'Best' infantry division

To get an honest appraisal of such a subjective subject you'd need an objective formula. You couldn't do it on the ground taken, because the island campaigns were over very small bits of ground while the war in Europe covered huge territories.

I would suggest something along the lines of the number of casualties taken vs the number of casualties inflicted. That might be the only common denominator between divisions in various theaters. Those numbers are readily available on the allied side, though might be harder to obtain on the axis side.

 

Very hard to make comparisons, and "better division" does not necessarily mean "better soldiers", the late war allied divisions often won thanks to lavish support compared to the crumbling German supply system.
If we look at performance against similarly sized units in open (non siege) warfare I would not discount the Japanese, the Malay/Singapore campaign only saw 3 divisions on the Japanese side, and the Guards was a "parade unit" according to the army commander, support was never the Japanese forte, they were facing a significantly larger allied ground force fighting on it's home ground and we all know how that turned out. Same goes for the Philippines 1942 campaign Hollywood propaganda notwithstanding.

But my vote, barring specialist or "elite by design" units like the paras and US marines (comparing volunteer units with conscripts is more than a bit unfair) , goes to the early war German units, while the panzers stole the limelight the role of the infantry in the early German victories was huge, the combination of superior infantry tactics and excellent low level leadership made them more than a match for their opponents. Whether the German choice of putting a high percentage of first class levies in the infantry, where they suffered high attrition rates, rather than in the support branches, turned out well in the long run is a different story.

IMO casualties taken vs casualties inflicted is not a good choice, if we look at the actual head to head combat arty is the killer, especially in Europe, not the infantry, so the more arty a unit has the better it will show up. If we include prisoners taken high level leadership and planning is much more important than infantry performance, Allied divisions in Italy were pretty good, but they never achieved huge bags of prisoners because of higher level command decisions, I think match ups against similar units are a better guideline and there are enough of those to give good results.

 

Not to mention that terrain is a very important factor, Some area's of Earth are physically easier to fight on while others will test your body and mind to the extreme.

 

Going to stick my neck out on this one .....
Values are:
0 Very poor
1 poor
2 below average
3 average
4 above average
5 Good
6 Very good
Haven't included the "size" parameter in the calculation as it's I'm not sure hoe to evaluate it, the original poster seemed to look for an "ideal TOE", but it must be noted we are comparing units that vary from less than 7.000 to well over 16.000 men is size,
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Tactics[/TD]
[TD]Firepower[/TD]
[TD]Mobility[/TD]
[TD]Training[/TD]
[TD]Aggressiveness[/TD]
[TD]Morale[/TD]
[TD]Support[/TD]
[TD]Total[/TD]
[TD]Size[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Early war German[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]27[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Late war German[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]23[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Commonwealth[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]24[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Commonwealth[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]26[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Early war US[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]25[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Late war US[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]31[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Early soviet[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]21[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Late Soviet[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]23[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Japanese[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]27[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]French[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]21[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Polish (1939)[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]22[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Italian[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]15[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

I like that TOS....one glitch is that you don't have any provisions for the Pacific Theater Allied forces.....much different style of warfare. I think there should be provisions for Naval gunfire support and "Sea Train" Logistics.

 

And more aggressive troops, with extremely high morale with a different TOE.

 

It's a good try but not sure I can fall behind it. Working out the best inf div is a very complex task that a simple solution cant fix. It's like trying to have a 1st grader to algebra, Wont work. But it is a good try.

Point's of difference, Commonwealth forces.. The commonwealth is made up of many different nation's all very different from one another, Trying to put them into one batch and give them a single rating doesn't work. Can you really say the Aussie digger's in Tobruk were only average on there aggressiveness? As for mobility, The Aussie divisions lacked early on almost any mobility relying heavily on captured Italian equipment where ass the British were fairly well off.

 

That's not right. US soldiers were still not prepared for a fight when they entered WWII in early 1942, late 1943 . The US infantry were no where as near as well trained as the Germans. America however, had the money and economy to beat the Germans in later years but that has nothing to do with infantry divisions. There's always a bias thing going on when an American does a chart. And why is it the British always score so low?

 

I do have to say overall the Commonwealth forces in general early in WWII were more aggressive then the US so how they managed to get an even score is beyond me. In any case what about Mid way through WWII, Going from 1939 through to 1945 gives you abvility to break it into 3 allotments, Early - 1939-41, Mid - 1942-43 and Late - 1944-45.. Having a start and finish with no middle just not sitting well for me as well.

 

I'd argue that the German's really weren't as good as the chart shows, they were just marginally better trained than the very unprepared, allied forces. Their superior operational doctrine and coordination, and some actual combat experience, made the difference in early combat results. I guess a different way of looking at is that they initially were just less mediocre. Because these are averages across the spectum of a countries infantry forces individual units will fall above or below the the numbers given in certain different areas. Some German units were very good, some were only so,so and most were just good enough. For the Commonwealth you have an even greater variance due to forces from a number of different countries. Use the differences in a British unit, and Australian unit and an Indian unit as an example to represent all Commonwealth forces. When comparing the British, Australian and Indian Divisions they have the same tactical doctrine, firepower is based upon a TOE which should be similar, mobility would be based upon small unit size, structure, quantity and quality of mechanized/motorized support, the British would be the mean with both the Australian and Indian units below mean, with the Indians further below mean. Early war training would skew towards the British because of their larger standing army, with Australia as the mean and the Indian units slightly below mean. Morale would probably be Australia slightly above mean, British mean and Indian slightly below mean. So when you look at is as the average across the force it's probably pretty good numbers. I'd also argue that on the divisional level in 1940 the average German division really wasn't better than the average BEF division. When they met head to head the Commonwealth forces did pretty good. Superior operational doctrine where the BEF units found their strength bypassed and an enemy pushing for their rear, led to them being forced to retreat and a German victory. The defense is normally easier than offense unless you're bypassed or out maneuvered. Late war the Commonwealth and American troops showed their mettle and beat the Germans head to head at the small unit level. It wasn't just material that won the war for them.
Later in the war when the British and then the Americans fielded infantry fully on a war footing their average individual quality matched and then surpassed that of the Germans whose quality had slipped due to the need to replace heavy losses first in Russia, then in Russia and continental Europe. By '45 the US's infantry quality had started to slip. Not due to an overall manpower issue, but US Army personnel and replacement policies.

I don't fully agree with some of the individual trait numbers and might rate some higher and some lower, but when you come to the totals column, the numbers look pretty good (and accurate) and are hard to argue with.

 

I did say I was sticking my neck out .

PTO simply doesn't compare well, most significant actions in the island hopping camapign were well below divisional level and there was an inordinate amount of "elite by design" troops involved, I will not risk opinions (and my figures are just opinions) on those at a "divisional scale". The PTO campaigns involving the more significant ground forces, China, Malaya, Burma, I know too little about to fit then into the chart.

Bundling all Commowealth units into one group is an approximation. Indian, Canadian and ANZAC were probably different enough to warrant a separate treatment, but then so would the French colonial infantry and lots of others, but it would make the chart much more complex for very little variance, most likely just one or two point in aggressiveness, morale and mobility,, the TOE and basic equipment was pretty similar for most Commowealth troops.

I'm interested in criticism of individual values but before getting to that in having feedback on is whether I got the columns right, BTW in my chart aggressiveness is the ability to take the initiative and set the pace of the battle, from that standpoint the early Germans and most of all the Japanese are above average, that, especially in the case of the Japanese, over aggressiveness sometimes fired back is beside the point. Morale is not cracking under pressure, here I'm possibly a bit generous with the Germans but the fact is that I find no records of panic spreading above regimental level in the early campaigns (possibly the SS at Arras?, but then the SS are not an average infantry unit, the regular infantry at Stonne and Abbeville repulsed massed armoured attacks, something contemporary Allied units where very ulikely to achieve).

I would not put the 1940 BEF units on a par with their German counterparts, though possibly better equipped than the entirely horse dependent Germans they were pushed back (the allied North wing was significantly stronger than the Germans facing it as the Germans had concentrated further South), this was more due to higher level blunders than to the divisions but still the track record is not great, the British infantry hadn't learned how to deal with German infiltration tactics yet.

Thr division between early and late means different things for the Germans and Soviets than for the Allies, for the Germans it represents the switch from 3 to 2 batallion regiments, for the Soviets the removal of most support elements to higher level organizations while for the western Allies a gradual improvent of training, equipment, support and tactics with basically the same TOE.

 

The only comment I would make is that it might be worth breaking out the Waffen SS Divisions from the Heer Divisions. By mid/late war they made up a substantial part of the total force and the TOE and manning was substantially superior to the Heer Divisions.

 

SS "regular Infantry" divisions were never a big percentage, there were pretty few of them besides Polizei and Nord that could claim to be division sized (and Nord was initially a motorized and then a mountain unit), the really nasty ones (1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12) were initially classed as motorized infantry (1, 2, 3 and 5), then panzergrenadier and finally panzer, I actually think 9, 10 and 12 were never anything but panzer.
Equally significant would be the failed LW divisions made up of excess LW personnel (Germany allocated a fixed percenage of levies to the 3 arms), some of it good quality as the LW had a high allotment of high quality levies, but desperatly short of training qualified NCOs and heavy weapons, a line for those would look possibly worse than the Italians !

 

I have said it before: Bombers, Battleships and Tanks do not occupy territory; they are support. Everything in the US arsenal is designed to support the infantry.

 

That makes the German forces even better; a few! They won their battles with a few. Why did German infantry do so well with only a few?

Infantry = soldiers, right? American soldiers, when landed in Europe, had no idea how to fight until they gain experience, after all, America was going to sit out of WWII.

What about Technology? Every nation was at different stages with Technology.

 

A few?, According to my reading 3/4ths of the Heer was foot sore Infantry.

Actually I would include early war SS motorized infantry, Luftwaffe, USMC and French early/late war.

 

I was going to argue the bolded point because most significant island hopping battles involved from a division to multi-divisional sized forces, but generally the fighting devolved to the regimental and smaller level units being the primary maneuver elements so essentially you are correct.

I agree. That was basically the point I was trying to make in answer to Von_noobie's objections in my post #70.

Here I have tried changing individual values when I thought they might be slightly too high or too low, but it skews the "Total" result, changing the ratio between unit types to a point they do not appear correct in comparison. I think your total results appear to be really spot on.

 

TOS's matrix seems pretty good to me as well. It also sounds much like those used to valuate units in wargame's Like Avalon Hill used to do.

 

Difficult, so I'll be mercenary....The British 3rd Division May 1940. Without their little disciplined manouver before the Belgian surrender there may not have been a British army left to fight the war, and an island for others to stage their buildup for later invasion. One action, but one that at the time seemed would be impossible under the conditions at that time and one that was down to leadership of the highest standards of the time...I wander who their commander was...let me think..

 

Col. Blimp?