What was the best army in WW2? II.

Maximilien wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Maximilien wrote:

The Soviet Union had an army untrained in combat

Some were untrained and that was early in the war. For example, tank crews were expected to last one battle, same with a tank. So if a crew survived, they got a new tank.Fighting was truly bitter. One man and his twenty something soldiers held a house in Stalingrad for a month, taking out tanks and soldiers all day everyday. They killed so many Germans that they had to run out and kick down the piles of bodies in the lulls to stop the Germans from using them as cover.

The Soviets lost 30,000,000 million soldiers on the eastern front. The Germans achieved major victories over the Soviets, the Soviets did not have experience in combat and had an air force unable to compete with the German force.

More like 9-12 million, the rest was civilians...

I would like to point out that the military casualty rate on the Eastern Front was 1.3 Soviets to 1 Axis. That includes the disaster of 1941 where the Red Army lost pretty much every one on the western border. So it is a myth that Soviets just threw people in the meatgrinder. I also want to remind everyone that Soviets were more technologically advanced exept for a period between 1942-1943 for obvious reasons.

Also why is there no talk of Soviets defeating Japanese every time they clashed? Interesting to compare the Soviet/Japanese battles to Allied/Japanese ones.

Titantc wrote:

I would like to point out that the military casualty rate on the Eastern Front was 1.3 Soviets to 1 Axis. That includes the disaster of 1941 where the Red Army lost pretty much every one on the western border. So it is a myth that Soviets just threw people in the meatgrinder. I also want to remind everyone that Soviets were more technologically advanced exept for a period between 1942-1943 for obvious reasons.

Also why is there no talk of Soviets defeating Japanese every time they clashed? Interesting to compare the Soviet/Japanese battles to Allied/Japanese ones.

wildL wrote:

Maximilien wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

Maximilien wrote:

The Soviet Union had an army untrained in combat

Some were untrained and that was early in the war. For example, tank crews were expected to last one battle, same with a tank. So if a crew survived, they got a new tank.Fighting was truly bitter. One man and his twenty something soldiers held a house in Stalingrad for a month, taking out tanks and soldiers all day everyday. They killed so many Germans that they had to run out and kick down the piles of bodies in the lulls to stop the Germans from using them as cover.

The Soviets lost 30,000,000 million soldiers on the eastern front. The Germans achieved major victories over the Soviets, the Soviets did not have experience in combat and had an air force unable to compete with the German force.

No this is not true.

More like 9-12 million, the rest was civilians...

Titantc wrote:

Also why is there no talk of Soviets defeating Japanese every time they clashed? Interesting to compare the Soviet/Japanese battles to Allied/Japanese ones.

Maximilien wrote:

caused a heavy defeat to the Japanese in Korea

Anyways, the Japanese were idiots. As described (indirectly) to me by a Japanese military historian, the way the Japanese entered the war was that they "stumbled and fell in while the rest of the Japanese tried to catch up from behind".

Worst part is, the Japanese focused research on units that cannot hold ground, that being their navy and air force. The army was poorly equipped, had no standardization and any half decent tanks the Japanese had stayed on the homeland.

Quasi-duck wrote:

What about Khalkin Gol in Manchuria?

Quasi-duck wrote:

Anyways, the Japanese were idiots. As described (indirectly) to me by a Japanese military historian, the way the Japanese entered the war was that they "stumbled and fell in while the rest of the Japanese tried to catch up from behind".

Quasi-duck wrote:

Worst part is, the Japanese focused research on units that cannot hold ground, that being their navy and air force. The army was poorly equipped, had no standardization and any half decent tanks the Japanese had stayed on the homeland.

The perfect symbolization of the Japanese war effort is the "feared" flying, manned bomb that the Americans nicknamed the Baka Bomb.

Heads up for you who don't know much Japanese, "baka" is Japanese for idiot.

Quasi-duck wrote:

The perfect symbolization of the Japanese war effort is the "feared" flying, manned bomb that the Americans nicknamed the Baka Bomb.

Heads up for you who don't know much Japanese, "baka" is Japanese for idiot.

I know.

Quasi-duck wrote:

I know.

The Soviet army would have been able to have defeated the Japanese empire in 1944.

Maximilien wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

I know.

The Soviets would have attacked before the Japanese Empire...

Quasi-duck wrote:

Maximilien wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

I know.

The Soviets would have attacked before the Japanese Empire...

What? That makes no sense. You said something I typed was correct, then I said I know and now you are on about Soviets and Japanese.

Maximilien wrote:

I mean, The Soviet army would have been able to have defeated the Japanese empire in 1944.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Maximilien wrote:

I mean, The Soviet army would have been able to have defeated the Japanese empire in 1944.

Oh yes, entirely true! I agree.

Maximilien wrote:

. Korea would have been unified under a Communist Government at the end of the war, and probably the North of Japan!

Quasi-duck wrote:

Maximilien wrote:

. Korea would have been unified under a Communist Government at the end of the war, and probably the North of Japan!

Totally. The Soviets probably could've conquered the Japanese as early as '39.

This could have happened.

Maximilien wrote:

This could have happened.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Maximilien wrote:

This could have happened.

Could've? The only thing that would've stopped the Soviets would be the ocean, if they didn't feel like crossing it.

Maximilien wrote:

Kehsct wrote:

The Japanese army was fanatical and effective in combat early on, but when faced with modern technology and soldiers trained/ready for war, they fell easily. One example is from the book "A Dawn Like Thunder" on page 244 and 245. Colonel Kiyonao Ichiki assaulted a position on Guadalcanal held by the 1st Marines. He was a veteran from the Phillipines, and thought the allied troops would run in the face of his night attack. Instead, the marines who had no night fighting or all-out assault training (much less by elite shock troops), cut them all down. It was 100 Marines versus 900 Japanese. Only a few were able to get close enough for hand to hand combat.

Great answer! What do you think about the kamikazes?