Best soldiers of WWII?

[Gyrene]

Ok...This is a really big can of worms I'm about to open here, but I'd like everyone's opinion on what their decisions are based on.

To give some fairness and keep the flaming down, please chime in with two choices for each category:

My choices

1) Best convential infantry

-The Rikusentai: Japanese Special Landing Forces, the nastiest foe ever faced by the USMC, and man for man probably the most tenacious, disciplined and loyal soldier ever. Russians surrendered, Germans surrendered, the Japanese didn't.

-US Marines: Might seem like the obvious choice for a guy named Gyrene, but this is not a decision made lightly. Beyond the ridiculously hopeless situation at Wake Island, the USMC was undefeated in WWII and every battle it participated in was a desperate struggle against a superbly skilled and even more desperate opponent. Can you honestly picture the SS or the Red Guards wading across 700 yards of coral reef at Tarawa?

2)Best Special Forces Soldiers

-The Special Air Service: They pratically invented the genre, tiny teams of men in jeeps and trucks virtually crippled the Luftwaffe in North Africa and caused damage and headaches far far beyond their numbers. The doctrine they developed in WWII changed the notion of "Special Operations" forever.

-The Gurkhas: Tibetan volunteers, mountain people who became jungle fighters the Japanese were afraid of! Enough said.

These are my choices, notice one thing in common among these four: They were all fighting and excelling outside their "natural" home enviroments, I was going to pick the Finnish Sisu over the Gurkhas, but the fact that they were fighting in terrain they grew up in tipped my opinion.

Gyrene

[Abbott]

Let us not forget the German troops. One of the finest fighting forces to have ever been fielded in any war.

The British also have long traditions and solid histories of fielding excellent men. Not many men from any land could have endured what these fine fellows did in Burma.

I have no knowledge of the Aussies, New Zealanders or Canadian troops that were fielded, someone else will have to speak for them. However men are men no matter what language they speak or country they are born unto. I also have heard stories (from family friends/veterans) that say, “The Italians fielded some of the most dangerous men that they had ever met”.

As far as American soldiers fielded in the Second World War, I would say it was the National Guardsman. What branch they served in made no difference to these fighters. They were shopkeepers, teachers, carpenters, farmers, factory workers and so on. They had no stake in a military career nor did they want one. They were there to do a job, get it done and go back to their jobs and families period. They did just that.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Brian Smith]

My nomination (with patriotic influence):

Best infantry - Australian soldiers. Silent and crafty in the jungle (deeply respected by the Japanese whose arses they kicked), tenacious and inventive in the desert (deeply respected by the Germans who feared their night patrolling). Mostly volunteers with great bushcraft and ingenuity and mostly excellent shots.

smith

[Stalin's Organ]

I'm with Abbot on this - Soldiers of all nationalities did what they had to.

Yes I CAN imagine almost anyone else wading 700 yds to get to the beaches - what was the alternative?

And the Aussies weren't in the Dessert long enough to be feared by anyone - they left to surrender at Singapore. Their poorly trained militia put up a hell of a fight in New Guinea, but were helped by terrain and poor Jap supply and tactics just as the Empire troops had those things agaisnt them in Malaya.

New Zealand soldiers were supposedly quite flash, but still mutinied in 1943 and were fought out and over-cautious by late 1944.

Audie Murphy was US Infantry - which got the worst recruits and the poorest training of all the US combat arms & stuill managed to do amazing stuff.....

[Stixx]

I'll have to disagree with your opinion of Australian Infantry Stalin.

To my knowledge Australia has never feilded Militia. In WW II we did field conscripts but a militia they where not.

I have never heard nor read a single bad remark about Australian Soldiers any where.

Off topic here.
The Australian Light Horse saved thousands of British and US lives in 1 battle (Bershiba) in WW I.

In Vietnam they US asked the Australian SAS to train their own special forces.

[Gersen]

Hi all,

Firstly, as a first time poster (lurker?) I'd like to congratulate all those guys/gals that make this such a great board to visit. But like many 'lurkers', if I don't have anything to add, I don't say anything....

This topic caught my eye though. Well said Abbott, I think that sums it up. It's a bit like true courage...it is my opion that those that are truely 'sh*t' scared when they do something extrodinary, are the true heroes.

For the record my vote goes down to the Australian / New Zealand digger. No special forces unit, just the plain old infantryman. Most historical records class them highly. Rommel considered them the elite of the Commonwealth forces. They held Tobruk and stopped the Japanese in New Guinea. In WWI they suffered the highest casualties (per capita) of any other force as they were used as 'shock troops' by the British. Now I'm pretty sure on that one, so go easy if I'm wrong smile.gif. Not that I'm saying they did it with out help though... smile.gif

Lastly, I'll admit it...I'm a proud Aussie...

Cheers,

John

Ohh, just read your post Stalin. Sorry mate gotta disagree there. Have a little read about The Anzac occupation of Tobruk and/or the battle of El Alemain where Aussies and New Zealanders featured heavily. Or perhaps you'd rather take Rommel's word for it smile.gif. Don't quite get the bit about conscripts...

In respects to Vietnam, from what I've read the Digger used very different tactics to the GI. An example of this philosophy is seen in the service rifle of the time, a semi-auto with no auto mode based on the Belgium FN. Full auto was seen as an waste in the stealthy jungle contacts and unneccesary. But then again I wasn't there...

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Gersen ]

[goodwood]

Stixx, Australia certainly did have militia troops fighting in PNG. The Defence Act 1903 (or there abouts) only allowed Aussie militia to serve in Australian territories. If my memory serves me collectly, the Victorian 3 & 39 Bns were militia units. They fought with mixed results. Maybe wrong the 39 Bn fought with distinction on the Kokoda Trail.
Hey pacestick help me out
Also I don't think Australia had concription during the WW2,however maybe confusing this fact with the WW1

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: goodwood ]

[Stixx]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Also I don't think Australia had concription during the WW2,however maybe confusing this fact with the WW1
[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: goodwood ][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well i stand corrected. Thats not the first time i've been wrong.

To the best of my knowledge Australia did conscript infantry in WW II. I can gaurantee they did in Vietnam someone please correct one of here smile.gif

Well said Gersen. There are plenty of individual acts of greatness from many different army's. On a whole though the record books show it's hard to go pass an Aussie.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:
[QB}
And the Aussies weren't in the Dessert long enough to be feared by anyone - they left to surrender at Singapore.
[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry but I simply can't let this comment go without reply. The Aussies who defended Tobruk (known as the "Rats of Tobruk") were most certainly feared by the Germans & Italians who tried for months to dislodge them from their completely surrounded and cut off position behind enemy lines. Their aggressive nightly scouting patrols spread fear and dread amongst their adverseries and kept the numerically much larger beseiging force continually off balance. Yes, they did receive some supplies from destroyers doing nightly runs into the harbour but the troops were always short of ammunition and food yet held back the might of the Afrika Corps who had previously swept all before them at that stage of the war.

To say that they weren't there long enough to be feared by anyone simply stupefies me and is an insult to all those of the Australian 9th Division that fought there.

END OF RANT

Jim R.

[Rupert_2]

If I was going to choose the best soldiers of WW2 they would have to be Wingate's Chindits or all of the units that served in the 14th Army in Burma.
The German Fallschirmjaeger.
The British Paras.
The British SAS,SBS,Z Force,LRDG,US Airbourne forces and the Afrika Korps ......
smile.gif

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes I CAN imagine almost anyone else wading 700 yds to get to the beaches - what was the alternative? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They could've dumped their gear and gone to the mouth of the attoll and to safety. Many boats were sent out to rescue and stragglers on the reef, mosted asked for new rifles to replace their lost ones and went back into the fight.

Gyrene

[goodwood]

Just to add a little more the militia (AMF)was supplement by conscription, only to fight in australian territories, a legacy of the political backlash of WW1 when the then PM Billy Hughes try tried to conscript men into the army without success. The 2nd AIF was a fully volunteer army. Because the AMF couldn't fight overseas the AIF soldiers nicknamed them Chockos (chocolate soldiers)

[Mace]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:
And the Aussies weren't in the Dessert long enough to be feared by anyone - they left to surrender at Singapore. Their poorly trained militia put up a hell of a fight in New Guinea, but were helped by terrain and poor Jap supply and tactics just as the Empire troops had those things agaisnt them in Malaya.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some points:

i) I suggest you do some reading on both Tobruk and El Alemain, and the contribution Australia made there. The Germans in particular feared the night patrols that the Aussies carried out during the Tobruk siege.

I'd also draw your attention to the comment Rommel made about Australian troops (I'll leave it for you to search - but it efectively said that he would give anything to have a division of Australians)

ii) Australian troops didn't surrender at Singapore, the English in command made that decision.

iii) Regarding The Kokoda trail, Isn't the use of terrain the point of tactics? Obviously the Australians made better use of the terrain, and given that these were Australian militia and not regulars against a harden Japanese cadre, Hmmm?

iv) I suggest next time you do some research before posting. And while at it continue by reading of our exploits in WW1, Korea, The Malyasia incursion by Indonesia, Vietnam, the Gulf War (our mine clearing team), and various UN missions

Mace

[goodwood]

Go Mace how ya going? Didn't think it would take u long to fire up.
Ron

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbott:
Let us not forget the German troops. One of the finest fighting forces to have ever been fielded in any war.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh boy .... the myth lives on ... and besides. They beat up on minor powers. When push came to shove, they got their butt kicked.

[Brian Smith]

After reading Abbott's post I say kudos to troops of all nationalities. Anyone who has to stand up under fire is a brave man (plenty of soldiers in my family, including serving folk now).

Some more about Aussies from my information:

My old man, who was in the 6th Div AIF and served in the desert and New Guinea (rest his soul) told me that when they were shipped to New Guinea, they passed through what they termed 'chockos' (chocolate soldiers or CMF - Citizen's Military Forces, the equivalent of Army Reserve these days) on the way up from Port Moresby and that they had been pretty badly beaten up and some had run.

The CMF were probably what you would term 'militia' and had no expectation they would be used overseas when they signed up. They got thrown into New Guinea as a poorly trained stop-gap while the regs were brought back from the desert at our PM's insistence.

My old man's mob stopped the Japs above Moresby (still not yet equipped in jungle gear apparently) and then pushed them right back over the Owen Stanley Ranges. My Dad's last campaign was Aitape-Wewak (across the top of New Guinea) towards the end of the war in 1945, where they had to winkle Japanese forces out of caves in nasty close-quarters fighting and where they existed on captured Japanese rations (balls of rice). He weighed 6 stone (84 pounds) at the end of the war.

He wouldn't talk too much about the war, but when he did loosen his tongue, what he told me sent shivers up my spine.

[Gersen]

Just after leaving school I (and all my mates) used to hang out with a 'Rat of Tobruk'. He was a retired motor mechanic that helped us fix all our bombs (old cars - for the international audience).

He was a tough old bastard who's fondest memory was the sh*t that all the diggers used to give to any English Officers that tried to tell them what to do! He made sergeant 3 times!

He steadfastly refused to go to New Guinea because he had a phobia about snakes. More than happy to go back to the desert though.

I'm sure he'd have something to say about 'not being in the desert long enough...'. Probably pull out the old 30/30 he had on top of the cupboard, ready for any intruders that came to knobble his greyhounds smile.gif

Cheers,

John

[Heidar]

Well lads this is realy dangerus issu. I have always thought higly of the german infantry man who kept on fighting even though they must have known that the war was lost by the end of 1943.

The Aussies have a fine record and must be proud of there fighting forces.

[Brian Smith]

You're right Heidar about this being a dangerous issue - how long before it ends up locked?

[Mace]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by goodwood:
Go Mace how ya going? Didn't think it would take u long to fire up.
Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


G'day Mate! :D

Mace

[illo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>stand up under fire is a brave man<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would much rather stay in cover then stand upwhen under fire :D

Would be kind of silly thing to stand up...wouldn't it..heh

Best soldiers?

Are those who had best training? Germans
Who beat up vastly numerically superior enemy again and again with poor equipment? Finns
Who won the war? Allies
Who sacrificed most? Soviets

whatever...

[Snake Eyes]

Airborne troops in general. Dropped behind and/or on enemy positions in daylight and/or night. Limited supplies for long durations of sustained combat, meager AT assets, few if any vehicles, continually called upon to perform 'impossible tasks' (the Waal River crossing and Bastogne come to mind), and a host of other duties. These tenacious warriors have always been accorded elite status and feared by their opponents.

I personally know a former WWII US paratrooper from the 82nd who is one of six from a company of about 200 original members that survived the war without being killed or seriously wounded. His 'war stories' are incredible!

[RMC]

Best is such a nebulous term. Some folks are equating best to most honorable, or most aggressive. No one will agree and this thread is doomed to die an inglorious death. The good doctor has already made preparations for war (if they were they best then why'd they lose? huh? C'mon, tell me). Hasn't this battle been fought enough?

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Best is such a nebulous term. Some folks are equating best to most honorable, or most aggressive. No one will agree and this thread is doomed to die an inglorious death. The good doctor has already made preparations for war (if they were they best then why'd they lose? huh? C'mon, tell me). Hasn't this battle been fought enough? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RMC, what a pessimistic outlook (Probably realistic, though), all I want is 4 choices, simple curiosity. I should have known there would be a lot of flag waving and "mine's bigger'n yours" going on.

Gyrene

[Mark IV]

You've got to respect Combat Engineers. While it takes guts to make an icy river crossing under fire, what's it take to stand in it and build a bridge?

And how 'bout the guys you never see in CM- signal troops? Stringing commo wire under fire, then running back out into barrages to fix the cut lines, carrying heavy gear and unable to shoot back? Signal is also held to blame by commanders of all ranks for failures of all kinds... communications issues are the first line of defense for any commander whose performance is questioned.

Radio made it even worse, since it is an invisible demon with a mind of its own, especially in WWII crystal sets. Nowadays they're missile magnets.

But I digress... "best" threads are totally subjective, but that's why it's called a discussion board. It's the nature of the responses that draws the padlock.*

There should probably be categories for best trained individuals, best discipline under fire, and best group of soldiers functioning as a unit. It would be hard to beat the Japanese for discipline under fire. Afrika Korps accomplished amazing things as a unit, without troops who were necessarily "special" when they got there. US Airborne showed what training can make of "ordinary" troops, just as the Marines have. Success against odds with citizen soldiers award has to go to Finns.

*France and England were minor powers?

[Michael Dorosh]

This is a silly topic, but check out the First Special Service Force (Devil's Brigade). The most highly motivated and combat-effective force the Allies had.

They were trained in amphibious warfare, parachute drops, mountain fighting, skiing (and excelled at all).

At Anzio they held a section of the line out of all proportion to their numbers and were feared as much as the Gurkhas.

[Gen-x87]

Oh boy .... the myth lives on ... and besides. They beat up on minor powers. When push came to shove, they got their butt kicked"

They stomped France, and England most of the war. If the Soviets didnt have such a large population they probably would have stomped them also. And if the US didnt get involved I highly doubt England or the Soviets would have survived.

I fail to see how that is the myth.

My grandfather fought on the Western Front. He said they are about the toughest SOBs he has ever seen. He said nobody knows what war is like until they went up against the Germans. But of course would not go into details.

Anywho i nominate the US soldier. For some reason we always seem to find a way to win smile.gif
Always inflicting more casualties than the enemy.

Gen

[litchy]

There simply is no best, each man and woman put their lives on the line. To me that means they are all equal. Each should be repested for the effort abd lives they gave.

[David Aitken]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Gen-x87 wrote:
They stomped France, and England most of the war. [ . . . ] And if the US didnt get involved I highly doubt England or the Soviets would have survived.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am sick of hearing this idea – and from someone who holds it, this statement is not at all surprising:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anywho i nominate the US soldier. For some reason we always seem to find a way to win :) Always inflicting more casualties than the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds like a learned and accurate appraisal. Not just short-sighted jingoism or anything, of course not.

France fell because its defensive strategy hinged on the Maginot Line, which was maybe a bad idea considering the Germans simply restaged the Schlieffen Plan they used in the First World War and outflanked it. I'm not French, but I see too many ostensibly in-jest comments about the French's inability to fight.

The British Expeditionary Force was defeated by the advancing Germans and had to evacuate back across the Channel. The British Army did not return to France in force until Overlord. But too many people seem to be ignorant of the fact that we were fighting in Africa and Asia/Australasia, as well as fending off German air attacks at home, and supporting resistance and partisan operations.

It is true that the USA was a major contributor to the defeat of Germany and Japan. But it did not somehow save the other Allies from destruction. Germany might have invaded Britain after Dunkirk, but it didn't. Operation Sealion never happened. It might also have defeated the RAF, but it didn't. We were having a bit of trouble, but Göring lost the initiative when he switched attacks from airfields to cities. Britain was quite able to sustain itself and conduct military operations in other theatres. It is doubtful that we could have defeated the Axis powers on our own, but would those who regard the USA as the saviour of the free world kindly get their facts right.

[Keith]

U.S. Army in European Theatre of Operations:
1st Infantry Division
4th Infantry Division
36th Infantry Division (Audie Murphy & fought in Africa, Italy, France, and Germany)
4th Armored

U.K:
All ANZAC troops

Finland:
First class army

Germany, Western Front 1944-45:
Panzer Lehr
9th SS Mountain Division (formerly in Finland)
1st SS Panzer
10th SS Panzer
12th SS until the end of Normandy at which point it was basically destroyed and rebuilt - a shadow of its former self

[gunnergoz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Keith:
U.S. Army in European Theatre of Operations:
1st Infantry Division
4th Infantry Division
36th Infantry Division (Audie Murphy & fought in Africa, Italy, France, and Germany)
4th Armored

U.K:
All ANZAC troops

Finland:
First class army

Germany, Western Front 1944-45:
Panzer Lehr
9th SS Mountain Division (formerly in Finland)
1st SS Panzer
10th SS Panzer
12th SS until the end of Normandy at which point it was basically destroyed and rebuilt - a shadow of its former self<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd have to add the 29th Infantry Division (Omaha and inland), the 28th Infantry Division (Bulge), the 1st Marine Division and the Marine Raiders.

BTW, Audie Murphy served in the 3rd Infantry Division, not the 36th, when he won his MOH.

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:
It is doubtful that we could have defeated the Axis powers on our own, but would those who regard the USA as the saviour of the free world kindly get their facts right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everything you say sounds utterly reasonable to me, David. Well said.

I think that if you want to point to a period where the US did play a leading and crucial role, it would be after WW2, when Europe was exhausted but the US persisted with involvement with Europe, launched the Marshall Plan, faced down the Stalinist Soviet Union over Berlin, etc.

I'm proud of what my country did then, not retreating back into its isolationism, but realizing that it was part of a global system and that it had a responsibility to Europe and to its own citizens to use its energy and industrial base to try to repair the damages of the war.

But even _that_ should not be used as a club to beat anyone with.

It was an astonishingly mature and sober realization that Germany and France were shattered, the Soviet Union was run by a madman who was threatening the West, that after the slaughter of the First World War, Britain had sacrificed another generation of men (workers) and was teetering.

And so anyone who says "Ha ha we had to bail you out after WW2," is minimizing the sacrifices that Europeans made.

[Abbott]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian:
Oh boy .... the myth lives on ... and besides. They beat up on minor powers. When push came to shove, they got their butt kicked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. Brian,

Your ideas on the German Military in World War II are always a bit over shadowed by your personal feelings. I recognize your many excellent contributions to this forum and do try and understand the why of your bias.

Nevertheless with personal feelings aside and a military perspective I heartily disagree with your claim that the German Military’s excellence in battle is myth. Man for man the German soldiers were a match for any countries military.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Warmaker]

My heavily biased choice: The U.S. Marines.

While all the nations fielded some outstanding forces I have two comments to make. It's been my understanding from various documentaries & readings that the Italian soldier was generally not respected (surrender, anyone?). But the average Italian soldier was able to excel under good leadership such as the Germans in the Afrika Korps. I'm not saying they're all elite, but someone made a comment of the Italians earlier.

And my second comment and suggestion is not a land based force. The German U-Boat service. They started off quite well in WWII but were not at full strength. Of course, as the war dragged on and the Allies gained better resources to combat the U-Boats things became heavily lopsided in favor of the Allies. With more escort carriers and the investment of B-24s as patrol aircraft for instance, and along with other technological factors, it was pretty much suicidal to be a U-Boat sailor in the late war period. I commend this service that they still kept doing their patrols with little likelihood of returning home. A documentary on the History Channel here in the U.S. about the U-Boats said that one of the reasons they needed to keep the U-boats going despite their futility is the aforementioned Allied use of carriers and long ranged bombers to try to find/hunt them. These bombers/aircraft could have been used instead to bomb German cities. Just another example of "taking the bullet for the team." Don't remember the exact figures but of roughly the 40,000 men(volunteers) who served as U-Boat crews, only 10,000 survived. Dying isn't pleasant but dying in a sub has to rank up there in one of the worst ways to die in combat.

[litchy]

This realy gets my goat, my grandfather would tell me that out of 20 friends that joined up on the same day only 5 made it back home. I realy do not believe that the general U.S. public and some on the forum get the fact that the war started in 1939 rather than 1941. It may be the beer but I do not like the fact that the sacirfice of the first part of the war seems to be be-littled by the fact that the U.S. entered later.

[Berlichtingen]

Ok, my choice goes to the USMC in the Pacific, and the German Fallschirmjägers elsewhere

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Keith:
9th SS Mountain Division (formerly in Finland)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
6th... the 9th was a Panzer Division smile.gif

[RMC]

Gyrene,

Cynical I may be, but I just call 'em as I see 'em. Some folks have some dearly held opinions and get heated when someone contradicts them. Be warned.

****

As regards the Italians. True, they are much maligned for their poor performance, but it doesn't mean that the raw material was somehow innately inferior. Poor leadership and poor arms go a long way in crippling a soldiers potential. I read a blurb in an old ASL annual once that said something to the effect that Ghurka Non- coms fighting Italians in Ethiopia considered the Italians to be the bravest soldiers they had yet met.

[Jeff Heidman]

Best light infantry of the war: Japanese
Best heavy infantry: The Marines

Which is why the PTO makes for such an interesting fight.

Jeff Heidman

[Cap'n Slappy]

I've never posted here before (lurker), but after reading a couple of posts about the "myth" of the high quality of the German infantry I felt that I had to say something. During WWII -NOBODY- had better trained NCO's than the Germans. The Germans had a doctrine called "The Institution of Excellence" They promoted and continually trained talented junior NCOs. They sent them to war colleges, leadership schools, and special training programs. The fact that the modern militaries of the allies actually train and continue to educate their junior officers and NCOs is a direct result of lessons learned via the combat effectivenss of the German infantrymen, who was undoubtedly (sp?) the best led (at the junior officer level) of all armies in WWII.

What is a myth, is the belief that the early German victories were a result of superior German equipment. This is false. Until the full scale introduction of the Mark IV, the Allied tanks were faster, had better armor, and superior firepower(T-34,Churchill, Matilda etc.). It is a tribute to the discipline and training of the German soldier, that he was able to consistently defeat and advance on a first rate army who was not only better equiped but also better supplied and larger. ( Allies in North Africa). It was not until the Germans were unable to adequatly replace their lost equipment, and the allies adopted German tactics that the Allies were able to acheive victories. These mainly due to their air superiority and massive industrial capacities. Thsi is not to take anything for the Allied troops, its just that man for man, the Germans were much better trained.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike721:
What is a myth, is the belief that the early German victories were a result of superior German equipment. This is false. Until the full scale introduction of the Mark IV, the Allied tanks were faster, had better armor, and superior firepower(T-34,Churchill, Matilda etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FUnny how if you define "better" to be whatever it is your opponent has and you do not, all your opponents stuff suddenly becomes "better".

Speed, armor, and firepower != better tank.

German armor was the best in the world at the start of the war. Repeat after me:

Radios and three man turrets.

It doesn't matter how big the gun is, or how thick the armor might be, if the other guy ahs his tanks in the right place and fighting as a team because of vastly superior command and control.

Proof: By the mid point of the war, all the participants were still experimenting with different combinations of speed, armor, and firepower, but none of them were still building tanks without radios and dedicated gunners.

Jeff Heidman

[Smack]

Ok then, Im not going to say anything on this one. I think that each country did what it could during the war and would do it again.
Im just going to say that the Russians lost 25 million people during that war and they didnt give up...So they are probably the most tenatious of them all.

[Cap'n Slappy]

"German armor was the best in the world at the start of the war. Repeat after me:"


Your wrong, the French and British tanks were superior in reliability, ease of repair, firepower, and armor protection. Even by mid war, the German tanks weren't necessarily superior. They were mechanically unreliable and difficult to produce. I agree with your statement about the the winner having his tanks at the right place at the right time. That is my point. Often the germans were at the right place at the right time (due to training and leadership), with inferior equipment (early in the war mainly) and still overan the allies. PArticular;y in France and Africa.

[Smack]

Yup, the allies didnt now how to use their tanks.

[KRS321]

Has anyone even considered the basic American GI fighting across Europe? These guys were conscripted from all walks of life, who didnt want to be there, and just wanted to get the job done and go home. And they did it!

What is all this talk about Australian army, who cares? What is everyone Australian here or what?

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike721:
[QBYour wrong, the French and British tanks were superior in reliability, ease of repair, firepower, and armor protection.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


And none of that means a damn thing if you cannot control those tanks at the *tactical* level because you did not put radios in them, or the commanders have to spend all their time firing the gun instead of coordinating the actions of their crew and making sure they are fighting the same fight their superior echelons are fighting.

The Germans had the best tanks simply because they rocognized first what was a necessary precondition to proper use of an armored vehicle. These include radios, and a dedicated commander. They do NOT include the biggest gun, the heaviest armor, or even the fastest speed. All those things are advatages that are nice to have, but will alwyas prove indecisive in the face of lack of command and control.

Jeff Heidman

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KRS321:
What is everyone Australian here or what?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but guys who "were conscripted from all walks of life, who didnt want to be there, and just wanted to get the job done and go home. And they did it!" would apply equally to the UK and other commonwealth troops.

Do you think the Aussies had some purebred warrior class or something? Was the average Brit fighting on the continent because he personally had a bone to pick with the Wehrmacht? Didn't Canadians want to get the job done?

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:
German armor was the best in the world at the start of the war. Repeat after me:

Radios and three man turrets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
God, I hate doing this, but...
I completely agree with Jeff. Combind arms tactics is what won battles in WW2... to pull them off, you have to have effective communication. The German tanks were lighter armed and armored (don't know were the slower came from... they were faster than most of the British and French equipment), but they were designed to function within a combined arms team... and thus, they prevailed.

[Gen-x87]

I am sick of hearing this idea – and from someone who holds it, this statement is not at all surprising:"

Oh did I hit a nerve with you? I am not familiar with who you are. So your last comment doesnt seem to hold much water.
Want to expand what you mean by "and from someone who holds it, this statement is not at all surprising"

Have we met before?


"That sounds like a learned and accurate appraisal. Not just short-sighted jingoism or anything, of course not."

Now how is that short sighted?

"France fell because its defensive strategy hinged on the Maginot Line, which was maybe a bad idea considering the Germans simply restaged the Schlieffen Plan they used in the First World War and outflanked it."

Gee everybody knew they were coming. But they really could not stop it.

"I'm not French, but I see too many ostensibly in-jest comments about the French's inability to fight."

Ahh they usually seem to run when the fight comes smile.gif

"The British Expeditionary Force was defeated by the advancing Germans and had to evacuate back across the Channel. The British Army did not return to France in force until Overlord."

I forgot the BEF was not part of the British army.

"But too many people seem to be ignorant of the fact that we were fighting in Africa and Asia/Australasia, as well as fending off German air attacks at home, and supporting resistance and partisan operations."

Quit making excuses.

"It is true that the USA was a major contributor to the defeat of Germany and Japan. But it did not somehow save the other Allies from destruction."

I find that statement rather ignorant. Even you have said they were fighting in Africa, SE Asia and at home. It is quite obvious that the British were on the defensive until the U.S. got involved. Actually I wonder how the british would have faired minus the Lend Lease policy with the US.


"We were having a bit of trouble, but Göring lost the initiative when he switched attacks from airfields to cities."

I believe that was more of Hitlers idea. Something about a British bombing of Hamburg (City citizens) on the night he was giving a speech. Anywho I think we are now seeing why your anger is showing through in your posts. You appear to be from the region.

"Britain was quite able to sustain itself and conduct military operations in other theatres."

I suppose singapore being taken, Rommel running about free in Africa and the home front being smashed day in day out can be construed as sustaining.

"It is doubtful that we could have defeated the Axis powers on our own, but would those who regard the USA as the saviour of the free world kindly get their facts right."

Well gee let me see. You just admitted it was doubtful the British would have defeated the Axis on thier own. Then say no way is the US the savior? What is wrong with the above paragraph? You obviously needed a savior(US) to get the job done.

I suppose you can stop thanking us for starving the Japanese of oil to the point where they thought they had to bomb us to get us to the bargaining table smile.gif

BTW I am liking all the lively conversation smile.gif We should all just meet on the battlefield.

Gen

[Smack]

Canadians (I am one) were an all volunteer army. They went because they wanted too. They also wanted to get the job done...
KRS321 how about you look in some books and find out about world war 2, you'll find that alot of other countries fought too. So instead of saying the average GI, you should say the average soldier . . .
As for your comment about the Australians . . . They have all the right to be proud of their army. As you have the right to be proud of the American army . .

[Dr. Brian]

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

Your ideas on the German Military in World War II are always a bit over shadowed by your personal feelings. I recognize your many excellent contributions to this forum and do try and understand the why of your bias.

Nevertheless with personal feelings aside and a military perspective I heartily disagree with your claim that the German Military’s excellence in battle is myth. Man for man the German soldiers were a match for any countries military.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are no personal feelings involved here. This is simple logic, and facts. I can not see the logic of the German soldier as being "superior" than the Soviet, US, or UK fighter.

All the facts keep pointing to the contrary. The myth lives on, because for the first time in history, the losers (Germans) got to write the history (due to the Cold War).

Give it time.

[Gen-x87]

Has anyone even considered the basic American GI fighting across Europe? These guys were conscripted from all walks of life, who didnt want to be there, and just wanted to get the job done and go home. And they did it!"

I did and somebody thought it was shortsighted.

Sheesh

Gen

[Smack]

Has anyone even considered the basic American GI fighting across Europe? These guys were conscripted from all walks of life, who didnt want to be there, and just wanted to get the job done and go home. And they did it!"

I think you should say the basic allied soldier, rather than just American. The British/commonwealth were fighting and got the job done too. The Americans weren't the only citizen soldiers fighting in Europe . . .

[KRS321]

Yeah, I consider France a minor power. It as a warmaking nation is a joke. Culture on the other hand....

[Smack]

France had the largest army in the world at the time . . . I would harldy call that a minor power!

[KRS321]

Yeah, I know that other countries fought in WWII, however, I did figure this was an opinion based forum, and my OPINION was that the American GI can be considered one of the best. I think you're just jealous b/c you're canadian.

I think that Gen-x87 is the most brilliant of all.

[KRS321]

I heard France's huge army beat the Germans too....either times.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

God, I hate doing this, but...
I completely agree with Jeff. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sigh. Am I really that evil?

Jeff

[Smack]

No, I have tons of respect for the average American soldier. It just seemed to me that you should have included other nations who were doing the exact same thing. Brits/Commonwealth and other countries didn't want to be there, but got the job done. I think WE ALL have something to be proud of . . . Therefore include everyone.
As for me being Canadian, That makes no difference. I don't Envy, nor do I condemn America. America is our ally, and I enjoy the their weather! smile.gif . . Stupid Canadian winters . ..

[offtaskagain]

Russia is a minor power? The Germans crushed Russia so badly nobody really knows how many losses they inflicted. They would have won if Hitler had listened to any of his generals. He didn't go for Moscow and just piddled around with encirclement of troops that would have surrendered when Moscow fell. He then let the Panzers sit for a month till the Autumn rains. And even with the break for the Russians, they still made it to the suburbs of Moscow. By 1944, when they were outnumbered by at least 5:1, they still managed to hold off the hordes on both fronts and inflict massive casualties, though they took quite a few themselves. I would hardly call that a "butt kicking". Thats like saying the Tet offensive was a military success for the VC. They were utterly destroyed, even though they ended up winning the political battle, which is the most important of all.

[KRS321]

I'm sorry, I have to give credit to the other nations, particularly GB,Gay France, and Russia for their huge contributions to winning the war. But USA kicks a$$, there's no denying it. USA all the way.

[pritzl]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> There are no personal feelings involved here. This is simple logic, and facts. I can not see the logic of the German soldier as being "superior" than the Soviet, US, or UK fighter.

All the facts keep pointing to the contrary. The myth lives on, because for the first time in history, the losers (Germans) got to write the history (due to the Cold War).

Give it time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. Brian, Why do you think that many of the German army's training methods, and tactics are emulated today by military forces such as the United States? A nation the size of Montana with a total population of approximately 80 million does not conquer the vast majority of Europe without having a military that is supremely well trained, highly motivated, and well equiped. Was everything perfect?, Of course not, but, man for man, the German army of World War II was quite simply one of the best armies to have ever been fielded by any nation.

Also, that bit about the losers writing the history is complete B.S. I've noticed more than a few historical works on WWII written by non-German authors, and a good number of those recognize how good the Germany army really was.

Besides, losers contributing to, or writing the majority of the historical works is nothing new. Athens did it when they lost to Sparta during the Peloponesian War.

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KRS321:
I'm sorry, I have to give credit to the other nations, particularly GB,Gay France, and Russia for their huge contributions to winning the war. But USA kicks a$$, there's no denying it. USA all the way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a patriotic American, but I have to say that this kind of comment, I could live without.

Its insulting, dismissive and doesn't add anything to the discussion. If you want this thread to degenerate in a flame war, keep it up.

Terence

[Dunnee]

I'd have to go with any self respecting and moral partisan. . They weren't highly trained, they weren't lavishly equipped, but they were highly motivated by the fact that they were fighting for their homes. Partisans risked exposure and death to disrupt enemy activity in their homelands, they get my vote on the basis of sheer determination and tenacity.

[Dunnee]

I'd have to go with any self respecting and moral partisan. . They weren't highly trained, they weren't lavishly equipped, but they were highly motivated by the fact that they were fighting for their homes. Partisans risked exposure and death to disrupt enemy activity in their homelands, they get my vote on the basis of sheer determination and tenacity.

[Pvt.Tom]

Before this thread gets locked up I have to say that the best soldiers of WWII were the Dirty Dozen, hardened criminals who didn't want to fight but they went in and kicked butt, (of course most were killed in the end but lets not talk about that,) come on they rock. Plus they could fire their Grease Guns from the hip and hit their target.

[Gyrene]

When I started this topic I was hoping that I could get some educated replies and maybe a post or two that would make some of us go "Oh wow, yes, I forgot about those guys, they were very good" etc, but sadly it degraded to the same pointless bashing as it normally does.

First let me thank the members who did reply with simple, intelligent answers, I really appreciate that and I have noticed your posts.

From the start I realized that people would vote for their own home country and/or whatever branch they served in, that is why I asked for two choices for each category.

In war there are units that are better than others, it is a fact of life, just like in sports, some teams are just plain better than others at that moment in time

Because the German Army of 1941 was better than the American Army of 1941 that does not mean the the entire worth of the US Army since then is nil.

This is a historical comparison I don't care how good the Aussies were in Vietnam, If you think they were the best in WWII then I'll accept that answer.

In 20 B.C. the Romans would have mopped the floor with the English, but what I care about is if you think that they were not only better than the Italians in WWII, but also the best regular infantry period

Historical evidence. It's there. If I had asked what the best National Football (Soccer) team of the 1970's was would it be reasonable for someone to chime in that while the Dutch were very good their lawnmowers at time were crap and the UK made much better ones? Of course not, so why bring up the same tangential nonsense here?

Gyrene

[David Aitken]

Gen-x87 wrote:
> Oh did I hit a nerve with you?

Were you trying to?

> I am not familiar with who you are. So your last comment doesnt seem to hold much water.
> Want to expand what you mean by "and from someone who holds it, this statement is not at all surprising"

> Have we met before?

What's that got to do with it? First you claimed that Britain and Russia would not have "survived" without the US, and then you claimed that US soldiers "always seem to find a way to win" and are "always inflicting more casualties than the enemy". I simply said that, from someone who had offered one blindly biased opinion, another was no surprise.

> Gee everybody knew they were coming. But they really could not stop it.

Would you like to define "everyone"? The French had a defensive strategy. The Germans outmaneuvred them. The French were not unwilling to fight, they simply lost their main asset straight away.

> Ahh they usually seem to run when the fight comes

Oh right. Good argument.

> I forgot the BEF was not part of the British army.

Read what I said. "The British Army did not return to France in force until Overlord."

> > But too many people seem to be ignorant of the fact that we were fighting in Africa and Asia/Australasia, as well as fending off German air attacks at home, and supporting resistance and partisan operations."

> Quit making excuses.

I beg your pardon? Excuses for what? I'm pointing out that Britain wasn't somehow defeated until the US showed up. Is fighting a war in three theatres while your country is under attack somehow irrelevant?

> I find that statement rather ignorant. Even you have said they were fighting in Africa, SE Asia and at home. It is quite obvious that the British were on the defensive until the U.S. got involved. Actually I wonder how the british would have faired minus the Lend Lease policy with the US.

Did I dispute that we were on the defensive? The point I am making is that we were conducting operations on the other side of the world while we were under attack. Being on the defensive is a long way from being defeated, which is what you claimed Britain and Russia would have been without the US.

> Anywho I think we are now seeing why your anger is showing through in your posts. You appear to be from the region.

You mean Britain? Did I not in my last post use "we" to refer to the British? And if you regard that as a reason for my "anger", you are implying that you would expect your comments to anger the British.

> I suppose singapore being taken, Rommel running about free in Africa and the home front being smashed day in day out can be construed as sustaining.

My particular use of the word "sustain" was in an economic context, as I had in mind comments made by another person on the forum about the British supposedly having no food.

> Well gee let me see. You just admitted it was doubtful the British would have defeated the Axis on thier own. Then say no way is the US the savior? What is wrong with the above paragraph? You obviously needed a savior(US) to get the job done.

> I suppose you can stop thanking us for starving the Japanese of oil to the point where they thought they had to bomb us to get us to the bargaining table

Good heavens. I fully recognise the USA's contribution to the war. If anything I am over-generous in this respect, because so many Americans such as yourself seem to think that the US won the war all by itself and saved the free world in the process. You can spend all day pointing out things the US did, and I will agree with you. But you are claiming that the other Allied countries would have been destroyed without the US, which is nonsense. "I highly doubt England or the Soviets would have survived."

[Cap'n Slappy]

Jeff Heidman,

You make some good points, particularly about the radios. My point was simply that the "myth" that the Germans were initially successful due to their superior equipment is false. They were successful due to their tactics and training as well as their attitude towards training NCOs. someone previously had mentioned that he was tired of the "myth" of superior German training. I was just addressing that.

[Stalin's Organist]

My apologies to all the Aussies that I seem to have hit a raw nerve on (I'm also Stalin's organ when posting from home).

My point is that while your infantry did a sterling job at Tobruk, it was as useless as anyone else's in Greece and Malaya, then great again in PNG......

Every nation that has ever fought can point to it's own "Tobruk", so why is yours better than all theirs?

BTW I'm a Kiwi, proud of the ANZAC's and of course the NZ Divisions - but I just do not hold any illusions about the men that did the fighting.

They were all "just" men - no superheros among them, including the 2 NZ double VC winners, doing a **** job, in **** conditions, while getting shot at!

And IMO the same applies to the Germans, Italians, Japs and russians et al.

Contrary to popular belief, for example, most Japanese "infantry" weer not highly trained jungle fighters - most were half starved conscripts who their commanders did not care about. Many of the defenders of the islands in the Pac Campaign were service troops, Koreans and Chinese - making Banzai charges for the emperor!

they had all been carpenters, farmers, accountants and store keepers at some stage - so how do American or Aussie or British accountants, carpenters and storekeepers get to "rate" higher because of their occupations??

Mike
Happy that 2 generations since WW2 have not had to do it again!

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Mike the bike ]

[Babra]

Hell, even the most cursory of examinations indicates that the best soldiers of WW2 were the Brazilians.

They are the only nation not to have suffered a serious military fiasco. There were no Brazilian Kharkovs, Kasserines, Dunkerques or Dieppes, no Guadalcanals or Singapores. Just a bunch of Josés doin' a job with little or no recognition. Heros every one of 'em in my book.

[Mace]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KRS321:
What is all this talk about Australian army, who cares? What is everyone Australian here or what?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey KRS321, do you have an issue about Aussies, and if so, would you like to share it with us?

Mace

[MrSpkr]

Best soldiers? Geez, that's tough.

Best SPecial Forces

In the ETO, I like the U.S. Army Rangers and the British Commandos for sheer chutzpah. The Rangers assault on Pointe du Hoc impresses the heck out of me, as does the raid on St. Nazaire (the thought of being part of a small force of men wading into the middle of enemy occupied territory on a nearly suicidal mission scares the heck out of me). For the Germans, I'd probably choose Skorzeny's commandos.

In the Pacific, the Australian Coastwatchers, though not strictly conventional military, impress me for the same reasons as the British commandos, but even more so. Behind enemy lines, with certain death if caught, and armed with little more than a sidearm and a radio? Whew.

Best Conventional Infantry
ALlies - either the 101st AB or the British 1st AB. Both held out for extended periods against overwhelming odds.

Germans? Hmmm. Probably the Fallschirmjagers for general, overall toughness (nasty opponents in Italy and France).

In the Pacific, I have to agree with Gyrene - the USMC was, IMHO, one of the best overall units in the war.

MrSpkr

[Dunnee]

What about Swaziland's army? they fought so valiantly at "stopthemadness" and "****Ineedadrink". . .look it up, you'll all be much better for it. .

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:
Sigh. Am I really that evil?

Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just tugging your chain smile.gif

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hell, even the most cursory of examinations indicates that the best soldiers of WW2 were the Brazilians.
They are the only nation not to have suffered a serious military fiasco. There were no Brazilian Kharkovs, Kasserines, Dunkerques or Dieppes, no Guadalcanals or Singapores. Just a bunch of Josés doin' a job with little or no recognition. Heros every one of 'em in my book. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Babra, being of Brazilian descent you bring a tear to my eye! Their contribution in fighting men might have been small, but they did capture Mt. Castelo and a German division. Brazil was also a huge source of raw materials for the US during the war.

Gyrene

[litchy]

Don't you get it, the best soldier was his dad, my dad and your dad. After that it doesn't mean anything.

[litchy]

Sorry if I'm taking this too personal, but sometimes as a newbie this forum does seem a litle bit vish.

[WRG]

You're right on the money there, Itchy, there's no bitchier forum anywhere – if the initial question is asinine and infantile enough.

[Moriarty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:
Gen-x87 wrote:
> Oh did I hit a nerve with you?

Were you trying to?

> I am not familiar with who you are. So your last comment doesnt seem to hold much water.
> Want to expand what you mean by "and from someone who holds it, this statement is not at all surprising"

> Have we met before?

What's that got to do with it? First you claimed that Britain and Russia would not have "survived" without the US, and then you claimed that US soldiers "always seem to find a way to win" and are "always inflicting more casualties than the enemy". I simply said that, from someone who had offered one blindly biased opinion, another was no surprise.

> Gee everybody knew they were coming. But they really could not stop it.

Would you like to define "everyone"? The French had a defensive strategy. The Germans outmaneuvred them. The French were not unwilling to fight, they simply lost their main asset straight away.

> Ahh they usually seem to run when the fight comes

Oh right. Good argument.

> I forgot the BEF was not part of the British army.

Read what I said. "The British Army did not return to France in force until Overlord."

> > But too many people seem to be ignorant of the fact that we were fighting in Africa and Asia/Australasia, as well as fending off German air attacks at home, and supporting resistance and partisan operations."

> Quit making excuses.

I beg your pardon? Excuses for what? I'm pointing out that Britain wasn't somehow defeated until the US showed up. Is fighting a war in three theatres while your country is under attack somehow irrelevant?

> I find that statement rather ignorant. Even you have said they were fighting in Africa, SE Asia and at home. It is quite obvious that the British were on the defensive until the U.S. got involved. Actually I wonder how the british would have faired minus the Lend Lease policy with the US.

Did I dispute that we were on the defensive? The point I am making is that we were conducting operations on the other side of the world while we were under attack. Being on the defensive is a long way from being defeated, which is what you claimed Britain and Russia would have been without the US.

> Anywho I think we are now seeing why your anger is showing through in your posts. You appear to be from the region.

You mean Britain? Did I not in my last post use "we" to refer to the British? And if you regard that as a reason for my "anger", you are implying that you would expect your comments to anger the British.

> I suppose singapore being taken, Rommel running about free in Africa and the home front being smashed day in day out can be construed as sustaining.

My particular use of the word "sustain" was in an economic context, as I had in mind comments made by another person on the forum about the British supposedly having no food.

> Well gee let me see. You just admitted it was doubtful the British would have defeated the Axis on thier own. Then say no way is the US the savior? What is wrong with the above paragraph? You obviously needed a savior(US) to get the job done.

> I suppose you can stop thanking us for starving the Japanese of oil to the point where they thought they had to bomb us to get us to the bargaining table

Good heavens. I fully recognise the USA's contribution to the war. If anything I am over-generous in this respect, because so many Americans such as yourself seem to think that the US won the war all by itself and saved the free world in the process. You can spend all day pointing out things the US did, and I will agree with you. But you are claiming that the other Allied countries would have been destroyed without the US, which is nonsense. "I highly doubt England or the Soviets would have survived."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It should also be noted that British convoys kept an awful lot of people supplied with the arms and materiel to keep up the fight against the Axis powers.

Gen-X, the point is quite simple. It was a joint effort. The United States military was slow getting to the party for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was isolationist policies that continued until the time that Japan set the nation's mind straight on an early December Sunday morning. The Europeans (generically includes all UK troops) carried the brunt of the fighting for a long time before the U.S. military got up to speed.

The U.S. did some remarkable things and generally acquitted itself well during the war and especially after, which has been duly noted. But to go on and on in the vein that the U.S. was a the savior of the world is juvenile, unsupported by history and serves little purpose other than to piss off folks who are justifiably tired of this myth.

The United States responded with fresh troops and all the materiel of war, produced by an industrial complex unhindered by the threat of bombing and largely unaffected by worker shortages.

We did what was needed, no more, no less.

[Moriarty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by litchy:
Don't you get it, the best soldier was his dad, my dad and your dad. After that it doesn't mean anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, don't forget my mom, too. U.S. Navy intelligence during WWII, while the old man was a bombardier in the much maligned B-24 Liberator. But this probably isn't the right forum to get into the contribution of the air forces ... unless you remember that tanks ain't worth a damn without ballbearings and oil.

[Mlapanzer]

I would have to say quit simply MEDIC's. This would encompass all nationalities and specialties. Think about it!

[Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mlapanzer:
I would have to say quit simply MEDIC's. This would encompass all nationalities and specialties. Think about it!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger THAT! No medic/corpsman/EMT pays for his own drinks in my bar ever! EVER!

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You're right on the money there, Itchy, there's no bitchier forum anywhere – if the initial question is asinine and infantile enough. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WRG, so are you telling me that my question has no merit what so ever? Why is my question infantile and asinine? I guess the everyone else who made a geniuine post on this thread is also infantile and asinine.

Please enlighten me, I'm keen to hear your mature and astute observations.

Gyrene

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smack:
Canadians (I am one) were an all volunteer army. They went because they wanted too. They also wanted to get the job done....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Canadian Army had thousands of draftees, many of whom refused to serve overseas, and several hundred who mutinied or deserted rather than go to Hong Kong or the Aleutians (never mind Europe).

The Canadian Army was not an all-volunteer army, though the overseas troops in Europe were until about February 1945, when draftees began arriving there, too.

The Zombies (Pierre Elliot Trudeau was one) were those who refused to volunteer.

When Pierre Trudeau visited Normandy on the 40th Anniversary of D-Day, Canadian veterans were heard to shout at him "We didn't need you then, and we don't need you now."

And I still agree that while the arguments for "best Allied troops" are nebulous - none of you has addressed the First Special Service Force. They were, in a word, superb. But of little use in a modern, world-wide conflict - they were disbanded in late 1944 as an unneeded luxury.

Which should tell you that the Allies, as has been discussed before, were aboue QUANTITY - not QUALITY.

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[WRG]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

Please enlighten me, I'm keen to hear your mature and astute observations.

QED.

[Moriarty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra:
Roger THAT! No medic/corpsman/EMT pays for his own drinks in my bar ever! EVER!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hot damn, where's your bar? FF/EMT for 20 years.

[Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moriarty:
Hot damn, where's your bar? FF/EMT for 20 years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sniff. I love you, man. Drop me a line if you're ever in T.O.

Now I must process your turn and kill you some... ;)

[Wesreidau]

So this is what the CM forum has come too?

Ahh for the halcyon days of penetrating grog porn, overly anal analysis and logic *sigh*

PeterNZ

[rleete]

Have to agree with you, there, PeterNZer. It's all getting rather too tame.

[Aloid]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene:
WRG, so are you telling me that my question has no merit what so ever? Why is my question infantile and asinine? I guess the everyone else who made a geniuine post on this thread is also infantile and asinine.

Please enlighten me, I'm keen to hear your mature and astute observations.

Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't see this as infantile or asinine, but it is truly hard to quantify, which pulls in everyone's personal bias, and pisses people off. This leads to infantile bickering and asinine squabling...
;)

I can think of units for just about every nationality (including Germans) that had exeptional moments. Remember, unit performance changed as the fortunes of war changed.

Over-all, my vote for special forces goes to US bomber crews in Europe. (yes, that catagory is a stretch... but man what balls those guys had.)

Aloid

[Mace]

The way to avoid a flame is not to belittle the contribution made by other countries, it's as easy as that.

Mace

btw *Group hug* :D

[BloodyBucket]

First things first:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd have to add the 29th Infantry Division (Omaha and inland), the 28th Infantry Division (Bulge), <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, gunnergoz. I will tell my father, a 28th Infantry vet, that you said that, and he will be touched.

For the best, I nominate every single soldier in every single nation that fought. God forbid that I ever have to hoe a row that tough. Who knows how I would have fared if asked to carry such a heavy burden? I admire them all.

There are black marks aplenty to go around, and each of us has to make judgements about who was right or wrong, but on the level of the individual soldier, I say bless everyone of them. Too bad so many are passing on every day. We are poorer for it.

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The way to avoid a flame is not to belittle the contribution made by other countries, it's as easy as that.
Mace
btw *Group hug* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mace, this thread would be a good case study for Psychology students. They could dissect it to see just when the thing spiralled out of control. lol

Gyrene

[Boba_Fett]

For some reason this topic is rediculous to me. We are talking about real war and real men dying. It's not a god damn game where there are best players and such. They were killing each others for gods' sake. So the question "who was/were the best killing machine" is childish. They did what they had to do and that's it.

[litchy]

Bob or Mr Fett, totally right.

[Gyrene]

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.

If you weren't interested in the grittier aspects of combat you would play a look-down 2D war game.

I did not denigrate any nation with my comments and I will stand by the validity of my original post.

Yes being a good soldier involved being an efficient killing machine. I chose the Japanese for their efficiency, but I hate them for their brutallity against prisoners and civilians. I'm not some blind war-loving freak, I've seen first hand what's left after War is done with people.

I never understood people who come to this forum and play this game and pretend to be some f'ing sensitive, there have been several discussions about the best tanks and the best weapons, but do you forget that there were people inside those tanks and those weapons were used to kill people? Maybe if you only talk about the tools you can have a pretty, sanitized picture in your head about what those tools were used for.

If War of the discussion of War offends you, then I'd recommend you try a different game and a different forum, and in the mean time avoid this thread and any like this one altogether and leave me and the people who understood my original intent alone.

Gyrene

[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ]

[offtaskagain]

Well said Gyrene.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene:
Yes being a good soldier involved being an efficient killing machine. I chose the Japanese for their efficiency, but I hate them for their brutallity against prisoners and civilians. [ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not so sure they were "efficient" in the normal senses of the word. The fact that they were unafraid to die made them a very potent enemy, to be sure. This distinguished him from his western counterpart in very meaningful ways - and would account for his success at killing large numbers of his enemies. Yet he didn't win any land battles in the Southern Pacific after June 1942 (did he?).

They were truly a mysterious people; their nation came to maturity in isolation, but you can still see traces of their WW II ideas (such as Bushido) in the modern Japanese nation. Look at the suicide rates among their over achieving businesspersons and students. They were, and are, a very driven people, and in the 1940s, brutality was a fact of life for the Japanese themselves - NCOs were permitted to strike junior soldiers; something unheard of in the west. Look what happened to Patton after the slapping incidents. In the Japanese Army, it was a matter of course - and this was transferred to their prisoners. While you can't condone their treatment of prisoners, you can make some semblance of sense if you realize how cheap human life was to them, and how physical violence was seen as acceptable.

None of which makes them efficient killers; on the contrary their anitquated equipment and sometimes ridiculous tactics (banzai, anyone?) means that while they made Allied troops pay dearly for their victories, it cost them far more than a European army would have paid (or been willing to).

The Germans, on the other hand, fought skillfully on the defence, making use of natural obstacles and booby traps - and being smart enough (generally speaking) to abandon positions that could not be defended. He lost as badly as the Japanese in the end, but he inflicted casualties at a more acceptable ratio.

[ 05-02-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Stalin's Organist]

Gyrene whether you denigrated anyone or not, or intended to or not, is not the point.

the very nature of this thread means that people must compare the "performance" of various troops and nationalities, so it was always going to degenerate!

Even just by saying "xyz is the best" without saying anything else you are opening up an argument although that may not be your intention.

[Berlichtingen]

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

...For the Germans, I'd probably choose Skorzeny's commandos.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not too sure about Skorzeny. There is a good deal of evidence suggesting that Skorzeny was more a 'Propaganda' commando. The credit for the famous Mussolini rescue should probably go to Major Mors' men (1st Company of a Fallschirmjäger training battalion) who actually conducted the operation rather than Skorzeny who tagged along. A more impressive commando action by the Germans would be the capture of Eben Emael by Sturmabteilung 'Koch' in 1940.

[Gyrene]

Michael, first off thank you for the excellent, educated reply.

I fully understand Japan's 1900's distortion of the Code of Bushido and that the Japanese themselves fuly expect to be treated the same way if they were captured, but I still don't approve of it, or the war crimes commited by SS troops. (Please note I said SS and not "German Army")

Yes, Marines mistreated and often executed many of the few Japanese prisoners they captured.

You are right about the Japanese not being efficient as the war progressed, but considering after 1943 their mission was to cause as much damage as possible before their own inevitable demise, they were successful at that.

I agree that the German Army was extremely efficient (I read somewhere their casualty received to given ratio was the best of the war, early Russian Front numbers might have tipped the scales, though.) and was probably the best, bar none from 1940-1944.

Its a well known fact that many Japanese stragglers continued to fight the war for decades after the War ended, that is a loyalty that will probably remain unmatched. (However misguided)

Gyrene

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike the bike:
Gyrene whether you denigrated anyone or not, or intended to or not, is not the point.

the very nature of this thread means that people must compare the "performance" of various troops and nationalities, so it was always going to degenerate!

Even just by saying "xyz is the best" without saying anything else you are opening up an argument although that may not be your intention.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It is possible to discuss who was the better trained, equipped and led, without discussing who was more brave. Anyone who faced enemy fire without running - be it from a K98 or a 20 mm AA gun - was brave.

Berlichtingen - good point about Skorzeny. I often wonder what real effect his efforts in the Bulge had. Beyond the moral (and the jitteriness that spread through US lines) I am led to believe not much. Seems to me they caught a lot of the US-disguised guys flatfooted.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Berlichtingen - good point about Skorzeny. I often wonder what real effect his efforts in the Bulge had. Beyond the moral (and the jitteriness that spread through US lines) I am led to believe not much. Seems to me they caught a lot of the US-disguised guys flatfooted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In terms of their mission, Skorzeny's operation during the Bulge was a complete failure. It did have some unintended side effects that could be considered possitive from the German point of view. Skorzeny's othr 'big' operation IIRC was the attack on Tito's HQ... another failure

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by me:
Ok, my choice goes to the USMC in the Pacific, and the German Fallschirmjägers elsewhere<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought I would elaborate:

I say USMC, because I was a Marine, and to say otherwise would be inappropriate smile.gif

As to the Fallschirmjäger... they were Germany's true fire brigade. Where ever the fire was hottest, you would find the Fallschirmjäger. Their list of achievements during the war is truly impressive.

[Gyrene]

Berlichtingen, a good parallel between the Fallschirmjäger and the USMC was that both were also fighting for institutional survival.

Both had a very tough fight just to prove that they were needed, the Fallschirmjäger after they lost their airborne missions and the USMC to prove that their duties couldn't be filled by the Army.

Gyrene

[Skipper]

Okay, if anyone wants a flame war, here is some fuel for that. smile.gif No name calling, and I positively refuse to talk in "the best anything" terms. So...

Germans did not consider "an average GI" as the toughest opponent they had to face. Far from it - Western Front posting was considered as a vacation after Eastern Front (well, almost). On the contrary, Eastern Front posting was regularly used as a punishment.

Soviets held quite low opinion about fighting capability of the Japanese army that they crushed in Manchuria (although they recognised the fanaticism).

Germans had about 80 million, USSR - about 190. However, a few more countries fought along Germans in the Eastern Front, another quite a few had their industries and agriculture working flat out for the German war effort, and USSR has lost 6 million of the regular army in summer 1941. And they still won after all that.

Hitler was neither a military idiot, nor a genius. He was a leadership genius, however. Without his leadership, germans would be unable to do much of anything in WWII (which, IMHO, was likely to happen anyway). He distrusted many of his own generals, for a good reason. There were more than one attempt to stage a putch against him by the miiltary during the war.

Western allies started fighting seriously in Europe when the outcome of the war was already more or less decided. It just made the end quicker, more decisive and somewhat less attractive for Uncle Joe Stalin smile.gif

Lend-lease food, trucks and other stuff were very important to Red Army success in 1942-43, no doubt about it. It did not play a big part in 1941 events, however - neither Barbarossa, nor Soviet counteroffensive in Moscow. Ie, Barbarossa failed virtually without western allies involvement.

In 1942-45 Germans did not inflict unusually heavy casualties on the Soviet Army.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

As to the Fallschirmjäger... they were Germany's true fire brigade. Where ever the fire was hottest, you would find the Fallschirmjäger. Their list of achievements during the war is truly impressive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tut tut---Grossdeutschland was renowned as "die Feuerwehr" and prided themselves on that distinction. You wouldn't call a Marine a Green Devil, now would you?

;)

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
You wouldn't call a Marine a Green Devil, now would you?

;)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mother Green and her killing machine or Devil Dogs

Well, its close smile.gif

[tank buster]

Hey lets not forget the US Rangers, not to mention the Brandenburg Kommandos, Morrocan 2nd Infantry and the Algerian 3rd Infantry. As well as the Morrocan 4th Inf thats only if were rating intestional fortitude. :D

[Dunnee]

Wasn't Robocop the best killing machine? He racked up like 350 kills in his movies. . .

[Skipper]

What was the name of the guy who dropped a first A-bomb?

On the appraisal of Hitler's personality and abilities, I'd refer anyone to Churchill's monumental "World War II".

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the Fallschirmjäger after they lost their airborne missions<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But why? Because they got their arses kicked on Crete that's why :D

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What was the name of the guy who dropped a first A-bomb? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pilot of the Enola Gay? Paul Tibetts?

Gyrene

[Skipper]

Yup, that's the one. Unsurpassed for the "killing machine" so far. Btw, I am sure he was one of the finest bomber pilots, too. They should have picked him for a reason.

[Warmaker]

Is it true that a bunch of the Enola Gay crew went crazy or something in the years to follow when they realized how many people they killed and the way it was done? Just curious...

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Is it true that a bunch of the Enola Gay crew went crazy or something in the years to follow when they realized how many people they killed and the way it was done? Just curious... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Paul Tibetts had some emotional problems after the mission, especially due to the fact his name is the only one that ever comes up. The bombardier never gets mentioned and he pulled the trigger.

Gyrene

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pritzl:
Dr. Brian, Why do you think that many of the German army's training methods, and tactics are emulated today by military forces such as the United States?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say that ... so you're putting words, or ideas, into me that are not true.

The ORIGINAL question was the "best" soldier. Just because tactics emenated from a nation, doesn't make them the best at it.

Oh, and for everyone else blaming Hitler for the Germans losing the war, that's B.S. Please, stop with the excuses already. It perpetuates the myth.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper:
Lend-lease food, trucks and other stuff were very important to Red Army success in 1942-43, no doubt about it. It did not play a big part in 1941 events, however - neither Barbarossa, nor Soviet counteroffensive in Moscow. Ie, Barbarossa failed virtually without western allies involvement.
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You consider the Battle of Britain, France, Norway, Greece, North Africa, and the North Atlantic "without western involvement"?

I will the first to say the the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting in WW2, but they hardly did it alone.

Hypothetical: How strong would the German military be in the summer of 1941 if they had not fought the Battle of Britain? If Germany did not sink massive resources into their surface raiding fleet? If they did not need to try to close the Atlantic with U-Boats? How strong would they have been if they had not invaded Greece just weeks prior to their invasion of the USSR? How much further would they have gotten in that critical first summer if they had started 2 weeks earlier? A month earlier?

Modern wars are not won or lost solely on the basis of raw numbers of men killed.

Jeff Heidman

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike721:
Jeff Heidman,

You make some good points, particularly about the radios. My point was simply that the "myth" that the Germans were initially successful due to their superior equipment is false. They were successful due to their tactics and training as well as their attitude towards training NCOs. someone previously had mentioned that he was tired of the "myth" of superior German training. I was just addressing that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The myth is not superior training.

It's the myth that the Germans are vastly superior. They are not. It is easy to beat up and look superior to Denmark, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, et al., as they were "backwards" when it came to military implementation.

The "great" German military successes were against these noble, yet very weak nations. They are not "great" except in the minds of the perpetuators of the myth. If Germany beat the U.S. or U.S.S.R, the proof would then be unequivocal.

I don't think anyone (at least not me) is taking a good, sound, military idea away. However, a better military doctrine is to take the good idea, modify it to your advantages, and use it. Rather like the Boyd Cycle… keeping your opponent off-balance. The U.S. did that, and the U.S.S.R did that as well. They adapted to the situation, while the German didn't. A good military tactic, is the ability to adapt.

Germany did not.

[Gyrene]

All the flaming that went on in this thread made me think of one thing:

Could you imagine the chaos that would ensue if BTS made morale values a public number like in ASL? It would create a civil disturbance...

"6??? What do you mean US Infantry only gets a morale of 6????" smile.gif

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

Gyrene

[Olle Petersson]

Interesting question this about the best soldiers...

I find it very hard to pick which unit performed most above expectations when all factors regarding equipment and support is subtracted. (US infantry (including USMC) usually did well, but they also typically had very good armour, artillery and air support when doing it. How big factor this was I won't even try to guess.)

My shot at best regular soldiers must be the Gurkhas. Nothing but regular Napalese infantry in British service...

Best special unit must be that British guy that deceived the Germans about the D-day invasion. He fooled them completely, and managed to do so although he was dead at the time! :D
Other than that the British paratroopers in Arnhem did far beyond what could be expected, given their lack of everything but skill and guts.

Cheers
Olle

[tss]

Berlichtingen wrote:
6th... the 9th was a Panzer Division

I don't participate on debates about "best soldiers" because I've seen so many of them to degenerate into pure flamefests.

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.

(About 24 hours after the division begun its attack its commander sent a report to his superiors stating that "he didn't believe that the division could carry out offensive operations").

- Tommi

[aussie]

in reply to stalins organ:australian troops did not leave the north african campaign to take part in the far east fighting... one division did, the others remained and took part in the battle of el alemain, which as an example in time lining,, if you look at an historical calander will show you that the two campaigns were simulataneous.
one mite smugly point out that they certainly stayed in north africa for some time longer then the axis forces opposed to them!!!!!
i would not wish to "flame" as it is against both the rules here and my nature, but i do feel that when a person makes certain comments, be it from lack of historical educational advantage, or simply a rush of blood to the head, that such comment is in itself, "falammable"!!
to clear up the matter about militia and conscriptiuon of aust. forces.: the militao forces stationed in png, yes, a sort of ares, were the firat to face the japanese forces there. later, concsrciptiuon was brought in on the basis of conscription to the militia only, whereby the current law was that militia units could only be "sent" to fight in australian territory,, which was taken at the time to mean only continental australia..... the labour gov, under john curtain, brought an interpretation into rule that considered png to be part of australias front line defence, after the abandoment of the "brisbane line" mentallity, and therefore men "conscripted " into the ",militia" could be and were sent to fight in png.
therefore by default, yes conscripts were sent to fight for the first time in australian history.
an interesting aside is the fierce regimental loyalty that militia units fostered, mostly from the volunteers,, and later the government sought to amalgamate militia units into the aif,,, fearing a loss of identity, this move was hotly opposed.
lastly, on the subject of japanese supply problems, yes they were a tad overextended, due to interdiction of their main supply routes, mainly achieved by U.S naval and or amphibious operations , suppoorted by AUSTRALIAN destroyers, cruisers, fighter and bomber aircraft,, u dont just shoot an enemy out of position u know, starvation is one of mankinds oldest weapons, and not to be scoffed at,, as is the counter attacking of an overextended enemy.

[Mark IV]

Random thoughts:

Zhukhov held the Japanese armor in low regard, but not the Japanese army. Perhaps we should read the whole story of Nomonhan?

Japan had butted in to the 20th century as the sole non-white power who played the colonial/military game just like Euro-Americans, and they did it by hammering Russia out of Manchuria and Korea, sinking both their fleets in the process. It was a bloody, violent war, which the Russians lost in every tactical sense. It was also a war in which Japan was frequently commended by the many foreign observers for its chivalry on the battlefield... the hideous atrocities of WWII were a later development of the ideologues who assumed control of Japanese society between the World Wars. Read up before you knee-jerk to this one.

At any rate, Russia had some scores to settle and did so in 1939 with deep satisfaction. They were also very glad to sign an armistice with an opponent they knew and respected, to free up the forces for a gathering storm in Europe. Through most of the war they denied permission to the US to use their bases for strikes against Japan (even while the Lend-Lease shipments were flowing in), because they felt one war was sufficient.

Rant, the Second: The notion that German tactics failed to adapt is contrary to everything I've read on the subject. Whether every possible adaptation was successfully made is not even worth debating, but the evolution of German tactics throughout the war is (I thought) self-evident. Care to cite some specifics to support this claim?

[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. tongue.gif

[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. tongue.gif 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.
tongue.gif<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.

[Stalin's Organist]

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! :D

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.

[Stalin's Organist]

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.

[Andrew H.]

As I think several people have pointed out, it doesn't make sense to describe which nation's army was best because the armies were so inconsistent. It only makes sense to discuss which units were best, and even then only at a particular period of time.

As an example of "good" US troops, I would include the units in the (I think) 28th ID who, when they were cut off by advancing German forces, fell back and set up scratch defensive forces in various villages and greatly delayed the German attack. This despite often not having air cover, not knowing how many troops were attacking, and not having received any orders (indeed, in many cases, HQ thought that these units were wiped out and only learned of their existence when scouts found them). I would also add the 101st airborne at Bastogne and elsewhere, as well as the 82d airborne at Arnhem. I would exclude the troops who fought at Kasserine pass.

You get similar inconsistencies with the Germans. The Germans who fought in June-July 44 in Normandy were often very good soldiers: they held out for a long time against overwhelming allied material superiority, but nevertheless gave ground slowly...and often took back some of the land they gave up with a quick counterattack against numerically superior forces. But I would exclude from the "best" category many of the later war VG formations.

You find these disparities among almost all forces that fought, even the Finns. Some Finnish troops, for example, could disable Sov. tanks by using toothpicks, but the less elite forces often were only able to disable tanks by using pliers or even crowbars. ;)

[Londoner]

Frankly I'm surprised BTS hasn't closed this thread. One of the first things I learned at uni was, never be afraid to question the credibility of the question. As a question "best soldiers of WW2?" is BS. Its so vague is plain stupid.
Every nation has combat units/formations which could cite amazing feats of "combat effectiveness". All this nationalistic crap is mind numbingly boring.

Since the thread starter has persisted with his flawed question, gleefully disregarding the arguments against it, I may as well add my 2p.

IMO certain Australian and New Zealander units were the most "combat effective" Allied troops of WW2. Not because they were genetically "tough" or "superior", but for their background. These guys lived a life that was about as close to an infantryman's routine as you could find outside of military life. They were given good (for the time) combat training and their infantry weapons were solid, if not outstanding.
Also, for the most part they adopted the "warrior myth/code" more wholeheartdly than other Allied combat troops (see An Intimate History of Killing, J. Bourke). Furthermore Australian and NZ units were regularly in action against large numbers (relative to their own) of the most experienced, well trained/led/equiped combat troops of WW2, the Germans.

Along with the Australians the Japanese arguably had, although for differing reasons, the best "natural aptitude" for a combat infantryman. However this alone is not enough to make a soldier "combat effective" in modern times, as the Japanese painfully found out.

I dont want to anger the Captain Americas here, but you are complete morons to compare operations against half-starved, poorly equiped, badly led troops, ie the Japanese, to land warfare against the Germans in WW2. Ok, so the US fought the Germans too, as so many of you kindly point out. Yawn, all Allied efforts are dwarfed in comaprison to the Soviet effort. It was the Russians who broke the back of the German war machine's biggest asset, namely the Wehrmacht. Lets be clear about this, it was NOT the GI or the intervention of the US military. I shudder to think of the numbers Russian soldiers who bravely and skillfully fought and died against the most dangerous land army of the era, despite the corrupt, calous and incompetent system that suposedly "supported" them.

The number of "USMC is best/GI's kick ass, Rangers rocked here etc" posts is plain silly and offensive. However thats partly the fault of the question.

Dont get me wrong, of course there were some tough US combat infantry units in WW2, but you havn't convinced me that they are any "better" than x number of other very "combat effective" units in WW2. In fact you havn't really tried, you've just asked the question, who are the "best soldiers of WW2?" and added USMC are best. I would expect a child to come up with a thread like this. Arrgggghhh the question is silly, I'm wasting my time ffs. Thankyou to those Americans who have taken the time to point out that not everyone in the US is as historically ignorant as some would have me believe after reading this thread.

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:
[QB]I would also add the 101st airborne at Bastogne and elsewhere, as well as the 82d airborne at Arnhem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't you mean the Brit 1st AB at Arnhem?

[Mikael]

Is it true that an Italian unit advancing in Greece once attempted an assault on a factory, and was made to retreat by workers who possessed only nails, hammers and crowbars?

[BloodyBucket]

originally posted by Andrew Hedges:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As an example of "good" US troops, I would include the units in the (I think) 28th ID who, when they were cut off by advancing German forces, fell back and set up scratch defensive forces in various villages and greatly delayed the German attack. This despite often not having air cover, not knowing how many troops were attacking, and not having received any orders (indeed, in many cases, HQ thought that these units were wiped out and only learned of their existence when scouts found them). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's two mentions of the Bloody Bucket Division. My Old Man will be tickled.

I still maintain that you can't pick a "best" soldier/country/unit during WWII. My opinion would be too clouded by nationalism, plain ignorance of outstanding performances by lesser known contenders, and my love of the USMC.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader:
Is it true that an Italian unit advancing in Greece once attempted an assault on a factory, and was made to retreat by workers who possessed only nails, hammers and crowbars?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I'm sure it is. Did you know turkeys will look straight up in the rain to drink, and drown? I was chased home by a hoop-snake this afternoon. Well, actually it was someone I knew, but they're not the kind to make something up. Quit your day job and make millions with your home computer in a few hours a day!

[BloodyBucket]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Quit your day job and make millions with your home computer in a few hours a day! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Tell me more. How come I haven't heard of this before? ;)

[Simon Fox]

I didn't notice that Aussies had cropped up in this thread until I noticed aussie's post on this page.

Going back though I think it's funny (and typical) that the Aussies here weren't beating their chests (unlike those marines :D and sundry other types) but were quick to jump to the defence of the diggers when some ill informed and ignorant comments were made by that organ bloke.

The militia issue is even more complicated than has been made out. Basically the AIF was an all volunteer force raised for overseas service, they were not the "regular" army. The AIF comprised men with no military backround, regulars and some from the militia (officially the CMF, Citizens Military Forces, pre war part time soldiers). For various reasons, those who did not want to go off and fight for the poms, or maybe required for home defence etc stayed in the militia. So the AIF was an expeditionary force and the 'militia' was the home defence force. It was possible to volunteer for the militia or the AIF and many did. When the threat to Australia became more direct then conscription was instituted and the conscripts went into the militia, but the militia was not a conscript force.

The militia was not an ill led or poorly trained force in general. Many of the militia units had a proud heritage because their antecendants were the units which fought in WW1. The two forces were not completely distinct, especially the officers swapped back and forth.

There was considerable disdain in the AIF for the militia units since they considered themselves the elite. But as the Pacific fighting wore on this generally diminished.

On the subject of the Kokoda Trail both militia and AIF units fought in the fighting retreat over the Owen Stanley Range. The Japanese had overwhelming superiority both in numbers and firepower. General Horii's South Seas Force comprised veteran Japanese troops, at least a division was used in the campaign. The 39th battalion (militia) bore the brunt of the initial attacks and performed well, it was generally a well trained and led unit. The 53rd battalion (militia) was inadequately trained having been used mainly as dockworkers in Port Moresby prior to being sent up the Trail. Hardly suprisingly they performed poorly although later they became a very good unit (as is the case with troops of any nationality when well led and trained). The three battalions of 21st brigade were AIF units, veterans of the Syrian campaign. The epic retreat of these units across the Owen Stanley Ranges, all the while inflicting heavy casualties on the Japanese by aggressive action and giving sufficient time for fresh units to be brought into Port Moresby, ranks as one of the finest feats of Australian arms in WW2. Not the least of which is the outstanding leadership of Brigadier Potts who ignored the cretinous orders eminating from MacArthur's headquarters and fought the battle his own way. Later both militia (3rd Btn) and AIF units (25th brigade) took over and finished the job.

My vote for best performing Aussie units in WW2 goes to the Independent Companies or Commando Squadrons. In addition to their patrolling and intelligence gathering activities they fought some outstanding offensive battles against superior Japanese forces completely routing them.

The worst thing that happened to the Aussies in WW2: getting out from under the Brits and Churchill's crazy schemes only to be lumbered with that clown MacArthur :D

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Frankly I'm surprised BTS hasn't closed this thread. One of the first things I learned at uni was, never be afraid to question the credibility of the question. As a question "best soldiers of WW2?" is BS. Its so vague is plain stupid.
Every nation has combat units/formations which could cite amazing feats of "combat effectiveness". All this nationalistic crap is mind numbingly boring. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I find plain stupid is that someone like Londoner has this desperate need to get things fired up in this thread again, especially after more than 30 other members joined in on the thread with great comments well after the original flames had died down. I'd call that more childish than asking what units were better.

Now as you will all bear witness I was being blatantly nationalistic for choosing one American unit out of my four choices. Why Am I not hearing any crap over my choice of the Gurkhas or the SAS? It's because Britain-centric bufoons like Londoner get their panties in a wad over any and all mentions of the US doing anything right at all.

He goes on to voice his choices of the Aussies and New Zealanders as his pick, and both are very valid and I accept them without having to blunt the valor of their opponents.

Then he goes on to make sweeping, generalized statements about how their life was the most like being in the infantry (Having to run from cover to cover at home, I guess...) and how they adopted the "Warrior Spirit" the most of all Allies, etc.

Well, I am just a child, so carry on.

Gyrene

[Major Tom]

Actually, I think that the South Seas Detachment (the first one) by the time of the Kokoda trail operation was composed of two regiments and accompanying engineers and artillery (more of a reinforced Brigade than a Division). The troops were veterans, but, only of the war from 1941-1942. They came from the 55th, or 56th Divisions, which were garrison divisions from Japan, not formations that fought in China. Their troops were well trained, and experienced in the relatively bloodless occupation of North New Guinea, the Solomans and New Britain. They were probably as experienced as the troops from the Australian 7th Division. However, the troops from the 30th Brigade were green militia.

All and all an interesting engagement with initiative going from one side to another and back again.

[Stalin's Organist]

Yeah, well as a Kiwi (that's a New Zealander to you foreigners :D) I think "Londoner's" remarks weer a little over the top.

NZ & Aus had different nationaly psyche from the "Old country" (ie the UK), and thsi showed in some of the attitudes of the fighting men as you'd expect.

But certainly NZ'ers of WW2 were not living a life "closer to that of infantry" than anyone else that I know of. NZ was an agrarian nation, but most of the pop'n lived in urban aeras. Certainly there were many farmers and labourers in the forces, but farmers were actually a protected occupation from teh outset, and farm labourers also later on.

When several thousand NZ soldiers returned home on leave in 1943 they found conditions so cushy here that many of them mutinied and refused to return - their cry was "no man twice until all men once" - a fair sentiment most of us would agree I think, but not exactly the warrior's call to arms!

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Mike the bike ]

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike the bike:
Yeah, well as a Kiwi (that's a New Zealander to you foreigners :D) I think "Londoner's" remarks weer a little over the top.

NZ & Aus had different nationaly psyche from teh "Old country" (ie the UK), and thsi showed in some of the attitudes of the fighting men as you'd expect.

But certainly NZ'ers of WW2 were not living a life "closer to that of infantry" than anyone else that I know of. NZ was an agrarian nation, but most of the pop'n lived in urban aeras. Certainly there were many, many farmers and labourers in hte forces, but farmers were actually a protected occupation from teh outset, and farm labourers also later on.

When several thousand NZ soldiers returned home on leave in 1943 they found conditions so cushy here that many of them mutinied and refued to return - their cry was "no man twice until all men once" - a fair sentiment most of us would agree I think, but not exactly the warrior's call to arms!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The same nonsense is often said about Canadians too - that they were all outdoorsmen and natural soldiers. The truth was far from the myth. This entire thread seems like a repetition of myths - from the all-volunteer Canadian Army to the invincible German.

Perhaps if we narrowed the focus, the discussion might be more worthwhile.

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:
Actually, I think that the South Seas Detachment (the first one) by the time of the Kokoda trail operation was composed of two regiments and accompanying engineers and artillery (more of a reinforced Brigade than a Division). The troops were veterans, but, only of the war from 1941-1942. They came from the 55th, or 56th Divisions, which were garrison divisions from Japan, not formations that fought in China. Their troops were well trained, and experienced in the relatively bloodless occupation of North New Guinea, the Solomans and New Britain. They were probably as experienced as the troops from the Australian 7th Division. However, the troops from the 30th Brigade were green militia.


All and all an interesting engagement with initiative going from one side to another and back again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well IJA organisations are pretty flexible so it's sometimes hard to nut out exactly what was there. Maybe you have better information than me but what I have read suggests at least some of the Japanese force were veterans of China in addition to having fought on Rabaul etc. Anyway after the initial landing of around 7000 troops (about 2600 combat) the eventual force rose to about 13,500 troops which is not far short of a division. I beleive in addition to the army troops there were about 1500 or more SNLF troops. This force was initially faced by one battalion (the 39th)who acquitted themselves fairly well considering they mainly had WW1 lewis guns as their section LMGs :( Later in their retreat they were joined gradually by the 3 battalions of the 20th Brigade.

[tank buster]

Moroccan 4th Mountain Division
One of the most impressive fighting units of the entire war.
The Algerians and Moroccans of the French Expeditionary Corps were the troops most directly responsible for making the decisive breakthrough, which led to the German decision to withdraw from Monte Cassino.

:eek:

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Londoner:
I dont want to anger the Captain Americas here, but you are complete morons to compare operations against half-starved, poorly equiped, badly led troops, ie the Japanese, to land warfare against the Germans in WW2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I'm more of a Green Hornet type.

Would those "half-starved, poorly equiped, badly led troops" be the same people who over-ran Malaya & Singapore, Hong-Kong, Burma, most of New Guinea, and sank the Prince of Wales and Repulse --- and still attempted an invasion of India as late as 1944?

Yr right, there is no comparison between the Germans and Japanese: The Germans would surrender in the face of insurmountable odds, while the Japanese (as "half-starved and poorly equiped" as may be) fought on to the last man.

Look at the bloody nose the 12th SS (Hitler Jugend) gave the Brits --- then imagine if all German units had been that fanatical. Multiply that by 100 and you might understand what the Marines went through in the Pacific.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Perhaps if we narrowed the focus, the discussion might be more worthwhile.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The reason I still follow this thread are the genuinely interesting posts amoung the nonsense

[Skipper]

> by late 1945 the Kwantung Army (IJA in
> Manchuria) was a shell of it's former
> self.

Yes, but I am talking about what soviet officers thought about their opponents' tactical skills in combnined arms warfare, not about their numbers or anything like that. And basically, after five years of fighting germans, japanese did not seem up to par.

> My uncle in fact was captured by the
> Soviets and spent three years in the Gulag
> near Lake Baikal.

Baikal. Not the worst place of them all. If you take a look at diesel vs petrol thread, I lived in a house built by Japanese POWs. Very good house, by the way. Double walls and everything.

Btw, Gulag was Department of Camps, NKVD. Your uncle should have been a client of a different organisation, namely Department of POWs, NKO.

> Didn't sound like much fun to me...
I guess so. At least, he survived.

[Stalin's Organ]

von Lucke I think you'll find far fewer accounts of Japanese actually fighting to the last man than you think.

Often they just died as huddled masses in the bottom of bunkers - sure they refused to surrender, but often they had long since stopped actually fighting. Many also committed suicide rather than surrender - again they did not actually _fight_ to the last man.

Even the infamous "banzai" charges sometimes involveds trops fairly blindly charging forwards without trying to fight very much.

[Skipper]

> I too dislike myths,
> and as such lets fix one.

Ahem, let's see.

> 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 there was no such reason, the war would be over in a few weeks.

> It was the Superior Training of those tank
> commanders, and their ability to Adapt.

It was Combat Experience (Poland), better C&C and better operational doctrine, more than anything else. Germans' pre-war tank crew training program was in no way superior to, let's say, Soviet.

> 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!

I seriously doubt that German officers did not know about Matildas well before they started in France.

> why a 20:1 kills ratio against Russia?
Never happened. If you are talking about LOSS ratio for summer 1941, then keep in mind that majority of soviet losses were POWs. The reason was encirclement and panic.

> How can one German machinegun battalion
> take 30,000 Russian prisoners?
See above.

> 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.

Russia had much bigger and better army than USA in 1941. USA is a big island, if you see what I mean.

> It was the experience earned in the
> beginning, by training and ability, that
> would be combined with superior equipment
> in the end,

Errmm... Superior? In the end???

> that allowed Germany to last as long as it
> did against three major powers, plus
> several minor ones.

It was several lines of fortifications combined with an ability to pull off active defence. Btw, Germany was not alone. Far from it.

> And in the end, it is easy to see it only
> took one man to defeat Germany. And his
> name is Adolf Hitler.

Man, that's BS. You should've mentioned at least another two: Gen. Mud and Gen. Frost. redface.gif To quote yourself "I too dislike myths".

> Had he chose Moscow, he would have cut the
> nations only transportation and
> communications center.

Only????? When posting on this board, it is sometimes useful to take a peek at the globe. Hitler's decision to go after Ukraine was, in all likelihood, correct. There were several valid reasons, one being that there was a reserve command and communicatons center on mid Volga, built in 1930s. If parteigenosse (sp?) Guderian didnt know about it when he was writing his tale, it was not the only thing he did not know (or failed to mention, anyway).

> IF Russia could have continued at all.
From all indications, it could.

[Londoner]

Von Lucke, fanatisism counts for little without the right equipment, tactics and leadership.

The thread starter, no I wasn't reviving a flame you fool, I was simply giving my, as you point out somewhat over-generalised opinion. I wasn't attempting to write an essay on Australian combat motivation or effectiveness for god sake, I was trying to give a quick summary of my thoughts regarding your question. Obviously I dont think every Aussie trooper was an outdoor, rugged, type, and no I dont think that automatically makes a good soldier. Of course anything I can say in a few paragraphs will be somewhat generalised. Also, if I don't like your question i'm surely entitled to tell you so, no? Don't you see its flawed and inviting nationalistic nonsense? You could have at least worded it more clearly. Furthermore, I spent almost a year researching, with the help of a PHD student, what made combat infantryman fight in WW2. This doesn't make me an expert, but it did give me some insight into the subject. As Mr Dorosh points out, this argument needs to be narrowed down. I would argue, to understand what makes troops perform in combat conditions, you have to look at combat motivation. So heres a rather wordy account/argument I wrote, discussing US combat motivation in WW2. It was graded a 2:1 by the KCL War Studies Dept. If you are interested in an opinion that isn't simplfied to a few paragraphs, on what made a good US combat infantryman, read on...( I want to ignore all US involvment/achievements in WW2 you say? Why in hell would I waste a year studying the US combat infantryman in WW2 you moron.)

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

[Flipper]

uhhh...I think i can have fun with this thread...well first of all general montgomery
was a nimrod! so......I guess all english soldier's as well as english people in general are disqaulified from being considered as intellingent, second the japaneses are alway's squinting so that make's them nearsighted so...i guess they don't aim so well,the italian's dance in the street's when their country declare's war..an dance in the street's when they surrender..so that make's them the ultimate jellyfish!...the french fight badly for six week's then surrender an those that don't escape the country claim to fight for the resistance when the war is over so that make's them braggart's...The russian's surrender in mass fight like hell get mowed down like hell an then rape half the country side that make's them human...so I setlle for a tie between the american's an german's.

[Londoner]

American Combat Motivation in World War Two.

Over the past fifty-five years many theories for combat motivation in World War Two have been put forward. Dinter argued in his book Hero or Coward, that humans are innately aggressive. He went on to argue that this aggression can be used effectively if military training is tough and realistic, reminiscent of the Fuller and Hart era. However, in many academic’s minds, the modern battlefield has made this argument ambiguous. Historians such as Ambrose, Holmes, and in the last two years, Bourke and Linderman argue that Comradeship, particularly the primary group had become the most important factor in combat motivation by World War Two. The eminent Paul Fussell remarked, men ‘will attack only if young, athletic, credulous, and sustained by some equivalent of the buddy system.’ Most contemporary commentators tend to agree with this theory, especially where British and American Armies were concerned. Others, such as Forster believe that ideology, principally in regimes with excessive propaganda, played an important role. Bidwell argues that race and ethnicity are important motivators. According to him, ‘martial races’ like the Irish have a natural aptitude for military operations. Strachan emphasised discipline and terror, (in German and Russian soldiers), kept men fighting in extreme conditions. Keegan also added his “big man" theory to the debate which reverts back to the individual approach rather than group paradigms. Linderman on the other hand argued that an animal like coarsening and eventual brutalisation simply took hold of most American combat infantrymen, turning them into robot-like brutes.

There are psychiatrists, historians, psychologists, soldiers, politicians, sociologists and many more miscellaneous commentators who have provided a wide variety of answers to the question of combat motivation in World War Two. However, the aforementioned factors seem the most recurrent and well-studied theories. None of which are mutually excusive, but the relative importance of these ideas have caused heated controversy.

The Primary Group Unravelled.
However, certain assumptions have been made. Janowitz and Shils argued that the primary group was the key motivator in the German army of 1939-45. Bartov and Strachan both dismissed this idea, pointing out, high levels of attrition shattered units relatively quickly. Bartov substitutes the primary group, for harsh discipline (15,00 German soldiers were executed during World War Two) and terror of the enemy, as the primary combat motivator. Bartov and Strachan also argue that the same can be said of the Soviet Army. The Soviet Army suffered almost eleven and a half million active service personnel killed in Action and a further eighteen million wounded in action. Seventy five percent of which fell on the rifle companies, thus decimating them many times over. In 1941 Stalin decreed ruthless punishment for desertion, panic mongering and surrender. Families of soldiers who deserted would be arrested and families of those taken prisoner would lose state benefit. Also NKVD “holding detachments” were placed behind the frontlines to deter would-be deserters. Again discipline and terror were, according to Bartov and Strachan, of fundamental importance to Soviet combat motivation. However, Beevor remarked that many actions involved supreme sacrifice, which could not be explained by merely discipline and terror. However, arguably revenge and hate made up for many of the acts that Beevor cites. As Erickson pointed out, the driving force behind Soviet combat motivation was an all-consuming hatred of the Germans, personalised by millions who had seen for themselves or suffered through their families, what German rule had done.

The reasons for German and Russian combat motivation are not central to the question. They are used to highlight and question the relevance of comradeship and the primary group. Some commentators are acknowledging that comradeship was not the most salient factor in the motivation of certain Armies in the Second World War, (Bartov writing in 1992 and Strachan in 1997). However, most historians still hold the view that discipline, terror and hate do not explain American combat motivation. Discipline was certainly a contributor but the severity of military discipline had declined significantly over the one hundred years preceding World War Two. The US Army executed a handful of men. While probably more important than many believe, discipline, terror and hate was much less of a factor in American combat motivation. Comradeship is purportedly the fundamental variable in motivating young British and American men in World War Two. Ellis commented that Western armies are held together at the squad and platoon level. Comradeship, he affirms ‘was no fleeting, boozy sentimentality’. Holmes argues much the same, ‘mate ship tied men willingly to the altar of battle’. Ambrose also goes along with this, arguing in his book Citizen Soldiers, ‘What held them (American infantrymen) together was not country and flag, but unit cohesion’.

Most major surveys also concentrated on the primary group, Marshall’s comprehensive surveys, summed up in his book Men Against Fire, being the most obvious example. However there are numerous problems with such a singular approach. Most notably the question of casualties arises. American casualties amongst rifle companies made up the majority of total American combatants killed and wounded. The decimation of the primary group would, in many sections and platoons committed to combat for more than a few days, become reality. The purported nature of comradeship simply does not stand up to the number and speed of American casualties.

Keegan also points that the scope of many studies is often limited. Many commentators automatically assume that once a man becomes a soldier he internalises a set of beliefs induced by training, to the exclusion of all others. In Keegan’s words, “The military historian’s man in uniform bore no resemblance to the man in the street. He was a being without family or friends, without future or past, without values, good or bad, except for the incidental flash of courage or self-sacrifice.”. Such a narrow view of motivation is inherently flawed. Mitchell raises the question, how much is American about the American combat experience in World War Two as compared to how much is the product of twentieth century technology and mass society or how much is human, or even animal. Motivation is a fundamental part of the combat experience, furthermore it cannot be described by one factor alone. This dissertation will attempt to show how other factors, which have been marginalized, influence men to fight and ultimately kill.


Oral History and Combat Motivation.
Many historians have frowned on the use of oral history. Carlyle commented, ‘battles and war tumults which for the time dim every year, and with joy or terror intoxicate very heart, pass away like tavern brawls, and…remembered by accident, not by desert.’ Time is not the only factor, the increasingly complex nature of operations in modern warfare troubled Clive. He asks how can the historian recreate the multi-dimensional modern battlefield using oral history, which is non-dynamic and one dimensional in nature? Marwick put oral history eleventh out of his list of twelve primary sources; he argued that oral history is only useful for studies concerning the poor and underprivileged. Also, if oral evidence is the main source available, Marick believes it should still be cross-referenced with any other available evidence. For the purposes of studying combat motivation, oral history is normally the only evidence at hand. Diaries were rarely kept and cameras and tape recorders were rarely close enough to see and hear the actions, words and emotions of infantrymen in combat. Discovering the secret to combat motivation surely requires an in depth examination of oral history. Dee Lee argued ‘information obtained from the individual soldier can have historical value. It is not just the actions of individuals that are important; oral history is the only major form of evidence that allows the historian to truly the understand the conscious and unconscious feelings and emotions of the veterans of World War Two.


The Role and Nature of Motivation in Modern War.
The relevance of morale and combat motivation has long been established as an essential element on the modern battlefield. In spite of the efforts put forward by techno-centrics, Keegan, Ellis and Griffith to name but a few, have demonstrated that motivation is still fundamental in the twentieth century, and for the purpose of this dissertation, World War Two. As Ellis illuminates, until very recently military history has been the general’s story and the role of the infantryman has been marginalized. There is some justifiable reasoning behind this, historians cannot quantify morale, and so it is rarely incorporated into explanations for victory or defeat. In many studies, states which emphasise morale, do so because they are backward and weak, because motivation must substitute for technological and material advantage. Despite contemporary technologicalists, Overy and his book Why the Allies Won, being a poignant example, the “keeganisation” of military history has taken firm root in many academic circles. Marwick argues, “in the past historians have been fascinated by the origins of wars; more recently they have begun to play due regard to the consequences of war.” He goes on to say “the conduct of war must determine the outcome and consequences”.

So the dynamics of the battlefield have been put under the microscope, but one must be careful to remember the civilian nature of World War Two. The soldier cannot be sensibly divorced from society and its system, especially in the “total war” environment that has characterised the twentieth century. Why and how men cope with the stresses of modern combat cannot be simply defined in terms of technology or comradeship.

Others have taken controversial steps in different directions. Linderman and Dinter suggest there are other factors that influence men to kill and sustain them through combat. Both argue that there are certain pleasures in war, Linderman using his brutalisation theory to explain this. And Dinter believing that man is an innately primitive being who has always enjoyed violence. But, and it is a big but, most academics including these authors still come back to the assumption that Americans in World War Two killed for comradeship, albeit sometimes in a different light. As Bourke says, men killed for love, especially that of their comrades but also for their love of the enemy, “men love the things they kill.”.

Linderman and Bourke relegate to insignificance, the presence of a modern ‘warrior ethos’ on the battlefields of World War Two. Bourke called it the ‘warrior myth’, because abstract notions of ‘warriordom’ cannot survive the modern battlefield. In this regard her argument is unoriginal and flawed. Linderman’s brutalisation thesis, in his book “the World Within War” contrasted sharply with Bourkes’, but they held some crucial common ground. Linderman’s opinion of the warrior aspiration mirrors Bourke’s. But he also believes that society, as well as technology had largely retired warriordom.

‘The conception of combat as a test of the individual has lost most of its specificity and some of its gravity… but an aura of its influence remained and some of its precepts continued to circulate: that combat was the ultimate test of the soldiers courage and manhood…it confirmed character by strengthening the strong and diminishing further the already weak…The test had largely lost its social dimension.’

However he admits that this was not wholly the case, the trial of warriordom still remained a source of private, painful curiosity within many soldiers. Both Linderman and Bourke affirm that the warrior ethos could not survive the technologically driven battlefields of World War Two. This dissertation will try to prove how the warrior spirit adapted, and how it has been nurtured to survive firepower dominant warfare, using oral evidence for a building block to a slightly different look at American combat motivation in World War Two. However, much evidence has been harvested in the favour of the traditional arguments.
Casualties.
At a glance American casualties look much lighter than all the other major ground combatants. On close scrutiny, American casualties look horrific. Infantrymen constituted only fourteen percent of the total number of US servicemen stationed overseas, but infantryman suffered seventy percent of the United States’ total casualties in World War Two. When looking at the number of men committed to combat in proportion to casualties, the US ratios look much closer to the Axis forces’ losses. The ratio of combat troops to non-combat personnel was 1-14 respectively in the US army in World War Two. So on paper, when a unit took casualties, the true damage to its fighting strength was obscured. For instance, the average US infantry division had 14,253 men of all ranks but only 9,771 men were allocated to three divisional regiments, each 3,257 strong. A battalion’s theoretical strength was 871, which meant only 2613 men served in the three regimental battalions. However, a mere 192 men served in each of the three rifle companies in a US infantry battalion, so only 576 men were put into all companies. Overall, that meant that out of 14,253 men in a Division only 5184 men actually did the fighting in twenty-seven divisional rifle companies. The allies were also notoriously short of infantry divisions. The 21st Army group for example, had a total strength of 750,000 men but only nine infantry divisions assigned to it, which meant its real fighting power was concentrated in about 45,000 men. American rifle companies on the front lines regularly suffered in excess of fifty percent losses. Casualties could also mount very quickly. It was in fact safer to be a rifleman on the Western Front of 1914-18. Even though the actual number of dead and wounded on the Western Front of the Great War was higher than in the Second World War, there were far more riflemen at the front who served between 1914-18. The ratio of supporting personnel to front line troops had doubled in the US in the interwar period, thus casualties were concentrated to a very small group of men.

The intensity of combat at the front had also significantly increased in 1944-5. Passchendale lasted one hundred and five days; allied forces suffered 24,000 casualties or 2121 a day. In contrast, allied killed and wounded in Normandy was 2354 a day, in eighty-eight days the allies took over 200,000 casualties; seventy percent of these borne by infantrymen. On average, infantry battalions suffered 100 casualties a month on the First World War’s Western Front. In comparison, by the Second World War, the typical Allied battalion took a minimum of 100 casualties a month and 175 were not uncommon. Even when no major operations were ongoing, casualties coming from patrols, artillery and mortar fire meant a constant flow of casualties at a rate that was unheard of in any previous conflict.

For example, fighting through the streets of St. Lo in 1944 took a terrible toll on the rifle platoons of the 30th division, the typical platoon suffered ninety percent casualties. Units were smashed at all levels. On the 11th of November, G Company, 328th Regiment, 26th Division, went into the allied line east of a village called Nancy [on the Franco-German border]. In three days of advancing in a skirmish line, they covered about a kilometre; enemy fire was a constant menace throughout. By the third day G Company’s Battalion was done from 525 to 150 men.

The battle for Hurtgen Forest provides many apt examples of the devastation that was routinely inflicted on American units. If the Germans were well dug in and supplied, wrestling ground from them almost always proved costly, especially in terrain like the Hurtgen. In four weeks of bitter fighting in the dense woods, the 4th, 9th and 28th infantry divisions all took in excess of eighty percent casualties. The total campaign called on nine divisions, 24,000 combat casualties were taken and 9,000 lost to trench foot, disease or combat exhaustion in ninety days, averaging a loss at company level of more than sixty five percent. The 29th Division had a saying after more than 35,000 men had gone through its ranks; we are three divisions, one in the grave, one in hospital, and one at the front. However this could be applied to more than twenty-four US divisions in Europe. Sections, platoons and companies lived, trained and bonded together for months, sometimes years, particularly in elitist outfits like the Airborne, Commando and Ranger units. When such units were put into combat, these highly cohesive groups of men were in many instances almost completely wiped out. Ninety American divisions were shipped to France between D-Day and the German Surrender, more than a third of these had taken at least seventy-five percent casualties. Even this figure is distorted because many saw very little time in action while others fought from D-Day, in almost every campaign. Most of the infantry divisions committed since the 6th of June had an almost compete turnover in their rifle companies by November 1944. This is exactly what happened to the 2nd ranger battalion. By November only a tiny core of veterans remained. For example, the Battalion’s commanding officer, Captain Sidney Salomon, had been a platoon leader on D-Day. The trend continued downwards, in November Len Lovell was a platoon leader because he received a battlefield commission for destroying the big coastal guns at Paste-Du-Hoc. Also Lieutenant James Eikner, who used a signal lamp to direct naval gunfire at Omaha beach, was now a captain and the battalion’s communications officer. American Units were kept in the line indefinitely. The 2nd Ranger Battalion’s experience is typical. After the Ranger’s initial commitment to battle on D-Day, they received a constant stream replacements. A hard core of veterans did survive, but were in many instances promoted and sometimes separated. Privates who made it through the Normandy campaign, became the NCOs of the winter battles, every rank down from the battalion level was affected.


The Myth of the Primary Group in the West.
As a consequence, the primary group was invariably broken up relatively quickly, either by promotion, reassignment injury or death. Also replacements were integrated as individuals in the US Army, Van Creveld argued that this individual reinforcement system, especially the replacement depots or ‘repple depples’ was the most important single factor that contributed to the weaknesses displayed by the US Army during World War Two. The close-knit section or platoon, made up of old friends is a myth, casualties were overwhelming and constant, even new friendships had the odds stacked against them. By the Battle of the Bulge eighty percent of US combat infantrymen were individual replacements. Also, in many of the theatres in World War Two more than half the replacements committed were to be made casualties in their first three days on the line. So the ‘old hands’ were often reluctant to make new friendships with newcomers, as one Marine points out: ‘My best friend was another under-aged kid. He was killed on New Georgia. After that I didn’t get very close to people. There were many replacements over time…its harder to make new friends.’ Adam DiGenard of the 3rd Marine Division also dismissed mate ship. He said, ‘We weren’t that close on the squad level. You’ve pretty much on your own. People come and go very frequently. The ones that survive have an independence, and initiative. Frank Marks of the 35th Regiment 25th Division commented. The men who survived, ‘no doubt formed new friendships and bonds of a sort. But it was rarely the same as it has been for those men in 1942 who went to war with their friends and comrades.’


The Reality of “Comradeship”
Many suggest that men bonded together regardless, because of the extreme circumstances they were thrust into. This does not relate to many veterans’ experiences, especially during their first few weeks, and sometimes months. Assignment to a unit could take a matter of months. During that period men were treated like battery hens, Van Creveld’s argument had many supporters. Private Morris Dunn spent weeks in a ‘repple depple’, ‘We were just numbers we didn’t know anybody, and I’ve never felt so alone and miserable and helpless in my life.’ Another soldier remarked, “Being a replacement is just like being an orphan. You are away from anybody you know and feel totally lost and lonesome. When a replacement arrived at Le Havre, he was sent to a ‘reception depot’ (which was nothing more fancy than a mass of tents). Then he went to a ‘stockage’ depot where he was given a rifle, and some extra training if he was lucky. Finally he went to a ‘replacement depot’ where he was assigned a to unit. Eventually he was sent to a forward battalion, who passed him up to a line company command post, finally a sergeant would lead him to a foxhole. At this juncture most replacements felt totally dislocated form society. All that was familiar to him, even the mates he found at boot camp were gone. The replacements experience only got worse. Men were all to shockingly hurled into the most dangerous place of the Second World War- the front line. Private Donald Chumley was, in December 1944, a replacement in the 90th infantry Division. He remembered, ‘I was nineteen, just out of high school a farm boy with little experience of anything.’ He was led to a foxhole and told to watch for Germans. He didn’t know the sergeants name, he couldn’t see anyone to his left or right, and he didn’t even know what section, platoon, company or battalion he was in. Another replacement who arrived in K company 333rd Regiment, 84th US infantry Division on the eve of battle said, ‘not one person offered advice.’ Replacements were not warmly welcomed into a close-knit community, instead they were thrown into an unknown and often hostile unit of men.

On many occasions replacements were actively intimidated. Clayton Shepard, a replacement in K Company, highlights such events. ‘They said “this man got his head blowed off, this man his arm blowed off” and all that. And I thought, Jesus Christ, what am I getting into here? …. They scared the hell out of me before I even got started.’ An ‘old hand’ summed up the feelings of many veterans, ‘when you bring in a bunch of recruits, the talk gets louder and more boisterous to make an impression.’ Replacements tended to stay together, many were killed because of this.

According to many veterans nonchalance and even hostility didn’t just extend as far as ‘green’ replacements. If a man was wounded he usually became desperate to return to his unit, because if he convalesced to long he would probably be reassigned, which again meant strangers and isolation. Some units even used replacements to keep the veterans out of harms way; a soldier in Irwin Shaw’s Young Lions describes the replacements dilemma.

‘You go up as a replacement and your chances are awful. The men who are there are all friends…That means every dirty, dangerous job they hand over to the replacements. The Sergeants don’t even bother to learn your name…they just trade you in for their friends and wait for the next batch of replacements. You go into a new company…you’ll be on every patrol, you’ll be the point of every attack.’

The same can even be said in some so-called ‘elite’ units, according to a Ranger Staff Sergeant.

‘One day at Anzio we got eight new replacements into my platoon. We were supposed to make a little feeling attack the same day. Well by next day, all eight of them replacements were dead…but none of us old guys were. We weren’t going to send our own guys out on point in a dam fool situation like that.’

There didn’t even seem to be much camaraderie amongst veterans of different companies or battalions, even after successful offensives, as Russell Davis highlights. After reaching the top of the hill on Peleliu,

‘In the next foxhole was (a Marine) rifleman. He peered at me through red and painful eyes. Then we both looked away. I didn’t care about him. He didn’t care about me. I thought he was a fool and he probably thought I was the same.’


The Influence of Training and Leadership on Combat Motivation.
So the question still begs, what motivated US infantrymen? General Julian Thompson believes that motivation boils down to two factors, training and leadership. However US troops in the ETO were, in a lot of units neither well trained nor well lead. Authors such as Marshall suggest that towards the end of the war, training was made more realistic through the introduction of psychologists into the military circles. Others point to the advances in practical training in light of the brutal fighting in the Pacific. More live firing being an issue highlighted and implemented.
General Thompson argues that tough, realistic training gives men confidence; this rarely seems to be the case with many veterans of World War Two. Most veterans still felt themselves totally unprepared for combat. Even paratroopers, whose training regime was so tough they thought, ‘combat can’t be worse than this’ only to find out that it was. Ambrose argues, after interviewing over one thousand veterans most agreed that ‘Nothing can prepare you for combat.’ And as the war dragged on standards of training arguably got worse instead of better. For example, lieutenant George Wilson, commanding officer of a rifle company that was heavily committed to the defence of the Ardennes, received one hundred replacements on the 29th of December 1944. ‘We discovered that these men had been on the rifle range only once, they had never thrown a grenade or fired a bazooka, mortar or machine gun.’ Some replacements, who had taken basic training before 1941 hadn’t even held an M1 due to the Springfield’s lengthy service.

Eisenhower’s gamble in the ETO was falling apart, cooks, drivers and mechanics were being drafted due to the desperate shortage of infantry. Still, most replacements were still coming from the United States, but training was reduced, as bodies were needed more and more urgently. So many eager young men found themselves with less training than most of their predecessors, yet for the most part, they still fought with considerable ferocity, bravery and skill. If training didn’t contribute significantly to motivation, did leadership?

As Thompson, Ambrose and others have argued, leadership was very important to motivation, but not in the way the US wartime military and many military historians envisioned. Officers and NCOs within rifle companies suffered disproportionately higher casualties than did Privates. The 1st 4th 21st lost one hundred percent of their junior officers in the July hedgerow fighting. And in Italy it took just eighty-eight days of combat to cause one hundred percent casualties among a division’s second Lieutenants. Most of the junior leaders who stormed the D-Day beaches were either dead or wounded by October 1944. The privates of Normandy, Falaise, Holland and the Bulge became the NCOs and occasionally the junior officers, of the Ardennes and beyond. Battlefield promotions provided leadership, as well as a steady stream of eager youths from Officer Candidate Schools. These eager youths would commonly find that the transition from replacement to the ‘old hand’ in a platoon could take a matter of days due to casualties.

Also, seeing their leaders actually fighting, not simply barking orders motivated men. Brig. Gen. Norman “Dutch” Cota 2 I.C .of the 29th Division came across a group of infantry pinned down by some Germans in a farmhouse. When asked why they hadn’t taken the house, the senior officer (a Capt.) said, “the Germans are shooting at us”. Cota promptly took a squad of his men and worked his way round the building, then charged, yelling like a wild man, kicking in the door, throwing grenades driving the Germans out the back door. Cota said afterward, “well, I won’t be around to do it for you again…. I can’t do it for everybody.’ The more combat active the better, a fellow officer described Lieutenant Ed Gesner,

‘He was all over the place…I saw him using three different weapons…He seemed to be firing a lot more than most officers…One time when he ran out of ammo at the edge of a trench he jumped in and began to club a German with his rifle butt…they [his platoon] all thought he was great.’

Leading from the front meant fighting. Good leadership gave men a personified example of ‘the warrior cult’.

The Allure of the Warrior Code.
The ‘warrior code’ was not incompatible with World War Two’s battlefields, as Bourke, Linderman and others argue. As Doctor G. Bychowski said, ‘Heroism simply could not survive the horror of twentieth century warfare.’ Even on the modern battlefields of World War Two the warrior code survived in many a youths’ mind. For all Lieutenant Gesner’s efforts, he probably didn’t see, let alone hit any Germans during his flurry of fire described in the last section. Modern warfare only made the warrior code obsolete in a strictly technical sense. The ‘warrior society’ of World War Two saw killing as an inevitable cycle, boys followed in their father’s footsteps and were tested before being reintegrated into mature society. Infantrymen were brutalised long before they donned the uniform. Literature, art, and film all portraying combat as a ‘right of passage’ or an ultimate test of integrity.

Bill Crooks thought, ‘The rifle company was Gods own band. It was the “queen of battles”…the subject of millions of words and thousands of books and countless films… Everything else in the Army was back there supporting that rifle company man.’ Private Alex Bowlby’s infantry battalion had to clear an area with German activity in front of the tanks of the Kings Dragoon Guards. The tank crews applauded as the riflemen went forward, even though danger was close he wrote, ‘I wouldn’t have changed places with anyone.’ Belief in Film, art and literature gave a sense of purpose and righteousness. Sergeant George Lucht was leading his men across a footbridge over the Roer river ‘the Germans had to regroup and their artillery was falling on both sides of the river, and I was thinking, boy, this is just like Hollywood.’ The Second World War battlefield thus became a place that was ‘larger than life’. Eric Sevareid explains, ‘there is an atmosphere at the front…. Until one becomes drugged with exhaustion, every scene is a vivid masterpiece of painting…. Each common order goes down to the final nerve ending…every unexplored house is bursting with portent, every casual word bears vibrant meaning; those who live are incredibly alive, and others stupefying dead.’

There was also a powerful incentive to emulate the head of the family, particularly in the United States, which was not tempered by the memory of First World War losses. Hundreds of thousands volunteered in 1941 alone. War and the traditional military notions of loyalty and bravery, were very much part of the young man’s world. For many there was an unquestionable element of adventure involved. This call to arms seemed strongest in the young. Marine Chadwick relates, ‘I joined up when I was sixteen. I changed my birth certificate…. In our platoon in boot camp we had 62 men: I would bet that at least 10 of those men were under seventeen.’

Developments in warfare were hard pressed to shatter dreams, the warrior ethos continually adapted. Many young men went to war with killing and heroism at the forefront of their mind. Private Morton Eustis worried, ‘I’m so scared Germany may sue for peace before I’ve had a chance to take a crack at her…I don’t believe there’s a man in our company who wouldn’t rather be under enemy fire than in a garrison over here [in the UK].’ Those who were at the ‘sharp end’ in World War Two didn’t necessarily heed the admonitions of the war literature. One 19 year old, whose father was living with a severe wound received in 1918, contemplated the future. On 3rdSeptember 1939, ‘As I closed my eyes the picture which appeared on the screen of my eyelids was of myself leading a charge of cavalry’

Others were so bent on their notions of warriordom, they because irritated with ‘lesser’ tasks. A marine Private refused to continue labouring in the hold of a ship anchored off Guadalcanal, his Captain asked, ‘You volunteered…why did you come out here. Why did you enlist?’ He replied, ‘To fight sir. I’ve been working all the why across [the Pacific], swabbing decks, cleaning heads.’ He’d come to the South Pacific ‘to get me some Japs-not work as a stevedore.’ Men simply itched to fight, Mario Sabatelli, a Marine Raider, was on his way to the invasion of Tulagi. He remarked ‘we wanted to get our hands on the Japs.’ And another Marine bound for Guadalcanal laconically said, ‘I just want to kill a Jap, that’s all.’

Encounter with Battle.
Linderman and Bourke argue that two integral parts of the warrior code were dispelled when the rifleman saw battle at the ‘sharp end’. Both authors affirm that almost all infantrymen lost their sense of invulnerability and any feeling of control over the battlefield very quickly. They both came to the conclusion that expectation rarely lived up to encounter. ‘[What] contributed most to the demoralization of the American soldier…was the chill recognition that most of those who died had committed no error, that no superior knowledge would have saved them.’ But this theory simply doesn’t marry with many veterans’ experiences.

To be sure, some men did adopt fatalistic attitudes but most still refused to believe they could be wounded or killed unless they were very unlucky. Even in the face of heavy casualties young men couldn’t conceptualise their own death. ‘You hear of casualties, see casualties and read of casualties, but you believe it will never happen to you.’ Marine Private James Bruce wrote to his wife, ‘nothing could make [him] really, fundamentally believe that a bullet or chunk of bomb or shell might suddenly rip the life out of him.’ Frank Chadwick, a veteran of Guadalcanal and New Georgia said ‘we didn’t know any better… Most of us felt it will never happen to me. You knew people were being killed and wounded all the time, but deep down you thought it would happen to another guy.’ Scott Wilson affirmed, ‘At 20 you’re invincible. Its never going to be you, it’s going to be the other guy. Its not bravery, its idiotic adolescence.’ Private Geddes Mumford believed, there was still room for excitement even if he didn’t share it, he said, ‘I felt the machine gun bullets passing my shoulder. Two of my buddies were hit by the same burst. It’s a great life if you like excitement.’ Terror and death delighted and excited those who remained unscathed, and even some who weren’t so lucky: Corporal Walter Gordon was hit in the left shoulder by a sniper’s bullet, he was paralysed from the neck down. Two mates hauled him out of his foxhole towards the nearest medic, in Gordon’s words, ‘…as a gladiator was dragged from the arena.’ Even after being grievously wounded he still held onto notions of warriordom. Many young men who had nurtured ideas of warriordom simply refused to accept the reality of the battlefield.

Even men who became disillusioned with modern combat still, in many cases wouldn’t let go of the warrior ethos. A Canadian remarked ‘if only I could see the [the Germans], as in battles long ago, at close range, before engaging them…. The warring sides are getting further and further apart and war is getting more and more meaningless for field warriors.’ He still considered himself a ‘field warrior.’ Even though many men didn’t get to engage a live, un-captured enemy soldier in the frontlines, enough did to maintain the generation’s belief in the virtues of warriordom. After Morton Eustis’ first engagement he was ‘impatient for more action.’

Keegan’s ‘big man’ theory can be used to support this argument. Keegan cites, that there is men whom have a natural thirst for combat, he goes on to argue that men are a key factor in the way battles work. Keegan uses two examples, Corporal Lofty King and Regimental Sergeant Major Desmond Lynch. Brigadier J. Durnford-Slater described Corporal King, ‘[he] was a hard fellow and very hard with his men; he didn’t give a damn if he knocked a man down….He genuinely enjoyed fighting and looked happiest, indeed inspired, in battle.’ Lynch is described in a similar light, he was bitterly disappointed with the official account of the battle of the Bon in Tunisia, complaining that he ‘was the star of the battle.’ Keegan suggests ‘mimicry as a crucial influence to combat motivation. ‘In any competitive or dangerous activity, those who are seen best to meet its challenge set the standard which others, not necessarily voluntarily or consciously, emulate.’ Keegan believes that such men motivate others, even though they neither lead nor command. What he neglects to mention is that many men want to be energised, not just because of competitive instincts, comradeship, training or leadership, but also because of a warrior code that has grown inside them from childhood. ‘Big men’ simply ratified the apprentice warrior’s cherished beliefs.

Also ‘Big men’ don’t have to be, and in most cases probably weren’t ‘old hands’. On the contrary many were new to combat. Arguably most would-be ‘big men’ had eagerly awaited combat for along time. An officer candidate dreamt of action ‘it keeps coming back just when I’m falling off to sleep…how it will be to draw a bead on a living man and take his life away. I really can’t wait to get over.’ Another youth commented, ‘I just know I want to get in their and kill some Japs…[My] last hope before going to sleep was that our boys might have left a few Japs for me.’
There are many documented cases of men desperate to seek glory, whom would seek it at the earliest opportunity. Many of these men would get themselves and other killed or wounded in the process. However, it seems many others were much more calm and calculated when confronted with a scenario that might fit in with their dreams of combat.

Lieutenant Lyle Bouck lied about his age (being a year too young) when he volunteered in 1941. Volunteers were given the choice in the service they joined, Bouck choose the infantry. On the 16th of December 1944 he was the replacement CO of an intelligence and reconnaissance platoon in the 99th Division. His platoon was dug in, North of the town of Lanzerath in the Ardennes. The two tanks that were supporting him pulled out after their position was shelled. Bouck asked his Battalion’s head quarters for artillery support because he’d sent a two-man patrol to the town, which had spotted a German column approaching. No artillery came and Bouck’s men told him it was time to retreat, after all they had done their job. Bouck said no. From Dawn to mid-afternoon Bouck’s platoon held off a German battalion with small arms (a jeep mounted .50 cal. machine gun being their heaviest weapon), and inflicted 400-500 casualties. When the ammunition ran low Bouck told Private James to take the men who wanted to go and get out, but all of them stayed, after an hour they surrendered. For a day Bouck had blocked the Lazerath road and shattered a German Airborne battalion. Thus Bouck, obviously a man desperate to see military service would have had his notions of warriordom reaffirmed. He also became a ‘big man’ overnight. Ambrose argues ‘…the I and R platoon’s experience was typical’

Linderman and Bourke argue that men who were inspired by warriordom generally felt overwhelmed and powerless on the modern battlefield. Close quarters combat in World War Two still provided feelings of self-enrichment through battle. Those imbued with the warrior code, and occasionally even men who weren’t, still felt ‘exhilaration’ when participating in close combat. Sapper R. Eke was strictly job orientated, but his section commander, who was a vet of the Spanish civil war was ‘slightly mad and brave, and a little out of place in a section that hoped to avoid being heroic at all cost. He volunteered for everything, and we never seen him show any fear.’ This enthusiasm even infected Eke, when he became involved in a firefight. ‘The experience was terrifying yet exhilarating…. Against all my instincts I had put my life at risk, and told myself never again would I be infected with this frontline madness.’ It wasn’t just the big man who ‘energised’ Sapper Eke, it was fight its self.

The ETO provided plenty of opportunity for very small groups of men to perform acts of self-enrichment, skill and guile, which were all integral parts of their warrior ideal. It is striking that even in Europe, engagements like the Falaise gap and the Ardennes winter battles, vital contacts were between very small numbers of infantry fighting over a roadblock. It is important to realise that even large encounters often broke down into very poorly coordinated collection of squad actions. For example, the failure of the German winter offensive could be attributed to a handful of men. As Ambrose affirms, ‘thanks to an unknown squad of GI’s here, a platoon there, fighting, although surrounded…until their ammunition gave out.’ Most of these men were replacements, motivated by nothing more than a warrior ethos.

Sergeant Carwood Lipton illuminates the point, ‘No man would choose disgrace. If the stockade was preferable the stockades would have been full, the foxholes empty, and we would have lost the war.’ Disgrace from whom? Not the close-knit primary group, that was, as already has been proved, completely shattered. Rather disgrace would come from within, as a young soldier explains; Dutch Schultz of the 82nd Airborne had dysentery, flu and trench foot, he said ‘I secretly experienced a great deal of guilt about going to hospital for anything other than a bona fide wound…. but when you are an immature kid trying to be a hero it is something of a problem, particularly when you are trying to prove your courage to no one other than yourself’

As a consequence, men imbued with the warrior spirit were arguably less liable to mental brake-down than others. However many men still became psychiatric casualties. Major J. Wishart, XXX corps psychiatrist, wrote in his 1945 notes (concerning No. 35 dressing station for battle exhaustion.). Out of about 1000 psychiatric casualties in the space of two weeks, fifty percent of the men he saw had been previously wounded, of these, ‘many seemed to have small multiple flesh wounds that hardly justified so long a period out of action, during this period they have enjoyed all the glamour attached to being wounded in the invasion.’ The other fifty percent were made up of ‘young, immature boy experiencing their first severe action…it was noticeable that many of them were of very poor combat temperament, and often rather below average in intelligence…. One said he joined the army because he was fed up with living with his mother and her nerves.’ There were undoubtedly many genuine cases of battle exhaustion, but Wishart suggests a trend in both groups. Aspirations of heroism, worries of disgrace, and curiosity about combat are apparently lacking in these men. Men needed these traits to endure to terror of combat.

Many men did not feel belittled in battle. Instead many felt a keen sense of achievement in what they had become. As already mentioned, due to terrain many areas of the battlefields in the ETO and Pacific enabled small groups of lightly armed men to have significant impact, nowhere was this more so than the war against the Japanese war. G. M. Fraser prided himself on his ‘killer instinct…the murderous impulse of the hunter…the jolt of delight he felt each time he hit a bastard’, when fighting in the jungles of Burma. The South Pacific contained elements of modern industrial warfare, however its essence more closely resembled a knife fight out of the Stone Age. In no theatre of war during the twentieth century did infantry experience as much combat at point-blank range as they found in the South Pacific. "Platoons with good men in them and good leaders got results. Average patrols produced casualties but often no worthwhile results." According to many, a ‘good infantryman’ was a man who knew how to kill, as Paul Sponaugle, a section leader points out, ‘Good soldiers, the ones who made it through…were tough and used to killing.’ Many overcame anxiety with thoughts of enrichment, ‘…for all the misery and fear and hating every moment of it the war was a great, if terrifying adventure’

In contrast to many stereotypes, the best combat infantrymen of World War Two were, in many instances, the ones who displayed traits of warriordom before they entered combat. Marshall and Stouffer argued combativeness was a group rather than individual attribute and training must therefore utilise psychological principles. Stouffer interviewed 12,000 soldiers, but the best soldiers were those who before combat expressed a desire to kill. Forty eight percent of veterans who performed particularly well said before combat that they would like to kill. Forty four percent of men who performed adequately said they would like to kill and only thirty eight percent of those who didn’t fight well expressed the same desire. Furthermore forty percent of combat infantrymen were willing to perform further combat duty, highlighting a clear trend. Arguably, many veterans had longed for combat, enjoyed the experience, and were receptive to the idea of more combat.

Comradeship and group cohesion played a critical role in building morale at certain junctures in the GIs wartime experience, but it wasn’t the most predominate motivator, particularly when in combat. Dinter’s argument, that primitive man reappears in the soldier: ‘He liked killing and killed as a matter of course… deep down in his subconscious, man seems to enjoy killing’ also seems erroneous, instead twentieth century culture nurtured men to enjoy modern war, they were imbued with a ‘warrior ethos’, as Ambrose believes took place in Germany. "The German soldiers of late 1944 and 1945 were mostly born between 1925 and 1928. They had been deliberately raised by Nazis, which nutured a fanatical bravery that their Fuhrer counted on." Arguably, American twentieth century culture did an equally good job raising young Americans exactly the same way.

Bibliography.

Paul Addison and Angus Calder (Ed.) Time to Kill (London: Random House 1997).

Steven Ambrose, Citizen Soldiers (New York: Simon and Schuster 1997).

Eric Bergerud, Touched With Fire, The Land War in the South Pacific (New York: Penguin Books 1996).

Shelford Bidwell, Modern Warfare, (London: Allen Lane 1973).

Joanna Bourke, An Intimate History of Killing, Face-to-Face Killing in Twentieth Century Warfare (London: Granta Books 1999).

T. Carlyle, Critical and Miscellaneous Essays: Collected and Republished (London: 1872).

John Clive, Not By Fact Alone (London 1872).

Elmar Dinter, Hero or Coward, Pressures Facing the Soldier in Battle (London: Frank Cass and Co. 1985).

John Ellis, The Sharp End, The Fighting Man in World War Two (London: Random House 1980).

David Fraser, And We Shall Shock Them (London: Hodder and Stoughton 1983).

Paul Fussell, Wartime (New York Oxford University Press 1989).

John Gunn, Violence, (Newton Abbot: David and Charles 1973).

Morris Janowitz and Edward Shils, ‘Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War Two.’ In Public Opinion Quarterly 12 (Summer 1948).

Harold P. Leinbaugh, and John D. Campbell, The Men of Company K: The Autobiography of a World War Two Rifle Company (New York: William Morrow 1985).

Gerald F. Linderman, The World Within War, America’s Combat Experience in World War Two, (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 1997).

Colonel S. L. A. Marshall, Men Against Fire. The Problem of Battle Command in Future War (New York: William Morrow 1947).

A. Marwick The Nature of History (London 1989).

G. Edward Miller, Dark and Bloody Ground: the Hurtgen Forest and the Roer River Dams 1944-1945 (College Station: Texas University Press 1995).

Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won (London: Pimlico 1995).

Irwin Shaw, The Young Lions (New York: Random House 1948).

Samuel Stouffer et al., The American Soldier: Combat and its Aftermath. Volume 2 (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1949).

Richard Tregaskis, Guadalcanal Diary (New York: Random House 1943).

Martin Van Creveld, fighting power: German and US Army Performance 1939-45 (Westport: Conn. 1982).

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

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:
von Lucke I think you'll find far fewer accounts of Japanese actually fighting to the last man than you think.

Often they just died as huddled masses in the bottom of bunkers - sure they refused to surrender, but often they had long since stopped actually fighting. Many also committed suicide rather than surrender - again they did not actually _fight_ to the last man.

Even the infamous "banzai" charges sometimes involveds trops fairly blindly charging forwards without trying to fight very much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. So you would account for the vast desparity between KIA / POW figures for Japanese defenders in the later stages of the Pacific War (Iwo Jima: 20,000 KIA / 1000 POW --- Okinawa: 100,000 KIA / 7000 POW) as being caused by US troops merely gunning down the cowering masses of Japanese soldiers?

Strange then, that a further 2400 Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima continued to pick-off unwarry US troops for some months after they had "actually stopped fighting" and the island had been "officially secured".

I never said anything about Banzai charges --- they pretty much went out after Guadalcanal. If you read anything about the Island Hopping campaign, you'll know that the Japanese were more inclined to dig in and let the enemy come to them during the day, and then engage in agressive infiltration tactics at night.

But I will add that Okinawa saw the most kamikazi attacks of any battle in the war, with some 1500 attacks --- including the last sortie of the Yamato.

And I don't believe I've ever read about any fanatic SS trooper come wandering out of the Alps claiming he didn't believe Germany had surrendered...

[Warmaker]

Londoner, just a suggestion, but you might want to condense that last post there. I don't mind a long read, but I don't want to feel like I'm reading a book instead of reading a post on a forum. :eek:

Maybe it's just me though.
;)

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

[Gyrene]

Londoner, sure my original question should have been more specific like what unit in particular one would consider of note in WWII, but there is a core of posters in this forum who would have started the flaming and name calling no matter how my question was worded, save for having a lawyer write it up for me, and even then there would be arguments.

Now you insist to keep on with the name calling (I welcome you to scroll back thru all the posts to see who called what first, if you think I started it.) and with your attempts to brow beat me into apologizing for this most hideous of topics, which seems to have caused you such mental anguish.

Your second post gets you the prize for the longest reply (Although I could be wrong), congratulations, it's very nice, quite verbose.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I want to ignore all US involvment/achievements in WW2 you say? Why in hell would I waste a year studying the US combat infantryman in WW2 you moron. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, you got me good there, the whole "Capt. Americas out there" thing must a fluke. I don't know why you "wasted a whole year" it's your time, not mine.

I stated this before, if you don't like the thread don't read it. You've already stated your displeasure of it several times, yet you can't seem to stay away, the original question doesn't apply anymore as the more astute readers have gotten the gist of my original meaning and have made many interesting contributions to this thread.

I'm looking forward to your reply and to read you call me a moron, idiot, child etc. I just wish there wasn't an continent and an ocean between us so I could extend you the courtesy of calling me these things and more in person.

Gyrene

Btw, don't be afraid to use my nickname in your posts, it's quite alright.

[ferdinand]

Londoner, thats interesting, especially since i've just finished reading Bourke's book.

Could you clarify what you mean by "warrior ethics" ? It seems you equate this with willingness to kill, and your examples come mostly from young volunteers.

I would have thought that the "warrior code" was for professional soldiers, and included things such as protecting civilians, not killing an ennemy who surrenders, accepting sacrifice i.e. a good soldier (to come back to the subject of the thread) is not just a killer.

[Warmaker]

For a better understanding on the Japanese mentality of war, I suggest digging into Samurai and warfare in Feudal Japan. Also take into account the government's twisting and perversion of Bushido for their use in the early 20th century. You'll find some interesting reading.

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warmaker:
For a better understanding on the Japanese mentality of war, I suggest digging into Samurai and warfare in Feudal Japan. Also take into account the government's twisting and perversion of Bushido for their use in the early 20th century. You'll find some interesting reading.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Along those lines I'd recommend "Zen and The Way of the Sword --- Arming the Samurai Psyche", and "A Glorious Way to Die".

[RMC]

Wow.

Interesting that you talk about the failings of the repple depple system. Balkoski used the same thing to highlight the German system that had soldiers associated with a specific unit in their training and all the way through to aarrival at the front. This would have the effect of heightening cohesion amongst the German troops.

Also worth looking at is something I've seen mentioned before in this regard. I have often seen comments about the German ability to form kampfgruppen from fragments of units and make them fight effectively while the US was never able to do this.

[Londoner]

Glad you found it interesting Ferdinand/RMC. Broadly speaking, the "warrior ethos" seems to be the belief that battle is the ultimate test/trial of manhood. However as you point out their are other attributes attached to it.

Gyene? Is that how you spell it? No insult meant I just couldn't remember you name. Ok fair enough, I'll drop the insults, the only reason I used so crude a term was because you seemed to be oblivious to some of objections raised. You just dissmissed them. Also you knew what I meant when I said "do you think I'd waste my time.." Of course I dont think it was time wasted. I discovered alot of stuff I didnt know about a fasinating subject, and I got a nice grade that went towards my final degree. Again you mince words. BTW are you really a child or did I, in my stupidity miss the joke? Oh and your little after thought about being on different continents is pathetic in the extreme. I'm a 6 foot black Londoner with almost 10 years of heavy weight training behind me. I'd happily tell you in person, what I've said here, without to much fear of an effective physical response from your good self. LOL why did you have to add that BS on the end?

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

[Warmaker]

It seems that in the past I've heaped praises for the German armed forces. However, we all know there were faults and I want to get into the one I know best and to be more "narrowed down." My example is the Luftwaffe. It is my understanding that once men were usually assigned to a staffel (squadron) they were there for the entire duration usually. For one, it can build cohesion. Also, being in a combat zone for so long led for a variety of reasons why Germany had so many HIGH scoring aces, i.e. Erich Hartmann with 352 kills... and surviving the war. A kill record I don't see anyone breaking anytime soon, barring only a true, large scale war. Hell, there's even more with 100+kills from the Luftwaffe. But this also contributed to the downturn of the Luftwaffe. Not enough of these experten were rotated back for duties like instructor duty. It also eventually led to many high scoring aces' demise that, well... luck ran out in some of their cases from fighting continuously for years. Rotations to the rear were probably less common, though I'm not concrete on this. Hell, they were fighting on two fronts and trying to even match the numerical might of the USAAC and the RAF is a problem itself. Not to mention the growing numbers of the Soviet Air Force as the war dragged on.

[Abteilung]

Dont' forget about the FJ who essentially single-handedly cracked those "impregnable" Belgian fortresses in '40. Not to say they were the best troops or anything as grandiose as that, just that they had an immense impact on the Allied nations. I believe we (USA) didn't actually have airborne troops until after '40 IIRC.

[Dr. Brian]

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

Major Tim,

What's your point?

[REVS]

This is the thread of infinite tangents, written about almost exlusively by people who were never there. Maybe all people who were never there should start their authoritative contributions with "I was never there but..." and all the people who were there could start off by saying "I'm 82 years old now, and my memory's fading, but...."
How about a bit of modesty, moderation and room for doubt and, perhaps, the chance that new information might change your mind...

[Major Tom]

Dr. Brain

(please no messing with handles outside the Peng threads, it is a sign of lack of respect, unless it was a typo)

If you take my entire post into connentation, then you will realize that the only way the Allies were able to conquer Germany from 1943-1945 was that in comparison the German army was comparatively 'backward'. Their general equipment, tactics and deployment were obsolete in 1944, just like the Allieds were in 1940.

It was not just a matter of the Germans engaged backward troops in 1940, and the Allied beat out an equal force in 1944, but whenever a side had initiative their opponent usually fit into the description of 'backward', as, they were not able to counter their enemy effectively.

To state that the Germans won in 1940-41 because they were up against 'backward' nations and ignoring the fact that from 1944-45 Germany, when compared to the war effort of the Allies in equipment (not just tanks), tactics and deployment (All tank formations became obsolete in 1942) was relatively 'backward'. The period from 1942-1943, throughout the war in Europe, was an era of a change of initiative. The Germans started losing it and the Allies started gaining it.

Tactically, initiative goes to the side that has something that the other cannot stop. In 1939-41 the Germans had Blitzkrieg, which no matter the quality or ability of their opponent they could not effectively counter it. From 1944-1945 the Allies used the strategy of massed equipment. No special wings of the army, such as the German Armoured Korps, but, an entire well equipped army. This effectively countered Blitzkrieg as even a lowly Allied Infantry Division was more than a match against a German Panzer Division, and possibly even a Panzer Korps.

However, the Allies had to learn this through their many defeats. Germany was not given the time to learn how to defeat the Allied strategy, as they had nowhere to retreat by 1944, unlike the Allies in 1940.

So, stating that Germany was not as powerful as they were made out to be in 1940 becase their opponents were 'backward' can also be used to say that the Allies were not as poerful as they were made out to be, because in 1944 Germany could be seen as 'backward'.

However, just by the fact that in 1940 Germany was NOT 'backward', and in 1944 the Allies were NOT 'backward' not only says something of their opponents, but, something of them. Not being 'backward' means that they ARE using their equipment, deployment and tactics better than their opponent, which means that their opponent (Allies 1940, Germany 1944) is not necessarily 'lowered', but they (Germans 1940, Allies 1944) could be 'raised' in quality.

This was what I was trying to get at.

[Wesy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper:
> by late 1945 the Kwantung Army (IJA in
> Manchuria) was a shell of it's former
> self.

Yes, but I am talking about what soviet officers thought about their opponents' tactical skills in combnined arms warfare, not about their numbers or anything like that. And basically, after five years of fighting germans, japanese did not seem up to par.

To clarify what I meant, by Aug. 45 the units that were stationed in China were 1)Exhausted from previous offensives in China 2) Poorly equiped/supported 3) Not prepared to stop a Soviet Offensive 4) units in the pacific and other areas were drawn from the talent pool in China.

> My uncle in fact was captured by the
> Soviets and spent three years in the Gulag
> near Lake Baikal.

Baikal. Not the worst place of them all. If you take a look at diesel vs petrol thread, I lived in a house built by Japanese POWs. Very good house, by the way. Double walls and everything.

Btw, Gulag was Department of Camps, NKVD. Your uncle should have been a client of a different organisation, namely Department of POWs, NKO.

> Didn't sound like much fun to me...
I guess so. At least, he survived.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the clarification on this point...All in all probably not the best place to be for three years. He is indeed lucky as many of the POWs died in those camps.

[Skipper]

> He is indeed lucky as many of the POWs
> died in those camps.

Yup. Some 10%. Germans taken around Stalingrad were not anywhere as lucky.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

Yup. Some 10%. Germans taken around Stalingrad were not anywhere as lucky.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was it again? I thought I read somewhere that only about 9,000 returned from the Gulags (or whatever you want to call them) from the approximately 200,000 men captured from the shattered remnants of the German 6th army. Is that approximately right?

Regards

Jim R.

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:
What was it again? I thought I read somewhere that only about 9,000 returned from the Gulags (or whatever you want to call them) from the approximately 200,000 men captured from the shattered remnants of the German 6th army. Is that approximately right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your figure, KR, is more in line with what I have read, also. In many cases, the Soviets did not release German or Italian POW's until five or more years after the war was over. Starvation and disease were the primary culprits - I have read eyewitness accounts of cannibalism in the camps, as well as reprocessing human waste to sift out undigested food. Disgusting, but probably true.

You know, its tangents like this that are interesting to read, rahter than the rants and personal attacks and ***** waving ("I'm bigger than you, say it to my face") crap. Thanks for a good posting.

MrSpkr

[Kanonier Reichmann]

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

You know, its tangents like this that are interesting to read, rahter than the rants and personal attacks and ***** waving ("I'm bigger than you, say it to my face") crap. Thanks for a good posting.

MrSpkr<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeh, thanks. Notice how us Aussie types don't tend to crap on about how great our troops were during WW II (except in defence of ignorant posts about them)... we already KNOW which troops were the best!
;)

Regards

Jim R.

[Skipper]

I've seen these figures somewhere, but was unable to track down the source. Not as few as you say - from the memory the number of survivors was in the range of 30 to 50%.

I have total numbers from Col. Gen. Krivoshein.

Axis POWs in Soviet captivity:

captured 4,1 mln, including 2.4 mln germans
died in captivity 0.6 mln, incl 0.45 mln germans

To put this in perspective, Soviet POWs in German captivity:

captured 4,6 mln combatants,
died in captivity 3.3 mln

Notably, soviet ration for german POWs was officially equivalent to the ration of a soviet private infantryman out of frontline duties (it wasn't much, and they didn't get it all, probably, but...). OTOH, german ration for a soviet POW was way below that level.

Source: Gen.Col. Krivoshein, report to the Association of WWII historians, 29.12.1998
http://web.referent.ru:2003/nvk/forum/archive/24/24909.htm (in Russian)

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper:
I've seen these figures somewhere, but was unable to track down the source. Not as few as you say - from the memory the number of survivors was in the range of 30 to 50%.

I have total numbers from Col. Gen. Krivoshein.

Axis POWs in Soviet captivity:

captured 4,1 mln, including 2.4 mln germans
died in captivity 0.6 mln, incl 0.45 mln germans

To put this in perspective, Soviet POWs in German captivity:

captured 4,6 mln combatants,
died in captivity 3.3 mln

Notably, soviet ration for german POWs was officially equivalent to the ration of a soviet private infantryman out of frontline duties (it wasn't much, and they didn't get it all, probably, but...). OTOH, german ration for a soviet POW was way below that level.

Source: Gen.Col. Krivoshein, report to the Association of WWII historians, 29.12.1998
http://web.referent.ru:2003/nvk/forum/archive/24/24909.htm (in Russian)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that this POW issue is one of those places where nobody is going to score any points.

That set of figures you cited represents brutality and inhuman cruelty on both sides that really beggars the imagination.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I couldn't agree more. I certainly don't want this to degenerate into some sort of discussion along the lines of "our troops were treated worse than your troops". Rest assured that the conditions in any of those German, Soviet or for that matter, Japanese POW camps would have been horrendous and thankfully none of us will have to endure such deprivation.

Regards

Jim R.

[MrSpkr]

Skipper-

For overall German POW's, you are probably right. However, the Stalingrad POW's fared far worse. The likely cause was the fact that many of those captured were already extremely malnourished before they were forced to march long distances in appaling weather (remember, they surrendered in Jan/Feb), thhus causing an already appalling attrition rate to skyrocket.

I have also read that the POW camp guards, many of them from Siberia, often took the "pick of the lot" of any food or materials sent for the POW's/

MrSpkrMrSpkr

[Dr. Brian]

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

(please no messing with handles outside the Peng threads, it is a sign of lack of respect, unless it was a typo)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Major Tim,

First, my typing skills are the same as yours, so I'm suffering from the same typos as you. If however, the mulitple (and successive) times you "messed with my handle" are indeed typos and as you say, not a "lack of respect" I will ensure I proof read extra for you.

Anyway, Germany was not "backward" late war. We clearly have two different interpretations of "backward."

You've already defined it, and attempted to define it for me. If we discuss this point, we first have to define backward.

However, I will define it for myself, to help see if it clears up anything.

Backward to me are the "minor" powers. Players on a world stage above their game. Poland, Denmark, Norway, Be-Ne-Lux, Yougoslavia, etc.

Now, what points in your post, are addressing this? Germany is not "backward" to me, so that's why I'm not seeing your point.

Can you go further?
Thanks.

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Dr. Brian ]

[Skipper]

> For overall German POW's, you are probably
> right. However, the Stalingrad POW's fared
> far worse.

I know. As I said, iirc, somewhere between half and 2/3rds of them died.

> ...POW camp guards... often took the "pick
> of the lot"

NB: there was something to pick from. No such luck for a Soviet POW.

> I certainly don't want this to degenerate
> into some sort of discussion along the
> lines of "our troops were treated worse
> than your troops".

Agree. I just gave the other set of numbers to show that it was not "uncivilised maltreatment of German POWs by cruel russian barbarians" as someone put elsewhere.

> That set of figures you cited represents
> brutality and inhuman cruelty on both
> sides that really beggars the imagination.

Ditto.

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:
What was it again? I thought I read somewhere that only about 9,000 returned from the Gulags (or whatever you want to call them) from the approximately 200,000 men captured from the shattered remnants of the German 6th army. Is that approximately right?

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are the numbers again for any Red Army soldiers captured by the Germans? Did most get exectuted? I know the Germans treated the West much better than the east.

[Wesy]

Here's a tangent to the thread...

I would say that those powers that one the war had the advantage of logitics. The US Military was/is the KING of logistics. The US is the only power that could have waged two wars ETO and PTO successfully. The PTO was waged over vast physical geographies and the US was the predominant power in bringing Japan to it's knees. In Europe they also played a large part (The USSR - shouldered most of the burden for much of the war). What do you guys think?

[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

[Wesy]

Jeez man, I better brush up on my English and to think I graduated from the University of California system...I meant "Won" not
"One" :eek:

[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! smile.gif

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 tongue.gif

<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!

[Chupacabra]

Small point. By the end of the war the Waffen-SS was using conscripts. So no, they didn't all volunteer to join a criminal organization.

[Skipper]

Since when, approximately?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I think it's worth bearing in mind that to a young German of military age the lure of joining an elite armed force when deciding how to best serve your country would have been great (refer previous posts). Bear in mind also that the Waffen SS was NOT illegal in Germany during the war (naturally enough). Although you could argue that any reasonably intelligent person should have realised that many of their actions were not exactly exemplary examples of armed conflict I wonder how widely reported the illegal massacres or other reprehensible actions were actually reported in the civilian press? I'm guessing probably none.

Therefore, I think it is a bit of a simplification to imply that any German joining the SS during the war MUST have known they were joining an illegal organisation whose illegality was only apparent to the Allies fighting against them. Possibly the SS recruits once they had been sucked in to join this elite force would have then found out about some of the, shall we say darker moments, but by then I would suggest it would be all to late to say "hang on... I wish to join the Heer instead thanks very much".

Just my take on the situation when circumstances were VERY different then to how they are now when we can analytically sit in our armchairs and make generalisations without actually living through that period.

Regards

Jim R.

[FinnN]

The Germans were responsible for huge crimes during the war, but I think it's a bit misleading to pick out the Waffen SS (the units that are in the CMBO game) from other German units as being the ones solely repsonsible for war crimes. Certainly the more infamous crimes were committed by them, but the Wermacht was also responsible for the ill treatment of civilians and POWs, in the East especially. The issue has been subject to over-simplification as certain other criminal units (such as concentration camp guards) were also within the SS structure under Himmler. I'm not saying that the SS didn't commit crimes, just that they weren't the only ones.

On the subject of political indoctrination although SS units were obviously the most 'nazified' within the German forces, both the Luftwaffe and the Navy were regarded as highly politicised by the Nazi leadership. Partly this was because their leaders were staunch Nazis themselves, but also because those branches had gained the most from the pre-war rearmament programmes.

Finn

[Babra]

Oh dear. Here it comes again... :rolleyes:

[PasssoP]

To get back on topic...

Sure, every army have there good and bad formations, the Germans consciously weakening some to enhance their 'elite' divisions, ie compare the static divisions guarding the Normandy coast to the panzer divisions which were to arrive later.

Yet for some reason,I've always accepted as 'given' that the Germans possessed finest army of ww2, definately in 1941, perhaps still by 1944. One of the books in my rapidly growing WW2 library is Overlord by Max Hastings (1984), notably a British historian. He quotes a detailed statistical study conducted by American Colonel Trevor Dupuy.

"On a man for man basis, the German ground soldier constantly inflicted casualties at about a 50% higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES [emphasis in original]. This is true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."

Make of this what you will.

PasssoP

[ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: PasssoP27 ]

[Mark IV]

I guess it's because I like statistics, but... has anyone else noticed that threads about atrocities ALWAYS get locked? 100% of the time?

It's enough to hypothesize a causal relationship, it is.

I wonder if that's Anyone's way of telling us that such discussions are unwelcome on their free, privately-owned board?

[PawBroon]

Mr4, you've been spiting your dried frog pills again.
Just because some privately owned company released a game and went so far as asking beforehand if it was suitable to put SS in it while at the same time avoiding the use of nazi memorabilia doesn't mean that they are prone to lock threads about SS and their atrocities when they keep bumping at the top of a forum which could be seen as a self saling and promoting tool for would be buyers.
Or it's me?
:D

[Alex heritage]

I'd just like to ask why hasn't anyone mentioned the brittish sas. in all these action films we see the all action hero who was in the navy seals or the green berets or the delta force there never in the sas. the sas we're the first real special forces but the american books i've read all seem to put american s.forces far above ours. However i'm not just being over-patriotc it is my strong opinion that the russian spetsnaz are the strongest force in the world... smile.gif

[Abbott]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex heritage:
I'd just like to ask why hasn't anyone mentioned the brittish sas. in all these action films we see the all action hero who was in the navy seals or the green berets or the delta force there never in the sas. the sas we're the first real special forces but the american books i've read all seem to put american s.forces far above ours. However i'm not just being over-patriotc it is my strong opinion that the russian spetsnaz are the strongest force in the world... smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all Alex. Some folks do realize what the SAS and SBS is and their professionalism. They are among the finest specially trained troops in the world. Their qualification course is one of the most difficult there is.

I for one tremendously enjoyed Timothy Dalton as James Bond and thought it added a bit of realism and flair to the whole concept. Alas, the critics actually believed he was to REAL and his contract was never extended.

[ 05-06-2001: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Stalin's Organist]

The SAS got mentioned several pages ago!! :D

[Major Tom]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:
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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, how red is my face. Little did I know that I was spelling it wrong! I did read it wrong, Dr. Brian. When I read your last post, I could not figure out why you were so upset. I was not trying to be a jerk, by calling you BrAIn, but somehow just typed it as so. Frankly, I thought it was BrAIn, and not BrIAn. I really meant no offense as Kanonier (did I get it right?) states in his post.

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd just like to ask why hasn't anyone mentioned the brittish sas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See the very first post. smile.gif

Gyrene

[Michael Dorosh]

1st SSF

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex heritage:
I'd just like to ask why hasn't anyone mentioned the brittish sas. in all these action films we see the all action hero who was in the navy seals or the green berets or the delta force there never in the sas. the sas we're the first real special forces but the american books i've read all seem to put american s.forces far above ours.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to read more books about British special forces. I've read quite a few and can provide a list if you really need one. They hardly ever mention Americans at all. In fact, I can't remember a single instance offhand. British war movies seldom have American characters either. Wonder why... ;)

BTW, I'd consider the Brandenburgers the first special forces of WW II. And I think the British Commandos were first among the Allies. But I may easily have overlooked some obscure organization or other.

Michael

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> But I may easily have overlooked some obscure organization or other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jedburghs & OSS? Many many others, I'm sure. Germany had a plethora of them.

Gyrene

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex heritage:
... in all these action films we see the all action hero who was in the navy seals or the green berets or the delta force there never in the sas. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you've missed "The Rock"?

Sean Connery's character there is an ex SAS officer.

Cheers
Olle

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:
I really meant no offense as Kanonier (did I get it right?) states in his post.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference is that I couldn't give a S*** if you did spell it incorrectly which, by the way, you didn't. tongue.gif

Regards

Jim R.

[BloodyBucket]

Originally posted by Dwight Eisenhower:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let us have no part in the in the profitless quarrels in which other men will inevitably engage as to what country, what service, won the European war. Every man, every woman of every nation here represented has served according to his or her ability, and the efforts of each have contributed to this outcome. This we will remember - an in doing so we shall be sending comfort to the loved ones of comrades who could not live to see this day. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Part of his victory message to the troops

[Jeff Duquette]

How good were the Germans, well according to the Depuy Institute, US ARMY Colonel T.N. Depuy “Numbers, Predictions & War”

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>EFFECTS OF AIRPOWER, AND GERMAN PROWESS

Despite the complaints of our airmen that we were not giving due consideration to the effects of air weapons, we seemed to be getting a pretty good fit for most engagements, and were not distressed when a few failed to fit into the pattern. After all, human behavior will vary from time to time and place to place. Suddenly, however, it became disconcertingly obvious that the deviations from the norm were most evident in those battles in which Allied airpower was not employed, or in which its involvement was slight—usually due to bad weather. At the same time another phenomenon became evident in our results. Where the Allied power superiority in the Pf/Pe ratio was very great, the result was usually (but not always) an Allied success. Where the Allies' Pf/Pe ratio was slight or marginal, the Germans were usually successful, or the outcome was inconclusive (an outcome value between +0.5 and —0.5); where the Pr/Pe ratio suggested an indeterminate outcome (a value between 0.9 and I.I), the Germans were invariably successful, as they were when the Pf/Pe ratio was in their favor. We had started out with an assumption that the Germans probably had something like a 10 percent combat effectiveness advantage over the less experienced British and Americans at the time of the Salerno landings. But we also assumed that (discounting the inevitable differences that will exist among units due to leadership and other indefinable causes) by mid-1944 the Allies would, on the average, have closed this experience-capability gap. Our results now indicated that this was not the case.

Suddenly, answers for these various discrepancies fell into place within our theory of combat. We had been getting reasonably consistent results for most of our engagements because our underestimation of German combat effectiveness had been offset by an underestimation of the effect of predominantly greater Allied air strength. We listed both the power ratio and outcome values in order of descending magnitude, and drew a line through the middle of the indeterminate engagements (on the P/P listing) and through the middle of the inconclusive outcomes (on the R-R listing), and found that these midpoints did not match. We found, however, that we could bring these two midpoints into close conformity with each other by applying a 1.2 relative combat effectiveness value (CEV) factor to show the German superiority, and by doubling the values we had been applying for the effects of air weapons. We didn't like one of the two conclusions which this adjustment forced upon us— that 100 Germans were roughly the combat equivalent of 120 Americans or British—but we could not ignore the fact that our numbers demonstrated that this was so. Our airmen, of course, felt justified by the other conclusion: that air weapons had about twice as much effect on ground combat outcomes as we ground soldiers had initially been willing to recognize.

This decision substantially reduced the number of engagements of our Development Data Base that did not fit the theory of combat represented by our two basic formulae and the factors for variables of combat. As noted above, only five out of sixty, less than 10 percent, did not fit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Want to know what the Depuy Institutes studies came up with for Combat Effectiveness Values on the Eastern Front?

[Stalin's Organist]

Absolutely! smile.gif

FWIW the NZ Divivion's DECREASED it's combat effectiveness later in the war, from about late 43 or early 44 in Italy.

The soldiers knew the war was being won and weren't quite so keen on taking riskes for the cause. Also new drafts from home were not as experienced as the old desert-veterans they were replacing and weer not as well motivated in the first place.

[BloodyBucket]

I would be willing to agree to the 100 Germans equals 120 allied soldiers formula. I think the allies were satisfied with winning the war that way.

The side with the advantage in fire support saw no pressing need to best the enemy on a man for man level. A nice luxury, if you can afford it.

[Berlichtingen]

One thing which may account for the 100:120 statistic... the Allies kept their units on the line. By this I mean that replacements were fed directly into units that were conducting active operations. On the other hand, the Germans usually pulled units out of the line before adding replacements. This gave the Germans the ability to integrate the replacements into the unit prior to going back into action. Where as (particularly in the US Army), men were sent into action only partially trained and unfamiliar with their unit.

[Stalin's Organist]

Not every allied nation did this Mk IV - Commonwealth practice was to pull out entire divisions.