I know this thread can be taken many ways, and every soldier, even though told he isnt, is an individual. But based on training, equipment, and the culture of war, what nation in ww2 do you think had the best overall soldiers.
My list would go something like this…
- Germany
- UK (lacking fierceness)
- Japan (lacking flexible thinking)
- Finland (in WWII blocked USSR attack twice, drove Nazi Germany out of Lapland - considering how many smaller nations were overrun by bigger (and more technological advanced) superpowers that’s not bad achievement). (oh my god, I’m starting to sound like a real pro-fin person, I need to start some sort of “let’s trash finland” thread or something %-D).
…
Surprisingly difficult to say which nation had “worst” soldiers, since there are so many factors to consider… own gear vs enemy gear, airpower superiority, motivation, training…
_
I agree with germans being at the top of the list.
but heres my top
1.Germany (Culture)
2.USA (Supplies and Training)
3.UK
hmmm
haha maybe the french as the worst?
They boasted state of the art tanks, impenetrable defenses, and thousands upon thousands of troops. Yet, i will say this in there defense, even though their goverment surrendered and went into exile, the french military was able to get away to fight another day. And French resistance was crucial, but had france not surrendered. hahaha
anyways
Go Germany. haha
Pretty subjective topic. Overall I think that the Germans probably had the best soldiers in the beginning. Over time I think most of the Allies caught up and the Germans, outside of elite units became less effective. What we have to bear in mind is that Culture thing though as the German youth had been literally brainwashed into a military mindset, Hitler Youth programmes etc.
Still though, when you look at the German soldiers in the Ardennes, they werent very effective in a real lot of situations.
However, mission led orders and good unit cohesion does make them stand out more.
Very true. The Germans are largely overrated in this respect. Many of the American GIs mowing down Wehrmacht and SS using ameteurish, horrid offensive infantry tactics during the Battle of the Bulge (basically doing their best early-WWI infantry assault impressions) hardly regarded them as supermen…
Or that instances such as the average soldier in the British 8th Army being pretty much the equal of the average Africa Corp soldier on the whole. But they were not led nearly as well initially. So, were the German soldiers “better” individually, or were they fighting under better leadership which made them more effective?
1.Germany (Culture)
Uh…? you lost me with that. Did the culture fights in a war ?
no no no, i mean, the reasons they thought they were fighting, to make germany great, to exalt the German race and empire. Also, the revenge for the humility of WW1, which many Germans were still mad over. If you think im wrong, please correct me, id love to learn.
1)america- best small arms, exellent training (Rangers and Paratroopers especially), exellent supplies
2)British- dispite lack of fiercness, good small arms, decent supplies
3)Germany- too many old men and young kids, crappy K98, spotty supplies
4)russians- crappy training, bad supplies (if any)
5)Italians- crappy supplies and even worse track record
6)japanese- don’t even get me started
lol your thinking of the sturmvolks as far as the old men and young kids. But the “crappy” Kar 98k was one of the most powerful and accurate rifles of the war. I believe German small arms were better then all. Heres some info on the Kar.
-Wikipedia
Description
The Karabiner 98k was a bolt-action rifle with Mauser-type action holding five rounds of 7.92 x 57 mm (also known as 8 mm Mauser or 8 x 57 IS) on a stripper clip, loaded into an internal magazine. It was derived from earlier rifles, namely the Karabiner 98b, which in turn had been developed from the Mauser Model 1898. The Gewehr 98 or Model 1898 took its principles from the Lebel Model 1886 rifle with the improvement of a metallic magazine of five cartridges. Since the rifle was shorter than the earlier carbines, it was given the designation Karabiner 1898 Kurz, meaning “Short Carbine Model 1898”. The standard Karabiner 98k iron sights could be regulated for ranges from 100 m up to 2000 m in 100 m increments.
The rifle was noted for its good accuracy and effective up to 500 meters (547 yards) with iron sights. For this reason, rifles selected for being exceptionally accurate during factory tests, were also fitted with a telescopic sight as sniper rifles. Kar 98k sniper rifles had an effective range up to 800 meters (875 yards) when used by a skilled sniper. Improvement beyond this standard was possible with the help of German Luftwaffe (Air force) 7.92 mm high velocity machine gun ammunition which achieved a higher muzzle velocity due to a more powerful smokeless powder charge. German snipers sometimes used this high velocity round to gain an extra 150 meters (164 yards) effective range and increased accuracy at closer ranges.
The 98k rifle was designed to be used with a S84/98 III bayonet[2] and to fire rifle grenades. Most rifles had laminated stocks [3], the result of trials that had stretched through the 1930s. Plywood laminates resisted warping better than the conventional one-piece patterns, did not require lengthy maturing and were less wasteful.
The 98k had the same disadvantages as all other turn-of-the-century military rifles in that it was comparatively bulky and heavy, and the rate of fire was limited by how fast the bolt could be operated. Its magazine had only half the capacity of Great Britain’s Lee-Enfield rifles, but being internal, it made the weapon less uncomfortable to carry. While the Allies (both Soviet and Anglo-American) developed and moved towards standardization of semi-automatic rifles, the Germans maintained these bolt-action rifles due to their tactical doctrine of basing a squad’s firepower on the unit’s light machine gun and possibly their problems of mass producing semi-automatic rifles.
In close combat, however, submachine guns were often preferred, especially for urban combat where the rifle’s range and low rate of fire were not very useful. Towards the end of the war, the Kar98k was being phased out in favour of the StG44 assault rifle, which fired a round that was more powerful than that of submachine guns, but that could be used like a submachine gun in close-quarters and urban fighting. Production of the StG44 was never sufficient to meet demand, being a late war weapon, and because of this the Mauser Kar98k rifle was still produced and used as the standard infantry rifle by the German forces until the German surrender at the end of World War II in May 1945.
[edit] Combat use
[edit] World War II
The Mauser Kar98k rifle was widely used by all branches of the armed forces of Nazi Germany during World War II. It saw action in every theatre of war involving German forces, including occupied Europe, North Africa, the Soviet Union, Finland, and Norway. Resistance forces in German-occupied Europe made frequent use of captured German 98k rifles. The Soviet Union also made extensive use of captured Kar98k rifles (and other German infantry weapons due to the Red Army experiencing a critical shortage of small arms during the early years of World War II) and rifle factories during World War II, as they were somewhat familiar with the weapon’s technology after buying the licences and machinery necessary to manufacture them from the Nazi Germany during the time of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. However most of these factories were converted to produce Mosin-Nagant rifles and carbines as Soviet forces gained stable territory and were able to establish supply lines for production. Many German Soldiers used the verbal expression “Kars” as the slang name for the rifle.
[edit] Post-World War II
no no no, i mean, the reasons they thought they were fighting, to make germany great, to exalt the German race and empire. Also, the revenge for the humility of WW1, which many Germans were still mad over. If you think im wrong, please correct me, id love to learn
Ok, now I see it.
I dont think tou are wrong there was some of the feelings that you ve descrived.
By the way having the M1 Garand and the K-43 I woulnt get much excited about the K-98.:roll:
The K98 was crap, not just because it was a bolt action rifle facing ever increasing semi-automatic rifles, but because it was less accurate and reliable than even most other bolt action rifles…
I wasnt crap but it was definately overrated.
the k98 was a good rifle when it comes to accuracy and penetration, but comparatively i would much rather have an M1 or even an Enfield, i probably should have phrased that better
Guys i have to say this is rather funny thread- whom soldiers were the best.
I mean we all are not the objective here and our post will express the ONLY tupical stereotypes and propogandas in every YOUR states.
So this is rather senseless to poll what army/soldiers was the best.
One could thingk that the US army supplies was the best - this’s true.
However all we know that during the all the WAR the NO ONE bomb was dropped to the USA. Moreovere the USA industry had the BOOM of the production due to the war in Europe.
So this is the rather doubt to say that the US army was the best in the WW2 simply coz they has a best supplies.
However there is the majority of the Americans - so they could not agree…
Not true!
A Japanese “Balloon Bomb,” ingenious bombs carried via balloons riding the Jet-Stream to North America were designed to start forest fires in the western US and Canada, killed a family on a picnic…
oh my god the whole one family perished during the war in America.What’s a serious damage for the working power.
I think the MUCh more people died every year to be killed by the Tornado , floods and fires.
Cheers.
Did you ever hear sir that the Hitler thought about ability of the American army to fight?
When he planned the Ardenn offencive- he told the Keitel that the Americans is the most weak section among the allias i.e. he considered the americans troops worse than the Britains and Soviets.
Also we know his statements about American armored wearponry that “the One tiger is equal of the 20 Shermans”.
Sure it was just the Hitler’s subjective oppinion;)
And he had been mistaken not once about the ability of Britain and Soviets to resist.
For instance he believed in 1940 that he could force the Britain to capitulate via the Bombing compain, and he believed in the 1941 that he could captured the Moscow for the 4 month.
However it was oppinion of the men who managed the German army;)
Hey, Welcome back
And you forgot to add Chevan - after the Ardennes Offensive failed, he was mistaken about the ability of Americans to resist.
I’m out for the rest of the day. Back tomorrow.
Cheers.
Hey George.
Sure you right the Ardenn offencive ( without the reserves of fuel and ammos and without the aviation) was a full adventure. As we know the germans planned to cupture the american stores of fuel:)
This was a bold but a desperate idea from the most beginning.
Nevertheless the Germans had a tactical success initially.IMO they still had the experience superiority in the Western front in this stage of war.
Cheers.
ah but youre forgetting one thing, not only was hitler insane but “The Corporal” was also a moron