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.
That is a movie, not a reliable source. Purely to make money, look at The Hurt Locker....oceanhawk wrote:
enemy of the gates as well as somewhere else
Dodgy site, Yahoo answers.oceanhawk wrote:
as well as from these sources
Good, good, but, alas, they do not have sources either I'm afraid so it is the same as here.oceanhawk wrote:
historum.com/war-military-hist…-ww2-1-rifle-2-men-3.html
The T-34 could.Kehsct wrote:
True, the T-34 did do well, but I'd still prefer a tank that might be able to resist several 88mm rounds
Same with the T-34 but then they up gunned it, like the Sherman.Kehsct wrote:
The normal Sherman couldn't pierce a Tiger's armor or resist an 88mm shell.
A little too late war for the Sherman though.Quasi-duck wrote:
Same with the T-34 but then they up gunned it, like the Sherman.
as for the panzers...
panzer I
Panzer II
Panzer III
Panzer IV
Panzer V--- Panther
Panzer VI--- Tiger
Panzer 6B Tiger II
All of those had severe problems, the best of them was by far and wide the Panther.oceanhawk wrote:
panzer IPanzer II
Panzer III
Panzer IV
Panzer V--- Panther
Panzer VI--- Tiger
Panzer 6B Tiger II
Well, it was deployed in Europe late so only to be expected. Although you think they would've learned from Africa and USSR.Kehsct wrote:
A little too late war for the Sherman though.
Put it this way, would you rather be part of a tank crew in a T-34 or a Tiger during a battle?
Quasi-duck wrote:
All of those had severe problems, the best of them was by far and wide the Panther.oceanhawk wrote:
panzer IPanzer II
Panzer III
Panzer IV
Panzer V--- Panther
Panzer VI--- Tiger
Panzer 6B Tiger II
yes cos the Germans didnt conquer all of europe... and there tanks were not feared at all...
if anything Id say the IV.. Aus G
panther still good...
would take a Tiger to the battle anyday of the week.. would rather fight in a motorbike than most of the soviet tanks...
German tanks were the best, like it or not
They were not, half the time the ones with the good guns had no fuel and the ones with fuel couldn't penetrate the enemy tanks and had terrible armour anyways.oceanhawk wrote:
German tanks were the best, like it or not
Besides, if German tanks are the best, why did they copy the armour off of the KV-1 and put it on the Pz. II? Or not give the Tiger sloped armour?
having no fuel doesnt mean the tank is bad...
Im not sure why the didnt give it sloped armor, only flaw
even without it, it still beats what ever the soviet rubbish could be mustered..
It is when the tank guzzles what it does have like a child would chocolate milk.oceanhawk wrote:
having no fuel doesnt mean the tank is bad...
The engine commonly broke as it was over strained.oceanhawk wrote:
Im not sure why the didnt give it sloped armor, only flaw
The Germans must've been pretty bad to lose against such an awful foe so.oceanhawk wrote:
it still beats what ever the soviet rubbish could be mustered..
they never would have lost, if the allies and the winter hadnt got in there way
tell me how the Germans did so well in the opening months?
A single season screwed over the entire armed forces? Pretty shoddy military there, even partisan units world wide did better. Look at the Americans in the War of Independence!oceanhawk wrote:
the winter hadnt got in there way
Fully mobilised force with half decent armour fighting an unmobilised force using cavalry tanks as the good stuff was still under production. Anyway, by this logic, the Germans should've held back the Reds in the summers of '43-'45, which they failed horribly at. Things were shaky in '42 as well.oceanhawk wrote:
how the Germans did so well in the opening months?
If by severe problems you mean track life and fuel guzzling, that's true. But the Panzer 5 and 6 were by far the best tanks of the war. The Panzer 6 also came into production in 1941, who else had a tank that effective that early on?Quasi-duck wrote:
All of those had severe problems, the best of them was by far and wide the Panther.oceanhawk wrote:
panzer IPanzer II
Panzer III
Panzer IV
Panzer V--- Panther
Panzer VI--- Tiger
Panzer 6B Tiger II
Umm, actually we suffered from the same problems Hitler did, lack of proper winter equipment. Hitler thought the USSR would be dead before winter. Plus, in the Revolutionary War, we didn't have to face enemies attacking us.Quasi-duck wrote:
A single season screwed over the entire armed forces? Pretty shoddy military there, even partisan units world wide did better. Look at the Americans in the War of Independence!
Just Imagine that. Even with one gun for 4 men, they were standing their ground to the end, and still kicked the German's asses. Isn't it the ultimate definition of the best Army? Red Army won, even after being way behind technologically at the beginning of the war. Even After the Disastrous first months of the german blitzgriek, where USSR lost almost all of their Air force and over 1.5 000 000 soldiers.oceanhawk wrote:
@Quasi-duckyou wanted evidence for 1 gun 2 men...
enemy of the gates as well as somewhere else
as well as from these sources
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090816193105AAGjb4X (dodgy on for cross checking)
http://historum.com/war-military-history/26022-red-army-ww2-1-rifle-2-men-3.html
I have it in another book, I look for it now..
hearing reports of 1 gun for 4men at one stage
To come back from such a blow and so many disadvantages is exactly what earns Red Army a respect to be considered BEST army of the WWII
What'd ya expect quasiQuasi-duck wrote:
Give me a source for this untrue fact. Whenever I ask for sources, you fail to give one. So you're stuff must be a pile of lies.oceanhawk wrote:
usually when you are using 1 gun for 2 men that isnt a great army...
This is just my IMHO, but the best army thing needs to be separated by at least 2 periods of war.
In 1939-1942 German army was the best not because it was most numerous or most technologically advanced. It was best because it fully utilized it's mobile units as an offset to any downside of their regular forces(which by the way were not so impressive).
In 1943-1945 Red Army became the best. It took the Soviets a while to recover from the initial disaster, but the lesson was learned. Here are some reasons why they took the top spot:
-They managed, despite the odds to save their production lines which were mainly concentrated in the areas that became occupied by Germany. My Grandmother(15 years old at the time) evacuated with the Kharkov Tank Factory. They set up machinery in the field(on pre-built foundations) and started working while walls were being built around them. Right now this factory is the main producer of tanks in Russia.
-They focused on weapons that were actually needed on the battlefield. You can say all you want about Communism, but you cannot deny the benefits of all factories working under one central organization system.
-They created a new force structure from scratch.
-They focused on mobility and combined arms. Case in point: They actually removed armor from KV-1 to make it more mobile.
-Artillery. I don't care what wonder weapons the other guy has, as long as i can concentrate 1000 artillery and Katushas on 1 kilometer of frontline.
-I can continue, but I’ll stop here 
"way behind technologically at the beginning of the war."
common myth
I have to say in the beginning of the war, the soviet army was not behind technologically. Their early t-34's and KV-1's were much better than the German tanks of the time (Early models of Pz4 and 3). But the soviet army was poorly trained, organised and experienced. And they didnt have many of the newer more modern weapons (In proportion of their army size, since they had probably just as many newer weapons as the Germans but the were very spread out)
