Most capable Military power in World War 2.

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Who was the most capable military power in World War 2?

I say Zi Germans

 

[15357]

You forgot a LOT of nations.

 

[Llama]

In terms of actual Military power the Germans, by sheer weigth of numbers the Russians

 

[Revisedsoul]

wheres poland?

 

[gick]

At which point in the war? And what do you mean by capable? Biggest? most technologically advanced? most destructive? most land gained? best casualty/destruction ratio?

 

[Lemonking]

Germany,after that Russia.

 

[Razor]

Germany, then Russia, then England. America should be penalised for being late...yet again .

 

[Lemonking]

"did we miss something"



lol

 

[Sulkdodds]

Ain't gonna vote because it changed so much throughout the war.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

AMERICA, **** yeah!

 

[JellyWorld]

Apart from the nukes, the Germans were pretty advanced compared to the americans.

 

[15357]

And they had better uniforms.

 

[Lemonking]

the germans discoverd the whole "nuke bomb" thing,I wish they hadnt,this world would be alot nicer without nukes

 

[Maxi]

Apart from the nukes, the Germans were pretty advanced compared to the americans.

Actually, if the germans would have stuck to one front, their scientists probably wouldn't have defected to the US and that means that the germans would have made the first A-bomb.

 

[Lemonking]

If Hitlder hadnt hated jews,einstein might have never went 2 the US also...

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

If Hitlder hadnt hated jews,einstein might have never went 2 the US also...

That's true too, but then he also loses a lot of the basis he used in his reasoning for even getting into power and unifying Germanic people in the first place so one might argue the war wouldn't have even started then.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Anti-semitism was actually a very common feeling in Germany after the second world war. The NSDAP were not the only ones advocating it by a long shot.

 

[SFLUFAN]

The only correct answer is Germany

 

[jverne]

The germans had the most tehnologicaly advanced, capable, kill ratio, land conquered, maybe not sheer numbers! but what brought it down was too many fronts. they would have won if there wasn't hitler in command, because he was a terrible tactican, not like his generals who were highly capable!

 

[Raziaar]

Germans had the best training, tactics, and hardware.

And oh ****ing wow was their hardware some good shit!

Well except for planes... the best plane of the war was the p51 in my opinion. Germany had nice planes but near the end were outclassed and outgunned.

Tanks though... Only the russians came close.

Tigers, panzers, panthers, elephants oh my!

 

[Gray Fox]

The US. When you look at what was the most capabable, you have to take everything in account, from training, technology, natural recources availible.
And I believe that if germany went up against the US alone, so no other country would have butted in, the US would still have won in the end, even without nukes. Offcourse the fact that there is a whole ocean separating them would have helped in giving the US time to build up it´s forces.

 

[The Monkey]

Most technology advanced: Germany (and in the later parts of the war: America and the USSR)
Largest quantity of troops and material: The USSR

 

[ríomhaire]

Germany, then Russia. Anyone who voted America is just doing because they are American.

 

[Llama]

The germans had the most tehnologicaly advanced, capable, kill ratio, land conquered, maybe not sheer numbers! but what brought it down was too many fronts. they would have won if there wasn't hitler in command, because he was a terrible tactican, not like his generals who were highly capable!

That is absolutely, 100% pure rubbish

Hitler was a genius.

He was also insane, but his madness does not subtract from the fact that he was an utter genius

 

[jimbo118]

Tigers, panzers, panthers, elephants oh my!

The Elephant sucked ballz on its first deployment though which was at Kursk where it was pwnt by normal AT troops as it had no MGs on it, so the AT crews just waited for it to rumble up or past and destroy it, infantry troops were able to incapicate it too by taking out its crew with a few nades...

 

[Razor]

Germans had the best training, tactics, and hardware.

And oh ****ing wow was their hardware some good shit!

Well except for planes... the best plane of the war was the p51 in my opinion. Germany had nice planes but near the end were outclassed and outgunned.

Tanks though... Only the russians came close.

Tigers, panzers, panthers, elephants oh my!

The P51 was only capable with a Merlin engine and wasn't a match for something like the me262. If Germany had the resources to put some of their other experimental aircraft into production, nothing would of stopped the Luftwaffe.

The Germans had the first production jet aircraft, even though Sir Frank Wittle invented it, they had the first air to ground missile, the first surface to air missile, the first air to air missile, they had the first cruise missile, the first ballistic missile, were developing an ICBM and would of most probably of been in space before the Soviet Union if they hadn't been defeated. The only reason Hitler lost the war was due to him invading the Soviet Union, far too many resources and soldiers had to fight on the Eastern front, if there was no Eastern front, D-Day would never have happened, would of happened at a much later date or just been pushed straight back into the sea.

 

[Bob_Marley]

The problem is how you define "capable". If we go on individual soldiers/weapons/tanks/planes/etc... the result will be different to if we accept a trade off between these things.

Individual Soldiers: Germany. The Waffen SS were the toughest, most reliable and capable troops in the war. They would fight to the death before retreating, without a comissar with an MG threatening to blow their heads off.

Weapons: Germany. The MP-40 was controllable, accurate, and could be mass produced. The allied evquivelents were laughable in comparison. The MP/StG-44 - the worlds first true assault rifle, capable of mass production, etc. The KAR-98 - adaptable, accurate and reliable, but loses out to the SMLE due to slow operation and a magazine half the size. G-43 - good enough, but not as good as the SVT-40 or the Garand. MG-42 best GPMG of the war.

Tanks: Russia. Whilst not as powerful as the mighty German panzers, they are reliable, simple, tough, powerful and can be mass produced. Far superior to all but the last tanks to be produced by the western allies during the war, such as the comet.

Planes: Britan/Germany tie. Both had Jet fighters by the end of the war, Britan had the Spitfire, Mosquito, Hurricane, Lancaster, etc whilst the Germans had the FW-190, BF-109G, JU-88, etc

Capability to mass produce: USA. Simple, effective designs such as the Sherman, P-47 and the Bazooka, huge production capabilites and the fact that their weapons equiped every allied nation including Russia.

Overall: Russia. Good tanks, OK troops, good weapons, good planes, decent production capability in addition to equipment from other nations. Falls down on training, Naval power, efficency and long range strike capability.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Honestly, I'd say each country was almost equal.

 

[kirovman]

There's no clear answer... the balance of power shifted so much.

And such examples, like the superior Luftwaffe lost to the RAF, because of the chain home radar system.

 

[dys4iK]

This question is horribly vague. Make it more precise please.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Tanks though... Only the russians came close.

Tigers, panzers, panthers, elephants oh my!

People seem to forget that for every Tiger/Panther/Elephant/King Tiger that the Germans put into service there were 5-10 T-34's or Shermans being put into service. The German tanks while powerful on the battlefield, were unreliable, gas-guzzling and complex machines that could not hope to overcome the shed loads of tanks deployed against them. Add that to Effective infantry carried AT weapons and the total air superiority the allies enjoyed for the last few years of the war and they really dont stand a chanse. Reliance on overly complex and delicate machines was a major problem for the German forces.

Well except for planes... the best plane of the war was the p51 in my opinion. Germany had nice planes but near the end were outclassed and outgunned.

The German airforce had some of the best planes of the war, as did the British. The ME-262 was armed (on a typical bomber inderdiction mission) with 4 30mm cannons and 24 air-to-air rockets and the fact that they were around 100mph faster than any allied plane deployed against them. The FW-190 was fast, tough and highly adaptable, proving its self as a fighter, fighter bomber and tank buster on every frount.

The British had the Gloster Meteior. The De Haviland Mosquito which was faster than most German fighters and was still the best precision bomber of the war and managed to pack 4 .303 machine guns, 4 20mm cannon, 2 500 lb bombs and Rockets in the AT role. It was also a superb night fighter with it's MGs replaced with a radar. The Spitfire could climb faster, turn tighter and fire more rounds than any piston engined Luftwaffe fighter. The Hurricane proved it's self in every theatre (yes, including Russia, hurricanes were flown by Soviet piolets) and in virtually every role concevable for a plane originally designed as an air superiority fighter.

 

[Razor]

The problem is how you define "capable". If we go on individual soldiers/weapons/tanks/planes/etc... the result will be different to if we accept a trade off between these things.

Individual Soldiers: Germany. The Waffen SS were the toughest, most reliable and capable troops in the war. They would fight to the death before retreating, without a comissar with an MG threatening to blow their heads off.

Weapons: Germany. The MP-40 was controllable, accurate, and could be mass produced. The allied evquivelents were laughable in comparison. The MP/StG-44 - the worlds first true assault rifle, capable of mass production, etc. The KAR-98 - adaptable, accurate and reliable, but loses out to the SMLE due to slow operation and a magazine half the size. G-43 - good enough, but not as good as the SVT-40 or the Garand. MG-42 best GPMG of the war.

Tanks: Russia. Whilst not as powerful as the mighty German panzers, they are reliable, simple, tough, powerful and can be mass produced. Far superior to all but the last tanks to be produced by the western allies during the war, such as the comet.

Planes: Britan/Germany tie. Both had Jet fighters by the end of the war, Britan had the Spitfire, Mosquito, Hurricane, Lancaster, etc whilst the Germans had the FW-190, BF-109G, JU-88, etc

Capability to mass produce: USA. Simple, effective designs such as the Sherman, P-47 and the Bazooka, huge production capabilites and the fact that their weapons equiped every allied nation including Russia.

Overall: Russia. Good tanks, OK troops, good weapons, good planes, decent production capability in addition to equipment from other nations. Falls down on training, Naval power, efficency and long range strike capability.

I would have to disagree with you on one point, tanks.

By the end of 44/early 45, Germany was losing 1 tank to every 3 Soviet tanks or every 4 Allied tanks, in the case of a Tiger, it was 1 Tiger for every 10 allied tanks. The thing was, for every Sherman or T34 that got blown up, 10 were there to take its place, for every Tiger or Panther or Panzer4 blown up, it was difficult to find another tank to takes it's place, and then when you could, it was even more difficult to find fuel for it.

German tanks were always the very best in the war.

 

[Ravioli]

The biggest mistake Hitler did was to go against Soviet...if he didnt...he would have counqered!

Germany was the biggest power of that time, if you dont believe me, it says that right here in my history book from my school.

They had better tech, bigger army, better capable soldiers, best tanks (by FAAARRRRR), and a strong leader and the people backing him up.

Then there was soviet and after that i would take America or Japan, Japan where the best soldiers in other types of battlefields, such as jungles etc.

America had the best planes, the greater ships, but their tech and equiptment where not as good as the germans. The Sherman tanks couldnt penetrate the Tiger, even if it shot 10 rounds at it...the Tiger however, could shot one shot and totaly destroy a Sherman tank.
And with weapon such as the M1 Garand, they where almost handicaped in battles. They couldnt reload them, they only had 8 bullets if i remember correctly, and they give a "CHING" sound when the ammo is out so that the enemy knows when to attack... :/

England was very good in the African front, with battles such as the well known El Alamein. However, some of their weapons where crap. They where in such desparate need of weapons that they made one (dont remember name, it has a magazine sticking out on the side) that where only made of cheap material, and worked with rubber bands inside of it (sources for this came from Discovery channel) which reduced the strenght of the weapon, also causing devestating recoil!

But if we take Germanys full army right before the war started, against americas, im pretty sure that Germany would win. They had more courage and a better leader that strengthen them with bullet proof Moral (...lol...that doesnt sound right after what they where fighting for). Hell, they even shot medics, mass slaughterd villages and killed inocent people on the streets, they where really just more of a killing machine and less human (im not speaking of every single german soldier, alot of the soldiers where good people, but they had no choice then to fight, a great example would be that movie where a German soldier gives food to French prisoniers, kills his german friends and releases the french...only to be shot by his commander, dont remember the name of the movie though)

EDIT: Also the germans had the MG42, pwnage weapon of the time.

 

[Razor]

The biggest mistake Hitler did was to go against Soviet...if he didnt...he would have counqered!

Germany was the biggest power of that time, if you dont believe me, it says that right here in my history book from my school.

They had better tech, bigger army, better capable soldiers, best tanks (by FAAARRRRR), and a strong leader and the people backing him up.

Then there was soviet and after that i would take America or Japan, Japan where the best soldiers in other types of battlefields, such as jungles etc.

America had the best planes, the greater ships, but their tech and equiptment where not as good as the germans. The Sherman tanks couldnt penetrate the Tiger, even if it shot 10 rounds at it...the Tiger however, could shot one shot and totaly destroy a Sherman tank.
And with weapon such as the M1 Garand, they where almost handicaped in battles. They couldnt reload them, they only had 8 bullets if i remember correctly, and they give a "CHING" sound when the ammo is out so that the enemy knows when to attack... :/

England was very good in the African front, with battles such as the well known El Alamein. However, some of their weapons where crap. They where in such desparate need of weapons that they made one (dont remember name, it has a magazine sticking out on the side) that where only made of cheap material, and worked with rubber bands inside of it (sources for this came from Discovery channel) which reduced the strenght of the weapon, also causing devestating recoil!

But if we take Germanys full army right before the war started, against americas, im pretty sure that Germany would win. They had more courage and a better leader that strengthen them with bullet proof Moral (...lol...that doesnt sound right after what they where fighting for). Hell, they even shot medics, mass slaughterd villages and killed inocent people on the streets, they where really just more of a killing machine and less human (im not speaking of every single german soldier, alot of the soldiers where good people, but they had no choice then to fight, a great example would be that movie where a German soldier gives food to French prisoniers, kills his german friends and releases the french...only to be shot by his commander, dont remember the name of the movie though)

From what a lot of documentaries have said on who was the most powerful, America was around 13th most powerful country in the world in the late 30's, equal with Portugal. The only advantage America had and an advantage they used immensely was their workforce and their factories. British and German factories were getting bombed on a weekly basis so production couldn't be ramped up that great, America had minimal risk when it comes to bombers from enemy forces. One thing that Hitler actually wanted was Britain as an ally...now you imagine, Britain, Germany and Japan joined together?

 

[Raziaar]

The Elephant sucked ballz on its first deployment though which was at Kursk where it was pwnt by normal AT troops as it had no MGs on it, so the AT crews just waited for it to rumble up or past and destroy it, infantry troops were able to incapicate it too by taking out its crew with a few nades...

I know. I only added it cause it sounds cool. And cause I love elephants(the animal). :-P

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The problem is how you define "capable". If we go on individual soldiers/weapons/tanks/planes/etc... the result will be different to if we accept a trade off between these things.

Individual Soldiers: Germany. The Waffen SS were the toughest, most reliable and capable troops in the war. They would fight to the death before retreating, without a comissar with an MG threatening to blow their heads off.

Which Waffen SS units are you referring to? The units made under the Waffen-SS were very diverse, from some of the best units in Germany to some of the worst. Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, I do believe the 1.W-SS, along with the 2.W-SS Das Reich, performed well in all of its theatre's of operation. Handscar (Muslim volunteers), and the Britische Freikorps however performed poorly.

Contrary to the popular belief some have about the Waffen-SS, the branch itself never received more or better equipment then the Heer (Army) was able to acquire. In fact, the equipment they received was usually much older then the equipment delivered to the Heer, and was considered second rate.

The Waffen-SS in truth, never existed until the threatened breakout of Operation Fall Weiss, when at the start of the operation Himmler asked Hitler to include several SS divisions in the fighting over Poland. (Fall Weiss = the conquest of Poland). Once Hitler conceded to allow the SS to participate in the Polish Campaign, Himmler coined the divisions who were to participate in the operation changed from SS to Waffen-SS. These units were shipped off three days before September 1st to the Polish borders.

Once the fighting began both the Totenkopf and LSSAH (Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler) were implicated in atrocities. The overall performance of the Waffen-SS during these campaigns is considered mediocre. The poor initial performance of the Waffen-SS units was mainly due to the emphasis on political indoctrination rather than proper military training before the war. This was largely due to the shortage of experienced NCO's, who preferred to stay with the regular army much rather then the SS.

After some breakthrough campaigns in Poland, the Low Countries, France, and the Balkans only a few SS units were classified as elite fighting formations. On several occasions, the Waffen-SS was criticised by Heer commanders for their reckless disregard for casualties while taking or holding objectives. Even though eventually the Waffen-SS would use their fire brigade tactics, and only several of their units would be classified as Elite, the entire Branch itself could not be considered so.

Following their original system of political indoctrination, the Waffen-SS soldiers suffered militarly. Hosenhauf, Wiking, LSSAH, Das Reich, Frundsberg, and Hitler Jugend were the only units to be considered Elite, and even then, the term "Elite" in the eyes of most historians only classifies the number of ethnic Germans in each unit. This too, was an arguement made by Waffen-SS commanders, inwhich, some units were classified as Elite simply due to their large number of ethnic Germans.

Overall, the Waffen-SS branch had several of its units have shaky track records when performing on the front. Most historians, and even revisionists call the Waffen-SS branch, 'the branch of Germanys stormtroopers', not because its a kind thing to say, but because its whats right to say. Wether you knew it or not, Stosstruppe, or Sturmtruppe, were often called these things because of their willingness to endure extreme amounts of casualties while attempting to breakthrough an enemies line. It was not a welcome trait in such a force, to be sure.

I agree with some of the forum members that the German Forces were very well trained, but I disagree with the thought the Waffen-SS was the best of their combat conduct. Instead, I believe units like the 3rd Panzer Grenadier's were some of Germanys best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_3rd_Panzer_Division

Weapons: Germany. The MP-40 was controllable, accurate, and could be mass produced. The allied evquivelents were laughable in comparison.

Whats so laughable about the Thompson, the Greasegun, or the Sten? It's a draw, really. Each SMG had about the same problem they other had, but each SMG had one thing that the other did not.

The Thompson was milled, but was still able to be mass produced into the millionth figure. The weapon utilized a .45 ACP Round which did more in terms of internal or external damage to the human figure then the 9mm Parabellum round was capable of. It was also capable of firing 800 rounds per minute, and was absolutely perfect for close quarters operations. [More Round per Minute meant targets would be hit with much quicker succession then the MP40] It was accurate well beyond 75 meters, just like the Machinepistole'40, but had a wooden buttstock.

The only trade off I can see that does'nt nessecarly hinder either gun is the MP40 had a stock that was capable of being folded just under or before the clip insertion on the weapon. The Thompsons buttstock in some instances had to be sawed off to make the gun more compact, and yet, the wood stock was also stronger and much better suited for whapping people with then the MP40's foldable.

Also, the wooden stock, more full then the MP40's, was able to absorb more shock then the MP40's. The MP40's accuracy, compared to the Thompsons ability to fill multi-purpose roles really does'nt make either gun laughable. The MP40 was accurate, and great for field work. Its adaptibility in Close Quarters and Field Terrain would probably make this weapon my choice aswell, but the Thompson should not be underestimated.

It's the shooter that makes the gun accurate. Remember that rule.
A Personal Aside: The British considered the Thompson a support weapon, using the the Thompson model M1928. This model could be fitted with a drum feed, that in each of the two versions available could carry 50 to 100 rounds. The weapon was so popular and so well treasured with the British, that loosing the weapon was considered unacceptable in formations. The weapons lethality was well known to the Germans, and the Thompson played an extremely vital role in World War II for the allies.

The MP40 had no drum-feed models available, but did manage to produce a double clip feed (64 rounds). The problem with the double clip, and the normal clip (32 round feed), was that sometimes they fed wrongly, or the round would Jam inside of the gun. To resolve this problem, the first two rounds in the 32 round clips had to be removed. 4 bullets also had to be removed from the 64 double clip set.

The double clip was experimental, and did not see full production. The Thompsons drum feed did however see production, and full war use.

The Greasegun would eventually replace the Thompson (or was supposed to anyways, if some of us recall the Korean Wars), and the Sten was an overall good weapon aswell. The unfortunate thing with the Sten's earlier models is the jumpiness of its trigger. Tip the thing over, and it might shoot! was the joke back then. The Sten's best performance occured in battles to retake the rest of the low countries before Germany. In my opinion, the Sten was able to out perform the German Machinepistole'40, just because the rounds used were roughly the same, both had just about the same accuracy, and yet, the Sten had a higher ROF then the MP40.

I would'nt underestimate what the allies had, and I'm not even getting into some of the soviet models. Again, I would choose the MP40, simply due to its accuracy, but would not be afraid to use either the Thompson or the Sten.

The MP/StG-44 - the worlds first true assault rifle, capable of mass production, etc.

While true it was able to mass produced, that capability was ended in the allies bombing campaign against German Factories. The Wehrmacht (meant, Warmachine), was collasping to the sheer might of the allied Airforce in the West, and from the East. The StG-44, though remarked and admired, came too little, and too late for it to help turn the tides of war in Germanys favour. Over the Browning Assault Rifle, the StG-44 would be my first choice in this debate.

While the The KAR-98 - adaptable, accurate and reliable, but loses out to the SMLE due to slow operation and a magazine half the size.

The SMLE or the Garand I believe would win over the Karbiner 98 anyday. The SMLE had a much larger clip set and it also did have a slow operation. The Garand however, required no bolt operations and could be reloaded mid clip. The Garand also used a .30 round, making it able to hit a target well over 800 yards accurately. I would take the Garand.

MG-42 best GPMG of the war.

I don't prefer the overheat of the MG42. It was a terribly powerful weapon, utilizing a 7.62 round. Discharging ammunition at well over 1,200 RPM's it was refered to as Hitler's Buzzsaw. The problem with the MG42 is the barrel overheat. I would much prefer consistency, so for this one, I'm going to have to take the .30 Calibre.

Tanks: Russia. Whilst not as powerful as the mighty German panzers, they are reliable, simple, tough, powerful and can be mass produced. Far superior to all but the last tanks to be produced by the western allies during the war, such as the comet.

I think your mistaken here. Just as powerful as the "mighty" German Panzers, and sometimes even more so, with the full capability to mass produce anything over 30 tonnes without even so much as a cough. The Soviet's tank of primary use was the T-34 Tank, which was 30 tonnes, and capable of mounting a 50mm, 75mm, or 105mm cannon. The tank was much more powerful then a standard German Panzer Mk III or Mk IV sporting a 75mm and armored sideskirts, and, was just as fast. Plus, the T-34 was better suited for winter weather, although even the T-34 had its own fallbacks during the Russian weather.

To be honest however, the German Panzer was much more adaptable, although its standard chassis weaker. I would choose a German Tank over a Russian one anyday, just because the German Tank is more likely to have radio equipment then the Russian model. The thing that gave the Germans a big advantage on the start of Barborossa, was the fact that most Russian Tank crews were not equiped with radios. Sometimes, they would have to pull alongside of each other to yell out orders and plans.

Over a distance, they would communicate with Red or White flags, each carrying a symbol of a tank formation or tactic to be adopted in the battles that were surely on their way.
I prefer communication overall, so again, the Germans get this one. My secondary choice, or at least, the choice that almost immediately contests my first, would be the American Forces.

Planes: Britan/Germany tie. Both had Jet fighters by the end of the war, Britan had the Spitfire, Mosquito, Hurricane, Lancaster, etc whilst the Germans had the FW-190, BF-109G, JU-88, etc

Even though both had Jet Fighters, the first one to ever achieve a Jet Engine design was Britain.
The Spitfire is one plane I admire very much.

Overall: Russia. Good tanks, OK troops, good weapons, good planes, decent production capability in addition to equipment from other nations. Falls down on training, Naval power, efficency and long range strike capability.

My Overall would have to be America: Good tank functionality (although the doctrines differed, and the German Panzer was much more of a workhorse, the Western Allies were able to mass produce and upgrade the Sherman rapidly and effectively.), Good troops (All the Germans would've needed to do, is introduce the RPG much faster, break down those Tiger's into Panzers, and replace the Karbiner 98 with something just about like the Garand early on in the war.), Excellent Weapons (Most if not all were Semi-automatic), Good planes (not the best, just keep in mind that the best pilots of the war where German), Excellent Production capability, with a much higher percentage of quality assured then the Soviet Factories were able to measure out. Wonderful air powerful, wonderful naval capability, it was efficient and had excellent long range capabilities. It's downfalling would be how history projects America, aswell as the British and Australians.

 

[Some_God]

Nice essay.

 

[Razor]

I don't prefer the overheat of the MG42. It was a terribly powerful weapon, utilizing a 7.62 round. Discharging ammunition at well over 1,200 RPM's it was refered to as Hitler's Buzzsaw. The problem with the MG42 is the barrel overheat. I would much prefer consistency, so for this one, I'm going to have to take the .30 Calibre.

Correct me if i'm wrong but the 7.62mm calibre never existed until after the war, the MG42 was calibred to 7.92mm and was then at a later stage (post war) recalibred to the 7.62mm and used under the name of MG3.

I would agree with the Germans having the best pilots, reason being that a lot of them saw combat in the Spanish civil war but when the Battle Of Britain had come to a close, a lot of the really experienced pilots were either dead, injured or retired. The best pilots though were general British or German, who also had the best aircraft, but this was because these were the only real combatants to of fought through the entire war, Japan as well.

It also wouldn't matter who achieved the jet engine design first, it was Germany who managed to put the me262 a few months before the Meteor came in. The German airframe for the me262 was superior the Meteors, but the Meteor had better weapons. Unfortunately though, neither model saw combat against each other with the Meteors mainly being used to shoot down v1 rockets.

The big advantage that the T34 had over the Panzer3, Panzer4 and the Tiger was it's weight to armour ratio. The T34's employed sloping armour, so could have thinner armour that gave just as much protection as a much thicker armour that would be fitted to the Panzers, with the advantage of being lighter and quicker or just use a less powerful, cheaper to manufacture engine. The German's didn't get sloping armour until the Panther and the King Tiger, and when it comes to comparison's, the Soviet Union didn't really have anything that could compete with a Panther or a King Tiger when it comes to overall effectiveness.

 

[clarky003]

I think there is good reason to believe Russia has the most capable military weaponry in todays world, Yes presently the US publically flashes its large stockpiles of wmd and super army as if they are the most powerful weapons and force to ever sit on the earth, but all it takes is one or a few more superior weapons sitting somewhere ready to be used to make all that meaningless.

There was an interesting turning point around the time of the space race when Russia basically just said **** it, lets forget this. I find it interesting that happened so abruptly and there are rumours that they had stopped because they discovered more interesting things worth investigating than trying to fly people to the moon.

Even the US military openly admits particle weapons and a multitude of directed energy weapons, microwave emitters.. directed EMP's that can simply disable nukes,etc, that where just coming into operation around the mid to late 90's , there's reason to believe the Russians had been working on them since the 40's and 50's so god knows what they have today, I say dont take a countries military show of strength for face value, present or past.

 

[Gargantou]

Besides that, Spetsnaz > Navy SEALs, seriously, I've read interviews with both and it becomes quite obvious that the Spetsnaz are put through alot and I mean alot harder training.
I actually know a Finnish guy who got to do training with the Spetsnaz, he told me that one of the teams were sent out into the forest for a hike in -30 degrees celsius, 5 of them died.
I mean, that has to do something to the people who are there to experience it.
Besides, doesn't the Navy SEALs get like "vacation" sometimes to get to relax? The Spetsnaz don't do that.. They train ALL the bloody time.
The Spetsnaz are also perhaps the most robotic like soldiers of them all, our army trained with an infamous russian army element from the chechenya region.. The same infamous group that had killed over 20+ men in a village, cut off all their hands, feet and heads, and buried their bodies outside their own temporary Army HQ, this was to be a "warning" to the people.