I think the Flugzeugabwehrkanone 8.8 cm 18/36/37/41 "88 Flak" was one of the best weapons!
5 Apr 2016, 17:41
Locked
What was the best army in WW2? II.
What was the best army in WW2?
The Red Army:
The British Army:
The USA Army:
The Japonese Army:
[/img]
The Germany Army, "The Wehrmacht"
[/img]
This is a debate.
Rules of the debate:
-Will have to provide information from by that you think that your choice is the best army.
-You shall respect the forum rules.
"I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.
"Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.
432 Replies
5 Apr 2016, 17:45
Nah man, the Katyusha series!wildL wrote:
I think the Flugzeugabwehrkanone 8.8 cm 18/36/37/41 "88 Flak" was one of the best weapons!
5 Apr 2016, 17:53
Correct!wildL wrote:
I think the Flugzeugabwehrkanone 8.8 cm 18/36/37/41 "88 Flak" was one of the best weapons!
"I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.
"Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.
5 Apr 2016, 17:57
Hmm i do love the 88 flak. But i still stand by the fact that the Panzerfaust was the best Anti-tank weapon of the war due to ease of use, power and availability. over 6 million of them were made! Russian rockets were no better, rockets at this age were still unreliable along with most weapons really.
Forum Gang Divine Entity
Taking over the Forum 1 post at a time.
5 Apr 2016, 18:05
Not really, the Katyusha was great. The West's Holy Moses did well too as did the Bazooka.Ellio_98 wrote:
rockets at this age were still unreliable along with most weapons really.
5 Apr 2016, 18:07
Katyusha is good weapon!
"I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.
"Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.
5 Apr 2016, 18:55
Same it saved alot of lives... I think they expected about 2million people to die...Kehsct wrote:
We mainly launched the atomic bombs due to the high probability of unacceptably high casualties (look at Okinawa, then imagine us invading their homeland). I support the dropping of the bombs.
gotta look this up cant rememebr the actually figure
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
5 Apr 2016, 23:40
Titantc wrote:
Japanese had a million soldiers against the Soviets. How many did they have in the Pacific?Maximilien wrote:
The Soviets easily defeated the Japanese and caused a heavy defeat to the Japanese in Korea since the Japanese were more concentrated in the Pacific.Not exactly. Truman was well aware of the obligation by the Soviets to attack Japan 3 months after the surrender of Germany. Imagine if the Soviets took over Japan before USA would. It would be a political suicide. Thus the nukes were rushed, US pretty much used all they had. Third bomb was weeks away(maybe even a month) from being ready for deployment. It was a bluff and a way out of a tough situation. It worked.Kehsct wrote:
We mainly launched the atomic bombs due to the high probability of unacceptably high casualties (look at Okinawa, then imagine us invading their homeland). I support the dropping of the bombs.Maximilien wrote:
Correct! The great Japanese resistance and damage to the battleships of the United States, influenced the decision to launch the atomic bombs to Japan.Kehsct wrote:
As for the Soviets, they stayed true to their promice. Defeat of Germany on May 9th, attack on Japan on August 9th. Exactly 3 months.
At least somebody here with the real knowledge of how it all went...
By killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of civilians? what lives did they save? Japan would have surrendered anyway, the only reason the bombs were dropped was that USSR would not take over Japan , as they have already defeated Japanese army on the mainland and were moving fast. It was the same idea as opening the second front in Europe, when Germany's destiny was determined. Very cowardly and low from the westerners in my opinion, as they did not engage Germans when they were at their best , and refused to open second front for years until USSR turned to offensive. They were just sitting and waiting how it plays out on the Eastern front.oceanhawk wrote:
Same it saved alot of lives... I think they expected about 2million people to die...gotta look this up cant rememebr the actually figureKehsct wrote:
We mainly launched the atomic bombs due to the high probability of unacceptably high casualties (look at Okinawa, then imagine us invading their homeland). I support the dropping of the bombs.
Nothing changed in in thinking of Western leaders, still low and shameful tricks are used , supported by enourmous amounts of propaganda
5 Apr 2016, 23:54
Yet another sad person thinking that America and other Western countries are still imperialist. If you've read any history books, Japan never surrenders. They fight to the last man, and more ferociously as you get closer to their homes and cherished leaders.MihailMD wrote:
At least somebody here with the real knowledge of how it all went...Titantc wrote:
Japanese had a million soldiers against the Soviets. How many did they have in the Pacific?Maximilien wrote:
The Soviets easily defeated the Japanese and caused a heavy defeat to the Japanese in Korea since the Japanese were more concentrated in the Pacific.Not exactly. Truman was well aware of the obligation by the Soviets to attack Japan 3 months after the surrender of Germany. Imagine if the Soviets took over Japan before USA would. It would be a political suicide. Thus the nukes were rushed, US pretty much used all they had. Third bomb was weeks away(maybe even a month) from being ready for deployment. It was a bluff and a way out of a tough situation. It worked.Kehsct wrote:
We mainly launched the atomic bombs due to the high probability of unacceptably high casualties (look at Okinawa, then imagine us invading their homeland). I support the dropping of the bombs.Maximilien wrote:
Correct! The great Japanese resistance and damage to the battleships of the United States, influenced the decision to launch the atomic bombs to Japan.Kehsct wrote:
As for the Soviets, they stayed true to their promice. Defeat of Germany on May 9th, attack on Japan on August 9th. Exactly 3 months.
By killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of civilians? what lives did they save? Japan would have surrendered anyway, the only reason the bombs were dropped was that USSR would not take over Japan , as they have already defeated Japanese army on the mainland and were moving fast. It was the same idea as opening the second front in Europe, when Germany's destiny was determined. Very cowardly and low from the westerners in my opinion, as they did not engage Germans when they were at their best , and refused to open second front for years until USSR turned to offensive. They were just sitting and waiting how it plays out on the Eastern front.Nothing changed in in thinking of Western leaders, still low and shameful tricks are used , supported by enourmous amounts of propagandaoceanhawk wrote:
Same it saved alot of lives... I think they expected about 2million people to die...gotta look this up cant rememebr the actually figureKehsct wrote:
We mainly launched the atomic bombs due to the high probability of unacceptably high casualties (look at Okinawa, then imagine us invading their homeland). I support the dropping of the bombs.
Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
-Winston Churchill
Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
-George S. Patton
-Winston Churchill
Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
-George S. Patton
6 Apr 2016, 00:05
MihailMD wrote:
By killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of civilians? what lives did they save? Japan would have surrendered anyway, the only reason the bombs were dropped was that USSR would not take over Japan , as they have already defeated Japanese army on the mainland and were moving fast. It was the same idea as opening the second front in Europe, when Germany's destiny was determined. Very cowardly and low from the westerners in my opinion, as they did not engage Germans when they were at their best , and refused to open second front for years until USSR turned to offensive. They were just sitting and waiting how it plays out on the Eastern front.Nothing changed in in thinking of Western leaders, still low and shameful tricks are used , supported by enourmous amounts of propaganda
Very interesting views. I have to say, it is two different views, obviously someone has been changing the truth a bit. Makes me wonder what else we do not know, or what we have been taught that is not actually true.Kehsct wrote:
Yet another sad person thinking that America and other Western countries are still imperialist. If you've read any history books, Japan never surrenders. They fight to the last man, and more ferociously as you get closer to their homes and cherished leaders.
The writers of history seem a bit biased, they write what they want you to know. Funny this has been going on for a long time, and still goes on today.
6 Apr 2016, 02:13
It is you are a sad person here, ignorant one as well)), not still imperialist, always been and likely will be. Have you seen what is going on around the world or you live in a shack deep in the forests?Kehsct wrote:
Yet another sad person thinking that America and other Western countries are still imperialist. If you've read any history books, Japan never surrenders. They fight to the last man, and more ferociously as you get closer to their homes and cherished leaders.MihailMD wrote:
At least somebody here with the real knowledge of how it all went...Titantc wrote:
Japanese had a million soldiers against the Soviets. How many did they have in the Pacific?Maximilien wrote:
The Soviets easily defeated the Japanese and caused a heavy defeat to the Japanese in Korea since the Japanese were more concentrated in the Pacific.Not exactly. Truman was well aware of the obligation by the Soviets to attack Japan 3 months after the surrender of Germany. Imagine if the Soviets took over Japan before USA would. It would be a political suicide. Thus the nukes were rushed, US pretty much used all they had. Third bomb was weeks away(maybe even a month) from being ready for deployment. It was a bluff and a way out of a tough situation. It worked.As for the Soviets, they stayed true to their promice. Defeat of Germany on May 9th, attack on Japan on August 9th. Exactly 3 months.Kehsct wrote:
We mainly launched the atomic bombs due to the high probability of unacceptably high casualties (look at Okinawa, then imagine us invading their homeland). I support the dropping of the bombs.Maximilien wrote:
Correct! The great Japanese resistance and damage to the battleships of the United States, influenced the decision to launch the atomic bombs to Japan.Kehsct wrote:
By killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of civilians? what lives did they save? Japan would have surrendered anyway, the only reason the bombs were dropped was that USSR would not take over Japan , as they have already defeated Japanese army on the mainland and were moving fast. It was the same idea as opening the second front in Europe, when Germany's destiny was determined. Very cowardly and low from the westerners in my opinion, as they did not engage Germans when they were at their best , and refused to open second front for years until USSR turned to offensive. They were just sitting and waiting how it plays out on the Eastern front.Nothing changed in in thinking of Western leaders, still low and shameful tricks are used , supported by enourmous amounts of propagandaoceanhawk wrote:
Same it saved alot of lives... I think they expected about 2million people to die...gotta look this up cant rememebr the actually figureKehsct wrote:
We mainly launched the atomic bombs due to the high probability of unacceptably high casualties (look at Okinawa, then imagine us invading their homeland). I support the dropping of the bombs.
Who started almost all wars in the last few decades?How can you say "Japan never surrenders"??? So what did they do then on August 15th ( Sep 2nd officially ) of 1945?)))))) 
6 Apr 2016, 05:08
600000+ surrendered to the Soviets. And that was right in Japans backyard. Out of 1 million+ soldiers, only 80000(and this is most likely an inflated figure) were KIA. The rest chose life over death.Kehsct wrote:
If you've read any history books, Japan never surrenders. They fight to the last man, and more ferociously as you get closer to their homes and cherished leaders.
6 Apr 2016, 05:36
Correct! The Empire of Japan surrendered due to the releases from the atomic bombs.Kehsct wrote:
Yet another sad person thinking that America and other Western countries are still imperialist. If you've read any history books, Japan never surrenders. They fight to the last man, and more ferociously as you get closer to their homes and cherished leaders.
"I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.
"Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.
6 Apr 2016, 05:37
Correct!Sir McSquiggles wrote:
Very interesting views. I have to say, it is two different views, obviously someone has been changing the truth a bit. Makes me wonder what else we do not know, or what we have been taught that is not actually true.The writers of history seem a bit biased, they write what they want you to know. Funny this has been going on for a long time, and still goes on today.
"I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.
"Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.
6 Apr 2016, 06:23
The real problem is that history is written by the victors but this time around, there were two big victors who didn't like each other, skewing the view. You don't get this much controversy over WWI.
6 Apr 2016, 08:11
Question is misleading.
"Best Army" Land force only? or if "Best Armed Forces" what are the parameters... Leadership? Russia had poor... Stalin killed most of them and Human waves of troops and Equipment victories do not equal "best" just victories. Take the Navy out of the USA forces and the Loss troops and equipment ratio to objectives(add in friendly bombing of allied troops to make it really horrific) is worthy of a Russian Opera on misery. Japan for resources was horrible. The Navy knew they could only survive a 2 yr war but in the power struggle at home the Army prevailed. So How do you quantify an army with limited resources as having a "true" level of ability as first 2 years = victories and last 2/3 yrs losses? Brits.... well leadership(other than political) was suspect... equipment mid,troops mid,.navy mid and if Hitler had not given a 24hr the halt on Dunkirk to save equipment losses and later changed the objectives of the Luftwaffe to Civilian bombing from airfields and infrastructure I think Battle of Brittan has a much different outcome. Great intel and special forces though.
So as you see many things depend on ones perspective on what makes "best". Air force..USA,,, intel Brits, Equipment Germans, production Soviets. Kills per man=Gurkas,objectives per unit Canadians. Resistance units- France. Generalships very subjective as each had great and poor for me.
Maybe one should make the Question Clearer?
6 Apr 2016, 11:59
you guys are hopeless.Kenton Riggs wrote:
Stalin killed most of them and Human waves of troops and Equipment
6 Apr 2016, 12:06
Titantc wrote:
you guys are hopeless.Kenton Riggs wrote:
Stalin killed most of them and Human waves of troops and Equipment
To be fair to Kenton, Stalin actually did kill A LOT of his military leadership.
6 Apr 2016, 12:30
I was refering to the human wave thing.
6 Apr 2016, 13:33
If Germany had won World War II, the British and the French would have been bad.Quasi-duck wrote:
The real problem is that history is written by the victors but this time around, there were two big victors who didn't like each other, skewing the view. You don't get this much controversy over WWI.
"I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.
"Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.
This thread is locked. No new replies can be posted.
