Best army of WWII

[nonconformist]

In my opinion, best army during WWII is the German Army, in particular the Wehrmacht.

-Discipline: In general a well disciplined army. In filmreels, the German army had impeccable syncronised marching and saluting. Also there were strict penalties, sometimes death, for crimes such as looting.
-Honour. In General, the Wehrmacht was an honourable army. They usually did keep to the Hague and Geneva convention. Very few warcrimes were commited, I think, in proportion to the S.S. They also had torn devotion; the country or the Fuhrer. They knew Hitler was insane, and the war was lost, but the had sworn an oath, and could not bring themselves to oppose him. This usually cost these high ranking officers their lives.
-Devotion. The fight for Berlin is enough to proove this. Though the German people knew the war was over, they still continued to fight, continuously riisking their lives. 16-80 year olds were fighting with panzerfausts, single shot anti tank rockets.
-Fighting skill. In general, the German army was very good. Especially good were the FallschirmJager, the paratroopers. They were a crack unit. They captured one of Europe's most impressive fortifications, Fort Eben Emael in Belgium in an incredibly short time. They rescued Mussolini from the 200 guards at the Grand Sasso hotel. The Wehrmacht were in general excellent.
Equipment-The German army had incredible equipment. They had the MP40 Schmeisser-a submachinegun that Allied troops in Normandy abandoned their issued weapons to take. The STG44, the assault rifle, the predecessor of modern assault rifles. The panzerfaust, the world's first disposable anti tank weapon. The MG42, a light/medium machinegun with incredible suppression ability. These are but a few of the infantry weapons. There were incredible tanks-the King Tiger, Panther and Panzer IV. In the air, the messescmitt was a good, if not short ranged fighter. The Gemrans had the first ballistic missiles, and were the frst to used jet aircraft in widespread combat.
Logistics-the weak point of the German army. Tanks, the ones being used by the Germans guzzling huge amounts of fuel for very little movement. Many tanks were abandoned due to lack of fuel, especially in the latter years of the war. Resupply columns could only move at nightfall in Normandy, as the American and British aircraft were flying overhead looking for targets.

These points basically sum up why I consider the German army the best in the world at the time.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

The Russian army. From 1943 onwards they conistently kicked Nazi ass.

 

[nonconformist]

By totally swarming everything that the Germans had with almost infinite amounts of troops. The Russian army was almost defeated by the Germans in 1941/1942.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

-Discipline: In general a well disciplined army. In filmreels, the German army had impeccable syncronised marching and saluting. Also there were strict penalties, sometimes death, for crimes such as looting.

So? The Salvation Army can march just as well, and they coulnt hit the broad side of a deathstar with a rifle if they tryed.

-Devotion. The fight for Berlin is enough to proove this. Though the German people knew the war was over, they still continued to fight, continuously riisking their lives. 16-80 year olds were fighting with panzerfausts, single shot anti tank rockets.

They wernt devoted, they were desperate enough to fight instead of surrender to the Russians. You think they were fighting for the Fuhrer? For the Fatherland? No, they were fighting for their lives. Apart from the odd unit of SS fanatics.

Equipment-The German army had incredible equipment. They had the MP40 Schmeisser-a submachinegun that Allied troops in Normandy abandoned their issued weapons to take. The STG44, the assault rifle, the predecessor of modern assault rifles. The panzerfaust, the world's first disposable anti tank weapon. The MG42, a light/medium machinegun with incredible suppression ability. These are but a few of the infantry weapons. There were incredible tanks-the King Tiger, Panther and Panzer IV. In the air, the messescmitt was a good, if not short ranged fighter. The Gemrans had the first ballistic missiles, and were the frst to used jet aircraft in widespread combat.

The King Tiger was not a good tank. It used the same engine as the Panther, which was 10 tonnes lighter (this is a guess BTW), the engine just could not handle a 60 ton tank (another gues, but I'm too far out am I?. Many broke down before they saw any combat. Also due to the power to wheight ratio the thing was an awesome gas guzzler - not a good feature for a German tank of 1944. The IS-2 was a better, if not as well armoured. The Panther and panzer IV were very good tanks.

The Germans were only about 2 years ahead in tank developement, and the Allies had closed the gap by 1945.

I dont know much about infantry weapons. The tommy gun was every bit as good as the MP44 though, right?

The Jets were good but Hitler messed around with them too much during their developement.

-Honour. In General, the Wehrmacht was an honourable army. They usually did keep to the Hague and Geneva convention. Very few warcrimes were commited, I think, in proportion to the S.S. They also had torn devotion; the country or the Fuhrer. They knew Hitler was insane, and the war was lost, but the had sworn an oath, and could not bring themselves to oppose him. This usually cost these high ranking officers their lives.

Couldnt bring themselves to oppose Hitler eh? So they let a complete madman take charge of the army? Yeah, thats the hallmark of every great army...

-Fighting skill. In general, the German army was very good. Especially good were the FallschirmJager, the paratroopers. They were a crack unit. They captured one of Europe's most impressive fortifications, Fort Eben Emael in Belgium in an incredibly short time. They rescued Mussolini from the 200 guards at the Grand Sasso hotel. The Wehrmacht were in general excellent

The Fallshirmjager were excelent. But so were the Commandos and Paras of the Allies.

They usually did keep to the Hague and Geneva convention. Very few warcrimes were commited

Um, okay. I'm not even gonna go there...

Dont try and refute all this by saying 'it was all Hitlers fault'. Hitler was as much a part of the army as any infantryman, if not more so.

Edit: Got rid of that huge quote at the top. Made the post look too long.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Originally posted by nonconformist
By totally swarming everything that the Germans had with almost infinite amounts of troops. The Russian army was almost defeated by the Germans in 1941/1942.

The swarm tactics didnt work, yeah. So the Red Army stopped using them. Sure, numbers were a great advantage but by 1944 it was not the only thing the Russians relyed on.

The Germans were consistently out generaled by the Ruskies from 1943 onwards.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Another point - the Red Army bounced back from the purges very well. Even without purges of military officials just before the war the Germans were still out generaled.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, the Germans lost.

 

[Xen]

I would assume that the post american joining allied army of the western front would be the best by default- considering they won the war after all

 

[Xen]

*note that dosent mean tney did it all by themselves- gods no, if it hadnt been for the ruskies things would have gone a hell of alot slower- but I think that the over all edge was with the allies, and their win iwn was ineveitable once the US joined the cause

 

[privatehudson]

Overall, for it's size the British, though obviously it was limited in what it could achieve by it's numbers. It's variety and achievements often said enough though by themselves. Judging by who "did more" or other similar numerical ideals is not really doing the title of greatest army justice IMO. I will though reply to each of your points.

Discipline:

A good "for show" marching talent and occaisonal ability to keep order amongst it's troops is not how I personally rate discipline. The test of that for me is the ability to retain order in formations during long periods of retreat, reform shattered units etc. The wermacht does rate highly on this issue it is true, but on the other hand this rather strict system has it's downfalls also, one of which I'll comment on below

Honour:

Yes in a way, but the Waffen SS IMO has to be judged alongside the army. Even so though, the strong discipline theory linked to the "honour" of not disobeying orders is still no excuse whatsoever for supporting a regime the likes of Hitler's. I see no honour in continuing to put your country through a nightmare for the sake of not disobeying orders they knew were morally suspect. That issue is a twin edged sword, their version of which honour they followed was highly suspect to my eyes.

Devotion:

Again, admirable, but does not necessarily mean they were fighting for the army/country but rather their survival against what was then a pretty ferocious enemy not known for it's magnanimous atttitude to POW's.

Equipment:

But so also did other countries build excellent stuff. After all, for many of the wars early years, German tank design essentially came to a full stop. Only the shock of seeing the untermenschen field something better than them brought about the Panther so quickly. British armoured design, whilst slower was still decent, especially in the field of gunnery with the 17pndr and the new ammunition we developed (I once read that a large chunk of modern basic tank ammo designs was developed by the Brits by the end of the war).

As has been pointed out, many of the "superweapons" have flaws, sometimes severe flaws. The King Tiger was not a tank designed for either German logistics or German tactics of the time. In any other army, with an abundance of fuel and the ability to maintain it it might have been a handy tank, in the German army it was a pain in the backside. The jets were of limited use once countered by allied methods, the machine gun was of limited accuracy and so on. Yes they produced some good stuff, but so did others, and much of their most popularised stuff really wasn't THAT good.

Fighting Skill:

Commandos, Paras, Rangers, SAS/SBS/LDRG and so on is all I'll say here.

 

[Esckey]

I might have to go with the British Army on this on, simply because they were everywhere. Yes granted they had plenty of countries and colonies to draw forces from and to sue as a base of operations but still thumbs up to the Brits

 

[Zardnaar]

I would say the SS were the best in WW2. Even at its best the Russian army was used like a sledgehammer. Look at the assault on Berlin. The biggest army ever assembled vs half trained under equipped volksturm and the Russian lose a huge amount of men capturing it.

Stalin was more willing to listen to his generals though-even when the USSR was winning.

 

[Case]

Easy: The US Army. Through the use of firepower and maneuver both backed up by the best logistics and artillery systems of any power, the US Army achieved major goals with remarkably low casualties.

The problem with the German and Soviet Armies is that while they contained many excelent units, these units were the tip of the spear. While the German Panzer, Panzergrenadier and Parachute units and Soviet Guards and Tank/Mechanised corps units were supurb, they only made up about 1/5 of the entire Army. The vast majority of both Armies were very average infantry divisions, which weren't spectacularly effective and were generally dependant on horse drawn transport.

In contrast, the infantry divisions which made up the core of British and American armies were fully motorised, and lavishly equiped with firepower. In German terms, all the US units in Europe were organised and operated along the lines of the elite Panzer corps and armies which made up a minority of the German Army.

Originally posted by nonconformist
-Devotion. The fight for Berlin is enough to proove this. Though the German people knew the war was over, they still continued to fight, continuously riisking their lives. 16-80 year olds were fighting with panzerfausts, single shot anti tank rockets.

Urm, no. Read Anthony Beevor's Berlin, John Eriksons The Road to Berlin or the US Army's Center for Military History's book on the Eastern Front from 1943-45 (these being the three most respected works in English on this period of history). The only units who fought for Berlin were the SS. The German Army disintegrated after the Soviets broke out from the Oder, with the soldiers and their officers correctly recognising that all was lost and their best option was to be captured by the Western armies. The high Soviet casualties were largely from friendly fire.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

By the time the war ended, every army worth the name had hardened into capable fighting forces, so I'll say all of them. They all had their moments.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Instead of choosing one army what I'm gonna do is say which I think is best in each of the critera you put foward, noncon. I based my initial choice on achivements, not the catergorys you mentioned, so here goes:

-Discipline:

I agree with Hudson one this one. Discipline isnt bieng able to march in parades and smile for propaganda photos, it is the ability to be a coherent and efficent fighting unit in almost any circumstance. The Whermacht does rate highly in this department, they did particularly well in Italy. I'm gonna go with the Germans on this one, but the Western Allies were no slouches either.

-Honour:

Honour and obeying orders are two different things; you can be an honourable soldier without obeying orders, and vice versa. This is a difficult catergory, partly becuase everyone has a different idea of what honourable is, and partly becuase you dont have to be honourable to be a great soldier. If you define a part of honour as fighting for what you believe in, which I do, then I'm afraid the SS come out top here.

-Devotion:

This is another difficult one. If you mean a willingness to fight (do not confuse this with discipline or honour) then I dont know.
Edit: This has got to be Japan.

-Fighting skill:

Case hit the nail on the head here. America/Britain overall, particularly later in the war, though all sides had afew crack units. The Russians improved alot in this field throughout the war as new and more sophisticated tactics came into use.

-Equipment:

The Germans did have some pretty impressive hardware, but so did the Allies. Afew examples:

The M4 Garand rifle, the standard issue American infantry gun. Tough, reliable and effective, and also (I think) the only standard issue semi-automatic rifle of the war. The best rifle of the war.

The T-34, inspiration for the Panther was a great tank. Reliable, versatile, quick, tough and packed a good punch. The very definition of an all-rounder.

The Allies had some damn good propeller aircraft; the Mustang, Spitfire, and Sturmovic were all supirior to their German equivilents. But then there is the German trump-card, the Jets. Potential is the buzzword with them, becuase they came so late. Normally I would say the Allies, but in terms of quality though, the Jets rule.

Again, the Russians improved hugely in this field.

BTW, are you sure about the Allied troops taking the MP-40's? If so, what weapons were they abandoning in favour of the submachine gun? If it was another SMG then you have a point, but if they were throwing away rifles then its a different matter, becuase most MG's were in general prefered by most infantrymen.

-Logistics:

There is no competion here; America (and Britain too).

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

BTW, what do ya'all think about tactics/strategy?

 

[nonconformist]

In Normandy, the MP40 was often taken by Allies who santed to streetfight. The guns they threw away ranged from rifles and carbines to the Sten, a ffairly good smg, but prone to jamming and with no proper safety. The MP40 "Schmeisser" tended to be superior.
As for fighting skill, I'd say that the British and Germans did tend to outclass the Americans slightly. The Americans had very good troops, and especially the 101st Airborne, 82nd Airborne, marines and Ranger battalions. However, in my opinion, the Americans did use green troops in hotpoints more than the British. The British had been fighting since 1939, and had learnt valuable lessons from the BEF's evacuation from Dunkerque. The early Italian theatre, Kasserine Pass in particular showed this. Also the early Pacific. However, they had managed to redeem themselves by the end of the war. I just think that the British 6th airborne, Special Air Service, Commandos, and SOE were extremely experienced and competant troops.

 

[joycem10]

a quick bow to the imperial japanese army.

if you ignore honor, equipment and logistics (and given the nature of the Pacific theatre you cant really hold logistics against the Japanese Army) and concentrate on discipline, devotion and fighting skill the Japanese would have to be rated very high.

the Japanese devotion to the emporer and his cause is legendary as is the fanatacism with which they fought, usually to the death, against incredible odds in the island battles.

The Japanese equipment was, in general, execreble and totally outclassed by american equipment by the end of the war.

All that being said, the dishoner brought upon themselves by thier conduct towards prisoners of war, civilian internees, and chinese civilians cant be expunged from the record of the Imperial Japanese Army. Actions like the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731 in Harbin will stain its reputation forever.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Geez...how did we manage to forget Japan when three of the critera are devotion disipline and honour?

Those guys were insane...

However I'm not sure that they were particularly exceptional fighters, just fanatical to the point that they would not retreat.

Just wondering, how did the SS measure up to the Japanese in terms of fanaticness? (is that even a word?)

 

[tossi]

-Discipline:

Don´t know... If we count "special troops" i would say bristish commandos, "Elite Troops" Waffen-SS and "standart troops" brits, amis or wehrmacht. Everything else then USSR or Italy and Rumania/Hungary.

-Honour:

I don´t know much about the Pacific war but the few thing i know like japanese charging marines with samurai swords rather then being captured ... I agree with joycem10.

-Devotion:

SS or maybe guards? (Russian elite)

-Fighting skill:

I favor Germany here. Early war Blitzkrieg and later fighting against a bigger enemy on two fronts. But i´m not sure since we haven´t been there. I dont know if the Russians or the Germans could aim better etc. Each country had some aces. Especialy germans tank aces had an excellent fighting skill.

-Equipment:

Germany: Tanks. Tiger, Phanter PanzerIV... The allied tanks got owned during the whole war.
Standart Rifle: US Garand. Semi-automatic owns bolt-action rifles.
SMGs: TommyGun>MP40>Sten/GreaseGun. Dunno about Russian 50 shot mp.
LMG/HMG: Germany´s MG-42 and FG-42
AT-weapons: Germany´s Panzerfaust/Panzerschreck
USA: Plains

-Logistics:

Germany during the blitzkrieg. Later US and UK.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by nonconformist
As for fighting skill, I'd say that the British and Germans did tend to outclass the Americans slightly.

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.

However, in my opinion, the Americans did use green troops in hotpoints more than the British.

Yeah, only because they had green troops while the British were almost out of new recruits by 1944. From about August 1944 the British were disbanding units in order to keep the surviving units at something resembling full strenght. In contrast, the US forces in Europe were recieving a fresh division every two two weeks.

And greeness had it's advanages: the highly experianced units the British transfered to NW Europe were war-weary and underperfomed throughout the campaign there (the key examples being the 7th Armoured and 51st Highland divisions). In contrast, the American units were generally very keen to prove themselves, often to the point of recklessness.