|
Posts:
332
Registered:
7/16/03
|
|
(1 of 810)
Who were the best soldiers in the war?
Jan 23, 2004 5:23 AM
|
|
Even though they lost, the German soldier was the best. They were the best trained and equipped and they were fierce fighters.
|
|
|
Posts:
704
Registered:
1/10/03
|
|
(2 of 810)
Jan 23, 2004 8:21 AM
|
They were the best trained, but they were not the best equipped. The best equipped designation goes hands down to the US soldier in WWII. You must take into account ALL equipment that a soldier is issued and also that the US was able to spend much more per individual soldier than any other country in WWII.
If I had my way, I would tear this whole building down...Grateful Dead
|
|
|
Posts:
553
Registered:
1/6/04
|
|
(3 of 810)
See :"Frontsoldaten-The German Soldier in WWII" by Stephen Fritz
Jan 23, 2004 8:42 AM
|
This study of the training and performance of the German concludes that harsh training coupled with strong unit cohesion and ideological committment of the German rank and file soldiers made them the best soldiers of the war.
He states, "The Germanys consistently outfought the far more numerious Allied armies that eventually defeated them...On a man for man basis the German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numberical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered."
P. 24.
|
|
|
Posts:
618
Registered:
2/7/00
|
|
(4 of 810)
Jan 23, 2004 10:14 AM
|
"On a man for man basis the German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances."
This is not a true statement. In virtually every operation after the Battle of Kasserine, the US forces exacted a higher German (than American) casualty rate and a higher German death rate. The reasons for this hardly relate to the abilities of soldiers on either side. The key factor for the higher German casualties was the relentless firepower that the Americans were able to display.
|
|
|
Posts:
704
Registered:
1/10/03
|
|
(5 of 810)
Jan 23, 2004 10:41 AM
|
I agree with what you said, but the book he is referring to is speaking strictly in terms of small unit engagements taken on the macro level for the whole war.
If I had my way, I would tear this whole building down...Grateful Dead
|
|
|
Posts:
1,829
From:
Melbourne, Australia.
Registered:
10/3/02
|
|
(6 of 810)
Re: Who were the best soldiers in the war?
Jan 23, 2004 11:13 AM
|
Greenlee,
EASY question, EVERYBODY knows the answer to that one.
John.
Australian, & Machiavellian Hawk.
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
1/25/04
|
|
(7 of 810)
Re: Who were the best soldiers in the war?
Jan 25, 2004 4:38 PM
|
|
the best soldier were not thr germans, they were just well equipped. We were, americans. We won the battle of the bugle even though the germans were so equipped and ready. We got france and holland. We never gave up
|
|
|
Posts:
124
Registered:
5/26/02
|
|
(8 of 810)
Re: Who were the best soldiers in the war?
Jan 25, 2004 5:11 PM
|
|
Id have to say the Spartans.They held off the whole of Persia at Thermopalae.I'm sorry,I thought you meant in history.In WW2,I'd venture,the US Marines or the Waffen SS.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,829
From:
Melbourne, Australia.
Registered:
10/3/02
|
|
(9 of 810)
Re: Who were the best soldiers in the war?
Jan 25, 2004 5:13 PM
|
FF7,
"We were, americans."
WE?? WE??? Your history knowledge is abysmal!!!
"We won the battle of the bugle"
The Battle of the BUGLE???? Where did this take place?
"We got france and holland. We never gave up"
Waddya mean "WE", white man?
John.
Australian, & Machiavellian Hawk.
|
|
|
Posts:
432
Registered:
11/2/03
|
|
(10 of 810)
Jan 25, 2004 6:19 PM
|
My goodness, you are just a tad defensive. Are you suffering from a nationalistic inferiority complex?
Researcher
"What is past is prologue" (Shakespeare's "The Tempest.")
|
|
|
Posts:
1,829
From:
Melbourne, Australia.
Registered:
10/3/02
|
|
(11 of 810)
Jan 25, 2004 7:54 PM
|
Researcher,
"you are just a tad defensive."
No mate, the proper word is 'offensive', get out that dictionery you keep telling us about.
There is ONE thing guaranteed to get my motor running and that is this quaint idea that "WE" (America) WON the War.
Mate, you HELPED win it, geddit?
Maybe FF7 should do a small amount of 'research' on the British and Canadian Armies.
John.
Australian, & Machiavellian Hawk.
|
|
|
Posts:
432
Registered:
11/2/03
|
|
(12 of 810)
Jan 25, 2004 8:31 PM
|
Offensive? OK, if you say so.
I do, however, agree with you that the Australian, Canadian, Indian, and South African contributions to winning the war are all too often overlooked by American (USA) and British students of history.
I seriously doubt that the war could have been won without the sacrifices of these countries.
Researcher
"What is past is prologue" (Shakespeare's "The Tempest.")
|
|
|
Posts:
1,718
Registered:
2/12/03
|
|
(13 of 810)
The airborne, the paras and the fallschirmjager
Jan 25, 2004 9:00 PM
|
I don't care what country they came from, but those that jumped out of perfectly good airplanes generally did better than most!
Harold
|
|
|
Posts:
637
Registered:
2/11/03
|
|
(14 of 810)
Re: Who were the best soldiers in the war?
Jan 26, 2004 5:53 AM
|
|
I would say your assertion is probably correct...as regards the beginning of the war. I agree with osterhase, though, when it comes to equipment. By war's end, that title, in my view, would have to go the the Red Army. At this point, they had the largest, most mobile, well-equipped, efficient, and fiercest ground army groupings on the planet, bar none. Any thoughts of carrying on a ground war in the east against the Soviets, at this point..a la George Patton,..would've been shear folly for the Allies. To say they would have been annihilated would be putting it mildly.-BH
|
|
|
Posts:
1,718
Registered:
2/12/03
|
|
(15 of 810)
Jan 26, 2004 7:40 AM
|
Certainly, we would have had very severe casualties, but the Soviets had one weakness: their airforce. Numerous as it was, I believe that the USAAF and RAF could have coped with it fairly quickly. This would have given us the edge. The outcome probably would have been similar to the Korean war, which was a microcosm of what such a war would have been.
Harold
|
|
|
|
|
