Best armies of WW2?

Lord of War · #1 (**permalink**) October 26th, 2006, 09:18 PM

Which armies do you think were the most professional regarding tactics and striking power during WW2?

These would be on my list:

1) the Finnish army

The Finns incredibly repelled attack after attack by many times stronger Soviet forces during the winter war, and developed the revolutionary motti-tactics to encircle a superior force.

In the continuation war they launched a successful offensive deep into Russian territory, with virtually no tanks, and an airforce inferior to the Soviet air force. In 1944, the Russians launched an enormous offensive, aiming to invade the whole of Finland, but they were stopped after advancing to the border of 1940. This was because of incredibly stiff Finnish resistance, for example in the battle of Tali-Ihantala. The Finnish defensive victory was achieved to a big extent thanks to a new military doctrine, based on concentrating relentless artillery-fire to small areas.

It can be argued that the Soviets were badly trained and equipped during the winter war, and that they were concentrating their main offensive thrust on Germany in 1944, but I don't think that these facts make the Finnish resistance any less incredible.

(I will admit that it's possible that I may be a bit biased because I'm a Finn... =))

2) The Wehrmacht

The German army was in my opinion the most professional and systematically structured army of the war. Their bliztkrieg tactics developed by Heinz Guderian and others were revolutionary in the way they coordinated attacks by tanks and the Luftwaffe.

It only started to go worse for the Wehrmacht when it attacked Russia. Despite the incredible success achieved in the first two summers of the campaign, the attack on the Soviet Union was, in my opinion, the one strategical mistake that lost Germany the war. Hitler also sabotaged the work of many brilliant generals by pretending to be a great warlord, which he certainly wasn't. In many cases I think battles and operations could have ended very differently if he had allowed his generals to do their job.

Even when the Allies were closing in on Germany on three fronts, it still took them quite a while to finally defeat the Wehrmacht. I think the defensive battles of 1943-45 prove that the Wehrmacht was a very strong army, even when decimated and badly battered.

3) The U.S. army

Shortly put, they came, they saw, they conquered (in Europe). But they almost always had the benefits of superior manpower and equipment, and their tactics weren't revolutionary.

In the Pacific, it was a different kind of war to fight, but the U.S. forces eventually won thanks to their huge determination and skill.

The U.S. army was undeniably the most successful army of the war when taking into consideration the relatively low losses it suffered (at least compared to The Soviet union) while achieving total victory.

~~Ironcross~~ · #2 (**permalink**) October 26th, 2006, 10:27 PM

In my opinion, when it comes to tactics.
1. The Wehrmacht.
2. The Finnish army.
3. The Japanese army.

When it comes to striking power, with the same number of man and material.
1. The Wehrmacht.
2. The Red army.
3. The U.S. army.

MARNE · #3 (**permalink**) October 27th, 2006, 04:58 AM

In my opinion, when it comes to tactics.
1. The U.S. Army
2. The Wehrmacht
3. The British Army

When it comes to striking power, with the same number of man and material.
1. The Red Army
2. The U.S. Army
3. The Wehrmacht

Regards,
MARNE

Jaeger · #4 (**permalink**) October 27th, 2006, 10:33 AM

Be careful, such threads must not be discussed lightly gentlemen.

Seadog · #5 (**permalink**) October 27th, 2006, 04:58 PM

To say one army is better than the other is not practical. The soldiers cannot fight well without training and supplies. They need to have enough trained replacements to sustain any effort. They must have officers that respect their abilities and know how to use them. And finally, they must have political leadership that inspire them, and let the talented officers lead militarily, while they lead diplomacy and manufacturing efforts.

raj-rif · #6 (**permalink**) October 28th, 2006, 06:42 PM

i am not going to get drawn into the why's and wherefores etc but i would think that the British Indian army need consideration, under excellant leadership they achieved brillaint victories under many harsh conditions, they took mountains that men thought couldnt be taken, Monte cassino was taken eventually by a plan the general Tucker of 4th Indians had came up with as soon as he arrived there but was over rulled, at the Keren ranges they fought hard and overcame stiff resistance, at ruesat ridge the stopped the DAK from taking a point that would have left the El Alamian positions exposed, these men gave there all and i think the would be placed above the american soldier, the americans won things because of there industrial capacity and ability to put much equipment etc into the field.

Ali Morshead · #7 (**permalink**) October 29th, 2006, 02:02 AM

What, an Army consisting purely of Volunteers, well over 1 million of them who fought in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Italy, Syria, Iraq, Iran, India, Burma, Malaya, Singapore, Borneo & Hong Kong and despite coming from a background without mechanization fielded 2 Armoured Divisions.

They fought in Desert, Mountain & Jungle and defeated Germans, Italians, Japanese & French.

Nah, shouldnt rate a mention.

raj-rif · #8 (**permalink**) October 29th, 2006, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ali Morshead:
What, an Army consisting purely of Volunteers, well over 1 million of them who fought in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Italy, Syria, Iraq, Iran, India, Burma, Malaya, Singapore, Borneo & Hong Kong and despite coming from a background without mechanization fielded 2 Armoured Divisions.

They fought in Desert, Mountain & Jungle and defeated Germans, Italians, Japanese & French.

Nah, shouldnt rate a mention.

Thats what i thought but well you know just had to mention them somewhere as i havent done it for a while

downfall1983 · #9 (**permalink**) November 3rd, 2006, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord of War:
Which armies do you think were the most professional regarding tactics and striking power during WW2?

These would be on my list:

1) the Finnish army

The Finns incredibly repelled attack after attack by many times stronger Soviet forces during the winter war, and developed the revolutionary motti-tactics to encircle a superior force.

In the continuation war they launched a successful offensive deep into Russian territory, with virtually no tanks, and an airforce inferior to the Soviet air force. In 1944, the Russians launched an enormous offensive, aiming to invade the whole of Finland, but they were stopped after advancing to the border of 1940. This was because of incredibly stiff Finnish resistance, for example in the battle of Tali-Ihantala. The Finnish defensive victory was achieved to a big extent thanks to a new military doctrine, based on concentrating relentless artillery-fire to small areas.

It can be argued that the Soviets were badly trained and equipped during the winter war, and that they were concentrating their main offensive thrust on Germany in 1944, but I don't think that these facts make the Finnish resistance any less incredible.

(I will admit that it's possible that I may be a bit biased because I'm a Finn... =))

2) The Wehrmacht

The German army was in my opinion the most professional and systematically structured army of the war. Their bliztkrieg tactics developed by Heinz Guderian and others were revolutionary in the way they coordinated attacks by tanks and the Luftwaffe.

It only started to go worse for the Wehrmacht when it attacked Russia. Despite the incredible success achieved in the first two summers of the campaign, the attack on the Soviet Union was, in my opinion, the one strategical mistake that lost Germany the war. Hitler also sabotaged the work of many brilliant generals by pretending to be a great warlord, which he certainly wasn't. In many cases I think battles and operations could have ended very differently if he had allowed his generals to do their job.

Even when the Allies were closing in on Germany on three fronts, it still took them quite a while to finally defeat the Wehrmacht. I think the defensive battles of 1943-45 prove that the Wehrmacht was a very strong army, even when decimated and badly battered.

3) The U.S. army

Shortly put, they came, they saw, they conquered (in Europe). But they almost always had the benefits of superior manpower and equipment, and their tactics weren't revolutionary.

In the Pacific, it was a different kind of war to fight, but the U.S. forces eventually won thanks to their huge determination and skill.

The U.S. army was undeniably the most successful army of the war when taking into consideration the relatively low losses it suffered (at least compared to The Soviet union) while achieving total victory.

I believe you left off the Canadian Army. Heck, if the Finns topped your list, then the Canadians at least deserve an honorable mention. Our efforts had something significant to some effect.

chocapic · #10 (**permalink**) November 3rd, 2006, 09:38 AM

During WWII US army had by far the lower ratio of combatant personel.

This shows the importance given to logistics, supplies, not only in sheer weapons, but also important things as food, radio equipment etc etc.

I'd say the US army was the best equiped and supplied army.

Overall it was also a well trained army (mostly because they won : they did not ended up sending kids on the front).

And the efficiency of the US field artillery compares to no other.

Lord of War · #11 (**permalink**) November 3rd, 2006, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by downfall1983:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lord of War:
Which armies do you think were the most professional regarding tactics and striking power during WW2?

These would be on my list:

1) the Finnish army

The Finns incredibly repelled attack after attack by many times stronger Soviet forces during the winter war, and developed the revolutionary motti-tactics to encircle a superior force.

In the continuation war they launched a successful offensive deep into Russian territory, with virtually no tanks, and an airforce inferior to the Soviet air force. In 1944, the Russians launched an enormous offensive, aiming to invade the whole of Finland, but they were stopped after advancing to the border of 1940. This was because of incredibly stiff Finnish resistance, for example in the battle of Tali-Ihantala. The Finnish defensive victory was achieved to a big extent thanks to a new military doctrine, based on concentrating relentless artillery-fire to small areas.

It can be argued that the Soviets were badly trained and equipped during the winter war, and that they were concentrating their main offensive thrust on Germany in 1944, but I don't think that these facts make the Finnish resistance any less incredible.

(I will admit that it's possible that I may be a bit biased because I'm a Finn... =))

2) The Wehrmacht

The German army was in my opinion the most professional and systematically structured army of the war. Their bliztkrieg tactics developed by Heinz Guderian and others were revolutionary in the way they coordinated attacks by tanks and the Luftwaffe.

It only started to go worse for the Wehrmacht when it attacked Russia. Despite the incredible success achieved in the first two summers of the campaign, the attack on the Soviet Union was, in my opinion, the one strategical mistake that lost Germany the war. Hitler also sabotaged the work of many brilliant generals by pretending to be a great warlord, which he certainly wasn't. In many cases I think battles and operations could have ended very differently if he had allowed his generals to do their job.

Even when the Allies were closing in on Germany on three fronts, it still took them quite a while to finally defeat the Wehrmacht. I think the defensive battles of 1943-45 prove that the Wehrmacht was a very strong army, even when decimated and badly battered.

3) The U.S. army

Shortly put, they came, they saw, they conquered (in Europe). But they almost always had the benefits of superior manpower and equipment, and their tactics weren't revolutionary.

In the Pacific, it was a different kind of war to fight, but the U.S. forces eventually won thanks to their huge determination and skill.

The U.S. army was undeniably the most successful army of the war when taking into consideration the relatively low losses it suffered (at least compared to The Soviet union) while achieving total victory.

I believe you left off the Canadian Army. Heck, if the Finns topped your list, then the Canadians at least deserve an honorable mention. Our efforts had something significant to some effect. </font>[/quote]I agree the Canadian army was a professional one that fought well, propably would be next on my list, together with the British. And as I said, the fact that I put the Finnish army first on my list may very well be because I'm biased, as I'm a Finn, although I really do think the Finnish army deserves the spot.

Lt. Trippel · #12 (**permalink**) November 8th, 2006, 10:11 PM

I think the U.S. Army was the most powerful. Yes, the German army was professional and organized, they were playing in their own territory. The americans were scattered over Europe for a while but they still managed to hold off and eventually defeat the german army. They were a major power in WW2 and were some of the best trained in my view.

erik.hillis · #13 (**permalink**) November 12th, 2006, 01:25 AM

I wouldn't call the Canadian Army "professional"... they were an amateur [volunteer] Army who continually faced the "professionals", and came out on top most of the time.

Lord of War · #14 (**permalink**) November 12th, 2006, 12:57 PM

professional as in functioning, the finnish army wasn't professionally structured either, but still fought professionally.

downfall1983 · #15 (**permalink**) November 12th, 2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord of War:
professional as in functioning, the finnish army wasn't professionally structured either, but still fought professionally.

Here Here...

ANZAC · #16 (**permalink**) November 13th, 2006, 04:23 AM

The way I see it, until '42 the Heer, despite it's flaws, was the most potent army in the world by a fair margin, and chillingly effective, but by the end of the war the Red army was probably the the most powerful army ever.

With millions of battle hardened men backed up by tens of thousands of T-34's and IS-2/3's, as well as ISU-122/152 assault guns, and massive artillery, no army could stand up to them.

But as the Heer found out, great armies alone don't nessasarly win wars.

Kai-Petri · #17 (**permalink**) November 13th, 2006, 09:22 AM

If you could combine the Red Army crushing power of 1944-45 with the German leadership ( down to NCO level ) qualities I´d think that would be one devastating army....

Just my thought....

Jaeger · #18 (**permalink**) November 13th, 2006, 05:13 PM

The Mexican Army... Hands down.

Please excuse me as I fetch my last pint for the day.