Print Page | Close Window

Finest Army of the 20th Century

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1451
Printed Date: 28-Mar-2024 at 12:01
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Finest Army of the 20th Century
Posted By: Paul
Subject: Finest Army of the 20th Century
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2004 at 16:14
Based on achievement, which army do you think was the finest force the last century saw and why?

-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk



Replies:
Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2004 at 16:20
the Japanese army was put in the poll question and left out of the count.


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2004 at 20:21
And what about the American Army?  U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: mongke
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2004 at 20:42
Israely army edging out the Wehrmacht of 1940. The actual name is the IDF.


Posted By: hannibal
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2004 at 21:56

Vietnamese Army 1979?

 

In which battle? Vietnamese army was a student of PLA at that time.



-------------
Who am I?
I'm General of Carthage;
Eternal biggest enemy of Rome.


Posted By: hannibal
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2004 at 22:02

Originally posted by Genghis

And what about the American Army?  U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

 

En,U-S-A...helicopters, cannons...I vote USA for the best-equipped army!



-------------
Who am I?
I'm General of Carthage;
Eternal biggest enemy of Rome.


Posted By: hannibal
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2004 at 22:10
In a battle of 1905 war,Japanese lost more than ten thousand men in order to take a Russian stronghold in LvShun.  Russian only lost several hundred men.  God! Do you think they are the best?  Maybe their soliders at that time were good. But the general was a fool.

-------------
Who am I?
I'm General of Carthage;
Eternal biggest enemy of Rome.


Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2004 at 22:14
Originally posted by Genghis

And what about the American Army?  U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!


thats funny. Ill go with the SS


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2004 at 22:14
i have to say israel, not because they are powerfull but i dont know of any army in the 20th century that took on 6 countries and took a triumphant victory


Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2004 at 22:24

Originally posted by Catt

Originally posted by Genghis

And what about the American Army?  U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!


thats funny. Ill go with the SS

Are you being sarcastic?



-------------
Member of IAEA


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 00:23

Originally posted by hannibal

In a battle of 1905 war,Japanese lost more than ten thousand men in order to take a Russian stronghold in LvShun.  Russian only lost several hundred men.  God! Do you think they are the best?  Maybe their soliders at that time were good. But the general was a fool.

 

no, that was how wars from Crimea through WWI turned out, attackers have a very large disadvantage, this same disparity of figures is obvious in many conflicts of the time.



-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 00:25
and yes, in the 20th century the US army is clearly the one with the best track record. Not to edge out the rapid betterment of the Russian army through WW2 though.

-------------
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton


Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 04:57
Originally posted by Genghis


Are you being sarcastic?



i can see now that it look sarcastic but it wasnt

... i actually pictured you in my head with those sunglasses chanting USA.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 07:59
I think the Soviet Red Army was one of the strongest armies ever. They widened russian lands to Turkmenistan in the south, and poland to the west! It is a great success for an army such as the Red Army...

-------------


Posted By: Jalisco Lancer
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 12:12

Pancho Villa's Army and his Division Del Norte weren't a professional army. Despites Villa had foreing mercenaries and the service of professional militars as Felipe Angeles. La Division del Norte was formed by average persons from the north of Mexico countryside.

Villa had a fine cavalry.

The medical services were procured by the wives and girlfriends of the soldiers.
The mexican women has been always present in every mexican war.

La Division del Norte faced several bloody battles as the capture of Zacatecas. It was a 5 years old militar unit, never defeated till April 6, 1915.

Obregon and the Ejercito Constitucionalista blocked the advance of Villa from Salamanca towards Celaya.

Villa commanded a 50,000 men force. He had a Guard of men chosen because their courage and valor on battle. They were known as "Los Dorados".

source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110001695

Hollywood even glamorized him in a movie filmed on location with Villa's cooperation. But then the gringos turned on Villa. President Wilson decided that the U.S. had to have stability south of the border, and the man most likely to deliver it was Venustiano Carranza, notwithstanding his well-advertised antipathy to the U.S. On October 19, 1915, Wilson extended de facto recognition to the Carranza government and placed an embargo on all arms shipments to anti-Carrancista forces.

Two weeks later, on November 1, 1915, Villa's forces attacked Agua Prieta, in the state of Sonora, just across the border from Douglas, Arizona. Villa thought that this isolated Carrancista garrison would be easy picking. He was dismayed to find a powerful force entrenched behind barbed wire and machine gun nests. His men were repulsed with heavy losses. He later learned that President Wilson had allowed the Carrancistas to move reinforcements into Agua Prieta across U.S. territory. Pancho Villa began to focus his formidable faculty for hatred on the Colossus of the North.

As usual, Villa's rage found murderous expression. On January 10, 1916, a band of Villistas stopped a train near the town of Santa Isabel, Chihuahua. They robbed all the passengers but did not harm the Mexicans. Seventeen American mining engineers aboard the train were executed. Less than two months later came the raid on Columbus.

Villa's reasons for the attack remain mysterious. Multiple explanations have been mooted: He was driven by irrational hatred of Americans; he was trying to punish Sam Ravel, owner of Columbus's Commercial Hotel, to whom he had given money to buy arms that had never been delivered; he was hoping to steal war supplies and loot from Columbus; he was a pawn in a German conspiracy to provoke a war between the U.S. and Mexico (there is evidence that such a German plot did exist, but no evidence that it influenced Villa's actions). There is probably some truth in most of these explanations, but his foremost biographer, Friedrich Katz, argues that Villa's dominant motive may have been more cunning: He apparently wanted to provoke the U.S. into a limited intervention. Villa figured that such an incursion would discredit the Carranza regime just as the occupation of Veracruz had discredited Huerta, and allow Villa to rally patriotic sentiment to his side. As a captured Villista officer told an Irish correspondent, Villa "said he wanted to make some attempts to get intervention from the gringos before they were ready and while we still had time to become a nation."

If this was Villa's intent, the attack worked as planned.





Posted By: JiNaRen
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 15:13
Originally posted by hannibal

Vietnamese Army 1979?

 

In which battle? Vietnamese army was a student of PLA at that time.



Vietnam was being invaded by China at that time.  They lost over 100,000 troops (compared to approximately 20,000 chinese casualties) and ended in political defeat(USSR had a military pact with Vietnam, the war broke the pack because USSR did nothing).


Posted By: Mr Bobo
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 22:02

Wehrmacht.

the USA r well equiped but porly trained, there not much compared to the armies of Nazi Germany, and since its based on acheivement anyways.. 



-------------
"A child of five would understand this, send someone to fetch a child of five"


Posted By: Mr Bobo
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 22:04
btw is ther somthing wrong with the poll?..you can vote twice

-------------
"A child of five would understand this, send someone to fetch a child of five"


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2004 at 02:39

Red Army 1945 of course!

But I like the People's liberation Army too.



-------------


Posted By: Bryan
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2004 at 14:24
Originally posted by Genghis

And what about the American Army?  U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Well, maybe it's not up there because friend Paul doesn't particularly care for the US much (from personal observations, no offense intended), hmm? Bah, out of what is up there, I think I'll go with... eeni-meenie-minie-moe... erm, Israel.


Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2004 at 15:40

Bryan wrote:
And what about the American Army?  U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Well, maybe it's not up there because friend Paul doesn't particularly care for the US much (from personal observations, no offense intended), hmm? Bah, out of what is up there, I think I'll go with... eeni-meenie-minie-moe... erm, Israel.

Ah but disliking with Neo-Conservatism and me not looking at the past objectively are two different things. (actually maybe not isn't creating a fictional highly patriotic past for mass consumption a Neo-Conservative founding principle?). The reason the US is not there is because each army has a date, nobody who mentions the US has put a date yet. Secondly most of the date correspond to the army in question fought and defeated a superior opposition. The only major war the US has had in the 20th century is WWII and they outnumbered the German's at least 5/1 so it can't count.

 



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: Omnipotence
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2004 at 16:10
If equipment doesn't count, I have to say it's the red army. Sometimes on conditions of three bullets per person, they were able to push the Germans back in WW2, an amazing feat.


Posted By: Sudaka
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2004 at 22:18
mmm I considerer that the american army in gulf war was the finest by equipment and training. But if u consider the "art" of the generals and the bravery of soldiers i ll go for the 1940 wermacht.

-------------
Not yet mein friend, not yet


Posted By: Praetorian
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2004 at 15:52
Ill say the Germans, British, and USA.


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2004 at 16:12
Originally posted by Paul

The only major war the US has had in the 20th century is WWII and they outnumbered the German's at least 5/1 so it can't count.

what about the pacific theater?



-------------


Posted By: mongke
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2004 at 17:56
It's the IDF damnit! Israelies don't get a break.


Posted By: Illuminati
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2004 at 18:17
Israel Army and the US Army.

The German's lost pathetically to the US at the Battle of the Bulge. Peopel say the US had a poorly trained Army, but the German's did horrible at the Battle of the Bulge. They couldn't even take Bastogne...which was defended by gravely outnumbered and totally surrounded US troops.

those claim the US only won when they had numbers....but the battle of the Bulge proves that totally wrong.


-------------


Posted By: Praetorian
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2004 at 22:38

Ill still say the Germans becs. they were take on the world and they were in the war longer.

in my other post

Ill say the Germans, British, and USA.

Ill add Israelies to my list.

one mor thing German tanks were kick @$$.

 

 

 

 

 

 



Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2004 at 23:56

Wait the US doesn't count for World War II but the Red Army does? 

I understand your dislike of the Neo Conservative movement(I recommend "the Power of Nightmares" a superb BBC documentaries) but thats no reason to ignore the US.  Also why on Earth is the Pasradan up there? 



Posted By: Illuminati
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2004 at 01:51
I agree that this thread jsut ignore the US for absolutely no reason. It makes no sense to ignore the Nations that was just as heavily involved in WW1 and WW2 as anyone else.

its just being racist. you claim that the US doesn't count because it outnumbered people......but yet you include the Red Army.....this makes absolutely no sense.


-------------


Posted By: Romano Nero
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2004 at 09:02

Yes, friend Paul. I think there are some sound arguments there. I myself consider the US army of WW2 only the 3rd best in the era, but in a poll about best 20th century armies they should be there (and I despise neo-cons even more than you do).

Having said that, I wouldn't vote for the US army (which was very good, though) but for the Wehrmacht. Outnumbered, outequipped and outproduced, against all odds, they managed to fight a multi-front war to the bitter end. Their extraordinary leaders, both in mid and in high-lelel commands, their will to fight to the end and their pure skill, are unmatched by any other 20th century army.

I don't hold the slightest sympathy for them (being the schweinhunde they were, having murdered millions of civilians, propagating the cruelest regime of the modern world) but they were as an army on their own league. Far away from the Red Army (#2) and US Army (#3).



Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2004 at 12:05

Sound argument or misinterpretation and a little hysteria.

My exact words were, (printed above)

"The reason the US is not there is because ............. most of the dates correspond to the army in question fought and defeated a superior opposition. "

It's a clear premise, most of the armies fought an enemy that outnumbered them. My personal criteria for being a great army. notice I carefully said most not all, because I'm aware the Russians outnumbered the German. However in 41 and 42 they were clearly the inferior force and the 45 tag simply represents the army coming to full fluition.

Now for the silly comments, it's racist not to include the US. So apparently this means the US is a race? I'm I left two hundred odd other countries out including not mentioning the British army of 44/45, so I'm racist towards all these countries too. Finally a whole lot of other polls have appeared on this site and the writer has left 200 plus countries out on all of the. Wot racists we are. 

However bowing to popular demand I now officailly add the US army to the poll

US Army 1989

 



-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: dark_one
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2004 at 16:17
 Heh accidently voted for the Red Army 3 times. Shouldn't that not be allowed?


Posted By: white dragon
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2004 at 16:16
in the early part of the century i would say the germans

in the later part of the cenury i would say the american

-------------
Pray as if everything depended upon God and work as if everything depended upon man.
-Francis Cardinal Spellman


Posted By: demon
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2004 at 17:51

In a battle of 1905 war,Japanese lost more than ten thousand men in order to take a Russian stronghold in LvShun.  Russian only lost several hundred men.  God! Do you think they are the best?  Maybe their soliders at that time were good. But the general was a fool.

Recall the battle of Khakin Gol(spelling might be wrong- its in mongolia), where so many Russians died that japanese troops stepped over bodies rather than solid ground?

-----

I'd go for Israeli Army.  In like 7 days, it expanded nearly double of its land, and defeated 3 opponents...! 



-------------
Grrr..


Posted By: pytheas
Date Posted: 19-Dec-2004 at 21:43

The American Empire=The Roman Empire, for better, for worse. 



-------------
Truth is a variant based upon perception. Ignorance is derived from a lack of insight into others' perspectives.


Posted By: Praetorian
Date Posted: 19-Jan-2005 at 15:17

I have been doing some thinking, the top 4 finest army in the 20th-century (in order) would be:

1.The Germans because it took pretty much the whole world to take them down and if they went one-on-one in any country at that time, they would win.

2.USA., because we survive the Cold War and we are the number one power on earth! (after the Soviet Empire fell).

3. The Soviet Union , because they were the most powerful country in Asia, and they were major threat in the Cold War.

4.Israel, is because the most powerful country in the Middle East, they have fought many different countries in the Middle East and won.



Posted By: Vamun Tianshu
Date Posted: 20-Jan-2005 at 21:16

"Now for the silly comments, it's racist not to include the US. So apparently this means the US is a race? I'm I left two hundred odd other countries out including not mentioning the British army of 44/45, so I'm racist towards all these countries too. Finally a whole lot of other polls have appeared on this site and the writer has left 200 plus countries out on all of the. Wot racists we are. "

You are right.You are very right,indeed.For me,I say the Red Army.



-------------

In Honor


Posted By: J.M.Finegold
Date Posted: 21-Jan-2005 at 19:34
Originally posted by demon

Recall the battle of Khakin Gol(spelling might be wrong- its in mongolia), where so many Russians died that japanese troops stepped over bodies rather than solid ground?

-----

I'd go for Israeli Army.  In like 7 days, it expanded nearly double of its land, and defeated 3 opponents...! 



The Red Army didn't suffer nearly as many casualties as the Japanese lost..the Japanese were firmly defeated.

And I voted for the IDF.


-------------


Posted By: Conquistador
Date Posted: 23-Jan-2005 at 08:56
I voted for Wehrmacht 1940, they were superior to any other army at the time, and they proved it time after time on the battlefield. The only problem where it's leaders, like Hitler, they are the ones who ****ed it up as the war went on, not the army itself. 


Posted By: Praetorian
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 13:19

"I voted for Wehrmacht 1940, they were superior to any other army at the time, and they proved it time after time on the battlefield. The only problem where it's leaders, like Hitler, they are the ones who ****ed it up as the war went on, not the army itself."

 

Thats true, Hitle cept on intervene with the...it's not the army itself.

Ill say more stuf some other time.

 

You also got see is that Gremany was in the worst depression in the wrold, and in a decade or two Gremany be came a top world power...



-------------
“Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris”
“--If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar.”

"game over!! man game over!!"


Posted By: cattus
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 17:03
In my opinion this is almost not up for debate because an army includes its effective hardware. When Paul included the 1989 US Army, there isnt a better force.

The Wehrmacht makes a good case for the best 'troops' of the Century without a doubt. Although fighting an unprepared enemy at the beginning of WW2, there are countless examples of genious, discipline and grit against over-whelming odds. They got my vote anyway.

High mention goes to the US Marines in the Pacific Theater that fought in just as vicious battles as the Eastern Front against the stubborn Japanese. The US Army could not keep up with the Marines in some cases.

The Spanish Blue Division(German 250th Infantry) that had the greatest sustained march of the war, fought in hundreds of major/minor clashes with Soviet forces and wasnt slowed till it finally retired from Leningrad.

-------------


Posted By: dark_one
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2005 at 19:33
 BEF in 1914. They saved the West, ultimately saving the East.


Posted By: Mobius
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2005 at 18:37

(MY POST! IT ATE MY POST!)

Sorry. Anyway, I voted for the IDF based on the results of the six day war and Yom kippur (IDF 2, Everyone else 0).

But out of the options listed, the 1945 Red Army has to be the finest. After surviving an invasion they left them as a shattered force having lost millions of troops and 90% of their equipment, they stubbornly held out, built up, and after some of the most destructive battles we have seen in modern times (The 900 day seige of Leningrad and destruction of the german sixth army at Stalingrad spring to mind, not to mention Kursk!), they were forged into an unstoppable force.

Equipment was world class (for the time period), logistics and organisation were fantastic, the leadership (ignore Stalin - think Zhukov!) was brilliant, and most importantly the troops were pretty much 100% veterans.

And if you want to see what sort of difference that makes, look at how the wehrmacht of 1944 - 1945 were able to hold off 3 seperate armies (2 allied, 1 russian) with the few troops they had left, terrible logistics, shattered transport grids, great equipment - but only if you could get it!!

I think if you took the russian army (heck, throw in the airforce as well), equipped it with the same equipment as the US had in, say, 1989.... allow the red army to train to the same level of proficency with the new equipment as they had with their old, then see who wins.

In this case, my money would be on the Red Army (1945) EVERY time!

 



-------------
"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"

J.Robert Oppenheimer


Posted By: RED GUARD
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2005 at 09:01

       Long live the great Red Guards of the Red Army!


-------------
Quotes by your's turly:

"I came, I saw, and I conquered... but only for the weekend"

"This is my tank, this is my weapon, and this is my pride."

"Power comes from a barrel of a gun."



Posted By: Riain
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2005 at 16:57
The German army system made the most out of the fighting man compared to every other army, except perhaps the Iraelis. They won their victories when outnumbered and outgunned and fought with stubbornenss when all hope was lost, on 3 fronts against 3 of the 4 most powerful countries in the world. Given proper support from a well run political system Germany would have won ww1 and/or 2 due to the greater fighting power of its men.


Posted By: Praetorian
Date Posted: 01-Apr-2005 at 19:33

"Long live the great Red Guards of the Red Army!"

LOL Please, don’t get me into what the Marines can do to the Red Army…




-------------
“Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris”
“--If Caesar were alive, you'd be chained to an oar.”

"game over!! man game over!!"


Posted By: England The Great
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 03:35

I'd have to say the BEf of 1914. Von Kluck called them 'an incomparable Army.' after the battle of Mons.

Everybody had the Wehrmacht, even the French. I was reading this yesterday:

Meanwhile, the French II Corps had been fighting hard throughout April after an improvised but brilliantly successful crossing of the Rhine at Speyer. Against powerful and effective resistance from the German 19th Army, the French took Karlsruhe on April 4th and, in a constantly changing battle reminiscent of greater days of the German army, captured Pforzheim on April 8th. On April 20th, again after fierce battles, the French captured Tubingen and took 28,000 prisoners. Five days later, General de Lattre's formidable French Colonial Army took another 40,000 German prisoners when General Keppler's XVIII SS Corps was cut off and encircled on the Swiss border.

At the end of April, General de Lattre ordered his I Corps to attack the German 24th Army, whose defined role was to prevent the French entering Austria. They lost no time. On April 30th, the 4th Moroccan Mountain Division and the French 5th Armoured Division took Bregenz, and from there on made a flower-decked progress through Austria as the populace welcomed them as liberators. On May 7th Kesselring capitulated to General Devers and a cease-fire was declared in Austria, thus preventing any further damage to a beautiful country.

 

check out my site and where it says (sister page) too.

http://www.expage.com/englandthegreat - http://www.expage.com/englandthegreat



Posted By: Irishbagpipes
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2010 at 22:22
Undoubtedly the Germans take the cake for best trained army from 1900-1940, however I consider the military leaders to be a part of the army, so I would have to say America for WWII and beyond.  The Soviet Union's generals were terrible in the fact that they could defeat the German army without superior numbers, and by superior numbers I mean millions of men (literally).  The Wehrmacht army was well trained and had great generals (Rommel) but the Kaiser and Hitler were both foolish military leaders.  The Japanese navy is to be commended, however, their blunder at Midway keeps them from taking the prize.  The US military was not only the best equipped, (no tiger tanks, but they had 20 Shermans to every tiger), but they consistently had great training throughout all of the wars from beginning to end.  The last half of the Twentieth century goes to either Israel or the US.  Israel's victory was a miracle in itself.  And the US has had the best trained/equipped semi-professional army since Vietnam.


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 07:57
Originally posted by Irishbagpipes

The Soviet Union's generals were terrible in the fact that they could defeat the German army without superior numbers, and by superior numbers I mean millions of men (literally).  
 
Soviet generals need to be studied as two groups:
-divisional level generals 
-strategic level generals
 
Soviet Strategic generals like Zhukov, Koniev, Rokossovsky, Vatutin were just as skilled and as talented as their German opponents.  This is especially so for Zhukov who repeatedly demontrated that he could beat the Wermacht during its "Glory Days".
 
Lower raking, Soviet Generals, however, were usually always out performed by their German counterparts. In the end, the very talented Soviet senior command was supported by officers who could not compete with the Germans.
Originally posted by England The Great

Everybody had the Wehrmacht, even the French. I was reading this yesterday...
I disagree.  Everybody had some units and some generals who could compete with and beat the Wermacht. The Germans, however, created a military that when evenly matched, could beat almost all opponents. In the end, the Germans constantly out performed their opponents on a unit by unit average. 


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 10:28
I agree, the German military and military industry was by far the best the world had ever seen. Most military technologies today and many military tactics are from the Germans.


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 14:06
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba

I agree, the German military and military industry was by far the best the world had ever seen. Most military technologies today and many military tactics are from the Germans.
I think the only competitors that Germany has had in the last century are:
-The British Expeditionary Force, 1914
-Israel, 1948 to 1990
 
Of these, the Israelis copied German military thought almost verbatim and the British Expeditionary force was an elite force of only about 150,000 men.  The Germans achieved degrees of military excellence form their entire society.


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 17:14
I dont think you can count Israel. Israel recieved massive amounts of aid to become what it is (its estimated that Israel has gotten over 100 billion from the United States alone).

Germany had no such advantage. Germany's military and industrial might was built during the 1930's after a severe depression (one of the worst in the world at the time).


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 17:40
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba

I dont think you can count Israel. Israel recieved massive amounts of aid to become what it is (its estimated that Israel has gotten over 100 billion from the United States alone).

Germany had no such advantage. Germany's military and industrial might was built during the 1930's after a severe depression (one of the worst in the world at the time).
Good point. But Israel only started receiving the insane amounts of aid  and total technology transfers after the Peace Treaty with Egypt. The Israelis won their most spectacular victories (1967 and 1973) while using large amounts of obsolete equipment (1967) or by using acceptable, but not vastly superior equipment (1973).  Also the heralded Entebbe Raid was in the 1970s.
 
Ironically, once the Israelis obtained technological dominance, their military capabilities began to diminish. Israeli ground performance in Lebanon (1980s) was good but not awe inspiring and U.S. observers noted a decline. In 2008, their performance agaisnt Hezbollah had slipped to very mediocre.


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 17:58
Originally posted by Cryptic

Good point. But Israel only started receiving the insane amounts of aid  and total technology transfers after the Peace Treaty with Egypt. The Israelis won their most spectacular victories (1967 and 1973) while using large amounts of obsolete equipment (1967) or by using acceptable, but not vastly superior equipment (1973).  Also the heralded Entebbe Raid was in the 1970s.
 
Ironically, once the Israelis obtained technological dominance, their military capabilities began to diminish. Israeli ground performance in Lebanon (1980s) was good but not awe inspiring and U.S. observers noted a decline. In 2008, their performance agaisnt Hezbollah had slipped to very mediocre.


Once again, I must disagree. The enemies Israel were facing were backward, undeveloped, newly independent states. So what if Israel defeated Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon in war? Thats not something I would brag about.

Germany was facing the British Empire, the French Empire, and the Russian Empire. You cannot compare Germany to Israel, they are not similar in anyway.


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2010 at 18:44
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba


Once again, I must disagree. The enemies Israel were facing were backward, undeveloped, newly independent states. So what if Israel defeated Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon in war? Thats not something I would brag about.
I think you need to give the Israelis more credit.  In 1948, Israeli was also an undeveloped country with an agricultural economy. Israel had an agricultural economy until the late 1970s.
 
Jordan's British trained Arab Legion was the best army in the middle east.  Though Israel benefited from foreign volunteers with WWII command experience, a certain number of pro Arab British officers either continued to provide advice and/or ensured that British military supplies were turned over to the Jordanians intact and well maintained.
 
In 1967, the semi socialist countries of Egypt and Syria received massive amounts of the latest Soviet weaponry and thousands of advisors.  By 1973, the Soviets wanted a socialist Arab victory to complement the looming victory of the North Vietnamese.  Arab armies received advanced weapons before most Soviet units did.
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba


Germany was facing the British Empire, the French Empire, and the Russian Empire.
The German accomplishments are higher, but the early Israelis cannot be discounted.
 


Posted By: TheGreatSimba
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2010 at 15:54
Originally posted by Cryptic

I think you need to give the Israelis more credit.  In 1948, Israeli was also an undeveloped country with an agricultural economy. Israel had an agricultural economy until the late 1970s.
 
Jordan's British trained Arab Legion was the best army in the middle east.  Though Israel benefited from foreign volunteers with WWII command experience, a certain number of pro Arab British officers either continued to provide advice and/or ensured that British military supplies were turned over to the Jordanians intact and well maintained.


True, but that was 1948, and the Israeli's were far more organized than the Arabs. Infact, the Israeli's actually had more men in the field than the Arabs did.
 
Originally posted by Cryptic


In 1967, the semi socialist countries of Egypt and Syria received massive amounts of the latest Soviet weaponry and thousands of advisors.  By 1973, the Soviets wanted a socialist Arab victory to complement the looming victory of the North Vietnamese.  Arab armies received advanced weapons before most Soviet units did.


I was under the impression that the Soviets never gave the Arabs their latest equipment for fear of them being captured by the Israeli's. In most cases Arabs were fighting with inferior weaponry compared to what Israel was getting from Europe and the US




Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2010 at 17:13
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba

I was under the impression that the Soviets never gave the Arabs their latest equipment for fear of them being captured by the Israeli's. 
 
It is the exact opposite for the 1967 war and especially, the 1973, Yom Kippur war.  The Soviets gave the Arabs the best weapons and the best advisors that they could produce. Examples include the SAM-6 and SAM-7 mobile anti aircraft missiles, ZSU 23-4 mobile AA system, Sagger anti tank missiles, improved RPGs (new in 1973), ultra long range artillery, T-62 tanks, BMPs etc.
 
The mobile anti aircraft missiles and Saggers gave the Israelis a very nasty surprise. During the conflict, the Soviets supplied replacement missiles, tanks etc direct from elite Soviet units in East Germany. Most Soviet units simply did not have these weapons  The Soviets really wanted their semi socialist Arab clients to win a stunning victory to compliment Vietnam. 
 
Originally posted by TheGreatSimba

  In most cases Arabs were fighting with inferior weaponry compared to what Israel was getting from Europe and the US
That is only true for after 1973, when the modern Soviet equipment caused very heavy Israeli casualties.  For 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars, the Arabs had either equal equipment or in 1973,  better equipment.


Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 10-May-2010 at 22:47
The US army has been to best Army in the World from 1943 on. There is no doubt to that. I would question some diplomatic decsions that were done that prevented the Army from being completely successful.
 
Remeber the 4 components of national power =D.I.M.E.
 
Diplomatic
Information
Military
Economics
 
So an Amy cannot be completley successfull unless all components of national power are used.
 
That being said- The US infantry of the 90's was the best trained and effective Infantry the worls has ever seen.
 
The US infantry of today is 3x better. There is no Army in the history of the world that has had the training and the technological edge that the US Army has.
 
To put thems into persepective, One US Arny BCT circa 1995 had the equiv forepower of 4 1940 German divisions.
 
What did the US do to the 4th largest standing Army in the World in 1990, they were destroying Iraqi T 72s (prettymuch cutting edge tank technology) I know the T-80 was out there, but it was not fielded in  masses yet and the M1 IP and the M1A1 were engaging them and destroying them from 2 miles away
 
Now you may say well why is the US Army tied down in 2 wars for over 10 years. Ok valid question. Remember the DIME the I is what holds the US back. If the US was allowed to engage in WW2 style total warfare both wars would have been over in Months. However the media and diplomatic pressures prevent this.


Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 10-May-2010 at 22:51
On Isreal:
 
The Isreali army is outstanding well trainded and disciplined- However without US support they would not fare as well.


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 11-May-2010 at 11:18
 
Though I am very supportive of the U.S. military...
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

The US army has been to best Army in the World from 1943 on. There is no doubt to that.

The U.S. Army was not prepared for the Korean war.  Entire batallions, regiments and the 2nd Infantry Division were over run.  In many of the early battles against North Koreans, U.S. units were not massively outnumbered at the local level, they were out fought. 

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

That being said- The US infantry of the 90's was the best trained and effective Infantry the worls has ever seen.
 
The US infantry of today is 3x better. There is no Army in the history of the world that has had the training and the technological edge that the US Army has.
There are many armies of equivelant infantry abilities  For example: Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, Finland, Canada,  etc.  Then factor in nations who have  excellent military repuations, but cant afford the latest technologies (Turkey, Greece, etc) 
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

What did the US do to the 4th largest standing Army in the World in 1990, they were destroying Iraqi T 72s (prettymuch cutting edge tank technology)
The Iraqis were simply not a competitive opponent. Against competitive opponents like North Korea, the U.S. record is more mixed.
 
One could play devils advocate and argue that the U.S. has dropped  "dimes" on opponents who only had access to "pennies".
 
 


Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 11-May-2010 at 22:35
Originally posted by Cryptic

 
Though I am very supportive of the U.S. military...
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

The US army has been to best Army in the World from 1943 on. There is no doubt to that.

The U.S. Army was not prepared for the Korean war.  Entire batallions, regiments and the 2nd Infantry Division were over run.  In many of the early battles against North Koreans, U.S. units were not massively outnumbered at the local level, they were out fought. 

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

That being said- The US infantry of the 90's was the best trained and effective Infantry the worls has ever seen.
 
The US infantry of today is 3x better. There is no Army in the history of the world that has had the training and the technological edge that the US Army has.
There are many armies of equivelant infantry abilities  For example: Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, Finland, Canada,  etc.  Then factor in nations who have  excellent military repuations, but cant afford the latest technologies (Turkey, Greece, etc) 
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

What did the US do to the 4th largest standing Army in the World in 1990, they were destroying Iraqi T 72s (prettymuch cutting edge tank technology)
The Iraqis were simply not a competitive opponent. Against competitive opponents like North Korea, the U.S. record is more mixed.
 
One could play devils advocate and argue that the U.S. has dropped  "dimes" on opponents who only had access to "pennies".
 
 

This is not a knock on any country but simply my opinion based on my working with them and my background as a US Army officer (FA, CAV and LG) and Military Historian.

 

 

1st. There is no way in of the countries you mention could be on par with the US--simply look at the training budgets. The US training budget alone is higher than any EU countries entire military budget. You have to have realistic and battle focused training. Where do the countries you listed come have that training, the NTC in FT Irwin CA, and the US foots most of the bill for them.

 

2nd All the countries you mention lack the ability to project power, they are not like the US that can have 2 light divs  anywhere in the world in 24 hours and have heavy BCT in 72 hours. That is simply a US thing. The Brits needed US logistical support in the Falklands, I have read the AARs without our support the Brits could not have projected their power thus including their national will to win the war in the Falklands

 

I have trained with many foreign armies, I have seen their training programs and to be honest nobody trains like the US does--true we have more resources than others to conduct training. Not to mention specific countries of the list you gave --Only the British would be on par with the US but honestly they are not in the same ball park when it comes to training dollars. The only Armies that I have worked with (I have worked the British, Germans, Canadians, French, Norwegians, Finns, and Swedes) that given the right technology could hang with the US are the Brits and Norwegians. However both lack the numbers to compete.

 

Really the US National guard trains more the most European armies, and I would take 1 NG BCT up against a division of any European army. That’s not knocking the European armies (Britain excluded) They simply do not train the way the US does and lacks the budget for realistic training. (In other words they don't have an NTC or JRTC)

 

As for N Korea-- Ok take away the Chemical and WMD threat and it would be a very short lived campaign.

 

You mention the Korean war-- The US was caught by surprise and really only had the 2nd ID on the ground-- Read the coldest war-- the US never had numerical superiority in the KW the biggest problem was logistics not fighting force, when an Army is not supplied it tends to flag-- Once the US got really into the war set up the LOCS and got troops into the war what happened-- The US drove the NKs to the border with China-- Only Chinese intervention saved NK. The US was caught unprepared for the influx of Chinese troops and given that Korea was in their back door had much shorter LOCs. But even then the war was fought to a stand still and the status quo was returned which was the initial war aim anyway. Be careful when you mention Korea, because it was not really an Infantry War it was a logistics War.

 

On Iraq-- They were the best Army in the Middle East, they had state of the art Army and airpower in the first gulf war (in the second golf war they were a shadow of themselves).

 
Believe me no Army in the world could have done what the US did.

 



Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 12-May-2010 at 07:54
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

 

You mention the Korean war-- The US was caught by surprise and really only had the 2nd ID on the ground-- Read the coldest war--

 
Be careful when you mention Korea, because it was not really an Infantry War it was a logistics War. 
I have read the book.  I think you need to give the North Koreans more credit.  On several occasions in their drive to Pusan, U.S. units were not gravely ouut numbered (locally) yet they were out fought by the North Koreans.   Even on the Pusan perimeter facing huge U.S. firepower, the North Koreans kept the initiative for a long time
 
The North Koreans just lacked the components of the DIME.  They could compensate for a while, but eventually, U.S. logistics (thousands of 2 1/2 ton trucks, Inchon landing abilities, and air power) wore them down. 
  
 


Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 12-May-2010 at 08:09
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

 

You mention the Korean war-- The US was caught by surprise and really only had the 2nd ID on the ground-- Read the coldest war--

 
Be careful when you mention Korea, because it was not really an Infantry War it was a logistics War. 
I have read the book.  I think you need to give the North Koreans more credit.  On several occasions in their drive to Pusan, U.S. units were not gravely ouut numbered (locally) yet they were out fought by the North Koreans.   Even on the Pusan perimeter facing huge U.S. firepower, the North Koreans kept the initiative for a long time
 
The North Koreans just lacked the components of the DIME.  They could compensate for a while, but eventually, U.S. logistics (thousands of 2 1/2 ton trucks, Inchon landing abilities, and air power) wore them down. 
  
 
 

It is easy to outfight unprepared Army, The US wasn't ready and didn't expect the invasion and underestimated the speed of the NK advance, the initiative is worth 3x the manpower, once the US got on the war footing it was a whole different deal, only the Chinese saved the NKs



Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 12-May-2010 at 08:31
Originally posted by Mr Bobo

Wehrmacht.

the USA r well equiped but porly trained, there not much compared to the armies of Nazi Germany, and since its based on acheivement anyways.. 

 

 

Now that is silly-- The US is the best trained army in the world--They have relaistic battlefocused training centered around JRTC and the NTC.

 

The German Army was defeated by basically a draftee US army in WW2. The AVF that we have now is vastly superior to our Draftee Army of the 40's.  Rember when the 101st was surrounded at Bastogne, the defeated a numerically superior German Army.

 

2nd what background do you have in the training of the US Army, how can you make that statement, have you trained with the US Army. I have trained with many foreign armies and officers, they all lack the battle focused training the US has. By the way I have worked with several Aussie officer, good guys but where do they send their best officers to train--US based military schools.

 

3rd. You can argue Rommel was the best General in the German army, wasn't he defeated by Patton (I read your book cried Patton)

 

Now don't you think the US army is better trained now than in WW2 yet the US defeated the Germans on the regular

 

I have studied the training methods of the German army and really it wasn't their superiority esp of the infantry it was new Armor tactics that made the Germans great (I a talking about the Wehrmacht, Not SS-- If you want to compare the best infantry off all times I will take US Rangers over the SS)

 

Now according the CIA world fact book:

According to the CIA and other Intelligence Services (European, Asian, African) this is the tally - based on a Combination of Manpower, Technology, Firepower, Training, Resources, Available Reserves, and Nuclear Potential (Current or Likely):
1. USA
2. China
3. Germany
4. India
5. France
6. Russia
7. UK
8. Italy
9. Israel
10. Pakistan
 
according to Global fire power:http://www.globalfirepower.com/
1
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-States-of-America">Map of United States of America http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-States-of-America - U.S.A.
2
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=China">Map of China http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=China - China
3
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Russia">Map of Russia http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Russia - Russia
4
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=India">Map of India http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=India - India
5
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-Kingdom">Map of United Kingdom http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-Kingdom - U.K.
6
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=France">Map of France http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=France - France
7
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Germany">Map of Germany http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Germany - Germany
8
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Brazil">Map of Brazil http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Brazil - Brazil
9
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Japan">Map of Japan http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Japan - Japan
10
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Turkey">Map of Turkey http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Turkey - Turkey
11
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Israel">Map of Israel http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Israel - Israel
12
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=South-Korea">Map of South Korea http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=South-Korea - South Korea
13
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Italy">Map of Italy http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Italy - Italy
14
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Indonesia">Map of Indonesia http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Indonesia - Indonesia
15
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Pakistan">Map of Pakistan http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Pakistan - Pakistan
16
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Taiwan">Map of Taiwan http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Taiwan - Taiwan
17
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Egypt">Map of Egypt http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Egypt - Egypt
18
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Iran">Map of Iran http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Iran - Iran
19
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Mexico">Map of Mexico http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Mexico - Mexico
20
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=North-Korea">Map of North Korea http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=North-Korea - North Korea
21
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Sweden">Map of Sweden http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Sweden - Sweden http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Iraq -
22
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Greece">Map of Greece http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Greece - Greece
23
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Canada">Map of Canada http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Canada - Canada
24
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Saudi-Arabia">Map of Saudi Arabia http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Saudi-Arabia - Saudi Arabia
25
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Ukraine">Map of Ukraine http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Ukraine - Ukraine
26
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Australia">Map of Australia http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Australia - Australia
27
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Spain">Map of Spain http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Spain - Spain
28
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Thailand">Map of Thailand http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Thailand - Thailand
29
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Denmark">Map of Denmark http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Denmark - Denmark
30
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Poland">Map of Poland http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Poland - Poland

Rank 1-10 Observations: The United States (GFP formula value of 0.184) remains the undisputed leader of our list thanks to their staying "active" in global hotspots, showcasing the world's largest navy and continuing to poor in gobs of money into defense. Our formula sees China edge out Russia but only by the slimmest of margins (0.238 versus 0.241 respectively) with an edge in available manpower and financial capital. France (0.636) and Germany (0.672) are relative equals for the most part but the GFP formula gives a slight edge to France thanks to an aircraft carrier and capable navy as well as a bump in defense spending. Brazil (0.756) is the most powerful South American country on the list thanks to available manpower and a capable navy. Japan (0.920) is a "sleeper" power that sneaks into the top ten with a good navy, strong logistical infrastructure and capital.

Rank 11-20 Observations: Our formula provides for a good disparity between North and South Korea, placing South well-ahead of the North thanks to better infrastructure and capital. Mexico's placement this high on the list is interesting to note - it scored a good balance across the board in all major categories. Israel finally gets a proper placement on this year's list - just out of the top ten - sporting a strong land army with equally strong training, modern equipment and recent combat experience.



Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 12-May-2010 at 10:32

 

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

  Now that is silly-- The US is the best trained army in the world--They have relaistic battlefocused training centered around JRTC and the NTC.

 

The German Army was defeated by basically a draftee US army in WW2.

 
Yikes, that is a huge oversimplification.  The Germans lost because they were "Dimed to Death" facing the USA, USSR, Great Britain, French Empire, The Common Wealth etc.  
 
It was the Soviets who truly defeated the Germans. Through out the war, the Germans usually outperformed any adversaries on a unit to unit basis when the numerical odds were anything near equal. In the end, however, superior (though not invincible) German military ability could not compensate for the allies tremendous advantages in other parts of the DIME.
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

 
Believe me no Army in the world could have done what the US did. 
I agree. But.... it is worth noting that no other country has the U.S. total DIME package. Especially for economics) It has been 150 years since the last time the U.S faced an opponent that had near the same DIME potential (Civil War).  Now compare the U.S. to Germany 1870 to 1945:
 
1870: Prussia punishes France despite France having a better total DIME package 
 
WWI:  Germany is heavily out DIMED for years, yet they are able to use military dime aspects to compensate for other short comings.  Germany ties WWI in the military sense. 
 
WWII: Germany is again out DIMED as a totality, but German military compensates and beats France, Norway, Belgium etc.  Pushes Great Britain and USSR to the wall.  Even after U.S. intervention, Germany goes down fighting.  The war was essentialy over in July 1943. Yet it takes two years to finish the Germans despite overwelming total DIME advantages.
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

If you want to compare the best infantry off all times I will take US Rangers over the SS)

 

I agree with you.  But it is worth noting that the Allies and Germans had very different approaches to special forces.  The Germans viewed special forces as inefficient. (NCO / Officer leadership drain on other units was not worth the successes of Ranger type units).  The Germans kept special forces to a minimum and concentrated on increasing the efficiency of their elite divisions, instead of creating ultra elite batalions
 
For WWII type combat, the Germans may of had the right idea. Asymetrical warfare favors U.S. and British approach.  What do you think?
 
  
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

I have trained with many foreign armies, I have seen their training programs and to be honest nobody trains like the US does--true we have more resources than others to conduct training. Not to mention specific countries of the list you gave --Only the British would be on par with the US  

Though I do not have first hand experience, and respect those who do, Germany and France are modern nations with long military traditions and professional militaries.  Though they do not have the same Dime package as the U.S. I do not see how the U.S. can be so superior on a unit by unit comparison.



Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 12-May-2010 at 11:41
Originally posted by Genghis

And what about the American Army?  U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!


I remember Genghis!! I agree and wonder why they ignored the US military? This is an oldy but modly brought back to life!!

-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στÏατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθεÏία σας θα ε


Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 12-May-2010 at 22:57
Originally posted by Cryptic

 

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

  Now that is silly-- The US is the best trained army in the world--They have relaistic battlefocused training centered around JRTC and the NTC.

 

The German Army was defeated by basically a draftee US army in WW2.

 
Yikes, that is a huge oversimplification.  The Germans lost because they were "Dimed to Death" facing the USA, USSR, Great Britain, French Empire, The Common Wealth etc.  
 
It was the Soviets who truly defeated the Germans. Through out the war, the Germans usually outperformed any adversaries on a unit to unit basis when the numerical odds were anything near equal. In the end, however, superior (though not invincible) German military ability could not compensate for the allies tremendous advantages in other parts of the DIME.
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

 
Believe me no Army in the world could have done what the US did. 
I agree. But.... it is worth noting that no other country has the U.S. total DIME package. Especially for economics) It has been 150 years since the last time the U.S faced an opponent that had near the same DIME potential (Civil War).  Now compare the U.S. to Germany 1870 to 1945:
 
1870: Prussia punishes France despite France having a better total DIME package 
 
WWI:  Germany is heavily out DIMED for years, yet they are able to use military dime aspects to compensate for other short comings.  Germany ties WWI in the military sense. 
 
WWII: Germany is again out DIMED as a totality, but German military compensates and beats France, Norway, Belgium etc.  Pushes Great Britain and USSR to the wall.  Even after U.S. intervention, Germany goes down fighting.  The war was essentialy over in July 1943. Yet it takes two years to finish the Germans despite overwelming total DIME advantages.
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

If you want to compare the best infantry off all times I will take US Rangers over the SS)

 

I agree with you.  But it is worth noting that the Allies and Germans had very different approaches to special forces.  The Germans viewed special forces as inefficient. (NCO / Officer leadership drain on other units was not worth the successes of Ranger type units).  The Germans kept special forces to a minimum and concentrated on increasing the efficiency of their elite divisions, instead of creating ultra elite batalions
 
For WWII type combat, the Germans may of had the right idea. Asymetrical warfare favors U.S. and British approach.  What do you think?
 
  
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

I have trained with many foreign armies, I have seen their training programs and to be honest nobody trains like the US does--true we have more resources than others to conduct training. Not to mention specific countries of the list you gave --Only the British would be on par with the US  

Though I do not have first hand experience, and respect those who do, Germany and France are modern nations with long military traditions and professional militaries.  Though they do not have the same Dime package as the U.S. I do not see how the U.S. can be so superior on a unit by unit comparison.

1st The Soviet Army didn't beat the German Army, The Soviet Winter did, Until the Winter devastated the Eastern Army the Soviets lost nearly every engagement. To quote the Princess Bride one of the "great fallacies is to engage in a land war in Asia" So the Sovets basically beat a decimated German army that has no natural defensive terrain to retreat to. I don't give the Russian Army that much credit. The German Army was at the gates of Moscow, had they been better prepared logistically (i.e. winterized equipment, winter clothing, better LOCS) Russia would have been out of the War, it wasn't so much that the Russians won as the Germans lost. It was a clear lack of proper planning by The Germans, not the Russians actually winning.

 

2nd. The US Army in North Africa under Patton met the German army at is prime and defeated them.

 

3rd You state well it took longer for the US and UK to advance into Germany --well yeah look at the terrain difference- The Soviets got to advance across open plains for the most part against a decimated German eastern army. The US/UK forces had secure a beach front, conduct a LOTS (logistics over the Shore ) operation then advance across Hilly and wooded terrain, against a full German army not devastated by a horrible winter, dug in with a fortifications. The Soviets didn't face any of that. It took the Soviets 2 years to across open plains That is no accomplishment compared to the western front.

The defensive principle in the Soviet case would require 2x the combat forces to be effective

The Western front required 8X combat forces to be successful, guess what the US didn't have 8x the force it was pretty much 1 to 1 with the Germans sometimes having a numerical advantage like at Bastogne. Had there been a soviet div at Bastogne they would have surrendered, Not the 101 the simply said "Nuts"

 

You state that the German army out preformed when the numerical odds were  even. Well i can you some examples of the Germans having superior numbers and lost.

Bastogne, North Africa, The battle of the Bulge. The Germans only out preformed their enemy when they had a tech advantage --TA is a force multiplier.

 

 

On modern unit to unit comparison-- The US trains more, Trains harder, and conduct more battle focused training. In joint exercises like REFORGER, ULCHI focus, FOAL eagle, the US units typically out performs other allied units. I can safely say yes on a unit to unit basis the US is better.

 

I have worked with a lot of different Armies including all the ones you mentioned, and yes they have great martial traditions, but they do not have the training, their countries don't spend as much on training therefore they are not the equal of any US force on a 1 to 1 basis. Honestly they are not the equal of US National Guard units. I saw a HBCT from The Kentucky NG beat up on one  of the countries you listed at the NTC. As for Firepower a US Logistics Company has more firepower than a typical German infantry company.

 

Battle focused training is e/t only the Brits have close to what the US has, but remember we train with the brits and the use a lot of US equipment.

 

Asymmetrical warfare-- kind of a German thing, they had to deal with it. It’s one thing I will give the Russians credit-- The Soviet Parisians did a lot of damage to the German Army. I wrote a paper in C3 comparing the eastern front to Iraq and the insurgency in Eastern Europe. The Germans were forced to provide more troops to security and protecting their overstretched logistic lines.

 

The US is a heavy wt, I would almost compare them to the Greek phalanx they roll throw and crush e/t in their path.  Using air drops and glider insertions in WW2 the US kind of broke in to asymmetrical warfare but it quickly became a liner battle.



Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 12-May-2010 at 23:18

Don't get me wrong I am a huge Wehrmacht fan- I think they were good troops, It was the German General staff that was poor. It was easy for them to beat up on Poland and France. Heck the Poles used Lancers to face a mechanized army. The French were still using WW1 equipment, what did the Benelux countries have-- nothing. The German beat up on paper tigers.

 

When facing modern mech forces the German general staff failed to adapt. (The also failed in Russia, By all rights Moscow should have fallen)

 

When Patton defeated Rommel in 43 his comment was "what a waste of good infantry"  The German army could not adapt. They were drunk with victory over paper tigers and their leaders had a sense of invulnerability based on early victories ( they were functionally fixated and rigid)

 
 


Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 13-May-2010 at 00:37

One more comment on Russia-- Would they have even been able to face Germany without the land lease from the US?

 

Joachim von Ribbentrop stated that there were three reasons the Germans lost (I think there are a lot more but:

 
Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union  (this slowed the German advnce, the winter then did them in)
 
The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
 
The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy..

 

One example of lend  lease success for in transport. The US supplied Russia with 450,000 trucks without which the Russians would have no ability to project force westward.
 
Also the US was the only allied power really fighting on two fronts. Had Japan really went after Russia, and not focused on the Pacific first where would Russia had been?
 
I would argue that the Pacific front was a much harder front to win that the Euro west or east front.

 



Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 13-May-2010 at 15:22
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

1st The Soviet Army didn't beat the German Army, The Soviet Winter did, Until the Winter devastated the Eastern Army the Soviets lost nearly every engagement.

You need to give the soviets far more credit.  Look at it from their point side. A very competent enemy attacks, in addition to military problems,  the attack almost causes a social collapse as millions of Soviet citizens welcome the invaders (initially).
 
Despite these challenges, the Soviets bounce back.    
 
- General Zhukov stops the enemy at Leningrad  (Summer / fall)
-Germans are stopped at Moscow (winter, but Russians get cold too)
-Stalingrad (summer / fall) Germans are held, Germans are beaten at Stalingrad in winter by equally cold Russians
-Kursk July 1943:  Soviets defeat the best armour the Germans have. Germans are rested, well prepared and it is mid summer.
Fall 1943:  Soviets copy German Blitzkrieg, free Kiev and advance to Rumanian Border
Summer 1944: Soviets clear Belarus, 130,000 Germans captured
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

Had there been a soviet div at Bastogne they would have surrendered, Not the 101 the simply said "Nuts"

 

 
An ordianry Soviet conscript Division?, Yes.  The naval infantry division that stood at Stalingrad (Malmedy Hill), or Chuikov's Sixth Shock Army at the grain elevator or tractor factory would not have surrendered. An ordinary U.S. conscript division would have been in a very, very difficult situation as well.    
 
Please note that I said the Germans were not invicible and that they only usually outperformed their opponents. Bastogne with the heroic resisitance by the 101 against SS panzer divisions is a notable exception.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

 

You state that the German army out preformed when the numerical odds were  even. Well i can you some examples of the Germans having superior numbers and lost.

You also need to consider the strategic  situation to see how the Germans bounced back through usually outperforming their adversaries on a unit by unit basis:
-German divisions in Normandy are eventually overwhelmed and fored to retreat. Germans are being pressed hard from the East and their logisitics, industry, petro chemicals are in ruins.  Their opponents have unlimited strategic recesources.  The allies see a collapse and order the pressure to be kept up. Any normal opponent would have collpased.
 
But....
 
The Germans bounce back and perform well at Hutegren Forest, The Bulge, Aachen, Hungary, Market Garden, and actually hold the Russians 50 miles from Berlin.   The
Germans were able to do this becaue they used their greater unit by unit lethality to compensate (for a while) for tremendous DIME shortcomings. 
 
Believe me, I am not a "Waffenophile", but on the broad unit by unit average, the Germans usuallly out performed their opponents. This did not make the Germans "10 feet tall" or invincible, but it did make them a tough bunch to beat. 
 
 
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

  
2nd. The US Army in North Africa under Patton met the German army at is prime and defeated them.

 

The Germans were not in their prime.  They had just been forced to retreat hundreds of miles from El Alamiem.  They were being attacked from two directions (Patton and Montgomery) and were facing a fresh opponent. In addition,their Italian ally was incompetent and unenthusiastic. U.S. airpower and British sea power had cut off their supplies for months. The Germans manage a victory at Kasserine Pass. 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 13-May-2010 at 16:31
I have basically kept out of this discussion for a number of reasons, but I do have my own point of view!

I will agree that at their best, with reserves of tanks, and aircraft (from 1939 to 1942 or so) and petrol, etc., the Germans were almost invincible! Of course their deeds proved so!

But, I will agree that it was the average Russian warrior, who was well supplied by the USA, actually fought the best German units, and along with the help of the Winter, and as well the stupidity of Hitler, etc., were the ones who actually brought the Nazi's to a standstill and then a retreat!

One only has to look at casualty figures to determine that!

I will even go further than that, and propose that the German High Command, devoted the "best" and "brightest" of their troops towards the East, rather than the West! And still lost!

My bet, is that the German High Command, many of which had good ties with British Generals, etc., over the years, actually led the Nazi's towards a defense designed to get the Americans and British (French), etc., into Germany proper, before letting the Russians in!

It was only the stupidity of FDR, and others, that led to the final distruciton of Germany! The USA, and its allies in the West,made a very good decision, they decided that it was better that the Germans and the Soviets, destroy one another, than risk more of British, American or French, etc., lives!

Russian soldiers were merely "slavs", (slaves) or lessor humans! E.g. a lot of racisim came into play!

The Soviets actually had to black mail the USA and Britain, etc., into starting a Western front! The elimination of one of Germany's greatest generals, Rommel, etc., the very man who designed the Western Defensive wall, led to an almost easy entry into W. Europe for the allies!

Even then, they (the allies) were close to defeat, but the abundance of air power, finally won the day!

As far as I know, the Allied invasion of W. Europe, was further hastened by the desire of a lot of German commanders to help them! In other words, these old Prussian soldier stock, when faced with the inevitably victory of the Allies, wanted American, British and even French forces to enter Berlin, before the Soviets!

But, Stalin finally pulled out his threat, and said he would not move his armies against the E. German army unless he and his forces would be given control of half of Europe! While Western leaders and commanders worried about loosing troops, Stalin, the pragmatist and communist, had none of these worries!

Any way, I have gone on too long, but some of you might well "fill in the blanks?"

Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-May-2010 at 18:11
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

One more comment on Russia-- Would they have even been able to face Germany without the land lease from the US?

 

Joachim von Ribbentrop stated that there were three reasons the Germans lost (I think there are a lot more but:

 
Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union  (this slowed the German advnce, the winter then did them in)
 
The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
 
The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy..

 

One example of lend  lease success for in transport. The US supplied Russia with 450,000 trucks without which the Russians would have no ability to project force westward.
 
Also the US was the only allied power really fighting on two fronts. Had Japan really went after Russia, and not focused on the Pacific first where would Russia had been?
 
I would argue that the Pacific front was a much harder front to win that the Euro west or east front.
 
 
A classic shortsighted american viev, Im not enthusiast of Stalin, Soviets and their army but the credit must be given to those who earned it. Russians fought in Europe against 80% of all German forces while western allied faced 20% of them.
 
I do not think that Japan could have help to conquer Russia. First one needs to know geography and terrain, not to mention very ill equipped Japan army. Russia is the biggest country on earth, from the pacific shores to Moscow are thousands miles of Siberia and its harsh climate, not to mention only one railway. There was no Japan tank that could have fight against Russian tanks and there was no such tank that could go thousands of miles. Going from Pacific even to Ural was for Japan impossible logistically.
 
And remember that Russians did fight against Japanesse but it is hard to call it a fight. In 1938 and 1939 Russians and Japanesse fought 2 major battles, both ended in bloody defeat of Japan army. Japan army was simply poor.
 
Even western front wasnt so easy for the allies, considering their superiority in the air and in numbers.
 
And if I was american i wouldnt try to mention Africa, after this what US army presented in the battle of Kasserine pass.


-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 13-May-2010 at 18:27
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

Don't get me wrong I am a huge Wehrmacht fan- I think they were good troops, It was the German General staff that was poor. It was easy for them to beat up on Poland and France. Heck the Poles used Lancers to face a mechanized army. The French were still using WW1 equipment, what did the Benelux countries have-- nothing. The German beat up on paper tigers.

 

When facing modern mech forces the German general staff failed to adapt. (The also failed in Russia, By all rights Moscow should have fallen)

 

When Patton defeated Rommel in 43 his comment was "what a waste of good infantry"  The German army could not adapt. They were drunk with victory over paper tigers and their leaders had a sense of invulnerability based on early victories ( they were functionally fixated and rigid)

 
 
Your history and military knowledge is limited to Hollywood movies. I laugh when I read such nuissences. Intelligent and educated person usually avoids to write about things in which is complete ignorant. But im also a fan of "Patton" movie.

-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 14-May-2010 at 00:33

Go ahead and Laugh Mosquito

1. The Russians being supplied by the Americans as the single biggest reason that the Germans lost came from Von Ribbentrop Who was he-- Just the German Foreign minister I suppose he was ignorant.

2nd When I quote Patton it doesn't come from the movie it comes from his autobiography. Maybe you should read that book, and not just watch television.

3rd. You stated that the Japanese Army couldn't do anything to Russia. I believe Japan has a pretty good track Record against Russia, Russo- Japanese wars come to mind. The soviets did win the Japanese Russian border wars of 38/39 against a Japanese Army that had a bulk of its forces in China.

It is true that Japan Lost the battle of Battle of Lake Khasan it the Soviet Union in 38- It was a bloody battle (sarcastic) the Japanese lost a whole 526 soldiers, and The Russians lost 727 wow.

At the battle of Battle of Khalkhin Golthe Soviets had 22,000 causalities (aprox 8,000 dead 14,000 wounded) vs Japans 18,000 (aprox 9,000 dead, 9,000 wounded)

Now lets look at the initial strength of both Armies.

Russia had 57,000 soldiers, 500 tanks, 250 airplanes

Japan had 38,000 soldiers, 135 tanks, 250 airplanes

So the Japanese were at a numerical disadvantage yet inflicted more casualties.

The Japanese lost the border wars—  I would argue causality wise vs deployed troops Japan had a numerical break even (each side taking about 38,000 causilties), but they lost the land battle true, but it didn’t really fit their over all military plan and militarily of no consequence, defeating China was more important. There is a Military principle known as Economy of force, and Mass, China needed the forces in China, not Mongolia that was the COG for the far east. However if they choose to commit their Army to actually engaging the Soviets Russia could not have won. Also they need not push to the Urals they simply needed to cut off the North Pacific ports where the US Supplies were coming in.

4th  Had America not entered the war the allies would have lost.

5th Russia helped start the war, they also invaded Poland. Had Russia not fought Germany, Germany still would have lost to the Western Powers.

6th once again it is very easy to advance across open planes. The Western Allies had make 4 beach lands and conduct LOTS (Op Torch, Sicily, Italy, Normandy) Did the soviets need to do that—No they just ran their people through a meat grinder on the plains of Eastern Europe until a German army that already lost in Africa, and Italy was worn out.  So by engaging the Germans on 3 fronts (Italy, NA, and Western Europe) how pray tell does that equate to only facing 20% of the German Army.

If you are going to quote numbers give me some facts

7th If you are going to cite battles at least give the names of the battles and causality figures don’t just say a couple of battles. You said a bloody defeat for Japan—How so the  figures are pretty dead even.

8th You said the Japanese army was poor, well they were out numbered by 1.75 to 1 in soldiers and 3x1 in tanks and still caused the same amount if not more causalities—To me that shows that the Japanese had the better Army but lacked numbers.

9th Nice insults- Be a big boy and fight with facts.

10th I will give you some credit the Americans fought poorly at Kasserine pass. However, that was a problem of allied forces not working together not communicating and a lot of US forces breaking their battle cherry. Overall command was from the British 1st Army some say the US wasn’t deployed right, the lack of communication hindered call for Fire, and the French troops in support weren’t armored right. But what was the Fall out Patton was put in charge (yeah Patton)

After the appointment of Patton the US army won the battle of El Guettar

That was followed up by a Breakout at Gabes and with the British Army drove the Germans out of Africa. It  was more of a British fight in North Africa, I will give you that. However, it was mostly an American War after that.

North Africa  allied KIA/WIA/CAP 85,000  Axis KIA/WIA/CAP 950,000 (this amazing since most of the time the Germans were in the defense)

Sicily Campign total# of allied troops 174,000        allied KIA/WIA/CAP 22,000

                          Tota;# Axis troops 270,000            axis  KIA/WIA/CAP 142,000

Italy Campaign The Allies finally had numerical superiority and the Germans yes it was Germans not Italians how fought here ) were defeated

After that the Allies on the western front maintained numerical superiority. However to win a war in the defense against a fortified opponent you need at least 5x1 numerical superiority, The Allies did not have that.

 



Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 14-May-2010 at 01:44

Mosquito Said: 

 

A classic shortsighted american viev, Im not enthusiast of Stalin, Soviets and their army but the credit must be given to those who earned it. Russians fought in Europe against 80% of all German forces while western allied faced 20% of them.

 

Wow an Insult of an American how novel -- don't be jealous and by the way American is capitalized

 

I would recalculate your Numbers if I were you. You are incorrect, the German numbers that I have seen are in reality 5.5 million. The Russians greatly exaggerated the numbers to make themselves look better with 2.5 million of other fronts that is about oh 68/32 however you figure in the force multiplier (troops dug in fortifications etc, etc you Know METT-TC) It gives the Germans aprox troop power of 11M on the east vs 12.5M in the west this figures that an Army in retrograde is worth 2x1 vs an Army conducting defense in depth 5x1. So when you take into account military doctrine--The Western Allies had the harder row to hoe.

 

Mosquito said  I do not think that Japan could have help to conquer Russia. First one needs to know geography and terrain, not to mention very ill equipped Japan army. Russia is the biggest country on earth, from the pacific shores to Moscow are thousands miles of Siberia and its harsh climate, not to mention only one railway. There was no Japan tank that could have fight against Russian tanks and there was no such tank that could go thousands of miles. Going from Pacific even to Ural was for Japan impossible logistically

 

Wrong again chum--See Japan didn't have to take all of Russia just blockade them and seize the costal land-Preventing land lease from the US getting in.

You lack strategic vision

 

Mosquito said  And remember that Russians did fight against Japanese but it is hard to call it a fight. In 1938 and 1939 Russians and Japanese fought 2 major battles, both ended in bloody defeat of Japan army. Japan army was simply poor.

 

Really more exaggeration on your part, look at the true KIA/WIA figures not the exaggerated Russian ones. Your first Major Battle was  the Battle of Lake Khasan  in 38- It was a bloody battle (sarcastic) the Japanese lost a whole 526 soldiers, and The Russians lost 727 wow.

 

 

At the battle of Battle of Khalkhin Golthe Soviets had 22,000 causalities (aprox 8,000 dead 14,000 wounded) vs Japans 18,000 (aprox 9,000 dead, 9,000 wounded)

Now lets look at the initial strength of both Armies.

Russia had 57,000 soldiers, 500 tanks, 250 airplanes

Japan had 38,000 soldiers, 135 tanks, 250 airplanes

So the Japanese were at a numerical disadvantage yet inflicted more casualties.

 

Mosquito said  Even western front wasnt so easy for the allies, considering their superiority in the air and in numbers

 

Well duh, do you nothing of military doctrine. There is a huge difference in fighting a demoralized Army in retrograde in open plains, vs fighting a well dug in Army defending thier Homeland. WAKE UP!!!!

 

Mosquito said And if I was american i wouldnt try to mention Africa, after this what US army presented in the battle of Kasserine pass.

 

 

Yeah, I agree everyone has a bad battle--I explained the background for this earlier.

 

Look buddy I have been in Combat (3 times in fact) You are a arm chair general who is simply anti American. Argue with numbers, facts and not exaggerations. Once again American is in CAPS

 



Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 14-May-2010 at 01:58
Originally posted by Mosquito

Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

Don't get me wrong I am a huge Wehrmacht fan- I think they were good troops, It was the German General staff that was poor. It was easy for them to beat up on Poland and France. Heck the Poles used Lancers to face a mechanized army. The French were still using WW1 equipment, what did the Benelux countries have-- nothing. The German beat up on paper tigers.

 

When facing modern mech forces the German general staff failed to adapt. (The also failed in Russia, By all rights Moscow should have fallen)

 

When Patton defeated Rommel in 43 his comment was "what a waste of good infantry"  The German army could not adapt. They were drunk with victory over paper tigers and their leaders had a sense of invulnerability based on early victories ( they were functionally fixated and rigid)

 
 
Your history and military knowledge is limited to Hollywood movies. I laugh when I read such nuissences. Intelligent and educated person usually avoids to write about things in which is complete ignorant. But im also a fan of "Patton" movie.
 

And you sir lack proper grammar. Further if you would actually read Patton’s AB you would see that my quotes come from his book not TV. I think that your blatant anti Americanism is annoying. I find people like you resort to name calling when they can't support their arguments with facts.

 

Before you say someone lacks Military Knowledge it is best to understand their background first, you just made another baseless claim you can't back up.

 

However, you did impress me with your ignorance and exaggerations. I think you should take your own advice "Intelligent and educated person usually avoids to write about things in which is complete ignorant", you are ignorant of all things military. Oh and also Intelligent and educated persons know to put American in CAPS and spell out  I am or use an apostrophe.

 

When you can give me all the operational equations for force on force combat to include force multipliers we can start talking about military operations.

 

When you can give me all the operational equations for force on force combat to include force multipliers we can start talking about military operations.

But until then you simply spout of numbers like amateurs do--Numbers do not paint the picture. If you understood the difference between the linear battle field the Soviets had and the ease of resupply vs logistics over the shore the US had to deal with you would gain greater insight into war.

 



Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 14-May-2010 at 03:14

Crptic it is a fact that Russian winter halted the German offensive. It was the Winter that beat them not the Russains. A full half of German KIA were non combat related. Further when The Russians began an Offense it was against a demoralized Army.  Further the Russian never really outfought the Germans they just threw numbers at them. The Germans lost more so than the Russains won due to poor planning on the German staff.

Below are some sources I will cite.
 

In the central sector on the 4 December 1941 the Army Group Centre continues its advance on Moscow, particularly in the area of Tula, South of the capital. But the next night brings the great frost thirty five degrees below zero.

 

The tanks will not start, the guns will not fire and thousands of men suffer from frostbite. The following day the 5 December the German offensive stalls in front of Moscow, due to lack of equipment combined with the terrible winter conditions and the Russians launch a general counter- offensive all along the front, especially on the Moscow front.

  

By the 11 December 1941 the Russians announce the liberation of 400 places in the Moscow area and the destruction of 17 German divisions, including seven armoured and three motorised divisions. Hitler announces the end of the winter campaign against Russia, Operation Barbarossa has ended in failure.

 

On the 20 December 1941 Josef Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister makes a broadcast an appeal for warm clothing for German soldiers serving in Russia.

 

Albert Speer recalled:

 

“We were quite happy about the success of the German Armies in Russia and the first inkling that something is wrong was when Goebbels made a big action in the whole of Germany to collect furs and winter clothes for the German troops, and then we knew that something was happening that was not foreseen.â€

The World at War by Richard Holmes published by Ebury Press 2007.

 

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Glantz - Glantz by early December, the temperatures, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow#cite_note-GlantzDecCounter-53 - [54] dropped as low as twenty to fifty below zero. Freezing German troops, who still had no winter clothing, and German vehicles, which were not designed for such severe weather. More than 130,000 cases of frostbite were reported among German soldiers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow#cite_note-Jukes32-34 - [35] Frozen grease had to be removed from every loaded shell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow#cite_note-Jukes32-34 - [35] and vehicles had to be heated for hours before use.

The Axis offensive on Moscow stopped. As Guderian wrote in his journal, "the offensive on Moscow failed…. We underestimated the enemy's strength, as well as his size and climate. Fortunately, I stopped my troops on 5 December, otherwise the catastrophe would be unavoidable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow#cite_note-54 - [55]

We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down
— Hitler

Hitler was overconfident due to his rapid success in Western Europe, as well as the Red Army's ineptitude in the http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Winter_War - Winter War . He expected victory in a few months and did not prepare for a war lasting into the winter; troops lacked adequate clothing. He hoped a quick victory against the Red Army would encourage Britain to accept peace terms.

In preparation for the attack, Hitler moved 3.2 million men to the Soviet border, launched many aerial surveillance missions over Soviet territory, and stockpiled vast amounts of material in the East. Yet the Soviets were still taken by surprise. This has mostly to do with http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Joseph_Stalin - Stalin's unshakeable belief that the Third Reich was unlikely to attack only two years after signing the http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact - Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact . He also was convinced the Nazis would probably finish their war with Britain before opening a new front. Despite repeated warnings from his intelligence services, Stalin refused to give them full credence, fearing the information to be British misinformation designed to spark a war between the Nazis and the USSR. The German government also aided in this deception. They told Stalin that the troops were being moved to bring them out of range of British bombers. They also explained that they were trying to trick the British into thinking they were planning to attack the Soviet Union, while in fact the troops and supplies were being stockpiled for an invasion of Britain. It has been established that communist spy Dr. http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Richard_Sorge - Richard Sorge gave Stalin the exact launch date; also Swedish cryptanalysts led by http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Arne_Beurling - Arne Beurling knew the date beforehand. As a result of all this Stalin's preparations against a possible German invasion in 1941 were halfhearted.

Causes of the failure of Operation Barbarossa

The main cause of German failure was faulty logistical planning. The objectives of Operation Barbarossa were quite unrealistic from the very beginning. The start of the war was the most favorable for Germans, as they took the Russians by surprise and destroyed a large part of the Soviet army in the first weeks. When these favorable conditions gave way to harsh conditions of the fall and winter they failed. http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Viktor_Suvorov - Viktor Suvorov in his book " http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Suicide_%28Suvorov%29 - Suicide " has argued that, even if the Germans had met no resistance at all, their troops still could not have moved fast enough to meet the objectives of Operation Barbarossa on time.

This was well understood by the German supply units even before the operation, but their warnings were disregarded. The entire German planning was based on the premise that within five weeks the German troops would have attained full strategic freedom due to a complete collapse of the Red Army. Only then would it have been possible to diverge all logistic support to the fuel requirements of the few mobile units needed to occupy the defeated state. However, they had underestimated the primary mobilisation size of the Red Army by half. Early August new armies had taken the place of the destroyed ones. This fact alone implied the failure of Operation Barbarossa, for the Germans now had to limit their operations for a month to bring up new supplies, leaving only six weeks to complete the battle before the start of the mud season, an impossible task.

And even if the Germans had fulfilled the original plan, i.e. reached the http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Arkhangelsk - Arkhangelsk - http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Volga - Volga line, it probably would not have ended the war. The Soviet Union still had vast reserves and industrial bases in http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Ural - Ural and http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Siberia - Siberia , so the war could have continued for a long time.

There were also many minor causes, such as the cold and mud, but they all stem from the Germans' unrealistic assumption that they could finish the war during the summer.

German troops were mostly unprepared for the brutal Russian cold. Germans were not equipped with adequate cold-weather gear, and some soldiers had to pack newspapers into their jackets to stay warm. To operate furnaces and heaters, the Germans also burned precious fuel that was difficult to re-supply.

German infantry and tanks stormed 300 miles ahead in the first week, but their supply lines struggled to keep up. Russian railroads could at first not be used due to a difference in http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Railway_gauge - railway gauge . The result was a game of catch-up: a surge across the abyss, and then a wait for supplies. The long convoys of slow-moving vehicles were also favorite targets of Soviet guerrillas. Low on oil, Hitler diverted his troops south from their drive to Moscow and into Ukraine, where they seized economic capitals, like Kiev, Donetsk, and numerous oil fields. There, the troops waited for supplies to catch up, bringing winter ever closer.

That autumn, the terrain slowed the Wehrmacht’s progress and eventually brought them to a stop. The ground in Russia was either a very loose sand in the summer, a sticky muck in the fall, or an impassable snow during the winter. In the autumn, when the Wehrmacht resumed their march on Moscow, their tanks, infantry transports, supply trucks, and other wheeled vehicles were paralyzed in the thick mud. The German tanks, which were not designed for cold climates, had narrow treads that gave little traction in the mud.

Weapons also were in terrible shape. To load shells into a tank’s main gun, frozen grease had to be chipped off with a knife. Automatic guns only fired one shot at a time. Only grenades worked properly, and when soldiers could actually pull out the pins, they were a favorite method for suicide.

Supply lines struggled through the harsh Russian terrain — paths were few, railroads could not be easily used because the gauge was different than that in Western Europe. Although the army powered ahead at first, supply lines stuggled to keep up and were lightly guarded. Trucks, especially those that broke down, were easy targets for guerilla forces. Lack of supplies significantly slowed down the http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Blitzkrieg - Blitzkrieg , and the invasion often halted to wait for trucks. The gasoline needed just to make it through the muck was almost as much as the trucks could carry, making the troops’ gasoline shortage even worse.



Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 14-May-2010 at 03:28
Originally posted by opuslola


It was only the stupidity of FDR, and others, that led to the final distruciton of Germany! The USA, and its allies in the West,made a very good decision, they decided that it was better that the Germans and the Soviets, destroy one another, than risk more of British, American or French, etc., lives!

Russian soldiers were merely "slavs", (slaves) or lessor humans! E.g. a lot of racisim came into play!

The Soviets actually had to black mail the USA and Britain, etc., into starting a Western front! The elimination of one of Germany's greatest generals, Rommel, etc., the very man who designed the Western Defensive wall, led to an almost easy entry into W. Europe for the allies! 


Regards,
 
I agree with a lot of your statements. I do think the Allies let the Russians take more causlities. But I don't think it was racism.
 
The Soviets helped start the war they invaded Poland they signed a non agression pact with Germany I think the wester allies simply thought the Russains were getting what the deserved. Further Stalin was as evil as Hitler, maybe even worse.
 
Since both countrues were devasted (Russia and Germany) it was a win win for the west.
 
I will give the Poles credit they had some brass ones. They went right after the invaders even with outdated equipment sometimes mounted on horseback. The also did a heck of a lot of damage to the Germans, had the Russians not attacked them from Behind the Poles could have resisited a lot longer.
 
Germany sustained relatively heavy losses, especially in vehicles and planes: Poland cost the Germans approximately the equipment of an entire armored division and 25% of its air strength. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland#cite_note-89 - [83] As for duration, the September Campaign lasted only about one week less than the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France - Battle of France in 1940, even though the Anglo-French forces were much closer to parity with the Germans in numerical strength and equipment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland#cite_note-FrenchForces-90 - [Note 8] Furthermore, the Polish Army was preparing the Romanian Bridgehead, which would have prolonged Polish defence, but this plan was cancelled due to the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 September 1939. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland#cite_note-91 - [84] Poland also never officially surrendered to the Germans. Under German occupation, the Polish army continued to fight underground, as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armia_Krajowa - Armia Krajowa and forest partisans – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C5%9Bni - Leśni . The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_resistance_movement_in_World_War_II - Polish resistance movement in World War II in German- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_Poland - occupied Poland was the largest resistance movement in all of occupied Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland#cite_note-92 - [85]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland



Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 14-May-2010 at 03:56

My total argument can be summed up in the following points:

 

The Russian didn't beat the Germans- The Germans lost the war due to poor logistical planning an incompetent General staff and staff planners, a culture where orders could not be questioned and free thinking was not rewarded. Had the Brits been in command of the German Army (because I think they had a better General staff then the US did) they would have rolled Russia like a carpet.

 

The Allies could not have won WW2 without the US. Britain simply didn't have the industrial base to sustain the war, nor did they have the man power to invade Germany, or even the landing craft for that matter. The Russians could not have succeeded without land lease (quote from Von Ribbentrop) The Brits relied heavily in lend lease to keep their Army equipped.

 

Germany fighting on one Front with Italy still in the war would have beaten Russia. But I don't think they ever could have taken the UK. With or without US help.

 

The Allies could have won the war without Russia.

 

The US Army of the 90's was the best Army of the 20th century, no Army in history has had the overwhelming firepower and the technological gap between themselves and their opponents.

 

Top 5 Armies:

 

US circa 90-99

Germany  39-43

Israel 70's

UK 39-45

UK 14-18

 

Even today we have a huge advantage over our next closest rival China. There has never been this kind of gap except for the early years of the WW2 but if you figure the entire common wealth the UK was pretty close. Just spread out.



Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-May-2010 at 04:08
WOW Maximus Germanicus, thats a real storm i gathered over my poor head. First I must admitt that Im not a native english speaker so Im gratefull for correcting my mistakes in writing english. I do not consider myself as anti - american and my errors in writing have nothing to do with my attitude towards USA. As for Patton I got his book myself and have read it years ago. To say truth its not quite his book or it is hard to say to which extent he has written it (co authors are his wife and adiutant).
As for the numbers in Japanesse -Soviet border wars I remember to read Russian article about it which was giving different numbers (isint it possible that only part of Soviet forces was engaged into battles?). Also so far I know leand lease help for USSR wasnt going trough Pacific ports of Russia but by Atalntic so the argument about importance of Japan blockade seems to be failed.
 
When I was writing about american shorthsighted and ingorant viev I meant your mention about Poles fighting with lances against the German tanks. If you take for example the battle of Mokra where brigade of Polish cavalry stopped German 4th Panzer division and destroyed 150 tanks and armoured vehicles it is clear that it wasnt made with lances. The main antitank weapon of Polish cavalry was Bofors anti-tank gun. Also the reason of the defeat of Polish army wasnt that it was so ill equipped but that Poland was attacked from North (east Prussia), west (Germany) and sought (Czechoslovakia) on the extremly long front, being outnumbered 2 to 1 only in manpower, not to count other numbers.


-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-May-2010 at 04:14
Please Maximus try to read this old topic from this forum:
 
 
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1783&KW=&PID=198113#198113 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1783&KW=&PID=198113#198113
 
 
 
 


-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 14-May-2010 at 05:12
It is a fact that the Poles used lancers to fight the Germans--To me that speaks of thier bravery not an insult.
 
Didn't you read my whole post:
 
I will give the Poles credit they had some brass ones. They went right after the invaders even with outdated equipment sometimes mounted on horseback. The also did a heck of a lot of damage to the Germans, had the Russians not attacked them from Behind the Poles could have resisited a lot longer.
 
Germany sustained relatively heavy losses, especially in vehicles and planes: Poland cost the Germans approximately the equipment of an entire armored division and 25% of its air strength. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland#cite_note-89 - [83] As for duration, the September Campaign lasted only about one week less than the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France - Battle of France in 1940, even though the Anglo-French forces were much closer to parity with the Germans in numerical strength and equipment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland#cite_note-FrenchForces-90 - [Note 8] Furthermore, the Polish Army was preparing the Romanian Bridgehead, which would have prolonged Polish defence, but this plan was cancelled due to the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 September 1939. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland#cite_note-91 - [84] Poland also never officially surrendered to the Germans. Under German occupation, the Polish army continued to fight underground, as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armia_Krajowa - Armia Krajowa and forest partisans – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C5%9Bni - Leśni . The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_resistance_movement_in_World_War_II - Polish resistance movement in World War II in German- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_Poland - occupied Poland was the largest resistance movement in all of occupied Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland#cite_note-92 - [85]

As you see, I respect what the Poles did. So don't read to much into it. The Poles fought valiantly I have tremendous respect for them. Bottom line Russia invading them is what hastnened thier defeat. I happen to like the Poles a lot I have worked with them in both the BAlkans and Afghanistan. They are great soldiers. The only think they need is a modernazation of thier Army. Of all the nations I have worked with the Poles, Norwegians and Brits ones I would want to go to war with.

It is a historical fact the Poles used lancers, they also used tanks and the Bofors, they also had a good airforce. They were a huge disadvantage to the Germans in tech and man power but they out up good resistance. It is accurate the used the horses as hopilites or dragoons but the did use the cavalry charge, It have a book somewhere with a picture of it. That being said the Bulgarains, and other Axis countries used Horses also.
 
In the book the forgotten soldier Sayer comments and how much the Polish partisians disrupted the Germans supply lines.
 
By the way land lease flowed across the Pacific to Russia also. From both the US and Canada. If you read the US Army Logistics operations in WW2 the big green book it details this.
 
The Russians greatly exagerated the numbers of not just the Russo Japenese war but all conflicts it is part of thier propaganda machine.


Posted By: Maximus Germanicus
Date Posted: 14-May-2010 at 05:23
Originally posted by Mosquito

Please Maximus try to read this old topic from this forum:
 
 
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1783&KW=&PID=198113#198113 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1783&KW=&PID=198113#198113
 
 
 
 
 
Thats good stuff, I have no problem with the Poles they did a better job than the French against the Germans.
 
Had Russia not invaded they could have held out a lot longer against Germany.  I really think thats why the allies delayed the invasion for so long to punish Russia. Russia helped start the War. Who knowes if Poland held out longer maybe the War would have ended quicker. Blame Uncle Joe for that.


Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 14-May-2010 at 06:29
USA all the wayBig smile 


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 14-May-2010 at 07:31
Originally posted by Maximus Germanicus

It is a fact that the Poles used lancers to fight the Germans--To me that speaks of thier bravery not an insult.
 
 
To me it sounds like a stupidity, when one uses lances against the tanks. And so far i know Polish cavalry didnt use lances in combat but only on parades (but sabers were used on German necks, thats fact).
 
As for the German losses in Polish campaign they are not sure. It was proven that due to propaganda reasons Germans were giving lowered numbers of their casualties. Especially in some battles they completelly hidden their casualties because they were compromittating for Wermaht. The most famous examples are battle of Westerplatte and battle of Wizna (where Germans outnumbered Polish forces 40 to 1 and battle took 3 days). Heinz Guderian who was personally commanding German forces in this battle threatened the Polish commander captain Raginis that he will give order of executing PoWs if Poles wont surrender. 
 


-------------
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 15-May-2010 at 05:32
Originally posted by opuslola

The USA, and its allies in the West,made a very good decision, they decided that it was better that the Germans and the Soviets, destroy one another, than risk more of British, American or French, etc., lives! 
I agree, but FDR was at least somewhat open to an earlier invasion of France (1943).  At FDR's request, the  U.S. General Staff even did a strategic study and concluded that an allied invasion in 1943 invasion would be successful, though perhaps not strongly advocated.
 
The British, however, refused to even consider it. The British empire lost 970,000 men in WWI and they were determined to avoid anything remotely resembling attrition style campaigns unless they were absolutely necessarry. They insisted on the "Soft under belly" (Italy) in 1943.  Even after Italy, the British proposed Yugoslavia and then Norway as alternatives to France.   


Posted By: Domen
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 16:11
I voted for the German army.
 
On Germand and Allied combat effectiveness:
 
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=166050 - http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=166050
 
Something on American infantry in WW2 - opinion of US Army General Gavin (last months of 1944):

General Gavin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Gavin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Gavin

If our infantry would fight, this war would be over by now. On our present front, there are two very weak German regiments holding the XVIII Corps of four divisions. We all know it and admit it, and yet nothing is done about it. American infantry just simply will not fight. No one wants to get killed... Our artillery is wonderful and our air corps not bad. But the regular infantry - terrible. Everybody wants to live to a ripe old age. The sight of a few Germans drives them to their holes. Instead of being imbued with an overwhelming desire to get close to the German and get him by the throat, they want to avoid him if the artillery has not already knocked him flat.

Source: "Armageddon. The battle for Germany 1944-45", Max Hastings, page 267
 
German and Allied performance comparison:
 
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=41288&start=0 - http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=41288&start=0
 
German vs. Allied war-making potential:
 
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=161189&start=0 - http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=161189&start=0

Casualties in the Normandy campaign:
 
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=8698 - http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=8698
 
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=162988 - http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=162988
 
They went right after the invaders even with outdated equipment sometimes mounted on horseback.
 
Among factors which determined the Polish defeat in 1939 were numerical and material superiority of the enemy, problems with communication and poor high level leadership:
 
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=161567&start=15 - http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=161567&start=15


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2010 at 17:23
Perhaps American troops, whilst invading foreign nations, thought better about being "cannon fodder" than their grand-fathers? And, perhaps, when Aamerica held the air theatre as a spider holds its prey, they were well thought to stay within their own lairs,and wait untill overpowering air cover, could clear the way with little loss of life!

Smart, very smart!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2010 at 09:42
Originally posted by opuslola

Perhaps American troops, whilst invading foreign nations, thought better about being "cannon fodder" than their grand-fathers? And, perhaps, when Aamerica held the air theatre as a spider holds its prey, they were well thought to stay within their own lairs,and wait untill overpowering air cover, could clear the way with little loss of life!

Smart, very smart!
 
I agree, the U.S. approach to World War II was to maximize fire power and minimize U.S. casualties.  This was very smart and worked well (over all).
 
At the same time, other Generals, including Eisehower (known for being very fair and non glory seeking) also voiced concerns about the performance of many U.S. "ordinary conscript" divisions in late 1944.  This led to a few elite U.S. divisions (101, 82, 4th, 1st, 9th etc) to do more than their fair share and also may have led to U.S. casualties as it gave the Germans time to recover and launch the Ardennes counter offensive.
 
 
 


Posted By: Domen
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2010 at 11:59
Well, it's quite true that nothing was enough against American offensive firepower:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2PoGqvKlN4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2PoGqvKlN4
 
Napalm and other lethal inventions were already in use during WW2. Napalm was used for example on Okinawa.
 
But does it make US Army the "finest" army of late WW2 (1944 - 1945) or "just" the strongest?
 
Actually in areas where the US Army was not able to fully take advantage of their firepower (like for example initial phase of the Normandy campaign with it's bocage terrain, Hurtgen forest, Iwo-Jima, Westwall, some areas in Italy), they were performing rather poorly despite numerical superiority.
 
If it comes to Europe also German qualitative superiority (both in terms of equipment - e.g. tanks, small arms - and average training of their soldiers) largely, to a considerable extent, overcame the American numerical & firepower superiority in terms of casualty ratios of both sides at least.
 
Against unconventional warfare (Vietnam, Apghanistan) Americans also perform poorly because they are not able to just "roll" their enemies with simple firepower, communication and technological superiority (like in the Persian Gulf) because enemies are avoiding face-to-face combat. Yet the Japanese realized that their army was too poorly equipped compared to Americans to confront them in the open field as equals - and on Tarawa, Angaur, Peleliu and Iwo-Jima the new Japan tactics worked well and resulted in heavy American casualties (heavier than Japanese when counting KIA and WIA).


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 24-Jun-2010 at 13:24

Originally posted by Domen

If it comes to Europe also German qualitative superiority (both in terms of equipment - e.g. tanks, small arms - and average training of their soldiers) largely, to a considerable extent, overcame the American numerical & firepower superiority in terms of casualty ratios of both sides at least.

Your analysis is not entirely correct.  U.S. small arms equal o or perhaps better than all but the most elite German units.  German tanks were superior, but that was not what made the Germans so lethal per se.  What really made the Germans lethal was highly skilled batallion, regimental and divisional commanders who could get the absolute most out of their units.  Being on the defensive did not hurt either.
 
Originally posted by Domen

Against unconventional warfare (Vietnam, Apghanistan) Americans also perform poorly because they are not able to just "roll" their enemies with simple firepower, communication and technological superiority (like in the Persian Gulf)
Really?  Counter Insurgency warfare is difficult for everyone.  Yugoslav partisans fought against the mighty Wermacht for years and were never beaten.  In fact, the U.S. has beaten the Iraqi insurgents.
 
 
Originally posted by Domen

Actually in areas where the US Army was not able to fully take advantage of their firepower (like for example initial phase of the Normandy campaign with it's bocage terrain, Hurtgen forest, Iwo-Jima, Westwall, some areas in Italy), they were performing rather poorly despite numerical superiority.
Iwo Jima is not a good example. U.S. marines killed 21, 000 Japanese defenders while suffering only 7,000 KIA.  The Mount Suriabachi was captured in days despite the Japanese having months to prepare. It took less than one month to secure the island in the face of very dedicated resistance by trained troops.  Defeating dedicated defenders in close terrain is difficult for everyone. The Wermacht found that out at Stalingrad.
 
 


Posted By: Domen
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 04:42
It took less than one month to secure the island
 
Which is not impressive at all considering the size of the island and US forces involved in capturing it.
 
U.S. small arms equal o or perhaps better than all but the most elite German units.
 
Sorry but American machine guns could not compete with MG 42, which was the basic weapon of every German infantry team.
 
Being on the defensive did not hurt either.
 

Counterattacks are indispensible parts of every defense (and very costly for the defender) + position of an attacker is much more favourable than position of a defender in many aspects. Also enemy firepower (especially artillery and air attacks) hurts while being on the defensive.
 
Someone even wrote:
 
There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, the defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.
 
Iwo Jima is not a good example. U.S. marines killed 21, 000 Japanese defenders while suffering only 7,000 KIA. 
 
 
Americans had got huge numerical, technological, material and firepower superiority on Iwo-Jima + they had got extremely powerful naval support and extremely powerful air support as well as some armoured vehicles. In spite of this fact losses of both sides were:
 
Japan - 4,845 dead, 13,000 missing (and never found), 216 PoW (most WIA) = 18,061
Americans
- 6,188 KIA and MIA (including few hundreds MIA), 18,059 WIA = 24,247
 
In other battles mentioned above casualty ratio was also favorable for the Japanese under the circumstances:
 
Tarawa:
 
Japan - 2,483 dead (I don't count unarmed Korean labourers), 17 PoW = 2,500 casualties
Americans - 1,115 KIA, 2,355 WIA = 3,470 casualties 
 
Angaur:
 
Japanese - 1,338 dead, 50 PoW = 1,388 casualties
Americans - 260 KIA, 1,354 WIA = 1,614 casualties

Peleliu:
Japanese - 10,500 dead, 200 PoW = 10,700 casualties
Americans - 1,800 KIA, 8,000 WIA = 9,800 casualties
 
And as you can see I countr only bloody losses (most of Japanese PoW were wounded), I don't count "combat fatigue", which would even increase US casualties. Another thing is that large part of Japanese deaths resulted from suicide or occured during the last "mopping up" stages of these battles.


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 07:58
Originally posted by Domen

Sorry but American machine guns could not compete with MG 42, which was the basic weapon of every German infantry team.
Granted, the MG 42 was by ar the best weapon in its class. Though not as sexy as the  MG-42, the American Garand rifle and the Browning Automatic Rifle were far superior to their German equivelants. The BAR in particular, had no German equivelant.
 
Likewise, the .45 calibre Thompson submachine gun was easily equivelant to German weapons (if not superior due to the .45 calibre round). Then factor in the legendary Browning .50 Calibre Machine Gun (often used by infantry units). There was no German equivelant to this weapon either.
 
In the end, the U.S. had a love affair with small arms leading to good indigenous designs and was also not shy about importing the best foreign designs.  This made a very lethal combination. Even the U.S. .30 calibre machine gun was not a bad weapon per se.
Originally posted by Domen

In other battles mentioned above casualty ratio was also favorable for the Japanese under the circumstances...
 
And as you can see I countr only bloody losses (most of Japanese PoW were wounded), I don't count "combat fatigue", which would even increase US casualties. Another thing is that large part of Japanese deaths resulted from suicide or occured during the last "mopping up" stages of these battles.
 
I think you have a pretty creative interpertation of statistics. America forces had up to a 8-1 kill ratio in their favor.  That is the key statistic and this alone demonstrates American efficiency. Creatively counting wounded means everybody from serious wounds to lightly wounded.  Your points about Japanese suicides increasing artifially increasing the high U.S. kill ratio are valid. But in the end, an enemy KIA via suicide is still an enemy KIA.
Originally posted by Domen

It took less than one month to secure the island
The fact that the U.S. won is not surprising.  The very efficient and very lethal U.S. Marines reduced their opponents at Iwo Jima far more quickly than the Wermacht did facing similar situations at Sebastpol and Stalingrad.  
Originally posted by Domen

Counterattacks are indispensible parts of every defense (and very costly for the defender) + position of an attacker is much more favourable than position of a defender in many aspects. Also enemy firepower (especially artillery and air attacks) hurts while being on the defensive.
I understand your point. I do not dispute that the German's had the best performance in WWII on a unit by unit average.  What I dispute is the degree which you insinuate that the American military was inferior.


Posted By: Domen
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 10:30
The BAR in particular, had no German equivelant.
 
The equivalent of BAR in German army was MG 42 (used as light machine gun) because just like each American infantry team had got one BAR, each German infantry team had got one MG 42 used as light machine gun. MG 42 was so universal that it could be used both as light machine gun and as heavy machine gun - there were some difference in additional stuff between them (for example MG 42 when used as HMG had got heavier basis, bigger ammo store, etc.).
 
Creatively counting wounded means everybody from serious wounds to lightly wounded. 
 
This category includes only wounded which required hospitalization, so they were casualties because they had to leave their units for a long time. Slightly wounded which did not require hospitalization were usually counted as "contused" or "injured" and as such they were not casualties.
 
But in the end, an enemy KIA via suicide is still an enemy KIA.
 
Suicide is not killed in action because they were not commiting suicides while in action.
 
I'm not talking about Banzai charges but about self-inflicted deaths (seppuku for example).
 
 The very efficient and very lethal U.S. Marines reduced their opponents at Iwo Jima far more quickly than the Wermacht did facing similar situations at Sebastpol and Stalingrad.  
 
Stalingrad and Sevastopol were urban combats (Okinawa on the other hand is not a city) and in both battles their enemy was numerically superior - unlike Japanese on Okinawa. Near Sevastopol Russians had got several defensive lines of concrete fortifications and they could be supplied via sea - Okinawa could not be supplied via sea (they were encircled from all sides) and did not have concrete fortifications (only some underground shelters).
 


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 25-Jun-2010 at 14:25
Not wanting to interfere with a very good discussion, I would suggest that bunkers dug into rock, which was a good portion of the Nipponese defensive line at Okinawa, provides or probvided every bit as good a defensive position as concrete!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 00:39

Domen-

 

It is time to educate you on military principles.

 

In the offensive-What is the troop ratio normally required? 3 to 1

 

In the offensive vs a defense in depth with a dug in opponent 5 to 1

 

So to compare the US army vs a dug in German army with considerable advantages in terrain the US actually doctrinally outperformed the German army.

 

By comparing the US and German Army on equal footing in Europe shows a lack of knowledge of Military principles.

Another comment was made about the performance of US conscript troops and only the elite division doing well. Once again that shows a lack of knowledge of the American Army during WW2-Pretty much everybody was a conscript to include the 101st they were stood up in 42.

The US Army of World War II was created from a tiny antebellum army in the space of three years. On 30 June 1939 the Regular Army numbered 187,893 men, including 22,387 in the Army Air Corps. On the same date the National Guard totaled 199,491 men. The major combat units included nine infantry divisions, two cavalry divisions, a mechanized cavalry (armor) brigade in the Regular Army and eighteen infantry divisions in the National Guard

 

On 7 December 1941 the Army consisted of 1,685,403 men (including 275,889 in the Air Corps) in 29 infantry, five armor, and two cavalry divisions. While this 435 percent increase was a magnificent achievement .Over the following three and a half years the Army expanded a further 492 percent, to 8,291,336 men in 89 divisions: sixty-six infantry, five airborne, sixteen armored, one cavalry, and one mountain infantry. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/introduction.aspx -

 
So in a time if two years the Army increased by about 1.2 million soldiers (all of whom were conscripts. Then by 44 by another 8 Mill --where do you think they came from?

 

Just remember the 101st at Bastogne surrounded and out numbered then remember "Nuts"

 

 



Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 00:54

I will give you the MG42 was the finest machine gun in the war. As the Tiger was the finest Tank of the war-as a former cav guy it makes my mouth water.

 

Now as who has the best Army of the 20th Century--US circa 1990. They were farther ahead of any Army in the world. They held a technological training and doctrinal advantage over their next closet rival far superior than any other Army in the 2oth century. Germany was good, but Britain was close, Russia was close, The US was not at the start of the war, but by 45 was the most powerful Army in the world.

 

I get it-I like the Wehrmacht also- I had ancestors on both the German and the American side. I respect the German Army, The soldiers. I don't think highly of the general staff. They were to fixated, punished initiative, and were really more just Hitler’s sycophants. You put competent Generals in charge (Hell if Patton was a German) they would have won the war.

 

The German army was not designed to slug it out the were designed to hit quick break the enemy and exploit the confusion (due to speed, precision and technological advantages). When the German Army had to slug it out they suffered.



Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 01:03
Originally posted by opuslola

Not wanting to interfere with a very good discussion, I would suggest that bunkers dug into rock, which was a good portion of the Nipponese defensive line at Okinawa, provides or probvided every bit as good a defensive position as concrete!
 

You are correct sir!!!!

 

The 1st, 2nd, and 6th Marine Divisions wheeled south across the narrow waist of Okinawa. The 1st and 6th Infantry Divisions encountered fierce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_%28military%29 - resistance from Japanese troops holding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortification - fortified positions on high ground and engaged in desperate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_to_hand_combat - hand to hand combat in west-central Okinawa along Cactus Ridge, about five miles (8 km) northwest of Shuri.  for it was now realized they were merely outposts guarding the Shuri Line.

The next American objective was Kakazu Ridge, two hills with a connecting saddle that formed part of Shuri's outer defenses. The Japanese had prepared their positions well and fought tenaciously. Fighting was fierce. Japanese soldiers hid in fortified http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave - caves armed with hidden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun - machine guns and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive - explosives ; American forces often lost many men before clearing the Japanese out from each cave or other hiding place.

Elements of Japanese Power  http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/okinawa/chapter10.htm - http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/okinawa/chapter10.htm
As the Americans came up against the Shuri line veteran fighters in the Pacific noted many familiar tactics and techniques in the Japanese defense. Intricate and elaborate underground positions, expert handling of light mortars and machine guns, fierce local attacks, willingness of Japanese soldiers to destroy themselves when cornered, aggressive defense of reverse slopes, full exploitation of cover and concealment, ceaseless efforts to infiltrate the lines-all these were reminiscent of previous battles with the Japanese from Guadalcanal to Leyte.
 
The enemy had shown all his old ingenuity in preparing his positions underground. Many of the underground fortifications had numerous entrances connected by an intricate system of tunnels. In some of the larger hill masses his tunneling had given him great maneuverability where the heaviest bombs and shells could not reach him. Such underground mobility often enabled him to convert an apparent defensive operation into an offensive one by moving his troops through tunnels into different caves or pillboxes and sometimes into the rear of attacking forces. Most remarkable was the care he had lavished on positions housing only one or two weapons. In one place a 47-mm. antitank gun
JAPANESE FORTIFICATIONS

 

 
Photo: 12-cm. British gun in concrete emplacement

12-cm. British gun in concrete emplacement

Photo: Concrete pillbox in hillside

Concrete pillbox in hillside

Photo: Double pillbox, earth and bamboo

Double pillbox, earth and bamboo

Photo: Tank trap across a road

Tank trap across a road

Photo: Reverse-slope caves, two levels

Reverse-slope caves, two levels

 



Posted By: Maximus Germanicus I
Date Posted: 26-Jun-2010 at 01:10
Originally posted by opuslola

Not wanting to interfere with a very good discussion, I would suggest that bunkers dug into rock, which was a good portion of the Nipponese defensive line at Okinawa, provides or probvided every bit as good a defensive position as concrete!
 

Are sure Domen isn't really SoD. These are some silly and un researched  statements. Okinawa most certainly did have concrete. Further you are right the caves were better emplacements. On top of that it was an amphibious landing!!!! Much harder than the Germans faced on the east.

 

Amphib

Vs dug in enemy

with dug in ARTY

Mixed urban/mountainous and wooded terrain

 

Eastern front

Some Urban mostly open warfare on an open plain

 

HMM I wonder which is harder.

[260]

Photo: SOUTHERN COAST LINE
SOUTHERN COAST LINE of Okinawa is marked by jumbled masses of rock and vegetation, fronted by wide reefs. Cliff in picture is over 50 feet high.




Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com