Good to all, my name is Jack, today I bring an interesting topic .Which was the best army of the Second World war?
In my opinion the best army of the Second World war was the Army of the USA and the British army, the prowesses realized by the American Army I surprise greatly,but what more I value, is the British resistance opposite to the German Army, the great resistance and dedication that the British soldiers did for a free and democratic Europe,it is for this motive, that in my opinion for me, the best army of the Second World war was the British Army.
And for you, which was is he the best army of the Second World war?
I am but one man. Although I have most excellent problem solving abilities. I've broken into my own house twenty or more times in the last three years.mio123 wrote:
canadians are not stupid to get into a war, defenetly not against you
mio123 wrote:
canadians are not stupid to get into a war, defenetly not against you
[/img]Canada was a special case. xD
I never said the soviet were better, but I said the Soviet resisted mre than the british becausePz.Korpz wrote:
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.
1- the british were not really alone against the german
2- The soviet union was really devastated, thefact that the soviet could resist is honorable
3- the soviet people resisted as heros to the german bacause they had to face staline and his officiers, and hitler and his army so I believe the soviet resisted more than the UK
This is so wrong. First, the Russians. That was not their strategy, theirs was for infantry to punch a hole then have tanks rush through that hole and wreak havoc. This went wrong often since Germans would dig in. A great way to prove you are wrong is at Stalingrad. There was about 30 Russians in a tower and at the end of a week they were all dead... after killing a couple hundred Germans.Pz.Korpz wrote:
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
As for the Brits, they were never alone. USA and Canada always gave reso and then troops. They also had the empire at their back and floods of people coming from foreign countries to help.
hop I was understood
At the beginning of the war Germany was the best weapon (they are very well used tanks, planes were good, their submarines had no competition). Despite this, Germany lost in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had a huge loss (in the war killed 26 million people), but despite this he won against a strong opponent.
America defeated Japan. But the army of Japan in all respects was much weaker than the American army. Win a weak opponent is a bad reason to be proud.
The Russians fought better than the Brits, the Brits fought with american support, russia was disorganized at the time. The fact russia resisted the German operation:Barbarossa using Under equip, lack of training, disorganized army till the winter is legendary. the Brits had the advantage from the start, the Russians have sheer determination and heroism.
And just to clear things, the human wave tactic of the Russians was a nessesity, I was reading some articles about the red army and I found out they were getting motorized until the war came, the wave thing was a need to defend russia and not an actual russian strategy.
America came late to many things, just like WW1 and like WW1 they came to WW2 strong while everyone else is weakened, boy what a proud way to win.
The Japanese army was a rather weak army by that reason fell defeated and the only solution of the Japanese army was the launching Kamikaze attacks.Sandevot wrote:
At the beginning of the war Germany was the best weapon (they are very well used tanks, planes were good, their submarines had no competition). Despite this, Germany lost in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had a huge loss (in the war killed 26 million people), but despite this he won against a strong opponent.America defeated Japan. But the army of Japan in all respects was much weaker than the American army. Win a weak opponent is a bad reason to be proud.
Regards.
Did you know that Japanese tanks had so little armour American tanks would use HE rather than AP because the AP just passed straight through the tank rather than doing any proper damage?
Errr, he's Spanish.Sandevot wrote:
Thread starter obviously a patriot and loves America
Sandevot wrote:
At the beginning of the war Germany was the best weapon (they are very well used tanks, planes were good, their submarines had no competition). Despite this, Germany lost in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had a huge loss (in the war killed 26 million people), but despite this he won against a strong opponent.America defeated Japan. But the army of Japan in all respects was much weaker than the American army. Win a weak opponent is a bad reason to be proud.
In reference to the Japanese army, that is quite incorrect as you cannot view the military strength of 1945 as the determination of strength throughout the war, in 1941-1942 we were concerned the West coast could fall under attack and our military was far to weak to repel an invasion of Japan the start of the war if Japan had decided upon that path, we overcame Japan with massive efforts and while in the end of the war we appeared superior it took a lot of effort to build up against Japan, early on we struggled and were defeated by Japan throughout the Pacific due to our lack of military force.
Basically at the start of the war Japan was much more powerful than the US in terms of military power and proved that many times up until Midway when we managed to win a single decisive battle due much to luck. If we had not of won Japan would have kept pushing in on us, they were a terrifying opponent.
I have no idea why you would think Japan had a weak military, deficient in some areas sure, but very formidable.
A lot of Americans died fighting them, saying we should not be proud for defeating an opponent that cost us so much is offensive.
Hmm. I am surprised. I have always respected Spain for the fact that she kept neutral and not to succumb to propaganda from its allies.Pablo22510 wrote:
Errr, he's Spanish.Sandevot wrote:
Thread starter obviously a patriot and loves America
I like the Japanese fleet. They built a lot of unique ships - sometimes their ideas were simply amazing! In my office hangs a poster with drawings cruiser Oyodo - it is very beautiful. You can recall and other amazing projects - "Shinano", "Yamato" "i400". They had great admirals - when the entire world considered the main strike force of the sea - battleships, at that time the Japanese used - aircraft carriers. And it was the right decision - it was then that all countries have changed their naval doctrine.Iron Guard24 wrote:
In reference to the Japanese army, that is quite incorrect as you cannot view the military strength of 1945 as the determination of strength throughout the war, in 1941-1942 we were concerned the West coast could fall under attack and our military was far to weak to repel an invasion of Japan the start of the war if Japan had decided upon that path, we overcame Japan with massive efforts and while in the end of the war we appeared superior it took a lot of effort to build up against Japan, early on we struggled and were defeated by Japan throughout the Pacific due to our lack of military force.Sandevot wrote:
At the beginning of the war Germany was the best weapon (they are very well used tanks, planes were good, their submarines had no competition). Despite this, Germany lost in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had a huge loss (in the war killed 26 million people), but despite this he won against a strong opponent.America defeated Japan. But the army of Japan in all respects was much weaker than the American army. Win a weak opponent is a bad reason to be proud.
Basically at the start of the war Japan was much more powerful than the US in terms of military power and proved that many times up until Midway when we managed to win a single decisive battle due much to luck. If we had not of won Japan would have kept pushing in on us, they were a terrifying opponent.
I have no idea why you would think Japan had a weak military, deficient in some areas sure, but very formidable.
A lot of Americans died fighting them, saying we should not be proud for defeating an opponent that cost us so much is offensive.
But despite this, Japan had no technical possibilities to fight off the American coast. For America there was no real risk. Land army was also too weak and could be an effective defense only on the shoreline. Japan was very weakening of other wars.
I would say that all armies had pluses and minuses and each army was used to their terain. But here are my three favourites. Not in that order, as I don't want to be biased, all the armies mentioned had great men.
-Russians did well when they were attacked, they were poorly equiped (battle for Stalingrad) but well trained soldiers. They performed extremeally well in winter when hitler made his final attack.
-The Americans, well equiped, well trained, very good soldiers. Lot's of casualities in the D-Day and the battle of Bulge, that day they were poorly equiped for winter as there was just too many soldiers that the Americans had. And tilll the end of the war the bacame more poorly equped as of the lack of millitary funds going towards the Eastern Front.
-The English were good soldiers with a lot of experience and training. They knew the German tactics as from the WW1. At the start of the war they were poorly equiped, but then the Americans gave them the supplies they needed. If England had a stronger airforce they could have got rid of the bombings and counter attack faster with the factories running 24 hours a day with no need to go to the emergency shelters.
Gee thanks, mate!Sandevot wrote:
I have always respected Spain for the fact that she kept neutral and not to succumb to propaganda from its allies.
BTW, I also think the American army was the best. The cost of one King Tiger was equal to 50 Shermans, and a King Tiger couldn't kill 50 Shermans. Obviously, the U.S.'s industrial power plays an important part too, but the U.S. Army in my opinion was the best. Germany comes a close second.Japan out-teching the americans? Their zeros were good early on, but were completely obsoleted when the Americans moved to low-altitude combat due to its next to nothing armor. And American tanks had to switch to HE shells because and AP would go right through a Japanese tank's paper-armor like butter
I said this already.aDudeWhoDoesThings wrote:
And American tanks had to switch to HE shells because and AP would go right through a Japanese tank's paper-armor like butter
Oh, sorry, may have over scrolled and missed it
Actually, I had always believed that the German tanks weren't of the best calibre (tech wise). They were also supremely arrogant, not adopting sloped pattern armour until much later. Ironically that was due to their unprecedented successes in the use of doctrine. I think the french tanks were actually superior to the German ones at war's start, but being fielded as infantry support in the WW1 manner made them very vulnerable to the mechanised combined arms forces of the Wehrmacht.
German design also took an unfortunate turn later in the war, and although they made supreme armour units, they had many faults. High fuel consumption, and a complicated design that slowed manufacture, as well as the inability to recover damaged units to any great effect (Tigers were forbidden from towing other Tigers, they risked ruining their engines), and dedicated recovery vehicles were scarce.
On the other hand, the mass produced armour of the Americans and Soviets would simply overwhelm any resistance, simple design and manufacturing might winning the day.
