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.
Nope, America needed to beat Germany to win if thats what you mean?..._King_Broseidon_ wrote:
I dont know lots about this but I know they all needed eachother to win lol.
otherwise, The soviets, helped, but it could have been done with out the USSR..
what I really would have thought would be a good idea... for Germany
would be really just if Op Valkyrie was a success...
peace with the west, and take the USSR
and take out the SS
No thats not what I meant lol.
I meant like all the allies needed eachother to win.
Im pretty sure the soviets helped the allies win.
That is a blatant disregard for history. Who was second to have nukes? How many successful long range bombers has Germany developed? What a moronic statement.oceanhawk wrote:
Soviets have always been behind, however you Duck, are too stuck in your view to open up and read the facts...
Irrelevant.oceanhawk wrote:
I hated Conservatives, for a long time, and was like wow the government can do this and all this other crap, then I opened my mind, learnt some economics and am now a hard core conservative..
You do know that there was many more nations than just UK and US in the Allies, right? Like Australia, Canada, USSR.oceanhawk wrote:
but that is all because of the allies, UK and America won that war
Can I just point out these men are actually US Marines >.>Maximilien wrote:
USA Army in Okinama...
Good on you! The Soviets caused the most German casualties._King_Broseidon_ wrote:
Im pretty sure the soviets helped the allies win.
That is a blatant disregard of the SS that did not commit vile acts against humanity. Against Yugoslavia, a SS recon detachment of about 10 men captured and held the capital for about a week before reinforcements came.oceanhawk wrote:
and take out the SS
My point here was that if the Germans were to survive, they should have followed Valkyrie and I believe that was their best chances at not being defeated..Quasi-duck wrote:
That is a blatant disregard of the SS that did not commit vile acts against humanity. Against Yugoslavia, a SS recon detachment of about 10 men captured and held the capital for about a week before reinforcements came.oceanhawk wrote:
and take out the SS
Im not saying at all the SS were bad soldiers.. they were well trained and fought hard.. excellent victory's....
and really were the best soldiers during the war
but they were harsh and have committed numerous war crimes..
and they are hugely to blame for the invasion of France success in 44
That is incorrect, that was mainly the Einzatgruppen (Action Groups, for those of you who don't speak Germany as badly as I dooceanhawk wrote:
but they were harsh and have committed numerous war crimes..
).Hitler did not listen to Rommel, he acted democratically and did what the majority told him to do which was defend Pas-de-Calais.oceanhawk wrote:
and they are hugely to blame for the invasion of France success in 44
They would still have lost the war, which means they would've been defeated.oceanhawk wrote:
they should have followed Valkyrie and I believe that was their best chances at not being defeated..
Im not trying to cause an argument here but If the Germans are so great how come they attacked Russian in their winter and the russians were smart to to let them keep coming through russia because the cold weather was killing most of them off so it wasn't hard for the Russians to defeat Germany lol.
Exactly. There tanks were bad too and most of their artillery and supply train was horse-drawn._King_Broseidon_ wrote:
Im not trying to cause an argument here but If the Germans are so great how come they attacked Russian in their winter and the russians were smart to to let them keep coming through russia because the cold weather was killing most of them off so it wasn't hard for the Russians to defeat Germany lol.
For a Brainwashed soviet, you speak highly of the SS.... Although I speak highly for the Germany, I only associate with the Nazis and the SS, for their brillant takeover of Germany and their hatred of communismQuasi-duck wrote:
That is incorrect, that was mainly the Einzatgruppen (Action Groups, for those of you who don't speak Germany as badly as I dooceanhawk wrote:
but they were harsh and have committed numerous war crimes..Hitler did not listen to Rommel, he acted democratically and did what the majority told him to do which was defend Pas-de-Calais.oceanhawk wrote:
and they are hugely to blame for the invasion of France success in 44They would still have lost the war, which means they would've been defeated.oceanhawk wrote:
they should have followed Valkyrie and I believe that was their best chances at not being defeated..
Otherwise, I find that the actions of the SS were mostly awful,
Hitler didnt listen to Rommel, true however the best defense would really have been if they listened to Mainstein
I take it you are unfamiliar, however he wanted to defeat the enemy invasion with large amounts of the best Panzer divisions they had, which is cheaper, and could have responded faster to an invasion.. wherever
this combined with parts of Rommel's Atlantic wall, the them just not bothering at all to waste res on shelter for the U boats
would have really changed the tides on D-Day
I agree Rommel was smarter than Hitler,
Also, had SS Panzer Divisions, actually been released on D-Day, the outcome could have been very different..
Well, it is possible that the Allies took the side of the Germans, and their new government and fought against the soviets
or also, had the Allies even just made peace, opened trade
and stoped supporting the USSR
The Germans would have defeated the Soviets
and lets just say for arguments sake, that when Hitler goes, the 3 best German Generals
all run the show, as well as the fact that all AA units, are no longer tied to the bloddy luftwaffa what a great idea..
stupid Goering had all the AA away from the Armour..
by best 3, I of course am referring to Mainstein, Rommel and Guidern
I, unlike you, know that to understand a certain period of history, you have to understand all of that period of history. Then look at it all unbiasedly before drawing a conclusion.oceanhawk wrote:
For a Brainwashed soviet, you speak highly of the SS
I rather not debate this here, lets take this outside into the ally private chatQuasi-duck wrote:
I, unlike you, know that to understand a certain period of history, you have to understand all of that period of history. Then look at it all unbiasedly before drawing a conclusion.oceanhawk wrote:
For a Brainwashed soviet, you speak highly of the SS
No.oceanhawk wrote:
I rather not debate this here, lets take this outside into the ally private chat
It is no contest. Only the British and Germans had 'professional' armies, and German troops showed skill and resolve in every battle, winning or losing. The British army was tiny before conscription began.
The US army was based on quantity and mass production. Dentists and teachers just could not match the Germans. With the exceptions of the Garrand M1 rifle, subs, and carriers, equipments wasn't on par with any major army.
The Russian army was even worse. Stalin had purged the officer corps and only NKVD behind them with machine guns to keep them in line gave the army any strength. Again, the material was cheap and mass produced and the soldiers were mostly conscripted peasants. However, some Russian weapons were without peer. The KV1 and T34 at the beginning of the war were untouchable. The Il-2 Sturmovik was the best Stuka in the war with great stability and an armored tub protecting the pilot. Late in the war, the T-34/85 was another unmatched tracked vehicle.
The Japanese army had been fighting for 10+ years before WWII began and was much better than America's generals gave them credit for. Japan's navy was a fearsome opponent, and the Musashi and Yamato were larger, better equipped battleships than any others in the world. The Zero early war was easily the best fighter in the skies. Light, maneuverable, well weaponed, strong engined and versatile, the Zero remained a fighter to be wary of even through the middle of the war. Despite all this, the army was not elite in any way and used mass attacks to make progress.
The Germans had well trained troops and officers, excellent weapons across the board, high morale, and was all volunteer for the first half of the war. It wasn't until 1944 that the country went to a war footing and they rolled over everything and everybody. Some of their weapons were without peer. The German 88mm flak gun was the only gun capable of taking out the KV1 for the first 2 years. Germany's subs and pocket battleships required fleets to track down, and the blitzkrieg tactic was so effective that it became a buzz word still used today. German paratroops did things like landing directly on enemy positions that no other army could match. Russian paratroops by the end of the war were coming close. Otto Skorzeny and his commandos were unequalled the entire war by any special units in any army.
By the way, I did not vote.
A helluva lot of that is wrong, shows a bad understanding of technology during the war. The thing that stuck out for me was that you calls the Il-2 a Stuka, which was a German dive-bomber, also known as the JU-87. You also seem to have forgotten Russian paratrooper actions in Manchuria and the horrible casualties taken by German paratroopers. Also, all countries had professional armies.Sir Smeal wrote:
It is no contest. Only the British and Germans had 'professional' armies, and German troops showed skill and resolve in every battle. The British army was tiny before conscription began.The US army was based on quantity and mass production. Dentists and teachers just could not match the Germans. With the exceptions of the Garrand M1 rifle, subs, and carriers, equipments wasn't on par with any major army.
The Russian army was even worse. Stalin had purged the officer corps and only NKVD behind them with machine guns to keep them in line gave the army any strength. Again, the material was cheap and mass produced and the soldiers were mostly conscripted peasants. However, some Russian weapons were without peer. The KV1 and T34 at the beginning of the war were untouchable. The Il-2 Sturmovik was the best Stuka in the war with stability and an armored tub protecting the pilot. Late in the war, the T-34/85 was another unmatched tracked vehicle.
The Japanese army had been fighting for 10+ years before WWII began and was much better than America's generals gave them credit for. Japan's navy was a fearsome opponent, and the Musashi and Yamato were larger, better equipped battleships than any others in the world. The Zero early war was easily the best fighter in the skies. Light, maneuverable, well weaponed, strong engined and versatile, the Zero remained a fighter to be wary of even through the middle of the war. Despite all this, the army was not elite in any way and used mass attacks to make progress.
The Germans had well trained troops and officers, excellent weapons across the board, high morale, and was all volunteer for the first half of the war. It wasn't until 1944 that the country went to a war footing and they rolled over everything and everybody. Some of their weapons were without peer. The German 88mm flak gun was the only gun capable of taking out the KV1 for the first 2 years. Germany's subs and pocket battleship required fleets to track down, and the blitzkrieg tactic was so effective that it became a buzz word still used today. German paratroops did things like landing directly on enemy positions that no other army could match. Russian paratroops by the end of the war were coming close. Otto Skorzeny and his commandos were unequalled the entire war by any special units in any army.
By the way, I did not vote.
You seem to be unfair on the US 
Quasi-duck wrote:
A helluva lot of that is wrong, shows a bad understanding of technology during the war. The thing that stuck out for me was that you calls the Il-2 a Stuka, which was a German dive-bomber, also known as the JU-87. You also seem to have forgotten Russian paratrooper actions in Manchuria and the horrible casualties taken by German paratroopers. Also, all countries had professional armies.You seem to be unfair on the US
soviets didnt have a profesional army, he is right
but a little unfair on US I agree..
nice to agree for once..
but otherwise, the Germans really were the best...
really they the best at everything.. like here.. Id still take an mg 42 to war even today,
They were paid and trained, they were professional. Unless, of course, there is some other meaning of profesional I do not know of.oceanhawk wrote:
soviets didnt have a profesional army, he is right
Look at it's predecessor, you couldn't throw the 34 into dirt without it breaking. Yet they still used it 'till the end, for some reason, not just on AFV's either. Then look at the early war tanks. No sloped armour, poor guns, and the one decent gun had a short barrel that made it crap. You never mentioned ammo either, which is pretty dumb when going to war. Also, you would have terrible problems getting ammo so it would be pretty short-sighted of you, especially considering that it fires too fast.oceanhawk wrote:
Id still take an mg 42 to war even today,
So true. Many U.S. soldiers were wasted due to bad equipment and bad distribution of men.Sir Smeal wrote:
The US army was based on quantity and mass production.
The German's were focused on the Blitzkrieg principle early in the war. You still have to give them credit for the Tiger though. They first came into production in 1941 (a year after the invasion of France), and almost every other country was behind on tank development at the time (especially heavy tanks).Quasi-duck wrote:
Then look at the early war tanks. No sloped armour, poor guns, and the one decent gun had a short barrel that made it crap.
Of course they would. It would probably take them just a little longer. It is not just numbers that won the war , but the Russian spirit.oceanhawk wrote:
you serious?Quasi-duck wrote:
You can't compare a game to real life.....oceanhawk wrote:
Has CoW thought you nothing?Numbers means nothing..
numbers mean absolute nothing..
France had more tanks that the Germans in 1940....
The most important things are a general and his tactics...
well maybe not.. but its defo not numbers
The soviets numbers, didnt win them the war, although I wont deny that it made some impact..
The soviet troops were poorly led, feed and equipped all what you would expect under a communist regime
The Germans were also outnumbered in the first world war on the eastern front...
they also had to fight on two fronts, however unfortuantly this horrible event happened in 1917
which really ruined Russia..
The Germans have always been ahead technological..
they have the best Generals..
with an awful leader..
Americans and brits, were well equiped and also had good Generals and werea good army..
Soviets have always been behind, however you Duck, are too stuck in your view to open up and read the facts...
I hated Conservatives, for a long time, and was like wow the government can do this and all this other crap, then I opened my mind, learnt some economics and am now a hard core conservative..
off topic.. a tad..
point is open your mind,
Germans were a better force.. but just failed to keep production, for many reasons, but that is all because of the allies, UK and America won that war.. the Soviets would never had on their own..
One house in Stalingrad held out longer than the all of Europe combined ...
By the way, do you know how many French soldiers does it take to defend Paris?)
No matter what way you look at it the German army was the superior force that fell to the shear numbers of the allied troops and bad calls made by higher up. They where proven in battle time and time again. And not to mention that they had batter tanks than all of the other nations, also they fell to the lack of an air force the german air force was not able to keep up and once the americans started to bomb Germany they couldn't felid as much fighters as the allies and due to most of there aces lost dunning the battle of Britain. And look at the industrial might of the Soviet union and the United States, they couldn't keep up with that. And know that if the germans had a good supply of oil they would have took Moscow and also not have to water down the gas ( leading to it freezing in the cold Russian winter) but if you look at the numbers the germans killed about 2 for every 1 solider compared to the Russians. so to come down to it they fell to bad command, not efficient supplies, lack of air superiority, and lack of industrial might. The german army was better than the Russians and the soviets knew it. I mean look at the numbers the germans murdered them in each battle they fought in. Heres a picture of the 2nd ss panzer in battle one of the most feared in the war.
