[Romulus Invictus]

Old Alpino,
I don't know the episode (the Marines at Lae) that you mentioned. Do you have some more details about that?
Thanks

Peppe

[kittyhawk]

Best army? If that means training, tactics, strategy, sheer professionalism - has to be the Germans. The allies all knew it and since the war both the US and Britain have based their training on German training. However the US and the Brits had by far the best logistical set up. The soviets? Some of their Generals were good but their tactics and logistics etc were dreadful. Most of their successes were owed to courage and weight of numbers. As to the best commonwealth troops - the anzacs and canadians gave a good account of themselves in Europe and the Middle East and were considered by the Germans to be superior in fighting spirit to the British.

[JohnB]

Reasons why the Germans did not have the best army in WWII :P

1. Outdated artillery doctrine.
2. Apparently incapable of attacking at night.
3. Inability to overcome prepared defensive positions e.g. Tobruk in 1941.
4. Low level of motorisation.

[stefano]

JohnB said:

1. Outdated artillery doctrine.

Name one army in World War II that was without some sort of "outdated" doctrine. Frankly, I think that the use of the Luftwaffe as a sort of pinpoint artillery was ingenious and makes up for any defficiencies in the ground artillery.

JohnB said:

2. Apparently incapable of attacking at night.

Can't speak to this one, other than I'm sure the Germans fought night battles on many occasions. Also the final assault on Tobruk was made at night.

JohnB said:

3. Inability to overcome prepared defensive positions e.g. Tobruk in 1941.

This is wy the Maginot line held them up for years until they finally felt compelled to make peace with France... Come on, seriously, the Germans did the best possible thing when it came to fixed positions, they bipassed them. Tobruk, I would point out, had a unique advantage that other fixed defensive positions didn't: it was supplied and reinforced routinely by sea.

JohnB said:

4. Low level of motorisation.

Ah yes, those famed columns of German infantrymen marching everywhere, without a truck or half track in sight. I've heard this criticism for the Italians, never for the Germans. Can you give any examples or evidence?

[JohnB]

stefano said:

Name one army in World War II that was without some sort of "outdated" doctrine. Frankly, I think that the use of the Luftwaffe as a sort of pinpoint artillery was ingenious and makes up for any defficiencies in the ground artillery.

Yes but artillery was still the No.1 cause of casualties. The 'pinpoint' attacks by Luftwaffe only happen if i) If they have air-superiority. ii) In the daytime. iii) In good weather. To some extent the Germans compensated with mortars, which are often described as 'poor-mans artillery'

Quote

Can't speak to this one, other than I'm sure the Germans fought night battles on many occasions. Also the final assault on Tobruk was made at night.

Which final assault? The one that was pre-empted by CRUSADER? It seems to me that an army that has lost air-superiority needs to compensate - this the Germans did not do.

Quote

This is wy the Maginot line held them up for years until they finally felt compelled to make peace with France... Come on, seriously, the Germans did the best possible thing when it came to fixed positions, they bipassed them. Tobruk, I would point out, had a unique advantage that other fixed defensive positions didn't: it was supplied and reinforced routinely by sea.

Sometimes you cannot always bypass fixed positions - the El Alamein line springs to mind. Apart from Tobruk in 1941 the German army also struggled in front of the Dunkirk perimeter in 1940 allowing the BEF to escape and took them nine months or so to capture Sevastopol

Quote

Ah yes, those famed columns of German infantrymen marching everywhere, without a truck or half track in sight. I've heard this criticism for the Italians, never for the Germans. Can you give any examples or evidence?

There are examples aplenty, the best I can do at short notice
German 1941 infantry division, total strength 16859 men :- Cars and trucks 902; Horses 6 358; Armored cars 16; Tractors 62.

British 1944 infantry division, total strength 18347 men:- Vehicles 3347, including tracked carriers, armoured - 595; Armoured Cars 63; trucks and lorries 1937; Horses none.
:wink:

[kittyhawk]

The German artillery doctrine was no worse than anyone elses although not as good as the British doctrine. Yes their troops were very badly equipped with motor transport (although 75% of their trucks in N Africa were captured from the British) but they were still more effective man for man than any other army primarily due to their better training and doctrine and the technical superiority of their weapons (rifles machine guns mortars tanks and grenades). As to attacking prepared fortified positions, what about impregnable Eben Emal in Holland 1940?

[DVX MEA LVX]

Germany was actually the best army in my opinion only because the US was pretty fresh when they came into the war in 41 and the Germans had fought many battles within those 3 years while the US fought none. American arrogance began ever since WWII. Yes, this opinion is not detailed planned it to be short, but in the end look at what happens to Germany. The Russian Winter Defeat. I mean you also got the French Resistance and the British forces as well. I am American and I love my country, but the way people show their European-American heritage these days it is a shame. I am no "hate-monger" or in any movement, but am disgusted with my government.

[sergemaster]

I to would have to ALWAYS lean to the Fatherland. Germany even despite the breakdown of the OKW after the failed plot on Der Fuhrer in 44 still fought on tenaciously mostly on a division basis while then again some (especailly during the tail end of BOB) fought no better than organized mobs. Remember a Nation the size of Germany after 43 when Italy bowed out was:

a) Able to engage the Soviets on the Ostfront

b) the same with the Western Allies from Italy to France

c) Occupy and resume most if not all of Italys garrison duties in the Balkans while engaging partisans

d) continue manufacture of munitions to weapons under wholescale ariel bombing.

I could go on but you get the point. In a nutshell, they were a bunch of mean Mother####ers.


A NOI!!

[Veltro]

Does it not seem logical for those who voted fro Germany to infact cast their balots for Russia as Russia was ineffect the hammer of the allied anvil?

Eddy

[Vinman]

Wow, I am surprised at all of you!
No one picked the obvious choice, JAPAN!
The Japanese Army practicaly destroyed the British and Commonwealth troops in Burma, Indo China and the Pacific.
The war was going like a see saw with the American forces, and if it were not for the ATMOIC BOMB, it would have gone on for quite a long time.
Any army that could do what it did against the Allies, sure gets my vote.
Vinman.
PS: Again, remember that it did not take a nuclear weapon to make Germany surrender, but it did for Japan.

[sergemaster]

OOOOHHHHHH THAT HADDA HURT EDDIE!!! The only thing which I can say to that is quote S.S. Obersturmbannführer Kurt Meyer who said:

We weren't outfought, but we were outnumbered, overwhelmed, pushed to the wall by sheer weight"

Thats what I think of the Anvil.


A NOI!!

[pg]

as a fighting force, its got to be the Germans. They showed a fighting spirit that only the fanatical Japanese showed, but they also showed good tactical awareness and had some world beating weapons. Ultimately the Germans took on too many countries at once and were outnumbered and out gunned because of it. The Japanese did well, but they had a habit of sending their troops on suicide missions and as a result wore themselves down. The US also showed fighting ability, but they had so much equipment and reserves behind them, they rarely had to make do the way the Germans often had to (and still fought harder than anyone). There were no easy victories against the Germans. The Brits and commonwealth proved their abilities, but as at Alamein they sometimes needed overwhelming supriority to win against smart German tactics. What can I say about the Italians???? Within their limitations they fought superbly at places like Keren and Alamein, but they had too many untrained and unmotivated infantry units that were poorly equipped and poorly led. The Russians........they used their huge numbers and industrial power (as well as lend lease) to batter the superior German army into submission, sacrificing far too many men along the way.

[sergemaster]

I agree with you in the case about the Russians and the Italians, but the Germans lost because mostly for these reasons, the Inigma code being broken which in their mindset could never be the case, Hitlers unshakable belief in his own will being responsible for victory, plus never laying down a clear strategy or goal of what was he trying to accomplish. (Hitler NEVER stated he wanted to rule the world).

Plus you have the mingleing of the body politic into military matters (again Hitler) and the inability to look ahead. Germany won the war in 1940, then presided steadily into losing it.

As for Japan, their weapons were worse than the Italians except for their carriers & naval air arm and in the beginning their land tactics of outflanking static defenses and armor (Malaya).

Besides that as the war continued, their misguided belief in their superior spirit cost them casulties when a stragic retreat would have been forthcoming. That and their almost total lack in armor. Also it should be mentioned that their overall weaponry was bad, it just happened to work for them in the confides of jungle warfare.


A NOI!!

[British Frontier]

dieppe wasn't an invasion but an idea to get understanding of what an invasion would mean - agreed upon by a top ranking US officer who wrote about all the allied events in Europe.

By the way Aussie's (9th div which included british contingents which obviously is decieving by being called the australian 9th division), wouldn't have been able to hold Tobruk without the British tank divisions.

anyway check out my webpage and its sister page, thx. you'll find it most enlightening.

http://www.expage.com/englandthegreat

i like italians they seem so modest. our politicians meet with yours every year to discuss the economy (not sure what it is exactly but its a special relationship).

[pg]

Some entertaining snippets in there!

[romaioi]

Pips I wouldn't call it bias. The Aussies performed fantastically - simple fact. The 9th was considered Montgomery's secret weapon and the militia boys of the 29th (I think) battalion and then the 7th division held back the Japanese over Kakoda. Its the stuff of legend.

Aussies were the first to inflict a defeat on the Japanese.

The Kiwi's were pretty awsome troops too.

Here's one that few people may not know. The Aussie SAS actually trains the US Navy seals and Delta force.

But the Aussies and Kiwi's were a special case. Small forces which were exceptional, no matter what conditions. But in a total logistical sense they could not contribute much. They were part of the British and American cogs. But they readily outperformed all but the gurkhas.

Because Australia is small in population (even though 850,000 to 1,000,000 personal contributed out of a population of 7,000,000) and is considered part of the British empire, they often get overlooked and not mentioned. Much like the Italians.

Of the big boys, I am going to have to give it to the Germans. They were very impressive. They were able to do a hell of a lot even when outgunned, outnumbered and under supplied. Irrespective of what most guys think their tanks were not always the best on the field (when they went up against the Russians). Their quality was their command structure and discipline. The had a high proportion of NCO's and junior officers among the troops. For overall logitsics though they certainly were not the best.

Single greatest contribution to the war effort goes to the Russians. Without them the Germans probably would have run away with it - before the Brits and Americans had a chance to organize.

For balls under hardship... the Italians (the efforst of their soldiers given their situation goes ignored too often).

[romaioi]

I just saw the poll results. I can't believe the US has polled well. Donlt get me wrong, I admire all the best qualities about the US. But more money and more equipment does not make for the best army. Maybe I am talking at the individual soldier level. I don't want to cite examples of why not (I'll let you do your own reading)

The US comes up trumps in wars simply because it had more $$$, money or economy (all other reasons aside) is precisely the reason why the Italian's fared poorly.

The US also had good specialist units - most countries do.
Lots of Italians in the US army too. Its funny how Italians, like other minorities, were classed as non-white second class citizens, but they were good enough to die for the country.

Best army, no, best equiped from own economy over all, definitely yes.

[pz3j]

I think that Germany is the clear choice followed by the Soviets. When one considers the amount of material that the allies sent against the Germans and the specifics of each victory and defeat, the evidence clearly shows that it was two primary factors that led to Germany's defeat.
The first is the leadership of Hitler, which had the same effect as if the allies had used nuclear weapons on the Wehrmacht. At Stalingrad, El-Alamein, Falaise anf many other places the Fuhrer gave orders that pinned down key armies in positions that were sure to lead to their destruction.

The second is the clear limitations regarding German economic/industrial power and the limits of it's population. Despite having developed advanced production techniques, the allies were able to smother Germany with material.

The only soldiers that could equal the Germans toe to toe were the Russians. Not the Brits and certainly not the americans.

[Fanatic_Blitzer]

Holland. You may find me idiot, but we shot 400 German planes down in 4 days. I think thats quite a prestation. :)

[Vinman]

...Here's one that few people may not know. The Aussie SAS actually trains the US Navy seals and Delta force....


Hello Romaioi,
You have got to be kidding! Here we go again with people who make blanket statements like that. Were do you get this info from? Do you really believe that the SEALS would have been trained by the Aussie SAS?
Now, the Aussie SAS, like any other Elite unit probaly trains WITH the Seals , but does not train them!
What, do you think the Seals are rookies!
Please, lets put our national pride aside.
This team is so secret, and the training so unbeleivable that no one and I mean no one knows of their exploits. Sure, they train with other Elite Teams in the world, but they don't always show their trump cards.
How do I know? A nephew of a friend of mine is in the Canadian Armed
forces (Infantry), he trianed with their US counterparts in the States.
He told me that after the exercies (which included the SEALS and no one on both sides knew until the SEALS came out and kicked Ass), was so impressed by the way the went about, that everyone was amazed!
He said that he had never seen anything like it before.
Don't forget the SEALS were in Vietnam and learned a lot in that war. What experience does the Aussie SAS team have?
In fact, there really isn't any Elite Team in the world, other than the British SAS and a couple of others that have dealt with small skirmishes and conflicts in th world. But, no other Team has had the experience like the SEALS. Whe you get that much experience, you only get better.
Please, the US is the most powerful military country in the world! Do not tell me that Australia, with a poulation of 17 million is going to recruit an Elite Team that is better than the US with a population of 300 million, vast resources, technology, ability to pick from a huge number of people. unlimited supply of material to train and above all, the experince of seasoned vetrans from a terrible war in South East Asia.
Vinman.