Who were the best soldier of ww2?

[Giorgos]

I am Greek but had i made the poll, i would have voted for the German fellas. They did really well, especially those veterans in the later years against VASTLY superior numbers, unlike anything the Finns or the Greeks or anyone else encountered before that time.

[Domen123]

They did really well, especially those veterans in the later years against VASTLY superior numbers,

Not so vastly, just superior (as superior as German numbers were superior in early years), but OK - I agree.

But in general this thread is irrelevant because in modern wars equipment and tactics is much more important than soldiers.

And equipment (both quality and numbers) and tactics decides which army is the winner - soldiers are less important.

For example I do not think that Japanese soldiers were worse shooters or their courage was smaller than Finnish soldiers. Yet they lost much more men than Americans they fought against. On the other hand Americans were in general suffering smaller men losses than the Soviets. Soviet army in early years (1939 - 1941) was in fact incapable of anything - it was just a large but very easy enemy. That's why the Finns managed to deal with it. Situation would have been much different if Finland had been invaded by serious and capable enemy - German army, for example. German war machine was much better than the Soviet one at least until 1943 - 1944.

[Giorgos]

Oh, absolutely, i agree. Germans and Japanese had superior equipment at the beginning of the war, US and Russians by the end. The Italians, for example, never had it, and thus they struggled heavily in most of their battles against several of the Allied nations.

[Azog 150]

^^I would put the UK and Commonwealth as a contendor for best equipment at the end. The new Comet and Centurion tanks were coming into service. There were many very effective Spitfire variants, we were close to developing the Jet Engine. We had many effective specialised tanks.

Maybe not the best, but still pretty good.

[Domen123]

Centurion was indeed an awesome tank, better than all German ones.

Israel's Centurions performed very well until late 1960s against theoretically more modern Soviet, American and French tanks (T-55, AMX-13, M48 Patton, etc.).

But Germany surrendered before Centurions could see combat (some of them were already in Europe but didn't have any occasion to fight).

[Erebus Pasha]

^^I would put the UK and Commonwealth as a contendor for best equipment at the end. The new Comet and Centurion tanks were coming into service. There were many very effective Spitfire variants, we were close to developing the Jet Engine. We had many effective specialised tanks.

Maybe not the best, but still pretty good.

We had jet aircraft at the end of the war in the form of the Gloster Meteor although I think it was mainly used initially in home defence roles such as countering V-1 Rocket attacks, and when they finally made it to the continent they were used in ground attack and recon missions.

[Domen123]

But also many other countries had got Jet Aircraft by the end of WW2, including Germany, Russia, America - even Japan had got their own prototypes.

[Markas]

^^I would put the UK and Commonwealth as a contendor for best equipment at the end. The new Comet and Centurion tanks were coming into service. There were many very effective Spitfire variants, we were close to developing the Jet Engine. We had many effective specialised tanks.

Maybe not the best, but still pretty good.

The Comet I suppose was comparable to the Red Army IS-2 and the US Pershing though the IS-2 pretty much had a clear lead due to it's numbers and more extensive usage. Our Small arms were a pretty antiquated bunch by the end, though.

[Lysimachus]

^^I would put the UK and Commonwealth as a contendor for best equipment at the end. The new Comet and Centurion tanks were coming into service. There were many very effective Spitfire variants, we were close to developing the Jet Engine. We had many effective specialised tanks.

Maybe not the best, but still pretty good.

Well the problem is, the UK developed their better weapons only later throughout the war. I would procure information from a book on the vehicles of the 20th Century onwards, but I can't find it anywhere. But in reference to weapons, Germans always had the upper-hand in theirs unless referring to their mechanical reliability of which they were of dubious quality. For example, the Hetzer and Panther tanks were both fast and powerful, with the former having a low profile which enabled it to be hidden easily.

[Echuta]

I find it more question on divsions. I think the best soldiers were the germans who had seen multiple fronts especially the ones who survived the eastern front.
Second come the Russians who fought in Stalingrad ,in Kursk and Berlin.
Third the Americans who fought in the Ardennes.

[Ramashan]

Third the Americans who fought in the Ardennes.

If you only count the European theater. US was on two fronts, the more brutal of which was the Pacific. Just a clarification.

[Ojf]

I don't get why the Germans are first, they sucked, look at Stalingrad for example

[Lysimachus]

I don't get why the Germans are first, they sucked, look at Stalingrad for example

Yeah and look at the Kasserine Pass for example, yeah those damned Americans truly suck.

[Ojf]

Yeah and look at the Kasserine Pass for example, yeah those damned Americans truly suck.

Err won won WW2 and then saved the world from communism?

[Lysimachus]

Err won won WW2 and then saved the world from communism?

First, no.

Secondly, I was simply using your logic. Pinpointing one battle and implying that said battle reflects on an entire country's military. Oh the US have had plenty of defeats throughout their history, they got mauled at Vietnam but that doesn't necessarily make their military bad.

[Ojf]

First, no.

Secondly, I was simply using your logic. Pinpointing one battle and implying that said battle reflects on an entire country's military. Oh the US have had plenty of defeats throughout their history, they got mauled at Vietnam but that doesn't necessarily make their military bad.

The US didn't get mauled at Vietnam, if they wanted to win then they could've, but please don't go off topic, this poll is about WW2, just because you cannot respond with any logic or reason that doesn't meen that you can change the subject

[Lysimachus]

The US didn't get mauled at Vietnam, if they wanted to win then they could've, but please don't go off topic, this poll is about WW2, just because you cannot respond with any logic or reason that doesn't meen that you can change the subject

Yes, they weren't mauled, which clearly explains why they had to withdraw. They sent in troops constantly, one after the other but they still couldn't get the upper-hand.

The poll is about WWII, yes and I would insist that you provide solid evidence that American troops were better than the Germans, who after being defeated at Stalingrad so obviously suck. Go read "Stalingrad" by Antony Beevor, it'll enlighten you so as to why they lost there.

[Ojf]

Yes, they weren't mauled, which clearly explains why they had to withdraw. They sent in troops constantly, one after the other but they still couldn't get the upper-hand.

The poll is about WWII, yes and I would insist that you provide solid evidence that American troops were better than the Germans, who after being defeated at Stalingrad so obviously suck. Go read "Stalingrad" by Antony Beevor, it'll enlighten you so as to why they lost there.

I've read that book, I even have it on my bookshelf next to my desk as we speak, yet that doesn't explain what you're getting at

[Danny_K_1]

In what way does it not explain it? You stereotyped a whole military because of one battle, he merely done the same.

[Lysimachus]

I've read that book, I even have it on my bookshelf next to my desk as we speak, yet that doesn't explain what you're getting at

Let me summarise then. As a political target, Hitler wanted to capture Stalingrad, and in doing so lumped a vast number of powerful formations in to the 6. Armee and the 4. Panzer Armee. He allowed Richthofen to bomb the city, which turned it in to a living nightmare, insisted Paulus grind his divisions down in taking the city and to protect his flanks he assigned them to Romanian, Hungarian and Italian troops. With his vastly overextended front, the Soviets seized the opportunity, 1942-1943 and counterattacked in the weak flanks. The satellite troops caved in under the pressure, Hitler refused Paulus permission to withdraw and they were then gradually squeezed tighter under the Soviet encirclement until the remnants were defeated at the end of February 1943.

Does that mean the Germans sucked? No.

It means that Hitler's refusal to allow Sixth Army to withdraw under pressure of encirclement and his insistence on capturing the city bearing Stalin's name meant that they were destined to a battle of annihilation. If you'd read the book you would have knew that already.