im sure there will be an idiot who will say the british divisions :lol: .
of course,a british guy.
the best division?
every german division.
Im equally sure there will be an idiot who simply states any German Division. :roll:
If you read back the posts, you will see that the British didnt have constituted Divisions, Battalions and Brigades were moved around various Divisions.
If only the British Divisions had ‘cool uniforms’, ideally featuring skulls and double lightning flashes. Then you could ignore their acts and harp on about how good they looked.
Im equally sure there will be an idiot who simply states any German Division. :roll:
If you read back the posts, you will see that the British didnt have constituted Divisions, Battalions and Brigades were moved around various Divisions.[/quote]
how original!,did i not say that?,and you have read my post,you quoted it.
i know about your army,but im sure it will be included since you are everywhere,in this forum a lot of your compatriots.
I consider that the germans had more balls,they have the war in their blood,they are militarist,they were far with more quality in their troops,and their generals are better.
still,you won,with the most of the world at your side (again).
oh,and their uniforms were not cool!,our were more cool! (argentinian uniforms)
I was alluding to the fact that these may have been the best units amongst the British armed forces, not amongst the rest of the world. :roll:
I was alluding to the fact that these may have been the best units amongst the British armed forces, not amongst the rest of the world. :roll:[/quote]
here says the best division of the ww2,not of the british army,and this is in general WWII discussion.
Is there any forum on this site not permeated by childish hatred ?
I used to enjoy reading WW2incolor.com, not it seems that certain people wish to spoil each & every thread.
Get a grip !
I was alluding to the fact that these may have been the best units amongst the British armed forces, not amongst the rest of the world. :roll:[/quote]
here says the best division of the ww2,not of the british army,and this is in general WWII discussion.[/quote]
Erwin, it is impossible to determine the best fighting division of ww2 as there are so many differing varibles for each theatre and unit. For example a japanese division cannot be compared to a Finnish division in most cases as they fought in completely different climates, and both nation’s troops would have suffered terribly in the opposite climate, thus making them not combat effective and yet they could have performed excellently in their own theatres. Furthermore it is hardly constructive to compare a division that was armoured against a parachute division as the equipment available to each type of division means that there is great disparity between the two. it could be argued that the soldiers of the British airborne division that landed at Arnhem were vastly superior fighting men compared to the SS troops stationed there. But no qualative judgement can be made as they were not matched in equipment, armour providing a significant advantage to any troops when fighting those without it.
Therefore it is far more expedient to decide which was the best division amongst each nationality tp prevent pointless arguments along the lines of ‘my country is better than yours…’ etc
Student-scaley (HM inspector of student drinking establishments)
Good call there Student-scaley, and topical too.
One tries one’s best. Maybe i should form some sort of site UN :roll:
Good call there Student-scaley, and topical too.[/quote]
yes,that wasn’t applied to the tam when we had the debate,dear boy :roll:
Whatever, I’ve stopped caring. :roll: :roll: :roll:
= boosting topic number = student-scaley is not erwin.
Are you cleared for TAMs Erwin ?
Are you cleared for TAMs Erwin ?[/quote]
what do you mean?
TAM = Tactical Aide Memoire, (a restricted doc.)
I was alluding to the fact that these may have been the best units amongst the British armed forces, not amongst the rest of the world. :roll:[/quote]
here says the best division of the ww2,not of the british army,and this is in general WWII discussion.[/quote]
Erwin, it is impossible to determine the best fighting division of ww2 as there are so many differing varibles for each theatre and unit. For example a japanese division cannot be compared to a Finnish division in most cases as they fought in completely different climates, and both nation’s troops would have suffered terribly in the opposite climate, thus making them not combat effective and yet they could have performed excellently in their own theatres. Furthermore it is hardly constructive to compare a division that was armoured against a parachute division as the equipment available to each type of division means that there is great disparity between the two. it could be argued that the soldiers of the British airborne division that landed at Arnhem were vastly superior fighting men compared to the SS troops stationed there. But no qualative judgement can be made as they were not matched in equipment, armour providing a significant advantage to any troops when fighting those without it.
Therefore it is far more expedient to decide which was the best division amongst each nationality tp prevent pointless arguments along the lines of ‘my country is better than yours…’ etc
Student-scaley (HM inspector of student drinking establishments)[/quote]
perhaps you are right. Thats why I made the first pick between 2 US divisions.
But I still don’t see how the 1st para can be argued as "“vastly superior troops” compared to the 9th SS. The 9th SS and the half-trained grenadiers had only modest amounts of armor. And the Paras suffered far greater losses.
I was alluding to the fact that these may have been the best units amongst the British armed forces, not amongst the rest of the world. :roll:[/quote]
here says the best division of the ww2,not of the british army,and this is in general WWII discussion.[/quote]
Erwin, it is impossible to determine the best fighting division of ww2 as there are so many differing varibles for each theatre and unit. For example a japanese division cannot be compared to a Finnish division in most cases as they fought in completely different climates, and both nation’s troops would have suffered terribly in the opposite climate, thus making them not combat effective and yet they could have performed excellently in their own theatres. Furthermore it is hardly constructive to compare a division that was armoured against a parachute division as the equipment available to each type of division means that there is great disparity between the two. it could be argued that the soldiers of the British airborne division that landed at Arnhem were vastly superior fighting men compared to the SS troops stationed there. But no qualative judgement can be made as they were not matched in equipment, armour providing a significant advantage to any troops when fighting those without it.
Therefore it is far more expedient to decide which was the best division amongst each nationality tp prevent pointless arguments along the lines of ‘my country is better than yours…’ etc
Student-scaley (HM inspector of student drinking establishments)[/quote]
perhaps you are right. Thats why I made the first pick between 2 US divisions.
But I still don’t see how the 1st para can be argued as "“vastly superior troops” compared to the 9th SS. The 9th SS and the half-trained grenadiers had only modest amounts of armor. And the Paras suffered far greater losses.[/quote]
If you read the post properly you eould have noticed I said ‘it could be argued’ it was hypothetical and not stating fact. It was an example of some of the rubbish that is sometimes spouted forth from some site members.
When i say talk i talk about: TAM = Tanque Argentino Mediano