Best soldiers of WWII?

[Berlichtingen]

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

Best SPecial Forces

...For the Germans, I'd probably choose Skorzeny's commandos.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not too sure about Skorzeny. There is a good deal of evidence suggesting that Skorzeny was more a 'Propaganda' commando. The credit for the famous Mussolini rescue should probably go to Major Mors' men (1st Company of a Fallschirmjäger training battalion) who actually conducted the operation rather than Skorzeny who tagged along. A more impressive commando action by the Germans would be the capture of Eben Emael by Sturmabteilung 'Koch' in 1940.

[Gyrene]

Michael, first off thank you for the excellent, educated reply.

I fully understand Japan's 1900's distortion of the Code of Bushido and that the Japanese themselves fuly expect to be treated the same way if they were captured, but I still don't approve of it, or the war crimes commited by SS troops. (Please note I said SS and not "German Army")

Yes, Marines mistreated and often executed many of the few Japanese prisoners they captured.

You are right about the Japanese not being efficient as the war progressed, but considering after 1943 their mission was to cause as much damage as possible before their own inevitable demise, they were successful at that.

I agree that the German Army was extremely efficient (I read somewhere their casualty received to given ratio was the best of the war, early Russian Front numbers might have tipped the scales, though.) and was probably the best, bar none from 1940-1944.

Its a well known fact that many Japanese stragglers continued to fight the war for decades after the War ended, that is a loyalty that will probably remain unmatched. (However misguided)

Gyrene

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike the bike:

Gyrene whether you denigrated anyone or not, or intended to or not, is not the point.

the very nature of this thread means that people must compare the "performance" of various troops and nationalities, so it was always going to degenerate!

Even just by saying "xyz is the best" without saying anything else you are opening up an argument although that may not be your intention.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is possible to discuss who was the better trained, equipped and led, without discussing who was more brave. Anyone who faced enemy fire without running - be it from a K98 or a 20 mm AA gun - was brave.

Berlichtingen - good point about Skorzeny. I often wonder what real effect his efforts in the Bulge had. Beyond the moral (and the jitteriness that spread through US lines) I am led to believe not much. Seems to me they caught a lot of the US-disguised guys flatfooted.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Berlichtingen - good point about Skorzeny. I often wonder what real effect his efforts in the Bulge had. Beyond the moral (and the jitteriness that spread through US lines) I am led to believe not much. Seems to me they caught a lot of the US-disguised guys flatfooted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In terms of their mission, Skorzeny's operation during the Bulge was a complete failure. It did have some unintended side effects that could be considered possitive from the German point of view. Skorzeny's othr 'big' operation IIRC was the attack on Tito's HQ... another failure

[Berlichtingen]

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

Ok, my choice goes to the USMC in the Pacific, and the German Fallschirmjägers elsewhere<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought I would elaborate:

I say USMC, because I was a Marine, and to say otherwise would be inappropriate

As to the Fallschirmjäger... they were Germany's true fire brigade. Where ever the fire was hottest, you would find the Fallschirmjäger. Their list of achievements during the war is truly impressive.

[Gyrene]

Berlichtingen, a good parallel between the Fallschirmjäger and the USMC was that both were also fighting for institutional survival.

Both had a very tough fight just to prove that they were needed, the Fallschirmjäger after they lost their airborne missions and the USMC to prove that their duties couldn't be filled by the Army.

Gyrene

[Skipper]

Okay, if anyone wants a flame war, here is some fuel for that. No name calling, and I positively refuse to talk in "the best anything" terms. So...

Germans did not consider "an average GI" as the toughest opponent they had to face. Far from it - Western Front posting was considered as a vacation after Eastern Front (well, almost). On the contrary, Eastern Front posting was regularly used as a punishment.

Soviets held quite low opinion about fighting capability of the Japanese army that they crushed in Manchuria (although they recognised the fanaticism).

Germans had about 80 million, USSR - about 190. However, a few more countries fought along Germans in the Eastern Front, another quite a few had their industries and agriculture working flat out for the German war effort, and USSR has lost 6 million of the regular army in summer 1941. And they still won after all that.

Hitler was neither a military idiot, nor a genius. He was a leadership genius, however. Without his leadership, germans would be unable to do much of anything in WWII (which, IMHO, was likely to happen anyway). He distrusted many of his own generals, for a good reason. There were more than one attempt to stage a putch against him by the miiltary during the war.

Western allies started fighting seriously in Europe when the outcome of the war was already more or less decided. It just made the end quicker, more decisive and somewhat less attractive for Uncle Joe Stalin

Lend-lease food, trucks and other stuff were very important to Red Army success in 1942-43, no doubt about it. It did not play a big part in 1941 events, however - neither Barbarossa, nor Soviet counteroffensive in Moscow. Ie, Barbarossa failed virtually without western allies involvement.

In 1942-45 Germans did not inflict unusually heavy casualties on the Soviet Army.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

As to the Fallschirmjäger... they were Germany's true fire brigade. Where ever the fire was hottest, you would find the Fallschirmjäger. Their list of achievements during the war is truly impressive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tut tut---Grossdeutschland was renowned as "die Feuerwehr" and prided themselves on that distinction. You wouldn't call a Marine a Green Devil, now would you?

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You wouldn't call a Marine a Green Devil, now would you?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mother Green and her killing machine or Devil Dogs

Well, its close

[tank buster]

Hey lets not forget the US Rangers, not to mention the Brandenburg Kommandos, Morrocan 2nd Infantry and the Algerian 3rd Infantry. As well as the Morrocan 4th Inf thats only if were rating intestional fortitude.

[Dunnee]

Wasn't Robocop the best killing machine? He racked up like 350 kills in his movies. . .

[Skipper]

What was the name of the guy who dropped a first A-bomb?

On the appraisal of Hitler's personality and abilities, I'd refer anyone to Churchill's monumental "World War II".

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the Fallschirmjäger after they lost their airborne missions<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But why? Because they got their arses kicked on Crete that's why

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What was the name of the guy who dropped a first A-bomb? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pilot of the Enola Gay? Paul Tibetts?

Gyrene

[Skipper]

Yup, that's the one. Unsurpassed for the "killing machine" so far. Btw, I am sure he was one of the finest bomber pilots, too. They should have picked him for a reason.

[Warmaker]

Is it true that a bunch of the Enola Gay crew went crazy or something in the years to follow when they realized how many people they killed and the way it was done? Just curious...

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Is it true that a bunch of the Enola Gay crew went crazy or something in the years to follow when they realized how many people they killed and the way it was done? Just curious... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Paul Tibetts had some emotional problems after the mission, especially due to the fact his name is the only one that ever comes up. The bombardier never gets mentioned and he pulled the trigger.

Gyrene

[Dr. Brian]

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

Dr. Brian, Why do you think that many of the German army's training methods, and tactics are emulated today by military forces such as the United States?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say that ... so you're putting words, or ideas, into me that are not true.

The ORIGINAL question was the "best" soldier. Just because tactics emenated from a nation, doesn't make them the best at it.

Oh, and for everyone else blaming Hitler for the Germans losing the war, that's B.S. Please, stop with the excuses already. It perpetuates the myth.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Lend-lease food, trucks and other stuff were very important to Red Army success in 1942-43, no doubt about it. It did not play a big part in 1941 events, however - neither Barbarossa, nor Soviet counteroffensive in Moscow. Ie, Barbarossa failed virtually without western allies involvement.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You consider the Battle of Britain, France, Norway, Greece, North Africa, and the North Atlantic "without western involvement"?

I will the first to say the the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting in WW2, but they hardly did it alone.

Hypothetical: How strong would the German military be in the summer of 1941 if they had not fought the Battle of Britain? If Germany did not sink massive resources into their surface raiding fleet? If they did not need to try to close the Atlantic with U-Boats? How strong would they have been if they had not invaded Greece just weeks prior to their invasion of the USSR? How much further would they have gotten in that critical first summer if they had started 2 weeks earlier? A month earlier?

Modern wars are not won or lost solely on the basis of raw numbers of men killed.

Jeff Heidman

[Dr. Brian]

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

Jeff Heidman,

You make some good points, particularly about the radios. My point was simply that the "myth" that the Germans were initially successful due to their superior equipment is false. They were successful due to their tactics and training as well as their attitude towards training NCOs. someone previously had mentioned that he was tired of the "myth" of superior German training. I was just addressing that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The myth is not superior training.

It's the myth that the Germans are vastly superior. They are not. It is easy to beat up and look superior to Denmark, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, et al., as they were "backwards" when it came to military implementation.

The "great" German military successes were against these noble, yet very weak nations. They are not "great" except in the minds of the perpetuators of the myth. If Germany beat the U.S. or U.S.S.R, the proof would then be unequivocal.

I don't think anyone (at least not me) is taking a good, sound, military idea away. However, a better military doctrine is to take the good idea, modify it to your advantages, and use it. Rather like the Boyd Cycle… keeping your opponent off-balance. The U.S. did that, and the U.S.S.R did that as well. They adapted to the situation, while the German didn't. A good military tactic, is the ability to adapt.

Germany did not.

[Gyrene]

All the flaming that went on in this thread made me think of one thing:

Could you imagine the chaos that would ensue if BTS made morale values a public number like in ASL? It would create a civil disturbance...

"6??? What do you mean US Infantry only gets a morale of 6????"

The s*** would really hit the fan when USMC units came out with their morale of 8

Gyrene

[Olle Petersson]

Interesting question this about the best soldiers...

I find it very hard to pick which unit performed most above expectations when all factors regarding equipment and support is subtracted. (US infantry (including USMC) usually did well, but they also typically had very good armour, artillery and air support when doing it. How big factor this was I won't even try to guess.)

My shot at best regular soldiers must be the Gurkhas. Nothing but regular Napalese infantry in British service...

Best special unit must be that British guy that deceived the Germans about the D-day invasion. He fooled them completely, and managed to do so although he was dead at the time!

Other than that the British paratroopers in Arnhem did far beyond what could be expected, given their lack of everything but skill and guts.

Cheers

Olle

[tss]

Berlichtingen wrote:

6th... the 9th was a Panzer Division

I don't participate on debates about "best soldiers" because I've seen so many of them to degenerate into pure flamefests.

However, I just popped in to point out that the performance of the 6th SS Mountain Division Nord was abysmal in 1941 and that is enough for me to strike the unit out of the list of best soldiers.

(About 24 hours after the division begun its attack its commander sent a report to his superiors stating that "he didn't believe that the division could carry out offensive operations").

- Tommi

[aussie]

in reply to stalins organ:australian troops did not leave the north african campaign to take part in the far east fighting... one division did, the others remained and took part in the battle of el alemain, which as an example in time lining,, if you look at an historical calander will show you that the two campaigns were simulataneous.

one mite smugly point out that they certainly stayed in north africa for some time longer then the axis forces opposed to them!!!!!

i would not wish to "flame" as it is against both the rules here and my nature, but i do feel that when a person makes certain comments, be it from lack of historical educational advantage, or simply a rush of blood to the head, that such comment is in itself, "falammable"!!

to clear up the matter about militia and conscriptiuon of aust. forces.: the militao forces stationed in png, yes, a sort of ares, were the firat to face the japanese forces there. later, concsrciptiuon was brought in on the basis of conscription to the militia only, whereby the current law was that militia units could only be "sent" to fight in australian territory,, which was taken at the time to mean only continental australia..... the labour gov, under john curtain, brought an interpretation into rule that considered png to be part of australias front line defence, after the abandoment of the "brisbane line" mentallity, and therefore men "conscripted " into the ",militia" could be and were sent to fight in png.

therefore by default, yes conscripts were sent to fight for the first time in australian history.

an interesting aside is the fierce regimental loyalty that militia units fostered, mostly from the volunteers,, and later the government sought to amalgamate militia units into the aif,,, fearing a loss of identity, this move was hotly opposed.

lastly, on the subject of japanese supply problems, yes they were a tad overextended, due to interdiction of their main supply routes, mainly achieved by U.S naval and or amphibious operations , suppoorted by AUSTRALIAN destroyers, cruisers, fighter and bomber aircraft,, u dont just shoot an enemy out of position u know, starvation is one of mankinds oldest weapons, and not to be scoffed at,, as is the counter attacking of an overextended enemy.

[Mark IV]

Random thoughts:

Zhukhov held the Japanese armor in low regard, but not the Japanese army. Perhaps we should read the whole story of Nomonhan?

Japan had butted in to the 20th century as the sole non-white power who played the colonial/military game just like Euro-Americans, and they did it by hammering Russia out of Manchuria and Korea, sinking both their fleets in the process. It was a bloody, violent war, which the Russians lost in every tactical sense. It was also a war in which Japan was frequently commended by the many foreign observers for its chivalry on the battlefield... the hideous atrocities of WWII were a later development of the ideologues who assumed control of Japanese society between the World Wars. Read up before you knee-jerk to this one.

At any rate, Russia had some scores to settle and did so in 1939 with deep satisfaction. They were also very glad to sign an armistice with an opponent they knew and respected, to free up the forces for a gathering storm in Europe. Through most of the war they denied permission to the US to use their bases for strikes against Japan (even while the Lend-Lease shipments were flowing in), because they felt one war was sufficient.

Rant, the Second: The notion that German tactics failed to adapt is contrary to everything I've read on the subject. Whether every possible adaptation was successfully made is not even worth debating, but the evolution of German tactics throughout the war is (I thought) self-evident. Care to cite some specifics to support this claim?