Who were the best soldier of ww2?

[Ojf]

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.

But the Nazis under their best commander epicly failed to relieve the pocket no?

[Tiberios]

But the Nazis under their best commander epicly failed to relieve the pocket no?

and if you had bothered reading Lysimachus statement you'd know that they could not relieve the pocket because they were in a desperate situation. The germans simply did not have the troops or supplies to carry out the rescue offensive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Winter_Storm

The US got their arses kicked at Kasserine Pass and in the Philippines in 1941-42, but that does not mean that the US military sucked.

[Ojf]

and if you had bothered reading Lysimachus statement you'd know that they could not relieve the pocket because they were in a desperate situation. The germans simply did not have the troops or supplies to carry out the rescue offensive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Winter_Storm

No, it is because Germans are cowards that cannot fight

[Lysimachus]

But the Nazis under their best commander epicly failed to relieve the pocket no?

Hitler didn't allow that. It was only once it was too late that he authorised an offensive to lift the pocket, and they were unable to do so due to poor weather, increasing Soviet resistance and the lack of troops committed to the attack. In fact, they were able to penetrate quite far considering the troops taking part in the relief operation were lacking in pretty much everything in comparison to their adversaries.

No, it is because Germans are cowards that cannot fight

If you're going to come out with things like that, then just stop posting.

[Tiberios]

No, it is because Germans are cowards that cannot fight

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

At least read the link before spewing out such posts

[Ojf]

Hitler didn't allow that. It was only once it was too late that he authorised an offensive to lift the pocket, and they were unable to do so due to poor weather, increasing Soviet resistance and the lack of troops committed to the attack. In fact, they were able to penetrate quite far considering the troops taking part in the relief operation were lacking in pretty much everything in comparison to their adversaries.



If you're going to come out with things like that, then just stop posting.

Oh Germany, its so convenient that every time they lose they blame the weather

[Tiberios]

Oh Germany, its so convenient that every time they lose they blame the weather

So what's you excuse for the US loosing to the so called cowards that cannot fight at Kasserine Pass?

[Ojf]

So what's you excuse for the US loosing to the so called cowards that cannot fight at Kasserine Pass?

Because the limeys messed up the defenses, also they were fighting the best troops in the Wehrmacht being led by the best commander

[Tiberios]

Because the limeys messed up the defenses, also they were fighting the best troops in the Wehrmacht being led by the best commander

the Brits saved the US troops in the battle.

The Allies equally seriously studied the results. Positioned by senior commanders who had not personally reconnoitered the ground, U.S. forces were often located too far from each other for mutual support. It was also noted that American soldiers tended to become careless about digging in, exposing their positions, bunching in groups when in open view of enemy artillery observers, and positioning units on topographic crests, where their silhouettes made them perfect targets. Too many soldiers, exasperated by the rocky soil of Tunisia, were still digging shallow slit trenches instead of deep foxholes.The 1st Armored had also apparently not learned lessons from British forces on the receiving end of German anti-tank and screening tactics, though others in the U.S. Army were well aware of the deception.The Allies had also allowed the Germans to attain air superiority over the battlefield, largely preventing effective Allied air reconnaissance and allowing relentless German bombing and strafing attacks that disrupted Allied attempts at deployment and organization. Made in close support of German ground offensives, attacks by the Luftwaffe often neutralized American attempts to organize effective defensive artillery fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kasserine_Pass

somehow I'm sure you'll blame the carelessnes of the US troops on the Brits as well

[Ojf]

the Brits saved the US troops in the battle.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kasserine_Pass

somehow I'm sure you'll blame the carelessnes of the US troops on the Brits as well

Whatever you say you Wikipedia genius

[Tiberios]

Whatever you say you Wikipedia genius

Comes from one who uses no sources whatsoever to back up the majority of his statements.

Besides the only sourced you yourself bothered to use, when you actually bothered to use a source, was Wikipedia.

[Ojf]

Comes from one who uses no sources whatsoever to back up the majority of his statements.

Besides the only sourced you yourself bothered to use, when you actually bothered to use a source, was Wikipedia.

I don't need sources because I'm a genius

[Tiberios]

I don't need sources because I'm a genius

and let's end the discussion there..........

[OTZ]

I don't need sources because I'm a genius

That's not what I get from reading your posts.

[Ramashan]

All righty then. There was a discussion back at the last fork in the road, perhaps we should turn back now and find it before we get truly lost and disoriented.

In all honesty, the problem I have with the Russian soldiers being the 'best', not that they weren't weren't brave and hard fighters, is that the ones who eventually went on the offensive against the Germans were not the same soldiers who fought the Germans in the early stages of the war. In the early stages the smaller German forces routed, captured, and killed hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Russian Red Army soldiers. It was only after being stalled at Stalingrad and exhausted that 'fresh' soldiers were poured in to drive the Germans back.

It was Russia's ability to simply throw man power and eventually mechanical power at the enemy that won the day in the end.

The US on the other hand, never had the man power, but they had mechanical power and came up with ways to get their pilots back into action by making peace with the Pacific natives, the Chinese, and French resistance, and didn't have as far to stretch their supply lines once they made land fall in Europe. They also, in the European theater at least, didn't have as hard a time of it as the Russians did, but still managed to make slow progress and have some set backs. The Pacific Theater is another matter entirely. It was a rough brutal theater that just ground down the units, but the US still had a good system of moral building mixed with R&R that not many other nations had, so that the US soldier was usually refreshed and well supplied except on various occasions such as Bastogne and Guadalcanal.

In all, I have to say, if I had to chose one, that the German soldiers, if Hitler was taken out of the equation, were the best in the war. Germany never went to a full war time economy until late in the war and they generally achieved all their objectives until Hitler did something to knock them off track like adjusting units in Operation Blue and refusing to supply Rommel in Africa and just plain making bad choices. But the soldiers always were successful until they were just plain worn out.

So, my vote is for the German soldier. However, in the end, they attempted to bite off too much too quickly and the rest is history.

[Danny_K_1]

I agree with the Russians, never considered them to be paricularly skilled (with the exception of snipers) but more to their neverending manpower and the T-34's that they could build like it was nothing.

I would say the yanks became quite formidable after learning a few lessons and the Germans, just ran out of steam I guess.

[OTZ]

The US on the other hand, never had the man power,

Sure they did. By the end of the war the US had the largest number of armed forces members than any other participant. The Russians (and probably the Germans) certainly funnelled more people through their meat-grinder, but I don't think there were as many Soviets in uniform as there were Americans by '45. I don't know if the manpower barrel was tapped for the US (as it was for the Russians and the Germans)...

[Rapax]

I think just from demographics alone the US couldn't have been tapped out by '45, they certainly weren't close to the casualties that the Soviet Union suffered.

[OTZ]

I have no idea what the population was at the time (I suppose I could google it), but it would make sense that manpower wasn't an issue for the US for that reason (casualties) alone.

EDIT: I used Google FTW! 130,000,000 plus...seems reasonable to assume the Amis could squeeze out a few more million if needed.

[conon394]

Sure they did. By the end of the war the US had the largest number of armed forces members than any other participant. The Russians (and probably the Germans) certainly funnelled more people through their meat-grinder, but I don't think there were as many Soviets in uniform as there were Americans by '45. I don't know if the manpower barrel was tapped for the US (as it was for the Russians and the Germans)...

One indication that I can't put numbers too but I think is useful to consider is that the US did not have a fly till you die policy (unlike Japan, Germany and the USSR?). It seems to be that implies year over year the US had something of reserve of skilled pilots and air crew vs. the axis nations - I think in general the same can be said for the US across the board in never dug as deep into its manpower as the other combatants.

The mission limit seems to have been a reality for the air force (although it was raised as the war moved on).

Reading

The Story of B-17F-10-BO, #41-24485 by Barrows(The Journal of Popular Culture Volume 42 Issue 1, Pages 27 – 48).

Its seems clear several experienced aircrew in fact left the military after 25 missions, and while several other did volunteer for new tours they were not compelled to. What I cannot find is any aggregate number for how many men achieved the mission limit in total and left the air force before the end of the war – or how that compares to the UK or the axis nations.