who is the most overrated army in WW2?

[McGib]

The French also had domestic problems going at the same time. There was a fair amount of public unrest during the 30's directed against the French gov't.
Poor turnouts when their reservists were called up. I've read accounts about how poorly Class B Divisions looked when inspected by Foriegn officers. The French and British(to a lesser extent) high commands had very 19th century attitudes, i.e. the common foot soldier was a second class citizen and his needs did not matter in the least.
I could go on for sometime on this topic (just finished reading a book about it) but then I would be writting a book

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Drake666:
who is the most overrated army in WW2?

Now as to that question as it is posted I would have to say the US army. Most people talk about how good the US army was late in the war but it was the US Air force that was doing all the work. If it was not for the US air force haveing so great a advantage the US Army would had their asses kicked off of the beaches of Italy and France.

Hope I dont heart to many peoples feallings with this, HeHe.

Well I will have to disagree with this. First, just for your knowledge, there was no US Air Force at the time. The Air Force was created in 1947 as a separate service, and up until that time, they were known as the Army Air Corps.
Ok, now the reason I disagree with this is because of the simple fact that no aircraft can take and hold ground. This is what the grunts have to do. And the US troops in WW2 did that very well. There was no Air Corps help in the Hurtgen forest. There was no Air Corps help in the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge. When the Air Corps bombed Monte Cassino, it only added to the ground troops problems. Lets not forget Bradley's fiasco with the air planning while he was trying to breakout of Normandy. And that kind of thing happened all too often because of the complete lack of ground/air coordination.
The Army Air Corps did not do close support like the Marine Corps aircraft did in the Pacific. The ground troops had to clear the way on their own using artillery that could be called in precisely or by direct fire. If allied planes appeared overhead, it was just as probable that the allied armor would be bombed as the german armor.
Yes, the Army Air Corps did some good work, but because of the lack of coordination, close air support was risky, and often non-existant.

[Drake666]

Did not say they were no good sven. Just overrated and I would not site the Bulge as some great feat. They were faceing a army more worred about getting their hand on the US fuel supplies then anything and it was not like that attack had much of a chance of doing anything in the first place.

[sven]

Originally posted by Drake666:
Did not say they were no good sven. Just overrated and I would not site the Bulge as some great feat. They were faceing a army more worred about getting their hand on the US fuel supplies then anything and it was not like that attack had much of a chance of doing anything in the first place.

I guess I misunderstood the point I was making concerning the inability(according to yourself)of the US Army to penetrate and gain ground.(ala kicked off beaches) If the United States Army (without it's AIR CORPS) was so unable to fight the Mighty Wehrmacht then it would stand to reason that in any case where the ARMY AIR CORPS was not at the scene the US ARMY would fail. I also have not seen a lot of CAS during the initial phases of an amphibious assault.(at least not during WW2 in any of the histories I have read) The ARMY AIR CORP'S primary mission was interdiction to prevent the Germans from reinforcing the beaches.

I, by the way, do not concur with your hypothesis. I will issue you a challenge. Show me one WW2 campaign where a grossly inferior army was made totally victorious by Air Superiority. I would haphazard using the US ARMY WAR COLLEGE's formula used in WW2 for operational planning. I have yet to find it, but I do hope you will illuminate me.

effectiveness= how much damage can a unit inflict*how much can it take*mobility(and in some analysis *the effectiveness of Leadership)

The faith in the religion of Air Power is a very dangerous one. It was largely this faith that allowed the decline in r+d for the ground forces between WW2 and Korea, and between Korea and Vietnam. We are falling into the same trap even now after our Vienam experience. Vietnam led to the Bradley, and Abrams, and MLRS, and even the Crusader.(not to mention the Apache, and Blackhawk)

Air Power is a great tool in a good military. One problem with an overreliance on it however is the lack of flexibility in it's use. If you only have a hammer for a tool then every problem eventually looks like a nail. The US's recent Kosovo experience should highlight some of the failures of pure airpower. Milosevic had deployed three mech divisions to the area and managed to have 2 and one-half survive. What a great day for the USAF.(not the ARMY AIR CORPS)

regards,
sven

------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

[This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-05-2000).]

[This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-05-2000).]

[clipper69]

Here are what i think :
French Army was "in late of a war" in 1939, because of the great losses of the WWI (1.800.000 deads) which put in the mind of the french politicians that a good fortification Line (Line Maginot) was the lone way to prevent a german invasion, so prevent great losses.
Another reason, for my own, is Marechal Petain : as winner of the battle of Verdun in 1916 (a defensive battle), he had great influence on the french generals and on the french politicians, especially those in charge of the army politics. So, he always discouraged partisans of another army politics as minister Paul Reynaud or Colonel De Gaulle who published in 1934 "au fil de l'epee" where he described how should be the future war : a mechanized war.
That book, some says, was the prefered military book of General Guderian, father of the german blitzkrieg !!!

[Alastair Anderson]

I think it is an error to state that the French army was overrated. Certainly the "Maginot Mentality" of the 1930s encouraged Daladier and his ministers to ignore European political develoments, sacrifice Czechoslovakia for the sake of Appeasement and ultimately watch Poland suffer her cruel fate. It is probably also correct to note that the French High Command was still looking at the tactics of 1918 - but then again so were the British and to be honest most of the German High Command too, bar Guderian.

Tactically the French were not far off their German opponents. The problem with looking at the French performance in 1940 is that it is dominated hugely by the breakthrough by Guderian and Rommel at Sedan on the Meuse. This crossing was protected by a thin screen of second grade troops and once Guderian hit open country and deliberately ignored Hitler's orders to halt his lightning quick advance the fate of the bulk of France's best fighting troops was sealed. They were encircled in the north along with the BEF and most importantly were cut off from their supplies and were facing constant Luftwaffe attacks. The evacuation from Dunkirk was the end result.

Note that after the evacuation the French units holding the line north of Paris fought extremely well - one division [number escapes me - I'd have to check my notes] fought almost to the last man against massive odds. The politicians may have failed them and strategically the Germans caught them napping at Sedan, but was the French army really a poor outfit?? No. It was outmanouevred, encircled, cut off and strangled. Had the crossing at Sedan been prevented we might well have had a very different 1940...

Cheers
Al

[sven]

Originally posted by Alastair Anderson:
I think it is an error to state that the French army was overrated. Certainly the "Maginot Mentality" of the 1930s encouraged Daladier and his ministers to ignore European political develoments, sacrifice Czechoslovakia for the sake of Appeasement and ultimately watch Poland suffer her cruel fate. It is probably also correct to note that the French High Command was still looking at the tactics of 1918 - but then again so were the British and to be honest most of the German High Command too, bar Guderian.

Tactically the French were not far off their German opponents. The problem with looking at the French performance in 1940 is that it is dominated hugely by the breakthrough by Guderian and Rommel at Sedan on the Meuse. This crossing was protected by a thin screen of second grade troops and once Guderian hit open country and deliberately ignored Hitler's orders to halt his lightning quick advance the fate of the bulk of France's best fighting troops was sealed. They were encircled in the north along with the BEF and most importantly were cut off from their supplies and were facing constant Luftwaffe attacks. The evacuation from Dunkirk was the end result.

Note that after the evacuation the French units holding the line north of Paris fought extremely well - one division [number escapes me - I'd have to check my notes] fought almost to the last man against massive odds. The politicians may have failed them and strategically the Germans caught them napping at Sedan, but was the French army really a poor outfit?? No. It was outmanouevred, encircled, cut off and strangled. Had the crossing at Sedan been prevented we might well have had a very different 1940...

Cheers
Al

I am partly inclined to agree, but when you say that tactically the Frogs were close to Jerry are you including the unusual disposition of their armor, and the extreme centralization of command? I am not a Francophile, but do rather enjoy playing them when the mood strikes. I think that Guderian was a visionary, but he was not the only one.

regards,
sven


------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

[B52g]

Here is my two cents. First off, for me, in order for an army to be over rated, it must win many major battles in the first place. So that eliminates every country that was knocked out early. I dont see how to over rate a country that didn't survive a few months.
So here is my candidate: Japan. Were they tough? You bet. Were they dedicated? You bet. Would we have suffered Millions of casualties if we would have had to invade their home islands before they decided to surrender? Absolutely. Did they ever really stand a chance of defeating the United States? No. Their only hope was to inflict enough casualties that they could negotiate and hold on to what they had taken. Even if they had destroyed the entire U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor, thats actually worse news for Australia than it is for the United States.
So my point is that there was never any real hope of victory, so they were a limited threat.

[PanzerMeyer]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sven:
Also... I think Blitzkrieg is an extremely overrated doctrine as understood by most people.

Got to agree with you there. Blitzkreig was successful early in the war because the victims were unprepared. Have a look at the later battles, even Barbarossa, Blitzkreig as a tactic pretty much went by the book. In the book "Knights of the Black Cross" by Perret, it states that Blitzkreig was a nonentity anyway. The main strategy used by the germans in ww2, even in the early campaigns of France and Russia was "Vernichtungsgedanke", which is basically encirclement and destruction. Notice how many 'pockets' of the enemy were captured? Dunkirk, Poland, Russia, even as late as the Ardennes, units fell victim to the german Vernichtungsgedanke principle. Oh yeah, blitzkreig was good, but overrated. I mean, the name "Blitzkreig" was coined by a western journo!!

Still, i must say that Germany was the most prepared tactically for the war, even though the equipment wasnt up to date (Pz IIs and Is). In every book ive read by german vets they tell how they were taught how to command, and what to do if their CO was killed. Even Junior Officers were taught to take the initiative (without radio-ing back for authority) when they saw the opportunity. This resulted in a highly effective fighting force. It wasnt till later in the war, just before the first winter offensive in 1941-2 when hitler began to interfere and when he finally introduced his no retreat policy that things began to go downhill. The German Oberleutnants and Hauptmanns could no longer take the initiative w/o permission basically from Berlin itself.

As for the most overrated army, that would have to go to the British. Lots of Glorious defeats, and one major victory i can think of (El Alamein), which was due entirely to the unpreparedness of the enemy and the amount of US equipment recieved. (NB, im only referring the the Brits in Europe/NA, in Asia it was a different story, also units like Maj Howards paras, the LRDG and SAS were nothing like the "regulars") Also, the British were handicapped without their commander. The same system (though not to the extent) as the Germans had late in the war existed in the British Army.
Ando how could we forget such incidents as were the County of London Yeomanry had stopped for tea in Enemy territory when a guy named Wittman came along and wiped them out.

Sorry to any Brits out there, I like england, been there a few times, loved it. Its only military talk, not personal.

[Elvis]

<<< Yep I am sure the Italian, French, Polish, Soviet, Hungarian, Norweigian, Danish, and Belgian armies were all superior to the US Army. >>>

Now here is a pearl of wisdom...

I'd love to hear you prove a claim like this one. Please do, in detail.

<<< I suppose that the US Army should have not used IT'S (USAF was born in '47)inherent advantages to seem more manly. >>>

Yet another pearl. I suppose that it would have been more "sporting" to forgo the use of tactical air power, even though it was an "inherent advantage."

Every standing army from 1939-45 had inherent strengths and weaknesses. The factors involved are many; quality of equipment, quantity of equipment, quality of training, elan, pride, tactics, ability to adapt, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Basing an opinion on any one of these factors without taking the others into account renders any "rating" argument invalid.

On a tactical level, I'm sure every army had its share of stunning victories, and each had its share of catastrophic defeats. What does this prove? Nothing - until you take a look at the overall picture. It does a great injustice to the fighting men of all countries involved in the War to make generalizations based on 50 years of hindsight, especially from those of us who were not there...



------------------
alea iacta est
sooperduk@hotmail.com

[This message has been edited by Elvis (edited 07-05-2000).]

[sven]

Originally posted by Elvis:
<<< Yep I am sure the Italian, French, Polish, Soviet, Hungarian, Norweigian, Danish, and Belgian armies were all superior to the US Army. >>>

Now here is a pearl of wisdom...

I'd love to hear you prove a claim like this one. Please do, in detail.

<<< I suppose that the US Army should have not used IT'S (USAF was born in '47)inherent advantages to seem more manly. >>>

Yet another pearl. I suppose that it would have been more "sporting" to forgo the use of tactical air power, even though it was an "inherent advantage."

Every standing army from 1939-45 had inherent strengths and weaknesses. The factors involved are many; quality of equipment, quantity of equipment, quality of training, elan, pride, tactics, ability to adapt, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Basing an opinion on any one of these factors without taking the others into account renders any "rating" argument invalid.

On a tactical level, I'm sure every army had its share of stunning victories, and each had its share of catastrophic defeats. What does this prove? Nothing - until you take a look at the overall picture. It does a great injustice to the fighting men of all countries involved in the War to make generalizations based on 50 years of hindsight, especially from those of us who were not there...

Ahh Elvis I am guessing you did not Scan my sarcasm directed at Drake in that post. I do however think the French were overrated. Simply put- they folded without half the pressure that the Poles were under and I do not care how great the shock of the Meuse was they should have been able to rally.

The French made some very grave mistakes in their choice of a commander, style of doctrine, structure of command and control, and utilization of assets. I am not casting aspersions on the fighting mettle of any soldier, I am quite willing however to cast aspersions on the leadership of those same fighting men. It is not the individual French infantryman's fault that when Churchill asked, "where is your strategic reserve?" the French high command shrugged and said, "there is none."

I am glad the US used whatever it could to win. It seems to me that each of the major powers utilized what advantages they had to the best of their leadership's ability. That is where the Frances, Denmarks, et. al (including Soviet Union imho) came up short. France had several very large advantages during the Battle of France(more correctly named the Skirmish of France)

here are some figures I dug up.

forces in NW Europe(divisions)

Allied

british total 16

Armored 1
motorized 15

belgian total 23
Infantry 21
Cavalry 2

Dutch total 9
motorized 1
infantry 8

Polish total 2
infantry 2

French total 102
armored 6
motorized 7
infantry 84
Cavalry 5

Allied Total 152
armored 7
motorized 23
infantry 115
Cavalry 7

German Totals 136
armored 10
motorized 7
infantry 118
cavalry 1

These numbers do not convey a few facts though.

1) Allied C+C was greatly hampered by the multinational nature of the alliance.
2)The Belgians refused to allow the French to shore up their defense until it was too late.
3)the germans did indeed have air superiority but were 800 tanks short and had only one quarter of the total number of motor vehicles for their infantry.

I would say that 1940 was not France's finest minute.... let alone hour. The French were a tired people who had watched their young manhood go off to die in the Somme, so do I begrudge them their defeatist attitude? No, but will I mention it and laugh at them when they claimed to be the dominant European military? Absolutely.

regards,
sven 11h

------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

[Exnur]

Since the going rate is still 2 cents, I'll chip in too.

First of all, all armies have deficiencies. That's what lets good generals win. The British, the Soviets, and even the Americans all had problems, but not enough to be overrated. Overrated means until you know for sure, you thought they were better than they really are. The French qualify as being the most overrated army in WWII.

They shared some doctrine problems with the British, namely spreading the armour out. Their tanks, that some people like so much, had no radios, and the tank commander was alone in the turret, forced to be gunner, loader, as well as the normal duties of the commander. I think SPWAW lets the French off easy for the faulty tank design.

The army itself was disorganised. Many of you probably read stories where the French couldn't counter-attack because of lack of fuel. Other times, commanders withdrew from good defensive positions and helped the overall situation deteriorate more (ex. General André Corap, commander of the French 9th Army, ordered the abandonment of the Meuse, and withdrew it 15 to 20 miles behind the river. This removed the block to Gen. Reinhart's corps. I think this shows disorganisation. Even a losing army can do the best with what they have. And remember, the only action that scared the Germans in France was the British attack at Arras, which the French were supposed to help with, but couldn't be ready on time.

Politically, having a change of government as often as the French did between 1918 and 1940 doesn't help. I'm not sure of the number, but I think it's more than 60 changes of government in 20 years.

Exnur

[Drake666]

All I was saying sven is that the US army in WWII is everated and they were. If you look at the big deal that is made of them and what they were really faceing you would understand. The Germans were already defeated by the time the US Army really did any fighting. But I gess you most have grown up with amarican prapagande on how they won WWI & II singal handaly and all that bull.



[This message has been edited by Drake666 (edited 07-06-2000).]

[sven]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drake666:
All I was saying sven is that the US army in WWII is everated and they were. If you look at the big deal that is made of them and what they were really faceing you would understand. The Germans were already defeated by the time the US Army really did any fighting. But I gess you most have grown up with amarican prapagande on how they won WWI & II singal handaly and all that bull.

Drake I never said we did it single-handedly. I guess if I am a "victim" of "American Propaganda" then mayhaps you are a victim of "Soviet Propaganda". At no time have I ever said that the US won either of those horrible wars single-handedly, but you sure would like to put those words in my mouth I guess.

You seem to feel that the United States did not do any of the "real" fighting. I would like a few sources for that posit. I guess Kasserine and Torch were walks in the park. Wait don't tell me the Brits were about to singlehandedly kick Rommel's ass and just decided to wait and let us help for our egos?

If the United States had decided to sit World War Two out the Axis would have cleaned the British and Soviet's proverbial clocks. We were doing everything in our power economically to help those two nations with their war effort even when it meant that we were violating the spirit of our "neutrality".(for which I am glad) The Soviet's were even more strapped industrially than were the English.

If Germany had been on death's door as you seem to feel in '44-'45 perhaps you can explain how her production had somehow managed to increase up until the fourth quarter of 1944. Maybe you can elaborate on this statistic... in 1943 72% of German forces were in the Eastern Front as opposed to only 42% for their aircraft, but in 1944 only 40% of their strength was in the Eastern front with 45% of their aircraft there... so tell me I guess there were not any germans sent to plug up the western front.... oh wait I am sure Hitler sent them to the Pacific to back up the Japanese and the Germans just laid down for the Americans and ran away from their airplanes. Indeed the German army of December 1944 had more than double the equipment it won it's stunning victories with.(just no fuel, poorly trained soldiers compared to '39, and the fact that the Allies had produced five times that number.)

I really wish you would document and support your position. My figures are from the WW2 Almanac, Dirty Little secrets of WW2, and Keegan's Second World War. I guess every book I have ever read on the subject is biased toward the American side even though Keegan is an Englishman, and the WW2 almanac is of the opinion that the English and Russians carried most of the war.

Your assertion on the quality of the US Army is humorous... have you ever served in it? I seem to recall that the US, UK, and USSR were the victors. I guess that counts for nothing.

regards,
sven

p.s. I guess that in the Pacific the Marines single handedly whipped the Japanese... even though the US ARMY conducted almost double the number of assaults? Oh wait the AIR FARCE(because it was the US Army Air Corps) did it alone right? I am waiting with baited breath for your dissertation concerning the Pacific Theatre of Operations.....




------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

[sjuncal]

Originally posted by Drake666:
who is the most overrated army in WW2?

Now as to that question as it is posted I would have to say the US army.

Hope I dont heart to many peoples feallings with this, HeHe.

I know this is going to sound like I'm just being contrary but the question is "most overrated"... To that the most surprising but logical answer has to be <drum roll>

The Germans. They lost.

Conventional wisdom states that they had the best: Infantry, Leadership, Armor and Airforce. Yet they lost all they way back to Berlin. Their Airforce was decimated, their heavy tanks failed to stop the Allies lighter, faster, more manuverable (less fuel sucking) tanks. Their leaders commited millions to static beach defenses, that were on the whole an abysmal failure and waste of resources. They commited a classic error in trying to "defend everything", they underestimated when doing so would hurt them, and overestimated likewise. The commander and chief of their army was insane. And their top leadership much like the German people of the time, went along with it.

Hope I didn't hurt too many Germanophile's feelings hehe

Grogs fawn over Tiger tanks and play endless "on paper" (or board or computer screen) games where armor is modeled down to the milimeter... But where speed, mobility, efficiancy and numerical superiority are often given negligable treatment.

Now as to the US Army... The US had only a token standing army when WWII broke out, they had something like a grand total of 2000 WWI era main battle tanks (if you can call them that). I would say the US Army would be one of the most UNDER rated of the war. Our boys were fighting a war entirely on foriegn soil, to liberate OTHER countries, yet they died just as bravely, aquited themselves just as well if not better, than some of the armies that were fighting for their OWN LAND. They took on a _professional_ army rich in military tradition with years of campaigning and millions of veteran soldiers, and after a bloody nose or three, chased them all the way back to the fatherland. (Not that they were the ONLY ones doing so of course).

Anyway rant over now if you'll excuse me I have to get back to CM, where my lowely Sherman has just disposed of a Tiger by driving around it faster than the Tiger could track it with it's slow turret, blowing it's ass off before the poor gunner ever finished traversing.

Simon

[O de B]

Since i'm french i'll try to defend a little the poor french army in 40
As far as i know, the french army was in numbers almost equal to the german one, with 2 notable differences.
1. The air force was becoming obsolete. French had few fighters as good as the Spitfire and Me 109.
2. The armor was being restructured from an infantry support role to a more offensive one under De Gaulle's pressure. There were only 3 and a half tank divisions organized in June 40.
The government was trying to delay active war to increase the preparation of the army.

However, the defeat was more strategic and political.
Strategically, French armies drove too fast into belgium and were not defending where the panzers attacked. (Heard the poles made the same fault, driving towards germany and missing the Nazi Spearhead that came northern). Then lots of things were lost .
But clearly not the war.
Politically, the politicians had no will to defend at all costs. Whereas the Brits had planned to defend each inch of their land in case of Sealion, the french politics followed Petain's proposal of armistice, whereas De Gaulle was asking of moving the government to the colonies and fighting from Brittany and the south of France plus colonial empire.
At that time the communists in france were more or less favoring Nazi germany since the germano-sovietic pact (how do you call it overseas ?) and they represented most of the worker's opinion. The other public opinion was evenly divided. Petain was far older than at Verdun, (some bad people would say a bit senile too ) and may have seen there a good opportunity to keep the power. In any case, there was not a good 'fighting spirit' in the country in 1940, and at last until Barbarossa.

Concerning the game, the problem is that if you fight the french, the AI is likely to pick a fair amount of tanks, so if you battle them, consider you happen to encounter one of the DLM's. I think that when that happened, the german panzer divisions were for a though and bloody match and had to call for air support.

[talon]

Well I think the performance off the army is discused here or the performance off the whole countrys ? Teh French at their time were regarded as very powerful but today everyboby says they were poor so they can´t be overrated anymore . I would agree they were the worst performing army in the war but at that topic only armies who are highratet can be overrated I think . So I think only the Germans and the US can be brought up at this . The German army stated the war with very poor equipment and very good trained soldiers and endet the war with stat of the art equipment and children at the front so they never have been at top performance . Also only a small amount of the armyleadership really opposed the insane Hitler in 44 and that was far to late . They should have put this Idiot to the grave back in 39 when all these veterans off WW1 were frightend off a new war and the effects on their country . So the Germans were never that top that many think and the US were never top performing . A agree with the statement that they started to engage the really when they already had lost the war . In africa nobody won the whole war and Italy also was not really desisieve . At Salerno they almost were driven back in the meditarean .The Germans really died in the east and their end was at the summer offensive in 44 were whole army gruop center was destroyed. Their equipment also never was state off the art and only the bazoka was a new idea . So they also were never really good .

[Fabs]

We seem to have gone full circle. Although I have had fun reading the posts in this thread, I have to say that the original question envites generalizations and prejudice, and these have benn abundantly expressed.

Armies are not sports teams and war is not a tournament. The Second World War was possibly the most apocalyptic historical convulsion in the history of man.

I think it wrong to express such opinions about any Army based on their performance early in the war.

The German and Japanese leadership had committed themselves to war, while other nations had been trying very hard to avoid it.

Germany and Japan enjoyed the strategic initiative in the early years, and to this they owed their early successes.

The French leadership made huge strategic errors, and the Army of 1939-40 was not employed correctly. The impact of the rapid and huge strategic reverses caused its morale (not exactly great to begin with) to collapse.

This situation, in even more dramatic terms, was experienced by the Soviet Army in 1941.

France, because of its geopolitical situation, did not have the depth to recover from the catastrophe. The Soviet Union did.

Is it fair to pin the results of this exclusively on the Army and label it over-rated?

What about Bir Hacheim, or Cassino, or Colmar?

As to strategic and tactical doctrine, brilliant thinkers were not the monopoly of Germany, whose progressive military leaders enthusuastically adopted ideas shared by Liddell Hart and De Gaulle.

The political situation in the country and within the Army, as well as the fact that the Heer was practically being re-built from scratch, put enough of the German progressive thinkers in a position to apply their ideas.

In Britain and France, the high commands were still dominated by the old establishments that had been seen as responsible for winning the previous war, and the progressives were suppressed or marginalized by them.

After the early defeats, the old establishments were swept away and replaced by the progressives or their disciples, and the Armies began to perform better.

And what about the US Armed Forces? Are people aware of the massive leap in size that they had to undergo from their pre-war establishment?

They had to absorb millions of untrained men and make them into an effective fighting force engaged on several fronts globally fighting generously for reasons that were not necessarily as personal as those of other combatants.

Of course it took time for this force to achieve combat effectiveness, and their better trained and at times better equipped enemies gave it a hard time early on.

The speed at which the lessons were learned and applied was a huge accomplishment, and to judge the American Armed Forces as over-rated is undefensible, IMO.

As for Germany, do you include or exclude the dangerous and sometimes plain asinine characteristics of the Fuhrer's leadership style?

In that reside the causes of their early successes as well as those of their ultimate defeat.

Each army had strengths and weaknesses, but the outcome of the war was determined by factors of far greater importance than the relative merits or faults of any individual Army.

The armies that are being talked about here were composed by men who, through accident of birth, were caught up in differing but certainly equally harrowing ordeals, whatever uniform they happened to wear.

I love wargaming, but out of respect for these men I will not express a derogatory opinion about any of their outfits.

------------------
Fabs

[Mike Knight]

I think you guys have all missed the point. Those pesky Luxembourgers didn't even put up a good show when that pathetically small group of Germans...what did they call them...Army group west or something equally nonsensical. Anyway, with all the natural advantages of lovely tourist spots and a picturesque scenery, is there a mention anywhere of their resistance, let alone their collection of border tolls (or passport inspection taxes) when the Germans came through. I think this ends the argument.

Overrated army = Luxembourg

[Mike Knight]

I think you guys have all missed the point. Those pesky Luxembourgers didn't even put up a good show when that pathetically small group of Germans...what did they call them...Army group west or something equally nonsensical came traipsing through. Anyway, with all the natural advantages of lovely tourist spots and a picturesque scenery, is there a mention anywhere of their resistance, let alone their collection of border tolls (or passport inspection taxes) when the Germans came through. I think this ends the argument.

Overrated army = Luxembourg