Years ago, I read an article about the Japanese assessment of their opponents during WWII. They rated the Australians at the top, followed by the Americans and so on down the list.
OK, I will drop my 5 cents to into this controvercial thread:
The best were those who won the war. It is a natural selection, if you wish.
And anyways it is like pairs and apples.
That’s holy true;)
And yet we very do not like when somebody try to steal our berries anf mashrooms.
That why we has invented the compact and ready to battle Hydrogen bomb first;) - to protect the our magic mashrooms.
It is only when an enemy comes to our house we put the sickle and hammer aside and take the rifle.
Why do hammer and sickles put aside?
This is the excellent wearpon of the close hand-to-hand battle as it was proved by the handres of military conflict in from the ancient times.
Hi George.
I think it becouse the Ausians really hated the Japanes and fierced fought with them.
They was a good motivated after the Japanes war ctrimes toward the Australian civils ( look for instance in the Banka island military mass crime).
Hi Chevan,
That was probably a good motivator, but the Australians have had a reputation for being tough soldiers for a long time. The Germans had great respect for them during the First World War. And in current times their SAS are in great demand in Afghanistan.
True, it’s for example much harder for both russian and german troops to build and maintain high standards, as they were in a deadlock struggle with numbers involved the others could only dream of.
Crappy training is true (at times) But the suplies they did recive were american supplies and most of them didn’t get there because of german U-boats. so bad supplies not true
So that’s true - the american supplies for the Russian was a full crap.
Especially with the comparition of the american supplies of Britain that absorbed the over 65% of lend lease. ( the Soviets - ONLY 23% and France about 6%).
The piles of dead German soldiers in front of US foxholes on the outskirts of Bastogne attested to what a self-deluded fool Hitler really was…
Partially correct -but- even in their initial tactical successes, a fact that is often lost in history is, the Germans suffered heavy casualties even against the “weak,” new American divisions in both men and machines even before both the American counterattacks and fuel really became an issue. the Wehrmacht and SS units surely did drive the US Army back, but the suffered heavily in several delaying actions, fought by US troops with no air support, for it. So history’s version of ‘panicky’ green American soldiers ‘bugging out’ as the Germans approached is not entirely correct. In fact, I think the numbers of panzers lost is quite substantial…
And the recurring comments I’ve heard by US troops that took part in the battle was how poorly the German infantry, both Army and SS, conducted their assaults as they were essentially mowed down in the snow…
Oh yes well, I was just making the point that both Germany and Japan thought of ways in which to strike the US mainland, with little real success.
The balloon fire bombs were probably the closest they came to a real effective weapon. Of course, as ingenious and creative as they were, there was little real chance of success (with the intent of causing mass forest fires)…
If the Japanese had done more damage at Pearl Harbor, well things may have favored more attacks on the US west coast, possibly even incursions of small naval infantry units and the conquest of Hawaii…
As a side note, there were over 11,000 US civilian casualties in the War, with the caveat that these were Merchant Marine sailors that were technically civilians that died after their liberty ships and other transports were torpedoed by U-boats…
I respectfully disagree…
By the end of WWII, the Red Army was one of the finest maneuver forces on the planet - one of few armies able to completely strategically envelope their foes…
Indeed he was. But the 102nd Airborne wasn’t exactly average joe afaik. Generally when it comes to Hitler, his disrespect for his opponents is imho a crucial (of many) character flaw(s), which led to the ultimate disaster. The whole “we only need to kick down the russian door and they will fall like a house of cards” shows not only in hindsight, but probably even back then to many sane persons, how much out of kilter that guy was. You don’t need to be a prophet to ask yourself: What were the russians supposed to do, mercifully ask to be extinguished by the master race?? Of course they will fight, for them it’s a struggle for survival.
I think what amazes many people today is the obvious disparity between his early success and his actual capabilities.
Over 200,000 Dodge trucks for a mechanized army was no small thing. However would supplies have kept up with the T-34s?..
I think you mean the 101st Airborne. 
In any case, you are correct that they were an elite formation. But keep in mind, they were thrown into battle completely unprepared with little in the way of supplies and ammunition…
And I’m also speaking of the the units of the 1st American Army that the Germans overran, including the 106th ID, which essentially ceased to exist. But they still managed to inflict significant casualties on the Wehrmacht/SS formations and they slowed the advance.
I don’t have my favorite WWII overview by Keegan, so I’ll have to get back to you. But the statistics of losses inflicted on the German ground forces, even in the opening days, surprised me somewhat…
Ups, of course 101st 
seems my memory mixed it up with 82nd, hehe
Well as you know infantry battles are always high casualty battles and have the attacker at a severe disadvantage. So if we want to compare them, we need to compare the offensive actions of all sides and the defensive actions, not offense vs. defense. So relatively high casualities don’t really surprise me, not even in 39-40.
This might Chevan piss off a little, but imho the red army would have been incapable to mount serious large scale offensives without american lend lease. Without lend lease, the eastern front would have become a strategic stalemate as no side would have been capable to achieve anything decisive. It would have been a little more tactically mobile version of ww1 western front who bleeds more scenario.
True. And then there were the French made trucks the Germans were stuck with…
Thanks George I’ve heard of that Japanese assessment as well, but would not vouch for it’s accuracy. I think there were plenty US soldiers and marines who gave a very good account of themselves.
There are probably many reasons why Australian forces were held in high regard and without making them sound like supermen, they did impact heavily on the German army in WWI and were instrumental in Germany’s defeat. The breakthrough of the Hindenburg line was a case in point.
Perhaps the old Aussie mateship has a lot to do with the esprit de corps of Australian forces and survives to this day. Perhaps RS will have some fairly good opinionated views.
Digger.
Ah, now it all makes sense, I always wondered how the french thought they won the war :lol: :twisted: :lol:
He he
Nice joike Drake;)