OT - best soldiers in WWII

[ezzler]

Just read Max Hastings new WW2 one volume. It is very, very blunt in its conclusions.

Infantry
- Germans undoubtedly the best overall. in attack or defence.
- Russians next. never gave up. most likely to die in combat from enemy or own troops.
- USA So much firepower that hard to fight against.But terribly slow.
- Commonwealth/UK forces. - Come out of book very badly. Patchy record of average at best
- Italians - just awful
- Japanese come about bottom. {based on China/Manchuria and small unit tactics generally
-French {including Free french don't come out too well either}

Obviously, all elite formations of all armies are excepted.
One theory is that both UK and USA had a very large number of skilled leaders taken into the airforce and navy.
The army had to make do with the rest. And of the rest the best would volunteer for paras, chindits, SAS etc.
Leadership in the army wasn't coming from the brightest and best. But 'the rest'

One comment from Max Hastings was that the Japanese navy suffered from cowardice. Not something normally associated with the Japanese military. What he means is a failure of nerve. From pearl harbour onwards the Japanese admirals failed to take advantage when the tactical situation favoured them.

[Centuur]

Problem with these lists are always that they are generalized. French soldiers were bad? Why? Because there generals had an outdated view of how to defend "La France". However: does this make the French soldier on average worse than the German counterpart?
I don't think so. Best soldiers is what was asked, not best army. Soldiers are at the bottom of the command chain. If wel led, my personal opinion of the French soldier is also that they could fight pretty well...

[warspite1]

To be fair, I think that the Germans are far and away the best soldiers - especially when armed with a Panzerfaust:

[warspite1]

They made great stormtroopers too:

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Problem with these lists are always that they are generalized. French soldiers were bad? Why? Because there generals had an outdated view of how to defend "La France". However: does this make the French soldier on average worse than the German counterpart?
I don't think so. Best soldiers is what was asked, not best army. Soldiers are at the bottom of the command chain. If wel led, my personal opinion of the French soldier is also that they could fight pretty well...

Of course soldiers of every country could fight bravely... and die bravely. Like someone mentioned previously the Italians fought and died bravely shooting with their guns that most likely could do little damage to the enemy.

My point is that without education (skill), equipment and supply bravery means very little.

When people say that Germany had the best soldiers I think they actually say that they had the best trained non-commissioned officers for the type of combat that would be fought during WWII. And that the soldiers had adequate equipment for the task the soldiers were expected to perform. And that they had a doctrine that worked as well.

I think that the ground combat in central and northern Norway during 1940 has several good examples on what I am trying to say.

[Orm]

Obviously, all elite formations of all armies are excepted.

I know that there are officers that are of the opinion that elite formations are a detriment to an army that are in a 'general' (large) war. They think that the soldiers (private) in the elite formations would serve better as non-commissioned officers in the ordinary units. Thereby improving the quality of the leadership in those units. And with the improvement of the normal units the army would then be stronger than it would have been with the elite units in it.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Obviously, all elite formations of all armies are excepted.

I know that there are officers that are of the opinion that elite formations are a detriment to an army that are in a 'general' (large) war. They think that the soldiers (private) in the elite formations would serve better as non-commissioned officers in the ordinary units. Thereby improving the quality of the leadership in those units. And with the improvement of the normal units the army would then be stronger that it would have been with the elite units.

Warspite1

Good point Orm - that was a point that (I think Max Hastings tried to make in Armegeddon) that the British put so much effort into special ops - and those quality men were missing from the regular officer corps.

[Orm]

This discussion made me recall a WWII incident.

A reinforced company is ordered to probe a mountain range. The company was divided into four groups. As soon as a group was under fire two of the groups covered the other groups as they tried to move around the enemy position. They marked the enemy positions as they moved along the mountain side. One day later they had a clear picture of the defense. They had summoned artillery and mortars to use against the enemy positions and were ready to attack. Only to find that the enemy had abandoned their defenses. A job well done and congratulations were in order. They had after all scared a large enemy force away from a good defensive position.

What the attacking side didn't know was that the defending side was just one platoon. Around 20 to 30 men. The platoon shifted their positions as well, without the attackers noticing, so each time they advanced they were fired upon the same platoon. The platoon leader realized that they could not withstand a real attack withdrew happy that they caused such a delay.

[composer99]

At the level of individual soldiery, I don't think one can say anything about any belligerent nation's soldiers being better or worse than others, because of the very wide variability in individual performance.

Beyond that, it seems pretty clear IMO that the German Heer was the best army of the war - consider the defeats inflicted on France in 1940 and the USSR in 1941 and the resilient defence thereafter despite (on my view) the glaring inadequacies the German forces had to deal with in terms of grand strategy and logistical support and the enormous advantage in manpower and materiél the Allies enjoyed from 1942 on.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: ezz

Just read Max Hastings new WW2 one volume. It is very, very blunt in its conclusions.

Infantry
- Germans undoubtedly the best overall. in attack or defence.
- Russians next. never gave up. most likely to die in combat from enemy or own troops.
- USA So much firepower that hard to fight against.But terribly slow.
- Commonwealth/UK forces. - Come out of book very badly. Patchy record of average at best
- Italians - just awful
- Japanese come about bottom. {based on China/Manchuria and small unit tactics generally
-French {including Free french don't come out too well either}

Obviously, all elite formations of all armies are excepted.
One theory is that both UK and USA had a very large number of skilled leaders taken into the airforce and navy.
The army had to make do with the rest. And of the rest the best would volunteer for paras, chindits, SAS etc.
Leadership in the army wasn't coming from the brightest and best. But 'the rest'

One comment from Max Hastings was that the Japanese navy suffered from cowardice. Not something normally associated with the Japanese military. What he means is a failure of nerve. From pearl harbour onwards the Japanese admirals failed to take advantage when the tactical situation favoured them.

Following up on taking potential leaders out of the infantry, my father volunteered for the infantry but when they saw he had a couple of years of college (in engineering), they transferred him to OCS (officer candidate school?) and made him a lt. in the engineers. So he never saw combat, per se. Instead he followed along behind the fighting units, cleaning up the mess they made (e.g., completing the destruction of partially destroyed bridges across the Rhine). He was in London during the blitz though.

[tigercub]

which nationality had the best soldiers...

being that all men are the same it boils down to leader ship,experience,weapons,morale

the germans got the upper hand with experience...there on the spot leaders were top class...weapons some of the best in the world...morale very strong for the until the end of 43 then started to slide.

number 1 for me.

but if you were to say a year of the war it would change say in late 44 russian would be my pick.

Tiger

[WIF_Killzone]

The german soldiers were the best due to their army's doctrine, training and leadership (squad level), and they had a good balance of fanatisim even with the regular army soldiers that made them tanacious but not blindly stupid in the face of a lost cause (except later in the war due to other factors...). In other words they fought the smartest but were less determined than the average russian or japanese soldier, however their doctrine and training still has them come out ahead when everything is taken into account, in my book anyway.

When fanatisism or tenacity or just plane toughness is used to judge (different words for different armies but perhaps their resistance to being "Routed" is right), here's where I see some of them (bound to piss off some people
1. Japan
2. Russia
3. German (maybe forth place if not for the later war)
4. CW Canadian, New Z, Australians (maybe 3rd place)
5. CW British
6. French
7. US
8. Italy

The Avalon Hill board game Squad Leader does a very good job of classifying the different types of squads in various categories, both for the elite and base units.

[Beryl]

IMHO one should distinct Free French from French

[michaelbaldur]

my thread. [:D]

ill decide. the Danish made the best soldiers ..

[tigercub]

When fanatisism or tenacity i think your right on the money...with that list would not change anything but perhapps swapping the US for the free french because of there fighting in the pacfic islands in late 1944.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: SirWhiskers

Some of us are old enough to remember the Ballantine magazines History of the Second World War, published over 30 years ago. Unfortunately I no longer have them, so I can't quote directly, but here are some of the comments I remember from one article comparing the various armies.

Germans. Hands down the best due to superior leadership at all levels (except grand strategic). Their flexibility in combat was amazing - how many other armies could pull together a hodgepodge of units to repel major attacks, not once but many times?

Russians. The most tenacious, especially on defense.

Italians. Most underrated, but only when they had good leadership, which was extremely rare.

American. The first to run away in a firefight, but also the first to rally and come back swinging. Probably the least disciplined of the major powers.

British. Very rigid doctrine. Too often the soldiers were better than their leaders, especially in the higher ranks.

That sounds like "Guns Tanks Men" I've got it. Great series and apart from a lot of the Russian stuff which was badly politically influenced, the analysis really holds up.

Cheers, Neilster

[SLAAKMAN]

Best soldiers in WWII were the ones left alive.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Best soldiers in WWII were the ones left alive.

so you say that the best soldiers were the ones that surrendered [X(]

or the deserters [:-]

[LiquidSky]

I had a similar (but funnier) argument with a friend of mine a few years back.

I claimed that the Germans must have had a terrible army...

The reason being, that it is easy for any untrained civilian, even a 16 year old to do better in a wargame with the Germans then they did historically. If it is hard to replicate the success of a nation (like say, the Russians in WiF) then they must have been very good.


Note that this doesnt necessarily apply to one game, but seems consistant across several different ones.

[SLAAKMAN]

so you say that the best soldiers were the ones that surrendered

or the deserters

Of course! Forget surrender. Thats also a form of slow suicide. Desertion or even draft evasion shouldve been the practice of every army on earth. Would you want to be a Japanese infantryman on Guadalcanal aka "The Island of Death"?? "Oh suuuure General I'll Banzai charge into the machine gun nests, get mortally wounded & let the spiders & multitudes of other ghastly tropical predators eat me alive while I bleed to death for days in the bush".....Duh. [:'(][:'(] [:D]