Best army of WWII

[Ebitdadada]

So what you are saying is that the US had the most favorable ratio but it isn't nessessarily a good indicator of who had the best army?

 

[Sarevok]

Germany without Question.

 

[boobah]

germany was a good army but there were just plain mean, with nazis and the tortured to many jews. but america had so much weaponry, they had to be the best.

 

[tossi]

But the question isn´t who was the most evil and who had the most guns, the question is who had the best army of ww2?

 

[Adler17]

I concur with Sarevok: Germany. Germany fought against so many enemies and had a chance to win (thank god, Hitler didn´t win!). In the technical way German equipment was mostly superior to allied. Without the IS series, which had a bit better armour and guns but lacked in ammo with only 25 rounds and in the few, the tanks were superior to all others (later the war). The Me 109 and Fw 190 as well as at least Me 262 and He 162 were the best fighters of their time. German ships were indeed better in a fight one to one with British ships of the same class. The US had indeed a bit better ships partly. And the courage of the soldiers. No other fighter pilot was able to shoot down more planes than Erich Hartmann: 352. The best allied was a Russian with 68, the best foreign pilot was a Japanese with 104 kills. Although the Kriegsmarine was small she sank more ships in the ratio than the IJN! And the army and her big vitories from Poland to Arnheim...
No the Germans were the best.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

Without the IS series, which had a bit better armour and guns but lacked in ammo with only 25 rounds and in the few, the tanks were superior to all others (later the war).

Hmmm, to be fair the British began to use a tank that could match in every way the Panther by very late 44 in the Comet. Given a few more months too and the Mark I centurion would have given the KT a run for it's money Having said that though, I dislike heavy tanks anyway, so to me the British had caught up in the field of armour by then, finally marrying the simply excellent 17pndr gun (though the comet's variant was slightly shorter) to a tank with decent armour

The Me 109 and Fw 190 as well as at least Me 262 and He 162 were the best fighters of their time.

Personally I'd back a spit over a 109, though the 190 was an excellent fighter. The 262 is old ground, I won't go on about that again, the 162 though was hardly brilliant or way ahead of anything else, incorporating a number of problems and of limited use in any event.

German ships were indeed better in a fight one to one with British ships of the same class

In the main field due to the fact that the Kreigsmarine rarely had to face off against a combat ready, modern British battleship since we had so few of them

And whilst we're on the subject of equipment, we really should evaluate BOTH ends of the German record. With tanks like the Maus, Planes like the Gigant and so on, we really should evaluate the German war effort as both brilliant and woeful at the same time.

 

[Adler17]

Both Comet and M 26 were quiete good and able to beat a Panther, but they indeed were not such as good as the Panther. A bit less but less. Also later in 1945 the Panther II would have come into production making the odds more clear to the German tanks .
Me 109 and Spit were nearly as equal. I tend to give the Me 109 a small advance, but it is very hard. The FW 190 was clear better than the Spit and P 51. The FW 190 D was probably the best piston engined fighter plane of the war. Only perhaps Ta 152 and Do 335 were matching them.
The Me 262 was fast. That was her main advance and her 4 30 mm Mk 108 guns. She could fight or leave the area to fight another day. She was the last defense and in the few months of duty she prevented the allied total air control over Germany. And she achieved tha last victories against a huge ammount of enemy planes.

Adler

 

[SanPellegrino]

what about the finnish army? they couldn't stop the russians but considering the numbers they gave them a hell of a fight

 

[privatehudson]

Both Comet and M 26 were quiete good and able to beat a Panther, but they indeed were not such as good as the Panther. A bit less but less. Also later in 1945 the Panther II would have come into production making the odds more clear to the German tanks

I disagree, the comet was easily as fast as a panther and the 17pndr could easily KO a panther as well, not sure about it's armour to be frank, but I know it was a lot more than the sherman and cromwell. As for 1945, well tough my friend, along would come the very first mark of the rather excellent Centurion series Now that would have put the balance right back into the fighting Plus it's likely that the British could continue to outproduce the Germans and continue to outsupply them like for like anyway

Me 109 and Spit were nearly as equal. I tend to give the Me 109 a small advance, but it is very hard

Aye, each has it's advantages and problems, I like the spit for the fact that it looks cool

And though the F190 was good, it wasn't good enough, nor did the 262 arrive early enough (though again, I'm not having that argument for the 4th thread in a row, rather than trying to fight it again my friend I suggest we agree to disagree ) to defeat the weight of the enemies facing it. The allies also built some brilliant planes such as the B17s, Liberators, Catalinas and the Mosquitos which did the job that they needed it to do well enough.
Ultimately the fact that the FW190 was better than the spit or mustang or any other allied fighter isn't as important....

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Originally posted by Ebitdadada
So what you are saying is that the US had the most favorable ratio but it isn't nessessarily a good indicator of who had the best army?

Absolutely when there are factors such as airpower to take into consideration and the sort of opposition the forces they were up against.

 

[Ebitdadada]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
Absolutely when there are factors such as airpower to take into consideration and the sort of opposition the forces they were up against.

Ok just wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by Adler17
No other fighter pilot was able to shoot down more planes than Erich Hartmann: 352.

That mearly highlights a critical German weakness: their constant shortage of pilots meant that veteran pilots couldn't be rotated to training units, as was the case with the Western Allies veterans. The reason there were so few high scoring Allied aces was that they were sent home to pass thier skills on after about 100 combat sorties. As a result of excelent and much more extensive training along with better aircraft, the average western Allied pilot was far superior to the average German pilot.

The Average German pilot served in 1944-45, had only about 20 hours of flight training before being posted to a combat unit (vs over 200 hours for American and British pilots), flew obselete Me-109 and FW-190 aircraft against newer and superior Allied models, and was killed or badly wounded after a handful of sorties.

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by SanPellegrino
what about the finnish army? they couldn't stop the russians but considering the numbers they gave them a hell of a fight

Good call! I'd forgotten about them. They fought very well in the Winter War.
The Fw-190 was obselete by 1944? Dunno about that.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by rilnator
The Fw-190 was obselete by 1944? Dunno about that.

Perhaps 'outdated' or 'inferior' would have been a better choice of words. The Fw-190s were inferior to the P-51D, their most significant opponent at this time as well as the latest models of the Spitfire and the newer Soviet fighters.

The basic problem with the FW-190 was that the Germans rested on their laurels after it was introduced while the Allied developed new aircraft with an eye to defeating it. As a result, the upgraded Spitfires and Mustangs met essentially the same aircraft as the Germans had first introduced, with predictable results. While the Germans upgraded the FW-190, they were never again able to get ahead of the Allies, especially as fighting the Allies bombing campaign all but destroyed the Luftwaffe's pool of experianced pilots in early 1944.

 

[Adler17]

Against the last versions of Spitfire and Mustang the FW A 8 had problems. But the FW 190 D9 and Ta 152 were better than Mustang P 51 D and Spit XIII.
Germany´s pilots quality lacked in the late war you´re right. Neverthless the top aces of the Luftwaffe shot down many planes, but I admit only because they had to fly until the very end. But the technology of a fighter is only a minor factor if there is an ace in the cockpit.
Oh the German top aces didn´t like the FW 190 although compared with the Me 109 it was the better plane! All top aces flew mostly Me 109 or at last Me 262. But none of them the FW 190 for a longer time. Even if they flew in wings with FW they kept their Me!
The Finnish troops were also outstanding. But the fame of the winter war 1940 they got only because of fightings adgainst not prepared Russians in a hard winter fightings. Nevertheless they showed big courage and ability when defending.

Adler

 

[Esckey]

Although the Kriegsmarine was small she sank more ships in the ratio than the IJN!

Does it still count if they attack say a lone convoy that had one escort ship with something saaay the size of a battleship?
Info here
Cause if so then your right. The germans were good at alot of things but it's hard to give them credit when they're attack effectivly unarmed convoys or men on horses(Poland)

But granted I personally think the best single army group(division/brigade/whatever) was German. Army Group North attacked Leningrad(Ya sure it didn't work out well) but they managed to stay alive and relitvily intact for a long long time, they were still fighting in a section outside of Germany(I think Estonia) when Germany finnaly surrenderd. They were being supported by the last of the Kriegsmarine too. I just think that's impressive.

Oh and this is based off of info I've gathered from various sources like books and TV documentaries so feel free to look some of this up point out some of my mistakes(even if it;s the entire thing) cause I'm too lazy to google it right now and prove myself either right or wrong

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by Esckey
Cause if so then your right. The germans were good at alot of things but it's hard to give them credit when they're attack effectivly unarmed convoys or men on horses(Poland)

Poland was crushed in less than a month. That is remarkable when comparing it to the first world war.
Gunther Prein sneaking into Scapa Flow and sinking the HMS Royal Oak was to me one of the most daring naval action of the war. Most convoys did have escorts.

 

[Ballazic]

The Canadian army was the bets in ratio rating. It may not of been the largets but you should hear what we accomplished, with our manpower and skill.

 

[nonconformist]

Just a statistic to show how good he ME-262 really was:

In the Berlin air raid on March 18,1945, 14 fighter groups escorted 1,250 B-17 bombers. The bomber-figher ration was almot 1:1. One squadron of Me-262s attacked this raid and managed to destroy 25 B-17s while sustaining no casualties. This was in a secret reportt Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1960. Had the Germans managed to get more than 100 working at any one time, a huge differencecould have been made.

Source: D-Day by Stephen E. Ambrose.

 

[Adler17]

Germany was able to sink 5 BB, 4 CV, 3 CVE, 1 CA, 17 CL, 1 Monitor, 136 DD and 41 SS. Mined ships excluded but from planes sunk ships included since the Kriegsmarine had no planes. Total German number of ships: 4 BB, 3 BC (Panzerschiffe), 3 CA, 6 CL, 74 DD, ~ 1100 SS. Excluded captured ships. Japan had a bigger fleet but in the ratio they were not so effective. Of all naval powers Italy should have the worst ratio.
Nonconformitist I add a squadron had only in Germany 12 planes. Meaning 12 against 2500 planes. And then shooting down 1 % of the enemy with no casuality! Viel Feind, viel Ehr!

Adler