NationStates Jolt Archive


World War Two: Who did the best job?

Pages : [1] 2 3
Andaluciae
14-09-2004, 20:50
Which nation do you think was the best fighting nation of WWII? And just to add on to this, who do you think was the best General? Which do you think was most efficient, who do you think did the most for final victory in Europe and the Pacific?

Respond all you want.
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 20:54
Germany. If it wasn't for that pesky lack of resources and manpower.
Overall most military historians agree on that Erich von Manstein was Germany's best general. But they had so many brilliant generals and commanders. I find it hard to pick one as the best.
Sgt Peppers LHCB
14-09-2004, 21:01
America.
CSW
14-09-2004, 21:02
Germany. If it wasn't for that pesky lack of resources and manpower.
Overall most military historians agree on that Erich von Manstein was Germany's best general. But they had so many brilliant generals and commanders. I find it hard to pick one as the best.
But they had that stupid MFer Hitler in command overall. He is one of the best cases for supporting the wisdom of "let your generals do their job, dumbass" in history
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 21:03
But they had that stupid MFer Hitler in command overall. He is one of the best cases for supporting the wisdom of "let your generals do their job, dumbass" in history
Yes. Thats true.
The Colonial Army
14-09-2004, 21:05
The best fighting country would be England, they endured the hardest of conditions [Possible Invasion, Blitz, V1-V2], The best General would have to be Montgumery thow he spearheaded the invasion of normandy i would say
The SARS Monkeys
14-09-2004, 21:08
Eisenhower: Great diplomatic general. New what to do and when to do it. Didn't eave any part of his operations out. Looked at every detail and listened to everyone.

Montgomery: Great field general but a bit to egotistical.

Patton: Probably the best field general. A bit hard on his soldiers and hated the Soviet Union.

Erwin Rommel: Very smart.

Those are some of them.
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 21:09
The best fighting country would be England, they endured the hardest of conditions [Possible Invasion, Blitz, V1-V2], The best General would have to be Montgumery thow he spearheaded the invasion of normandy i would say
A maritime invasion of England was never a real option as long as the Royal Navy was around. Had there been a land connection Britain wouldn't have held out longer then France did.
Fourth Reich SS
14-09-2004, 21:11
German for the nation and Heinz Guderian for General.
HadesRulesMuch
14-09-2004, 21:16
Except that England got itself whipped out of France, and the whole army would have been caught and anihilated if it wasnt for the citizens of England bringing their own small boats and suchlike to carry the main army back to England. England was only saved because it had a channel seperating it from Germany, and it posessed a much larger navy. The Battle of Britain, for instance, is an example of the difficulties faced in flying missions over hostile territory when you have absolutely no bases in said territory. Germany could not get troops into England, and England couldn't get out.

However, I would definitely say that Germany fought better and more efficiantly than any other nation. However, thanks to the Russians at Stalingrad, and the Americans at Normandy, we got a break.
The Russians had a much higher attrition rate than the Americans, and so, since the victor writes history, I would have to claim that the US wins the title of best fighting nation. And the best General? A tossup between Patton, Eisenhower, and MacArthur. MacArthur had to lead a theater with vastly less resources than the other two, and so I give him props for a job well done. Patton, of course, was one of the baddest boys we ever had in uniform. After taking Berlin, he actually asked Eisenhower for permission to attack and drive out the Russians. Of course, Eisenhower refused, although we could have easily won such an engagement. Eisenhower, of course, was just plain brilliant.
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 21:16
Nation - Britain, they held out the longest as someone already said, and they still kicked arse.

General - Rommel - interesting fact, his hero was a man by the name of Nathan Bedford Forrest - a Cavalry commander in the American Civil War, who became the first Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Invisible Empire...the KKK
Enodscopia
14-09-2004, 21:16
Germany had the most good generals, America had the best Patton.
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 21:18
Germany had the most good generals, America had the best Patton.

Not sure of how true this is, could be...but Patton said once that he believed that America fought on the wrong side...

Also Patton wasn't the best General, Rommel was far better, he was great when it came to pure tactical war...but could also lead a massive charge.
The Class A Cows
14-09-2004, 21:19
The USA and Russia were the most effective, although their tactics were harldy efficient. Tons and tons worth of low-tech equipment out on the field (and some joke-tech like some of the Russian Yakolev,) with good durability and firepower (at least in the case of the US, their aircraft demonstrated this well in both fronts.) A huge population base and powerful economy meant many losses could be taken and simple exhaustion would eventually begin to take place.

I would commend the British for poineering the concept of percision bombing, but without Russia or the USA they could have ended up choosing cease fire anyway due to the fact that they were being bombed to hell themselves and that Hitler didnt have immediate plans for invasion of Britain.
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 21:21
Except that England got itself whipped out of France, and the whole army would have been caught and anihilated if it wasnt for the citizens of England bringing their own small boats and suchlike to carry the main army back to England. England was only saved because it had a channel seperating it from Germany, and it posessed a much larger navy. The Battle of Britain, for instance, is an example of the difficulties faced in flying missions over hostile territory when you have absolutely no bases in said territory. Germany could not get troops into England, and England couldn't get out.

However, I would definitely say that Germany fought better and more efficiantly than any other nation. However, thanks to the Russians at Stalingrad, and the Americans at Normandy, we got a break.
The Russians had a much higher attrition rate than the Americans, and so, since the victor writes history, I would have to claim that the US wins the title of best fighting nation. And the best General? A tossup between Patton, Eisenhower, and MacArthur. MacArthur had to lead a theater with vastly less resources than the other two, and so I give him props for a job well done. Patton, of course, was one of the baddest boys we ever had in uniform. After taking Berlin, he actually asked Eisenhower for permission to attack and drive out the Russians. Of course, Eisenhower refused, although we could have easily won such an engagement. Eisenhower, of course, was just plain brilliant.

The Only reason Britain got beaten in Frace, was because unlike...some Nations, they were in it from the Start. And Rommel was far better than Patton, had Monty not been in Africa, the war wouldn't have been such a win. And with the US at Normandy...last I checked Canada and Britain were also there, with just as much experiance, in fact...Canada was the only nation to secure all of its objectives.

There is a difference between a Patriot and a Nationalist...and you are walking a fine line...
Tippman
14-09-2004, 21:22
But they had that stupid MFer Hitler in command overall. He is one of the best cases for supporting the wisdom of "let your generals do their job, dumbass" in history

Do you know that hitler had an IQ of 160??? Do you know Bush has an IQ of 130??? He was not stupid, just evil.
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 21:26
If America was landlocked to Germany, Americans today would be speaking German, as would any country, as Germany kicked major arse, more than any other Nation. It required 3 superpowers to bring Germany to its knees and still they didn't give up and till the last moment.

Nations in terms of Warfare...

1) Germany
2) Britain
3) USA
4) Russia
5) Canada
6) Australia
7) Dutch
Both Canada and Australia do not recieve enough credit for their actions, both sent massive amounts of troops when compared to the overal population of the Nations.
Joey P
14-09-2004, 21:26
Germany was the best fighting nation at the outset. Better, more advanced weapons, new tactics, and well trained, dedicated troops. As for the generals question, I'll leave that up to someone who has studied the subject more than me, but I suspect Rommel, Montgomery, and Patton were among the best. Most efficient is a tough question. America produced tons of weapons and munitions, but some of it was wasted. Sherman tanks were of inferior quality compared to the German panzers and tigers. One tiger could take on several shermans and win. Britain was forced to get by on few raw materials because the U-boats reduced shipments of goods to England. Keeping your troops in fighting condition under such circumstances requires efficiency. I'll say England was most efficient. Russia did the most for the final victory in Europe. The ammount of manpower and machinery they threw at the germans ensured that they couldn't turn their full fury against the western front. USA was the main reason for the defeat of Japan. Although Australia and others helped in the pacific, America pounded the hell out of the japanese by bombing the home islands, and by fighting from island to island to push them back.
Squi
14-09-2004, 21:27
Hardest fighting major, Soviet Union. Hardest fighting period, Morocco (you ought to look at the records of some of those French colonial units, yikes). Best fighting either Canada or Germany. Best general is so hard to classify, if Model had been a better general Hitler would have had less imput, I'd say probably Mannerheim, with the puny forces and resources availible to him, he mange to hold off the Soviet invasion - a truely impressive feat. Eisenhower would be my vote for who (general) did the most for victory in Europe and Asia.
Tippman
14-09-2004, 21:28
If America was landlocked to Germany, Americans today would be speaking German, as would any country, as Germany kicked major arse, more than any other Nation. It required 3 superpowers to bring Germany to its knees and still they didn't give up and till the last moment.

Nations in terms of Warfare...

1) Germany
2) Britain
3) USA
4) Russia
5) Canada
6) Australia

Both Canada and Australia do not recieve enough credit for their actions, both sent massive amounts of troops when compared to the overal population of the Nations.

You forget the Dutch... the resistance called the "lightning Warefare" was one of the best in documented history.
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 21:31
You forget the Dutch... the resistance called the "lightning Warefare" was one of the best in documented history.

Gee your right, heck I also forgot the Free French, and the crap load of other nations, I was listing the top 6...by all means make a list of every country...but I couldn't be bothered.
Fourth Reich SS
14-09-2004, 21:33
I respect Rommel, but I think he should of been sent to a better station then that of North Africa or France.
Tippman
14-09-2004, 21:35
Gee your right, heck I also forgot the Free French, and the crap load of other nations, I was listing the top 6...by all means make a list of every country...but I couldn't be bothered.

still think the Dutch did a better job than the Australians...
CSW
14-09-2004, 21:40
Do you know that hitler had an IQ of 160??? Do you know Bush has an IQ of 130??? He was not stupid, just evil.
His actions definitally qualify him as stupid.
Tippman
14-09-2004, 21:43
His actions definitally qualify him as stupid.

what actions? holocaust? thats evil...
Defeating the entire allied force until 1941... That not stupid... u are being narrowminded, if Pearl Harbor had never taken place who knows how europe would look like 2day...
CSW
14-09-2004, 21:46
what actions? holocaust? thats evil...
Defeating the entire allied force until 1941... That not stupid... u are being narrowminded, if Pearl Harbor had never taken place who knows how europe would look like 2day...
No, his stupid invasion of Russia, declaring war on the United States, not giving full stratigical control to his commanders...
Tippman
14-09-2004, 21:52
No, his stupid invasion of Russia, declaring war on the United States, not giving full stratigical control to his commanders...

lol thats WW1, hitler never invaded Russia, and it was the US who declared war on Germany, Russia entered the war in the final stages because it wanted to have part of germany when the war ended.
New Bremton
14-09-2004, 21:53
i don't believe you can rank the nations in order of fighting ability. The situations and opportunities were so different for all of them.

Russia suffered the most with 25 million dead.That has to be the biggest sacrifice of the war and turned the war around by holding the Germans up at Stalingrad.

Britain held out alone for over a year and was the only power to consistently oppose and fight the Germans across the whole war. Also played invaluable role in africa and normandy.

The USA although joining later still made a massive impact, especially in the pacific and normandy and helped britain and russia economically and technologically.

Resistance movements in France, holland etc were also invaluable in terms of intelligence and sabotage.

Australia and Canadaian troops were instrumental in the pacific (australia) and normandy (canada) as well as free polish (italy)
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 21:53
still think the Dutch did a better job than the Australians...

Bullshit!

Our Diggers did a far better job than many Nations 2x our size. We held Tobruk, and we were a major reason the Allies captured El Alamein. Not to mention the victories we had over the Italian troops at Benghazi and the Vichy French forces in Syria. The Americans helped in New Guinea, but not before Australians stopped the Japanese Advance. Not to mention the thousands of Pilots we sent to Britain, which was a main force behind the bombings to Germany and the defence of Britain.

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/ww2main.html

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/overview/ww2-02.html

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/overview/ww2-03.html

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/overview/ww2-04.html
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 21:54
Except that England got itself whipped out of France, and the whole army would have been caught and anihilated if it wasnt for the citizens of England bringing their own small boats and suchlike to carry the main army back to England.

They still would have been cought if Hitler had not ordered Guderian to halt to wait for infantry support.
Moonseed
14-09-2004, 21:54
I noticed that nobody has mentioned any Soviet generals. Just because they often took huge losses does not mean that the Soviet army was entirely devoid of command skill! I would like to suggest Leiutenant Vasili Chuikov, who commanded the Soviet 62nd Army which for a couple of months in the winter of 1942-43 mounted a successful defense, singlehandedly, of Stalingrad, preventing it from falling completely to the German 6th Army and 4th Panzer Army.

Also nobody has put forward an answer to the question about who contributed the most to the victories in both Europe and the Pacific. The USSR of course did not fight in the Pacific, and clearly the USA dominated the action there, with the British Empire suffering a series of humiliating land and sea defeats in the early months (such as the loss of Singapore without a fight, and the sinking of quite a few battleships). However I think the Empire rallied effectively, with the ANZACS in particular providing a major contribution especially in Papua New Guinea, and the British Army's actions in Burma.

The USA clearly had the biggest worldwide impact. However I do believe the war could have been won without US help, it would have just taken a lot longer. In europe I would say the USSR made the largest contribution, distracting and ultimately destroying very large parts of the German and allied armed forces. Also I would nominate Hitler, as his (sometimes unbelievably) bad decisions at key points were, I think, critical to the Allied victory.
Squi
14-09-2004, 21:56
lol thats WW1, hitler never invaded Russia, and it was the US who declared war on Germany, Russia entered the war in the final stages because it wanted to have part of germany when the war ended.No. Operation Barbarosa, june 1941, German invasion of Soviet Union. Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor in support of their allies.
Nowy Lecholand
14-09-2004, 21:59
Do you know that hitler had an IQ of 160??? Do you know Bush has an IQ of 130??? He was not stupid, just evil.
ooo yeahhh you germans.... say better hitler had 610 IQ... :sniper:
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 21:59
They still would have been cought if Hitler had not ordered Guderian to halt to wait for infantry support.

The same thing would have happened to America if it had been in Britains position.
CSW
14-09-2004, 22:02
lol thats WW1, hitler never invaded Russia, and it was the US who declared war on Germany, Russia entered the war in the final stages because it wanted to have part of germany when the war ended.

Er....


Go away and learn some history. If you don't know about Russia, that is sad. But for Germany declaring war on the US...
German Declaration of War with the United States : December 11, 1941

December 11, 1941

(Including the circumstances of the delivery of the note as released to the press by the Department of State, December 11, 1941.)

The German Charge d'Affaires, Dr. Hans Thomsen, and the First Secretary of the German Embassy, Mr. von Strempel, called at the State Department at 8:00 A.M. on December 11, 1941. The Secretary, otherwise engaged, directed that they be received by the Chief of the European Division of the State Department, Mr. Ray Atherton. Mr. Atherton received the German representatives at 9:30 A.M.

The German representatives handed to Mr. Atherton a copy of a note that is being delivered this morning, December 11, to the American Charge d'Affaires in Berlin. Dr. Thomsen said that Germany considers herself in a state of war with the United States. He asked that the appropriate measures be taken for the departure of himself, the members of the German Embassy, and his staff in this country. He reminded Mr. Atherton that the German Government had previously expressed its willingness to grant the same treatment to American press correspondents in Germany as that accorded the American official staff on a reciprocal basis and added that he assumed that the departure of other American citizens from Germany would be permitted on the same basis of German citizens desiring to leave this country. He referred to the exchange of civilians that had been arranged at the time Great Britain and Germany broke off diplomatic relations.

The German Charge d'Affaires then stated that the Swiss Government would take over German interests in this country and that Dr. Bruggmann had already received appropriate instructions from his Government.

He then handed Mr. Atherton a note from the German Government. Mr. Atherton stated that in accepting this note from the German Charge d'Affaires he was merely formalizing the realization that the Government and people of this country had faced since the outbreak of the war in 1939 of the threat and purposes of the German Government and the Nazi regime toward this hemisphere and our free American civilization.

Mr. Atherton then said that this Government would arrange for the delivery of Dr. Thomsen's passports and that he assumed that we would very shortly be in communication with the Swiss Minister. He added that Dr. Thomsen must realize, however, that the physical difficulties of the situation would demand a certain amount of time in working out this reciprocal arrangement for the departure of the missions of the two countries. The German representatives then took their leave.

The text of the note which the German representatives handed to Mr. Ray Atherton, Chief of the European Division of the State Department, at 9:30 A.M., December 11, the original of which had been delivered the morning of December 11 to the American Charge d'Affaires in Berlin, follows:

MR. CHARGE D'AFFAIRES:

The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearney and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German sub-marines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that-American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

Accept, Mr. Charge d'Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.

December 11, 1941.

RIBBENTROP.




To the Congress of the United States:

On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States. I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy. Franklin D. Roosevelt

The War Resolution

Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same. Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States
Iztatepopotla
14-09-2004, 22:02
Which nation do you think was the best fighting nation of WWII? And just to add on to this, who do you think was the best General? Which do you think was most efficient, who do you think did the most for final victory in Europe and the Pacific?

Respond all you want.

Best fighting nation would have to be Germany, as well as the most efficient. These guys really taught the world about using a modern army. Starting their involvement in the war the US armament wasn't really great, but improved quickly, however at a very high cost in resources.

Britain was very important in winning the war in Europe, especially from the intelligence and technological side of things; cracking the Enigma code, finding out the German network and use it against them, developing radar and penicilin. All these things were invaluable in winning the war.

But, as important as that was, I must say that the Soviet Union was the most important factor to win the war in Europe. Hitler was obsessed with them and lost a very important part of his army from which he never really recovered. And of course, the Soviets were able to send vast numbers of troops and tanks against Germany, keeping it busy on the Eastern front.

In the Pacific, the USA, of course. Although the first Japanese victories were very impressive, the US recovered very quickly and had them on the run with superior numbers. After all, Japan had spread itself too thin.

Best general I don't really know.
Moonseed
14-09-2004, 22:03
lol thats WW1, hitler never invaded Russia, and it was the US who declared war on Germany, Russia entered the war in the final stages because it wanted to have part of germany when the war ended.

You are either joking, or you don't know much about world war two. Hitler declared war on the USSR in 1941 and had advanced almost as far as Moscow by the end of that year. He declared war on the USA I believe shortly after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour.

He made many bad decisions. One person has already noted the 'halt' command given before the Dunkirk evacuation. The decision to stop bombing RAF bases and bomb London and other cities instead (when the RAF was almost destroyed), which gave the RAF some breathing space to rally; and the way in which the general campaign in the Russia was fought (always advance, never retreat no matter what the losses, and most of all not placating the local populations many of which would have jumped at the chance to support him against hated Communist Russia had he not brutalised them) to name but a few!

While I'm writing this I may as well mention other forces not given enough credit. Poles were actually among the best pilots in the RAF, often the most elite units were made up of Polish refugees I think. Also the Finns - even though they were on the side of Germany for most of the war - as they mounted an impressive defense against unprovoked Soviet invasion in 1939-40. Indeed it was this invasion that forced them to take the side of Germany in 1941.
Tippman
14-09-2004, 22:04
Bullshit!

Our Diggers did a far better job than many Nations 2x our size. We held Tobruk, and we were a major reason the Allies captured El Alamein. Not to mention the victories we had over the Italian troops at Benghazi and the Vichy French forces in Syria. The Americans helped in New Guinea, but not before Australians stopped the Japanese Advance. Not to mention the thousands of Pilots we sent to Britain, which was a main force behind the bombings to Germany and the defence of Britain.

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/ww2main.html

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/overview/ww2-02.html

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/overview/ww2-03.html

http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/overview/ww2-04.html

1: Your country wasn't invaded
2: Your women and children were not put in the streets and mowed down by machine guns if you killed a german officer
3: You did not run your war in sewer holes for years

Under these condition I'd say the Dutch deserve a little recognition in the top 6 at least. Yes Australia did participate, but they did not come across the difficulties the Dutch had to cope with.
Nowy Lecholand
14-09-2004, 22:04
No. Operation Barbarosa, june 1941, German invasion of Soviet Union. Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor in support of their allies.
yeaaah but russia and germany were allies from 1939 Ribbentrop -Molotow deal... germans broke it with "barbarossa"plan
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 22:08
1: Your country wasn't invaded
2: Your women and children were not put in the streets and mowed down by machine guns if you killed a german officer
3: You did not run your war in sewer holes for years

Under these condition I'd say the Dutch deserve a little recognition in the top 6 at least. Yes Australia did participate, but they did not come across the difficulties the Dutch had to cope with.

If it makes you feel better, I'll add a 7th spot to my list, but don't think for a minute you are going a head of Australia.

And I ask, did the Dutch have to put up with Japanese POW camps? Also are you American? Was your country bombed? Because Australia was at Darwin, and Mini Subs attacked Sydney
Of the council of clan
14-09-2004, 22:09
1: Your country wasn't invaded
2: Your women and children were not put in the streets and mowed down by machine guns if you killed a german officer
3: You did not run your war in sewer holes for years

Under these condition I'd say the Dutch deserve a little recognition in the top 6 at least. Yes Australia did participate, but they did not come across the difficulties the Dutch had to cope with.


all you seem to do is whine about Suffering.

as a nation Netherlands was knocked out of the war in 1940, quite quickly i might add. yes you resisted. But the Aussies, well they FOUGHT. They helped stop the Japanese in New Guinea and worked with us to fight the japs all the way up into the Phillipines. Hmmm They stopped that brutality from happening before it could. I think that deserves recognition in itself.
Of the council of clan
14-09-2004, 22:10
If it makes you feel better, I'll add a 7th spot to my list, but don't think for a minute you are going a head of Australia.

And I ask, did the Dutch have to put up with Japanese POW camps? Also are you American? Was your country bombed? Because Australia was at Darwin, and Mini Subs attacked Sydney


actually they did.


They lost the Dutch East Indies to the Japs
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 22:11
And I ask, did the Dutch have to put up with Japanese POW camps? Was your country bombed?
Yes and yes.
Nowy Lecholand
14-09-2004, 22:12
Best fighting nation would have to be Germany, as well as the most efficient. These guys really taught the world about using a modern army. Starting their involvement in the war the US armament wasn't really great, but improved quickly, however at a very high cost in resources.

Britain was very important in winning the war in Europe, especially from the intelligence and technological side of things; cracking the Enigma code, finding out the German network and use it against them, developing radar and penicilin. All these things were invaluable in winning the war.

But, as important as that was, I must say that the Soviet Union was the most important factor to win the war in Europe. Hitler was obsessed with them and lost a very important part of his army from which he never really recovered. And of course, the Soviets were able to send vast numbers of troops and tanks against Germany, keeping it busy on the Eastern front.

In the Pacific, the USA, of course. Although the first Japanese victories were very impressive, the US recovered very quickly and had them on the run with superior numbers. After all, Japan had spread itself too thin.

Best general I don't really know.
ENIGMA ??? somebody knows the names of the british specialists who encoded enigma ??? strange names..polish names...
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 22:13
actually they did.


They lost the Dutch East Indies to the Japs

I was reffering to the Dutch resistance, and the Home Nation, not the Pacific colonies...
Tippman
14-09-2004, 22:13
If it makes you feel better, I'll add a 7th spot to my list, but don't think for a minute you are going a head of Australia.

And I ask, did the Dutch have to put up with Japanese POW camps? Also are you American? Was your country bombed? Because Australia was at Darwin, and Mini Subs attacked Sydney

m8 i know you may be patriotic, but surely your not comparing Japanese camps with german camps... also what would you prefer? geting bombed or losing your independence...
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 22:14
ENIGMA ??? somebody knows the names of the british specialists who encoded enigma ??? strange names..polish names...
Beeeh. The Americans broke the Enigma code. Didn't you watch U-5... something? :D
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 22:14
I was reffering to the Dutch resistance, and the Home Nation, not the Pacific colonies...
Rotterdam. And if you say Japanese POW camps you deffinatly are talking about the colonies.
Antebellum South
14-09-2004, 22:15
The original questions were... "Which nation do you think was the best fighting nation of WWII? And just to add on to this, who do you think was the best General? Which do you think was most efficient, who do you think did the most for final victory in Europe and the Pacific?" In which case the Netherlands, like China, or Italy, etc., etc. shouldn't be considered because even though their people might suffered and they displayed many instances of heroism but these countries fell fast, and fell hard.
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 22:16
Yes and yes.

I mean your home country, and the reason I asked if your home was bombed is I thought you were American, sorry about that, my bad.

Not the Dutch East Indies, I mean your home country, did they face the horrors that were the Japanese POW camps?
Tippman
14-09-2004, 22:16
all you seem to do is whine about Suffering.

as a nation Netherlands was knocked out of the war in 1940, quite quickly i might add. yes you resisted. But the Aussies, well they FOUGHT. They helped stop the Japanese in New Guinea and worked with us to fight the japs all the way up into the Phillipines. Hmmm They stopped that brutality from happening before it could. I think that deserves recognition in itself.

I merely mentioned the conditions in which they fighted, thank you for the xtra info though
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 22:19
I mean your home country, and the reason I asked if your home was bombed is I thought you were American, sorry about that, my bad.

Not the Dutch East Indies, I mean your home country, did they face the horrors that were the Japanese POW camps?
No. I'm German. And yes. There where camps at Vught, Westerbork, Amersfoort and Ommen.
Nowy Lecholand
14-09-2004, 22:19
1: Your country wasn't invaded
2: Your women and children were not put in the streets and mowed down by machine guns if you killed a german officer
3: You did not run your war in sewer holes for years

Under these condition I'd say the Dutch deserve a little recognition in the top 6 at least. Yes Australia did participate, but they did not come across the difficulties the Dutch had to cope with.
We not talking about the Dutch -biggest foriners SS dywisions (300.000) form d very small country...
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 22:20
We not talking about the Dutch -biggest foriners SS dywisions (300.000) form d very small country...
50,000.
Skitterskrot
14-09-2004, 22:20
uh, yeah i think they meant

1)the constant switching of targets during operation barbarossa, leading to the germans being bogged down in a russian winter, allowing the Soviets to create several whole divisions and counterattack, leading to the german defeat in russia

2)Hitler's command that a panzer division near the normandy beaches could not be used without his direct consent, and then sleeping in on the day of the landings, leading to a pitiful amount of german armour defending the beaches.

3)the abortion of operation sealion, just as the RAF was about to break, as well as switching targets from airfields to london, giving the RAF time to recover.

4)the breaking of the Nazi-Soviet alliance, if he had just attacked England with the whole german army/airforce, he would have won, THEN he could've attacked the soviets, or just finished the war. America did not want a war, and would probably have signed a cease-fire.

5) the obvious one, the holocaust, as well as being a brutal and pointless exercise, those prisoners could have been used far more constructively (bridge over the river Kwai? thats how you use prisoners. >but you don't kill em, you make life better for em, they work for you and you feed them and be nice to em, you might just convert them to your side<)

although some of germany's shortcomings were not hitler's fault (German scientists liked lots of fiddly bits for their tanks - result = tanks cost more, break down more, the parts contract/expand in extreme temperatures leading to malfunctions, and they are almost impossible to repair. Soviets go simple, they get a reliable, repearable, cheap and easy to produce tank, and on top of that, it had almost invincible armour), he was probably the most interfering head of state in history.

As far as most efficient, some people seem to forget russia managed to beat 3/4 of the german army, despite poor training, bad morale, and every good officer in the red army over the past few years 'disappearing'. not only that, but the germans actually overran most of the fertile plains in the south of russia, leaving the russians to grow food on land that was almost always frozen solid. so much so that the americans and even the english had to send supplies to aid russia. that and the russians did something no other country thought of.... during the war, they trained over 2000 female snipers, a formidable force, unlike any other at the time. so for economic country, i'd probably go for the soviet union.

for generals, i always liked field marshal Zhukov, he would never commit to a battle unless had had enough guns/tanks to form a single line, wheel/track to wheel/track a MILE long... this would always me my approach, if you are going to attack, wait until you have total superiority over the enemy.

and remember-

having intelligence can be useful,
but being able to apply it to a situation is lot more important.
West - Europa
14-09-2004, 22:22
Who else than Germany? They started the whole deal. It was just a matter of time.
Tippman
14-09-2004, 22:22
50,000.

concur
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 22:22
m8 i know you may be patriotic, but surely your not comparing Japanese camps with german camps... also what would you prefer? geting bombed or losing your independence...

I think I let myself get out of hand...but I can't stand people saying crap like "My Nation did more than Australia" - I mean if it came from say...Britain or America I could understand, but Australia did way more than the Dutch resistance, I mean had Tobrok fallen, so could have Africa. Had Australia not played a major part in the battle of El Alamein it may have been a failed mission. Not to mention we also fought in Europe and the Pacific and we fought hard, probably harder than nearly every other Nation per capita.

I added the Dutch to my list...in 7th place...

and sorry for my mistakes...
Nowy Lecholand
14-09-2004, 22:24
Beeeh. The Americans broke the Enigma code. Didn't you watch U-5... something? :D
sorry , but polish was readin enigma permanently from it's beginig 1935...and then 29.08.1939 two days before Hitler sterted his game , enigma-encoding prototype was evacuated to London... and british could'nt belive it till now...
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 22:29
sorry , but polish was readin enigma permanently from it's beginig 1935...and then 29.08.1939 two days before Hitler sterted his game , enigma-encoding prototype was evacuated to London... and british could'nt belive it till now...
Good Lord. Doesn't anyone here get sarcasm without tags?
CSW
14-09-2004, 22:32
Good Lord. Doesn't anyone here get sarcasm without tags?
No, we are all Americans. Didn't you read the thread?
Dettibok
14-09-2004, 22:32
Best fighting nation would have to be Germany, as well as the most efficient. These guys really taught the world about using a modern army.
Yup. They also did some truly stupid things. Hitler was not good at mediocrity. He was brilliant, but he was also a nutjob (not to mention a really bad person).
Tippman
14-09-2004, 22:34
I think I let myself get out of hand...but I can't stand people saying crap like "My Nation did more than Australia" - I mean if it came from say...Britain or America I could understand, but Australia did way more than the Dutch resistance, I mean had Tobrok fallen, so could have Africa. Had Australia not played a major part in the battle of El Alamein it may have been a failed mission. Not to mention we also fought in Europe and the Pacific and we fought hard, probably harder than nearly every other Nation per capita.

I added the Dutch to my list...in 7th place...

and sorry for my mistakes...

We're not in the same chapter here. Im not saying that the Dutch had a big influence in the outcome of the war, im just making the point that I dont believe that any other country woud have created such an organized and dedicated resistance. They put up with alot more than any other non-european country.

Btw im not Dutch, my country didnt even participate in the war... we were fighting somewhere else at the time.
Gee Mister Peabody
14-09-2004, 22:40
I don't know about the best per se, but I find Gen. Curtis LeMay fascinating. That was a man who understood what total war really meant.
The DHaran Empire
14-09-2004, 22:43
I read about 90% of this thread but i have not seen anyone put the USA as the best because they fought a 2 front war. All other country faught a 1 front war this one fact puts USA as #1 fighter in the war even though they entered late in the conflict. Also having its entire Pacific navy destroyed and coming back and gaining victory in the Pacific is an accomplishment i think that needs to be recognized.
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 22:45
I read about 90% of this thread but i have not seen anyone put the USA as the best because they fought a 2 front war. All other country faught a 1 front war this one fact puts USA as #1 fighter in the war even though they entered late in the conflict. Also having its entire Pacific navy destroyed and coming back and gaining victory in the Pacific is an accomplishment i think that needs to be recognized.
Germany fought a 1 front war?
Gee Mister Peabody
14-09-2004, 22:46
I read about 90% of this thread but i have not seen anyone put the USA as the best because they fought a 2 front war. All other country faught a 1 front war this one fact puts USA as #1 fighter in the war even though they entered late in the conflict. Also having its entire Pacific navy destroyed and coming back and gaining victory in the Pacific is an accomplishment i think that needs to be recognized.
Uh... Germany fought a two front war dude.
Antebellum South
14-09-2004, 22:46
We're not in the same chapter here. Im not saying that the Dutch had a big influence in the outcome of the war, im just making the point that I dont believe that any other country woud have created such an organized and dedicated resistance. They put up with alot more than any other non-european country.

Btw im not Dutch, my country didnt even participate in the war... we were fighting somewhere else at the time.
Um, the Dutch resistance can't compare in magnitude with occupied China fighting Japan... the Chinese resistance was highly organized and motivated and had sophisticated supply lines that not only spread throughout China but also coordinated with the British and Americans in India. 15-20 million Chinese died during the occupation and the Japanese armies were far more brutal than the German armies were. Japanese war crimes were so appalling that it shocked even the Nazi diplomats to Japan. But China's guerilla resistance was only effective in the mountains and could not drive the technologically advanced Japanese army from the coast.
Tippman
14-09-2004, 22:46
I read about 90% of this thread but i have not seen anyone put the USA as the best because they fought a 2 front war. All other country faught a 1 front war this one fact puts USA as #1 fighter in the war even though they entered late in the conflict. Also having its entire Pacific navy destroyed and coming back and gaining victory in the Pacific is an accomplishment i think that needs to be recognized.

Tipical american comment, no value for the beauty behind the german tactics, only concerned with the outcome.
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 22:47
Uh... Germany fought a two front war dude.
And if you add North Africa they even fought a 3 front war.
Tippman
14-09-2004, 22:50
Um, the Dutch resistance can't compare in magnitude with occupied China fighting Japan... the Chinese resistance was highly organized and motivated and had sophisticated supply lines that not only spread throughout China but also coordinated with the British and Americans in India. 15-20 million Chinese died during the occupation and the Japanese armies were far more brutal than the German armies were. Japanese war crimes were so appalling that it shocked even the Nazi diplomats to Japan. But China's guerilla resistance was only effective in the mountains and could not drive the technologically advanced Japanese army from the coast.

Yes, thank you, when i said non-european countries i was really unconfortable. you're right the chineese did put up alot when the japanese invaded, especialy Mao and the communists.
Microevil
14-09-2004, 22:52
Which nation do you think was the best fighting nation of WWII? And just to add on to this, who do you think was the best General? Which do you think was most efficient, who do you think did the most for final victory in Europe and the Pacific?

Respond all you want.

1) Germany, hands down. They had the least amount of man power and a limited amount of supplies and they made a damn fine showing before they fizzled out.

2) Best general is a tough one. I'd have to say that Patton was my favorite though, mainly because he was out of his freaking mind and he still made incredible progress.

3) Who did the most for the final victory, well the US. Had they not come in when they did the supply problem would have not been as much of a problem for germany. The two/three front war (East w/ the USSR, west w/ the US, south in italy with the US) was much more difficult for them to manage than the seemingly one front war that they were waging prior to US involvement. The US dominated through massive amounts of manpower and supplies that pretty much were bottomless. So basically the germans wouldn't have been spread so thin had the US not entered the war, so Kudos to the US for the war in europe. As far as the pacific goes, I think it's fairly obvious. The US did most of the dirty work and they pwned the hell out of the japanese because of their superior fire power from the navy and airforce and ultimately because they got the bomb and used it.
Moonseed
14-09-2004, 22:55
I read about 90% of this thread but i have not seen anyone put the USA as the best because they fought a 2 front war. All other country faught a 1 front war this one fact puts USA as #1 fighter in the war even though they entered late in the conflict. Also having its entire Pacific navy destroyed and coming back and gaining victory in the Pacific is an accomplishment i think that needs to be recognized.

besides the Germans, it's also worth mentioning that even before the USA became involved, the British Empire too was fighting on two and at one point three fronts (Britain, North Africa and East Africa - the campaign in East Africa against the Italians didnt last long as the Italians were defeated in a couple of months). They fought on three fronts again for a while after they became involved in the Pacific.

I'm not saying the Empire was better than the USA, just that the USA was by no means the only country fighting on one front.
Antebellum South
14-09-2004, 22:58
Yes, thank you, when i said non-european countries i was really unconfortable. you're right the chineese did put up alot when the japanese invaded, especialy Mao and the communists.
Actually the Nationalists did most of the fighting against the Japanese and suffered the most casualties. Mao sat back and waited for the Nationalists to be weakened in WWII, so after the Japanese left the communists easily defeated the weakened Nationalist forces and took over China.
Joey P
14-09-2004, 23:00
I read about 90% of this thread but i have not seen anyone put the USA as the best because they fought a 2 front war. All other country faught a 1 front war this one fact puts USA as #1 fighter in the war even though they entered late in the conflict. Also having its entire Pacific navy destroyed and coming back and gaining victory in the Pacific is an accomplishment i think that needs to be recognized.
Germany fought a 2 front war. Germany had better, more advanced weapons. Germany practically conquered a whole continent with little outside help.
Tippman
14-09-2004, 23:06
Actually the Nationalists did most of the fighting against the Japanese and suffered the most casualties. Mao sat back and waited for the Nationalists to be weakened in WWII, so after the Japanese left the communists easily defeated the weakened Nationalist forces and took over China.

According to my history class it was the Communists who fought very hard against the japanese, the nationalists did some fighting, but they were clearly saving their strength for the communists. So when the war ended, the communist were seen as heroes and all the rural population took the communist side against the nationalists.
Purly Euclid
14-09-2004, 23:08
Depends on what kind of war you're talking about. If you're talking land war, give that to Russia. If naval war, give that to the US. But overall, I'd have to say US. The US had sizable militaries in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters, and the US was responsible for linking all of the major theaters in the war, with the British's help, of course. As for best general, I'd have to pick Marshall Zhukov.
Siljhouettes
14-09-2004, 23:09
It's a tie between the USA and USSR for me.

Hitler invaded a thousand miles into Soviet territory. Against the odds with inferior technology, they fought him back every step and more. Their earth was scorched. Their nation took unbelievable punishment. Twenty million of them were killed. And yet, the Red Army marched into Berlin in 1945.

The USA had to fight on two fronts. Through clever naval tactics and technological supremacy, they forced imperial Japan up against the wall. Operation Overlord was amazing. It wasn't exclusively American, but it would have failed without them. The US Army liberated western Europe.

I pick Eisenhower as best general.
Bodies Without Organs
14-09-2004, 23:21
lol thats WW1, hitler never invaded Russia, and it was the US who declared war on Germany, Russia entered the war in the final stages because it wanted to have part of germany when the war ended.


In which alternate universe are you currently located?
Antebellum South
14-09-2004, 23:22
According to my history class it was the Communists who fought very hard against the japanese, the nationalists did some fighting, but they were clearly saving their strength for the communists. So when the war ended, the communist were seen as heroes and all the rural population took the communist side against the nationalists.
What country are you from? Where do they teach such things? Your statement is mainly false but has some truth in it, but the truthful part is vastly oversimplified. It is well known in China that one reason the Nationalist forces lost the civil war was because all their strength was spent fighting against the Japanese... A few years ago it was revealed that Mao Zedong said "true Chinese patriots should allow the Japanese to conquer more of China." What he meant was that "true Chinese patriots" (communists) will want Japan to fight and weaken Nationalist armies and bases. Mao predicted that Japan would lose the war in the long run because the Allies were too numerous and powerful compared to the Axis. But in the short run Mao wanted Japan to undermine the Nationalists (who controlled most of China) and when WWII was finally over the communists would be in a better position. Before WWII, Mao's army was tiny compared with the Nationalists, but with Japanese help Mao could fight the Nationalists on better terms. The only reason the rural population took the communist side during the civil war was that the corrupt, greedy Nationalist politicians alienated farmers, even though the Nationalist army bravely resisted Japan while Mao's communists cynically sat by.

For the past few decades the Chinese communist government has altered the history curricula, tampered with evidence, and rewritten history books to put themselves in a better light and make the Nationalists look bad. Chinese history textbooks tell about heroic communist guerillas fighting Japan but they ignore the fact that most of the land Japan conquered in south China was populated by Nationalists and Nationalist sympathizers, and obviously the grass-roots resistance in these areas was organized by local Nationalist leaders and recruited from the local pro-Nationalist population. Most of the communists were based in central China, which was never occupied by Japan. Another example of communist revisionism is the story of the monument built in Hangzhou dedicated to the 88th Division of the Nationalist Army, which bravely defended Shanghai from a Japanese attack in 1937. The communists destroyed the monument because it celebrated the heroic Nationalist army. Since Mao has died, however, the communist party is becoming more truthful in the way it treats history, and in 1996 the monument was rebuilt.
Bodies Without Organs
14-09-2004, 23:23
m8 i know you may be patriotic, but surely your not comparing Japanese camps with german camps...


Given the choice I would chose to be interned in German camps above Japanese ones like a shot. The POW camps run by the Japanese had a 66% fatality rate for some nationalities, they made the German POW facilities look like holiday camps.
Bodies Without Organs
14-09-2004, 23:25
uh, yeah i think they meant


3)the abortion of operation sealion, just as the RAF was about to break, as well as switching targets from airfields to london, giving the RAF time to recover.

You seem to be missing the important fact here that Operation Sealion would have been a complete disaster, even if the Germans had enough men and equipment to carry it out. It was pure and simple a ludicrous plan. About the only way it could have been a success was if morale in the UK had already been completely broken, and that was far from being the case.
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 23:30
Given the choice I would chose to be interned in German camps above Japanese ones like a shot. The POW camps run by the Japanese had a 66% fatality rate for some nationalities, they made the German POW facilities look like holiday camps.
Plus there was the Japanese mentality. They were completely indoctrinated with the Bushido code. That meant that surrender was a disgrace and those who surrendered where cowards. The Japanese often tended to shoot enemy soldiers who surrenderd. Unless they were severly wounded.
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 23:32
You seem to be missing the important fact here that Operation Sealion would have been a complete disaster, even if the Germans had enough men and equipment to carry it out. It was pure and simple a ludicrous plan. About the only way it could have been a success was if morale in the UK had already been completely broken, and that was far from being the case.
That didn't stop them from taking France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia etc.....Had they made landfall, which would only be an option in the absence of the Royal Navy, Britain would just as well have fallen.
Bodies Without Organs
14-09-2004, 23:36
Found the reference:

Deaths of POWs in German camps: 4%
Deaths of POWs in Japanese camps: 27%

Breaking down the Japanese POW camp for different nationalities:
American 34%
Australian 33%
British 32%
Dutch 20% (low rate attributed to medical experience from the Dutch East Indies)

I seem to recall that the deaths of Japanese guards due to disease and sickness in some camps also hovered around the 30% mark.
CSW
14-09-2004, 23:36
That didn't stop them from taking France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia etc.....Had they made landfall, which would only be an option in the absence of the Royal Navy, Britain would just as well have fallen.
No, I disagree, I doubt that the Germans would have been able to put across a large Panzer Division (and keep them supplied/up to ToE), which means that they would lose in a war that pitches heavily armed and patriotic troops against German infantry men (Stalingrad writ larger).
Mr Basil Fawlty
14-09-2004, 23:37
Depends on what kind of war you're talking about. If you're talking land war, give that to Russia. If naval war, give that to the US. But overall, I'd have to say US.
.

Ever heared about a nation named Brittain? Well, for me and most US historions on the WWII sites that I join, their naval power was more important on the Western front then that of the US (wich I respect for the contribution). Even in Air power, the Brits where more important since the tonage of bombs droped on the western front is higher then that of the US.

But the Brits killed more citizens over all since they did not follow the original US strategy to bomb industrial complexes and the millitary functions of Germany. Later on, (after Schweinfurt1 and 2) the US agreed that it was best to follow Haris the Butchers strategy and attack the civilians to break morale (wich failed), since they where less defended then the industrial sites.

You 're right about Russia and since you are US, I'll give your nation and the UK commonwealth and the 300.000 free French that joined the allies after Vichy's death, the credit that the Russians did not reach the Atlantic coast because of the invasion in Normandy.
Chai-latte
14-09-2004, 23:38
It's a tie between the USA and USSR for me.

The USA had to fight on two fronts. Through clever naval tactics and technological supremacy, they forced imperial Japan up against the wall. Operation Overlord was amazing. It wasn't exclusively American, but it would have failed without them. The US Army liberated western Europe.

I pick Eisenhower as best general.


USA technological supremacy? have you looked at a history book? The USA's tech was by far inferior to pretty much everyone elses. As someone else has already said, 1 german tank could EASILY take out several American ones. I believe the American troops called thier tanks 'matchboxes' as in 1 strike and they go up in flames. The German guns wiped the floor with American ones, aside, perhaps from the rather delish M1 rifle, and Russian and German tanks pissed on the American ones, and the RAF planes (and pilots - British AND Internationals) could have blown the shit out of the USAAF, and whats more you know it.

America won on weight of numbers and limitless funds. And not to take away from anything those brave Americans did back then, but really, please stop believing hollywood about America winning everything. Every country except Russia, and those occupied, were fighting on more than 1 front.
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 23:40
No, I disagree, I doubt that the Germans would have been able to put across a large Panzer Division (and keep them supplied/up to ToE), which means that they would lose in a war that pitches heavily armed and patriotic troops against German infantry men (Stalingrad writ larger).
Well, BWO was acting under the if they had the material to do so scenario.
Bodies Without Organs
14-09-2004, 23:41
That didn't stop them from taking France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia etc.....Had they made landfall, which would only be an option in the absence of the Royal Navy, Britain would just as well have fallen.

I find the arguments for the implausibility of Operation Sealion as outlined here quite convincing:

http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm#part2


True, if there had been a Quisling in office, or if the blitz had been able to lower national morale to a desparate level, then a military conquest would have been uneccessary, but there are few signs to show that the spirit of the UK would have been broken by continued targetting of cities.

If anything I find Operation Kathleen - the plan to invade Northern Ireland supported by the IRA - a slightly more convincing plan, but that is saying very little positive about either plan.
Antebellum South
14-09-2004, 23:45
Plus there was the Japanese mentality. They were completely indoctrinated with the Bushido code. That meant that surrender was a disgrace and those who surrendered where cowards. The Japanese often tended to shoot enemy soldiers who surrenderd. Unless they were severly wounded.
The Japanese were also taught by the militarist education system that non-Japanese were animals. To them, shooting a British or Chinese, whether POW or civilian, was like killing vermin and nothing to feel bad about.
Mr Basil Fawlty
14-09-2004, 23:45
That didn't stop them from taking France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia etc.....Had they made landfall, which would only be an option in the absence of the Royal Navy, Britain would just as well have fallen.

Of course, but they had the channel and Guderians armor divisions were stoped by the great all knowing corporal, even todays Brittish historians agree with this (based on the facts).
My grandad was on a boat in Dunkerque, but then the Belgian army capitulated (while covering the retread for the expedition force with some French units). on the boat they were told to get of and make place for UK and French soldiers. He was lucky since he put on civilian clothes with hois friends and used some Belgian horses to get to Ypres from where they hiked home. Most escaped German POW captivity, some that still had their uniform and tried to break German lines as a group were (regularly like the war laws say) taken POW. My grandad arived in Aalst 3 days after the capitulation.

He still says he was lucky since it spared him of 4 years England witouth seeing his loved ones.
Bodies Without Organs
14-09-2004, 23:46
As someone else has already said, 1 german tank could EASILY take out several American ones. I believe the American troops called thier tanks 'matchboxes' as in 1 strike and they go up in flames.

"Ronsons" and the term was generally attached to the early model Shermans.

However, a couple of points to be borne in mind:

The Shermans weren't designed to take out tanks, they were designed to support the infantry. Tank Destroyers were meant to take out enemy tanks.

More importantly, the US did have technological supremacy in that it was able to outproduce the Axis: who cares if it takes 5-6 Shermans to take out a Tiger if you are making 8 Shermans for every Tiger and have the manpower to replace lost crews?*



* numbers pulled somewhat out of my ass, but they are reasonable estimates.
Bodies Without Organs
14-09-2004, 23:48
The Japanese were also taught by the militarist education system that non-Japanese were animals. To them, shooting a British or Chinese, whether POW or civilian, was like killing vermin and nothing to feel bad about.


IIRC the most hated prison guards were not the Japanese but the Koreans: the Japanese would mistreat and abuse them, and they in turn would take it out on the POWs and internees. Such is the nature of dehumanisation.
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 23:49
I find the arguments for the implausibility of Operation Sealion as outlined here quite convincing:

http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm#part2


True, if there had been a Quisling in office, or if the blitz had been able to lower national morale to a desparate level, then a military conquest would have been uneccessary, but there are few signs to show that the spirit of the UK would have been broken by continued targetting of cities.

If anything I find Operation Kathleen - the plan to invade Northern Ireland supported by the IRA - a slightly more convincing plan, but that is saying very little positive about either plan.
Well yes. The Germans didn't have what it took to cross the channel and bring in reinforcements and supplies. But you said if they had the material.
CSW
14-09-2004, 23:49
Well, BWO was acting under the if they had the material to do so scenario.
Which is a bit implausable.
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 23:51
Which is a bit implausable.
*sigh*Of course it is since they did not have the materials to cross. Plus the navy would not have been able to provide adecuate protection for the landing vessels. (which they didn't have either)
Joey P
14-09-2004, 23:51
"Ronsons" and the term was generally attached to the early model Shermans.

However, a couple of points to be borne in mind:

The Shermans weren't designed to take out tanks, they were designed to support the infantry. Tank Destroyers were meant to take out enemy tanks.

More importantly, the US did have technological supremacy in that it was able to outproduce the Axis: who cares if it takes 5-6 Shermans to take out a Tiger if you are making 8 Shermans for every Tiger and have the manpower to replace lost crews?*



* numbers pulled somewhat out of my ass, but they are reasonable estimates.
I would think the tank crews would care.
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 23:54
I would think the tank crews would care.
Especially since the early Shermans in North Africa used by the British sometimes caught fire without even beeing shot at. The Germans nicked them the Tommy Cookers.
Bodies Without Organs
14-09-2004, 23:55
Well yes. The Germans didn't have what it took to cross the channel and bring in reinforcements and supplies. But you said if they had the material.

Suggesting that they would have had the material is entering into the realm of alternate history: however, having the resources and having a workable plan to get it across the Channel without greivous loses and massive supply problems are two very different things. In my opinion the Germans failed in the planning stage, which renders the point of actual material moot.
Andaluciae
14-09-2004, 23:55
In which alternate universe are you currently located?


Clearly a messed up one.

OK, here is how it went down, just for Tippman's enlightenment.

Germany busts up Poland.
Britain and France declare war on Germany as result of attack against Poland.
Germany busts up low countries.
Germany busts up France, kicks Brits off continent.
Germany relocates East, busts up European Russia.
Winter of that year is really cold, halts German advance not far from Moscow.
Japan bombs Pearl Harbor, declares war on US.
US declares war on Japan.
Germany and Italy declare war on US, as per treaty with Japan.
US declares war on Germany, Italy.
Soviets bust up German army in Stalingrad.
US, Britain, Canada invades Normandy in funktastic style.
Western Allies advance to Rhine.
Soviets advance to East Prussia.
Germans divert forces from East to West, Battle of the Bulge.
Western Allies bust up German army group.
Western Allies advance to agreed eastern line.
Soviets occupy rest of Germany.

That's how it is.
Antebellum South
14-09-2004, 23:55
IIRC the most hated prison guards were not the Japanese but the Koreans: the Japanese would mistreat and abuse them, and they in turn would take it out on the POWs and internees. Such is the nature of dehumanisation.
Yes, by taking advantage of human nature the militarist regime fostered many twisted individuals to do their dirty work. The Japanese recruited non-Japanese manual laborers from their colonies in Korea and Taiwan and dozens of Koreans and Taiwanese prison guards ended up being executed for war crimes at the Tokyo tribunal. Footsoldiers in the Japanese army were also brutalized and dehumanized by their officers in order to make them more sadistic and efficient killers.
Von Witzleben
14-09-2004, 23:58
Clearly a messed up one.

OK, here is how it went down, just for Tippman's enlightenment.

Germany busts up Poland.
Britain and France declare war on Germany as result of attack against Poland.
Germany busts up low countries.
Germany busts up France, kicks Brits off continent.
Germany relocates East, busts up European Russia.
Winter of that year is really cold, halts German advance not far from Moscow.
Japan bombs Pearl Harbor, declares war on US.
US declares war on Japan.
Germany and Italy declare war on US, as per treaty with Japan.
US declares war on Germany, Italy.
Soviets bust up German army in Stalingrad.
US, Britain, Canada invades Normandy in funktastic style.
Western Allies advance to Rhine.
Soviets advance to East Prussia.
Germans divert forces from East to West, Battle of the Bulge.
Western Allies bust up German army group.
Western Allies advance to agreed eastern line.
Soviets occupy rest of Germany.

That's how it is.
What happened to Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece and the North African campaign?
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 00:00
I would think the tank crews would care.

Indeed, but as I said, the US tanks were not designed or intended to fight other tanks - that was the job of tank destroyers and anti-tank guns. I did also read somewhere that the Shermans tended to have a greater rate of crew survival when they were knocked out than the Panzers, but all I can do now is relate that as anecdotal.
Tyrandis
15-09-2004, 00:01
Britain.

They stood alone against an unstoppable German Luftwaffe and came out victorious with untrained pilots, a shortage of planes, no allies, and suffering terror bombings.
Antebellum South
15-09-2004, 00:01
What happened to Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece and the North African campaign?
He also left out all the campaigns of East Asia and the front between Finland and USSR.
Andaluciae
15-09-2004, 00:03
Ever heared about a nation named Brittain? Well, for me and most US historions on the WWII sites that I join, their naval power was more important on the Western front then that of the US (wich I respect for the contribution). Even in Air power, the Brits where more important since the tonage of bombs droped on the western front is higher then that of the US.

But the Brits killed more citizens over all since they did not follow the original US strategy to bomb industrial complexes and the millitary functions of Germany. Later on, (after Schweinfurt1 and 2) the US agreed that it was best to follow Haris the Butchers strategy and attack the civilians to break morale (wich failed), since they where less defended then the industrial sites.

You 're right about Russia and since you are US, I'll give your nation and the UK commonwealth and the 300.000 free French that joined the allies after Vichy's death, the credit that the Russians did not reach the Atlantic coast because of the invasion in Normandy.

The big thing to remember about air power is that the Brits did more strategic bombing, while the Americans did more tactical air support, so, the numbers wouldn't be comparable.
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 00:06
What happened to Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece and the North African campaign?

Oh come on, the alternative is going with Tippman's history...


...personally I'd want to add the allied landings in Sicily and Italy for the sake of covering the opening up of a European front prior to D-Day,* but at least that outline above gives some help to Tippman. I'll also note that the war in Asia is only very sparsely covered.




* We will ignore the Canadian landings at Dieppe for the sake of clarity.
Jebustan
15-09-2004, 00:11
Germany. If they had the resources and manpower of the USSR, we'd all be speaking German now.

Finland also did pretty good. They hald out against the Soviets, despite their small population. USSR only won there because of sheer numbers, not military skill.
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 00:12
To return to the question of what nation was the post efficient in World War II, maybe we should be looking at those nations which were pretty much only nominally at war, yet still came out on the side of the victors: nations like the South American ones - wasn't Brazil the only one to actually send troops into battle?
New York and Jersey
15-09-2004, 00:13
Well WWII just wasnt about one theater. It's such a broad concept to determine who was the best in all of WWII. So here it is:

Pacific: US
Africa: Germany closely followed by the Brits
Italy: Americans
Western Europe: Americans(Sorry Brits, Monty screwed up royally with Market Garden 8,000 paratroopers lost cant be overlooked)
Eastern Europe: Russians

Best General-
Pacific-Halsey(Okay he's an Admiral but the Pacific is mostly ocean anyway)
Africa-Rommel
Italy-Patton
W. Europe-Patton
Eastern Europe-Zhukov
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 00:13
Germany. If they had the resources and manpower of the USSR, we'd all be speaking German now.

You say that as if speaking German is, in itself, a bad thing.
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 00:14
Africa: Germany closely followed by the Brits

Despite the fact that they (the Germans) lost that campaign?
Von Witzleben
15-09-2004, 00:14
Germany. If they had the resources and manpower of the USSR, we'd all be speaking German now.
And whats wrong with German?
New York and Jersey
15-09-2004, 00:17
Despite the fact that they (the Germans) lost that campaign?

The Brits would have lost had Rommel gotten the supplies and equipment he requested. Rommel's cheif enemy was logistical problems. Not the British.
Mr Basil Fawlty
15-09-2004, 00:18
What happened to Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece and the North African campaign?

He forgot Arnhem (since he mattered about the Ardennes), Charkov (after Stalingrad that stabilised the eastern front), Kursk (important since the huge loss in Russian lives and the loss of taking large scale Panzer initiativs against the Red Army after it). He also did not speak about the Atlantic situation or the 1944 summer offensive of Zjukov that gave Germany a loss (wounded and captivity included) of about 600.000 persons. aso. (can add much more that are at least as important as the Bulge)

His want's to and he is a OK guy but I would like to see more the that list, and more complete witouth getting in to details (wich I like but most people are not specialised in WWII here, specially not those with a Republican agenda or anti EU agenda).

If you all want I can get at batalion level in actions. (will be links to some history forums, won't type that ;) )
Imperial Protectorates
15-09-2004, 00:19
Montgomery is coming in for a lot of praise, and he is worthy of it, but El Alamein wasn't such a grat victory as many people think. Rommel was vastly outnumbered, and Monty's plan to carve a path through the minefields to get to the Nazis took about 3 nights, instead of the planned one, and thus many casualties.

Rommel was a very good general, there's no denying that. There is also Marshal Zukhov of the USSR - he led the Soviet advance to Germany, and accepted the German surrender - a very effective tank commander.

However, there is one general who is often overlooked, who was in Africa at the start, when Britain still controlled most of it. Unfortunately, I can't remember his name off hand - perhaps Stanley, but feel free to correct me. Even vastly out-numbered, he managed to turn back the Italian advance, and almost pushed them out of Africa entirely. Then Rommel came with re-inforcements, and the British were pushed back. Stanley was unfortunately captured during the retreat, and spent most of the war as a PoW. An oft-forgotten general, considering he almost did what we had to have Monty and superior numbers do later.
Mr Basil Fawlty
15-09-2004, 00:21
And whats wrong with German?

Nothing, but i am happy that I don't speak Russian or would live in a German puppet nation ;)

BTW, I do speak the beautifull language of Goethe :fluffle:
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 00:22
The Brits would have lost had Rommel gotten the supplies and equipment he requested. Rommel's cheif enemy was logistical problems. Not the British.

Here's how I would rate the various nations involved in North Africa, worst to best:

Vichy French
USA (but they learned very quickly)
Italians (despite widespread surrender they fought very well at times, and Rommel had a very high opinion of their Infantry, rating them above the Germans, IIRC)
Free French
German/UK/Britsh Empire Forces

I'm sure there is a glaring omission there which you all will leap on and mock me for: be my guest.
Jebustan
15-09-2004, 00:22
And whats wrong with German?

Nothing's wrong with German. I'm just saying that if Germany had the resources and manpower of the USSR, they probably would have conquered most of the world, and annexed it. We would all be German citizens speaking German.

How could anyone possibly get offended by what I said?
Imperial Protectorates
15-09-2004, 00:23
I really wish I could speak German better.

Mind you, I wish the same of French, Spanish, Russian - so many languages, so little time :(
Mr Basil Fawlty
15-09-2004, 00:33
Here's how I would rate the various nations involved in North Africa, worst to best:

Vichy French
USA (but they learned very quickly)
Italians (despite widespread surrender they fought very well at times, and Rommel had a very high opinion of their Infantry, rating them above the Germans, IIRC)
Free French
German/UK/Britsh Empire Forces

I'm sure there is a glaring omission there which you all will leap on and mock me for: be my guest.

No, since I see that you made the difference between the Free French and Vichy (great) Just reading a book about Monte Cassino in wich 2 US divisions did not make it to concuer a sector, after 2 months battle. They were replaced by Free French that included a lot of die hard mountain soldiers (Gaumiers, terrible reputation against the Italian citizens in rape aso) that took the sector in 14 days.
I also see that you are not pushing the Italians in the corner where historians of the 50ties put them. Now we know more about elite divisions like the Ariete div. that did well in the African campâign and were respected by their German alies.

I will hit the one that mocks about that post of ya :)
Moonseed
15-09-2004, 00:35
I do recall reading somewhere that the British forces in Tunisia towards the end of the North Africa campaigns were somewhat embarrased when American reinforcements showed up and were almost as good as they were, despite most of them having no experience as compared to the British and Australians...

As for the commanders in North Africa before Montgomery; there were several I think, all with varying degrees of success. It was a back-and-forth war in North Africa. Italy advanced well into Egypt and was pushed back almost out of Libya altogether by British and Commonwealth forces. Germany stepped in and Britain was pushed back into Egypt, leaving behind a garrison under seige in Tobruk (indeed, with a large Australian contingent) which spent many months building up their defenses. Britain eventually pushed the Germans and Italians back again, and the seige was lifted, but two months later the Germans were back again, and this time Tobruk was taken. Getting desperate, when Churchill was asked by Roosevelt what America could do to help, Churchill replied something like 'Give me some tanks' and so they did, and Montgomery showed up, and Germany/Italy was pushed back for the third and final time.

Worth noting that the reason for it being so back-and-forth was supply lines. Both sides suffered identical problems - lengthening of supply lines, supplies becoming overstretched as they advance.

Unfortunately I can't recall the exact dates for all these events but I can look them up pretty quickly if anyone wants to know.
Moonseed
15-09-2004, 00:41
No, since I see that you made the difference between the Free French and Vichy (great) Just reading a book about Monte Cassino in wich 2 US divisions did not make it to concuer a sector, after 2 months battle. They were replaced by Free French that included a lot of die hard mountain soldiers (Gaumiers, terrible reputation against the Italian citizens in rape aso) that took the sector in 14 days.
I also see that you are not pushing the Italians in the corner where historians of the 50ties put them. Now we know more about elite divisions like the Ariete div. that did well in the African campâign and were respected by their German alies.

I will hit the one that mocks about that post of ya :)

Of course! you reminded me about the Free French forces involved in the early stages of the Italy campaign. The French Expeditionary Forces from Morrocco and Algeria were THE best troops fighting in Italy, along with some Polish units, until August 1944 when they were diverted to aid in the invasion of southern France
Mr Basil Fawlty
15-09-2004, 00:43
I do recall reading somewhere that the British forces in Tunisia towards the end of the North Africa campaigns were somewhat embarrased when American reinforcements showed up and were almost as good as they were, despite most of them having no experience as compared to the British and Australians...

As for the commanders in North Africa before Montgomery; there were several I think, all with varying degrees of success. It was a back-and-forth war in North Africa. Italy advanced well into Egypt and was pushed back almost out of Libya altogether by British and Commonwealth forces. Germany stepped in and Britain was pushed back into Egypt, leaving behind a garrison under seige in Tobruk (indeed, with a large Australian contingent) which spent many months building up their defenses. Britain eventually pushed the Germans and Italians back again, and the seige was lifted, but two months later the Germans were back again, and this time Tobruk was taken. Getting desperate, when Churchill was asked by Roosevelt what America could do to help, Churchill replied something like 'Give me some tanks' and so they did, and Montgomery showed up, and Germany/Italy was pushed back for the third and final time.

Worth noting that the reason for it being so back-and-forth was supply lines. Both sides suffered identical problems - lengthening of supply lines, supplies becoming overstretched as they advance.

Unfortunately I can't recall the exact dates for all these events but I can look them up pretty quickly if anyone wants to know.

Can't agree more but the Brits did it with Matilda tanks and Churchill tanks (Mark IV)and had their own build up, US armour was not really important for the Eastern (Brittish) theatre in Africa in the push till Tunesia,it helped but not like it did as in Normandy.And the US invasion in Vichy Africa helped to since the Africa corps had to fought on two fronts. In the end they gave the US a fist in th eface at the Kasserine (pass), wich is still an example in millitary education about how to hit superior numbers with lesser people and better tactics (sic, not strategy).
Mr Basil Fawlty
15-09-2004, 00:48
Moonseed, interessed in joining or just visiting for the info, one of the most specialised WWII sites I know?

It is multinational, people from around the globe post and it is, I think the best one (I am on several ones but that one is the best). The administrator is a Swede, most posters are US-EU followed at a close distance by Russia and Asians.

I'll post it here, just a second.Feel free to join or take and paste what you want.

http://forum.axishistory.com/

bTW, it researches every theatre and don't be affraid of the name of the site, those people are absolutely not Nazi or so, just history and facts.
Slovyania
15-09-2004, 00:54
Russia since we faced the highest losses and were the ones who got to Berlin. Stalin is by far the best case of "let your generals do their job, dumbass"
Skepticism
15-09-2004, 01:06
I respect Rommel, but I think he should of been sent to a better station then that of North Africa or France.

Actually, Africa was the perfect place. Rommel shone as a divisional commander, but was really not that good while leading an army. Since the Afrika Korps were little more than a divisional force, Rommel did well with them, just as he did with his "Ghost Division" in France.

Best general for the whole war I would have to go with the Finn Mannenheim, who managed to hold off the Soviet invasion for some time and inflicted a 10:1 casualty ratio.

Research for, of all thing, war simulation computer games, has led to the general agreement among statisticians that German divisions started and remained "more efficient" -- that is to say better at fighting -- throughout the entire war, although their edge blunted as the war ended.

Even at their worst, however, a typical German division could be expected to attack an equivilant Soviet, American, British, or ANZAC division and defeat it. It just became a small matter of getting those divisions together, fuelled, fed, etc., which Germany eventually could not do.

If nothing else, look at the pilots. All of the top 10 aces (and most of the top 100, if not all) are Eastern Front Germans, many which over 200 kills.

What's more, German officers and NCO's were always far and away the best, and German infantry weapons were so good that they remain in use today (AK-47=SG-44; MG-42=M60). By the end of the war, Germany also had the best tank (Panther), airplane (Me-262), rocket weaponry, radio-guided bombs, cruise missiles, and a U-boat which could go faster underwater than merchant ships could above it. They lost mostly because they ran out of people to fight and the capacity to build weapons at all.

Arguably the most important single figure of World War II, after it started, was Albert Speer. Were it not for his incredible boosts in productivity, Germany could have lost years earlier.
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 01:42
What's more, German officers and NCO's were always far and away the best, and German infantry weapons were so good that they remain in use today (AK-47=SG-44; MG-42=M60).

I'm not an expert on these things, but saying that Ak-47=SG-44 & MG-42=M60 seems totally incorrect to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.
Purly Euclid
15-09-2004, 01:54
Ever heared about a nation named Brittain? Well, for me and most US historions on the WWII sites that I join, their naval power was more important on the Western front then that of the US (wich I respect for the contribution). Even in Air power, the Brits where more important since the tonage of bombs droped on the western front is higher then that of the US.

But the Brits killed more citizens over all since they did not follow the original US strategy to bomb industrial complexes and the millitary functions of Germany. Later on, (after Schweinfurt1 and 2) the US agreed that it was best to follow Haris the Butchers strategy and attack the civilians to break morale (wich failed), since they where less defended then the industrial sites.

You 're right about Russia and since you are US, I'll give your nation and the UK commonwealth and the 300.000 free French that joined the allies after Vichy's death, the credit that the Russians did not reach the Atlantic coast because of the invasion in Normandy.
Hhow about the Pacific theater? British warships had a role in the Atlantic by default, as their fleets were right there. The American fleets, however, were in the Pacific. With the exception of the Southern Asia theater, the British did not have the main role in that area. I don't blame them, really, as they were very busy back home in Europe.
Moonseed
15-09-2004, 01:57
Moonseed, interessed in joining or just visiting for the info, one of the most specialised WWII sites I know?

It is multinational, people from around the globe post and it is, I think the best one (I am on several ones but that one is the best). The administrator is a Swede, most posters are US-EU followed at a close distance by Russia and Asians.

I'll post it here, just a second.Feel free to join or take and paste what you want.

http://forum.axishistory.com/

bTW, it researches every theatre and don't be affraid of the name of the site, those people are absolutely not Nazi or so, just history and facts.

thanks, i'll check it out. I'm not really a world war two expert, I've just read a few books on it out of interest, and a fair bit of it stuck...
Ravea
15-09-2004, 02:05
Russia, especially at Stalingrad.
Von Witzleben
15-09-2004, 02:16
Arguably the most important single figure of World War II, after it started, was Albert Speer. Were it not for his incredible boosts in productivity, Germany could have lost years earlier.
Still. Production didn't switch to total war mode untill 1944. And by then it was to late. Hitler even decreased military production just shortly before Barbarossa startet. After the successes in the West he was convinced that the war in the East could be won in a matter of weeks.
Perrien
15-09-2004, 02:43
The US, everyone else was a waste of sperm.

:upyours:
Stephistan
15-09-2004, 02:57
Without the USSR they could of never won , so I'm going with the USSR who gave more to WWII then any other country!
CSW
15-09-2004, 02:58
The US, everyone else was a waste of sperm.

:upyours:
Well then, that settles it. Anyone up for a cup of tea?
Chikyota
15-09-2004, 02:59
Without the USSR they could of never won , so I'm going with the USSR who gave more to WWII then any other country!
I was waiting for someone to finally acknowledge the USSR's leading role. Thank you.
New York and Jersey
15-09-2004, 03:05
As I've said before WWII wasnt just Europe. It was also the pacific, in which Russia did jackshit until the final week of the war. Out of two parts of the war, Russia only played a big part in one. And by no means were they the ultimate part. Remember Germany was fighting a two front war from the start, and that expanded to three fronts by Normandy. (They were fighting in Italy after the Italians collapse).
Purly Euclid
15-09-2004, 03:11
As I've said before WWII wasnt just Europe. It was also the pacific, in which Russia did jackshit until the final week of the war. Out of two parts of the war, Russia only played a big part in one. And by no means were they the ultimate part. Remember Germany was fighting a two front war from the start, and that expanded to three fronts by Normandy. (They were fighting in Italy after the Italians collapse).
The Germans actually sent about twenty or so divisions from the Eastern Front to Italy. I think people are forgetting how big a part that was. By many estimates, for example, total battle deaths for the US military were light, at just 440,000 (compared to over twelve million of the Soviets). Nearly all of the army casualties of 130,000 died while liberating Italy.
The Force Majeure
15-09-2004, 03:43
Without the USSR they could of never won , so I'm going with the USSR who gave more to WWII then any other country!

Let's not confuse most casualities/kills with who did the best job.
Austrealite
15-09-2004, 06:00
I'm not an expert on these things, but saying that Ak-47=SG-44 & MG-42=M60 seems totally incorrect to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.

I have no idea why he said that...

The AK was based off the SG-44, but improvements were made.

The part about the MG-42 becoming the basis for the M60 is complete rubbish, the MG-42 is still around today (known as the MG3 GPMG), used by Germany, Australia and many other nations. The only difference is the Rate of Fire is slower to prevent such bad overheating that was very common during WW2.
Squi
15-09-2004, 06:02
I'm not an expert on these things, but saying that Ak-47=SG-44 & MG-42=M60 seems totally incorrect to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.
The Kalisnikov people say that the AK-47 is not derived from the SG-44 but there is a widely held belief that it is, I remain divided on the issue, there are enough similarities that the derivation argument looks good, but the Kalisnikov people also have some good points. You can probably find a good deal about the argument if you wish online or you just accept that the conventional wisdom (disputed) is that the AK-47 is derived from the SG-44.

The M-60 actually does owe a fair ammount of it's design to the MG-42 / after WW II the US considered adopting the MG-42 but had a few problems with it, so they tinkered with basic design, added some features from the FG-42, changed the ammo ejection system, and produced the M-60.
Panhandlia
15-09-2004, 06:04
Eisenhower: Great diplomatic general. New what to do and when to do it. Didn't eave any part of his operations out. Looked at every detail and listened to everyone.

Montgomery: Great field general but a bit to egotistical.

Patton: Probably the best field general. A bit hard on his soldiers and hated the Soviet Union.

Erwin Rommel: Very smart.

Those are some of them.
Good collection. You forgot to list VonRundstedt, Doernitz, McArthur, Bradley, Halsey, Nimitz, Spaatz, LeMay, Doolittle, Quezada, et al...
Colodia
15-09-2004, 06:05
Which nation do you think was the best fighting nation of WWII? And just to add on to this, who do you think was the best General? Which do you think was most efficient, who do you think did the most for final victory in Europe and the Pacific?

Respond all you want.
Best Fighters - Russians, "Victory or Death!...litterally"
Best General - No clue
Most efficient - Americans, packing up their stuff from Japan and shipping it all the way to Europe
Most for the final victory - Draw, everyone did their most. Per capita, I guess the Canadians. But that's debatable due to the broad question.
Forumwalker
15-09-2004, 08:24
Which nation do you think was the best fighting nation of WWII? And just to add on to this, who do you think was the best General? Which do you think was most efficient, who do you think did the most for final victory in Europe and the Pacific?

Respond all you want.

Hmm, Germany had the best weapons and such during the time. They just roared over everybody else through the war. But just couldn't last against the many nations on the Allies' side bearing down on them.

Britain kicked ass too. Stayed in it for a while as the only country fighting Germany. Did a damn good job defending itself. But if it wasn't on and island and was on the mainland, they prolly wouldn't fallen.

USSR kicked loads of ass. They had lots of men, but they were poorly trained and they're weapons weren't that good. Just the fact that they turned around in Stalingrad and pushed into Berlin is amazing.

USA did a great job in the Pacific. Lost the majority of its fleet at Pearl Harbor, but came in and pushed the Japs backward.

Of course it wasn't only one nation on each front. Like the Australians fought with the US in the Pacific to push back the Japs. I remember hearing the Canadians did great over in Europe too.

But for the best in each theater, I'd go for the Russians in Europe for doing a lot with very little and the US in the Pacific for winning after losing a good portion of their fleet. The rest of the props go to Britain, Australia, and Canada prolly in that order too.

Best general? Eh, I dunno.
SimonFox
15-09-2004, 08:35
lol thats WW1, hitler never invaded Russia, and it was the US who declared war on Germany, Russia entered the war in the final stages because it wanted to have part of germany when the war ended.

Hitler didn't invade Russia? Ever hear of Operation Barbarossa?
Arcadian Mists
15-09-2004, 08:35
I'm going to go ahead and give France an A for effort. Geographically, France is really easy to invade and it came as no suprise when it fell. Still, perfectly average French citizens continued to desperately resist the German occupational forces right up until the end.

Any Red Dwarf fans here? I'm reminded of War World, where WWII never ended. The allies just became "La Resistance", who were just thin Frenchmen with never-ending cigarettes and glasses of wine in one hand and a rifle in the other.

"Ah, Herr Rimmer. Might you enlighten us on how you managed to escape your bonds?"
"It was simply a matter of dislocating both shoulders, popping them behind my back, and slipping through the ropes. And it will take MAJOR theraputic surgery for them to heal, but rest assured, that won't prevent me from rescuing the princess."
"How delightful. Take him in back, explain to him all of our diobolical plans, and then throw him off the plane."
"You expect me to comply?"
"No, Herr Rimmer, I expect you to die!"

Ace Rimmer. What a guy.
NianNorth
15-09-2004, 08:43
Hitler didn't invade Russia? Ever hear of Operation Barbarossa?
No Germany declared war on the US.
Big Jim P
15-09-2004, 09:45
:sniper: :mp5:

U
S
A.


We did. :mad:

jim
Erinnah
15-09-2004, 09:52
Which nation do you think was the best fighting nation of WWII? And just to add on to this, who do you think was the best General? Which do you think was most efficient, who do you think did the most for final victory in Europe and the Pacific?

Respond all you want.

The best fighting nation in WWII was Great Britain, as we were least prepared for battle and was involved in the war from the beginning. GB spent the first year of war with hardly any tanks and used poles in hay bales to fool the bombers from the air that we had weapons. We gave Hitler his ultimatum when he invaded Poland - where was the rest of the world, just waiting to see where it all panned out.

Germany admit ably had a great army and infrastructure, but they had been warming up since WW1. So I don't think we can count a nation who started it.

USSR definitely helped finishing the war as it took out Germany on its second front. It was a major contribution to the victory in Europe.

The US sat on the fence for most of WWII and joined when they felt a little threatened. As for the Pacific, they finished it there, but if their "friendly fire" in Pearl Harbour had been less effective I think they would have had a lot less casualties.
Psylos
15-09-2004, 09:56
1/ Germany
2/ USSR
3/ China
4/ Japan
5/ England
6/ France
7/ Yugoslavia
8/ USA (who got involved only in the end)
The State of It
15-09-2004, 10:09
I would say all the allies did the best job, if we are talking about allied powers.

Without each other in one way or another, WW2 would have been harder to win, if not not possible.

So let's not belittle certain nation's efforts (I'm not saying anyone has), for everyone had a hand in final victory.

If we are talking about the Axis, I would say that Germany had a very hardened army that did well to last as long as it did against three 1940's superpowers and their heroic allies.

Japan's soldiers had a tendancy to fight to the death, fought the British and the Americans in a very bloody battle indeed.
Kybernetia
15-09-2004, 10:11
Germany admit ably had a great army and infrastructure, but they had been warming up since WW1. So I don't think we can count a nation who started it..
No, you certainly can´t. Though Germany wasn´t able to prepare itself for war up until the 1930s due to the Versailles treaty. It was due to the unwillingness of the western allies - or you could say their assumption that they could use Hitler as a counter-balance against Stalin - that allowed Germany to breach the provisions by reestablishing a draft in 1935 which increased the military that had been limmited down to 100,000 up to several million, due to the militarisation of the Rhineland, the return of the Saarland in 1935 by France and the appeasement policy in 1938.
It was not up until 1936 Germany began to build up its military capacities systematically: Hitler in a secret order at the end of 1936: The economy needs to be ready for war in four years. It wasn´t really ready in 1939. Though it was enough for Poland - also due to the Hitler-Stalin pact - and others like France, who did really a poor performance.

USSR definitely helped finishing the war as it took out Germany on its second front. It was a major contribution to the victory in Europe.
The USSR did a very poor performance. That was especially due to Stalins ignorance to warnings about a German attack. And they were obvious due to the high troop concentration and secret service reports. Stalin even rejected to sent the troops on high alert or to concentrate more troops at the borders. That behaviour is really a mystery especially given the fact that many others in the leadership tried to convince him at least to put the troops on alert. This behaviour of Stalin certainly prolonged the war - and in that respect also led to more casualties on all siedes.
The role of the US shouldn´t be underestimated. Especially their support for the USSR, the landing in Italy and D-Day were very important moves to end the war.
Though the question is why it was not attempted to land from Italy in the Balcans. That could have led to a staunch attack on Germany from the south.
That may have been quicker than doing that almost entirely from the west.
And the US might have been able to probably secure more parts of Eastern Europe on their side (Yugoslavia, Hungary or others) for the already predictable conflict with the Soviet Union later - the Cold War.
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 13:26
...
5/ England
...

England? I think you mean the UK or the British Commonwealth, or are you selecting the English as better fighters than the Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh?
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 13:28
Most efficient - Americans, packing up their stuff from Japan and shipping it all the way to Europe

Someone explain this to me.
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 13:30
The best fighting nation in WWII was Great Britain, as we were least prepared for battle and was involved in the war from the beginning.

You do know that Great Britain ain't a nation, but instead a landmass? Or are you intentionally marginalising the contribution of Northern Ireland?
Vollmeria
15-09-2004, 13:40
Best Nation: Germany: superior in tech, organization and morale. They lacked equipment and used a variety of captured and/or foreign vehicles and weapons. The organization and supplying of such an army is extremely difficult, that alone proves their their high level of efficiency and organization.

Best General: i dont want to choose between von Manstein, Guderian and Rommel. Rommel never even received a generalstraining yet he made the allies run for their lives in N Africa.
Guderian is the one that put the pieces together and created the Blitzkrieg, so without him(and von Thoma) the war would probably have turned out differently.
And then there's von Mansteinn, a brilliant tactician. the war would have ended much faster then it did without this man on the German side(or with him on the Allied side).
Monkeypimp
15-09-2004, 13:48
New Zealand probably contributed the most reletive to population and distance traveled to get involved :P

Has anybody here outside of NZ heard of Charles Upham (http://www.nzedge.com/heroes/upham.html) or the 28th Maori battalion?

In March 1941, he was a Second Lieutenant in the 20th NZ Battalion in Crete. His display of courage included destroying numerous enemy posts, rescuing a wounded man under fire and penetrating deep behind German lines, killing twenty-two German soldiers on the way to leading out an isolated platoon ? all after being blown over by a mortar shell, painfully wounded in the shoulder by shrapnel and with a bullet in his foot.


28 Mäori Battalion's losses were the highest of any in the New Zealand Division. One man in six was killed. "I believe that when this history is published it will be recognised more widely that no infantry battalion had a more distinguished record, or saw more fighting, or alas, had more casualties as the Maori Battalion" wrote Lieutenant General Lord Freyberg in his foreword to J F Cody's official history.
The State of It
15-09-2004, 13:50
the landing in Italy and D-Day were very important moves to end the war.
Though the question is why it was not attempted to land from Italy in the Balcans. .

From what I've read, this was because the mountainous regions would have slowed the advance enough for the Germans to build a formiddable defence akin to the Gustav line and Monte Cassino.

D-Day as it was, was seen as the quickest route to take, to take the fight to the Germans and take them by surprise: Head on.
Drabikstan
15-09-2004, 14:34
still think the Dutch did a better job than the Australians... Massively outnumbered Australian forces prevented a Japanese invasion of the Australian continent in Papua New Guinea.
Drabikstan
15-09-2004, 14:40
Best fighting nation would have to be Germany, as well as the most efficient. These guys really taught the world about using a modern army. Agreed.
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 15:03
Best fighting nation would have to be Germany, as well as the most efficient. These guys really taught the world about using a modern army.

I don't know about that: there was an awful lot of inefficiency going on as everybody pushed for their own private little projects - exactly how efficient was it to produce limited runs of several different types of tank destroyers which shared few common parts, or impractical monstrosities like the Maus, or the myriad of other off-the-wall fighting vehicles which had more to do with designers' or comissioners' personal senses of pride rather than what was actually needed at the front? All of this going on whilst there was a long running shortage of more basic vehicles like trucks and half-tracks.It pretty much reached its apogee when the new Messerschmits had to be pulled out onto the airfields and serviced by horses due to the lack of motorized utility vehicles...
Beta Eridani
15-09-2004, 15:05
Germany changed the way wars were fought, the Blitzkrieg advances into Poland and France were tactically light-years ahead of anything 'on the books'.

But if I were to pick out a single nation or group, it would be the Ghurkas. Man, those boys were vicious, and jungle warfare against fanatical Japanese troops only too happy to die for the Emperor ... uhuh. What was the General's name? Merril? Merril's marauders? Now those were some vicious fights.

And then, Nikita Kruschev. He just about singlehandedly won the entire war against Germany. Hitler's generals were wrong. Hitler was on the money when he insisted they take Stalingrad against their advice, and Stalin and Kruschev knew it too. If Stalingrad fell, the Soviet Union was finished, politically if not militarily. The Soviet Union was always a fractious array of political views, and Stalingrad was a symbol of the man who kept the Union together in more ways than the Russian army ever could.

Would also add some other Soviet General's here. Molotov for one. What they did, with sheer guts and very little resources, was amazing.

And then, just for fun, I would add the poster-boy of South-East Asian resistance fighters too. A man much funded and trained by the OSS (fore-runner of the CIA), who led a brilliant guerilla war against the Japanese. Some unknown person with the name of Ho Chi Minh. After the war he kicked the French out of his country, and then he went on and kicked the US out too. :p
Magnis
15-09-2004, 16:38
Too many posts to read all off them so apologies if anything here have already been covered.

Best general of the war in my opinion was General William Slim, he turned the demoralised and recently defeated British, Commonwealth, Burmese and Indian units of the 14th Army into a self-sufficient and victorious force. The Burma campaign was the longest fought of the war and was mainly fought in some of the most inhospitable terrain on the planet. The Japanese he fought were the veteran 15th Army, fresh from countless victories and containing some of the best troops on mainland Asia. With few supplies and even fewer reinforcements Slim finally stopped the Japanese advance before beginning his own offensive that finally won the campaign in 1945.

As for the best soldiers, take a look at the Finns in 39. Against overwhelming odds in men, tanks and aircraft this raw citizen levy held its own against the might of Soviet Russia. Only surrendering when the huge number of troops the Soviets threw at them finally began to tell.

On a lighter note, can anyone confirm or refute the story I heard of the American Armour commander who circled his tanks like a wagon train at Kasserine Pass much to the amazement and amusement of the German gunners.
Big Jim P
15-09-2004, 16:47
Too many posts to read all off them so apologies if anything here have already been covered.

Best general of the war in my opinion was General William Slim, he turned the demoralised and recently defeated British, Commonwealth, Burmese and Indian units of the 14th Army into a self-sufficient and victorious force. The Burma campaign was the longest fought of the war and was mainly fought in some of the most inhospitable terrain on the planet. The Japanese he fought were the veteran 15th Army, fresh from countless victories and containing some of the best troops on mainland Asia. With few supplies and even fewer reinforcements Slim finally stopped the Japanese advance before beginning his own offensive that finally won the campaign in 1945.

As for the best soldiers, take a look at the Finns in 39. Against overwhelming odds in men, tanks and aircraft this raw citizen levy held its own against the might of Soviet Russia. Only surrendering when the huge number of troops the Soviets threw at them finally began to tell.

On a lighter note, can anyone confirm or refute the story I heard of the American Armour commander who circled his tanks like a wagon train at Kasserine Pass much to the amazement and amusement of the German gunners.

This one I would like to hear! Circleing tanks in such a manner is an open invite to enemy artillery. Anyone with documentation?

*This has to be a joke*
New York and Jersey
15-09-2004, 17:16
1/ Germany
2/ USSR
3/ China
4/ Japan
5/ England
6/ France
7/ Yugoslavia
8/ USA (who got involved only in the end)

Only in the end? What kind of revisionist BS is that? WWII went technically from 1935(Japans invasion of China) to 1952(the last of the US occupation soldiers left Japan and left the government in the hands of the Diet). The US entered the war in 1941. Right smack dab in the middle of the war.
New York and Jersey
15-09-2004, 17:26
If it is true, then it doesnt surprise me about the battle for the Pass. The U.S. Army was GREEN. Had that been a veteran Marine unit from the Pacific theater things might have been very different but the Army was overly confident in its abilities and in its M3 Lees..those things were shown to suck massively and it was after this battle the M4 Sherman was rushed into production the ill-concieved Lee pulled off and tactics changed.
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 17:29
Too many posts to read all off them so apologies if anything here have already been covered.

Sorry, there were too many posts to read the rest of your post. How's that for rudeness?
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 17:30
...Army was overly confident in its abilities and in its M3 Lees..those things were shown to suck massively and it was after this battle the M4 Sherman was rushed into production the ill-concieved Lee pulled off and tactics changed.

What was so bad about the M3 Lees? They seem like a good solid tank for the time.
New York and Jersey
15-09-2004, 17:40
What was so bad about the M3 Lees? They seem like a good solid tank for the time.

They werent. They were steel bolted tanks and whenever hit there was a high likely hood of those bolts coming loose and shooting through the crew compartment of the tank. Then there was the exceptional high profile of the tank..easy kills for the better Tiger and Panther tanks which had superior range finders. Granted the Lee did marginally better in the Pacific, then again the Japanese had some of the worst tanks of the war..
Trilateral Commission
15-09-2004, 17:44
1/ Germany
2/ USSR
3/ China
4/ Japan
5/ England
6/ France
7/ Yugoslavia
8/ USA (who got involved only in the end)
Having tremendous losses does not equal military effectiveness. China lost millions of people but Chinese guerillas (often armed with clubs and swords) were largely ineffective in fighting the advanced, highly disciplined Japanese army. Chinese guerillas were unable to drive the Japanese from the coast and the Chinese were able to retake land only because the Japanese pulled out units from China to fight Americans in the Pacific islands. The American contribution to Allied success in China and other parts of the Pacific is unmatched, and without the efforts of the American Flying Tigers or the British/American supply lines from India all of China could have collapsed.
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 18:00
Regarding your comments on Lee's against Tiger/Panthers... Tigers and Panthers were the best tanks available to the Axis at that point (and both came into service well after the Lee), and so the comparison seems somewhat unfair: comparing them to IIIs and IVs seems like a somewhat more valid comparison. Also, it should be borne in mind that they were not built or intended to operate in tank on tank combat... as I've said before that was a job for the tank destroyers and the anti-tank guns. The fact that they were effective in the Far East shows that they were not fundamentally flawed in their intended role as infantry support.


Granted the Lee did marginally better in the Pacific, then again the Japanese had some of the worst tanks of the war..

Japanese tank production was seriously hampered when they started running out of paper to armour them with...
Cyber Duck
15-09-2004, 18:18
Enfgaland did the best
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 18:25
Enfgaland did the best


???
New York and Jersey
15-09-2004, 18:44
Regarding your comments on Lee's against Tiger/Panthers... Tigers and Panthers were the best tanks available to the Axis at that point (and both came into service well after the Lee), and so the comparison seems somewhat unfair: comparing them to IIIs and IVs seems like a somewhat more valid comparison. Also, it should be borne in mind that they were not built or intended to operate in tank on tank combat... as I've said before that was a job for the tank destroyers and the anti-tank guns. The fact that they were effective in the Far East shows that they were not fundamentally flawed in their intended role as infantry support.

Production of the Panther Tank was from 42-45, which means Rommel definately had a few of those by Operation Torch in 43. As for the Tiger, go look up on any site to see that Rommel also had a few of those badasses as well. So it wasnt exactly that long after the Lee came into operation. Also, fine, the Lee shouldnt be compared to high class German tanks, however the flaw of the bolts flying through the compartment is still a valid draw back against the tank.It also proved to be the most likely to knock the tank out..who needs a direct kill when even a damaging shot will kill the entire crew on the inside? As for the whole combined tank destroyer doctrine, we're talking about North Africa. Before the US even knew what to do, and to what extent the German tanks could defeat US armor.
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 19:32
Production of the Panther Tank was from 42-45, which means Rommel definately had a few of those by Operation Torch in 43. As for the Tiger, go look up on any site to see that Rommel also had a few of those badasses as well. So it wasnt exactly that long after the Lee came into operation.


Didn't the Lee come into service in mid 1941 - 18 months before the first Tigers? A more appropriate comparison would be to compare it to those models of Panzer which came into service about the same time - the somewhat improved variants of the Mk III and the Mk IV.

Even comparing late model Shermans to Panthers or Tigers will mark down the US tanks as all but useless.


Also, fine, the Lee shouldnt be compared to high class German tanks, however the flaw of the bolts flying through the compartment is still a valid draw back against the tank.

Definitely.

As for the whole combined tank destroyer doctrine, we're talking about North Africa. Before the US even knew what to do, and to what extent the German tanks could defeat US armor.

Well, they already had M3, M6 and Wolverine tank destroyers in service before they encountered the Tigers. Doctrine had been established prior to contact with the Axis forces.
The Force Majeure
15-09-2004, 19:40
Even comparing late model Shermans to Panthers or Tigers will mark down the US tanks as all but useless.


yes, but the US pumped shermans out as fast as mormons have babies
The Black Forrest
15-09-2004, 19:46
If America was landlocked to Germany, Americans today would be speaking German, as would any country, as Germany kicked major arse, more than any other Nation. It required 3 superpowers to bring Germany to its knees and still they didn't give up and till the last moment.

Nations in terms of Warfare...

1) Germany
2) Britain
3) USA
4) Russia
5) Canada
6) Australia
7) Dutch
Both Canada and Australia do not recieve enough credit for their actions, both sent massive amounts of troops when compared to the overal population of the Nations.

Conquering and holding the US are two seperate matters. I would like to have seen the Germans deal with some of my Hillbilly and swampbilly relations!

There are parts of New York they would probably have avoided as well! ;)
Bodies Without Organs
15-09-2004, 19:48
yes, but the US pumped shermans out as fast as mormons have babies

Agreed, as I have remarked earlier, the US's victory in World War II is down in large part to logistical supremacy.
The Black Forrest
15-09-2004, 19:51
still think the Dutch did a better job than the Australians...

Hardly, No offense to the Dutch but the Aussies were amazing.

Ask the Germans about Tubruk. A couple of my great-uncles fought with them in the Pacific and had nothing but great things to say about them.
The Black Forrest
15-09-2004, 19:59
Tipical american comment, no value for the beauty behind the german tactics, only concerned with the outcome.

Ohh don't be ignorant.

German strategy is taught in military school.
The Black Forrest
15-09-2004, 20:01
Germany fought a 2 front war. Germany had better, more advanced weapons. Germany practically conquered a whole continent with little outside help.

Actually that is a common misconception. Excluding the V2, the ME262 and a couple others.

The Russian T-34 could take any German tank hands down.
The Force Majeure
15-09-2004, 20:03
Ohh don't be ignorant.

German strategy is taught in military school.

What, the use of concentrated tanks? What else?
Big Jim P
15-09-2004, 20:11
What, the use of concentrated tanks? What else?

The hunter killer tanks would have been better.. Look at Kursk: Tanks ranging around the battle field, would have been more effective. Do Not attack the best defensive emplacement. Leave them Idle.

Use your mobilty!
Phil IV
15-09-2004, 21:18
well, im not bothering to read all 13 or so pages of this, so i dont know whether this issuse has been cleared up yet or not, seeing as you seem to be arguing about tanks now, but it has been generally agrees by most peopel that the USSR basicly won the war on its own, all the US, GB and the french resistance did was speed it up a bit, a maximum of 1/4 of all german trrops were stationed on the western front at any time, the overwhelming majority of germans were on the eastern, soviet front
New Marshall
15-09-2004, 21:30
lol thats WW1, hitler never invaded Russia, and it was the US who declared war on Germany, Russia entered the war in the final stages because it wanted to have part of germany when the war ended.

The US did not declare war on Germany first. The US declared war on Japan, then Italy first then Germany second declared war on the US based on their agreements with Japan.
Secondly Hitler did invade the USSR. It was the real reson he started the war in the first place to get Living Space for a greater Germany.
Galtania
15-09-2004, 21:33
Most efficient: Finland. Nearly defeated a Red Army that was 10-20 times their size.

Biggest contribution to victory: United States. Their industrial might and hard fighting clinched the victory (nearly single-handedly, in the Pacific).

Best generals: Germany. Manstein was a genius. Rommel was quick and aggressive, but a little reckless, as was Patton. Guderian was an important pre-war theorist, not quite as good as a field general. Kesselring was also brilliant. Montgomery is the most over-rated general of the war, while one of the most under-rated may be MacArthur.
Galtania
15-09-2004, 21:36
well, im not bothering to read all 13 or so pages of this, so i dont know whether this issuse has been cleared up yet or not, seeing as you seem to be arguing about tanks now, but it has been generally agrees by most peopel that the USSR basicly won the war on its own, all the US, GB and the french resistance did was speed it up a bit, a maximum of 1/4 of all german trrops were stationed on the western front at any time, the overwhelming majority of germans were on the eastern, soviet front

Except that WWII did not take place only in Europe and North Africa. You are discounting the entire Pacific Theater.
Luchia
15-09-2004, 21:39
Let's just say that Germany would have been better off without Hitler. Maybe Germany could have still had a dictator, as it has been proven that most aid the economy. But such an evil idiot easily can ruin anything.

I would consider Field Marshall Runstedt one of the best war leaders, including Rommel.
Erinnah
15-09-2004, 21:53
You do know that Great Britain ain't a nation, but instead a landmass? Or are you intentionally marginalising the contribution of Northern Ireland?

Sorry, I always assume that everyone outside the UK classes GB as including Northern Ireland. In fact there were many recruits to the army from the south of ireland, so no I am not marginalising the Irish contribution. I am just marginalising the US contribution as since "Saving Private Ryan" they think they did the whole caboodle!
Taverham high
15-09-2004, 22:06
i should say the germans and the japanese, for surviving for so long in the face of such overwhelming odds. then out of the allies its got to be russia, closely followed by all the british and commonwealth forces and the free french, dutch, poles, norwegians, belgians, greeks, etc etc. then of course all the resistance groups in russia and western europe, then i could probably fit in the USA.
Flemming By
15-09-2004, 22:11
lol thats WW1, hitler never invaded Russia, and it was the US who declared war on Germany, Russia entered the war in the final stages because it wanted to have part of germany when the war ended.

LOL. Ehm. Ahem, Russia kept themselves neutral, and had a deal with Germany. But Hitler attacked Russia - Operation Barbarossa. It was a surprise attack, and it was the reason that the German army managed to advance with such speed. Winter, and the advancement in the russian war machine, did however take over in the end.
Oh, and by the way, Hitler invaded Russia to remove the russians (Or use them as labour to the war machine), to create lebensraum. It was a war of annihilation, no prisoners.

I can't however remember the American reason for entering the war, didn't learn much about that in history i'm afraid.
Celack
15-09-2004, 22:19
Everyone is forgetting the skill and the contribution of Canada. 10% of our population was involved in the war effort. After Dunkirk we were the only defenses that GB had. To the idiot who siad that GB had no allies until US. Canada was there since day 7. (We declare war a week later so we could buy a shitload of material from the US.) We fought hard in Italy and took it with the other nations. On D-day our beach had the second toughest resistance. The bombardment missed the fortifications and only alerted the Germans to our landings. In most sections the troops did not have tank support. We still went furthest on d-day and reached all of our objectives which no-one else did.
Squi
15-09-2004, 22:21
The Russian T-34 could take any German tank hands down.Contemporary, comparable tanks, but until the JS-II's came out the Tigers were beter than either the T34/85s or T34/100s. Step evolution and all that, combined with task and design, the T34s were not designed as heavy tanks or tank destroyers but instead as medium tanks.

As for the Finns being the most efficient army, I don't buy it and never have. No to denigrate the Finnish soldiers, but the Finns were outclassed and outgunned, and not all that efficent as an army - large portions of it never even made it to the front. It was Mannerheim who should get the credit for holding off the Soviets not the Finnish Army.
Bodies Without Organs
16-09-2004, 00:07
The hunter killer tanks would have been better.. Look at Kursk: Tanks ranging around the battle field, would have been more effective. Do Not attack the best defensive emplacement. Leave them Idle.

Use your mobilty!

The problem with this is that once you separate the tanks from their infantry support units they become very vulnerable to being knocked out by infantry with portable anti-tank weapons or anti-tank guns: a tank on its own must compromise between remaining buttoned up, and so alomost blind, or spotting for itself, and so being vulnerable to losing crew members to small arms or machine guns.
Von Witzleben
16-09-2004, 00:11
It was Mannerheim who should get the credit for holding off the Soviets not the Finnish Army.
So Mannerheim held them off all by himself? Just him and nobody else?
The Force Majeure
16-09-2004, 00:16
LOL. Ehm. Ahem, Russia kept themselves neutral, and had a deal with Germany. But Hitler attacked Russia - Operation Barbarossa. It was a surprise attack, and it was the reason that the German army managed to advance with such speed. Winter, and the advancement in the russian war machine, did however take over in the end.
Oh, and by the way, Hitler invaded Russia to remove the russians (Or use them as labour to the war machine), to create lebensraum. It was a war of annihilation, no prisoners.

The invasion of Russia was not completely unforseen...that's what I get from what I'm reading right now (1/2 through), The Russo-German War 1941-1945...not a bad book


I can't however remember the American reason for entering the war, didn't learn much about that in history i'm afraid.


That whole Pearl Harbor thing
New York and Jersey
16-09-2004, 00:21
Sorry, I always assume that everyone outside the UK classes GB as including Northern Ireland. In fact there were many recruits to the army from the south of ireland, so no I am not marginalising the Irish contribution. I am just marginalising the US contribution as since "Saving Private Ryan" they think they did the whole caboodle!


Oh for the love of god everytime there is a show or movie about US soldiers in WWII you guys always complains it makes us seem as if we won the entire war. You guys had the same complaint with Band of Brothers, even though it only followed one units expliots throughout the whole war. No one ever says we feel as if we won the whole war.(Actually that thought was pretty prevailant BEFORE saving private ryan.)
Ultimate Beeurdness
16-09-2004, 00:23
A maritime invasion of England was never a real option as long as the Royal Navy was around. Had there been a land connection Britain wouldn't have held out longer then France did.

Actually, the Royal Air Force was far more important to Britain than the Royal Navy. That's what the Battle of Britain was all about. Had Hitler succeded in destroying the RAF, we would have been doomed. Naval power alone would not have stopped an invasion force.

Also, had Britain fallen, I seriously doubt that the USA would have been able to win the war. They would have had to struggle to find somewhere to launch their operations from, and it would have been insanely difficult for them to fight on all fronts at the same time.

IMO (and I'm trying not to be biased here, lol), Britiain did the best job, but without the help of our Canadian, US, Polish, and other European troops the war could not have been won.

Undoubtedly, though, Germany was the worse-off at the end of it. It wasn't their fault that Hitler hijacked their government, fed them propaganda, and took them to war - but they had to live with the consequences.

Most of the countries involved in the war are still suffering from it - Look at the UK, for instance: after our devoted involvement in defending Europe (right through both world wars) most of our territory has fallen away, because we couldn't maintain it.
Mr Basil Fawlty
16-09-2004, 00:29
Most efficient: Finland. Nearly defeated a Red Army that was 10-20 times their size.

Wrong, you are mixing things up, Finland did well in the winter war (Ladiga war) and won some battles against the huge but even more poor then in 1941 equiped Red Army but it would never defeat the Red Army. Don'tmix up the Winter war and WWII.


Biggest contribution to victory: United States. Their industrial might and hard fighting clinched the victory (nearly single-handedly, in the Pacific).

No, the East front did. US army only fought battles at Divisional level while in the east complete army groops where fighting. Yep about the pacific but the role in Europe is overated holywood stuf. A good contribution to the Brits, at max.


Best generals: Germany. Manstein was a genius. Rommel was quick and aggressive, but a little reckless, as was Patton. Guderian was an important pre-war theorist, not quite as good as a field general. Kesselring was also brilliant. Montgomery is the most over-rated general of the war, while one of the most under-rated may be MacArthur.

Manstein was a Fieldmarshall, not a general.
Rommel was not as reckless at Patton (wich was overrated just like Monty) but he stretched his lines to long in Africa and did not getthe extra bit of supplies needed to throw the UK out of Egypt, most historians agree that an extra Panzerdivision + a GrenadierDivision would have been enough.
Rommel bigest failure was that he was a great tactical commander at division level but not a good men for the strategy of an entire army.

Guderian is important as a pre war theorist but he was a great field general, remember the break through the French and BEF lines that was only halted on führerbefehl, if not he would have cult of Dunkerque for the allies.
His role in the run till Moskau in Barbarossa gave him the name "Schnelle Heinz" because he stormed ran with his panzerdivision(s) through the Russian lines and encircled them,destruction of those Ruski pockets was for the infantery divisions and their artillery.

Agree about Kesselring, and over rated Monthy and under rated Mac Arthur.
Galtania
16-09-2004, 00:50
Wrong, you are mixing things up, Finland did well in the winter war (Ladiga war) and won some battles against the huge but even more poor then in 1941 equiped Red Army but it would never defeat the Red Army. Don'tmix up the Winter war and WWII.
OK, yeah, some historians divide the conflicts, but both were fought during the period commonly recognized as WWII (1939-1945).
No, the East front did. US army only fought battles at Divisional level while in the east complete army groops where fighting. Yep about the pacific but the role in Europe is overated holywood stuf. A good contribution to the Brits, at max.
Over-rated Hollywood stuff? Dude, I don't base my opinions on Hollywood, but on over 20 years of military history as a hobby. Look at the overall troop strengths. The U.S. supplied the majority of troops and logistical efforts, by far. The British had an expeditionary force kicked out of France; fought off the Luftwaffe in BoB (hardly on the scale of a large land battle); were held in action by a far smaller force in North Africa. After D-Day, they had about equal troop commitments with the U.S. in Market-Garden, and had virtually NO role whatsoever in the largest battle, the German Winter Counter-offensive of 1944-1945 (Battle of the Bulge). I'd say the Brits were in the supporting role, not the U.S.
Manstein was a Fieldmarshall, not a general.
What, are you looking for nits to pick? Unclench, dude.
Rommel was not as reckless at Patton (wich was overrated just like Monty) but he stretched his lines to long in Africa and did not getthe extra bit of supplies needed to throw the UK out of Egypt, most historians agree that an extra Panzerdivision + a GrenadierDivision would have been enough.
Rommel bigest failure was that he was a great tactical commander at division level but not a good men for the strategy of an entire army.

Guderian is important as a pre war theorist but he was a great field general, remember the break through the French and BEF lines that was only halted on führerbefehl, if not he would have cult of Dunkerque for the allies.
His role in the run till Moskau in Barbarossa gave him the name "Schnelle Heinz" because he stormed ran with his panzerdivision(s) through the Russian lines and encircled them,destruction of those Ruski pockets was for the infantery divisions and their artillery.
Agreed. I admit I was wrong about Guderian's field command; I was in a rush and forgot about how well he did in Russia.

Agree about Kesselring, and over rated Monthy and under rated Mac Arthur.
Why does almost everyone in this thread forget all about the Pacific? Maybe to stoke their own nationalistic pride because many of them are EUros, and their countries played a minor role in the Pacific, if any?
Squi
16-09-2004, 00:53
So Mannerheim held them off all by himself? Just him and nobody else?
No, but Mannerheim and the Finnish soldiers did it, but the Finnish Army (as opposed to the soldiers who made up the army) was pretty useless. Just about every tactic and strategem that worked was not a result of the army, but of the individual soldiers. Unit cohesion above company level was a joke, chains of command became who is best qualified, military supply lines were frequently non-existant - the only thing that really permits one to distingush the Finnish Army from a horde is Mannerheim, and he was the person who managed to coordinate any of the war.

A soldier is not a killer or a warrior but an integrated part of a larger force, an army. An army is not just a bunch of people with heavy weapons, it is a unified structure for applying military force in a concerted manner with doctrines, traditions, personel and equipment to do so. The only reason the Finnish Army can be said to have held off the Soviets is Mannerheim was capable of keeping it as an army and providing coordination, he deserves the credit more than the army (which otherwise would have failed as an army) does.

This is not ment to denegrate the Finnish soldiers who performed well above any reasonable expectations, or the innumerable small unit commanders who developed and deployed tactics and improvised weapons (can anyone say Molotov Cocktail) faster than any army ever could have. But the Finnish Army functioned poorly as an army despite the high quality of the soldiers.
Bodies Without Organs
16-09-2004, 00:55
Why does almost everyone in this thread forget all about the Pacific? Maybe to stoke their own nationalistic pride because many of them are EUros, and their countries played a minor role in the Pacific, if any?

Describing the UK's role as minor in the Pacific/East Asia would be uncharitable.
Bushrepublican liars
16-09-2004, 00:55
Why does almost everyone in this thread forget all about the Pacific? Maybe to stoke their own nationalistic pride because many of them are EUros, and their countries played a minor role in the Pacific, if any?

Guess it is because it is far away from Europe and the UK and Holland where the only nations involved there. But I am also more interested in the EU theatre, specially the East front. it is a bit seen as a US/Japan war and a bit appart from WWII because of this (I guess).
Bodies Without Organs
16-09-2004, 00:58
Guess it is because it is far away from Europe and the UK and Holland where the only nations involved there.

Even during World War II the British army (the 14th) active in the Far East was described as the 'Forgotten Army'...


Were the Dutch particularly active in the theatre after they lost the Dutch East Indies?
Bushrepublican liars
16-09-2004, 01:05
Even during World War II the British army (the 14th) active in the Far East was described as the 'Forgotten Army'...


Were the Dutch particularly active in the theatre after they lost the Dutch East Indies?

No of course, the Dutch where not, they lost most cruisers in th efirst battle.
Yep, specially for the American posters the Brits are often forgot in the Pacific (Birma, the Ghurka soldiers aso. I am aware ;) ).

Just red a book about the Prince of Wales sinking in the Pacific together with the rest of the force.
Purly Euclid
16-09-2004, 01:05
Even during World War II the British army (the 14th) active in the Far East was described as the 'Forgotten Army'...


Were the Dutch particularly active in the theatre after they lost the Dutch East Indies?
I think, actually, that MacArthur had a large scale operation on one of the Dutch East Indies islands.
Galtania
16-09-2004, 01:05
Describing the UK's role as minor in the Pacific/East Asia would be uncharitable.

Why? The British did about equal work with the U.S. in CBI theater. And in the rest of the Pacific, they got their asses kicked in Malaysia/Singapore, and some (relatively) minor Aussie actions in New Guinea.

On the other hand, the U.S. stormed Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan, Kwajalein, the Phillipines, and Okinawa. They also fought the naval battles of Coral Sea, Midway, and Leyte Gulf.

Yeah, the UK's role in the Pacific was minor.
Erodka
16-09-2004, 01:15
Several good generals, on all sides.
I may be wrong about Eisenhower (I may be confusing him with another general-turned-president), but wasn't he one of the first apologists for American Imperialism?

I'd say the Desert Fox was the best, had Hitler paid any attention to him, Normandy would have failed.

Though it was largely the fault of the poor German intelligence services, there's no question that Rommel was one of the best.
Purly Euclid
16-09-2004, 01:18
1/ Germany
2/ USSR
3/ China
4/ Japan
5/ England
6/ France
7/ Yugoslavia
8/ USA (who got involved only in the end)
Why would you rank Germany as #1? I mean, they were defeated.
And btw, you say that the US got involved in the end. I don't blame you for saying that. But there were others who got in later than us. All of the Latin American nations declared war only in 1942. Mongolia, of course, was the absolute latest, declaring war on Japan in August 1945, in what was litterally the last days of the war.
The Force Majeure
16-09-2004, 01:22
Several good generals, on all sides.
I may be wrong about Eisenhower (I may be confusing him with another general-turned-president), but wasn't he one of the first apologists for American Imperialism?

I'd say the Desert Fox was the best, had Hitler paid any attention to him, Normandy would have failed.

Though it was largely the fault of the poor German intelligence services, there's no question that Rommel was one of the best.


Didn't Rommel's success in Africa stem from his ability to decode the Allies' messages? He always knew where they would be. Or am I way off here?

I don't know if I would say it would have failed, but it would have been more difficult. The allies were expecting greater casualties.
Chikyota
16-09-2004, 01:23
Why would you rank Germany as #1? I mean, they were defeated.

I actually agree with ranking Germany #1. The nazis did horrible things, but no one could deny that they were the powerhouse in this war. They overran much of Europe, held up against several powerful nations before making an incredibly foolish incursion into the USSR and declaring war on the US by trying to get Mexico as an ally.

Of course if I had to go with Allied nations, it would then be the USSR anyways. They held off Germany on their own for quite a while, fighting down to hand to hand in Stalingrad. The victory there was a turnaround in the war.
New York and Jersey
16-09-2004, 01:25
...before making an incredibly foolish incursion into the USSR and declaring war on the US by trying to get Mexico as an ally.

Sue your history teacher. That was WWI.
Galtania
16-09-2004, 01:33
Why would you rank Germany as #1? I mean, they were defeated.
And btw, you say that the US got involved in the end. I don't blame you for saying that. But there were others who got in later than us. All of the Latin American nations declared war only in 1942. Mongolia, of course, was the absolute latest, declaring war on Japan in August 1945, in what was litterally the last days of the war.

You have to realize that Psylos's opinions are based not on historical analysis, but on his/her hatred of America. Then his/her rankings become more clear.
Purly Euclid
16-09-2004, 01:35
I actually agree with ranking Germany #1. The nazis did horrible things, but no one could deny that they were the powerhouse in this war. They overran much of Europe, held up against several powerful nations before making an incredibly foolish incursion into the USSR and declaring war on the US by trying to get Mexico as an ally.

Of course if I had to go with Allied nations, it would then be the USSR anyways. They held off Germany on their own for quite a while, fighting down to hand to hand in Stalingrad. The victory there was a turnaround in the war.
But the Germans lost. Besides, Hitler was a control freak, and thought he could be a general. He couldn't. Artists are never good generals, anyhow.
BTW, the Mexico alliance thing was tried back in WWI. In WWII, Hitler declared war on the US after the US declared war on their ally, Japan. Thus, the US fought war in two major theaters.
Purly Euclid
16-09-2004, 01:36
You have to realize that Psylos's opinions are based not on historical analysis, but on his/her hatred of America. Then his/her rankings become more clear.
I know. But I try to use logic not to disprove him, but to make him feel, well, foolish.
Chikyota
16-09-2004, 01:37
Sue your history teacher. That was WWI.
I could have sworn it was the second. Oh well.
At any rate, its not like I learned any of this in english. Translation can be a pain to do.
Galtania
16-09-2004, 01:37
The invasion of Russia was not completely unforseen...that's what I get from what I'm reading right now (1/2 through), The Russo-German War 1941-1945...not a bad book
Are you referring to Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict, 1941-1945, by Alan Clark? If so, keep reading, it's pretty good. If not, then...nevermind. ;)
That whole Pearl Harbor thing
Even if someone's not from the U.S., how can they not know about Pearl Harbor? Wow. :eek:
Galtania
16-09-2004, 01:40
Didn't Rommel's success in Africa stem from his ability to decode the Allies' messages? He always knew where they would be. Or am I way off here?
I don't recall ever reading about Rommel having some significant edge in intelligence. I think he was just a very good tactical commander.
I don't know if I would say it would have failed, but it would have been more difficult. The allies were expecting greater casualties.I agree.
Galtania
16-09-2004, 01:46
I don't know if I would say it [Operation Overlord] would have failed, but it would have been more difficult. The allies were expecting greater casualties.

Another point on this subject. Even if the Panzer divisions had been released to Seventh Army command on D-Day, they would have had a hell of a time making it to the invasion beaches through Allied air inderdiction of the road and rail nets.

Interesting info on this in Steel Inferno: I SS Panzer Corps in Normandy, by Michael Reynolds.
Dravenite
16-09-2004, 01:48
Canada since i live there and they did complete their objectives on D-day and Poland since im Polish....they did fight till literly the death, they were grossly outnumbered and just didn't have anything to defend themselves with. I saw a picture of a polish welder trying to..well i dunno what the hell he was trying to do but it looked like he was trying to like make a hole in the german tank with his welding tools lol... :headbang:...but Germany was THE best..without a doubt in my mind, plz don't make me elaborate :P
Purly Euclid
16-09-2004, 01:50
I could have sworn it was the second. Oh well.
At any rate, its not like I learned any of this in english. Translation can be a pain to do.
I'm sure you don't want a history lesson, so here I go.
As you know, the US tried to remain neutral in WWI. However, that was impossible with Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare on American merchant ships. Germany knew it was gonna be only a matter of time before the US was angry enough to join for the allies. So they sent a letter to the German ambassador in Mexico, saying that Germany would supply cash and arms for a Mexican invasion of the US. Before WWI, remember, the US was very weak, and the Mexicans under Poncho Villa made some border incursions a few years earlier. Fortunatly, the British intercepted it, and it ruffled some feathers in Washington. However, a formal war declaration was only a few months away.
Purly Euclid
16-09-2004, 01:56
You know what I think is a bit unfair for the US? Many criticize the US's lack of naval involvement in the Atlantic, but they forget what happened before the US officially entered the war.
As you all know, the Lend-Lease program went into effect in 1940. Some months afterwards, the US agreed to escort the transport ships across the ocean. In the summer of 1941, Franklin Roosevelt wrote an executive order, authorizing any German or Italian ships to be shot on sight. One US ship was sunk during that time.
You see, Roosevelt eagerly wanted a "Germany first" strategy: a bold, daring cross-channel invasion earlier, followed by a mad dash to German cities, and ultimatly to Eastern Europe. But military realities, as well as a public transfixed on Pearl Harbor, forced more resources to the Pacific than originally planned.
Von Witzleben
16-09-2004, 02:06
Actually, the Royal Air Force was far more important to Britain than the Royal Navy. That's what the Battle of Britain was all about. Had Hitler succeded in destroying the RAF, we would have been doomed. Naval power alone would not have stopped an invasion force.
If the Kriegsmarine would have had a surface fleet large enough to pose a seriouse threat. Which they didn't. They didn't even have any real landing vessels. Back in those days the Royal Navy was still second to no one. But yeah. Sure. The RAF was overall more important in Britains defence.
Czythelian Rebels
16-09-2004, 02:15
I believe that the Nazis (Germans prefer you say Nazis) had the best overall. First look at their invasion of Europe, nearly flawless thatks to their extremely fast attacks and dedicated troops. Although when they started their mass retreat back into the Fatherland, they still had showed their ability of deadliness to our troops. Even when the Russians attacked Berlin, all Deutschland had was their Hitler Youth troops. Through Russian accounts, they say that the Berlin Defenders were so tactful and desperate to defend their city, this created many of the Russian casualties in Berlin.

The whole point here was the Nazis had been well equipped but horribly supplied which led to their great defeat.
Chikyota
16-09-2004, 02:16
I'm sure you don't want a history lesson, so here I go.
As you know, the US tried to remain neutral in WWI. However, that was impossible with Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare on American merchant ships. Germany knew it was gonna be only a matter of time before the US was angry enough to join for the allies. So they sent a letter to the German ambassador in Mexico, saying that Germany would supply cash and arms for a Mexican invasion of the US. Before WWI, remember, the US was very weak, and the Mexicans under Poncho Villa made some border incursions a few years earlier. Fortunatly, the British intercepted it, and it ruffled some feathers in Washington. However, a formal war declaration was only a few months away.
All right, thank you. I had these series of events as occurring under the wrong world war.
The Force Majeure
16-09-2004, 02:24
I don't recall ever reading about Rommel having some significant edge in intelligence. I think he was just a very good tactical commander.



It would appear I had it backward

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/CRAIGE/ultra.html
Galtania
16-09-2004, 02:27
It would appear I had it backward

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/CRAIGE/ultra.html

Ah yes, Ultra.

Also, the RAF had air superiority in North Africa, making aerial reconnaissance very difficult for Panzerarmee Afrika.
The Sword and Sheild
16-09-2004, 02:33
If the Kriegsmarine would have had a surface fleet large enough to pose a seriouse threat. Which they didn't. They didn't even have any real landing vessels. Back in those days the Royal Navy was still second to no one. But yeah. Sure. The RAF was overall more important in Britains defence.

The RAF was hardly the most important force Great Britain deployed, the RN was in the end, it's most important force until post-1941. Had the RAF been defeated in the BoB, they would have simply retreated to Northern England, Wales, and Scotland, all out of range of German fighters. In the meantime, while the Germans had been practicing ways to attack RN ships, there is little gaurantee they would have had success in the Channel (They don't until mid-war anyway), and the Kreigsmarine has no ability to defend an invasion fleet (which btw, is made up of Rhine river barges) against the RN in the Channel.
The Sword and Sheild
16-09-2004, 02:35
Ah yes, Ultra.

Also, the RAF had air superiority in North Africa, making aerial reconnaissance very difficult for Panzerarmee Afrika.

The Desert Air Force did not always enjoy Air Superiority, specifically twice, when a large number of aircraft were diverted to the ill-fated Greek campaign, and when huge numbers of German aircraft were sent to Tunisia, the Desert Air Force did not maintain superiority. The Greek Campaign almost ensured the Luftwaffe had unchallenged control of the skies for Rommel's counter-offensive into Cyrenica (the first time), and air superiority was not recovered until post-Crusader, pre-Alamein.
Von Witzleben
16-09-2004, 02:39
and the Kreigsmarine has no ability to defend an invasion fleet (which btw, is made up of Rhine river barges) against the RN in the Channel.
I said so.
Hulio Land
16-09-2004, 02:42
actually they did.


They lost the Dutch East Indies to the Japs


Technically no. The Netherlands had surrendered to Germany more that a year before the Japanese invaded.

In addition, the Dutch had effectively pulled out of their Indonesian possessions well before the Japanese began their invasion. Some administrative capacity remained, and a (very) small military element, but for the most part, Dutch suzieranty over the islands had more or less ended.

Dutch representatives did participate in the ABDA command group (Australia, Britain, Dutch, America) that governed the military co-ordination of the Allies in that arena, though.
The Sword and Sheild
16-09-2004, 02:43
Wrong, you are mixing things up, Finland did well in the winter war (Ladiga war) and won some battles against the huge but even more poor then in 1941 equiped Red Army but it would never defeat the Red Army. Don'tmix up the Winter war and WWII.

They did defeat the Red Army's counter-offensive in Northern Finland in 1944, albeit this was not against the mass of the Red Army.


No, the East front did. US army only fought battles at Divisional level while in the east complete army groops where fighting. Yep about the pacific but the role in Europe is overated holywood stuf. A good contribution to the Brits, at max.

Divisional Level only? The Army of the Liberation was 70 divisions strong by September 1944, of which approaching 50 were American, that is Army Group Level. Granted, the East Front had a much larger number (though don't forget, Soviet divisions are about 1/8 the size of their American equivalents). Also, the US industrial output contributing hugely to the Soviet victory, I have the tables on hand if you would like to review them.



Manstein was a Fieldmarshall, not a general.

Wow, not even I am that nitpicky.

Rommel was not as reckless at Patton (wich was overrated just like Monty) but he stretched his lines to long in Africa and did not getthe extra bit of supplies needed to throw the UK out of Egypt, most historians agree that an extra Panzerdivision + a GrenadierDivision would have been enough.

What historians? Most would agree those two more divisions would have led to victory, but they also agree they would have made no difference in the situation, since the forces Rommel had weren't kept in supply either, how the hell would the Regia Marina have supplied two more German divisions. Also transporting them to the scene of action would have been increasingly difficult (not like the transport of Parachute and infantry divisions, which did not have to move large numbers of heavy equipment like an armoured division).

Rommel bigest failure was that he was a great tactical commander at division level but not a good men for the strategy of an entire army.

Exactly his flaw.


Agree about Kesselring, and over rated Monthy and under rated Mac Arthur.

Kesselring is vastly underrated.
The Sword and Sheild
16-09-2004, 02:44
I said so.

My post was more aimed at the poster you had quoted, but I wasn't sure what page you were quoting from, so I used your quote.
Hulio Land
16-09-2004, 02:48
Describing the UK's role as minor in the Pacific/East Asia would be uncharitable.

Sure - they very charitably surrendered Singapore. :rolleyes:

And most of their far eastern resources were withdrawn to North Africa fairly early in the piece (which was sensible at the time - war with Japan didn't commence until well after the British were overextended in Europe.)

Fought hard in Burma and on the Indian front though.
Galtania
16-09-2004, 02:49
The Desert Air Force did not always enjoy Air Superiority, specifically twice, when a large number of aircraft were diverted to the ill-fated Greek campaign, and when huge numbers of German aircraft were sent to Tunisia, the Desert Air Force did not maintain superiority. The Greek Campaign almost ensured the Luftwaffe had unchallenged control of the skies for Rommel's counter-offensive into Cyrenica (the first time), and air superiority was not recovered until post-Crusader, pre-Alamein.

Everything you say is true. My comment was more of a general observation about the level of air superiority over the entire North African campaign (1940-1943).
Galtania
16-09-2004, 02:53
What historians? Most would agree those two more divisions would have led to victory, but they also agree they would have made no difference in the situation, since the forces Rommel had weren't kept in supply either, how the hell would the Regia Marina have supplied two more German divisions. Also transporting them to the scene of action would have been increasingly difficult (not like the transport of Parachute and infantry divisions, which did not have to move large numbers of heavy equipment like an armoured division).

Excellent point. The Allies were sinking 1/2 to 2/3 of all Axis shipping in the Mediterranean Sea at that time. Even had additional divisions been deployed to North Africa, there is no way they could have been supplied.
Revolutionsz
16-09-2004, 02:59
who do you think was the best General?
Rommel
The Sword and Sheild
16-09-2004, 03:01
Rommel

Commanding a division perhaps, Manstein was far superior on the strategic Army level, as were other German Generals (Kesselring, Guderian, hell, I'm sure even a case can be made for Runstedt).
My Prostate
16-09-2004, 03:03
Breaking down the Japanese POW camp for different nationalities:
American 34%
Australian 33%
British 32%
Dutch 20% (low rate attributed to medical experience from the Dutch East Indies)


36% of Australians in Japanese POW camps lost their lives.
Bodies Without Organs
16-09-2004, 03:08
36% of Australians in Japanese POW camps lost their lives.

I was using Prisoners Of The Japanese by Gavan Davis as a source here: I have no particular reason to support its figures over yours. Where are you getting your figure from?
Nehek-Nehek
16-09-2004, 03:23
The Only reason Britain got beaten in Frace, was because unlike...some Nations, they were in it from the Start. And Rommel was far better than Patton, had Monty not been in Africa, the war wouldn't have been such a win. And with the US at Normandy...last I checked Canada and Britain were also there, with just as much experiance, in fact...Canada was the only nation to secure all of its objectives.

There is a difference between a Patriot and a Nationalist...and you are walking a fine line...

Ok, fine then. It still took Britain and France six months to get their asses kicked. Single nation I would say Russia, individual soldier the US, and best General Patton or Rommel. Monty really sucked. Britain's contribution was in terms of the RAF and their technology/intelligence gathering.

PS: I live in Canada. They only got that far because there were literally 0 Germans between the beach defenses and their objectives. They actually teach things in school here about Canada's role that are not just "overrepresentation" but outright lies (they claim Canada liberated all of Holland: they attacked one city. The 101st Airborne and the British Guards did almost everything there).
New York and Jersey
16-09-2004, 03:31
I just remembered something...to all the folks who continual to trash the US for not getting in on this war from the start...two things...
1)What did you expect the US to fight with? From 39-41 we were rebuilding our entire military from the ground up..a decade and a half of neglect had to be erased.
2)What was Britian and France doing while Poland got invaded? I remember the time of the war being declared till the time Warsaw collapsed the entire affair being called the sitting war. Because you guys sat on your hands instead of opening up a second front and catching the Germans off guard...but hey it still manages to be the US's fault in the end right?
Galtania
16-09-2004, 03:38
I just remembered something...to all the folks who continual to trash the US for not getting in on this war from the start...two things...
1)What did you expect the US to fight with? From 39-41 we were rebuilding our entire military from the ground up..a decade and a half of neglect had to be erased.
2)What was Britian and France doing while Poland got invaded? I remember the time of the war being declared till the time Warsaw collapsed the entire affair being called the sitting war. Because you guys sat on your hands instead of opening up a second front and catching the Germans off guard...but hey it still manages to be the US's fault in the end right?

Although I agree with your comments regarding America's critics, I have to correct an historical inaccuracy in your post.

The "Sitzkrieg", or "Sitting War", generally refers to the Western Front during the time from the fall of Poland (October 1939) to the invasion of France and the Low Countries (May 1940). It is a bit of a misnomer, because Germany occupied Norway and Denmark during this time.

However, your comments regarding the inexcusable timidity of France and Britain during the "Sitzkrieg" are well-founded. They could have gone to Berlin, if they just had the balls. They also performed horribly in Norway.
The Sword and Sheild
16-09-2004, 04:21
Although I agree with your comments regarding America's critics, I have to correct an historical inaccuracy in your post.

The "Sitzkrieg", or "Sitting War", generally refers to the Western Front during the time from the fall of Poland (October 1939) to the invasion of France and the Low Countries (May 1940). It is a bit of a misnomer, because Germany occupied Norway and Denmark during this time.

However, your comments regarding the inexcusable timidity of France and Britain during the "Sitzkrieg" are well-founded. They could have gone to Berlin, if they just had the balls. They also performed horribly in Norway.

France and Britains timidity is entirely excusable considering the situation. First, the British will not deploy more than perhaps two Corps (4-5 Divisions) at best, and these are not of the highly-trained and equipped type of the BEF that fought at Mons. France can contribute perhaps 60-70 divisions to the field (they didn't reach 100 until May, 1940, and only about 3/5 of these divisions have any sense of mobility, the rest are for the most part, static), of which only about 40 can be used for offensive operations. The Germans have split their Army between East and West, at about 60/40, and of those 40 divisions in the West, as many as 20 can be brought into a defensive line quickly, so their is a near-parity of forces (granted, the French are of better quality). Also, the offensive does not have a long window of opportunity, since Poland was collapsing so quickly, a large number of forces can be withdrawn from Poland to face a Western Offensive.

Finally, there is the matter of exactly when France could have possibly mounted a major offensive (no matter what anyone says, the Saar Offensive was not Major, it was barely even a reconaissance in force), the divisions currently sitting in the Maginot lack transport, so it will take at least a week to bring up other divisions to the area where an offensive can be mounted. Further, while the French have depots, they are not setup to support a major offensive into Germany (kind of defeats the Maginot purpose), so at the best, an offensive cannot be ready until M+15 (September 18th), and by this time, Poland has collapsed, and the Red Army has began it's advance into Eastern Poland.

So put yourself in France's position, Poland has collapsed, it's M+15, by going on the offensive, you are abandoning your excellent defensive position. Don't forgot Plan XVII, which called for a massive attack into Germany, it was an unmitigated disaster in 1914. You cannot count on Britain for more than token forces until mid-late 1940, and the campaigning season open to you is barely a month and a half. If you wait however, the British and Commonwealth can contribute further forces, the Armee d'le Air will be much more prepared to provide aerial support, you'll have more (and more mobile) forces, and you have the entire year to campaign. Any offensive in late September is futile, since you have an excellent position, and the reason for an offensive, to save Poland, is moot, since Poland has for all purposes, disintegrated.
Galtania
16-09-2004, 04:49
France and Britains timidity is entirely excusable considering the situation. First, the British will not deploy more than perhaps two Corps (4-5 Divisions) at best, and these are not of the highly-trained and equipped type of the BEF that fought at Mons. France can contribute perhaps 60-70 divisions to the field (they didn't reach 100 until May, 1940, and only about 3/5 of these divisions have any sense of mobility, the rest are for the most part, static), of which only about 40 can be used for offensive operations. The Germans have split their Army between East and West, at about 60/40, and of those 40 divisions in the West, as many as 20 can be brought into a defensive line quickly, so their is a near-parity of forces (granted, the French are of better quality). Also, the offensive does not have a long window of opportunity, since Poland was collapsing so quickly, a large number of forces can be withdrawn from Poland to face a Western Offensive.

Finally, there is the matter of exactly when France could have possibly mounted a major offensive (no matter what anyone says, the Saar Offensive was not Major, it was barely even a reconaissance in force), the divisions currently sitting in the Maginot lack transport, so it will take at least a week to bring up other divisions to the area where an offensive can be mounted. Further, while the French have depots, they are not setup to support a major offensive into Germany (kind of defeats the Maginot purpose), so at the best, an offensive cannot be ready until M+15 (September 18th), and by this time, Poland has collapsed, and the Red Army has began it's advance into Eastern Poland.

So put yourself in France's position, Poland has collapsed, it's M+15, by going on the offensive, you are abandoning your excellent defensive position. Don't forgot Plan XVII, which called for a massive attack into Germany, it was an unmitigated disaster in 1914. You cannot count on Britain for more than token forces until mid-late 1940, and the campaigning season open to you is barely a month and a half. If you wait however, the British and Commonwealth can contribute further forces, the Armee d'le Air will be much more prepared to provide aerial support, you'll have more (and more mobile) forces, and you have the entire year to campaign. Any offensive in late September is futile, since you have an excellent position, and the reason for an offensive, to save Poland, is moot, since Poland has for all purposes, disintegrated.

You make good points. I should not have used the word "inexcusable."

I do disagree with some of the things you said. I have wargamed this scenario against many various opponents, and using a few different systems. In all the systems, I have seen an Anglo-French offensive in late 39-early 40 work. Many of the German divisions available for a defensive on the West Front were no better than their Allied counterparts, and would have been outnumbered, though perhaps not by 3-to-1 or anything like that. Germany would still have had to leave much of her force in Poland to guard against a Soviet offensive from that direction. Hitler had a pact with Stalin, but definitely didn't trust him enough to leave the eastern frontier lightly defended.

I also don't agree that the only reason to mount an offensive would be to save Poland. It was going to fall no matter what. An offensive after winter (March/April 1940) could have been better prepared than the earlier scenario you describe, and could have pre-empted and dislocated the German offensive, possibly (in a pessimistic scenario) bringing about a WWI-type stalemate that would have caused Germany to abandon her offensive plans, at least for the near future. This would buy the Allies time to make the preparations you rightly describe as desirable for them.

You make good points, but there is another side to the coin. I think France and Britain were too timid. They should have taken a page from Frederick the Great, or Napoleon, and sought, if not victory, at least a better outcome than actually occurred, through audacity.
The Sword and Sheild
16-09-2004, 19:41
I do disagree with some of the things you said. I have wargamed this scenario against many various opponents, and using a few different systems. In all the systems, I have seen an Anglo-French offensive in late 39-early 40 work.

What were you using to simulate this, most things I've used come out with the same conclusion, an Allied victory, but most of those do not take into account German reinforcements, or the immobility of most French divisions facing Germany.

Many of the German divisions available for a defensive on the West Front were no better than their Allied counterparts,

They were all infantry divisions, on paper about the equivalent of the Allied Infantry Divisions (though in reality, slightly less capable for the most part).

and would have been outnumbered, though perhaps not by 3-to-1 or anything like that.

Unless the French attack on a narrow front, at the most they will be outnumbered 1/2-2 to 1, unless the French throw everything at them (which they won't, since they are definitely going to guard the Belgian frontier after what happened the last time).

Germany would still have had to leave much of her force in Poland to guard against a Soviet offensive from that direction. Hitler had a pact with Stalin, but definitely didn't trust him enough to leave the eastern frontier lightly defended.

Historically, he left a pitiful force in Poland when he launched the Western Offensive, I don't see why Hitler would keep a significant force there with the Allies on his doorstep. And even if the Soviets are behaving in a manner that perturbs him, about 20 of those (60) divisions are all that is needed to stay behind, and none of them have to be armoured or motorized.

I also don't agree that the only reason to mount an offensive would be to save Poland. It was going to fall no matter what.

It's fall was rather unexpected, this was the nation that had held the Red Army at bay, and had a fairly large and modern army. It could not hold back the full weight of Germany, but it expected to hold out with a combined pressure of France and Britain from the West.

An offensive after winter (March/April 1940) could have been better prepared than the earlier scenario you describe, and could have pre-empted and dislocated the German offensive, possibly (in a pessimistic scenario) bringing about a WWI-type stalemate that would have caused Germany to abandon her offensive plans, at least for the near future. This would buy the Allies time to make the preparations you rightly describe as desirable for them.

They definitely made a mistake after Winter 1940, they should have gone on the offensive as soon as April, or at the latest, the same time Fall Gelb went into action. But I am talking about September 1939.

You make good points, but there is another side to the coin. I think France and Britain were too timid. They should have taken a page from Frederick the Great, or Napoleon, and sought, if not victory, at least a better outcome than actually occurred, through audacity.

They definitely had more going for them than is commonly believed, and at any point could have seriously hurt the German offensive (The British counterattack at Arras, which was basically a small local one, scared the Germans into halting their advance for a critical few days). France did actually have armoured divisions (DLM and DCM), and a few that could be considered motorized, and the Char B1-bis was the largest tank available in any inventory, and the Samua was the equal of their German opponents.
Joe Gas
16-09-2004, 19:50
Which nation do you think was the best fighting nation of WWII? And just to add on to this, who do you think was the best General? Which do you think was most efficient, who do you think did the most for final victory in Europe and the Pacific?

Respond all you want.

Ok to be honest, and fair, Germany.

Blitzcreig (spelling?) was the most effective offensive with the least resorces ever. That is a fact.
Lotringen
16-09-2004, 19:55
Which nation do you think was the best fighting nation of WWII? no doubt: germany
And just to add on to this, who do you think was the best General? von Manstein and/or Guderian
Which do you think was most efficient, who do you think did the most for final victory in Europe and the Pacific?
Respond all you want. victory? germany lost.
but you are probably just ignoring that there are other viewpoints than the allies one.
its common believe the war was lost in stalingrad. i disagree. it was at Operation Zitadelle that the war was lost.
is that youve asked for?
Bodies Without Organs
16-09-2004, 19:56
Blitzcreig (spelling?) was the most effective offensive with the least resorces ever. That is a fact.

Blitzkrieg

In what way do you mean "with the least resources ever"? The fact that some stages were reliant on capture of enemy supply depots for fuel to keep the vehicles rolling?