Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


View Poll Results: Who Do You Beleive Had The Best Army?
Soviet Union 42 13.21%
Germany 153 48.11%
America 73 22.96%
Great Britian 15 4.72%
Australia 1 0.31%
Japan 3 0.94%
Italy 3 0.94%
Finland 15 4.72%
Rumania 1 0.31%
France 0 0%
China 0 0%
Poland 4 1.26%
Canada 5 1.57%
Bulgaria 3 0.94%
Voters: 318. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 4th, 2012, 12:21 PM   #31

Bish's Avatar
Pain in the butt
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 7,882

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalGovnaWatts View Post
I can't agree to your first statement. Considering the standard German rifle was the bolt action kar98k compared to the US M1 Garand, a semi automatic rifle.
I think its hard to judge a nation on one weapon. I did say some of the best equipment, not all. And Germany was not the only nation whose main Infantry weapon was a bolt action rifle. Ever heard of the Lee Enfield.

I am sure i could come up with a pretty decent list of German weapons that were equal to or better than anything anyone else had.
Bish is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 4th, 2012, 12:28 PM   #32

MinoanGoddess's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: New York City
Posts: 1,638
Blog Entries: 4

You left GREECE out of the list.
Greece entered WWII on 28 October 1940, when the Italian army invaded from Albania, beginning the Greco-Italian War. The Greek army was able to stop the invasion and even push back the Italians into Albania, thereby winning one of the first victories for the Allies. The Greek successes and the inability of the Italians to reverse the situation forced Nazi Germany to intervene in order to protect her main Axis partner's prestige. The Germans invaded Greece and Yugoslavia on 6 April 1941, and overran both countries within a month, despite British aid to Greece in the form of an expeditionary corps. The conquest of Greece was completed in May with the capture of Crete from the air, although the Fallschirmjäger suffered such extensive casualties in this operation that the Germans abandoned large-scale airborne operations for the remainder of the war. The German diversion of resources in the Balkans is also considered by some historians to have delayed the launch of the invasion of the Soviet Union by a critical month, which proved disastrous when the German army failed to take Moscow.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Greece_during_World_War_II]Military history of Greece during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Click the image to open in full size.
MinoanGoddess is offline  
Old June 4th, 2012, 12:31 PM   #33

Bish's Avatar
Pain in the butt
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 7,882

While the Greeks did a great job, i don't think defeating the Italians would justify putting the Greeks on the list.

The French managed to beat them even though they ahd all but been occupied by Germany.
Bish is offline  
Old June 4th, 2012, 12:38 PM   #34
Academician
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 60

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karlo View Post
What are you on about?

I admit Hitler made many mistakes, but saying that German army was poorly led is simply outrageous. German generals were by far the best in the world, same goes for officers on all levels.

I,ve already voted manstein as Germanys best general and possibly best WW2 general period i wasen,t referring to their officers and generals in the field i was on about the idiots whose total military expertise amounted to pointing a finger at a map GOERING and HITLER and boy am i glad they were so inept.
BAGGER1959 is offline  
Old June 4th, 2012, 01:09 PM   #35

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,758

I always find it strange that Germany with the Best Generals, Best Soldiers, Best Weapons, Best Tanks etc actually lost!

Could it be that they are somewhat over estimated?
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old June 4th, 2012, 01:15 PM   #36

Bish's Avatar
Pain in the butt
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 7,882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
I always find it strange that Germany with the Best Generals, Best Soldiers, Best Weapons, Best Tanks etc actually lost!

Could it be that they are somewhat over estimated?
No, not at all. But haveing the best doesn't always mean you will win. People often confuse best with most powerful, and its generally, though not always, the most powerful that win.

Germany was up against 3 of the most powerful nations at the time. One of which, the UK, was coming to the end of its time as world super power and two, the USA and USSR who were just starting out.
Bish is offline  
Old June 4th, 2012, 01:54 PM   #37

Hresvelgr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,039
Blog Entries: 1

I haven't seen anyone explain why Germany's supposedly the best, they always just use the same word over and over again in lieu of explanation and detail. German soldiers weren't fed as well as Americans, save for the MG-42 (which was responsible for more Allied casualties than any other single weapon) their firearms were inferior, their tanks look better on paper but production was much, much slower by a massive magnitude and their tanks were mechanically unreliable. German logistics relied on horse-drawn transportation throughout the entire war. Ideology was a key factor in the army and responsible for who got to be an officer and what the strategies were, resulting in many defeats because priority was placed on who was politically reliable rather than who was competent. Weak, old, or otherwise unfit soldiers were also drafted in large numbers.

And yet despite all this I predict people will still barge in and say "Germany was da best!!1" because it's already happened the last couple of times I explained why they are overrated.
Hresvelgr is offline  
Old June 4th, 2012, 02:04 PM   #38

Bish's Avatar
Pain in the butt
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 7,882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hresvelgr View Post
I haven't seen anyone explain why Germany's supposedly the best, they always just use the same word over and over again in lieu of explanation and detail. German soldiers weren't fed as well as Americans, save for the MG-42 (which was responsible for more Allied casualties than any other single weapon) their firearms were inferior, their tanks look better on paper but production was much, much slower by a massive magnitude and their tanks were mechanically unreliable. German logistics relied on horse-drawn transportation throughout the entire war. Ideology was a key factor in the army and responsible for who got to be an officer and what the strategies were, resulting in many defeats because priority was placed on who was politically reliable rather than who was competent. Weak, old, or otherwise unfit soldiers were also drafted in large numbers.

And yet despite all this I predict people will still barge in and say "Germany was da best!!1" because it's already happened the last couple of times I explained why they are overrated.
But it depends on your definition of best doesn't it. If you include things such as production and logistics, then clearly Germany isn't, they had major problems. But if you simple talk about the quality of the troops on the ground, then thats where i think they were the best.

How were their firearms inferior. They had a bolt action rifle, as did most other nations. They had Sub machine gun which was as good as any other. And they are two belt fed machine guns, the MG 34 and MG 42 which were far superior. So i think in general they come out even.

In the field of Infantry AT weapons, they were way ahead with the panzerfaust and Panzershreck.

At the start of the war their tanks were in genearl not as good as many of the tanks they faced, but their tactics made up for this. By the time of the introduction of the Pz IV they had a tank that was at least upto the task of dealing with the T-34 and was easily able to deal with western tanks. Again, yes, they had major issue with production.

But again, how do we define best. Best in the field, or best all round.
Bish is offline  
Old June 4th, 2012, 04:04 PM   #39

Hresvelgr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: New Hampshire
Posts: 1,039
Blog Entries: 1

Their firearms are inferior to that of the Americans, not sure why most nations also having bolt-action rifles means Germany was the best when every rifleman among the Americans had a semi-automatic rifle. Americans also had a belt-fed machine gun that worked well enough even if it wasn't as feared as the MG-42. The Panzerfaust had a very short range and the Panzerschrek was simply a reverse-engineered bazooka based off of bazookas captured from the Russians. This does not put them ahead of the Americans, at best it makes them even in AT weaponry. And the average American squad or platoon would have far more firepower since every soldier would have an automatic weapon whereas a German platoon would revolve around the MG-42, and a squad-sized force of Germans would be far inferior in firepower to their American equivalents. As for panzers, the Germans had to upgrade the Pz.IV drastically to make it able to take on T-34s reliably, the first versions had stubby barrels that gave it very little velocity and a German general noted that they often had to rain down shells with numerous PzIVs from behind to take out a T-34. And since German production had no sense of priorities, they didn't even have as many PzIVs as they should've.

Which leads me to the ultimate point, you may think things like production and logistics are irrelevant, but they are vital to the quality of an army. Quantity has a quality of its own, as I think it was Stalin who once said. And Stalin won. You can have the fanciest looking stuff but if you can't get enough of them what does it matter? And if you can't feed your troops well or move supplies fast enough then your army is nothing more than a paper tiger. And the German troops had more problems than these and equipment. As I said before, they weren't as fit as Americans, being less well fed and often much younger and older with less training. Morale was lower too, not everyone in the Wehrmacht was a proud Nazi and even the SS had morale problems of their own in addition to being even less well equipped than the Wehrmacht. No matter if you're looking at best in the field or best all around, the Germans weren't number one. They lost, and contrary to popular stereotypes you can't blame it all on Hitler's strategical decisions, though a lot of other decisions he made did contribute to the poorer quality of the German forces.
Hresvelgr is offline  
Old June 4th, 2012, 04:07 PM   #40
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 1,714

MG-42 was wicked and the German mortars were lethal
Cavanboy is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
army, ww2



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Macedonian Army vs Assyrian Army(late 8th/early 7th century BC) Alcibiades War and Military History 3 June 1st, 2012 01:44 PM
Carthaginian Army or Roman Army? Mohammed the Persian Ancient History 25 October 14th, 2011 05:21 PM
US Continental Army: A Mercenary army? Mohammed the Persian American History 14 July 1st, 2011 12:07 PM
Roman Army under Caesar vs Japanese army under Tokugawa Arkkataka Speculative History 15 April 6th, 2011 03:27 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.