Best soldiers of WWII?

[Skipper]

> What are the numbers again for any Red

> Army soldiers captured by the Germans?

See above in the thread. The numbers are cited there.

> "Enemy at the Gates"

The movie was made after "The war of rats", not after "Enemy at the gate". I've seen the movie just recently. If you ask me, the movie director is bastard, short and simple.

[Major Tom]

Sorry Dr. Brain, my previous insults were inexcusible.

Anyway, what I was trying to get at, was that 'backwardness' is relative. Compared to many other nations of the world Poland's military was extremely modern in 1939(Thailand, China, South America, indeed North America as well).

Vietnam could be seen as backward from 1945-1975, but, they still beat non-backward nation's like Japan, France and the US.

Stating that a nation's military is 'backward' does not necessarily mean that their troops are of poor quality, or, they are, by definition, easy to beat by non-backward nations.

[Spook]

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

IIRC, the 9,000 figure is the number of German POW's from Stalingrad that had returned by 1955. The research was done by William Craig - he cites his figures in his book, "Enemy at the Gates" (the one that movie made such an appalling attempt to bring to life - IMHO, the only book that suffered a worse transition to the silver screen was Heinlein's "Starship Troopers").

MrSpkr<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't see the "Enemy" movie yet, but for ST, I can say to your assessment, "Ain't it the truth?" The ST movie absolutely stripped away the essence as to why Heinlein wrote ST in the first place. (But if you didn't read the book priorhand, then yeah, it could be entertaining during the Bug battles.)

[ASL Veteran]

My vote for the best troops in WW2 is anyone who was willing to drive around in an FT17 .... especially in 1944. Anyone willing to drive around in a deathtrap like that has to have some serious balls.

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

Sorry Dr. Brain, my previous insults were inexcusible.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Major Tim,

I see your point, or more appropriately, as you call it, your "lack of respect." No sense trying to discuss further.

[M. Bates]

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

I didn't see the "Enemy" movie yet, but for ST, I can say to your assessment, "Ain't it the truth?" The ST movie absolutely stripped away the essence as to why Heinlein wrote ST in the first place. (But if you didn't read the book priorhand, then yeah, it could be entertaining during the Bug battles.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Starship Troopers is one of the most boring books I have ever read.

The author just spends the entire time trying to convince the reader that democracy is a bad thing!

[Abbott]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

Starship Troopers is one of the most boring books I have ever read.

The author just spends the entire time trying to convince the reader that democracy is a bad thing!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Different folks, different views. I feel Starship Troopers was one of the best Sci-Fi books EVER written.

I also enjoyed its spin-off Armor by John Steakley.

...and to stay on topic, CAP troopers were the best in any war!

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

Starship Troopers is one of the most boring books I have ever read.

The author just spends the entire time trying to convince the reader that democracy is a bad thing!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, different strokes. :confused: My take was that Heinlein's argument was more along the lines of "Democracy without personal responsibility is a bad thing." Probably my favorite sci-fi novel of all time.

And to stay on topic, I agree Abbott - gimme a Cap trooper over any WWII soldier anyday of the week and twice on Sundays!

MrSpkr

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates:

Starship Troopers is one of the most boring books I have ever read.

The author just spends the entire time trying to convince the reader that democracy is a bad thing!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You missed the book's intent by a wide stroke, IMO. But as others have said, to each their own. (I'll probably think "Enemy" in turn is a dumb film if I finally rent the video, based on prior commentary here, but so what?)

Heinlein, who was a WW2 sailor on a troopship, said he wrote the book based on his WW2 experience in that he admired the soldiers on board that were to be landed into uncertain battle situations.

His book had two central points:

1) No matter what your weapons, your power, etc., there are still situations where grunts have to go in to finish the job. (Sounds like Doubler's book too.) In his case, the grunts were the "Mobile Infantry."

2) As you move up the ranks, your command responsibility will weigh heavier on you. Are you up to it?

I think the latter point was brilliantly related in that portion dealing with Rico's academy training and apprentice mission.

Not so in the ST movie. "Command responsibility" wasn't given more than incidental treatment there. And I don't recall that the book included the gratuitous TV news scene showing a mother & her kids stepping on bugs, like in the movie.

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Spook]

(double post)

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Johnny D.]

Little of what I posted was wrong, but rather not explained well enough. I'll be responding to several people who attacked my posting. To begin with the point was to dispute that Germany was picking on backwards nations and doesn't deserve credit for its stunning victories.

Yes, most T-34's and Kv's were taken out by breakdowns, aircraft, and 88's, but there were still battles which III's and IV's defeated T-34's. There are three reasons for this: a tech advantage in the three man turret and radios for communication, the crews, who by now have seen a good amount of combat, and the doctrine and C&C which gave the commanders the flexibility to do so.

If 30,000 prisoners were taken, who cares if they were all panicked. Why were they panicked in the first place then? Because they fighting the unstoppable Germans. And how did they get this reputation? By stunning victories(60%), rumors spread by any possible Russian suvivors of previous engagements(2%), and German propoganda(38%).

A 20:1 kill ratio did happen in some engagements. On average in was probably between 8:1 and 10:1, from June just before the Russians counterattacks in winter. And overall the loss, counting POWs, was closer to 20:1, to me that is still amazing. Not even the western allies averaged that in the end (starting in El Alamein).

As for those Matildas, maybe the Germans were scared straight, but they didn't run away and give up. Those 88's may have been last ditch, but the Germans succeeded. They could've ignored Rommel and ran (or surrender like those Russians), but they didn't. When push came to shove, the Germans shoved back, no matter how desperate.

Ok, superior armor at the end geuss not, but in '42,'43, and part of '44 they did have equal or better armor. The Russians were the only ones with truly better tanks than the Germans, even then the Russian tanks had huge drawbacks.

As for the Battle of Britian, I have read books and they tell me Hitler! He got pissed and spazzed again after the British only scratched Berlin. Hitler actually ordered in the beginning no attacks on London because it would take away from the focous of destroying the RAF. When the British retaliated for the mistaken bombing of London, Hitler wanted London torched like Warsaw and Rotterdam before it. The fact that the 109's were leashed to the bombers didn't help either. Until I get names of those "other poeple" who hepled Hitler torch London, or the name of the book where that came from, Hitler is what happened.

To add to the original point, if Germany was the only non-backwards nation from '39-'41, then shouldn't they get credit for just doing that? If Germany in the Blitzkrieg years had the best doctrine, best C&C, best oganization, wouldn't that mean they are...hmmm what words am I looking for hmmm... oh yah, The Best. The only way to determine this the best is to pick a theater and time frame and go from there. In the first 1/3 of the war my vote is Germany.

[Stalin's Organ]

Johnny you are way, way to simple with your analysis.

Sure Pz3's and 4's defeated T34's sometimes - but in 1941 they usually got their arse whipped before doing a bit of outflanking, or bringing in the big guns or destroying the accompanying lighter tanks, etc.

Lots of people didn't run away when push camt to shove - for example when the Italians first encountered the Matilda 2 they didn't surrender - they attacked them with submachine guns and hand grenades! Not quite the picture we've been bought up on of the Italians is it??

The main reason large numbers of Russians surrendered had little to do with proaganda - they were generally surrounded and out of supplies. Russians never thought the Germans were invincible, and generally fought on as long as there was some chace, as soldiers of all nations did.

You shouldn't believe everything you read!

[Gyrene]

A large percentage of Russian soldiers who surrendered were not ethnic Russians, but Uzbeks, Ukranians and others pressed into service, who were not particularly sympathetic to either side.

Gyrene

[Skipper]

> but there were still battles which III's

> and IV's defeated T-34's

pff... and there were battles where T34s defeated IIIs and IVs. Which doesnt tell much of anything.

And then, most german IIIs and IVs were defeated by AT assets, as well as most T34s that made it to the battlefield were defeated by AT assets.

And then, there were much less T34s in RKKA, than in german combat reports.

> Why were they panicked in the first place

> then?

Because they were encircled.

> As for those Matildas, maybe the Germans

> were scared straight, but they didn't run

> away and give up.

Germans knew about Matildas and knew the answer. 88s were not an on-site improvisation.

RKKA did not run away and give up, either. Even germans dont say that. They were defeated piecemeal and encircled.

To fully explain this, it would be necessary to go into some detail about an art of military operation. To put it briefly, germans mastered a deep breakthrough (originally developed by the british in WWI). RKKA found an answer to that. The cost of finding that answer was the regular army.

Were Wehrmacht as a whole "the best" in 1941? Probably, yes. Were they able to stop soviets if the latter mobilised and started earlier than germans? Probably, no.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

Major Tim,

I see your point, or more appropriately, as you call it, your "lack of respect." No sense trying to discuss further.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest here Dr "BrIAn", I always assumed your name was Dr "BrAIn" by simply glancing at it every time until I recently noticed that my assumption was incorrect. I believe Major Tom may also suffer from the same assumption so don't think the worst in his case, I believe he simpy has your name wrong by not looking at it properly.

Regards

Jim R.

[tss]

Johnny D. wrote:

A 20:1 kill ratio did happen in some engagements.

Yes, there certainly were. For example, in the Iasi-Kishinev offensive one side lost ~13000 men of irrecoverable losses, while the other side lost ~270000. Guess which one was which?

OK, here comes the answer: Soviets won. Completely. Actually, the casualty ratio was a lot better than the 20:1 if you count the whole Rumanian army to it, since the operation was the final straw that knocked it out of the war.

And overall the loss, counting POWs, was closer to 20:1, to me that is still amazing.

Overall? Germans lost ~5 million men in the Eastern front (KIA+POW, I can't bother to dig up the actual figure this late in the evening). Twenty times 5 million is 100 million. Are you claiming that Soviet combat losses were more than 50% of their total population?

- Tommi

[Boba_Fett]

"Boba Fett and Litchy, you can save your righteousness, you are not convincing me. If you were really so averse to the violence of war you would not be playing this game, or even reading this thread.

When the first "keeper of the morals" made his post all the "me too's" chime in with their "Yeah, you're right, war sucks, yuk" Of course war sucks, but every single person that plays this game has an interest in warfare in some level, anyone who denies that is nothing but a hypocrite."

Finnish people fought against Russia. They did it well and I am supposed to be proud of my origin. You would probably call them good soldiers..but for what? Did they have a chance to choose otherwise? They were being shot or put in jail if they refused to fight. Russian force was overpowering and the fight seemed desperate but standing against that force can be seen from several point of views. Were they good soldiers because they were stupid enough to die for nothing (because the fight seemed desperate)? Were they good soldiers because they did what they were forced to do? Were they good soldiers because they believed in something that they were raised to believe in and fought for it?

You seem to apreciate troops like SS and such. Well yeah, they sure were good soldiers because they were fanatic and stupid enough to be ready to lose their life for the probably most stupid cause that one can think of.

But hey, it's nothing wrong with the thing that people dicuss about the effectiveness of killing. It's just so cool. I hope that my grandfather killed as many Russians as possible so that I could tell to my friends what a killing spree he was. My grandfather wasn't just a man that believed everything he was told..he was a fightning unit without a personality like the rest of them. Now we all can start talking about our relatives and how many people they have killed. Who has the relative who has killed the most people? That member must be so respected after he tells us all about the fightning and killing achievements of his relatives, eh?

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You seem to apreciate troops like SS and such. Well yeah, they sure were good soldiers because they were fanatic and stupid enough to be ready to lose their life for the probably most stupid cause that one can think of. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I respect the fact that the SS were, for the most part, very good at the business of war but, I do not have any respect towards the evil that they spread across Europe, from the Sonderkommando to the killing of POW's and civilians.

It maybe just a game, but I will not play SS in CMBO, I can understand the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and the German Navy fighting for Germany, but the SS had their own agenda and can in no way be considered "Innocent and just following orders"

Gyrene

[Abbott]

I respect the fact that the SS were, for the most part, very good at the business of war but, I do not have any respect towards the evil that they spread across Europe, from the Sonderkommando to the killing of POW's and civilians.

It maybe just a game, but I will not play SS in CMBO, I can understand the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and the German Navy fighting for Germany, but the SS had their own agenda and can in no way be considered "Innocent and just following orders"

Gyrene

Hmm, do you think all SS soldiers were political or some were just doing what they believed to be their duty as any good soldier would? I do not condone many of the things many soldiers did in war but I find it hard to believe all the soldiers of every unit the SS fielded were bad men.

A seasoned NCO in Vietnam was overheard one day saying “There is no better killer on this planet then a scared eighteen year old kid!”

[Gyrene]

Abbott, of course I don't believe that all SS were out to do the devil's work, but I do believe that its mid to upper command was in on Hitler's plan.

There's no denying that the SS received a far greater portion of political indocrination than the rest of the German military, it started at the recruiting office.

The SS's rigid discipline and training had a great impact on why soldiers would drag civilians out of their houses and burn them in churches, etc; and it all goes into that dreaded "gray area" of personal moral responsability, to which there are no easy answers (Think My Lai and Lt. Calley)

But another fact is that the majority of the war crimes (Yes, many of them escape goats, I understand that) and "attrocities" performed by Germans in WWII can be directly linked to the SS, which was a small section of the German military in general. The proportions are out of whack to be just "Heat of Battle" type stuff.

Are there any accounts of Allied troops mass murdering German civilians late in the war?

If the SS had been used solely as a military force and not one of Hitler's political tools then my views would be different.

Gyrene

[BloodyBucket]

I think that the Waffen SS was a mix of true believers and men who just wanted to be in an elite unit fighting for their homeland.

When I was a kid (18) the US Marines snagged me because I wanted to be in a tough outfit and they have snazzy uniforms. If I was an 18 year old German kid in 1939 guess where those same desires would have put me.

I am not saying the two are morally comparable, but young men make choices based on some pretty shallow grounds and end up being responsible for some serious actions because of those choices. No absolution, just a little food for thought.

War fascinates me. That doesn't mean I want anyone to get hurt, or revel in past suffering. The darkest shadows are cast by the brightest light, and celebrating the valor and achievement of arms should not blind one to the tragedy and shame of war. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

[REVS]

And here's to the US factory workers and managers, all of them, whose astonishing industrial output during the war years undoubtedly gave the Allies the winning edge. All the soldiers and generals had to do was be brave and competent, which they were.

[grunto2]

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

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

in asl, the usmc are the best squads, bar (no pun intended) none.

andy

[grunto2]

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

starship troopers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i never read the book, but thought the movie was, 'a great infantry story which transcended time and space.'

andy

[Skipper]

> Are you claiming that Soviet combat losses

> were more than 50% of their total

> population?

RKKA lost ~13 million KIA+POW, including ~6 million in the first four months of 1941. After that, they also had to go back from Moscow to Berlin.

If this sounds too boring already, sorry.

> I find it hard to believe all the soldiers

> of every unit the SS fielded were bad men.

There is no such thing as a "bad man". "Good vs bad" is a very misleading concept, in general. These guys, however, VOLUNTEERED to join a CRIMINAL organisation.

> SS, which was a small section of the

> German military in general

Small??? Wow!