Who were the best soldier of ww2?

[Azog 150]

I'm not taking POWs into the equation, but as the US never suffered such reversals such as Tobruk, Singapore or HongKong, even that number might be a lot lower.

I agree with the rest of your post bar this bit.

The Japanese Invasion of the Phillipines.

[Nik]

agreed, forget that (still had in the back of my head that the majority of forces were philippen rather than us, still, the us army still had 20'000 troops all told on the philippines). Thanks for reminding me.

[Fritigern]

@Fritigern
Maybe we should take the fact into account that the Wehrmacht was on the defensive from 1943 onwards, especially on the western fron.
The german tanks could extract a high toll in the covered bocage landscape of normandy, but when on the attack (with some notable expetions like Villiers-Bocage, where even his superiors regarded Wittmans actions as foolhardy risky), they suffered higher losses as well.
A tank in ambush, waiting for his shot has an advantage over the attacker, no matter the kind of tank the attacker is driving

A good point, but is based on a rather simplistic view of the way tank battles were fought. The tank battles were much more fluid in Normandy and elsewhere than might be thought from a high level perspective. To approximately quote one of the British commanders in Normandy - you could rely on the German counter-attack coming at the worst possible time.

Secondly the fighting in North Africa came up with a similar picture. The tank battles at El Alamein (Tel al aquia - not spelled right) show a similar picture - German tank crews significantly outperforming their British counterparts - despite the inferior tank designs plus the number of shooters effect (if I fire 3 shells from my 3 tanks and my oponent fires 10 shells from his 10 tanks - how much better do I need to be to maintain a sustainable ratio of losses?).

[Capt. Fozdike]

Tobruk was a decisive Australian victory...

Fixed.

I still stand by my opinion that the Australian and Maori troops were the best fighting troops of WW2. Just by what has been said about them by some of the best Generals of that time.

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

interesting results so far in the poll. I especially like how people think the best soldiers are the ones who lost.

[Capt. Fozdike]

interesting results so far in the poll. I especially like how people think the best soldiers are the ones who lost.

Remember it took the world to beat them.

[thebull0425]

Waffen SS troops were the best. Toughest troops the allies fought, the most fanatic, the most fearsome.

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

Remember it took the world to beat them.

that doesn't necesarily prove the calibre of the soldier

[Lysimachus]

I still stand by my opinion that the Australian and Maori troops were the best fighting troops of WW2. Just by what has been said about them by some of the best Generals of that time.

Well it's easy to say that if you disregard what's been said about other troops. I mean, plenty of other powers had their troops praised.

interesting results so far in the poll. I especially like how people think the best soldiers are the ones who lost.

That would be relevant if this thread was about something like "the strongest country" but this refers to the best soldiers. For example, the Finns lost but they were able to repeatedly destroy Soviet armies that attempted to invade again and again and again and again without fail.

Waffen SS troops were the best. Toughest troops the allies fought, the most fanatic, the most fearsome.

The earlier divisions were effective, but the later ones were just awful. You can't generalise the Waffen-SS, you need to take in to account all factors which will involve you having to disregard the popular perception you hold of them.

[Abendstern]

interesting results so far in the poll. I especially like how people think the best soldiers are the ones who lost.

Interesting indeed. Its like saying Napoleon was the best leader in the Napoleonic Wars. Although everybody knows he lost. Twice!

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

my only issue is that I have a sneaky suspicion the American soldiers are being dismissed OUT OF HAND without due consideration at all. Because they are Americans, and for no other reason.

Mad respect to the first Euro with the balls to admit to that.

[hellheaven1987]

my only issue is that I have a sneaky suspicion the American soldiers are being dismissed OUT OF HAND without due consideration at all. Because they are Americans, and for no other reason.

Mad respect to the first Euro with the balls to admit to that.

Well, even American scholars, after studying, says German soldiers are most effecient one.

[Trey]

To everyone saying America had the best troops, let me remind you of this: in less than 4 years, America suffered hundreds of thousands of more total casualties than Britain did, and American fought fewer battles than we did.

In Europe alone, if I remember correctly, total casualties (civilians, killed, wounded, and I think captured) for the Americans equalled around 1 million.

You know, that explains it. That explains it.

[RuleBritannia]

my only issue is that I have a sneaky suspicion the American soldiers are being dismissed OUT OF HAND without due consideration at all. Because they are Americans, and for no other reason.

Mad respect to the first Euro with the balls to admit to that.

You know, not all of us are here dismissing the American soldiers just because they're American. I dismiss them because of their proven poor combat performance, ineffective generals (except, maybe, for Patton), egotistic nature in the war, and by the fact they suffered heavier casualties in 3.5 years than the British did in the whole war.

The British were far better, and the Germans an innumerably amount of times better.


Saying that American soldiers were superior to German soldiers is just ridiculos, unless you mean the conscripts and militia sent to fight them in late 1944 and early 1945.

[HansDuet]

my only issue is that I have a sneaky suspicion the American soldiers are being dismissed OUT OF HAND without due consideration at all. Because they are Americans, and for no other reason.

Mad respect to the first Euro with the balls to admit to that.

Don't worry, that suspicion is incorrect.

[conon394]

You know, not all of us are here dismissing the American soldiers just because they're American. I dismiss them because of their proven poor combat performance, ineffective generals (except, maybe, for Patton), egotistic nature in the war, and by the fact they suffered heavier casualties in 3.5 years than the British did in the whole war.

That is a silly statement - if for no other reson that the US moblized far larger military. Depending on how you tally millitrary deaths both nations suffered ~400,000 dead. Given that the UK was not significantly fighting (on the ground) much before the invasion of France , nor in Asia till late 41 using time is willfully misleading. You might as well argue that the UK had a better army because the Russians suffered more casualties in less time as well...

the Germans an innumerably amount of times better.

Sure operationally German army doctrine - it terms of unit flexibility, managing replacements and such was excellent and it fact allowed Germany to compensate for a vast array of other deficiencies. But soldier is a broad term - certainly Germany was not so vastly great in the air or on the water. Moreover Germany had the luxury of fighting more or less only in Europe and only in a fraction of the world. The the US (and UK) had to fight all over and maintain vastly greater logistical networks - they could not for example mirror the German unit replaceable strategy because it would be logistical imposable while also sustaining LL to the UK and US, a vast naval effort and fielding new ground divisions...

German ground doctrine was 2 world wars in the making and based what over something close to 100 years of Germany maintaining a large standing army - the US was pulling a army out of its hat and had zero tradition of large scale army operations - without the luxury of just fighting in Europe and just close to home. The rep of the German army might be a bit less if the fiasco in waiting that was Sea Lion had been attempted for example.

Saying that American soldiers were superior to German soldiers is just ridiculos, unless you mean the conscripts and militia sent to fight them in late 1944 and early 1945.

And that's the point - the US army was created from scratch expanded massively and thrown against a veteran force fighting exactly the kind of war it (the German army was designed for). Again chance the situation and I suspect Germany would have fared rather tying to manage amphibious operation in the Pacific at the drop of a hat.

[Hakkapeliitta]

The earlier divisions were effective, but the later ones were just awful. You can't generalise the Waffen-SS, you need to take in to account all factors which will involve you having to disregard the popular perception you hold of them.

I thought the very earliest Waffen-SS divisions weren't too good either, as in they were suicidally fanatical to the point that it was a detriment to their combat effectiveness. So yeah you're absolutely right that we shouldn't generalise and should try to take into consideration all the factors involved. A signifigant factor for the relative success of Finland was not being between Berlin and the Red Army. Italians reportedly performed quite well under German leadership.

And then again, having the best soldiers doesn't mean much in a long war. The Germans propably had the best soldiers, and the Japanese initially had the best pilots and navy personnel. They were still doomed to lose in the face of greater industrial might.

[conon394]

They were still doomed to lose in the face of greater industrial might.

Not really - that is sort of after the fact analysis. Better politics (and particularity some kind of coordinated policy from Japan rather than dueling Arny and navy ambitions and lack of mutual support), better alliance management, less insane racial executions, better joint Axis cooperation, better manipulation of Western fear about reds, a bit less racial superiority and more rational examination of things like obvious intelligence failures, and more of all that on the allies side and the Axis could well have won

[Hakkapeliitta]

Not really - that is sort of after the fact analysis. Better politics (and particularity some kind of coordinated policy from Japan rather than dueling Arny and navy ambitions and lack of mutual support), better alliance management, less insane racial executions, better joint Axis cooperation, better manipulation of Western fear about reds, a bit less racial superiority and more rational examination of things like obvious intelligence failures, and more of all that on the allies side and the Axis could well have won

Yes it's a statement with the benefit of hindsight. But in the case of Imperial Japan, their war with the US was decided by the Navy, and in that department they were sure to loose. Japan could not keep up with the US in replenishing their losses and once they lost the upperhand in the Pacific, Japan could not supply its troops overseas well enough, nevermind that they never supplied them well enough in the first place. Also the Axis in Europe was damn inefficient in using the industrial capacity of the occupied regions, and the Nazi strategic planning was pretty much relying on their own propaganda being true.

Usually the scenarios where the Axis wins is dependant on the Axis doing all the right choices, and the Allies doing the wrong ones. That's not realistic in the slightest.

[Rapax]

Not really - that is sort of after the fact analysis. Better politics (and particularity some kind of coordinated policy from Japan rather than dueling Arny and navy ambitions and lack of mutual support), better alliance management, less insane racial executions, better joint Axis cooperation, better manipulation of Western fear about reds, a bit less racial superiority and more rational examination of things like obvious intelligence failures, and more of all that on the allies side and the Axis could well have won

Which is rather a lot of "better this and that" to explain how they "really had a shot".