NationStates Jolt Archive

The United States was definitely the best combat nation in WWII. We beat every other nation hands-down in terms of equipment, supply, technology, transportation, EFFECTIVE weapons systems, and training.

The Krauts came up with some wonderful doo-dads and "technological marvels", but none of them worked. The Panther was prone to bursting into flames for no reason, had weak front-end suspension that regularly broke, and was underpowered. The ME-262 was a deathtrap to fly (about 50% blew up in midair for no apparent reason). The MP-44 was too heavy and a bitch to field strip. The Vampyr IR system had too many bugs in the system to be field-deployable. The regular German infantryman's uniform is uncomfortable, constricting to wear, and overly heavy. Finally, the average German infantryman was using a 45 year old bolt action K98, and had about eight week's training before he was sent out to a frontline unit.

The American military, by comparison, did everything better. The M4a3 Sherman might not have been a technological marvel, but it was rugged, cheap and dependable. Besides, American doctrine specified that tanks should not fight other tanks. Tank killing was the role of TD units, artillery and air power. The Pershing was more than a match for either Panthers or Tiger IIs. The US didn't field a fighter jet during WWII, but we had thousands of P-38s and P-51s, the two best prop fighters ever built. The M-1 rifle is still the best fixed magazine combat rifle ever invented. The M1940 and M1943 uniform specs are much better field uniforms than anyone else had during WWII, and the M43 gear is still the basis for our current uniform and gear. And finally, the average GI had over a YEAR of intensive training before the invasion of Europe. Even replacements in late '44 had a minimum of 20 week's training before they went to a frontline unit.

American doctrine during WWII was to never send a man where you could send a bullet, and never send a bullet where you could send a bomb. We mastered the arts of forward air control, close air support, and mechanized warfare in ways the Germans could never have dreamt of (70% of all transportation in the German army was horse-drawn throughout the war. The US Arny retired their last horses in 1942). By 1945, every American infantry platoon had at least one radio. If you made it back to an aid station, you had a 90% chance of surviving your wounds. Supply and logistics are better in the American army than in any other army the world has ever seen. Finally, by the end of world war ONE, the American military had become the master of the artillery piece. The German army was actually AFRAID of American artillery, since we were good enough to pick off a single MOVING truck with a single 105mm round. Radar-controlled airburst shells were the scourge of western Europe, and a highly guarded secret.

The German army was highly motivated, and had a fantastic cadre of small-unit leaders. Their small unit cohesion was excellent. But they were relatively inflexible (moreso than the Brits), had crappy logistics, and inferior equipment. Yes, they slaughtered Russians by the thousands, but that's because the Russian military was so lousy (relying on mass, close quarters fighting, and lots of "spray & pray" firing). And their leadership LOST the war, after all, so the mystique of the German general must be re-examined.

The United States was definitely the best combat nation in WWII. We beat every other nation hands-down in terms of equipment, supply, technology, transportation, EFFECTIVE weapons systems, and training.

The Krauts came up with some wonderful doo-dads and "technological marvels", but none of them worked. The Panther was prone to bursting into flames for no reason, had weak front-end suspension that regularly broke, and was underpowered. The ME-262 was a deathtrap to fly (about 50% blew up in midair for no apparent reason). The MP-44 was too heavy and a bitch to field strip. The Vampyr IR system had too many bugs in the system to be field-deployable. The regular German infantryman's uniform is uncomfortable, constricting to wear, and overly heavy. Finally, the average German infantryman was using a 45 year old bolt action K98, and had about eight week's training before he was sent out to a frontline unit.

The American military, by comparison, did everything better. The M4a3 Sherman might not have been a technological marvel, but it was rugged, cheap and dependable. Besides, American doctrine specified that tanks should not fight other tanks. Tank killing was the role of TD units, artillery and air power. The Pershing was more than a match for either Panthers or Tiger IIs. The US didn't field a fighter jet during WWII, but we had thousands of P-38s and P-51s, the two best prop fighters ever built. The M-1 rifle is still the best fixed magazine combat rifle ever invented. The M1940 and M1943 uniform specs are much better field uniforms than anyone else had during WWII, and the M43 gear is still the basis for our current uniform and gear. And finally, the average GI had over a YEAR of intensive training before the invasion of Europe. Even replacements in late '44 had a minimum of 20 week's training before they went to a frontline unit.

American doctrine during WWII was to never send a man where you could send a bullet, and never send a bullet where you could send a bomb. We mastered the arts of forward air control, close air support, and mechanized warfare in ways the Germans could never have dreamt of (70% of all transportation in the German army was horse-drawn throughout the war. The US Arny retired their last horses in 1942). By 1945, every American infantry platoon had at least one radio. If you made it back to an aid station, you had a 90% chance of surviving your wounds. Supply and logistics are better in the American army than in any other army the world has ever seen. Finally, by the end of world war ONE, the American military had become the master of the artillery piece. The German army was actually AFRAID of American artillery, since we were good enough to pick off a single MOVING truck with a single 105mm round. Radar-controlled airburst shells were the scourge of western Europe, and a highly guarded secret.

The German army was highly motivated, and had a fantastic cadre of small-unit leaders. Their small unit cohesion was excellent. But they were relatively inflexible (moreso than the Brits), had crappy logistics, and inferior equipment. Yes, they slaughtered Russians by the thousands, but that's because the Russian military was so lousy (relying on mass, close quarters fighting, and lots of "spray & pray" firing). And their leadership LOST the war, after all, so the mystique of the German general must be re-examined.
Eeeh...yes...of course. In an alternate universe.

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

Ok first things first. The best country that fought for the longest would deffinatly be Japan. Even more motivated than Germany or Britian and under more pain of loss than Britian Japan was the hardest fighting one. Even after Hiroshema they were going to fight on. If you didn't know there was a failed coup made by several Japanese generals who were going to take over the goverment and fight to the last. They failed and the Emperor signed the surrender of Japan.

The best General, well thats an open-ended question. Lets look at the major flaws of all the major generals in WWII shall we:

Montgomery- Never liked taking risks, wasn't much of a team player. Had a big rivalry with General Patton which got a lot of men killed. He did not Spearhead shit in Normandy. he sat there for 3 months in the Hedge row country just beyond the beaches saying he needed more troops and equipment.

Patton- Liked taking too many risks, was a team player only when forced to by Ike. Treated his men like shit until after Italy. Always got pissed when the British got command(who could blam him). Didn't want to stop for anything except total victory. Unknown fact here also- During the Bulge he found out his son-in-law was taken prisoner. He spent the lives of 700+ U.S. soldiers to try to get him out. And he failed.

Rommel- Was a risk taker. Had awsome ability to inspire his men. Was always doing ther unexpected attacking indirectly and then directly. But....he stretched his supply lines so thin that he had to retreat all across the desert of North Africa and didn't have much respect for Italian troops who could have been used to better affect. Also mind you he was correct in guessing where the Allied landings in France would be and had he been alive when they happened we would have been thrown into the sea with losses twice as large as we suffered, I bet my life and a wooden nickel.

Model- A good commander but had a very high opinion of himself. When Operation Market Garden commenced he found plans of it in detail that had fallen into his hands, and he chose to ignore them for 3 days. WHich allowed the allies to grab 2 of the 3 bridges in Holland. However it was him that made the war continue for another year since he had the 7th Panzer army in Arnhem where there was only on British paratrooper brigade which was understrength and had limited supplies.

McAuther- A bastard at best and a very egotistical one at best. he indeed did bring about final victory but he ignored many times his junior officers under him just because they were lower. Also he showed great disprespect for the President(after FDR can't remember his name) on International television. He is however given great respect by the Japanese since he helped rebuild their coutry afterwards. Another little known fact, he is the only American general to accept a rank in another army from another country. He accepted the rank and baton of Feild-Marshal in the Philipino Army about 7 years before WWII and that is completely insulting ones country.

Ike- A good man, but not a very good general. He was wrapped into the complaints of the politics of the war too much. Also he never really came up with plans he just ok'd them. not to belittle the man because he demands great respect for what he did then and later in Korea where he saved South Korea from being under Communist control.

Also just so you know my opinion, I know no Japanese generals so can not give an analysis of them, also since when have the French had a good general since Napolean and when have the Russians had one?

Rommel- Was a risk taker. Had awsome ability to inspire his men. Was always doing ther unexpected attacking indirectly and then directly. But....he stretched his supply lines so thin that he had to retreat all across the desert of North Africa and didn't have much respect for Italian troops who could have been used to better affect. Also mind you he was correct in guessing where the Allied landings in France would be and had he been alive when they happened we would have been thrown into the sea with losses twice as large as we suffered, I bet my life and a wooden nickel.

He was alive during D-Day. But he needed Hitlers personal OK to deploy tank reserves. And the Führer was vast asleep during the invasion and non of his aids dared to wake him up. And by the time he woke up it was already to late.

He was alive during D-Day. But he needed Hitlers personal OK to deploy tank reserves. And the Führer was vast asleep during the invasion and non of his aids dared to wake him up. And by the time he woke up it was already to late.

Hitler wasn't just normal vast asleep, he was drugged out of his mind. They couldn't of waken him if they tried.

McAuther- A bastard at best and a very egotistical one at best. he indeed did bring about final victory but he ignored many times his junior officers under him just because they were lower. Also he showed great disprespect for the President(after FDR can't remember his name) on International television. He is however given great respect by the Japanese since he helped rebuild their coutry afterwards. Another little known fact, he is the only American general to accept a rank in another army from another country. He accepted the rank and baton of Feild-Marshal in the Philipino Army about 7 years before WWII and that is completely insulting ones country.

So much disrespect for this man...anyway MacAurther was incharge of the Phillippines pretty much because before WWII broke out the Phillippines were a US territory and had been a US territory since the conclusion of the Spanish-American War (We were in the middle of helping to set up a new government when Japan invaded the islands.). That is the only reason he held a dual command, not as disrespect for our country or theres, but because in essence he was the overall commander of the Phillippine Army, and American Forces in that region.

As for who he disrespected, it was Truman. MacAurther wanted to bomb bridges which connected China to North Korea. Truman told him to bomb only the parts of the bridges which were on the North Korean side. Which led MacAurther to become furious with Truman. As the Chinese invaded and pushed the Americans back MacAurther pleaded with Truman to expand the war in an attempt to divert Chinese attention from the North Korean front. That would have been accomplished by launching an attack from Taiwan against China using Republic forces which had been forced off the Chinese mainland but still controlled a sizeable army. However once again Truman kept it a limited war. MacAuthur was an egotist but he knew when not to let that get in his way, he was frustrated though to see his victory at Inchon go to complete waste as Washington ignored his calls for a revised strategy.

Hitler wasn't just normal vast asleep, he was drugged out of his mind. They couldn't of waken him if they tried.
Drugged out of his mind? Is that a fact? In which case you hopefully have a source.

Hitler was distracted because his idiot cohort Mussolini created a mess he couldn't extract himself from when he staged a failed attack in the Balkans. Germany sent troops to assist and it delayed the invasion of the USSR by a critical six weeks.
Absolutely correct.
If you want to talk about who did the best job, then the only way to quantify that is to say who faced the toughest assignments and won the largest proportion of them while inflicting maximum casualties on the enemy and receiving minimal casualties themselves.

The Russians are out because they suffered mass casualties... clearly they won by attrition and bullheadedness more than tactical superiority.
This may be true of the fight from 1941-43, but in '44 and '45, the Russians had developed a fantastic operational art and soundly thrashed the Germans, even at the tactical level.

The British? They stormed the lighter-defended Juno and Sword beaches at Normandy. They won some victories in Africa and Italy but also suffered some very significant losses.

That leaves the Americans, who conquered the impossible odds at Omaha and Utah beaches, accomplished the legendary defense of Bastogne ("Nuts!"), followed by the tremendous accomplishment of Patton's army at the Battle of the Bulge... the battle which effectively ended German aggression and put them on the defensive for the rest of the war. Throw in all the decisive victories in the Pacific and it is no contest.
I agree with this whole-heartedly.
The best general would have to be Eisenhower. The war in the Pacific was decided more by brilliant naval tactics than by army tactics, so MacArthur is out of the running. Patton was great, but he was also a loon. The Russians don't have anybody, since they just ran the meat grinder. As for Montgomery... he orchestrated the debacle known as Operation Market Garden. Ike was the supreme commander for the planning of D-day and beyond. Plus, he was also able to keep that frothing loon Patton under control, no mean feat. Patton's amazing march to Bastogne was what won the day at the Bulge, but it was Ike's plan to press the attack afterwards that really broke the back of the German army.
I disagree that the Soviets had no one worthy of mention here. Zhukov was at times brilliant in his operational art and strategy. Also, read about the Soviet offensive in Manchuria in 1945. (http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp)
While it may have meant next to nothing by that time, it was very well planned and executed. It shows the level to which Soviet operations had risen.

Eeeh...yes...of course. In an alternate universe.
No, in this universe.
The Germans had some technological marvels, but they were in fact either unreliable or insufficient quantities were produced to have any strategic or operational advantage.
The P-51 Mustang is easily the best propeller-driven fighter ever produced, and let's not forget the impact of the best propeller-driven bomber ever produced, the B-17. The M-1 is also undeniably the best mass-produced personal infantry weapon of the war.
I disagree with his/her picture of US logistics, they had some problems there. However, his/her points about the speed and accuracy of US artillery, and the battlefield effect of airburst shells are undeniable historical fact. The speed and accuracy elements were actually in place before the war. (However, saying that they could hit single moving truck with a single 105mm shell is ridiculous.)
For a scholarly treatment of some of these issues, might I suggest Combined Arms Warfare in the Twentieth Century, by Jonathan House. I just finished reading it, and it was very enlightening. It has a good accounting of what led to the U.S. artillery effectiveness I mentioned above.

Drugged out of his mind? Is that a fact? In which case you hopefully have a source.
It is a well-known fact that Hitler was a drug-addict, at least in the latter part of the war. He used amphetimines to "pep" him up during the day, stayed up until the wee hours of the morning, then used sleeping pills which caused him to sleep until late in the day. Any biography of Hitler will confirm this.

It is a well-known fact that Hitler was a drug-addict, at least in the latter part of the war. He used amphetimines to "pep" him up during the day, stayed up until the wee hours of the morning, then used sleeping pills which caused him to sleep until late in the day. Any biography of Hitler will confirm this.
I can't say I ever read anything about that in any bio of Hitler.

America were not the most effective! Like in WW1 before it they were good at sending thousands of soldiers to their slaughter and taking their objective by pure numbers, just like the russians. I would say that either Britain of Germany were the most effective although i would say that cause i am british (not ENGLISH i add as most ppl write cause last time i checked irish, welsh, scottish and soldiers from the islands were also in action during the whole war). Patton was a good general but also a moody bastard who caused lives by trying to stop american troops from coming under the control of british Generals, mainly Monty most of the time. I would also like to say that Invasion of the south of England WAS real possiblity and the only reason that it didnt happen was due to the change in the bombing campaign in the south of England which gave the RAF time to rebuild and win the battle of Britain. The royal navy were based in orkney and were about a days sailing time for south of england so an army could have been landed in that time and since their was very little costal defense it wouldnt have taken long to break out into the countryside. That is if they werent gassed when they arrived as churchill had ordered all of the chemical weapons to be prepared incase of invasion and if he took that step then their must have been a strong chance of invasion. Anyway getting off topic! Rommel or Monty best generals and britain or germany as most effective nations!

Ok Ok... As for the original question.

Obviously the country that had the most effective army was.... FINLAND

And why? Just take a look at some statistics about the winter war. What other army held out that long against that superior enemy with that few forces and supplies and causing that large casualties compared to own casualties to enemy. And in the end Russia didn't even capture Finland.

Yes i have the answer for you. No other army

In case you don't believe here's some statistics

Finnish Army Before the War:

295 000 men, (but enough rifles foir only 250 000)
13 tanks that actually worked
114 aircraft
Most of artillery from year 1877, and they had only 270 000 grenades for artilelry when the war started. That's the amount that Soviet artillery shot in one day when preparing for the invasion.


Russian Army(the part invading finland) Before the War:

500 000 men
about 2000 tanks
about 1000 aircraft


Casualties:

Finnish Army: 22 800 dead, 43 600 wounded

Soviet Army: at least 90 000 dead, 200 000 wounded

Only bad thing you can say about Finnish army is it shouldn't have started the continuation war, and that it's supply status really sucked. But the soldiers were something great (altough most of them did'nt even have uniforms).


Ok And now on to the best general's part.

I think that Rommel and Heinz-Guderian were the best general's in tho whole damn war. They would have been a far greater pain for the Allied if Hitler wouldn't have been fucking up their plan's every now and then.

Just a few examples:

Dunqirk: Heinz-Guderian would have destroyed the English army before it could have run away, if Hitler would've let him to do so.

Barbarossa: Heinz-Guderian would've taken Moscow before winter if Hitler wouldn't have commanded him to go fight in Ukraine.

El-Alamein: Rommel would've been able to win the battle if he had even close to the amount of troop's Montgomery had. (Ok this is not practically Hitler's fault)

Normandy: Rommel would've thrown the invasion army back to sea, if Hitler would've waken up and let him do so


Ok. That was a nice post indeed.

America were not the most effective! Like in WW1 before it they were good at sending thousands of soldiers to their slaughter and taking their objective by pure numbers, just like the russians. I would say that either Britain of Germany were the most effective although i would say that cause i am british (not ENGLISH i add as most ppl write cause last time i checked irish, welsh, scottish and soldiers from the islands were also in action during the whole war). Patton was a good general but also a moody bastard who caused lives by trying to stop american troops from coming under the control of british Generals, mainly Monty most of the time. I would also like to say that Invasion of the south of England WAS real possiblity and the only reason that it didnt happen was due to the change in the bombing campaign in the south of England which gave the RAF time to rebuild and win the battle of Britain. The royal navy were based in orkney and were about a days sailing time for south of england so an army could have been landed in that time and since their was very little costal defense it wouldnt have taken long to break out into the countryside. That is if they werent gassed when they arrived as churchill had ordered all of the chemical weapons to be prepared incase of invasion and if he took that step then their must have been a strong chance of invasion. Anyway getting off topic! Rommel or Monty best generals and britain or germany as most effective nations!
What, pray tell, were the Germans going to cross the Channel on? Rubber dinghys? The did not have the maritime capability to mount an amphibious invasion of England.
Your opinion of America's tactics is also completely ridiculous. They depended on an abundance of firepower, not manpower.
Little tip: read more.

Ok Ok... As for the original question.

Obviously the country that had the most effective army was.... FINLAND

And why? Just take a look at some statistics about the winter war. What other army held out that long against that superior enemy with that few forces and supplies and causing that large casualties compared to own casualties to enemy. And in the end Russia didn't even capture Finland.

Yes i have the answer for you. No other army

In case you don't believe here's some statistics

Finnish Army Before the War:

295 000 men, (but enough rifles foir only 250 000)
13 tanks that actually worked
114 aircraft
Most of artillery from year 1877, and they had only 270 000 grenades for artilelry when the war started. That's the amount that Soviet artillery shot in one day when preparing for the invasion.


Russian Army(the part invading finland) Before the War:

500 000 men
about 2000 tanks
about 1000 aircraft


Casualties:

Finnish Army: 22 800 dead, 43 600 wounded

Soviet Army: at least 90 000 dead, 200 000 wounded

Only bad thing you can say about Finnish army is it shouldn't have started the continuation war, and that it's supply status really sucked. But the soldiers were something great (altough most of them did'nt even have uniforms).


Ok And now on to the best general's part.

I think that Rommel and Heinz-Guderian were the best general's in tho whole damn war. They would have been a far greater pain for the Allied if Hitler wouldn't have been fucking up their plan's every now and then.

Just a few examples:

Dunqirk: Heinz-Guderian would have destroyed the English army before it could have run away, if Hitler would've let him to do so.

Barbarossa: Heinz-Guderian would've taken Moscow before winter if Hitler wouldn't have commanded him to go fight in Ukraine.

El-Alamein: Rommel would've been able to win the battle if he had even close to the amount of troop's Montgomery had. (Ok this is not practically Hitler's fault)

Normandy: Rommel would've thrown the invasion army back to sea, if Hitler would've waken up and let him do so


Ok. That was a nice post indeed.
Two points:
1. Finland was my choice too, but a couple of people pointed out some things that could change my mind. Read the posts near the beginning of the thread.
2. Rommel was not a very effective commander above about corps level. And whether or not he could have "thrown the invasion army back to sea" is HIGHLY debatable. The panzers had severe trouble even REACHING the invasion areas due to Allied air interdiction of road and rail nets.

1.Could you please point out the post-numbers for me, since i don't have time to read all 35 pages.

2. Well yes. That's true. And he had serious problem with being sick/or on vacation everythime something important was happening. But still, the panzer's were Germany's most effective weapon against the Invasion, and they weren't even used becouse of Hitler.

What, pray tell, were the Germans going to cross the Channel on? Rubber dinghys? The did not have the maritime capability to mount an amphibious invasion of England.
Your opinion of America's tactics is also completely ridiculous. They depended on an abundance of firepower, not manpower.


The germans had planned to cross on a series of BARGES...all the details were in the original plans of the invasion. Also for instance in WW1 refusing to take part in trench warfare in favour of charging straight into machine gun fire...yeah thats depending on firepower.

Most efficient = Finland, hands down. They fought the Soviet Union to a standstill. However, they *did* fight on familiar terrain, so for a nation that fought in more varied theaters, it has to be Germany. Time and again, they defeated large Soviet forces, and this was without any strategic reserves, and often without any tactical reserves either, due to the interference of Hitler. Typically the Germans had to be outnumbered by 4 or even 5 to one in order to force a withdrawal. Their coherence as a fighting force was solid all the way down to squad level. They had a much better grasp of small force tactics than their enemies and could perform fighting withdrawals and counterattacks in a way that often shocked and surprised their enemies.

Best general = Eisenhower, hands down. Sorry, but Rommel, Patton and Monty are all grossly overrated. They had lots of drive, but really performed no better than their colleagues. They are chiefly known because they had something in common = massive egos. Eisenhower handled lots of generals from allied forces brilliantly, when other C-in-Cs couldn't even deal with the in-fighting in their own armed forces. Check out the rivalry between RAF Fighter Command and Bomber Command just for starters, not mind how the RAF did not want to perform close support and had to be bullied into it. In Germany the Heer, the Luftwaffe, the Kreigsmarine and the SS all had their own agendas, and yes, this strife did impact on the battlefield. Eisenhower kept the gigantic egos of Patton and Monty in check, and managed to get a pretty decent performance from them.

Having said that, the list of bad German generals would be fairly short. BUt (Hurrying Heinz) Guderian and Manstein stand out as brilliant strategists and tacticians.

What, pray tell, were the Germans going to cross the Channel on? Rubber dinghys? The did not have the maritime capability to mount an amphibious invasion of England.
Your opinion of America's tactics is also completely ridiculous. They depended on an abundance of firepower, not manpower.


The germans had planned to cross on a series of BARGES...all the details were in the original plans of the invasion. Also for instance in WW1 refusing to take part in trench warfare in favour of charging straight into machine gun fire...yeah thats depending on firepower.
This topic is about WW2. Two! Get it?
The British had a plodding, linear doctrine based on an unresponsive centralized command structure. They weren't even as sophisticated as the Soviets. You need to read more scholarly work instead of pro-British fluff. Then you would see what a failure Monty was.

Germany definatly did the best job in WWII. There were a few crucial mistakes that they made that cost them the war. (Just to let you know, I'm ignoring the fact that they were hainously evil and Hitler was a scumbag. That's a given.)

If Japan hadn't attack the US, prompting the US to declare war on Germany, and Germany hadn't double-crossed the USSR before taking England, I think Germany could have foreseeably conquered the greater extent of Europe.

Best general, however, was either Rommel or Eisenhower. Rommel was just an amazing general in North Africa, and Eisenhower was commander of Operation Overlodr. A logistics nightmare and a daring invasion plan at best.

Hitler, aside from being a pyschopath, interferred too much in the battles. He should have given orders, sat back, and let his generals tell him what was best (like some US Commander-in-Cheif should do...)

Germany definatly did the best job in WWII. There were a few crucial mistakes that they made that cost them the war. (Just to let you know, I'm ignoring the fact that they were hainously evil and Hitler was a scumbag. That's a given.)

If Japan hadn't attack the US, prompting the US to declare war on Germany, and Germany hadn't double-crossed the USSR before taking England, I think Germany could have foreseeably conquered the greater extent of Europe.

Best general, however, was either Rommel or Eisenhower. Rommel was just an amazing general in North Africa, and Eisenhower was commander of Operation Overlodr. A logistics nightmare and a daring invasion plan at best.

Hitler, aside from being a pyschopath, interferred too much in the battles. He should have given orders, sat back, and let his generals tell him what was best (like some US Commander-in-Cheif should do...)
The USA did not declare war on Germany, it was the other way around.

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.

Untrue. One, the small boats only picked up soldiers from the beach and took them to the larger ships, and two, they would have been completely wiped out if Hitler had trusted his generals. But no, he had to send the SS to find out for himself. Which gave the British armies time to escape.

Essentially, all of the major mistakes made in WWII were made by Hitler. Like that one, like launching an attack on Russia before he was finished fighting the Allies. If he'd waited until after D-day, he could have destroyed the Allies and then taken on Russia successfully.

Man, he was an idiot.

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 hardest fighting country was russia few examlpes in history show a more brutal fighting than the eastern front,and the largest most vicious tank battle was kursk.the best general is split between patton,and rommel , for best use of limited airpower great britain ,for quickest most effective rebuilding and research before the war germany,for brilliant naval planning,minoru genda,and raymond spruance, those are some of my chioces and opinions. :headbang:

Untrue. One, the small boats only picked up soldiers from the beach and took them to the larger ships...

Untrue, some small vessels were used as ferries between the beaches and larger ships, but some did also carry troops right across the channel.

Quoted by the Great Rommel, himself.

"Give me German officers, American equipment and Canadian soldiers and I will conquer for you the world."

Okay I am too lazy to quote correctly so you have to forgive and simply read the response as is.

Effeciency on microscale (tactical): It is pretty much agreed upon that the Germans were the best in this field. Their junoir commanders could be given a small taskforce (Kampfgruppe) of a platoon and a Sturmgeshütz and pin down and entire armoured battalion. For Americans who disagree I suggest reading Depuy who I have already quoted. He is an American and his assesments of the German tactical abilities are very well founded in matematical models and calculations. They were just better.

Effeciency on macroscale (strategy and deployment): It is hard to tell really. The Russians made some smart moves, but only due to fundamental errors by the German counterpart. The Americans made a bad call in the broad front. They failed several encirclement oppotunities as a result thereof. Failing to let Patton in the south and Montgomery in the north strike at the basis of the Ardennes salient was a tremendous error. There are countless other failed encirclement oppotunities. In short - the Russians mostly capitalized on encirclements and the western allies did not do so with the same level of significanse.

On the German capability to respond to the invasion: Not only was Hitler asleep. Rommel was enroute to Germany and von Rundstedt was in a bunker playing wargames (of all things). Regardless the observation that Hitler had to be asked prior to troop movements is correct. He basically distrusted all his generals. I am sure the feeling was mutual.
von Rundstedt and Rommel disagreed on deployment of the Panzer elements in the west. Rommel made the blunt and correct assumption that Panzer would be smashed by the Allied air superiority and had to be placed no more than 20 miles from the coast in concealed defensible positions and ready to assist the static infantry on the actual beaches. While the allied would have more armour to deploy they should not be given the oppotunity to field it. von Rundstedt argued that the Germans did not posses enough armour to make this efficient. He proposed that the armoured response should be placed in a reserve and ready to deploy. He assumed that if the Germans could field more armour than the allied in the first week the beachheads could be overrun. This reserve needed to be free of the chain of command and directly at OKWs disposal. Hitler chose a mix. A reserve under his command (not OKW) and a few scattered primary response elements. 12th SS Pz, 17th SS PzGr and 21st Pz were among them.
It is difficult to estimate what could have happened. I merely observe what 352 Inf with limited assault guns did on Omaha and 21st Pz did on Juno/Sword. 12th SS Pz arrived on D+2 in Caen and joined forces with 21st Pz in warding off the Brits and Canadians. Caen was simply the most efficient place to field the armour and the Germans poured more and more in there. The Brits and Canadians effectively shielded the American flank.
Meanwhile 17th SS PzGr (with only ~50 StuG IIIs) and later 130th (Lehr) Pz were causing the Americans a lot of trouble in the bocage. However these didn't arrive until about a week after D-Day. By then the game was lost. They could hold, but not hold on. And the Americans simply had more to bring into the equation.

Assesment of Generals:

Montgomery: Excellent at fielding artillery. It is often forgotten in a war dominated by armour, but in Africa it was THE weapon of choice. Tanks were simply too prone to breakdown in the sand. Treads wore down alarmingly fast and dust interfered with the engine dispite filters (filters that by themselves decreased the intake to the engine and lowered the power yield). El Alamein was won with perfect timing of artillery used in combination with other elements. As to sitting flat on his ass, I merely point out that Loire (where Patton was) and the Dutch-Belgian border is approximately the same distance to Normandy. Despite the ~5 crack SS Panzer divs and ~3 veteran Panzer divs he had to cope with. Well he must have done something right..... All allied generals were sitting flat on their ass for weeks due to fuel shortage.
Let me just say this to avoid having to say it again; he did make some pretty bad calls. He also made a lot of good ones.

Patton: Was NOT a team player. Good heavens. Stole fuel and supplies from his support units on the flanks. Like Montgomery he was not a politician and often spoke his mind. By the time of Market Garden Patton had no obvious inroads to Germany. Several crack armoured units were in defensible positions ahead. It was even estimated that the elite 2SS Pz corps was in reserve behind his lines. Failed to trap XIXth Armee in Southern France.

Rommel: Good at rapid movement. Good at forming taskforces to cope with an immidiate thread. I have seen many Americans in this thread statíng that Africa Corps was in shambles before, under and after El Alamein. Most likely true after, but despite this they routed the Americans at Kasserine in Tunesia. I don't think many commanders could have pulled that off.

Model: Good on the eastern front. Made some bad judgements during Kursk, but had bad orders and bad intelligence. Perhaps his suspicion in intelligence lead him to make the mistakes he made under Market Garden?? Who knows.

Ike: The broad front was a mistake. The Americans had the wrong man in the drivers seat IMHO. Patton and Montgomery may not have a lot in common, but they both disliked Ike (to use a mild wording).

McArthur: No comments. Don't know enough about the man.

There were other generals worth noting as well. Patch Alexander, Hodges, Simpson, Guderian and German "political" generals.

Montgomery: Excellent at fielding artillery. It is often forgotten in a war dominated by armour, but in Africa it was THE weapon of choice.

Good to see a mention of the role of artillery, I was thinking earlier that there had been little discussion of its use. Once again the question of who used it the most efficiently runs into questions of the correct way to apply it: massive pre-planned bombardments like the USSR favoured, or the ability to call in smaller formation precision fire like the US favoured (the UK fall somewhere in between these two extremes).

A long post requires a long answer...;-)

Therosia: Effeciency on microscale (tactical): It is pretty much agreed upon that the Germans were the best in this field.

Yes, absolutely. Very hard to argue against that.

Therosia: Effeciency on macroscale (strategy and deployment): It is hard to tell really. .. ...In short - the Russians mostly capitalized on encirclements and the western allies did not do so with the same level of significanse.

Well, the Russians did have a larger army. And weren't afraid to use it (read: accept huge casualties). Most other countries would have looked for a political solution after suffering the collosal casualties that the USSR took from the Germans, guess that sometimes it is good to have a far out dictatorship around...;-) However, it is hard to excuse the failure to complete the encirclement as far as the Falaise Pocket and the Ardennes 'Bulge' are concerned. On the other hand, Stalin himself stated (at Yalta I think) that without the help of the allies, resistance to the German forces would have failed. And on the macro-macro scale, the US decision to 'go after' the Germans first was the right one to make.

On the German capacity to resist invasion: well, keeping your armour 20 miles from the beach makes sense, but *which* beach? Remember Napolean's maxim about holding a river, the enemy ARE going to get across, and if you attempt to hold the whole line you will be destroyed before you can concentrate your forces. Ditto France. Von Rundstedt's decision was the right one IMO. Unfortunately, allied air power made the trip to the beach long and arduous. Here, the Germans were caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Either solution to the problem of defending the French coast was deeply flawed.

On the generals:

Therosia: Montgomery: Excellent at fielding artillery. ...he did make some pretty bad calls. He also made a lot of good ones.

I think that in charge of a corps Monty would have been outstanding. In charge of armies, I think he had been promoted beyond his level of competence. Yes, he made some good moves, but was very 'careful'. He didn't move in North Africa until he had a force that couldn't fail. Arguably, Rommel handed him victory by ignoring his orders (as was his habit) and advancing beyond the capacity of his supply train to keep up. There is no doubt Monty was a good general, even a brilliant one (if only for his affect on morale) but when in charge of a theater he was too careful, except for Market Garden which looks like a response to his critics rather than a well thought out battle plan. The 'careful' charge could really be applied to British generals as a whole, because they *did* try to be careful with the lives of their men, and seemed to keep in mind that losses simply couldn't be made up.

Therosia: Patton: Was NOT a team player. Good heavens. Stole fuel and supplies from his support units on the flanks.

Heh-heh, just like Rommel did in getting across the Meuse. Patton is overrated, but he was a good general (even if he was an a&*hole). He had no compunction about committing his men, even if he did not as yet have any idea what the hell was happening. The angry general in 'Kelly's Heroes' I think just about sums up Patton the martinet. Bradley was better IMO, and certainly I would have preferred him as commander!

Therosia: Rommel: Good at rapid movement.

Oh yes. As good as or even better than Patton. If you keep in mind that when crossing the Meuse he had never before commanded panzers, his achievement is astonishing. His overreaching in North Africa is less so however. I wonder what he would have been like in the 'real war' on the Eastern Front?

Therosia: Model: Good on the eastern front.

Yeah, Model could actually be used to show what proper General Staff training can acheive, and be used as a poster boy for the 'ordinary' German general. The Germans seemed to have a limitles supply of very competent generals who seemed capable of taking charge of almost any situation quickly and competently (Paulus is an obvious example of an exception to this). I think of him as an outstanding example of 'ordinary' generalship, which sounds kind of backhanded, and does fail to convey his out and out professional acuity.

Therosia: Ike: The broad front was a mistake. The Americans had the wrong man in the drivers seat IMHO. Patton and Montgomery may not have a lot in common, but they both disliked Ike (to use a mild wording).

Here we disagree greatly. IMO no other general was capable of making generals with enormous egos like Monty and Patton (who didn't think much of each other either) toe the line. His job wasn't to be a brilliant military tactician, but rather to keep the allies together and to defeat Germany. The Ardennes offensive was supposed to split the allies both militarily and politically, but there was never any danger of this happening, thanks in large part to Ike (and the 82nd Airborne). Considering the politics involved (even to this day) the broad front was probably the most workable solution. Not the best possible by any means, but the most workable, and one which was supported by both Roosevelt and Churchill who both deeply appreciated Ike's handle on the political ramifications. One reason that both Monty and Patton disliked him is the obvious one: he had been promoted over their heads. If you see his role correcly (IMO anyway) Ike was a manager more than he was a general. In this role he was simply outstanding, and the list of alternatives is very short: Maybe Bradley, Alexander or Marshall?

Question: is it just a case of our Western focus that has lead to (as far as I can tell) there having been no discussion of Japanese Generals?

This topic is about WW2. Two! Get it?
The British had a plodding, linear doctrine based on an unresponsive centralized command structure. They weren't even as sophisticated as the Soviets. You need to read more scholarly work instead of pro-British fluff. Then you would see what a failure Monty was.


im sorry i thought monty won north africa...oh wait he did what a failure he was! who really cares about the command structure!? Its what the soliders did that counts and they did a hell of alot and you cant argue against that! I still say Britain and the other counties of the empire OR germany were the most effective countries and dont really. America did alot when they actually were in the war but so did the USSR and every other country.

Good to see a mention of the role of artillery, I was thinking earlier that there had been little discussion of its use. Once again the question of who used it the most efficiently runs into questions of the correct way to apply it: massive pre-planned bombardments like the USSR favoured, or the ability to call in smaller formation precision fire like the US favoured (the UK fall somewhere in between these two extremes).

Yes. Like I hinted it may have been pushed into the background due to the new and remarkable weapon - the tank.
That doesn't mean it didn't play a significant role. It is just more difficult to find references to it. Naval artillery have had a significant impact on several landbased operations. Prinz Eugen participated in several operations to assist trapped and/or retreating units on the Baltic coast and several sources agree that withouts destroyers being called in to shell 352nd on Omaha the beachhead would have collapsed completely making it possible for regiments of the 352nd to join up with 21st Pz and trap the Juno/Sword/Gold beachheads.
Arty also played a signifancant role in routing 130th (Lehr) Pz in the bocage and make the final breakthrough under Operation Cobra.
There were massive differences in technology with regards to arty. American arty was predominantly HMC (Howitzer Motor Carriages). Mobile, but gas guzzlers and hence a logistical nightmare. The British and Russian were a mix of self-propelled and towed. The Russians had a massive amount of arty. One piece pr. 200m of frontline even in 1943. The Germans more or less only had towed arty often fielded by horse. Occationally you could find motorized arty on obsolete tank chassis', but it was rare. Tank destroyers could occationally double as arty, but their low caliber made them less effective in this role.
I have seen the German 88mm FlaK mentioned as the best gun in the war (disregarding mobility). It was precise enough to be used AA (which also relates to the tendency to droop, i.e. precision loss due to heat deformation), it had enough muzzle velocity to knock out tanks and it had high enough caliber to make it effective against infantry.
I double Bodies Without Organs and would also like to know more about the artillery of WWII. From the comments I have seen so far I guess there is someone out there with expert knowlegde on this field :). I am an artillerist myself.

The only Japanese commanders of note were Yamamoto and Nomura. The military tactic adopted by japanese command was fairly inflexible and no one diverted from it. The defense in depth with elaborate bunker systems was pioneered during world war one, and adapted to the pacific theater. there were no radical doctrines adopted by the japanese besides carrier warfare.

I don't understand why this topic is still going...
Look, the Japanese only did well against the US at all because they were well-prepared and dug in to their positions, and waiting for us. The US had to run them out.
The Germans obviously were the best to a point, but they over-reached and that cost them the war.
The Soviets did shitty until Stalingrad. They won only after losing well over 20 million people. This attrition rate does NOT in any way imply they did well.
The French got taken over.
The British held out well, but they were fighting a defensive war.
The Italians aren't even worth mentioning.
The US is the only nation that really took it to the Germans. They suffered fewer casualties and provided most of the force and supplies needed to oust the Germans. No other nation did this so well. The Russians did push the Germans back, but they lost far more men.

Thus, the US did the best because it won, and it lost the least men in doing so.

The only Japanese commanders of note were Yamamoto and Nomura. The military tactic adopted by japanese command was fairly inflexible and no one diverted from it. The defense in depth with elaborate bunker systems was pioneered during world war one, and adapted to the pacific theater. there were no radical doctrines adopted by the japanese besides carrier warfare.Well I hate to disagree with such an authoritative stance, but my honor compells me to. Defense in depth was certainly not the Japanese stratagy/tactic in China, a defense in depth would have 1. not conquered mush territory and 2. required about 10 times the population of Japan just for Manchuko. The late war may have been domiinated by inflexability but in the early war the Japaneese did a lot of inovation. I suspect you are mistaking Japan on the defense for the entire Japanese effort - even so the work of General Tomoyuki Yamashita in that time frame is still worthy of note, and Suzuki was definetly one of the top generals of the war.

The US is the only nation that really took it to the Germans.
Let me just check that you do know which Allied nation actually got to Berlin first, yes?


They suffered fewer casualties and provided most of the force and supplies needed to oust the Germans. No other nation did this so well. The Russians did push the Germans back, but they lost far more men.

Thus, the US did the best because it won, and it lost the least men in doing so.

Ah, once again we see the assumption that losing a lot of men is a bad thing: the Soviet Union lost an incredible amount of people, but they were expendible resources, and the leadership had just the same attitude to them as the US, for example, had to military hardware, fuel, ammunition or other logistical supplies. The strengths of the US was its industrial development and access to raw materials, and it used these to its advantage, while for the USSR the primary strength was manpower, and it used this to its advantage too.

Just because the USSR expended a different kind of resource in attaining victory does not mean it was less efficent than another nation.

A long post requires a long answer...;-)
Well, the Russians did have a larger army. And weren't afraid to use it (read: accept huge casualties). Most other countries would have looked for a political solution after suffering the collosal casualties that the USSR took from the Germans, guess that sometimes it is good to have a far out dictatorship around...;-) However, it is hard to excuse the failure to complete the encirclement as far as the Falaise Pocket and the Ardennes 'Bulge' are concerned. On the other hand, Stalin himself stated (at Yalta I think) that without the help of the allies, resistance to the German forces would have failed. And on the macro-macro scale, the US decision to 'go after' the Germans first was the right one to make.

Yes. The western democracies had to make sure the death toll was bearable. Many perished on the eastern front due to starvation and/or frost. Many also died in imprisonment. The surrendering Germans in Stalingrad were marched to their gulag by foot. I have seen estimates on death rates higher than 80%. A couple of Swedes made a PhD about the eastern front compared to the western. Remarkably the fatalities in combat are mostly equal in terms of intensity. I don't have the references at hand, but I'll dig the names up if you like.

On the German capacity to resist invasion: well, keeping your armour 20 miles from the beach makes sense, but *which* beach? Remember Napolean's maxim about holding a river, the enemy ARE going to get across, and if you attempt to hold the whole line you will be destroyed before you can concentrate your forces. Ditto France. Von Rundstedt's decision was the right one IMO. Unfortunately, allied air power made the trip to the beach long and arduous. Here, the Germans were caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Either solution to the problem of defending the French coast was deeply flawed.

Right. There is no doubt that the Germans could not resist a PERSISTENT Allied invasion of France. However as we briefly discussed in the previous section they didn't have to. They merely needed to make the casualty rate too high to bear. To this end I think the Germans had enough armour at hand to guard all the possible coasts. I may be mistaken. Luckily we never found out. It would most certainly have cost more precious human life like on "bloody Omaha".

I think that in charge of a corps Monty would have been outstanding. In charge of armies, I think he had been promoted beyond his level of competence. Yes, he made some good moves, but was very 'careful'. He didn't move in North Africa until he had a force that couldn't fail. Arguably, Rommel handed him victory by ignoring his orders (as was his habit) and advancing beyond the capacity of his supply train to keep up. There is no doubt Monty was a good general, even a brilliant one (if only for his affect on morale) but when in charge of a theater he was too careful, except for Market Garden which looks like a response to his critics rather than a well thought out battle plan. The 'careful' charge could really be applied to British generals as a whole, because they *did* try to be careful with the lives of their men, and seemed to keep in mind that losses simply couldn't be made up.

I think Market Garden was a result of many things. Mostly all the other army groups in France did not have the _apparent_ window of oppotunity Montgomery had. I am not sure if it was a result of critisism. I am pretty damn sure it was a at least partially result of horrible intelligence. He has later claimed that had the presense of 2SS Pz been known and the proper ressources been allocated M-G would have succeeded regardless. I am not sure what to think of that.
However I agree the man may have been promoted beyond his capabilities. I say this carefully, because one should not base assumptions on a single incident.

Heh-heh, just like Rommel did in getting across the Meuse. Patton is overrated, but he was a good general (even if he was an a&*hole). He had no compunction about committing his men, even if he did not as yet have any idea what the hell was happening. The angry general in 'Kelly's Heroes' I think just about sums up Patton the martinet. Bradley was better IMO, and certainly I would have preferred him as commander!

Bingo! How could I forget to remember Omar. Regardless we agree. And I have seen "Kelly's Heroes". It is also worth to remember that he was the only one who foresaw the Ardennes Offensive and had a contingency plan ready.

(On Rommel): Oh yes. As good as or even better than Patton. If you keep in mind that when crossing the Meuse he had never before commanded panzers, his achievement is astonishing. His overreaching in North Africa is less so however. I wonder what he would have been like in the 'real war' on the Eastern Front?

The board game "Russian Campaign" allows the experiment. It will cost you supplies later, but an extra rapid corps in the southern group makes a large difference. Being a game it is not exactly the best source of information.

(On Ike): Here we disagree greatly. IMO no other general was capable of making generals with enormous egos like Monty and Patton (who didn't think much of each other either) toe the line. His job wasn't to be a brilliant military tactician, but rather to keep the allies together and to defeat Germany. The Ardennes offensive was supposed to split the allies both militarily and politically, but there was never any danger of this happening, thanks in large part to Ike (and the 82nd Airborne). Considering the politics involved (even to this day) the broad front was probably the most workable solution. Not the best possible by any means, but the most workable, and one which was supported by both Roosevelt and Churchill who both deeply appreciated Ike's handle on the political ramifications. One reason that both Monty and Patton disliked him is the obvious one: he had been promoted over their heads. If you see his role correcly (IMO anyway) Ike was a manager more than he was a general. In this role he was simply outstanding, and the list of alternatives is very short: Maybe Bradley, Alexander or Marshall?

Bradley. For sure. As mentioned above under Patton the Ardennes offensive failed... well for numerous reason, but also because relief for 82nd in Bastogne was rapid and in force. The objective of the Ardennes offensive was to inflict enough damage on the allies to make seperate peace and throw everything at the reds.
I agree that I am making a grave error in letting circumstances reflect poorly on Ike. The broad front was inferior, but perhaps the best politically. However why not have one to smooth it over (Ike) and one to actually run the Army efficiently (Bradley). I simply despise the impact politics had on the western allies performance and have wrongfully let that influence my impression of Ike. Had he not been tied down he might have let his commanders use the oppotunities they had.

To people asking for commanders in the Pacific theatre I encourage you to simply make your assesments. It should be clear that my knowledge on the European theatre greatly exceed that of the pacific.

In the Pacific Macarthur dominates, unless you include Navy, in which case Nimitz and Yamamoto make a strong showing. Yamashita was brilliant in his campaign in Malaya and Singapore (arguably becuase of the British, not his genius), and had the right idea about holding the Philippines with what he had (he knew he could not defeat the US Army on the plains of Luzon, it was the kind of terrain the US and Japanese had not fought on yet, where field armies could be deployed, and the US was far better at this than the Japanese, and Yamashita knew this).

Some people consider Doorman good, but really only becuase he went down on his ship, he lost his task force. Slim also comes to mind, he was undoubtedly the best field commander Britain had in the Far East, but arguably not the best Allied Commander in the Far East.

Yes. The western democracies had to make sure the death toll was bearable. Many perished on the eastern front due to starvation and/or frost. Many also died in imprisonment. The surrendering Germans in Stalingrad were marched to their gulag by foot. I have seen estimates on death rates higher than 80%. A couple of Swedes made a PhD about the eastern front compared to the western. Remarkably the fatalities in combat are mostly equal in terms of intensity. I don't have the references at hand, but I'll dig the names up if you like.

When one takes into account the proportionate sizes of the forces involved, the intensity of both Eastern and Western Front battles are about the same, with some exceptions. It is just that the Western Allies proceeded in a gradually moving ever forward offensive, while the Soviets went for the grand schwerpunkt that would move the front hundreds of miles, then leave it sittin gthere for months as logistics caught up. A lot of Soviet casualties are attributed to becoming POWs (especially those captured in the great encirclements of 1941), and just general brutal tactics behind the lines by both sides, the armies fighting themselves was not especially more brutal.



Right. There is no doubt that the Germans could not resist a PERSISTENT Allied invasion of France. However as we briefly discussed in the previous section they didn't have to. They merely needed to make the casualty rate too high to bear. To this end I think the Germans had enough armour at hand to guard all the possible coasts. I may be mistaken. Luckily we never found out. It would most certainly have cost more precious human life like on "bloody Omaha".

Well, in truth, there was a Panzer division within the Normandy area, and it did not blunt the landing. It is unlikely had Rommel been given full armor assets he would have deployed a second Panzer division to Normandy, he would have probably strengthened Brittany and possibly the Cotentin (which would put another Panzer division near Normandy).

I think Market Garden was a result of many things. Mostly all the other army groups in France did not have the _apparent_ window of oppotunity Montgomery had. I am not sure if it was a result of critisism. I am pretty damn sure it was a at least partially result of horrible intelligence. He has later claimed that had the presense of 2SS Pz been known and the proper ressources been allocated M-G would have succeeded regardless. I am not sure what to think of that.
However I agree the man may have been promoted beyond his capabilities. I say this carefully, because one should not base assumptions on a single incident.

M-G succeeding really was a bit too ambitious, had the Rhine crossings not been attacked, than it would undoubtedly have been a success, but the XXX Corps simply could not reach the Rhine in time. It had to advance between inundated fields on a single road, and the paratroopers, no matter how prepared, could not have carried the equipment necessary to sustain a defence against armored forces. The resources Monty had should have gone to clearing the Scheldt, but he did not want to turn around.



Bingo! How could I forget to remember Omar. Regardless we agree. And I have seen "Kelly's Heroes". It is also worth to remember that he was the only one who foresaw the Ardennes Offensive and had a contingency plan ready.

Bradley did not think much of the Ardennes offensive when it opened, and did not prepare reinforcements for any of the divisions, believing the 9th Armored could effectively support the infantry against what he thought a diversionary assault. Eisenhower just happened to be at Bradley's HQ when word came in, and immediately ordered veteran Armored formations to move to support form neighbouring formations.


Bradley. For sure.

He does make a strong showing, but I think he as simply more competent as a Field Army commander than Supreme Commander, I think Alexander would be the better choice.

As mentioned above under Patton the Ardennes offensive failed... well for numerous reason, but also because relief for 82nd in Bastogne was rapid and in force.

Just to clear up an ongoing nitpick, it was the 101st Airborne in Bastogne, not the 82nd, which was operating in the main battle line further to the North and not encircled.

The objective of the Ardennes offensive was to inflict enough damage on the allies to make seperate peace and throw everything at the reds.

Operation Wacht Am Rhein's objective was to capture the logistical center of Antwerp, thereby depriving the Allies of their main center of supplies, encircle the British, Canadian, and part of the American Armies in a pocket in Holland/Belgium (and destroy it), then at leisure destroy what was left of the Allied Army (The forces south of the Ardennes). It was meant to be the beginning of another Sickle Stroke, not to force a seperate peace, but throw the Allies off the Continent long enough for a counterattack against the Soviets.

I agree that I am making a grave error in letting circumstances reflect poorly on Ike. The broad front was inferior, but perhaps the best politically. However why not have one to smooth it over (Ike) and one to actually run the Army efficiently (Bradley). I simply despise the impact politics had on the western allies performance and have wrongfully let that influence my impression of Ike. Had he not been tied down he might have let his commanders use the oppotunities they had.

Well, he was also dealing with a lot of green troops, trying great encirclements like the Germans had done in 1941, and the Soviets several times, was not exactly a safe thing to do with green troops, especially after just stopping a major offensive.

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.

France. They kinda got the idea that they'd screwed up their defense and that having a rather large German army suddenly sitting in the middle of Paris was a bad thing all round, so they surrendered before they lost any more lives. Instead they're famous (except in the US) for going underground and for running a complex, wide-spread and effective guerilla resistance campaign. Or were they terrorists? It's so hard to tell :)

Anyway, having the Nazis involved in a 'rapid' (6 week) invasion of France, and then keeping them happy playing "occupying force" there for a while, it gave the British vital time to prepare for the Battle of Britain, which may have gone rather badly otherwise.

Definitely the most efficient and (for the Pacific) effective General of the entire war was US General Leslie R. Groves, Head of the Army Corps of Engineers Manhattan Engineer District (MED).

He managed to organise something like 80,000+ fighting men and civilians into a three year crash-program to research, develop, and construct the most deadly, terrifying, and powerful armament ever. That's a pretty major achievement.

I do love US General Omar Bradley's quote that I first saw in Call of Duty, though:

"The world has achieved brilliance without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."

Maff

Before I comment let me say it is a VERY good response S&S. I have snipped parts were we agree.

Well, in truth, there was a Panzer division within the Normandy area, and it did not blunt the landing. It is unlikely had Rommel been given full armor assets he would have deployed a second Panzer division to Normandy, he would have probably strengthened Brittany and possibly the Cotentin (which would put another Panzer division near Normandy).

Yep the 21st Pz division was in Caen. Given the size of the reserve (I count 8 Pz divisions) there would most likely have been at least one additional Pz within the beachhead area. I reckon it would have been in Carentan to respond northbound (to Cherbourg) and easterward (to Caen). It would probably not have been an elite unit such as 1st SS, 12th SS or Lehr, but still.
21st pretty much disrupted any advancement from the three UK/Canadian beachheads and forced at least the Canadian to extend westward in an attempt to connect with Omaha where hell was loose. The allied had air superiority and could disrupt 21st before it caused decisive problems (i.e. overran the beachheads), but I don't think Allied air superiority could have compensated for two or more armoured units laying havoc on different beachheads. You may argue that the Allied would have located these units beforehand and targeted them before advancing, but they completely overlooked 352nd and failed to pinpoint 21st in the right location.

M-G succeeding really was a bit too ambitious, had the Rhine crossings not been attacked, than it would undoubtedly have been a success, but the XXX Corps simply could not reach the Rhine in time. It had to advance between inundated fields on a single road, and the paratroopers, no matter how prepared, could not have carried the equipment necessary to sustain a defence against armored forces. The resources Monty had should have gone to clearing the Scheldt, but he did not want to turn around.

I feel it is necessary to say I agree. The operation should not have aimed directly and only at Arnhem, but also have concentrated on clearing the Schelde estuary and made the Antwerpen harbour operational. In fact with such a broader and long-term plan proper detection of 2nd SS would most likely have lead to a shorter thrust forward while Hodges (who suffered in the Peel marshes) and XXX corps could be resupplied via Antwerpen.

Bradley did not think much of the Ardennes offensive when it opened, and did not prepare reinforcements for any of the divisions, believing the 9th Armored could effectively support the infantry against what he thought a diversionary assault. Eisenhower just happened to be at Bradley's HQ when word came in, and immediately ordered veteran Armored formations to move to support form neighbouring formations.

I must be the boards leader in making ambigous statements. I was refering to Patton, who had 4th armoured on it's way northbound before Bradley and Eisenhower knew the kitchen was on fire.

Just to clear up an ongoing nitpick, it was the 101st Airborne in Bastogne, not the 82nd, which was operating in the main battle line further to the North and not encircled.

Errm. *Blush*. Yes, of course. McAuliffe.

Operation Wacht Am Rhein's objective was to capture the logistical center of Antwerp, thereby depriving the Allies of their main center of supplies, encircle the British, Canadian, and part of the American Armies in a pocket in Holland/Belgium (and destroy it), then at leisure destroy what was left of the Allied Army (The forces south of the Ardennes). It was meant to be the beginning of another Sickle Stroke, not to force a seperate peace, but throw the Allies off the Continent long enough for a counterattack against the Soviets.

You are correct. I looked it up and you are absolutely correct. And to elaborately connect these comments together I believe the Schelde still had functional and supplied German troops.
While war is brutal and disgusting one has to admire this last toss of the dice.

Well, (Eisenhower) was also dealing with a lot of green troops, trying great encirclements like the Germans had done in 1941, and the Soviets several times, was not exactly a safe thing to do with green troops, especially after just stopping a major offensive.

Okay, I can see what you are getting at and it is certainly easier to say what he should have done afterwards. However the Russians didn't perform encirclements with elite units alone. As I see it an encirclement should have stopped and merely engaged the lead elements of the German advance at a defensible spot such as the Meuse while units punch through the basis of the salient and occupy the obvious routes of retreat. While he had some pretty green troops he also had some pretty good veteran units.
But (as said before) Americans could not gamble with human life, which is good and noble thing (I wouldn't have it any other way actually). In this case it is very likely that it would have saved lifes on a long term basis even though troops at the German rear would have suffered very large casualties while the Germans were being exhausted.
On an even longer term basis we might not have had such a thing as the DDR.

But (as said before) Americans could not gamble with human life, which is good and noble thing (I wouldn't have it any other way actually).

I disagree strongly - to the point of wanting to exclaim "nonsense": although the US may have placed higher value on human lives than the USSR or Japan, they still gambled with human life: such is nature of warfare. The US was just more conservative when the loss of its own mens' lives were at stake.

In the Pacific Macarthur dominates, unless you include Navy, in which case Nimitz and Yamamoto make a strong showing. Yamashita was brilliant in his campaign in Malaya and Singapore (arguably becuase of the British, not his genius), and had the right idea about holding the Philippines with what he had (he knew he could not defeat the US Army on the plains of Luzon, it was the kind of terrain the US and Japanese had not fought on yet, where field armies could be deployed, and the US was far better at this than the Japanese, and Yamashita knew this).
Are you saying Macarthur Dominated as a general, or that the US dominated with MacArthur as general? I can agree to the second formulation but have problems with the first. MacArthur never really had a chance to display any great generalship, either he was completely outclassed by or was able to overwhelm the Japanese forces. One can make an argument that arranging to have a dominant force is good generalship, in which case we can class Prince Hanin(?sp) as a great general, probably greater than MacArthur. Let me take back the point about MacArthur never having a chance to show great generalship, he had several chances - Guadalcanal before Patch took command and New Gunia come to mind, and he allowed those both to become nasty attritions until shear weight of allied troops overwhelmed the Japanese. I don't think having a stratagy of adding troops to a battle until your opponent is unable to supply enough bullets to kill them can be considered a hallmark of a great general.

I disagree strongly - to the point of wanting to exclaim "nonsense": although the US may have placed higher value on human lives than the USSR or Japan, they still gambled with human life: such is nature of warfare. The US was just more conservative when the loss of its own mens' lives were at stake.

I concur. ... "the Americans could (would) not gamble with human life on this scale" might be a more appropiate wording.

Here are my thougts:

US: Sherman Tanks were nowhere near enough, troops were very flexible though. Ike was a brilliant manager. Industrial capability enormous. Troop motivation questionable, but somehow never had any problems. Who knows, maybe it's just us crazy yanks, we like to gripe.
Britain: Powerful tanks were the counterpoint to the weak Sherman, but their chief general, Monty, was not very adaptive, but was good with set piece battles. Troops were very motivated at protection of home.
France: Got its' butt whooped mighty quick and inflicted almost no casualties upon the krauts with the highly expensive maginot line. Also misused the maginot line, relying too much on it.
Italy: Soldiers were poorly motivated by a war they weren't all that cool with. Generals also fairly incompetent.
Germany: Good Generals, Good Troops, Generally good equipment, crackpot leader screwing stuff up. Took huge portion of population out of circulation by mass killing people in Concentration Camps.
USSR: The sledgehammer of the war. Took advantage of several lucky breaks as well as several encirclements. Troops motivated. Suffered huge numbers of casualties, both military and civilian. T-34 best overall tank of war.
Japan: Revolutionized naval warfare, then went back to the old ways. Smashed China during the thirties, and took advantage of US and UK's distraction. Their general strategy of inflicting maximum casualties to get the US to leave the war was flawed when fighting a motivated force.

and if there is some stupid mistake, I probably made it out of being tired. curse these crazy college hours.

and if there is some stupid mistake, I probably made it out of being tired. curse these crazy college hours. I have to disagree with the T-34 as the best tank of the war. Maybe the JS-2 or the King Tiger and a strong argument can be made for the lighter Panther, but not the T-34. What the T-34 was was the best of its class and was the best of it's generation both. Lets face it, a 30 ton tank is not comparable to an 80 ton behemouth designed years after the poor T-34's got into the war. The T-34s had problems which were corrected in later tank designs, famously the ammo being mostly stored under the loaders feet and the appalling lack of radios except in the command version. But from 1940 to 1942 the T-34 was the best overall tank arround, and even the '43 T-34s could give the brand new Panthers a good workout.

I have to disagree with the T-34 as the best tank of the war. Maybe the JS-2 or the King Tiger and a strong argument can be made for the lighter Panther, but not the T-34.

Were the King Tigers not still plagued by the terrible breakdown rates of the earlier models - the same tendency to overheat? The lighter Panther was quite badly designed so far as the sides of the turret went - real weak points where the armour was not only relatively thin, but also unsloped IIRC.

Were the King Tigers not still plagued by the terrible breakdown rates of the earlier models - the same tendency to overheat?Yes and no. I was thinking of the Tiger II, also known as the King Tiger, not the other King Tiger which was developed from the Tiger I (confusing nomenclature huh?). There were problems with the Tiger IIs but these were not so much design problems but manufacturing problems. It seems that quality conrol in Germany was slipping towards the end of the war and many of the later Tiger IIs just weren't being built well.

Are you saying Macarthur Dominated as a general, or that the US dominated with MacArthur as general? I can agree to the second formulation but have problems with the first. MacArthur never really had a chance to display any great generalship, either he was completely outclassed by or was able to overwhelm the Japanese forces. One can make an argument that arranging to have a dominant force is good generalship, in which case we can class Prince Hanin(?sp) as a great general, probably greater than MacArthur. Let me take back the point about MacArthur never having a chance to show great generalship, he had several chances - Guadalcanal before Patch took command and New Gunia come to mind, and he allowed those both to become nasty attritions until shear weight of allied troops overwhelmed the Japanese. I don't think having a stratagy of adding troops to a battle until your opponent is unable to supply enough bullets to kill them can be considered a hallmark of a great general.


There was no ability to be a good General against the Japanese. No matter what. MacAurther wasnt outclassed in the Phillippines early on. He was just outgunned. The Japanese had better planes, and combat experienced troops early on in the war. This gave them a tremendous advantage. Also if you look at every battle of the war they were all bloody attrition fights in which one side overwhelemed the other utterly. The Japanese didnt allow for strategy to be played simply because the defense they fought was so unconventional and so unique as to have never been encountered by the US and would not be encountered against until Vietnam some 30 years later. Frankly MacAurher did the best with a bad situation. Sure we cant call him a great General, but how many Generals can lay the claim they have the constitution of one of the most economically powerful nations on the planet named after them?

Yes and no. I was thinking of the Tiger II, also known as the King Tiger, not the other King Tiger which was developed from the Tiger I (confusing nomenclature huh?).

Yeah, I think we are talking about the same vehicle, but I still believe that it required almost constant maintenance and was even then prone to overheating.

There was no ability to be a good General against the Japanese. No matter what. MacAurther wasnt outclassed in the Phillippines early on. He was just outgunned. The Japanese had better planes, and combat experienced troops early on in the war. This gave them a tremendous advantage. Also if you look at every battle of the war they were all bloody attrition fights in which one side overwhelemed the other utterly. The Japanese didnt allow for strategy to be played simply because the defense they fought was so unconventional and so unique as to have never been encountered by the US and would not be encountered against until Vietnam some 30 years later. Frankly MacAurher did the best with a bad situation. Sure we cant call him a great General, but how many Generals can lay the claim they have the constitution of one of the most economically powerful nations on the planet named after them?I was using outclassed to refer to the size of his forces, a metaphor using the categories of boxing:, he was early on a strawweight in a welterweight bout and came back as a heavy weight, not implying that he was outclassed as a general (I think I was using to point to show that Macarthur didn;t have a chance to show the quality of his generalship). But I think New Guina shows exactly how MacArthur obtained his final victory, shovel in troops until your enemy runs out of bullets.

Yeah, I think we are talking about the same vehicle, but I still believe that it required almost constant maintenance and was even then prone to overheating.
Like I said yes and no. The overheating was not a design problem, and the maintence was considered high (but not too bad by the standards of a modern MBT), but mechanical breakdowns were usually the result of slipshod manufacturing. The overheating for the Tiger II was a story (not quite right word) created by the fact that the first one captured by the Soviets overheated alot when being driven for testing, but one of the radiators was later found to be empty. The Tiger II had a more than adequate cooling system if the radiators were kept filled (the Tiger I did tend to overheat due to having too small a radiator for the engine). The real problem with the Tiger II was the fuel consumption measured in gallons per mile. I can see calling other tanks better than the Tiger II, but the T-34?

US: Sherman Tanks were nowhere near enough,

There were plenty of them, and bear in mind US tank doctrine was not to go tank to tank, that's what Tank Destroyer units were for, Tanks were for supporting infantry assaults, and the Sherman was good at this.

Britain: Powerful tanks were the counterpoint to the weak Sherman,

British tanks were always subpar to American tanks until '44 (The Churchill was not an advancement in design, in fact it went backwards), they suffered from a lapse in several key design and construction methods both the United States and Germany used (An generally not fully testing their new vehicles).

but their chief general, Monty, was not very adaptive, but was good with set piece battles. Troops were very motivated at protection of home.

Arguable whether or not Monty can be called the cheif general, what with Alexander, O'Connor, Brooke, and Slim all coming to mind, all generals who acheived greatness (though O'Connors is the easiest debatable).

France: Got its' butt whooped mighty quick and inflicted almost no casualties upon the krauts with the highly expensive maginot line. Also misused the maginot line, relying too much on it.

It was not that they relied to heavily on the Maginot, but that they were expecting a repeat of WWI, and deployed their most powerful and mobile (all forces in the Maginot were immobile) forces into Belgium immediately, and lightly garrisoned the Maginot (Corap's Ninth Army was pitiful, two cavalry divisions). And they inflicted some good casualties on the Germans, just not as many as would be expected, and the Weygand Line was the right idea to combat Blitzkreig, focus anti-tank and infantry nests in villages (rather then in a continous line), that will continue to fight on after encircled into the rear of the Panzer thrust and it's vulnerable neck, they just lacked the manpower (after the First Army was encircled), equipment, and space (like Russia) for it to work, and it collapsed.

Italy: Soldiers were poorly motivated by a war they weren't all that cool with. Generals also fairly incompetent.

Some of their divisions (Areite anyone) were quite good, but overall Italy's performance in the war was abysmal.

Germany: Good Generals, Good Troops, Generally good equipment, crackpot leader screwing stuff up.

While they had generally good equipment, they did have their fair share of generally useless stuff, or things they just didn't bother to make (like their lapse in air design). They never shifted their economy to wartime levels into 1943, and by then had decided to take on the largest industrial force in the world.

USSR: The sledgehammer of the war. Took advantage of several lucky breaks as well as several encirclements. Troops motivated. Suffered huge numbers of casualties, both military and civilian. T-34 best overall tank of war.

As was stated, it's arguable the T-34 was the best (and they owe the T-34 to the Americans, who were offered it's initial design by Walter Christie first, but turned it down).

Japan: Revolutionized naval warfare, then went back to the old ways. Smashed China during the thirties, and took advantage of US and UK's distraction. Their general strategy of inflicting maximum casualties to get the US to leave the war was flawed when fighting a motivated force.

Well, they really didn't revolutionize Naval Warfare, Taranto was a year before and had shown what a carrier raid on battleships could do, as had the Hunt for the Bismarck. Even after Pearl Harbor they still stuck with the Big Gun Battleship theory, the Main Force at Midway was not the Carriers, it was the Yamato's task force.

The tiny Republic of Togoland.

Whoo-hoo!

I can see calling other tanks better than the Tiger II, but the T-34?

The question remains whether it was a better use of available resources than the Tiger II.

The question remains whether it was a better use of available resources than the Tiger II.
well what would have been a better use of the latewar German industrial base? more Tiger Is? V-1s? A solid tracked Niebelwerfer platform?

well what would have been a better use of the latewar German industrial base? more Tiger Is? V-1s? A solid tracked Niebelwerfer platform?

The Maus :p

Best tank... Hhhmm... It's a difficult question. As somebody hinted it's not necessarily the best in combat. Or in a narrow set of combat situations to be more precise (people on this board snatch even the slightest possibility of misinterpretation with great eagerness :)). It should preferably trade off in all fields with as little sacrifice as possible. Furthermore it should be simple to manifacture. No point in making the best combat tank in the world if you can only churn out 10 a month.

Production: As many reusable parts as possible. Carriage should be multipurpose (i.e. be able to double into other designs). Should use general purpose engine. Should only feature special equipment if it is within the designed role (no schnorkels on heavy tanks).

Weaponry: Should feature a high velocity cannon with sufficient caliber. Should have safe compartments for ammunition. Should have an easily transversible turret. Should have good viewpoints for the tank commander when the tank "buttons up".

Protection: Should have properly sloped armor. Should not have "shell traps" (i.e. corners where deflected shells can get caught). Should be as flat as possible. Should be easily concealable. Thickness in itself is a trade-off towards speed.

Speed/power: Should have a stable engine. Should have sufficient power to manuever. Should have power excess to counter temporary needs. Should use diesel (much less flamable). Speed in itself is a trade-off towards armour. The two should be balanced according to the intended role.

I don't have enough overview to actually point at a "winner". Perhaps the Panther.

Oh and the reply regarding the Brits armour might simply refer to their adaptations on the Sherman. Cromwell, Churchill, Matilda and whatever their names were was not remarkably good tanks.

Best tank... Hhhmm... It's a difficult question. As somebody hinted it's not necessarily the best in combat. Or in a narrow set of combat situations to be more precise (people on this board snatch even the slightest possibility of misinterpretation with great eagerness :)). It should preferably trade off in all fields with as little sacrifice as possible. Furthermore it should be simple to manifacture. No point in making the best combat tank in the world if you can only churn out 10 a month.

Production: As many reusable parts as possible. Carriage should be multipurpose (i.e. be able to double into other designs). Should use general purpose engine. Should only feature special equipment if it is within the designed role (no schnorkels on heavy tanks).

Weaponry: Should feature a high velocity cannon with sufficient caliber. Should have safe compartments for ammunition. Should have an easily transversible turret. Should have good viewpoints for the tank commander when the tank "buttons up".

Protection: Should have properly sloped armor. Should not have "shell traps" (i.e. corners where deflected shells can get caught). Should be as flat as possible. Should be easily concealable. Thickness in itself is a trade-off towards speed.

Speed/power: Should have a stable engine. Should have sufficient power to manuever. Should have power excess to counter temporary needs. Should use diesel (much less flamable). Speed in itself is a trade-off towards armour. The two should be balanced according to the intended role.

I don't have enough overview to actually point at a "winner". Perhaps the Panther.

Oh and the reply regarding the Brits armour might simply refer to their adaptations on the Sherman. Cromwell, Churchill, Matilda and whatever their names were was not remarkably good tanks.
Best world war two tank, T34 or the Conquering beast and it tank proginator.
The Churchil was an ok tank and the matilda was avery effective tank in the desert.
The best allied anti tank gun was the British 17pdr which was mounted in the Comwell and Comet the Comet was avery very good tank, hence it outlived all the other WWII heavy tanks other than the T54.
Yes the Sherman was crap, but easy to make.

Like I said yes and no. The overheating was not a design problem, and the maintence was considered high (but not too bad by the standards of a modern MBT), but mechanical breakdowns were usually the result of slipshod manufacturing. The overheating for the Tiger II was a story (not quite right word) created by the fact that the first one captured by the Soviets overheated alot when being driven for testing, but one of the radiators was later found to be empty. The Tiger II had a more than adequate cooling system if the radiators were kept filled (the Tiger I did tend to overheat due to having too small a radiator for the engine). The real problem with the Tiger II was the fuel consumption measured in gallons per mile. I can see calling other tanks better than the Tiger II, but the T-34?
Look how many T34s were produced, and it was after all what the Panther was copies from. But the T54 was better than anything else, better armour than a King tiger, bigger gun, better range, better cross country ability and scared the Sh~*e out of the germans.

Well I hate to disagree with such an authoritative stance, but my honor compells me to. Defense in depth was certainly not the Japanese stratagy/tactic in China, a defense in depth would have 1. not conquered mush territory and 2. required about 10 times the population of Japan just for Manchuko. The late war may have been domiinated by inflexability but in the early war the Japaneese did a lot of inovation. I suspect you are mistaking Japan on the defense for the entire Japanese effort - even so the work of General Tomoyuki Yamashita in that time frame is still worthy of note, and Suzuki was definetly one of the top generals of the war.
Yamashita's Malaysian campaign was brilliantly conceived and executed. Multiple amphibious landings were made, then Yamashita's forces repeatedly outflanked the Commonwealth troops all the way down the Malay peninsula. For the Pacific theater, it was nothing short of a blitzkrieg. The campaign culminated in the capture of Singapore, which is probably why Brits don't want to talk about it.

The Maus :p

very, very debateable, just simply because that design was huge and plodding. The Germans could have been a lot more efficient if they had used the older, faster tank designs, and built more air support. The Stuka was horribly outclassed by the end of the war, and was being decimated by allied tactical air support.

The best allied anti tank gun was the British 17pdr which was mounted in the Comwell and Comet the Comet was avery very good tank, hence it outlived all the other WWII heavy tanks other than the T54.
Yes the Sherman was crap, but easy to make.

You do know that the 17pdr was also mounted in the British variant of the Sherman called the Firefly - the tank described as 'the only tank worth having' in Normandy?

very, very debateable, just simply because that design was huge and plodding.

I would have thought that (1) the italics, (2) the smiley, & (3) the very fact that I actualy suggested the Maus as a viable combat vehicle, should have been sufficient to indicate that I wasn't being serious.

well what would have been a better use of the latewar German industrial base? more Tiger Is? V-1s? A solid tracked Niebelwerfer platform?

The Germans tried to make the most of their available latewar industrial base, by cranking out as many Hetzers, Panzerfausts and MP44s as possible. Unfortunately, "fearless leader" was too wrapped up in ultimate weapon projects to really maximize the industrial base. And by late 1944 (pre-Ardennes) it was already too late to do more than hold off the inevetable for a few more months.

The P-51 Mustang is easily the best propeller-driven fighter ever produced.

Nope. The main advantage of the P-51 was range and numbers. It has below average armament and is very vulnerable to gunfire compared to other fighters. The Fw190D and the Bf109K have a comparable performace. The TA152 and Do335 are quite a bit better. The P51 would be considered a failture on the east front.

Germany
Germans have allways bean good soldiers trough out history and they where that also in wwII even after hitler died( unfortunaly to late for the world)
the Germans keapt fhigting it wosen´t untill all of germany had been defeted thad they finally surrenderd.
plus in the end the germans where surounded by fouls and no friends and still fhougt like hell.
Some historians and military experts say that if the germans hadent attackt the russians they might have won the war if the germans would have hold out just a littel bit longer in britan and continuet to bomb them than the royal air force would not have been abel to stop the german planes from boming brithis ships and citys and the germans would have been able to send an invasion force to england but hitler decided to pull the luftwaffe from england to attack the sovets
And people should not only focus on the big nations that fhougt in the war what about other nations like the finnish that defended their country from milions of sovet troops with only 300.000 men from 1939 to 1940 and the sovets lost a lot of men 200.000 but the finnish only lost 25.000 and 44.000 wounded.


(any spelling errors are the foult of that my english comes mostly from watching nba games and american action movies) :rolleyes:

Btw. one interesting thing about you people when listing what armys/nations did the best job in WW2. Those people who have Finland on their list, have in in the first place, and the rest don't have it on their list at all. Why is this?

Btw. one interesting thing about you people when listing what armys/nations did the best job in WW2. Those people who have Finland on their list, have in in the first place, and the rest don't have it on their list at all. Why is this?
I think that is because they only look to "big" countries. Compared to its size and the size of the army compared to the enemy Finnland did the best job indeed.
So: relatively spoken Finnland has to get place 1.

Btw. one interesting thing about you people when listing what armys/nations did the best job in WW2. Those people who have Finland on their list, have in in the first place, and the rest don't have it on their list at all. Why is this?

Because the term "best" implies some form of comparison on several issues regarding warfare. It is not possible to justifiably compare the Finish army to that of the US for instance, because the Finish army was only engaged in the defense of their own country mostly as a guerilla army.
This may also be why the Fins rate so high on the individual lists. I don't have a habit to quoting Hollywood pictures, but there is a good one in the latest installment of Robin Hood. "It takes 10 trained soldiers to defeat a man defending his own field". There is also something compelling about an underdog who performs beyond the immidiate expectations.

Because the term "best" implies some form of comparison on several issues regarding warfare. It is not possible to justifiably compare the Finish army to that of the US for instance, because the Finish army was only engaged in the defense of their own country mostly as a guerilla army.
Well: that was the case during the winter campaign in 1939/40.
But from 1941-44 Finnland conquored the territories back, up until it was finally defeated by the Soviets.

ENGLAND! :sniper:

ENGLAND! :sniper:
So, the rest of Britain doesn´t play a role?
Anyway: if we speak about Germany of that time it was actually Greater Germany (including Austria) which was also part of the armed forces. That doesn´t exist anymore fortunately.

I would have thought that (1) the italics, (2) the smiley, & (3) the very fact that I actualy suggested the Maus as a viable combat vehicle, should have been sufficient to indicate that I wasn't being serious.
Some of us (me) are just humorless robots.

Look how many T34s were produced, and it was after all what the Panther was copies from. But the T54 was better than anything else, better armour than a King tiger, bigger gun, better range, better cross country ability and scared the Sh~*e out of the germans.The T54? The T54/T55 while concieved during the War was a post-war tank. The T34 came in 2 principal calibers, the original 76 and the later 85, the Tiger II carried an 88 long, not the biggest gun installed on a motorised chasis durring WWII but generally consider the most powerful tank weapon - there was/is a tank known as the T34/100 mounting a bigger gun, but it requires a different turrent thean the single cast turrent of the regualr T34s and may not have ever existed in WWII (if such a beastie existed during WWII it was only in small numbers) but the 100mm gun while bigger was not more pwerful than the 88 long. The T34 most certainly did not have better armour than the Tiger II, which had virtually impenertable front armour and side armour as good as the front armour of the T34 (but hey, the Tiger II was over twice the weight of the T34). The T34 had better range and cross country ability than the Tiger II, but the Tiger II was a heavy tank, not a medium tank - they have different uses. Nor did the T34 arouse fear in the Germans, one of the most annoying things for those Germans who saw the greatness of the T34 (there were even engineers who wanted to build a copy of the T34 for Germany after the captured T34s were studied) was the fact that it wasn't respected enough by the Germans - Operation Barbarosa when the Germans first encountered the T34 was so sucessfual and the T34s were used so poorly by the Soviets, that the Germans felt that they were no threat. After Germany failed to conquer the SU in 1941 it was realized that they had to build tanks capable of beating the T34s, but the Germans weren't scared of them.

Yeah, the T-54 was not war time tank, in fact, the T-34 was the tank that was supplied to the North Koreans during the Korean War. A quick question though, I have heard of a Soviet tank called the JS-2, is that another name for a tank we have talked about, or is it an entirely unique tank? I haven't come across many references to it anywhere.

The Maus :p

Sorry, budies, the Maus was a joke and costed to much steel and time to produce. On the field it was to slow and even that armour could be destroyed by a JSII tank. It had a lot of handicaps.

Sorry, bodies, the Maus was a joke and costed to much steel and time to produce. On the field it was to slow and even that armour could be destroyed by a JSII tank. It had a lot of handicaps.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7094919&postcount=563

Yeah, the T-54 was not war time tank, in fact, the T-34 was the tank that was supplied to the North Koreans during the Korean War. A quick question though, I have heard of a Soviet tank called the JS-2, is that another name for a tank we have talked about, or is it an entirely unique tank? I haven't come across many references to it anywhere.

Different tank: sometimes also known as the IS-2 or IS-II, there was also a later model which was just in action at the end of WWII, the IS-III. It is named after Joseph Stalin (or Ioseph Stalin, thus the I/J confusion), and was the late war heavy tank produced by the USSR. Linky... linky....


http://www.battlefield.ru/gallery/ww2_tanks/is2_g.html

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/is/is_serie.htm

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7094919&postcount=563

How could I know, dear friend :fluffle:

Different tank: sometimes also known as the IS-2 or IS-II, there was also a later model which was just in action at the end of WWII, the IS-III. It is named after Joseph Stalin (or Ioseph Stalin, thus the I/J confusion), and was the late war heavy tank produced by the USSR. Linky... linky....

http://www.battlefield.ru/gallery/ww2_tanks/is2_g.html

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/is/is_serie.htm

The first one is a pretty good link. Cleared up some confusion on my part. I thought the light tanks were designated BT, medium tanks T, tank destroyers SU and heavy tanks KV until Vorosilov fell from grace and then designated IS. Looks like the T designation was used on most designs and that the special designation was an adaptation.

Someone has been mentioning caliber and the fact that higher caliber is not equal to better gun. This is true. The purpose of a tanks main weapon is NOT that of an artillery piece. It is specifically designed to destroy hostile armour. Thus other matters come into consideration. It needs to maximize penetration. Therefore the length of the barrel is a primary concern because you wish to maximize muzzle velocity. With a longer barrel the shell is subjected to the force of the propellant for longer time. That if why the later longer barreled 76mm Sherman was better than it predecessor. Gun designations list the length of a gun in calibers after a slash. E.g. 75mm/70 means a length of 70*75mm = 5.25m. Americans will have to excuse that I use the metric system.
Modern tanks have smoothbore guns to increase muzzle velocity, however I don't think a single tank in WWII had that. The loss in precision was not a worthy sacrifice with the aiming equipment of that era.
For the same reason the was a limit to how long you could actually make the gun. A longer barrel will bend more as a result of heat deformation (so-called drooping). Modern aiming computers measure drooping with a laser and accomodate that, but in WWII just one millimeter droop was disaterous on precision.

Modern tanks have smoothbore guns to increase muzzle velocity, however I don't think a single tank in WWII had.
Whats that?

Smooth Bore Barrel: Gun Barrel lacking rifling, or the rotating grooves designed to increase long distance accuracy. A smooth bore barrel allows for greater forward velocity because the energy is not spent in making the munition spin

Smooth Bore Barrel: Gun Barrel lacking rifling, or the rotating grooves designed to increase long distance accuracy. A smooth bore barrel allows for greater forward velocity because the energy is not spent in making the munition spin
A picture of such a gun would help a great deal to understand what you are talking about.
*hint hint* ;)

Russia they won the war no question asked we (america) and the other allies where more of a deversionary force while russia did the bulk of it and eisenhower was the best general i say

Russia they won the war no question asked we (america) and the other allies where more of a deversionary force while russia did the bulk of it and eisenhower was the best general i say

Explain to me the Soviet Union's contribution to victory over Japan, if you would be so kind?

A picture of such a gun would help a great deal to understand what you are talking about.
*hint hint* ;)

Do you understand the principle of rifling?: you cause the projectile to spin in flight around its central axis, thus it flies straighter - the same principle which keeps a gyroscope erect. This spin is caused by having a screwlike groove cut into the inner surface of a gun barrel. As a projectile flies past these grooves air is forced to flow along the grooves, and this circular motion is imparted to the projectile itself.

A smoothbore is simply a barrel without such grooves: the missile is more prone to vary in its trajectory as it is no longer gyroscopically stabilised, but travels faster (as no energy is wasted in causing it to spin). Thus if it does hit its target it transfers more kinetic energy to it.

As I'm sure you're aware, the sudden transfer of kinetic energy to a target is a bad thing if you are inside it, and a good thing if you are shooting at it. How good/bad is directly proportional to the amount of kinetic energy...

On the smoothbore/rifling thing, there is another component, the terminal charecteristics of amunition. High Velocity Armour Piercing (HVAP) ammo doesn't work if it is spinning when it hits the target, (as well as many other types of AP ammo) - when HVAP ammo was developed a special sabot was created which spun while the warhead remained unspinning, so HVAP ammo could be used in existing rifled barrels. Odd bit of trivia I picked up years ago. I was going to give a technical explaination of why, but I doubt it would interest many people and if you really want to know I am sure a web site can be found which would be clearer and more accurate than I could possibly be dredging up old memories.

The purpose of a tanks main weapon is... (snip) ...It is specifically designed to destroy hostile armour.

Speaking in the context of WWII (obviously):

This is only true for some tanks: others are designed with the primary purpose of being anti-infantry vehicles, with anti-armour capabilities being only of secondary concern. Most tanks were designed as a compromise between anti-tank and and anti-infantry demands, and the design of their main gun reflects this. Witness the existence of tank destroyers, which were built with the primary purpose of destroying hostile armoured vehicles as evidence of this.

Do you understand the principle of rifling?: you cause the projectile to spin in flight around its central axis, thus it flies straighter - the same principle which keeps a gyroscope erect. This spin is caused by having a screwlike groove cut into the inner surface of a gun barrel. As a projectile flies past these grooves air is forced to flow along the grooves, and this circular motion is imparted to the projectile itself.

A smoothbore is simply a barrel without such grooves: the missile is more prone to vary in its trajectory as it is no longer gyroscopically stabilised, but travels faster (as no energy is wasted in causing it to spin). Thus if it does hit its target it transfers more kinetic energy to it.

As I'm sure you're aware, the sudden transfer of kinetic energy to a target is a bad thing if you are inside it, and a good thing if you are shooting at it. How good/bad is directly proportional to the amount of kinetic energy...
No. I don't. And I asked for a picture. Not more confusing words in my second language.

A picture of such a gun would help a great deal to understand what you are talking about.
*hint hint* ;)

Perhaps a mental picture.
Ever seen American football (yes I do watch the Superball, other Europeans will prolly hang me for this offense)? There is a player called a quarterback who toss the ball forward. When he does that he purposely makes the ball spin around its own axis to give it more precision. How come it adds more precision then? Well, it is because a slight alteration in direction will be eliminated by this spin since it is "scattered" equally in all directions. It ain't super high level physics terms, but I hope you get a mental image.
Now precision is a pretty good trait in a weapon so in the 19th century people came up with an idea on how to make a projectile spin around its own axis. This was the birth of the rifled pipe. In the opening of James Bond movies you look down a rifled pipe (where he turns, shoots and the screen goes slowly red) so if you have seen a 007 movie and remember this you have an idea on what it looks like. It has grooves inside running in a spiral. A small amount of the pressure from the propellant will pass through these grooves and force the projectile into a spin around its own axis.
In a smoothbore pipe the circumference of the pipe fits perfectly around the projectile. It is as the name implies completely smooth.
As you can see a smoothbore gun will add more speed to the projectile, because all the force of the propellant is used to press it forward, whereas a rifled gun will expend part of the force on adding a spin to the slug and loose a slight amount of pressure. With the high muzzle velocity and targeting computers the loss in precision is insignificant at the distances a tank can engage hostile armour in our days. However in WWII they pretty much needed all the help they could get to hit the enemy.

High Velocity Armour Piercing (HVAP) ammo doesn't work if it is spinning when it hits the target, (as well as many other types of AP ammo) - when HVAP ammo was developed a special sabot was created which spun while the warhead remained unspinning, so HVAP ammo could be used in existing rifled barrels. Odd bit of trivia I picked up years ago.

I find it somewhat worrying that I know that this kind of load is known as HVAP-DS. Trivia? We got it - 'sabot' means shoe, and is also the root of the word 'sabotage', from the habit of disgruntled mill workers throwing their wooden footwear into the mechanism of the machines they worked upon. This is also the source of the term 'clogged up'.

So someone want to run over the basics of fin-stabilised projectiles then, just so that we know we have covered the various different options?

Explain to me the Soviet Union's contribution to victory over Japan, if you would be so kind?

Well with germany notas much as a foe to us if the soviets where not involved helped us deploy much needed troops and supplies to our forces. Also odds are if we didnt nuke them we would have allowed russian to land first so we wouldnt take as many casulties.

Explain to me the Soviet Union's contribution to victory over Japan, if you would be so kind?
By simply existing as an allied nation they forced Japan to maintain a garrison against a possible soviet invasion (look up Manchukuo and Siberia - see how they border each other). Troops defending against a possible Soviet invasion could not be used elsewhere in China or in the Pacific. Japan and the Soviet Union fought a rather nasty undeclared war in 1939 and the Japanese had to worry about the Soviets restarting it if they moved too many troops away. In 1942 Germany spent a great deal of effoprt trying to convince the Japanese to attack the Soviet Union but the Japanese feared that they didn't have enough force avaible to risk attacking the Soviet Union even while Germany was "distracting" fsoviet orces from Port Arthur.

Ever seen American football
A real picture, picture if you please.

(yes I do watch the Superball, other Europeans will prolly hang me for this offense).
*starts tying the noose*

Speaking in the context of WWII (obviously):

This is only true for some tanks: others are designed with the primary purpose of being anti-infantry vehicles, with anti-armour capabilities being only of secondary concern. Most tanks were designed as a compromise between anti-tank and and anti-infantry demands, and the design of their main gun reflects this. Witness the existence of tank destroyers, which were built with the primary purpose of destroying hostile armoured vehicles as evidence of this.

Indeed, tanks like the Valentine (Despite it's lack of HE capabilities), Churchill or Sherman were designed around a doctrine in which those tanks supporting the infantry, except against tanks, hence the reason for Tank Destroyers, whose job it was to destroy tanks (who saw that coming), and why a US Armored Division had so many more TD's than say, a German Panzer Division.

No. I don't. And I asked for a picture. Not more confusing words in my second language.

A picture won't really be much help, as their isn't much to see - the inside of the barrel just has a thread in it like a nut.

http://www.chainganglowrider.com/33764%20Chrome%20NUT_small.jpg

Now imagine the thread of that nut (pictured) running all the length inside of a gun barrel. That is a rifled gun barrel.

A smoothbore gun barrel has no thread.

Well with germany notas much as a foe to us if the soviets where not involved helped us deploy much needed troops and supplies to our forces. Also odds are if we didnt nuke them we would have allowed russian to land first so we wouldnt take as many casulties.

Actually, there was talk of speeding up Olympic and Coronets timetables specifically to avoid a Soviet Landing on Hokkaido.

A picture won't really be much help, as their isn't much to see - the inside of the barrel just has a thread in it like a nut.

http://www.chainganglowrider.com/33764%20Chrome%20NUT_small.jpg

Now imagine the thread of that nut (pictured) running all the length of a gun barrel. That is a rifled gun barrel.

A smootbore gun barrel has no thread.
Kinda looks like the barrel of a Tiger.

By simply existing as an allied nation they forced Japan to maintain a garrison against a possible soviet invasion...


Yes, I agree with most of what you say here. My question was badly phrased it was a more polite version of hinting that the USSR may (or may not) very well have been the primary cause of the defeat of Germany, but claiming that they 'won the war' is ignoring the Pacific theatre and victory over the Japanese entirely.

By simply existing as an allied nation they forced Japan to maintain a garrison against a possible soviet invasion (look up Manchukuo and Siberia - see how they border each other).

The Kwantung Army ceased to be a quality force around 1942, those troops would not have severaly affected the outcome of any major offensive, since they weren't good enough to be used against the Americans, and barely better than garrisons for China.

Troops defending against a possible Soviet invasion could not be used elsewhere in China or in the Pacific.

See above, and most of the troops were of the puppet state, so of unreliable value.

Japan and the Soviet Union fought a rather nasty undeclared war in 1939 and the Japanese had to worry about the Soviets restarting it if they moved too many troops away.

That's a nice way to put it, the real way would be to state what happened, the Japanese were routed in the Khalkin Gol/Nomonham Incident, completely destroyed.

In 1942 Germany spent a great deal of effoprt trying to convince the Japanese to attack the Soviet Union but the Japanese feared that they didn't have enough force avaible to risk attacking the Soviet Union even while Germany was "distracting" fsoviet orces from Port Arthur.

....Port Arthur had been taken by Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, it wasn't even called that anymore. Do you mean Vladivostok, which was the major port on the Pacific that the Soviets did control. And they didn't want to risk an attack on the Soviet Union mostly becuase the resources they needed were not in desolate Siberia, rubber, oil (almost above all), tin, almost everything needed for an industrious nation was to be found in the Southern (Resource) Area, it was simply not a good idea to attack North and spread even more forces when what you needed was to the South.

Kinda looks like the barrel of a Tiger.

Yeah, well, the thread inside is the relevant part.

The Kwantung Army ceased to be a quality force around 1942, those troops would not have severaly affected the outcome of any major offensive, since they weren't good enough to be used against the Americans, and barely better than garrisons for China.

Like militias in HoI?

Yeah, well, the thread inside is the relevant part.
A thread? Whats the topic of that thread? :p
No, realy. A thread?

Like militias in HoI?

Hehe, I was going to say militias, but to anyone who hasn't played HoI, it wouldn't have got the point through. But yes, basically a lot of militias with maybe one or two cavalry divisions.

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.


Did you know that 96.5728% of all facts are made up on the spot?

Hehe, I was going to say militias, but to anyone who hasn't played HoI, it wouldn't have got the point through. But yes, basically a lot of militias with maybe one or two cavalry divisions.
I hate cavalry units. Always get rid of them. Better for them to go back to the forcepool and become mountaineers, marines or paras with attached anti-tank or artillery brigades.

Did you know that 96.5728% of all facts are made up on the spot?
Yeah. I mean, come on. Bush an IQ of 130? LMAO!!!! :D

Overall: Soviet Union
Efficiency: Japan
Most for victory in Europe: Soviet Union
Most for victory in Pacific: America

Noteable mentions goto the UK for sheer determination, China for never giving up and Paris (not the rest of France.)

I hate cavalry units. Always get rid of them. Better for them to go back to the forcepool and become mountaineers, marines or paras with attached anti-tank or artillery brigades.

They are useless (Japan actually has some use for them though), except in CORE HoI, if you are Poland you get the Cavalry Tradition tech, and you're cavalry can make a good showing agianst infantry (not armour though). Also in CORE, as the Western Democracies those Cavalry Divisions (especially France's) come in handy to disband and get the mp back to make infantry or armor, or if you are the US, expand the Navy and Air Force, since CORE takes away most of your MP.

They are useless (Japan actually has some use for them though), except in CORE HoI, if you are Poland you get the Cavalry Tradition tech, and you're cavalry can make a good showing agianst infantry (not armour though). Also in CORE, as the Western Democracies those Cavalry Divisions (especially France's) come in handy to disband and get the mp back to make infantry or armor, or if you are the US, expand the Navy and Air Force, since CORE takes away most of your MP.
Perhaps I'll look into that CORE thingy. For now I'll try to win a few times with 1.06c. Those fucking Soviets keeps killing my expensive mountain troops and Tigers. While I'm running out of resources faster then I ever did.

Efficiency: Japan

Besides their initial assault, when were they really more efficient then say, the US or Britian.


Paris (not the rest of France.)

Paris? The city that was declared an open one? The city that Resistance did not make an uprising in until the 2nd Armoured was practically at it's doorstep? What about Vercor's, surely that was a far more heroic effort (and a much worse ending), or any of the other places the Resistance made a stand (Oradur comes to mind).

Noteable mentions goto the UK for sheer determination, China for never giving up and Paris (not the rest of France.)


Why Paris?

Sorry about the Port Arthur thing, change "from" to "on" and it makes sense. I lost an "f" in front of "orces" and it screwed up train of thought. Darn wireless keyboard sometimes misplaces letters on me and I have to edit as I write. My stumbling fingers don't help much either, but I prefer to blame the keyboard.



As for the Kwangtung Army, at its peak it numbered over a million soldiers, not an inconsiderable portion of Japan's military. In 1942, Korea south of the 38th parallel went from being the responsibility of the Kwangtung Army to being the resposibility of Japanese Home Army, I think these forces have to counted as part of the garrison the Japanese had against psosible Soviet invasion, although I don't know how large they were. I'm not really up the Pacific war but I recall reading about conflicts between Japanese commanders over drawing forces from the Soviet border for other purposes - apparently Tojo played politics with force allocation.

As for the Kwangtung Army, at its peak it numbered over a million soldiers, not an inconsiderable portion of Japan's military. In 1942, Korea south of the 38th parallel went from being the responsibility of the Kwangtung Army to being the resposibility of Japanese Home Army, I think these forces have to counted as part of the garrison the Japanese had against psosible Soviet invasion, although I don't know how large they were. I'm not really up the Pacific war but I recall reading about conflicts between Japanese commanders over drawing forces from the Soviet border for other purposes - apparently Tojo played politics with force allocation.

The Kwantung Army was on paper, a large military force, but of it's forces, only about 40,000 could be considered combat worthy forces. The rest were almost wholly immobile, and certainly not on caliber to face a mechanized force. They were not of regular quality, and their devotion could be questioned. Although the Kwantung Army remained an honored post throughout the war to it's destruction, it ceased to be the elite Army it had been around 1941.

And the forces in South Korea were not placed there to deter the Soviets, if the Soviets got as far as South Korea it was reckoned something would have gone horribly wrong. And it is very understanable why the Japanese commanders of the Kwantung Army would be very uneasy about transfer of troops from the Soviet border, the first of the major transfers of the Kwantung Army's permanent crack troops began in earnest in 1940/41, before the Soviets were at war with Germany, but after Khalkin Gol/Nomonhan were the Kwantung Army had been completely routed.

as far as ww2 went germany i believe did the best out of any country for one you got the fact that they fought a multiside front against france great britian the soviet union and the usa and were still comin out on top their alies didnt have that much power but contributed to germanies full fledge war yet the usa had not puttin the full force due to usa fighting a 2-side front. But even with that it was like 3.5vs1 i rest my case.

Hhhhm. Had a look at this HoI thing. Looks interesting. A bit like the old "Clash of Steel" from what I can see.
Anyone here play board or boardlike computer games? Such as TAO or Korzun Pocket? Or antiquities such as Crusade in Europe? Naturally it's almost a flame question... perhaps a poll would be more suitable.
Historically the Germans used cavalry against russian partizans with reasonable results.

Anyone here play board or boardlike computer games?

Steel Panthers in its various incarnations. A hex based, squad based, turn based wargame. My current favourite version is Steel Panthers: World At War - a free, legal and complete download of itis available here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/default.asp?URL=http%3A//www.matrixgames.com/support/downloads-sp.asp

Steel Panthers in its various incarnations. A hex based, squad based, turn based wargame. My current favourite version is Steel Panthers: World At War - a free, legal and complete download of itis available here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/default.asp?URL=http%3A//www.matrixgames.com/support/downloads-sp.asp

I couldn't get a sound download out of that mishmash. It's nice of them to offer me a game for free, but once my IP blocker starts to block them I choose to let them have it in peace. If they use this game to promote a payware game I can definately give them a quick brushup course in good-will.

TAO (The Ardennes Offensive) is free too.
http://www.ssgus.com/ardennes-download.htm
It is a developmental game they used to make the engine for Korzun Pocket. You command the armies with units on regimental/battalion level.

I couldn't get a sound download out of that mishmash. It's nice of them to offer me a game for free, but once my IP blocker starts to block them I choose to let them have it in peace. If they use this game to promote a payware game I can definately give them a quick brushup course in good-will.

Why did your IP blocker block them?

No, they do not use it to promote a payware game: it is their licensed much modified version of an SSI game. They are not allowed to charge for its distribution. They do sell several campaign disks which can be played with it, but the free download itself includes several hundred scenarios and about 10 campaigns itself, which is more than enough.

Also available from these locations which you might find more acceptable:

http://files.worthplaying.com/files/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=635

http://www.gamershell.com/download_6363.shtml

http://www.fileplanet.com/files/140000/142677.shtml

TAO (The Ardennes Offensive) is free too.
http://www.ssgus.com/ardennes-download.htm

Does it work under XP?

Does it work under XP?

I have not tried. I am discontent at XP and don't use it at all if I can avoid it. You may have to set some memory options and perhaps execute it as Win9x which I believe is an option in XP. If you suffer continous problems I suggest you bring it to their attention. After all the purpose of the free game is development and there can only come good things out of it.
The paygame equivalent Korzun Pocket is XP compliant. It also has a far better AI.

As for Steel Panthers I will have another go. Of the 8 mirrors I tried 2 were overloaded and the other 6 were blocked. I have no idea why, but suspect it is a banner-add tracker.
I will have another go as I know SSI produce excellent games with decent AI and good balance.

as far as ww2 went germany i believe did the best out of any country for one you got the fact that they fought a multiside front against france great britian the soviet union and the usa and were still comin out on top their alies didnt have that much power but contributed to germanies full fledge war yet the usa had not puttin the full force due to usa fighting a 2-side front. But even with that it was like 3.5vs1 i rest my case.


Very hard to follow...