View Poll Results: Closed - No polls allowed in the VV I'm afraid

Voters
570. You may not vote on this poll
  • British

    63 11.05%
  • American

    62 10.88%
  • German

    224 39.30%
  • Soviet

    34 5.96%
  • Chinese

    3 0.53%
  • Japanese

    11 1.93%
  • Finnish

    49 8.60%
  • Australian

    13 2.28%
  • Canadian

    20 3.51%
  • Bulgarian

    3 0.53%
  • Romanian

    7 1.23%
  • Hungarian

    3 0.53%
  • Italian

    11 1.93%
  • Belgian

    2 0.35%
  • Dutch

    4 0.70%
  • Polish

    11 1.93%
  • Indian

    6 1.05%
  • Norwegian

    7 1.23%
  • Yugoslavian

    11 1.93%
  • French

    11 1.93%
  • Greek

    15 2.63%
Page 97 of 122 FirstFirst ... 477287888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107 ... LastLast
Results 1,921 to 1,940 of 2423

Thread: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

  1. #1921
    cegorach's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    2,540

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    @hammeredalways Actually from my point of view France threw in the towel pretty early in the war so I don't actually consider that their performance should be compared to the other nations that stayed in the war. surely the same could be said for the Poles?

    I think the practicality of the discussion is to broad to be definitive on any one nation as nobody stood toe to toe on their own without aid or support.

    Perhaps the merits of elite formations would be more easily quantifiable
    That could be doable.




    Quote Originally Posted by justinius View Post

    Again more Polish bias. It seems that everybody who opposes the views shared by you and other Poles on this thread is simply stupid and has no knowledge. Is it possible then that you have no knowledge or understanding whatsoever about other countries' histories? Because this is a thread about WW2 soldiers not just Poland or Polish soldiers.




    Yawwwn...

    I am sorry, but you might read the discussion you are using as an argument to criticise my knowledge first.
    XVIth and XVIIth centuries are my speciality, but you know some people are actually taking part in discussions only if they have considerable knowledge.

    If someone doesn't possess it = he doesn't. Sometimes it is just as simple as that. Especially if the person admits the fact openly.
    Enemy of 'illiberal democracies', member of the B.A.L.T.S.
    VISIT Pike and Musket forums VISIT the amazing site about PLC
    under the patronage of the mighty ASTERIX

  2. #1922

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    Quote Originally Posted by SinerAthin View Post
    1. Germans.
    2. Americans.
    3. British

    The Germens were a revolutionary force, quality unmatched, far ahead of all of their rivals. They almost conquered the whole wide world, a military feat worthy of praise of the highest order.

    The Americans were pretty hardcore. They never relented until their objective was done, and pushed on, despite terrible losses, to hand the enemy their sorry asses. 'Attack is the best defense', a military tradition they still carry to today.
    They annihilated the gooks down in the pacific, and they gave the Germans a run for their life.

    British, because they were tenacious and stubborn. If the Brits decided to go camping somewhere, uprooting them would be a pain as the British had no intention to budge. Their resilience and ability to cope in war with what little they had was remarkable.
    If Britain had fallen, WW2 might have been lost.

    As to the best Warmachine:
    1. Russia - who broke the back of Nazi Germany under the iron fist of Stalin's leadership. They contributed perhaps the most to Germany's downfall. They shattered their armor. They destroyed their armies. They ravaged their land.
    Hmm, to be a little barrator (hope is the correct word)
    1- germans, well, you said they conquered almost all the world, but probably you wanted to say almost all Europe. And there is the place where they lost the war too, especialy in east. And as good was they at the begining of war, as stupid was their higher comand (especialy Hitler) later and their rigidity and dificulty to adapt to new challenges. They was very good at technology and tactic anyway
    2- americans terrible losses, hmm? They lost in the entire WW II a little more then soviets in battle for Berlin
    3- british fight usualy supported by americans, they was smashed easy in France in 1940 and supported by the big help coming from US. I read one time ago somewhere that Roosvelt declared after a meeting with Churchill that UK is ready to fight with Germany up to the last american.

    4- russians win with the price of some 25 millions lives (with some 10 millions being soldiers). Having such a big country with a good weaponry and with such a big population and a lot of material help from US and UK isnt that extremely hard to win against anyone. Even like that they use "sacrifice/suicidal" ways to fight the axis forces
    Last edited by diegis; April 13, 2010 at 05:13 AM.

  3. #1923
    Entropy Judge's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,660

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    Alright, so Gallipoli was probably a bad example (the Middle Eastern theatre was never terribly interesting for me), but von Lettow-Vorbeck and the Finns would still stand as counterpoints to the idea (that the losers of a battle cannot be counted among the "best"), right?

    Quote Originally Posted by SinerAthin View Post
    The Germens were a revolutionary force, quality unmatched, far ahead of all of their rivals. They almost conquered the whole wide world, a military feat worthy of praise of the highest order.
    Almost conquered most of Europe. They didn't go into Spain or Portugal, Italy was allied, they never invaded Great Britain, and Sweden and Switzerland remained neutral.

    The Americans were pretty hardcore. They never relented until their objective was done, and pushed on, despite terrible losses, to hand the enemy their sorry asses. 'Attack is the best defense', a military tradition they still carry to today.
    They annihilated the gooks down in the pacific, and they gave the Germans a run for their life.
    By having a much superior industrial base than any of their opponents, and newer, fresher, and *more* soldiers to bargain with. As has been stated quite frequently in previous posts, the American way of war was to pretend they were attacking a WWI Trench fortification and bombard with artillery/naval guns until an attack was sent in - if it failed, more bombardment was normally in order.
    Also, your racial slang was normally not used for the Japanese (IIRC, "Japs" was a more common term), and came into frequent usage only with Vietnam.

    British, because they were tenacious and stubborn. If the Brits decided to go camping somewhere, uprooting them would be a pain as the British had no intention to budge. Their resilience and ability to cope in war with what little they had was remarkable.
    If Britain had fallen, WW2 might have been lost.
    Ah, and the Germans weren't tenacious and stubborn? I don't know, the Germans did better in North Africa than the British did in France .... You may have a point about fall the British Isles losing the war, although I'm not terribly sure.

    As to the best Warmachine:
    1. Russia - who broke the back of Nazi Germany under the iron fist of Stalin's leadership. They contributed perhaps the most to Germany's downfall. They shattered their armor. They destroyed their armies. They ravaged their land.
    Having more men to throw into the meat grinder doesn't necessarily mean you have the best War Machine. Personally, I would put the Americans in this place, although that's at least partially due to the fact that, as they were never invaded, the American infrastructure and industrial base was never dismantled or damaged.
    I beat back their first attack with ease. Properly employed, E's can be very deadly, deadlier even than P's and Z's, though they're not as lethal as Paula Abdul or Right Said Fred.
    ~ Miaowara Tomokato, Samurai Cat Goes to the Movies

  4. #1924
    Koelkastmagneet's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Zuid-Holland, Netherlands
    Posts
    2,922

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    4- russians win with the price of some 25 millions lives (with some 10 millions being soldiers). Having such a big country with a good weaponry and with such a big population and a lot of material help from US and UK isnt that extremely hard to win against anyone. Even like that they use "sacrifice/suicidal" ways to fight the axis forces
    So if I give you 15 million men and a bunch of equipment, you'd win a war with the UK for example with no problems whatsoever?

  5. #1925
    ♔hammeredalways♔'s Avatar Darthmod Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    7,250

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    unfortunately not, some places just defy logic the Isles of Britania are one of them
    Knight of the binge-drinking-Kebab-shop-vomiting-taxi rank-punch-up? 32nd degree

  6. #1926
    Azog 150's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    10,112

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    3- british fight usualy supported by americans, they was smashed easy in France in 1940 and supported by the big help coming from US. I read one time ago somewhere that Roosvelt declared after a meeting with Churchill that UK is ready to fight with Germany up to the last american.
    Oh yeah, except those first 3 years, the Burma campaign (Yes, the US had some small scale raiding forces and air support- but other then that), most of the North Africa campaign (It was won by the time the joint Anglo-American force arrived), the Battle of Britain, all the various Commando raids across occupied Europe. I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

    Besides, that same argument could be used concerning the US. Barring the Pacific Campaign (And even then, Britain provided some significant naval support), how often did the US fight unsupported by the British?

    Basically, I think its a moot point. If you are in an Alliance, you work together. Same argument can be applied to anyone.
    Under the Patronage of Jom!

  7. #1927
    Entropy Judge's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,660

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    Quote Originally Posted by That Dutch guy View Post
    So if I give you 15 million men and a bunch of equipment, you'd win a war with the UK for example with no problems whatsoever?
    Possibly. Define "equipment." Do I get 15 million Mobile Infantrymen with suits? If so, I could conquer the world, let alone the UK. Do I get 15 million men equipped Roman Legionaire-style? If so, I'd be hard-pressed to take any major city. How well-equipped compared to the enemy does matter, and in WWII, the Russians were comparably well-equipped as the Germans. Perhaps not as sophisticated, but generally as effective.
    I beat back their first attack with ease. Properly employed, E's can be very deadly, deadlier even than P's and Z's, though they're not as lethal as Paula Abdul or Right Said Fred.
    ~ Miaowara Tomokato, Samurai Cat Goes to the Movies

  8. #1928
    Azog 150's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    10,112

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    And how would you plan on getting 15 million men across the English Channel?
    Last edited by Azog 150; April 13, 2010 at 10:39 AM.
    Under the Patronage of Jom!

  9. #1929
    Lysimachus's Avatar Spirit Cleric
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,085

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Azog 150 View Post
    And how would you plan on getting 15 million men across the English Channel?
    Poofing them to the other side, of course.

  10. #1930

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Azog 150 View Post
    And how would you plan on getting 15 million men across the English Channel?
    They come adequatly equiped with the ability to walk on water.

  11. #1931
    Entropy Judge's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,660

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Azog 150 View Post
    And how would you plan on getting 15 million men across the English Channel?
    "A suit is not a ship, but it can fly, a little ...." Although dropping 15 million MI straight from orbit would be much simpler than, for some strange reason, landing in Europe and then trying to cross the Channel.
    I beat back their first attack with ease. Properly employed, E's can be very deadly, deadlier even than P's and Z's, though they're not as lethal as Paula Abdul or Right Said Fred.
    ~ Miaowara Tomokato, Samurai Cat Goes to the Movies

  12. #1932
    Lord Claremorris's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, United States of America
    Posts
    1,168

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    Hmm, to be a little barrator (hope is the correct word)
    1- germans, well, you said they conquered almost all the world, but probably you wanted to say almost all Europe. And there is the place where they lost the war too, especialy in east. And as good was they at the begining of war, as stupid was their higher comand (especialy Hitler) later and their rigidity and dificulty to adapt to new challenges. They was very good at technology and tactic anyway
    Germany was without doubt the greatest in terms of war making capacity on land, and arguably in the air as well. At sea, not so much. But they were innovative and bold, which paid off. This however built arrogance, since everyone believed the French Army to be superior to the Soviet Army, Germany's leaders simply assumed "Since we beat the French, and France is stronger than Russia, we can beat them easily too." Now everyone knows Russia destroyed Germany, but that being said, Germany's army made a much better account of themselves and made Russia pay dearly for their victory.

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    2- americans terrible losses, hmm? They lost in the entire WW II a little more then soviets in battle for Berlin
    Agreed, the Americans and British combined lost about 1 million soldiers. The US was virtually immune to any sort of attack, so I doubt many US civilians were killed, and the scale of British civilians deaths was much smaller than either Russia or Germany.

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    3- british fight usualy supported by americans, they was smashed easy in France in 1940 and supported by the big help coming from US. I read one time ago somewhere that Roosvelt declared after a meeting with Churchill that UK is ready to fight with Germany up to the last american.
    Oh certainly. The British Empire only bled itself white (financially) to pay for a war it couldn't hope to win single-handedly, destroyed the French Fleet rather than have it fall into German hands, had a showdown with the Luftwaffe by themselves, fought a desperate war against German U-boats, fought and defeated the Italian Fleet in the Med, bested the Italians in Cyrenaica and Ethiopia/Somalia, held their own when Rommel arrived, and with scanty forces thwarted the Axis plans for both Iraq and Syria. All this on their own, pretty impressive.

    Furthermore, after the US and USSR got involved, the UK, having more experience, took the lead in the U-boat war, and made decisions concerning Europe contrary to US ideas. Initially in the Pacific even the US was subordinate to the British, who appointed Achibald Wavell supreme commander of all Dutch, British, American, and ANZAC forces in the South-West Pacific, until Churchill and Roosevelt agreed upon a seperation of responsibility whereby a much weakened British Empire was to hold only India and the Indian Ocean as best as they could. The British also undertook, independent of American aid, several daring operations to win over the colonies of France to the side of de Gaulle. Lastly, the British managed to carry and protect the supplies they received from the US in mainly their own shipping. When the USSR got involved, the US, UK, and USSR signed an agreement whereby Russian vessels and warships would carry the supplies they were to receive. Obviously Russia did not possess the shipping required, so it was then arranged to be carried in by (very limited) British shipping, at the expense of Britain's own war effort, and defended solely by British warships. Also, in 1941 the Americans sent 14 ships full of supplies to Russia, whereas Britain sent 34. So you might want to reconsider the power of Britain to act independent of the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by diegis View Post
    4- russians win with the price of some 25 millions lives (with some 10 millions being soldiers). Having such a big country with a good weaponry and with such a big population and a lot of material help from US and UK isnt that extremely hard to win against anyone. Even like that they use "sacrifice/suicidal" ways to fight the axis forces
    That still doesn't hide the fact that Germany could not break the USSR and that it in turn was destroyed by the USSR. Only the Russians could endure such losses and rise, phoenix-like, from the ashes to exact their vengeance.
    "Ghlaoigh tú anuas ar an Toirneach, agus anois bain an Chuaifeach."

  13. #1933
    scarybandit's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    456

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    The country I was born in/allied with [insert country here] is more powerful/skilled/moral than your country.
    DRM promotes piracy.

  14. #1934
    Ramashan's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4,991

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    The only real problem I have with the Russian argument, not that they did eventually rally to hold off the Germans and then counter attack (after an initial failed offensive in the winter of 41') is that they took 2:1 casualties over the Germans. The only way they were able to with stand the German assault was by having an enormous pool of soldiers. They could simply wear the Germans down. How does this make the Russian soldier better than the German soldier? I mean, for every 2 Russian's the Germans were able to kill the Russian's got 1. Is it because the German's couldn't manage a 3:1 casualty rate that makes them weaker than the Russians?
    Under the Patronage of Lord Condormanius

  15. #1935
    Lord Claremorris's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, United States of America
    Posts
    1,168

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramashan View Post
    The only real problem I have with the Russian argument, not that they did eventually rally to hold off the Germans and then counter attack (after an initial failed offensive in the winter of 41') is that they took 2:1 casualties over the Germans. The only way they were able to with stand the German assault was by having an enormous pool of soldiers. They could simply wear the Germans down. How does this make the Russian soldier better than the German soldier? I mean, for every 2 Russian's the Germans were able to kill the Russian's got 1. Is it because the German's couldn't manage a 3:1 casualty rate that makes them weaker than the Russians?
    The problem with your reasoning is that the Russians suffered almost 3 million casualties at the beginning of Barbarossa, so 1/3 of all military casualties (not all of them dead) were suffered in the opening phases. The majority of losses were incurred in the first 1 1/2 to 2 years of fighting. The Russians then became more capable, received more tanks, more aircraft and more artillery than the Germans. Making the later phases of the war much more equal. You talk as if the Russians simply threw massive amounts of men at the Germans in silly headlong rushed for the entire war, which is simply not the case.
    "Ghlaoigh tú anuas ar an Toirneach, agus anois bain an Chuaifeach."

  16. #1936
    Lysimachus's Avatar Spirit Cleric
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,085

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    But the later stages of the war weren't equal. A gradual shift in terms of manpower and equipment occurred, and (more so after the destruction of Army Group Centre) it was quite heavily tilted in the favour of the Soviets. Of course, could always determine how each side performed while they had the advantage and base our conclusions from that. For example, Germany was able to envelop vast quantities of Soviet troops, tanks and guns during the opening months of Operation Barbarossa, whereas when the Soviets stormed across Eastern Europe (June 1944 onwards) it was more of a mad rush to reach wherever Stalin wanted them to reach.

  17. #1937
    Ramashan's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    4,991

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Claremorris View Post
    The problem with your reasoning is that the Russians suffered almost 3 million casualties at the beginning of Barbarossa, so 1/3 of all military casualties (not all of them dead) were suffered in the opening phases. The majority of losses were incurred in the first 1 1/2 to 2 years of fighting. The Russians then became more capable, received more tanks, more aircraft and more artillery than the Germans. Making the later phases of the war much more equal. You talk as if the Russians simply threw massive amounts of men at the Germans in silly headlong rushed for the entire war, which is simply not the case.
    Lysimachus gave a good answer to this. And my point still holds. The Germans were able to take out a huge portion of the Russian army before they could get on their feet. If it wasn't for the massive amount of man power the Russian's had to expend before they were able to push back the German's wouldn't have been worn down by 44'. The Russians were capable of just throwing men into the war until the German's were worn down by time and weather. The Germans didn't have that luxury.
    Under the Patronage of Lord Condormanius

  18. #1938
    Lord Claremorris's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Racine, Wisconsin, United States of America
    Posts
    1,168

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ramashan View Post
    Lysimachus gave a good answer to this. And my point still holds. The Germans were able to take out a huge portion of the Russian army before they could get on their feet. If it wasn't for the massive amount of man power the Russian's had to expend before they were able to push back the German's wouldn't have been worn down by 44'. The Russians were capable of just throwing men into the war until the German's were worn down by time and weather. The Germans didn't have that luxury.
    Yes, but Russia bore the shock. Unlike France, France's national strength was not broken in 1940, but France submitted anyhow. Russia suffered far more, and decided to weather it and fight back. That spirit is commendable. It took some time for Russia to start producing the quantities of material it required, and it was much more backwards than Germany, who was already at war and whose economy was well geared towards war. Once the initial shock was over, the Russians rebounded and smashed everything that stood in their path.
    "Ghlaoigh tú anuas ar an Toirneach, agus anois bain an Chuaifeach."

  19. #1939
    Entropy Judge's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,660

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    From everything I'd read, France's leaders hadn't recovered from the First World War, which is what led to the quick capitulation. Russia's leaders, if they surrendered, would almost certainly have been executed due to Nazi persecution, so they had no reason to consider it. The French would be able to survive a German occupation - the Russians wouldn't, so they had to fight.
    I beat back their first attack with ease. Properly employed, E's can be very deadly, deadlier even than P's and Z's, though they're not as lethal as Paula Abdul or Right Said Fred.
    ~ Miaowara Tomokato, Samurai Cat Goes to the Movies

  20. #1940
    Lysimachus's Avatar Spirit Cleric
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    8,085

    Default Re: Who were the best soldier of ww2?

    That spirit is commendable. It took some time for Russia to start producing the quantities of material it required, and it was much more backwards than Germany, who was already at war and whose economy was well geared towards war.
    But spirit doesn't pass off as combat efficiency, does it? For example, later in the war (especially at Stalingrad) the German army was in particularly low spirits, but they still put up fierce resistance against the Soviets, and even at the last minute they were putting up resistance in the final days of the war. Stalin, prior to the war had initiated his plans to catapult the USSR's technology and industry from the Victorian-esque status it was in at the end of the Tsar's regime to that which resembled more of Western Europe so you can't say they were technology backward. In fact, the PPsH submachineguns, the Tokarev rifles, T-34s and KV tanks were far superior to anything the Germans had. The former had a large ammo clip, the second was an automatic rifle which the Germans were unable to replicate until mid-war, and the latter; German tank crews reported disabling the tracks of a KV and actually lining up behind it and taking shots because it was impossible to penetrate their armour. Secondly, the German economy was not prepared for war as Alan Clark states in his book Barbarossa:

    "In 1942, German tank production had been 4,280. In 1943, 6,000. In 1944, when the reforms inaugurated by Speer and Guderian had taken full effect (and in the teeth of heavy bombing by the West) production rose to 9,161. The Russian figure for 1943 was 11,000; and for 1944, 17,000. But the latter figure may have included self-rpropelled guns, and f these are included in the German totals the discrepancy between the two rates is not as marked as is often claimed. Stürmgeschütze (assault guns) and Jagdpanzer (self-propelled anti-tank guns) was 778 in 1942, 3,406 in 1943, and 8,682 in 1944 (Ogorkiewicz 217-18)" - Page 313, "The Consolidation Period".

    During the time from which Germany drew the most of their successes, they had actually been producing far less vehicles than their adversaries which says a lot about how effective their troops were in that they were able to cope with far less. In fact, during the Stalingrad encirclement operations, I believe XLVIII Panzerkorps' Panzer Divisions were woefully understrength and even then were able to penetrate the Soviet lines during the relief attempt.


    Once the initial shock was over, the Russians rebounded and smashed everything that stood in their path.
    This is incorrect too. Even after being held up by the desperate Russian resistance outside of Moscow and the failure of Operation Typhoon, Germany was still able to bounce back. In the summer of 1942 they launched Operation Blau against the Ukraine which resulted in the Stalingrad debacle, and even after the inevitable Soviet counteroffensive Manstein was able to reverse the situation by throwing the Soviets back so that the Germans were able to pretty much reach their pre-June 1942 lines. It was only really after Kursk that the inevitability of defeat hit the Germans. The bulk of their tanks had been destroyed by the vast defence in depth by the Soviets at Prokhorovka and Ponyri and many of these vehicles were irreplacable and the Germans lost many tank crews which meant that for the future their armour would no longer have such a vast quantity of experienced men manning them. From that moment forth, both their mobility was diminished and it was an irreversible turn in the fortunes of war.
    Last edited by Lysimachus; April 13, 2010 at 03:22 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •