The Germans definately were the best army overall of WWII. They undoubtably the best trained, were very effecite overall, and well equiped, with the exception of having the bolt-action rifle as the mainstay for the German army.
I’m actually going to introduce a new one: the best “army”, should we look at it from small organizations of perhaps regiments and down, my vote is going to go for the Japanese. The Bushido spirit drove the Japanese to be some of the most fearsome enemies for Allied troops to face. Had the higher-up generals been more capable, I believe the Pacific War would have had lasted much longer before the Allied forces defeated Japan.
On another note, I’m GLAD the higher-up generals weren’t capable enough. I am of Chinese descent, and had Japan been under better leadership, my grandfather, a WW2 vet of the Chinese Nationalist Army, just may not have survived to escape to Taiwan with the government, and my father would not have met with my mother in Taiwan, and I would not have been born! Now that would not have been cool! 
Why this obsession with their bolt-actions? It was only the Americans who had a semi-auto as their standard rifle!
Certainly in the early part of the war they were definitely the best trained, thanks to the limitations imposed at Versailles which meant that they had a small & highly-trained army. Later in the war, the replacements were nowhere near as well-trained.
Bushido had a lot to answer for in WW2.
Part of the code of Bushido was that if a warrior surrendered rather than commit seppuku, or allowed himself to be taken prisoner, he had forfeited all rights to be treated as a warrior, or indeed, as a man.
This was the justification for the (to western sensibilities) appalling treatment of POWs taken by the Japanese.
I think a lot of it is also the cultural difference between the east and the west that actually “exaggerated” the degree of “brutality”. To the Japanese, POWs were almost not-human because, like you said, they have surrendered and had lost their honor. To the Japanese, if a man lived without honor, there was no reason for the man to live. Hence, they were treated inhumanely as slave labor or even a fate as terrible as bayonet practice dummy.
As heinous as the brutalities were, I think the Japanese had an excuse where as the Nazis did not. The Nazis had to adhere to an European standard that was known to be gentlemanly. Japan, on the other hand, had matured as a nation in a world where holocaustic mass murders of entire cities by a conquering army was, however terrible, relatively commonplace. The Han Chinese had forever been driving out ethnic minorities to expand their borders, while Mongol armies of the great khans slaughtered entire cities needlessly. It is in that kind of influence that Bushido was “hardened”.
I don’t really condone what the Japanese had done during the war, especially given it was my people (I’m Chinese) that the Japanese slaughtered in Nanjing, in Shanghai, in Formosa, or any other Chinese territory. However, given the historic and cultural perspective, I think there was a reason why some of the Japanese had done what they did.
This had been a big off-topic detour of the thread, however, so I’m going to stop here. Back to the point, I think the Japanese army (including the Marines of the Special Naval Landing Forces) should definitely be among the contenders when it comes to smaller organizations. At a squad-to-squad level, my vote will undoubtedly go for the Japanese for their fearless fighting spirit (can anyone say banzai charge?).
Best overall army at formation level - German
Best individual army at formation level - um i dunno… ill go for german
Most advanced (and/or) improved army - German
Best army overall (in terms of successes) - USA
Well then. Since the Americans had a better general purpose rifle the Germans were not the best equipped when it came to the rifle. Actually, their other small arms were not the best of the war either.
About your statement of the training, I agree. During the 1st portion of the war, they were definately the best trained. I guess it could be debatable if they remained so as the war tore on. Certainly they were not in the last year or more. I agree with you there.
The Germans had a semi auto rifle. Kar 43.
Yes, later they did. The Russians also had one. But even once the Germans has a semi-auto rifle, the bolt action remained the mainstay of the German army.
totally agree
Mythological awe of the German military in ww2 is becoming more and more prevalent as time passes.
If the German Army was the best ever, then Germany should have won the war!
It’s quite amusing when this awe is then transfered onto, that at most average military, the Bundeswehr. Having worked with them fairly often I find them very variable in both individual and unit standard and at times embarrasingly crap.
Best army is simple.
The British and their commonwealth (ANZACS, Indians, Gurkhas, etc).
Who were there at the start? See above
Who stood alone after Europe fell? See above
Who rocked up late? The yanks, so they can get lost.
Who lost? Well we all know that don’t we.
Britain = the best full stop.
And they did it with the BOLT ACTION SMLE, a bayonet, British guts and the knowledge that we weren’t a bunch of cowardly, murdering, sausage/spageti/sushi eating dogs.
In summary
If your choice lost the war, they were no good.
If your choice joined half way through the war, when the result was almost known anyway, they were no good.
If your choice threw in the towl half way through, they were no good.
sorry, i do not agree. and those “reasons” why england was the best are competely invalid.
i’m sure english people eat sausages and noodles too.
anybody with a high school education can tell you that the US army was stronger than the brits.
And the german and russian armies were more powerful than englands’
what is so great about a SMLE! its inferior to the garand, and not that great of a causalty inducer in combat.
and germany fought practically all of western/eastern europe and the united states.
i have more than a high school,and im agree with you hosenfield 
Obviously the yanks were stronger than the Brits. They didn’t commit till 1942. The Brits had been slogging it out for 3 years by then!!!
I never said that other countries don’t eat those foods, it is a way of identifing them.
The germans had indeed fought on all fronts but then the Brits fought on the European and Eastern front aganist the Japs.
Let’s not forget the Battle of Britain, either, or Operation Sealion, oopps the Nazis couldn’t carry that Op out could they? Because the Luftwaffe had their asses kicked all uber der platz by the “few”!
the us army would be stronger then england’s even if the brits never fought at all.
second of all, the luftwaffe was hardly “ass-kicked”. tell that to the people that had to go under the blitz. there was something of an invasion of the soviet union that took priority over this contest for an island.
Out of interest Hosenfield, on what do you base this statement ?
“And they did it with the BOLT ACTION SMLE, a bayonet, British guts and the knowledge that we weren’t a bunch of cowardly, murdering, sausage/spageti/sushi eating dogs.”
this misinformed fellow seems to think that the english army won world war two primarily with bolt action rifles.
and, according to dupuy’s statistics, mgs account for 4/5s of all bullet wounds. rifles in modern warfare aren’t as effective at shooting at tiny moving, fleeting targets.
*Waffle on the SMLE and No. 4 deleted due to being incorrect.
But why do you say the bolt action was inferior to the Garand ?
This is of interest as I’ve heard a number of views.
- Edited in the cold light of day and with a hangover that would kill a craphat, once again proving the rule of ‘Do not post while drinking !’