Which army was the most qualitatively superior between the Allies and Nazi Germany?
- Thread starter John Dusk
- Start date
Army as in land based military forces. You can throw per soldier in there as well if you want.
Then it is tempting to Pick the wehrmacht (Per soldier). They did have a slide-through-enemy-forces capability that only the Soviets eventually matched and that with much larger casualties.
Problem was they got destroyed by air power, supplies, bad intel,etc.
Its not that easy though as the us army assembled a mass of firepower that did have a quality on its own.
Problem was they got destroyed by air power, supplies, bad intel,etc.
Its not that easy though as the us army assembled a mass of firepower that did have a quality on its own.
I agree - even discounting our natural national bias.
In terms of the national resource base and available weapons and gear, the results achieved by the Finnish military are in a league of their own. We can cite particular examples - the "motti" battles of the Winter War, the general success of the Air Force and AA defence against the Soviet air campaign, the showing of Nenonen's artillery arm, the radio/signals intelligence under Hallamaa, the ability of the Navy and coastal artillery to protect the coasts and Finnish foreign trade... There's no branch of the Finnish military that performed badly in terms of resources and expectations, all results range from good to excellent.
That said - Finland had a lot of luck during the war, the kind of luck that was unavailable to many other nations, especially the smaller ones between Germany and USSR. While the Finnish soldiers (and Lottas) did what they could, there was a lot that happened due to happy contingency to save Finland in WWII. Even with essentially as good a military showing in the war, it would not have taken many butterflies to see Finland get occupied by Soviet troops in the end of it all and becoming a part of the Communist bloc for decades.
Last edited:
longsword14
Banned
Silly question. Human, material, political, geographical,technical factors are all inter-twined. In modern wars material and technological factors tend to be the decisive decision makers.
In WWII the allies were not knocked out so they could bring their overwhelming material force to bear, allowing them to strengthen their position and weaken their enemy's, leading to victory.
In WWII the allies were not knocked out so they could bring their overwhelming material force to bear, allowing them to strengthen their position and weaken their enemy's, leading to victory.
trurle
Banned
I remember German infantry during occupation of Norway in 1940 were estimated (by German historians) to be 2x combat effective compared to British infantry. I.e. 1 German infantryman fought 2 British on approximately equal grounds. Japanese infantry during late 1941 was 2.25x more effective compared to British (well, the mixture of British regular and colonial troops). Therefore, in 1940-1941 Japanese and German infantrymen may be the most capable.
As the time passed, official Japanese estimates by 1945 showed majority of infantry units being 30% combat efficient compared to 1941 standards (making them ~0.68x of British infantry of 1940-1941) due deficient training, equipment and supply.
I do not remember any comparison for other forces, but suspect US was comparable to British or slightly worse (from disparaging remarks by German regarding early US actions in Africa) initially. Soviets were considerably inferior to German or British in 1941.
During the war, the states with the lightest casualties rate (US, British) have improved most, while states with worst casualties (German, Japan) suffered the greatest loss in infantry combat efficiency. Soviet Union fall somewhat between - infantry efficiency improved over time, but many severe maladies arising from deficient training have persisted until the end of war.
Regarding Italy, it has clearly the worst fighting quality infantry. Italy had the same leadership problems as early British, but in much aggravated form. Leadership/command/tactics was so inferior what even superior Italian training and brain-washing (morale) was absolutely not enough to compensate for bad officers leadership.
As the time passed, official Japanese estimates by 1945 showed majority of infantry units being 30% combat efficient compared to 1941 standards (making them ~0.68x of British infantry of 1940-1941) due deficient training, equipment and supply.
I do not remember any comparison for other forces, but suspect US was comparable to British or slightly worse (from disparaging remarks by German regarding early US actions in Africa) initially. Soviets were considerably inferior to German or British in 1941.
During the war, the states with the lightest casualties rate (US, British) have improved most, while states with worst casualties (German, Japan) suffered the greatest loss in infantry combat efficiency. Soviet Union fall somewhat between - infantry efficiency improved over time, but many severe maladies arising from deficient training have persisted until the end of war.
Regarding Italy, it has clearly the worst fighting quality infantry. Italy had the same leadership problems as early British, but in much aggravated form. Leadership/command/tactics was so inferior what even superior Italian training and brain-washing (morale) was absolutely not enough to compensate for bad officers leadership.
Last edited:
I'd argue Japanese would be the best in amphibious landings until 1943 due to their special equipment and well trained troops. It was only until 1943 US and UK had equivalent equipment.
As for Finns, in tundra combat Finnish troops were not at their own. I'd argue Germans might be the best in 1940-1941, Soviets for 1942-1945. In fighting in forests there's no equivalent for Finnish Army.
Yes. Finland had ample geographic depth where to learn from mistakes, unlike, say, Belgium. In 1944 that saved Finland. Finnish Army fought basically three major (Winter War, 1941 offensive, 1944 defensive) campaigns during 1939-1945 and was not in sustained combat through the six years. Between each there was time to replenish, retrain and re-equip the forces. In case of 1940-1941 interim peace the time was used effectively, in 1942-1944 not so.
But anyway, even with national bias, Finnish combat performance in Second World War was as a whole exceptional, although in almost all niches one might argue one could find even better examples.
Urban warfare in 1945, I'd say the Americans were the best.Mainly due to the 8" siege gun,it was accurate enough and powerful enough to flatten Enemy strong points so a lot of nasty house to house was avoided in the Ruhr Valley.
1) Viipuri wasn't the Finnish capital. Helsinki was still 200 km to the west.
2) The Karelian Isthmus was quite difficult terrain for the attacker due to the narrow available front and natural obstacles like lakes, the Vuoksi river, forests, swamps and hills. Even an incompletely fortified line (or rather a system of such lines) here could help a determined defender stop a numerically superior invader.
3) Everywhere north of the Ladoga the terrain is even worse for warfare, and the lack of roads and railroads in the wilderness makes short distances on the map much longer in practice. This is all the more true the closer you get to the Arctic circle.
I know, but that was the Soviet objective, wasn't it?
Would Finland have fought on, had Viipuri fallen?
The Soviet objective in 1939-40 and 1944 was beating the Finnish army and occupying Finland. As such, Helsinki was the objective - taking it would have meant certain Finnish defeat. The Red Army taking Viipuri would not have pushed the Finns into surrender in 1940 - like it didn't in 1944. It would have been a powerful added incentive to make a peace as soon as possible, though. As long as Moscow was ready to accept a peace that leaves Finland independent and unoccupied, that is. Viipuri wasn't something Finland was ready to commit national suicide over. The Moscow Peace Treaty of 1940 is a case in point.
Last edited:
Deleted member 1487
I'd say in 1945 that it wasn't so much that artillery as much as the collapse of the Germans and firepower inequity that achieved that. The Germans and everyone else had similar guns, the Germans the 210mm and 240mm towed pieces, plus railway guns. The Schwerer Gustav was used in Stalingrad, but that didn't prevent house to house combat. Same with taking down Sevastopol. There were a lot of other factors at play.
The Americans had a lot of them and they were more accurate than their Axis counterparts, as well as more mobile ,so the guns can keep up with the advance. Add better logistics to keep the guns fed along Superior fire control gave them the edge.
The Germans shouldn't have invested in those super heavy artilary pieces, but the Nazi ego took over.Smaller more mobile artillery pieces were more efficient in putting explosives on the enemy.