Best army of WWII

[Case]

While it was certainly good, the Canadian Army suffered from poor training practices and rather indifferent officers.

In terms of pound for pound quality, that distinction would, IMO, go to New Zealand. The main force the Kiwis fielded throughout the war, the NZ 2nd Division, perfomed supurbly at all times (most notably after El Alamain and during the later stages of the Italian campaign). The only other NZ force to see action was a brigade group in the Pacific, which participated in mopping up the Japanese in the Northern Solomons. While this brigade perfomed efficently, it met no real opposition.

As such, I don't think that any other nation can claim that 75% of their army was elite like the Kiwis can.

 

[tossi]

Originally posted by Sobieski II
The Canadian Army was pound for pound probably the best.

Best fighting unit would be the Devil's Brigade.

Devil´s brigade was a special unit. That can´t be compared with regular fighting units.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by tossi


Devil´s brigade was a special unit. That can´t be compared with regular fighting units.

I am aware, but the regular Canadian units were PRETTY good as well, but I forgot about the Anzacs, so I would like to change my vote to Kiwis.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by Sobieski II
I forgot about the Anzacs, so I would like to change my vote to Kiwis.

Aside from a brief period in Greece in 1941, there were no ANZACs in WW2. Contrary to popular belief, the Australian and New Zealand militaries were and remain totally seperate bodies controled by seperate national governments.

Australian and New Zealand units only occasionally fought side by side in WW2, normally under seperate commands. While the Australian government of the day was adamant that Australian forces would at all times remain under Australian command, the Kiwis were less restrictive over who commanded their forces. As a result, the Australian divisions in Africa tended to be used seperatly from the NZ division. The Greek Campaign is the most clear cut exception to this, and the I Australian Corps which commanded the campaign was renamed the ANZAC corps in recognition that the units in the Corps were split between Australia and NZ, with large supporting units from Britain.

The term 'ANZAC' derrives from the Australia-New Zealand Army Corps of WW1. This was a tactical formation (ie, a Corps), and not some kind of unified armed force. Since then the term has been used to signify the rare joint Australia-New Zealand units (the ANZAC battalion which served in the Vietnam War being the most significant of these - this battalion consisted of two Australian rifle companies and two NZ rifle companies and served alongside a couple of all-Australian battalions in the 1st Australian Task Force).

As such, it's neither accurate nor appropriate to lump Australian and New Zealand forces together in WW2. Both national forces fought seperate wars under seperate commands and achieved seperate distinctions and defeats.

 

[nonconformist]

The Australians did actuslly fight in the Pacific, in Burma I think.

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by nonconformist
The Australians did actuslly fight in the Pacific, in Burma I think.

Bloody oath we fought in the Pacific! We inflicted the first land defeat on the Japanese (Kakoda).

 

[Case]

Originally posted by nonconformist
The Australians did actuslly fight in the Pacific, in Burma I think.

The only Australians in Burma were some air force personel seconded to the RAF and a few Australian destroyers which were attached to the British Eastern Fleet.

From 1942 onwards the vast majority of the Australian Army, Air Force and Navy fought in New Guniea, the Solomons and Borneo at the side of the Americans. Australians actually made up the majority of forces under MacArthur's command until 1944.

 

[rilnator]

And Blamey commanded allied land forces, Pacific.

 

[nonconformist]

Originally posted by rilnator


Bloody oath we fought in the Pacific! We inflicted the first land defeat on the Japanese (Kakoda).

I don't get why you are so annoyed. I was answering Case's statement that no Australians fought much in WWII.

 

[Ozz]

By Individual soldier fightin' spirit and skill, not counting
special forces, equipment or officer quality.

1. New Zealand (Desert, Crete, nasty fightin' against high odds)
2. Finland (Russian hordes, no equipment)
3. Greece (Italian hordes, no equipment)
4. Austrailia (Desert Victories)
6. Germany (WW2)
7. USA (Battle of the Bulge, mechanical know how)
8. Russia (Human waves)
9. Japan (Bonizai, no prisoners)
10. Canada (Italian campaign)

 

[Inhalaattori]

German, Japanese and Finnish soldiers didnt surrender almost ever, they fought till their dead. So as soldiers they were the best and they were well motivated.

I think most poor army was Italian Army. They suffered unbelievable defeats and they were always surrending, real sheeps.

In the beginning of the war German army was the best.
In the end it was US or Russian army.

 

[nonconformist]

Is it true that German officers usually fought in the fron lines, rather than assuming a behind the line approach, so causing a much higher percentage of officer casualties?

 

[EmpireofVirtue]

Us military by far. We've kicked both german and japanese arses.

 

[Inhalaattori]

US soldiers were not as good as german soldiers.

US has always had good weapons but moderate men. US army is also quite soft when it comes to casualties.

US lost 57.000 men in Vietnam and it was thought as "National catastrophe".

My home country Finland lost 82.000 men dead against Soviet Union and its mighty army. Finland also lost 15% of its land area.

 

[nonconformist]

Empire, simply, as you say, kicking a countries ***** does not constitutea good army. The USSR beat many countries at the start of WWII, yet most people would agree it was a pretty bad army at that era.

 

[tossi]

Originally posted by EmpireofVirtue
Us military by far. We've kicked both german and japanese arses.

stupid comment...

 

[Mr Black]

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
.......

US has always had good weapons but moderate men. US army is also quite soft when it comes to casualties.

US lost 57.000 men in Vietnam and it was thought as "National catastrophe".

My home country Finland lost 82.000 men dead against Soviet Union and its mighty army. Finland also lost 15% of its land area.

82.000 is that all.

Bleh, we lost 618.000 to 700.000 in the 1860's so BEAT THAT!!!

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by Case


OTOH, the US had the best artillery in the world by a huge degree, and that artillery was responsible for something like 70% of the total casualties the US inflicted on the German Army.

In high school I had a geography teacher who drove a Panther in the Waffen SS. He complained that they almost never saw an American soldier. Instead they were getting slaughtered by artillery and fighter bombers (his own tank was destroyed by the latter). He said that on the few occasions when they actaully came against U.S forces they were quite easy to defeat. Consequently they were continually frustrated at not being able to engage them.

 

[Inhalaattori]

There are no war heroes nowadays. Its just technology.

---

Russia lost about 21 million people in WW2

 

[Case]

Originally posted by nonconformist



I don't get why you are so annoyed. I was answering Case's statement that no Australians fought much in WWII.

Where on earth did I claim that? All I said was that Australians and New Zealanders didn't fight side by side very often.