Best soldier?

All armies in WWII had not so good and outstanding individuals and units. The German armed forces, in particular, had units of vastly varying quality (from valiant Paladins to demented murders). Overall though, the combat record of the German armed forces completely overshadows that of all other nations. Virtually all German campaigns were conducted on a shore string in terms of material, usually against vastly greater odds either numerically or materially or both. Even so Germany carved out victory after victory, until finally the enemy superiority in numbers in material, combined with faulty, usually overambitious, German (read Hitler) strategic leadership led to German defeat. Even then, when their ranks were stuffed with old men and young boys, the Germans inflicted enormous casualties. Except for snipers (Fin and Soviet had even better snipers) and their being equaled in the Submarine branch (US was their equal), in all other combat branches the German aces not only had far greater combat achievements but there were many more aces....fighter, bomber, panzer on and on it goes.

the reason: A completely military nation, bend on physical fitness and martial training, infused with ideology in that they were superior to all others, trained in greatly superior small unit tactics and first to use modern warfare techniques. All this combined with more combat experience than any other nation and the knowledge that defeat meant death and total destruction of their nation, their families their women and childern meant that, "overall" the German soldier of the Reich was the best of WWII, and among the best in all of history.

Anyway, just my humble opinion.

Hawk

 

Paladins...in the German Army? What?

One fact that you fail to mention was that the Germans deliberately set themselves up on a logistics shoestring, and got nailed for it. Sort of like standing in an open field with a 10-foot iron pole during a thunderstorm... It's a weakness that German forces fought with little support, not a strength.

All of Germany's victories were inflicted on nations wholly unprepared for war. Let's list the German victories...

-Poland. Need I say more?
-France. Incompetent generals with a defeatist attitude sealed the French fate. Yet, despite this, the French adapted and started to fight quite well right before surrender was announced. Damn Petain...
-North Africa. The Brits were further away than the Germans or Italians from the base of operations, and still managed to halt and repel the German advance after initial successes. The British won the supply line, you say? Once again, a German problem.
-Russia. Once again, incompetent generals, and a far-too-trusting Stalin caused initial German advances. Yet the Germans lost the war here.

You also seem to forget the shortcomings of the German Army. Only a small portion of the German army was mechanized; the vast majority of the army was armed with...horses. Yes, horses. Even in Panzer divisions, horses pulled most of the artillery. The Germans also failed to modernize their forces over the course of the war, and seldom had enough artillery to compete with the other warring nations. People hear about the Panzer Lehr or Das Reich, yet they seldom hear about SS-Waffen-Gebirgs-Division Skanderbeg and the other crap divisions that served in the German Army.

Now, what could the Germany Army do against a nation that had mobilized on the extent of Germany? Result; Battle of the Bulge, where, despite a German numerical and material advantage, ended in a loss. Or maybe Bagration, the Normandy of the East.

When you say Nazi Germany, remember this; Nazi Germany and Czechoslovakia, France, Poland, Ukraine, Romania, and all those other countries Germany exploited.

By the way, by the time Germany resorted to old men and children, the German Army seldom inflicted these "terrible losses" you speak of. As I recall, Germany collapsed like a deck of cards in 1945.

When on equal terms...well, a quote from T.A. Gardner will suffice:

"After the fall of France German infantry divisions on their own never succeeded in offensive operations above the tactical level (company and down) against the Western Allies with one exception...the 18th VG versus 106th US Inf Div in the Ardennes."

So much for German invincibility. German Submarine Warfare, though on a different topic, was far below Allied levels. The Germans, after all, never had ULTRA, centimetric radar, and other inventions and tactics necessary for hunting subs. The Allied Sub war against Japan succeeded. The German counterpart failed.

http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/10810-wehrmacht-overrated.html

 

Here, read this rather lenghty article and argue over it (I already did):

Military History Online

 

Well, Ulrich Rudel, Wittmann, etc Paladins in my book.

Thanks for your reply. Don't have time to reply to many interesting points but for starters.

"One fact that you fail to mention was that the Germans deliberately set themselves up on a logistics shoestring, and got nailed for it. Sort of like standing in an open field with a 10-foot iron pole during a thunderstorm... It's a weakness that German forces fought with little support, not a strength."

Could you please elaborate how the Germans deliberately set themselves up? I thought the discussion is on the best soldier? The shortcomings of German supplies are a different discussion and not to be blamed on the soldier. That the German soldiers fought so well with so little is certainly a strength!

 

Get a better book. Here are a few more names, I'm sorry they are too numerous to list.

Congressional Medal of Honor, A-F
Congressional Medal of Honor, G-L
Congressional Medal of Honor, M-S
Congressional Medal of Honor, T-Z

List of VICTORIA CROSS Holders

Heros of the Soviet Union

You're right, they had a lot to thank their leaders for so thoughtfully giving each Landser a shot in the foot.

 

hahahaha

 

:"-France. Incompetent generals with a defeatist attitude sealed the French fate. Yet, despite this, the French adapted and started to fight quite well right before surrender was announced. Damn Petain..."

They must have also sealed the Brit fate, after all they too were defeated in France. Besides this the French army was roughly the equal to the German and the French actually had superior tanks.

German victory was due to German inovative fighting skill. Lets see something like 10X greater French casualties than German and a few weeks to achieve something that was impossible to achieve in several years in the prior war!! I'd say the GErman soldier did quiet well.

 

Don't make der PanzerPenguin come visit this thread.

 

I don't mind these questions on this forum. I believe that is one of the few forums that, one person could ask these types of questions and get mature, informative answers from the members. I can't think of many forums that are like this. So I wouldn't think twice of throwing a question out like this, knowing that I won't get flamed, or called newbie ect. If people can answer the question, in a muture informative manor..then there should be no bounderies on what questions can and should be questioned here.
Keep the anwers comming, I'm learning every day!!!!!!

 

thats why i highly rate this forum as a newbi myself i wos treated great
not knowing much about ww2 in general
there wos so much help offered by great people thankyou all
best krieg

 

No seriously; the Brits didn't have Petain. Instead, they had Churchill, and kicked out Chamberlain. The Brit will to fight was significantly better than the French will. Not only that , but French generals were incompetent with their forces, and the Germans had a ton of luck in terms of strategic planning (including capturing the entire defensive layout of the Allied armies).

 

"North Africa": The Brits were further away than the Germans or Italians from the base of operations, and still managed to halt and repel the German advance after initial successes. The British won the supply line, you say? Once again, a German problem."

Only Monty won in Alamein is cause he was smart enough to know that he could only win against Rommel with overwhelming material and numerical strength...which he did.


"-Russia. Once again, incompetent generals, and a far-too-trusting Stalin caused initial German advances. Yet the Germans lost the war here."

Err, you ever take a look at the logistics and numbers on the Soviet side?

"You also seem to forget the shortcomings of the German Army. Only a small portion of the German army was mechanized; the vast majority of the army was armed with...horses. Yes, horses. Even in Panzer divisions, horses pulled most of the artillery. The Germans also failed to modernize their forces over the course of the war, and seldom had enough artillery to compete with the other warring nations. People hear about the Panzer Lehr or Das Reich, yet they seldom hear about SS-Waffen-Gebirgs-Division Skanderbeg and the other crap divisions that served in the German Army."

Ok, I did not overlook anything of the sort. The mechanized shortcomings of the GErman army are well know and only serve to illustrate that despite such shortcomings the Germans put up an unsurpassed fight. As for the "crap" divisions, I also pointed that out in my first posting.


































Now, what could the Germany Army do against a nation that had mobilized on the extent of Germany? Result; Battle of the Bulge, where, despite a German numerical and material advantage, ended in a loss. Or maybe Bagration, the Normandy of the East.

 

"ow, what could the Germany Army do against a nation that had mobilized on the extent of Germany? Result; Battle of the Bulge, where, despite a German numerical and material advantage, ended in a loss. Or maybe Bagration, the Normandy of the East."

Battle of the Buldge:
The GErman army was far past its prime, asked to carry out an attack against virtually impossible odds. Numerical and material advantage? Where u get this? The German advance relied on captured allied fuel dumps! Numerical advantage? Maybe in the early phases, I'd like to see some stats on that. How about the Luftwaffe I suppose you're going to tell me it dominated the skies? Reality is that a severely watered down German army, the ranks of its even elite units filled with unskilled, under-aged or old men, put up a hell of fight against an American army in its prime enjoying total air supremacy (as soon as the clouds broke). Even so, even though the Germans were on the attack, even then they inflicted nearly even casualties on the Americans!!!


Bagration:
Rightly known as one of the greatest German defeats in the entire war. But how well did the Germans fight?

Opposing Forces:
700,000 Germans of AGC versus 2,500,000 Soviets
Soviets had 6000 tanks and assault guns, Germans a few hundred
Soviet advantage in fighter planes 50:1
Soviets also had help from 250,000 partisans (but these were really only good at killed unarmed prisoners)

Result:
AGC crushed. 300,000 casualties, men lost, 215 tanks lost

The Soviet victory is usually used as a hallmark of great soviet generalship but how did the soviets fare?

Bagration Soviet losses: 765,000 killled wounded or missing!!!!!! WOW!!!!

This was at a time when Germany was facing the onslought of the Anglo-Americans in Normandy, yet, despite being completely outnumbered
, past their prime and badly led from the top, the German landser showed that he still was really the best there ever was.

 

"Get a better book. Here are a few more names, I'm sorry they are too numerous to list."

I have no doubt your list of Medal of honor includes many outstanding valiant individuals. Since you apparently know do much about them, why not give me an example of an allied airman who shot down 100 planes, or destroyed 100 axis tanks? How about US snipers? Until then, maybe you should get a better book, one of the unsurpassed axis heroes of WWII.

 

:deadhorse: And as predicted it starts LOL. :headbash:

 

Where did you get your figures for Bagration?

 

"They must have also sealed the Brit fate, after all they too were defeated in France. Besides this the French army was roughly the equal to the German and the French actually had superior tanks."

Read: French incompetence. Maurice Gamelin, commander of chief of the French armies, sent his only reserve army into Holland, and completely neglected the Ardennes. Not only that, but he refused to recall his reserve army even after reports in 1939 and 1940 indicated that German armies had shifted south. And, without a reserve army...well, history. He was completely inflexible, and followed the Dyle Plan to excess. It should be noted that French POWs only came flooding in after Petain gave his June 17 radio address, where he called for an armistice.

Britain managed to withdraw the bulk of their forces, making a Cross-Channel invasion impossible (and Dunkirk was a huge PR boost as well). Not only that, but the German attempts to start Sea Lion failed (read: BOB), which didn't exactly lead to defeatism on the British home front...

"Only Monty won in Alamein is cause he was smart enough to know that he could only win against Rommel with overwhelming material and numerical strength...which he did."

Correct. Concentration of force is a valid military strategy that all military commanders tried to follow. However, Rommel's actual advance had been checked in Crusader (albeit only until the British withdrew their most experienced Armor divisions), and the First Battle of El Alamein (after the second German advance).

"Ok, I did not overlook anything of the sort. The mechanized shortcomings of the German army are well know and only serve to illustrate that despite such shortcomings the Germans put up an unsurpassed fight. As for the "crap" divisions, I also pointed that out in my first posting."

...And you significantly downplay their importance in the war. Germany was perhaps 20% Panzer, which were quite good. The rest were nonmechanized forces. The divisions that make these "unsurpassed fights" are more often than not Panzer and the better-equipped SS divisions. Not the Volksgrenadier or other underequipped divisions. The underequipped divisions of the German Army did not put up this "unsurpassed fight" at levels you speak of.

"Err, you ever take a look at the logistics and numbers on the Soviet side?"

You mean having a relatively small fraction of decent tanks, a set of purges that eliminated competent generals (including Zhukov, who was eventually recalled), a German surprise attack, untrained troops, and no motorized divisions (actually, no mechanization to speak of)? And Stalin? Despite losing so much industrial power that the British actually outproduced the Soviets in the early war?

When the Soviets finally got on form and modernized, they did much, much better against the German Army. And the Germans started losing.

 

"Were US and British fliers left in operational groups for 6 years, I would image that they could have developed similar numbers."

Certainly possible. Hard to say. The Soviets and Japanese flew until victory or death and did not sport numbers equal to the Germans. Nevertheless, had Brit and US fliers flow under identical conditions to the Germans, then yeah they probably would have had a lot more aces than they did. However, they did not, leaving the Germans as the most skilled soldiers in the war.


"The Germans left them there until they were killed, maimed or the war ended."

This is often held against the GErmans but reality is that Germany did not have the luxury of sending their best to teach...they were all needed to fight!!!