Which was the best army?

Couldnt disagree more. While the Brits did a very admirable job in the battle of Britain, something to be proud of, sheer luck came into play:

- German bomber not navigating properly, which led to the Berlin bombing, which led to London bombing, which led to the RAF being able to recuperate. Because frankly, Hitler was an irrational idiot and that was his second biggest error in the war (first being the attack on Russia, creating 2 fronts).

- The USA had the sheer power of economy and numbers, plus the safety of its location. In terms of tech, they were far behind the Germans and even the Japanese (except the carriers, those were awesome), until they dropped the nuke. In fact, the USA army was in a dire state at the start of the war compared to its adversaries.

So the winner is, hands down, Germany. While not everything was 'best' they were all rounded, had the best logistical and tactics doctrine.

Fighter planes: Mwha, Zero was the best fighter for a long while, second ME109 and Spitfire

Tanks: Is this a discussion?

Battleships: close call, still would say Germans. The few they had were top notch (Bismarck/Tirpitz)

Subs: No discussion

Tactical planes: Mmm, Id say USA, Stukas were only effective early on, until was discovered they were actually vulnerable piles of crap.

Strat Bombers: UK for a while, until B17 came into play

Infantry: In terms of tech Germans, in terms of fighting ability Japanese

Intel: Brits, definitely

Commanders: Germans, as long as Hitler didnt interfere

Spirit: Russians, hands down. Though big credit goes to the Finnish

Funny enough, at the start of the war the French army was actually considered equal to the German army. I refer back to my point about logistics and tactics.

miech wrote:

Couldnt disagree more. While the Brits did a very admirable job in the battle of Britain, something to be proud of, sheer luck came into play:

- German bomber not navigating properly, which led to the Berlin bombing, which led to London bombing, which led to the RAF being able to recuperate. Because frankly, Hitler was an irrational idiot and that was his second biggest error in the war (first being the attack on Russia, creating 2 fronts).

- The USA had the sheer power of economy and numbers, plus the safety of its location. In terms of tech, they were far behind the Germans and even the Japanese (except the carriers, those were awesome), until they dropped the nuke. In fact, the USA army was in a dire state at the start of the war compared to its adversaries.

So the winner is, hands down, Germany. While not everything was 'best' they were all rounded, had the best logistical and tactics doctrine.

Fighter planes: Mwha, Zero was the best fighter for a long while, second ME109 and Spitfire

Tanks: Is this a discussion?

Battleships: close call, still would say Germans. The few they had were top notch (Bismarck/Tirpitz)

Subs: No discussion

Tactical planes: Mmm, Id say USA, Stukas were only effective early on, until was discovered they were actually vulnerable piles of crap.

Strat Bombers: UK for a while, until B17 came into play

Infantry: In terms of tech Germans, in terms of fighting ability Japanese

Intel: Brits, definitely

Commanders: Germans, as long as Hitler didnt interfere

Spirit: Russians, hands down. Though big credit goes to the Finnish

Funny enough, at the start of the war the French army was actually considered equal to the German army. I refer back to my point about logistics and tactics.

Same here Jack in regards to yours. But cant the same be said about the Germans and the Japanese? Fighting far superior numbers in units, resources (think 1943 and upwards), accompanied by a tirannical government that the common soldier had nothing to do with?

Though 'good/best/etc' is all subjective, I try to use facts (easily found on the internet as well) to strengthen mine. So lets look at the Brits then.

Naval units: The biggest, baddest navy in the world. Strange enough, it was a paper tiger. The few navy units Germany had, wrecked havoc among the Brits, until they found out that naval scouts/bombers were a good thing to develop against the subs, or send the ENTIRE navy to hunt 1 German battleship. Which was defeated by a lucky torpedo at the rudder...from a plane.

Army/Infantry/Tanks: Name 1 unit that was better..or even equal to the German counterpart.

Airforce: Basically a tie with Germans, perhaps slightly better in the long run (German bombers sucked)

Commanders: Come on, Germans had Rommel. Enough Brit testimonals that Rommel was very much feared, and rightfully so.

Ok, I gotta hand it to the Brits - sheer luck was on their side. And luck can be very important as history tells us. Not that the Germans would have won in the end though (USA)

miech wrote:

Same here Jack in regards to yours. But cant the same be said about the Germans and the Japanese? Fighting far superior numbers in units, resources (think 1943 and upwards), accompanied by a tirannical government that the common soldier had nothing to do with?

Though 'good/best/etc' is all subjective, I try to use facts (easily found on the internet as well) to strengthen mine. So lets look at the Brits then.

Naval units: The biggest, baddest navy in the world. Strange enough, it was a paper tiger. The few navy units Germany had, wrecked havoc among the Brits, until they found out that naval scouts/bombers were a good thing to develop against the subs, or send the ENTIRE navy to hunt 1 German battleship. Which was defeated by a lucky torpedo at the rudder...from a plane.

Army/Infantry/Tanks: Name 1 unit that was better..or even equal to the German counterpart.

Airforce: Basically a tie with Germans, perhaps slightly better in the long run (German bombers sucked)

Commanders: Come on, Germans had Rommel. Enough Brit testimonals that Rommel was very much feared, and rightfully so.

Ok, I gotta hand it to the Brits - sheer luck was on their side. And luck can be very important as history tells us. Not that the Germans would have won in the end though (USA)

first, it's difficult to say witch had the best army because each one had his own doctrine

1- Technology : the german were during all the war the first technological power, from the beginning of th WW2 they wanted high level units, perfectly made and desined in all fields so I will say they were the best in researching new technologies but they could not produce enough units to continue pushing

2- The USSR was the most effective in using massive armies to smash the ennemy, they were also the contry that realy resisted the invasion (more than the UK in my opinion) even if they didn't had very good tanks and aircraft as the german or the british, they had nice tanks (T34) and airplanes how were sheap to make

3- The USA had a giant economical empire so it wasn't supprising that they could produce a huge army, they were good at making more troops and unis to replace dead troops

4- Japan - UK had about the same doctrine : making only a few types of units (specializing) in order to concentrate there war efforts to reach one objective

I agree.

mio123 wrote:

first, it's difficult to say witch had the best army because each one had his own doctrine

1- Technology : the german were during all the war the first technological power, from the beginning of th WW2 they wanted high level units, perfectly made and desined in all fields so I will say they were the best in researching new technologies but they could not produce enough units to continue pushing

2- The USSR was the most effective in using massive armies to smash the ennemy, they were also the contry that realy resisted the invasion (more than the UK in my opinion) even if they didn't had very good tanks and aircraft as the german or the british, they had nice tanks (T34) and airplanes how were sheap to make

3- The USA had a giant economical empire so it wasn't supprising that they could produce a huge army, they were good at making more troops and unis to replace dead troops

4- Japan - UK had about the same doctrine : making only a few types of units (specializing) in order to concentrate there war efforts to reach one objective

Your opinion but Historicaly inaccurate my bruder.

The German army was the best Army of world War 2, and was one of the best armies in history. They conquered much of Europe, but bled white on the Russian Front. In 1945, they offered resistance to the Allies even though many of their units were at 20% of their full strength. According to SS General Kurt 'Panzer' Meyer, the early German victories were due to superior tactics, not equipment or any other factor. By 1943-44, the Kraut army was still formidable at defensive tactics, though many GI's thought they were poor attackers. One American Sergeant (who was wounded in hospital at the time ) welcomed the Battle of the Bulge, because "we'd never dislodge the Germans from the Siegfried Line, unless they came off it and attacked". Actually, the Allies would have eventually broke into Germany, but the Westwall was surprisingly strong, and Wacht am Rhein fatally weakened it. The Luftwaffe didn't perform as well as the Heer, and the Kriegsmarine was too small.(Some historians believe producing many more U boats would have defeated Britain,before Operation Barbarossa complicated the war). From 1943 to 1945, the German Army could still obstruct the giant industrial armies of the Allies, although some Landsers believed the war could have ended much sooner, if the Allied armies weren't so slow and cautious (especially the Brits). Hitler was a good commander until around December 1941, when the Germans floundered before Moscow. There is much conjecture as to what happened to Hitler, but he apparently changed German Army doctrine so that it resembled Stalin's "not a step backwards" strategy which wasted Germany's manpower. As for Rommel, I believe he was overrated, as the Germans had many good generals e.g. von Manstein.

Juan Bertin wrote:

The German army was the best Army of world War 2, and was one of the best armies in history. They conquered much of Europe, but bled white on the Russian Front. In 1945, they offered resistance to the Allies even though many of their units were at 20% of their full strength. According to SS General Kurt 'Panzer' Meyer, the early German victories were due to superior tactics, not equipment or any other factor. By 1943-44, the Kraut army was still formidable at defensive tactics, though many GI's thought they were poor attackers. One American Sergeant (who was wounded in hospital at the time ) welcomed the Battle of the Bulge, because "we'd never dislodge the Germans from the Siegfried Line, unless they came off it and attacked". Actually, the Allies would have eventually broke into Germany, but the Westwall was surprisingly strong, and Wacht am Rhein fatally weakened it. The Luftwaffe didn't perform as well as the Heer, and the Kriegsmarine was too small.(Some historians believe producing many more U boats would have defeated Britain,before Operation Barbarossa complicated the war). From 1943 to 1945, the German Army could still obstruct the giant industrial armies of the Allies, although some Landsers believed the war could have ended much sooner, if the Allied armies weren't so slow and cautious (especially the Brits). Hitler was a good commander until around December 1941, when the Germans floundered before Moscow. There is much conjecture as to what happened to Hitler, but he apparently changed German Army doctrine so that it resembled Stalin's "not a step backwards" strategy which wasted Germany's manpower. As for Rommel, I believe he was overrated, as the Germans had many good generals e.g. von Manstein.

Thread starter obviously a patriot and loves America. Authors of books edition education in America and tutors American schools apparently also love America. Many in the media too a lot of attention to this subject. This has led to that recently began to distort the facts in the interest of policy and advocacy. This means that for them there can be no other opinion about who is the best army. But if you study this topic more closely it will be a lot of doubt. I recommend the author to examine more closely the original sources (documents and memoirs of war veterans in different countries) and it is waiting for huge amount of frustration. After that I hope it will not create a theme with so naive content

Sandevot wrote:

Thread starter obviously a patriot and loves America. Authors of books edition education in America and tutors American schools apparently also love America. Many in the media too a lot of attention to this subject. This has led to that recently began to distort the facts in the interest of policy and advocacy. This means that for them there can be no other opinion about who is the best army. But if you study this topic more closely it will be a lot of doubt. I recommend the author to examine more closely the original sources (documents and memoirs of war veterans in different countries) and it is waiting for huge amount of frustration. After that I hope it will not create a theme with so naive content

miech wrote:

B17 came into play

My favorite is definitely Russia. Khalkin Gol, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Odessa, Russia kicks ass. The only thing I have a problem with is how they treated German prisoners. They vivisected 7 of them.

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

miech wrote:

B17 came into play

The Liberator, while still American, kicks the 17's ass. I think it was the B-24.

My favorite is definitely Russia. Khalkin Gol, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Odessa, Russia kicks ass. The only thing I have a problem with is how they treated German prisoners. They vivisected 7 of them.

I know, but the Germans just shot and gassed them while the Russians kept them for twenty years and left them in the ice cold of Serbia, put them in gulags or cut them up with no pain killers.

Good post.

I don't think i would like to be a war prisonner of any one

mio123 wrote:

I don't think i would like to be a war prisonner of any one

mio123 wrote:

I don't think i would like to be a war prisonner of any one

canadians are not stupid to get into a war, defenetly not against you

My mistake on my original comment ...I failed to mention who it was aimed at, which was mio123 and his made up thoughts on the armies of each nation. I am Deutsche and I salute the English who held their own against the evil , while others buckled and others like Russia sided with S.S controlled Germany...many miss the fact that Russia invaded Polen on Sept. 17 1939 also and that under Stalin, more Jews as well as Russian citizens were murdered than in Nazi Germany. Russian strategy was cheap labor and send 10 men to die that 1 German may die...In all I salute the Brits whom stood basically alone while helpless out-dated European armies fell before the more up to date Wehrmacht and Gudarians panzer tactics.