ww2 again

Which were the most effective soldiers in WW2,the western allies,the soviets,the japanese or the Germans?
The United States for sure any time after Pearl Harbor in the Pacific,or maybe also Normandy in Europe.Before America(and I guess the rest of the "allies" such as France:p ) had much experience in northern France,probably Germany was the best.The were WAY better than Soveits,(which were the shit until about 2 years after the Soviet entry,than they started to understand what the hell they were doing.)They were also far superior to Italy,and slightly better I think than the Brits.France is self-explanatory.
Overall,I would say the worst by a long shot are the Soviets pre-1942,they got thieir ass handed to them by,off all people,Finland.They invaded Finland to try to make it part of the Soviet Union,than the Finlanders fought back,literally often just skiing around the battlefield because they didnt have many vehicles.Soviets outnumbered them 3:1 and yet got killed on a ratio of 5:1.Eventually they ended up having to make peace with teh country and only got a little land.
 
Which were the most effective soldiers in WW2,the western allies,the soviets,the japanese or the Germans?
The Germans. There's been operational research done on it, & even at the end of the war, they had about a 10% edge on the Allies (100 Germans=110 Allies). At the start of Barbarossa, it was about 2.6:1 over the Red Army; by the end, down to around 1.5. That leaves off the incompetence of senior command, of course, as well as the influence of superior intelligence (Ultra)...
 
The Germans. There's been operational research done on it, & even at the end of the war, they had about a 10% edge on the Allies (100 Germans=110 Allies). At the start of Barbarossa, it was about 2.6:1 over the Red Army; by the end, down to around 1.5. That leaves off the incompetence of senior command, of course, as well as the influence of superior intelligence (Ultra)...

Thank you for posting some realistic numbers.

I don't know where people get the 1:17 or even 1:4 ratios from in long-term contexts. This on a history forum of all places.
 
Which were the most effective soldiers in WW2,the western allies,the soviets,the japanese or the Germans?

Without toting out a lot of facts, my own stereotypes (at least among the major powers) are:

  • Wehrmacht: best trained, most flexible tactically, best overall small-unit for small-unit
  • US Army/Marines: best at battlefield innovation and improvisation, best logistics
  • British Army: best discipline
  • Red Army: best position defense
  • Japanese Army: best shock troops
(Note that I don't mean to imply that anybody is necessarily bad in some aspect.)
 
Thank you for posting some realistic numbers.
You're quite welcome.:) Glad to be of assistance.

Actually, if I had my choice of the best force, it'd be Japanese infantry with Wehrmacht training, U.S. or Sov weaps, & B.A. logistics. IJA infantry held up in positively hellish conditions in SWPA, under officers who deserved fragging a lot of the time, but weren't; their discipline was astounding. U.S. weaps were generally top quality, with a bit of over-complexity; Sovs tended to be most reliable, but a bit less operator friendly. B.A. logistics didn't get into the ridiculous over-supply the U.S. did (half of all supplies delivered not being used!). And I don't think Wehrmacht training has been exceeded yet: copied & improved, but not exceeded.
 
Last edited:
Just to say it, the Finns on home ground. They were just a few, fought both the Nazis and Soviets and mannaged to stay independent after the war.


Yes. I'm also going with Canada. Tough as nails, hamstrung by horrid living conditions influencing population increase. Canada, in a fair POD, would rule the world...

By living conditions I mean, it's colder n' the lowest ring of hell. If its snowing outside my window on April 6th, it's a freakin blizzard somewhere directly to my Nth.
 
American forces in WW2 were a reflection of the USA's massive resource capabilities poured into a short time frame. US army forces lacked the training of the other nations' forces... because they were raised in a very short time. American tanks weren't as combat effective as the Germans'... because the US had to build a bunch of them very fast and also didn't have any real experience using tanks in war. However, the USA did a couple of things very well. First, in the '40's, the US was the most mechanized and industrialized nation on earth, bar none. Thus, the Sherman tank was undergunned and underarmored, compared to German Panzers, but there were a hell of a lot of them, and they were very reliable. US combat rifles were arguably not as good as those of other nations, but again, we made a hell of a lot of them really fast. Considering that the USA went from having a tiny professional army at the end of '41 to invading N. Africa at the end of '42, it's not surprising that the US forces were as they were: lavishly equipped, inadequately trained, and prone to improvisation. Basically, the US took the two advantages it had (resources and industrialization), and in a really short time, turned that into an armed force.
 

boredatwork

Banned
call me silly - but I was taught at boot camp that the only measure of military effectiveness that matters in the end is accomplishing the mission.

In war, the mission is defeating the enemy.

So, kill ratios, while fascinating, don't really mean bugger all (for further information, see the Viet Nam War, US performance in) if you still end up losing.

So, most effective?

Russian (they won), British (they won) and American (ditto).

The Germans and Japanese, for all that they may have had superior kill ratios, lost. And yes, that is what counts. So did the French and the Italians, in case anyone was thinking of mentioning them.

As for most efficient - I would have to figure out whose military force, relative to the size of the nations total population, achieved victory with the lowest committment and loss of manpower.

By that standard, from everything I've read, the Russians would be out of the running (land wars are tough that way) and it would be down to the Brits & Yanks.
 
I think you have to mention the Polish, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian and Indian troops as they all did sterling service.
 
I don't think this is answerable. Since 1914, the courage, determination, and skills of the individual soldier is a lot less important than how many soldiers there are, the quality of their equipment, the strategic planning by their superiors, the effectiveness of their logistic support, and - most importantly - the ability of their nations (or movements, in the case of guerilla and terrorust forces) to economically and politically support the war to the desired conclusion.

So, I tend to agree with boardatwork. The side which wins is the best.

Although I do like pacifichistorian's discussion of how the best soldiers would combine characteristics of several nations
 
okay, you really need to get your facts right. Market-Garden was a terrible plan. It involved driving a british column of tanks along a two lane road for over 60 miles, over 6 major water obstacles, to relieve 3 airborne divisions who had landed to capture the bridges from "old men and children." British reconnaissance was so terrible, they didn't even notice the 2 S.S. panzer divisions in Arnhem. That was his 1st mistake. At the Falaise pocket, he was the commander of all Allied ground forces. This put him in command of Bradley, the "other wonder boy" in command of the southern jaw of the pocket. He made a huge mistake in waiting for reinforcements, and probably managed to extend the war for several months.
 
For those who would actually like to know about this subject there are some quality books around. 'Fighting Power' by Martin Van Creveld is an exellent book which comapares the Wehrmacht (because of the rumour mill that they were the best) with the US Army (because of the undoubted fact that they had the best records and thus were the easiest to get data on). The 3 volume set called 'Military Effectiveness' by Millet and Murray is another goodie, it looks at Political, Strategic, Operational and Tactical effectiveness of the great powers in the period 1914-1945. 'On Killing' by Lt Col Grossman is another one which may be handy, as it spells out how group bonds can help soldiers kill, but this is best read in concert with Van Crevelds book, otherwise it just wierded me out.

As for conclusions both pretty much give the tactical edge to the Germans across the board. MVC's study is narrow, he admits this and M & M question the need to be the best tactically since by falling down in the larger areas Germany lost the bloody war(s).
 
I saw one study comparing just how many soldiers actually fired their weapons while "in battle", and it was Germans and Japanese far ahead of any of the others. Of course, given the way things worked out probably lots of them had alot more reason to.
 
in the '40's, the US was the most mechanized and industrialized nation on earth, bar none.

The US certainly had the largest Industrial base but as a percentage of the economy it was behind the UK and Germany. Before the massive wartime expansion in US industry when it became the workshop of democracy agriculture was a big part of the US economy and still is. US agriculture was huge in comparison to the UK and Germany of course.
 
I once read that the US genius for war was that they could set up offensive set-piece battles at a faster tempo than the Germans could prepare their defences for these battles.

Joseph K., in that 'On Killing' book apparently in WW1 officers used to slap soldier on the arse with the flat of their swords to get them to fire. Grossman thinks that only 3% of riflemen in an infantry company shot to kill in WW2, and another 15% fired their weapons, the rest busied themselves with other stuff. Machinegun teams fired most of the time because they had to impress their team-mate.
 
I agree with others that there's no definitive way to say "who's better" because there are no experimental controls to distinguish. And if such controls were issued to balance the situation and reliant solely upon the soldiers themselves... well, then that would eliminate this thread altogether.

Who were the best soldiers? The factory workers.

Silly questions = silly answers.
 
Top