Best soldiers of WWII?

[Skipper]

> Modern wars are not won or lost solely on

> the basis of raw numbers of men killed.

Fully agree. As well as with the gist of your whole post. Everything is interconnected in too many ways to keep track of. Oversimplificatiion aside, what I meant was that involvement of other allies was not a major factor in the actual outcome of 1941 fighting in Russia.

IMHO, early war campaigns (especially, France and Czechoslovakia) actually strengthened German military, not weakened it. What Germany spent on these campaigns was fully recovered in reparations and seized stocks of war materiel. Not to mention the obvious fact that due to these campaigns Wehrmacht had combat hardened officers and NCOs for their big russian adventure.

[Berlichtingen]

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some clearification here... Kampfgruppe Nord did poorly in their first action... they were not trained. By the time the division was formed, the men had been replaced with trained Waffen-SS... the division was highly successful from that point on.

[Skipper]

> Zhukhov held the Japanese armor in low

> regard, but not the Japanese army.

I was talking about August 1945 operation. By all accounts, japanese were quite far from being in the same league as soviet, or indeed german troops.

In 1939, it was a different story.

[Mlapanzer]

The best soldiers of WW2 were the citizen soldiers. Note ALL "profesional Army's of WW2 lost. The French in 1940. The BEF in 1940. The German army in 1945. The Japanese in 1945.The war was won by the citizen soldiers of all the allied countries. So who we're the best soldiers? It was the shopkeepers, farmers, students, peasants et el.

Not that I want to tick off any Marines out there but talk about myth's. The biggest myth was that the USMC was an elite force. McArthur and his band of misfit troops took more area from Japan than the Marines did and did it loosing fewer men in 3+ years of fighting than were lost in one day at D-day. I think surviving a war and winning makes you a better fighting force than one that looses far to many men. Which Island was it that the U.S Army had to come into to save the invasion? The name escapes me at the moment.

[tss]

Berlichtingen:

Some clearification here... Kampfgruppe Nord did poorly in their first action... they were not trained. By the time the division was formed, the men had been replaced with trained Waffen-SS... the division was highly successful from that point on.

I still disagree. A quick Internet search puts the date of the transformation from a kampfgruppe to a division to September 1941, and that is before the heavy Kiestinki battles. While Kiestinki was not a catastrophe for Nord like Salla battles were, its performance was not particularly spectacular. At times the SS men manned a front that was 50% shorter per defender than Finnish and Heer troops had, but the enemy patrols could still get through it almost at will.

- Tommi

[Jeff Heidman]

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

> Modern wars are not won or lost solely on

> the basis of raw numbers of men killed.

Fully agree. As well as with the gist of your whole post. Everything is interconnected in too many ways to keep track of. Oversimplificatiion aside, what I meant was that involvement of other allies was not a major factor in the actual outcome of 1941 fighting in Russia.

IMHO, early war campaigns (especially, France and Czechoslovakia) actually strengthened German military, not weakened it. What Germany spent on these campaigns was fully recovered in reparations and seized stocks of war materiel. Not to mention the obvious fact that due to these campaigns Wehrmacht had combat hardened officers and NCOs for their big russian adventure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ni disagreement form me at all. I think you are certainly correct.

However, while Poland and France certainly rpviding some needed blooding for German troops, the BoB was a disaster for the Luftwaffe, and the Greece compaign did little other than delay Barbarsossa and deplete supplies and energy at a critical time.

Not to mention the vast resources lavished on the Kriegsmarine, especially the U-Boat service, prior to June '41.

Jeff Heidman

[Skipper]

On the progress German army made between 1938 and 1941, recommended reading is Guderian's memoir.

[zero the hero]

finns did kick some soviet fundaments.

didn't have time to read all the rants so i jumped on the one wagon i caught up w/.

this metaphilosophical stuff that's hanging up in the air on this board? here whistled past me in an instant.

oh yeah. i'm a newbie. so diss me and strike me down w/ all your anger and spite. :mad:

[zero the hero]

It is disappointing that so few Westerners know about the history of Finland. Their battle against invasion and tyranny is inspiring and deserving of recounting. Rifles of the White Death went a long way toward whetting my appetite for more. Examples of individual bravery during the Winter War are the things of which true heroes are made. In one accounting, 32 Finn soldiers held off 4000 Russian infantrymen. By the end of the failed communist attack, 400 Soviets lay dead and the rest in retreat. Only 4 Finns survived, but they held the line. You cannot help but be amazed by this kind of sacrifice and bravery.

http://www.snipercountry.com/RiflesWhiteDeath.htm

i had to. sorry.

[zero the hero]

A Finn farmer turned civil guardsman still holds the highest kill record of any sniper in history. Simo Häyhä, as recounted in the book, was responsible for the demise of 505 Russian soldiers! Another Finn tallied 400 Russians as a sniper and another 200 with a submachine gun. What truly amazes me is that these two gentlemen plied their trade at ranges sometimes in excess of 600 yards - with IRON sights!

same source as above.

ok. enough of that.

[Jeff Heidman]

200 kills with a submachine gun at 600 yards.

Uh huh. Sure.

I can't help but have trouble believing ANY of the Finn stories, because they are all like this.

Jeff Heidman

[tss]

zero the hero wrote:

Simo Häyhä, as recounted in the book, was responsible for the demise of 505 Russian soldiers!

I'd like to point out that Häyhä himself has said that his official SMG kill figure (> 250) is seriously exaggerated. His rifle kill figure was 246, IIRC, but that is not exact since he didn't start counting immediately and it is possible that there were cases of "confirmed kills" that weren't really hits. The real number of his kills will never be known.

Häyhä fought one sniper duel against a good Soviet sniper whose identity is unknown at least here in Finland. The Soviet sniper had killed three Finnish officers in few days when Häyhä was sent after him. Häyhä spent one full day in a camouflaged hole in the snow without moving at all and when the evening come the Soviet sniper left his hideout carelesly, and Häyhä got him.

- Tommi

[zero the hero]

sorry about the misinformation. i usually take things w/ a pinch of salt and don't swallow w/o chewing. ok. the bodycount seems a bit high but then again why shouldn't i believe that source. häyhä is credited as being the most prolific sniper of all time. and i doubt that the text meant that he shot all those soviets w/ a smg from 600 meters. so there.

[tss]

Jeff Heidman wrote:

I can't help but have trouble believing ANY of the Finn stories, because they are all like this.

To be exact, the post didn't claim that all SMG kills were at 600 meters. Actually, given that in firing range conditions the maximal effective range of a Suomi SMG was a little over 300 meters and practical maximum range in combat (firing single shots or 2-3 round bursts) was ~150 meters, it is very probable that zero the hero meant that the 600 m kills were rifle kills.

As my earlier post mentioned, Häyhä's figure of 505 is too high, but it's not known how much. If I had to guess, I'd say that the real figure would be around 300, but like I wrote, nobody really knows.

I also would like to know who the other mysterious sniper was, since I've never heard about any Finnish sniper with over 400 claimed rifle kills.

We here in Finland have the problem that we generally take the Red Army casualty estimates that occur in war diaries and memoirs too seriously, forgetting that a defending infantry unit will most often exaggarate (knowingly or not) the number of enemy attackers. The same thing holds also in attacks.

One particularly illuminating case is the attack against major Grigorejev's partisan brigade at Tjasa River 30 July 1942. One particularly well-known Finnish source of the battle mentions that 300 Soviet bodies were counted in the battle area. The real figure was (apparently) 113. According to an intercepted radio message, the brigade lost 258 men, counting the men who got lost in the forest in the confusion of Soviet withdrawal. Certainly their total losses were less than the "300 bodies that were counted".

- Tommi

[zero the hero]

tommi's right. i too, as a finn, am not so well built to handle propaganda considering our own boys. anyhow, until somebody shows up w/ evidence and facts stating otherwise, i will worship häyhä as the patron saint of snipers.

[sable-]

As far as the whole German military prowess thing goes, read Dupuy and the answer will be clear.

Sable

[Warmaker]

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

Not that I want to tick off any Marines out there but talk about myth's. The biggest myth was that the USMC was an elite force. McArthur and his band of misfit troops took more area from Japan than the Marines did and did it loosing fewer men in 3+ years of fighting than were lost in one day at D-day. I think surviving a war and winning makes you a better fighting force than one that looses far to many men. Which Island was it that the U.S Army had to come into to save the invasion? The name escapes me at the moment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okaay... gotta stay calm. Anyhow, IF you ever come up with an island campaign that the Army had to save my beloved Corps' rears in during WWII, tell me. If there's one thing with the Marines they teach alot of its history to the recruits from day 1 on and it sticks throughout. Oh, and by the way. MacArthur also had and was quite fond of the Marines that were part of his force. Granted, the majority of the Marines were in Adm.Nimitz's command.

Here's a campaign that really had no impact on the needs of the Navy/Marine Corps, but was quite important to U.S. Army Air Corps bombers. With bombers completing their runs over Japan it's a garauntee some are gonna be severely damaged and won't make it back to their airfields/airbases. Ditching in the middle of the Pacific isn't nice for survivability purposes, even now. With mounting bomber losses it was ordered to seize an island that can be used as an emergency airfield for these wounded bombers and their aircrews. What was the name of that place?...ummm... that would be Iwo Jima. We paid quite a nice price for that place...and your welcome. Shortly afterwards it became an airfield that escort fighters could be launched from, namely P-51s from the documentaries that I've seen of a B-29s crash landing at Iwo... Primary mission of the Marine Corps:Mission Accomplishment. Secondary mission of the Marine Corps:Troop welfare. The mission is everything, baby.

If you like, I'll get more history stuff/bullets.

[ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Which Island was it that the U.S Army had to come into to save the invasion? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You must be thinking of Peleliu, and the the Army did not "Come into save the invasion" the 81st Infantry Division was held in reserve offshore, they were part of the plan from the get go and were called into duty and performed very well.

The Army's area of responsabilty in the PTO was vaster and less defended that the Navy's side, McArthur could virtually pick and chose where ever he wanted to land, this was not a luxury afforded to Nimitz's side of the war...All targets were obvious and the Japanese had years to prepare.

Remember...McArthur was aiming for the Philipines, Nimitz was headed for Japan...HUGE difference.

Gyrene

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zero the hero:

It is disappointing that so few Westerners know about the history of Finland.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm disappointed so few Finns know about the history of Canada.

Actually, I'm more disappointed so few Canadians know about the history of Canada. I'm glad to see more than a few on this board that do indeed know their own history.

[Stalins Organ]

You're right Warmaker - the Marines were absolutely vital to the effort to get the ARMY Air Corps close enough to Japan to win the war!

he he he...ducks & puts on flame suit......

[Johnny D.]

I too dislike myths, and as such lets fix one. The Germans were anything playground bullies. They were of the world's most powerful fighting nations in their peak and decline. There is a reasons why the allies feared the SS, the Tiger (evenmore the Tiger II), the Nebelwerfer, stole German equipment at every chance, and TO THIS DAY use tactics originally used by the Germans. If the Germans are of not such quality, then why can Pz. II's, III's, IV(C-E)'s, 38(t)'s defeat superior T-34's, KV-1's, Char B1-bis's, and Matilda II's? And don't tell me luck. It was the Superior Training of those tank commanders, and their ability to Adapt. What do you think the Germans did when they encountered the Matilda II (may have been Matilda I) for the first time in France. The gun crews, and tank crews for that matter, where astonished to see their 37mm rounds just bouncing off the front armor at point blank! All they could do was run or be run over. But the Germans, staying cool, using their Training, employed the best thing they had. The fearsome 88mm Flak. When ever the Germans encountered a problem like this (and they did many times) they Adapted to the situations, and often times won, because of this flexibility. If Germany isn't the fighting force I or history claims, then why a 20:1 kills ratio against Russia? How can one German machinegun battalion take 30,000 Russian prisoners?

If the nations with the largest armies are minor, then Germany would be minor as well. Meaning Germany bullied no one. If anything the Germans, went after the "big kids". And if France, Britian, and Russia are minor in '39-'40, that would make the U.S. almost third world. If the U.S. and Russia switched geographical locations, and Germany pulled an operation Barbarosa against us, I'll bet the Germans will enjoy success early. After the that who knows what would happen. It was the experience earned in the beginning, by training and ability, that would be combined with superior equipment in the end, that allowed Germany to last as long as it did against three major powers, plus several minor ones.

And in the end, it is easy to see it only took one man to defeat Germany. And his name is Adolf Hitler. Yes, he was a brilliant leader, but his military decisions were fatal. It was Hitler who ordered the London Blitz, when Britian was on the brink of collapse. It was he who chose to wait the month of August of '41 and do nothing, only to choose Kiev as the next target. Had he chose Moscow, he would have cut the nations only transportation and communications center. The country would have been three isolated parts (north-Leningrad, center-Urals and Siberia, south- Caucasus and Stalingrad). It is possible the Germans could have marched well past Moscow, leaving a short distance between them and the Urals for '42. IF Russia could have continued at all.

[Stalins Organ]

Johnny for a "myth buster" you repeat quite a lot of them!

Firstly the P-2's, -3's and 38t's did NOT defeat T-34's and KV's - mostly they were "defeated" by breaking down, bogging, failure of morale or other "non-kill" causes.

P-2's etc defeated Soviet infantry for the most part, and other obsoete armour (BT's, T-26's, etc) for the rest.

Secondly the Germans did NOT unhitch 88's when they first met Matilda 2's as a flash of genius (Arras in 1940). They unhitched them (at Rommel's PERSONAL orders) as an emergency desperation measure because everything else had failed! That they worked was fortunate for them, but not necesarily expected!

[Wesy]

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

I was talking about August 1945 operation. By all accounts, japanese were quite far from being in the same league as soviet, or indeed german troops.

In 1939, it was a different story.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A couple of things to remember is that by late 1945 the Kwantung Army (IJA in Manchuria) was a shell of it's former self. Japan reinforced it's forces in the Pacific with units from Manchuria/China. Japan launched major late war offensives (44/45) to capture B-29 Airfields in China and also the Imphal Offensive (Border of Burma and India). My uncle in fact was captured by the Soviets and spent three years in the Gulag near Lake Baikal. Didn't sound like much fun to me...

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And in the end, it is easy to see it only took one man to defeat Germany. And his name is Adolf Hitler.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh yes and why exactly were they in the war?

By the way I suggest you read a book on the Battle of Britain if you hold to the myth that switching targets was Hitler's idea.

Germanys strategic conduct was not solely the work of one man you know. This Hitler's fault excuse is just rehashing the self-serving memoirs perpetuated post war by German generals and swallowed lock, stock and barrel by those who follow the Liddel-Hart school of Wehrmacht envy.

[Major Tom]

Let me address a few things here with my meagre knowledge.

Dr. Brain.

In regards to your classification of 'backwards', in regards to military implementation (does this mean depolyment, tactics, equipment, etc?), then you could classify the Russian Army until 1943, the US Army until 1943, the British/Commonwealth Armies until 1943, etc. ALL as 'backwards'. Their deployment, tactics and equipment were all poor in the first few years of the war. Their men, like those of Poland, Belgium, Greece, France, Denmark, etc. were all of good quality (and inflicted many casualties on the German army, 500 aircraft were lost in the Polish campaign alone). Just because they were 'backwards' does not mean that there was no threat.

Also, anti-war sentiment in Germany was high, until the fall of France. Germany suffered 1.8 million casualties in WWI, and was not too keen on fighting on a new western front (which even Hitler though was going to be the course of war in France). There were plots to kill Hitler by generals and admirals as early as 1938. However, the victories of 1940 and 41 made any successful attempt impossible. This did not mean that every conspirator changed their tune, some who plotted in 1938 continued plotting until most were executed in 1944-45.

However, for some reason the Germans did not suffer from this 'backwardness' until 1942-43, possibly as early as winter 1941. This was because they had the initiative, and they dictated the terms of battle. When they lost this initiative, in equipment, deployment and tactics through the allies learning how to deal with Blitzkrieg tactics (without finding a sufficient tactic other than attrition) they started losing.

It was not a matter about Germany attacking only the weak, and ignoring the strong, but, that Germany had the benefit of strategy, deployment and initiative over their opponents. Yet, the Allies never gained the same level of 'superiority' over the Germans that the Germans had over them. Germany conquered Europe in a matter of months (if you take away the long periods of inactivity in 1940-41), it took the Allies 2 years to take this territory back, with more resources available to them than the Germans in 1940. This is not because the Germans went up against only pitiful enemies in 1940-41.

Jeff,

I saw a really interesting show about the history of German armour, and it corroborates much of what you state. Their tanks may have been obsolete in almost every other aspect, but, the implementation of radio's, and internal intercom systems gave them an extreme advantage over the 'technically superior' British, French and Russian tanks. The Russians and French used flags in order to communicate, which, in the heat of battle offered a great target (the Troop commander) and slow communication. Communication in getting the first kills was vital in tank combat. So what if you have better guns and tougher armour if you never get to shoot at your enemy before you are blown to bits by multiple hits?

In regards to the Japanese soldier debate..

You might even quantify the Japanese soldier as one of the worst soldiers ever to come out of WWII. Not just through engagements in Manchuria in 1939, 40 and 45. They proved unable to learn sufficient tactics beyond those that they used in the 1941-42 campaign. Much like that of Germany's inability to move beyond Blitzkried, Japan was unable to change strategy when the Americans, Australians, British and Indians learned how to counter their infiltration tactics. Kill ratio's and general tactics on Guadalcanal, New Guinea, the Philippines, etc. might have worked in 1941, but not beyond late 1942. Defensively they proved stubborn in defence, but, never mastered a fluid defence, until Okinawa.

However, I said that I MIGHT say that they were the worst, but, I doubt that they are. I more believe the following.

When it comes to determining the 'best' soldiers of a war, it cannot ever be actually determined. You might have the best troops in the world, but lose a battle with massive casualties. Their equipment, levels of supply, deployment and leadership can make poor troops great, and good troops worthless. France had the best army in 1940, but, the worst command and deployment.

In a recent history of Michael Whittman, the narrator stated that individuals do not win wars. The Germans could have had 50% of their tank crews being as good as Whittman and still lost the war. Just because someone lost a battle/war does not mean that their troops were the worst, just like if they win does not mean that their troops were the best.