Infantry of World War 2

We've spent a lot of time discussing the qualities of the weapons of World War 2, I thought it might be nice to discuss how good the infantry of each army was. I'll let someone else start this discussion.

 

The Germans expected the most from their infantry and consistently taught the importance of initiative at all levels and rewarded it.
In contrast, the U.S. Army infantry was not infrequently the dregs, scoring below average in terms of intelligence and physical size and ability. This situation improved during the war, but the overall quality of American infantry never matched the armor of air forces, and certainly not the Germans.

 

I remember reading somewhere that, man for man, German infantry was superior to pretty much everybody. Generally because of superior training, and leadership.

 

Early on, this was because of superior training. In the later years it was because new divisions were built around a core of veteran survivors from another division that had been destroyed...

In terms of training, I think the British infantry was quite good too in the later years at least. After realizing their inadequacy, the CIGS ordered and carried out a massive program of reorganization to train some decent infantrymen for once. But their main asset, as well as the American infantry's chief quality, was mobility; other than the German infantry, the Western Allies had their footsoldiers fully motorized.

 

The Russians took their smart and literate men into positions of the airforce and in officer ranks. The rest was used for the rifle corps and tank corps.

The average soldier in the Red Army could not read or write, did not know basic schooling and some did not even speak russian! That is why the Red Army never did any complex attacks during WWII, or when they did, they failed miserable (airborne attack on the Dniepers and the attack in the Carpathian mountains).

That has always troubled me how a soldier in the Red Army could attack head on towards a German target, stepping over fields of his fallen friends and comrades and still keep going into his death.

 

Vodka and the fact that if you turned around, your own men shot you might have helped in those suicidal charges.

The Japanese soldiers, for what little they had, I believe fought the hardest. They had little or no supplies, yet they still fought to the last, out of ammo, out of food. I am not saying they are the smartest, but they fought the hardest.

 

Easily I would give my vote to the best trained and disiciplined soldiers of WWII to the Japanese.

Fearless and courages these guys tied up large US resources for some period of time, even if they were outnumbered and outgunned most of the time. Just look at the defence of Iwo Jima.

I always wondered how longer the war would've taken if the suicidal banzai charges would've rather have been actual planned out attacks.

In the battle of Betio, the Japanese still held large amount of the island, but on that night they banzai charged with most of their remaining men, most all which died. This attack broke the back of the defense on Betio.

But on Iwo Jima, the Japanese soldiers were ordered not to suicide attack, rather lay low and kill 10 US soldiers for every 1 Japanese. This caused the battle to take 39 days before all organized resistance was claimed over, instead of the 3 days on Betio.

 

But, on Wake Island, it took them several bombing missions to take the island. Even the Japenese special forces were being turned by American Marines who were starved for resources.

 

The Japanese were certainly the most determined and disciplined but that didn't make them the best soldiers. It is said that most of them were poor shots, their weapons obsolete and their officers, well, armed with swords...

 

The Japanese rikusentai were far from poor shots. It was said by by the US Marine Corps that they hardly ever missed. They recieved new, effective weapons during the war, including the highly effective Type 99 7.7mm machine guns with standard telescopic sights.

But I do get your point Roel. Most of the infantry were sailors without ships trained as infantry. Poorly armed and more often than not poorly led, they still kicked some ass.

 

Betio was only about 600 yards wide as well.

Planned out attacks would have lenghtened individual battles, but would not have added much to the actual time of the war. Also, the Japanese had little food and ammo, and had many of the battles gone longer, the result would have been men unarmed and starving to death. Why not die honorable in Japanese eyes while healthy then die a slow and painful death of starvation?

 

Personally, I think that the US Marine Corps had the best trained infantry on either side during the war. I certainly would have matched them against anyone else in the war. As for the Army, they had problems with the quality of training that haunted them well into 1944.

 

Roel wrote:

I don't think the British ever developed much of a reputation for being aggressive in the attack. they were even more reluctant than U.S. Army infantry to move forward without massive air or artillery support. The British class system also limited the personal initative of the "other ranks".

I would agree that the U.S. Marines have to be considered among the best, but it is hard to compare conditions in the Pacific to the European theatre.

 

I think the Finnish infantry can also be considered as one of the best.

They were well trained and on squad (and platoon) level well armed. The finnish infantry had a constant lack of support weapons and shortage of ammo for the few they had. Still the finnish were never really defeated by the russians in the winter war and ww2. They also developed new tactics in wich a infantry brigade could surround a enemy armoured division (or any other enemy division) and by hacking it to pieces destroy it. This is called "Mottis" tactic.

 

In many ways, the Pacific was worse than Europe. How many times in the ETO do you hear about the soldiers's uniforms literally rotting off their bodies? When you factor in tropical diseases, snakes, crocodiles...well, you get the idea.

 

As far as environmental conditions go, the South/south west pacific may have been worse than the Eastern front. But, I was thinking more of the tactical qualities and weapons of the Germans rather than enviromental conditions. I'd also consider the Marines as being something of an elite, like the Airborne and Rangers. There were only ever six Marine divisions (and five airborne), but 66 infantry divisions. If you're considering elites versus "average", than my commment about lack of aggressiveness in British troops doesn't stand up.

 

Also, Marines aren't exactly infantry in action and planning. They are the navy's assault unit, they are not the army's core and standard soldiers. I thought that this topic was to be about ye average soldier in the armies of WW2. I think the British, German and Japanese armies are the most obvious choices in 'best'. But then again, who said this should be about the best?

 

Let's get real here, the British AND Japanese as OBVIOUS best infantry?
It ain't obvious to me, please elaborate. I'll take U.S. Army infantry over either one of those.

 

US army infantry was the worst of the conscripts, low in intelligence and stamina, usually with a horrible morale and with very very few historical events to speak for them. The Japanese infantry was respected by all who fought them as the most persistent and enduring soldiers they ever met, while the British infantry got training that had no match among the regular infantry units of WW2. I wonder why you would ever choose US infantry over anything; they'd be the last unit I'd ever fight with.

 

I'd pick them becuase they fought better in the assualt and in mobile warfare than the British and with more intelligence and tactical accumen than the Japanese. U.S. forces showed more individual initiative at the soldier level than the British and Japanese did. This is not say that the individual British and Japanese soldier lacked courage, courage was something they had plenty of. German tarining was probably more than a match for British training. I would also suspect that the Soviet and Italian conscripts were of lower quality than the U.S. Army, the British probably equivalent. They also tended to put their best into more technical specialities. Your comments on morale are applicable to only a few units and apply to all armies, including the Germans. Monty certainly believed there was a morale problem with the British forces at Normandy. The U.S. personnel system did initially supply the infantry with sub par individuals, but that was over by the end of the Normandy campaign. The same applies to U.S. tactical skill,which had to be learned on the battlefield and paid for in blood.