems to be be-littled by the fact that the U.S. entered later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gyrene,

Cynical I may be, but I just call 'em as I see 'em. Some folks have some dearly held opinions and get heated when someone contradicts them. Be warned.

****

As regards the Italians. True, they are much maligned for their poor performance, but it doesn't mean that the raw material was somehow innately inferior. Poor leadership and poor arms go a long way in crippling a soldiers potential. I read a blurb in an old ASL annual once that said something to the effect that Ghurka Non- coms fighting Italians in Ethiopia considered the Italians to be the bravest soldiers they had yet met.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never posted here before (lurker), but after reading a couple of posts about the "myth" of the high quality of the German infantry I felt that I had to say something. During WWII -NOBODY- had better trained NCO's than the Germans. The Germans had a doctrine called "The Institution of Excellence" They promoted and continually trained talented junior NCOs. They sent them to war colleges, leadership schools, and special training programs. The fact that the modern militaries of the allies actually train and continue to educate their junior officers and NCOs is a direct result of lessons learned via the combat effectivenss of the German infantrymen, who was undoubtedly (sp?) the best led (at the junior officer level) of all armies in WWII.

What is a myth, is the belief that the early German victories were a result of superior German equipment. This is false. Until the full scale introduction of the Mark IV, the Allied tanks were faster, had better armor, and superior firepower(T-34,Churchill, Matilda etc.). It is a tribute to the discipline and training of the German soldier, that he was able to consistently defeat and advance on a first rate army who was not only better equiped but also better supplied and larger. ( Allies in North Africa). It was not until the Germans were unable to adequatly replace their lost equipment, and the allies adopted German tactics that the Allies were able to acheive victories. These mainly due to their air superiority and massive industrial capacities. Thsi is not to take anything for the Allied troops, its just that man for man, the Germans were much better trained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike721:

What is a myth, is the belief that the early German victories were a result of superior German equipment. This is false. Until the full scale introduction of the Mark IV, the Allied tanks were faster, had better armor, and superior firepower(T-34,Churchill, Matilda etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FUnny how if you define "better" to be whatever it is your opponent has and you do not, all your opponents stuff suddenly becomes "better".

Speed, armor, and firepower != better tank.

German armor was the best in the world at the start of the war. Repeat after me:

Radios and three man turrets.

It doesn't matter how big the gun is, or how thick the armor might be, if the other guy ahs his tanks in the right place and fighting as a team because of vastly superior command and control.

Proof: By the mid point of the war, all the participants were still experimenting with different combinations of speed, armor, and firepower, but none of them were still building tanks without radios and dedicated gunners.

Jeff Heidman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok then, Im not going to say anything on this one. I think that each country did what it could during the war and would do it again.

Im just going to say that the Russians lost 25 million people during that war and they didnt give up...So they are probably the most tenatious of them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"German armor was the best in the world at the start of the war. Repeat after me:"

Your wrong, the French and British tanks were superior in reliability, ease of repair, firepower, and armor protection. Even by mid war, the German tanks weren't necessarily superior. They were mechanically unreliable and difficult to produce. I agree with your statement about the the winner having his tanks at the right place at the right time. That is my point. Often the germans were at the right place at the right time (due to training and leadership), with inferior equipment (early in the war mainly) and still overan the allies. PArticular;y in France and Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone even considered the basic American GI fighting across Europe? These guys were conscripted from all walks of life, who didnt want to be there, and just wanted to get the job done and go home. And they did it!

What is all this talk about Australian army, who cares? What is everyone Australian here or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike721:

[QBYour wrong, the French and British tanks were superior in reliability, ease of repair, firepower, and armor protection.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And none of that means a damn thing if you cannot control those tanks at the *tactical* level because you did not put radios in them, or the commanders have to spend all their time firing the gun instead of coordinating the actions of their crew and making sure they are fighting the same fight their superior echelons are fighting.

The Germans had the best tanks simply because they rocognized first what was a necessary precondition to proper use of an armored vehicle. These include radios, and a dedicated commander. They do NOT include the biggest gun, the heaviest armor, or even the fastest speed. All those things are advatages that are nice to have, but will alwyas prove indecisive in the face of lack of command and control.

Jeff Heidman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KRS321:

What is everyone Australian here or what?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but guys who "were conscripted from all walks of life, who didnt want to be there, and just wanted to get the job done and go home. And they did it!" would apply equally to the UK and other commonwealth troops.

Do you think the Aussies had some purebred warrior class or something? Was the average Brit fighting on the continent because he personally had a bone to pick with the Wehrmacht? Didn't Canadians want to get the job done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

German armor was the best in the world at the start of the war. Repeat after me:

Radios and three man turrets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God, I hate doing this, but...

I completely agree with Jeff. Combind arms tactics is what won battles in WW2... to pull them off, you have to have effective communication. The German tanks were lighter armed and armored (don't know were the slower came from... they were faster than most of the British and French equipment), but they were designed to function within a combined arms team... and thus, they prevailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sick of hearing this idea – and from someone who holds it, this statement is not at all surprising:"

Oh did I hit a nerve with you? I am not familiar with who you are. So your last comment doesnt seem to hold much water.

Want to expand what you mean by "and from someone who holds it, this statement is not at all surprising"

Have we met before?

"That sounds like a learned and accurate appraisal. Not just short-sighted jingoism or anything, of course not."

Now how is that short sighted?

"France fell because its defensive strategy hinged on the Maginot Line, which was maybe a bad idea considering the Germans simply restaged the Schlieffen Plan they used in the First World War and outflanked it."

Gee everybody knew they were coming. But they really could not stop it.

"I'm not French, but I see too many ostensibly in-jest comments about the French's inability to fight."

Ahh they usually seem to run when the fight comes smile.gif

"The British Expeditionary Force was defeated by the advancing Germans and had to evacuate back across the Channel. The British Army did not return to France in force until Overlord."

I forgot the BEF was not part of the British army.

"But too many people seem to be ignorant of the fact that we were fighting in Africa and Asia/Australasia, as well as fending off German air attacks at home, and supporting resistance and partisan operations."

Quit making excuses.

"It is true that the USA was a major contributor to the defeat of Germany and Japan. But it did not somehow save the other Allies from destruction."

I find that statement rather ignorant. Even you have said they were fighting in Africa, SE Asia and at home. It is quite obvious that the British were on the defensive until the U.S. got involved. Actually I wonder how the british would have faired minus the Lend Lease policy with the US.

"We were having a bit of trouble, but Göring lost the initiative when he switched attacks from airfields to cities."

I believe that was more of Hitlers idea. Something about a British bombing of Hamburg (City citizens) on the night he was giving a speech. Anywho I think we are now seeing why your anger is showing through in your posts. You appear to be from the region.

"Britain was quite able to sustain itself and conduct military operations in other theatres."

I suppose singapore being taken, Rommel running about free in Africa and the home front being smashed day in day out can be construed as sustaining.

"It is doubtful that we could have defeated the Axis powers on our own, but would those who regard the USA as the saviour of the free world kindly get their facts right."

Well gee let me see. You just admitted it was doubtful the British would have defeated the Axis on thier own. Then say no way is the US the savior? What is wrong with the above paragraph? You obviously needed a savior(US) to get the job done.

I suppose you can stop thanking us for starving the Japanese of oil to the point where they thought they had to bomb us to get us to the bargaining table smile.gif

BTW I am liking all the lively conversation smile.gif We should all just meet on the battlefield.

Gen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadians (I am one) were an all volunteer army. They went because they wanted too. They also wanted to get the job done...

KRS321 how about you look in some books and find out about world war 2, you'll find that alot of other countries fought too. So instead of saying the average GI, you should say the average soldier . . .

As for your comment about the Australians . . . They have all the right to be proud of their army. As you have the right to be proud of the American army . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...