Which was the best army?

This is a tough question to answer, the obvious is to just look at who won, America, Russia, China and the British Empire beat Germany, Italy and Japan, therefor Britain, America, Russia and China must have the best armies, yet this in itself is too simplistic. Lets consider what we know as fact.

America had the largest Industrial base of any of the nations, therefore could produce weapons at a vastly increased rate.

Germany had the best technology, at least at the beginning of the war as they had time and space for preparation and came out with some of the most inovative weapons of the war.

Russia could afford to lose people wholesale and not notice and retreat to allow other factors, including weather to take its toll on the enemy.

Britain had a vast Empire, with access to oil, minerals, food and vast quantities of men to help spread the load.

Japan had been fighting for years against Russia and China and bouyed by these successes had become truly hardcore death or glory fighters.

China, had a huge country, making enemies need to spread out to gain effective control.

Italy.... well Italy had nice uniforms.

The number of troops lost also doesn't tell you much as with all these things equipment, air power and battle tactics take a part in the number of deaths sustained, as does front-line medical assistance and ancillary medical care. With every nation involved in the war i can think of instances where they fought hard and against immesurable odds, in attack and defence.

Personally, i don't think any was the best army, all had good and bad points, all had victories and defeats, all i can say is which army i'd want backing me in a fight and that comes down to personal preference, for sheer tenacity, ability and force of spirit i'd choose the British Army every time.

V1nd1cat0r wrote:

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.

The sending of military material to Great Britain began while the Battle of Britain raged on, the British had to use their own, and weaker, tanks against Jerry in North Africa supporting the Australians they held onto Tobruk and kept North Africa and more importantly until American Shermans and other good stuff arrived for them to use their AMERICAN hardware and BRITISH training and spirit to link with the Americans in Tunisia.

After Dunkirk almost all heavy equipment was left in France and what survived was what was in Britian at the time. The RAF was outnumbered but because of better planes and Hitler's incessant egostastic decisions the RAF pulled through, this time without American planes, but volunteer American pilots.

I agree Russia suffered the most and did the most powerlifting in Europe and indirectly ending the war with Japan. What I didn't agree with was Britain having America in their corner giving them stuff since the start of the war.

comrade dave wrote:

V1nd1cat0r wrote:

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.

The sending of military material to Great Britain began while the Battle of Britain raged on, the British had to use their own, and weaker, tanks against Jerry in North Africa supporting the Australians they held onto Tobruk and kept North Africa and more importantly until American Shermans and other good stuff arrived for them to use their AMERICAN hardware and BRITISH training and spirit to link with the Americans in Tunisia.

After Dunkirk almost all heavy equipment was left in France and what survived was what was in Britian at the time. The RAF was outnumbered but because of better planes and Hitler's incessant egostastic decisions the RAF pulled through, this time without American planes, but volunteer American pilots.

I agree Russia suffered the most and did the most powerlifting in Europe and indirectly ending the war with Japan. What I didn't agree with was Britain having America in their corner giving them stuff since the start of the war.

Yep, I read for 50 US destroyers, the ceding of the Suez canal should be done in 30-40 years, accelerating the fall of the British Empire, so yea, US was not entirely doing GB a solid

Just to clear up its not Russia but the Soviet Union so Ukraine, Russia, Georgia so forth,

qwokadile wrote:

Just to clear up its not Russia but the Soviet Union so Ukraine, Russia, Georgia so forth,

but getting economical support even if it means loosing it's colonies and having debt for 20 years (GB) is better than fignting alone the ennemy whith out support, after loosing 3/4 of it's industrial cities (USSR)

I believe the soviet union won the war with out halp, and they could win even if the US didn't participate

because the US didn't supporte them during all the war, I even think that the US participated because of 2 major reasons :

1- to stop the japs from controling the pacific

2- not to allow the USSR having more influence Asia (which was the real reason of lunching the nucs)

the USSR could win alone : after stalingrad and kursk battles the road to berlin was clear and the industrial complexes were secured behind the Oural

the brits ware supported by the US, had employed radars so they could win air supperiority, faced the poorly equiped italian army in libya and used the advantage of shoosing the battlfield against the Africakorps in Alalamein battle so it wasn't difficult to beat the axis in Africa, in the north they had air superiority and didn't had to fight in land, the biggest german army was in the east.

By the "best" army in WW2 it's either the Soviets or Germans.

Germans were the first to create a true combine arms force, have the most advance tank of the time, and even slowed the allied advance from the west even not in full strenght, they were just misguided by that "guy".

The soviets after the blitz took the brunt of German aggression, but manage to hold out, and was the deciding factor of the war, if the soviets fall then all of Europe will fall, with the Reds out of the picture it will create a large vacuum that will surely pull other nations to their side, given the circumstances of the time.

The Americans have the industrial power to overwhelm the Axis with the technology to boot, and their naval fleet overpower the japs, but it was their industry and not the army itself that won the war for the Americans. by resource and industrial power as well as number the Americans have them all, but by performance the soviets and the Germans did better, quite well even.

Britain did manage to fend off the Axis in Africa, but Africa is the lowest priority in hitlers list, Britain is also easy to defend for being an island nation, and having the best fighters of the time, the German air power was weaken at Poland, they didn't do anything other than defend and hold until the Yankees came to save the day.

France? K.O in the very start due to many factors, but I really think due to them thinking like it's going to be another WW1 but it wasn't. They do have the best tanks before the panzers.

Italy didn't do anything, their army is not as modernized than the rest of the powers, and due to oil shortages was not able to use the navy at full effectiveness.

Japan was devastating at the opening days of the war, mimicking the blitz of Europe, but unlike the American ships which is Armoured, japanese ships are wooden deck, they have tanks but these are new models and is based on resource constraints, in the end the japs fell behind in both technology and resource, focusing more on the navy and then on home defense.

V1nd1cat0r wrote:

By the "best" army in WW2 it's either the Soviets or Germans.

Germans were the first to create a true combine arms force, have the most advance tank of the time, and even slowed the allied advance from the west even not in full strenght, they were just misguided by that "guy".

The soviets after the blitz took the brunt of German aggression, but manage to hold out, and was the deciding factor of the war, if the soviets fall then all of Europe will fall, with the Reds out of the picture it will create a large vacuum that will surely pull other nations to their side, given the circumstances of the time.

The Americans have the industrial power to overwhelm the Axis with the technology to boot, and their naval fleet overpower the japs, but it was their industry and not the army itself that won the war for the Americans. by resource and industrial power as well as number the Americans have them all, but by performance the soviets and the Germans did better, quite well even.

Britain did manage to fend off the Axis in Africa, but Africa is the lowest priority in hitlers list, Britain is also easy to defend for being an island nation, and having the best fighters of the time, the German air power was weaken at Poland, they didn't do anything other than defend and hold until the Yankees came to save the day.

France? K.O in the very start due to many factors, but I really think due to them thinking like it's going to be another WW1 but it wasn't. They do have the best tanks before the panzers.

Italy didn't do anything, their army is not as modernized than the rest of the powers, and due to oil shortages was not able to use the navy at full effectiveness.

Japan was devastating at the opening days of the war, mimicking the blitz of Europe, but unlike the American ships which is Armoured, japanese ships are wooden deck, they have tanks but these are new models and is based on resource constraints, in the end the japs fell behind in both technology and resource, focusing more on the navy and then on home defense.

In my opinion the best army was the army of Great Britain since his great devotion, tenacity and above all resistance against the German oppressor is really admirable. The British army was able to hold on and prevent their invasion, that is why I admire him greatly.

While the German army could not prove their worth in the largest and most important battles,could not in Stalingrad, could not in the Ardennes, could not in Kursk and could not at el Alamein.

Jack Kennedy. wrote:

In my opinion the best army was the army of Great Britain since his great devotion, tenacity and above all resistance against the German oppressor is really admirable. The British army was able to hold on and prevent their invasion, that is why I admire him greatly.

While the German army could not prove their worth in the largest and most important battles,could not in Stalingrad, could not in the Ardennes, could not in Kursk and could not at el Alamein.

1. Stupid, brainless Britain's foreign policy led to the beginning of the Second World War. The policy of "appeasement" and hidden agendas Britain put Europe in a position catastrophically. In addition, you must remember that no one attacked Britain - Britain itself declared war on Germany. Now many are trying to pretend that Britain was a victim - but it's not.

2. "Phoney War" - a strong army does not allow himself to such humiliation.

3. The huge British fleet had a humiliating defeat by a small group of German submarines Admiral Doenitz. Before the war they had the best Navy, but it was useless. It took 4 years and the help of Americans is to find a solution. Shame.

4. The role of Britain in a land war in Europe had a secondary role and had no important victories

V1nd1cat0r wrote:

Italy didn't do anything, their army is not as modernized than the rest of the powers

Sandevot wrote:

Jack Kennedy. wrote:

In my opinion the best army was the army of Great Britain since his great devotion, tenacity and above all resistance against the German oppressor is really admirable. The British army was able to hold on and prevent their invasion, that is why I admire him greatly.

While the German army could not prove their worth in the largest and most important battles,could not in Stalingrad, could not in the Ardennes, could not in Kursk and could not at el Alamein.

1. Stupid, brainless Britain's foreign policy led to the beginning of the Second World War. The policy of "appeasement" and hidden agendas Britain put Europe in a position catastrophically. In addition, you must remember that no one attacked Britain - Britain itself declared war on Germany. Now many are trying to pretend that Britain was a victim - but it's not.

2. "Phoney War" - a strong army does not allow himself to such humiliation.

3. The huge British fleet had a humiliating defeat by a small group of German submarines Admiral Doenitz. Before the war they had the best Navy, but it was useless. It took 4 years and the help of Americans is to find a solution. Shame.

4. The role of Britain in a land war in Europe had a secondary role and had no important victories

With tenacity and patriotism, the war was won.

Sandevot wrote:

2. "Phoney War" - a strong army does not allow himself to such humiliation.

3. The huge British fleet had a humiliating defeat by a small group of German submarines Admiral Doenitz. Before the war they had the best Navy, but it was useless. It took 4 years and the help of Americans is to find a solution. Shame.

4. The role of Britain in a land war in Europe had a secondary role and had no important victories

2. The phoney war was a product of British reluctance to fight a war they new they were ill prepared for so they put a show of force, which didn't work in the end to try and scare hitler off.

3.The huge British fleet performed spectacularly against the Italians and their actually greatly sophisticated battleships in the Mediterranean, one battleship- HMS warspite scored the longest moving hit in history against a much more modern Italian ship, they raided the port of Taranto and effectively crushed the Italian naval power while only losing two biplanes. in the Atlantic the British destroyed the Bismarck using it's well established fleet air arm and conventional ships, the U-boats I might add where the cream of German naval units which had experience dating back before ww1, the submarines commanded by the Kreigsmarine at their height were hardly small in force. During the war, until 1944 or so, they had the biggest and best equipped navy, but the Americans in the Pacific surpassed British naval might.

4. "No important victories" it just spews ignorance. The RAF saved Europe from the nazis so that the Americans could come along and liberate Europe with them, the British liberated Caen which opened the road to Paris and thus a way out of the bocage, the British helped break the siege of Bastogne and kick Jerry out of the Ardennes, something the U.S must be given most credit for. RAF typhoons and later tempests where the most feared fighter bombers in the western allies' Arsenal, a weapon that made even crack SS units break and run. In Normandy the British army held down the most SS units giving the Americans an easier job taking Saint Lo.

So, what have we learnt? Great Britain played a pivotal role in the Second World War and even fought with its empire alone for at least a year, if I remember correctly. Doing research makes you look like less of an ass.

Jack Kennedy. wrote:

Well, the policy of peace was a great strategy and Great Britain declared war on the German State by his unwarranted invasion towards the Polish State.

To be fair it should not be over looked the fighting in Africa, while it took US help to drive the Germans and Italians out in the end, the UK managed to fight the Axis forces to a stalemate there.

The British under good old Monty managed to begin to push them away from Egypt before the torch landing however the 8th army would have lack any ability to free the whole of the Africa under Axis control.

Iron Guard24 wrote:

To be fair it should not be over looked the fighting in Africa, while it took US help to drive the Germans and Italians out in the end, the UK managed to fight the Axis forces to a stalemate there.

Sandevot wrote:

Jack Kennedy. wrote:

Well, the policy of peace was a great strategy and Great Britain declared war on the German State by his unwarranted invasion towards the Polish State.

Yes, but in reality they did nothing to help Poland.

comrade dave wrote:

The British under good old Monty managed to begin to push them away from Egypt before the torch landing however the 8th army would have lack any ability to free the whole of the Africa under Axis control.

But manpower reserves and less technical sophistication would have meant the British would lose maybe hundreds of thousands trying to free those areas.