Most capable Military power in World War 2.

[15357]

I think that its training and numbers that matter, not advanced weaponary.

Oh, of course that SMG's and automatic rifles are an advantage in combat, but it doesn't matter that much. For example, about 200 ROKMC's (aged 15 ~ 35) won against a thousand N. Korean regulars carrying machine guns and generally better weapons in the year 1950 with only old type-99 (single shot, bolt action) rifles.

As for the size and the damage of ammunition, I think it would have been meaningless in WW2, when kevlar didn't exist.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

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.

SEALS suck.

Delta Operators > SEAL

Taken from a friend who's worked alongside both in action.

 

[gick]

SEALS suck.

And thats because they are in the navy.

Navy = ghey

 

[15357]

And thats because they are in the navy.

Navy = ghey

Yeah.

Navy = ghey
Air force = 'highblooded nobles'
Army = FTW.

 

[Gargantou]

Yeah, I've already planned my moving to China and applying for the People's Liberation Army's 38th Group Army, Beijing MR.
It's made up off one armoured division and three mechanised infantry divsions.
It's an RRU, Rapid Reaction Unit, because they get to deal with alot of local/regional missions like opressing the masses, killing rioters etc <3

 

[VirusType2]

I don't think you guys really know what you are talking about when you say the Seals and the navy are gay.

Without naval forces .. UMMMM the world wouldn't be anything like it is today. It would suck. How do u suppose you ship all that shit across seas? Planes can't carry that much. If you are saying Navy sucks becuase you like German uniforms better? Than who is really gay?! HA!

Or maybe you guys are judging the Navy seals by your sorry ass Playstation game were you control the character thats really sucking? Yes this is what I think! Possibly becuase of the ignorant statements you made, you will find out just how ignorant I can be as well.

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 don't know what is the most heavy trained soldiers in the world but I can't see how dying during training is either bright nor effective training for them.


I've met 2 Navy Seals before and they were very awesome people. They were trained so hard their legs were built for running or swimming for forever or some shit and one of the guys calf muscles were almost as big around as a basketball. Thats some seriously abnomally sized shit. Thats got to count for something man. They must be heavily trained physically at least, and we all know that there is much much more to it.

I don't know how well they are trained in other aspects though since this was like 20 years ago and I was just a kid, so it's not like I have any idea about their stealth skills and shooting ability, and whatever else these guys are trained to do, but I have heard stories of how hard and heavily they are trained and it's definately NOT sucking.

If you watch things like the olympics you will see that the differences between these highly trained athelets is merely .01 seconds over 1 mile of running or whatever - so regardless, I should think any human male from any country should be able to be extremely competative on the battlefield as well.

On topic:
Nazi germany had biten off more than they can chew and stirred up a shit storm.

Yes they had the annihlation plan going on, which was quite unnecessary. Why did they need to take over the world? Why did they need to destroy anyone who wasn't german? And keep their precious german blood inbred?

Hitler and his zombies were just sick sick ****ers who did the most inhuman experiments and other horrible shit.

But on Topic again

Nazi Germany had wasted WAY too much money and resources on crazy contraptions of death like a cannon! that was like 1 mile long designed to launch into london .. or was it paris .. I mean why is this necessary? How about drive a tank or drop some bombs? They were experimenting with innocent people with their crazy ideas and what led to the eventual design of the ATOM bomb. Thank god the Germans under Hitler's rule were so cruel that we were able to snatch Einstien up, which gets my vote for the smartest man to ever have lived out of those that have applied thier knowlege. ( <3 Germany today )


...anyway, I don't see how there can be a vote on what country had the most capable military of WWII when it's Germany hands down, there is no debate about that as far as I know. It's like who has the biggest dick. It's either biggest or not. It's not debatable, unless maybe you count an atom bomb or two, or count Russia ahead well thats beyond the scope of my knowlege.



BTW my favorite gun ever made was that sub machine gun with the clip sticking out of the side. Someone said it was home-made on the spot with like rubber bands and shit, but that gun is one awesome piece of shit.

 

[15357]

Yeah, I've already planned my moving to China and applying for the People's Liberation Army's 38th Group Army, Beijing MR.
It's made up off one armoured division and three mechanised infantry divsions.
It's an RRU, Rapid Reaction Unit, because they get to deal with alot of local/regional missions like opressing the masses, killing rioters etc <3

I want to do that (killing rioters, oppressing masses)

I don't know what is the most heavy trained soldiers in the world but I can't see how dying during training is either bright nor effective training for them.

Agreed.

I don't think you guys really know what you are talking about when you say the Seals and the navy are gay.

Without naval forces .. UMMMM the world wouldn't be anything like it is today. It would suck. How do u suppose you ship all that shit across seas? Planes can't carry that much. If you are saying Navy sucks becuase you like German uniforms better? Than who is really gay?! HA!

Or maybe you guys are judging the Navy seals by your sorry ass Playstation game were you control the character thats really sucking? Yes this is what I think! Possibly becuase of the ignorant statements you made, you will find out just how ignorant I can be as well.

I was just joking.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Yeah.

Navy = ghey
Air force = 'highblooded nobles'
Army = FTW.

Air Force was the first boots on the ground in Afghanistan.

COMBAT CONTROLLERS FTW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_controller

My grandpa was one, served in Korea and Vietnam 3 total tours of duty.

 

[Bob_Marley]

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

I was refuring to the units such as the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler becuase although they were very definitly a bunch of lunatics who commited war crimes, they were never the less highly effective in combat. The fact that SS troops commited such atrocities and the enemy knew it ment that they could not surrender, even if they wanted to.

Whilst the whole of the SS cannot be said to be the elite storm troops I mentioned (and I apologise for making such sweeping statements), the "original" SS were, for the most part, well trained and often experienced troops who formed the core of many German operations, where they could be counted on to hold an objective at all costs, making them a valuable asset in the slow retreat from the USSR as they could be used to cover the rest of the German forces

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 tommy gun in all its forms cannot be considered a counter part to the MP-40. It is expencive, complex and far too heavy. Whilst it is a very good weapon it was unsuitable for wartime production and maintanance in the field. It lacked the adaptability of the MP-40 becuase of its fixed stock, which ment it was too bulky for use as a PDW or for mechanised troops to use easily. And the 9mm para used during WWII was the true version of the 9mm, not the underpowered version introduced in the US after the war due to concerns about the seafty of it's use in captured lugers. The version used in WWII was a very "hot" round with a much higher velocity than the .45 ACP

Also, the rate of fire was Too high. For anything but very close quaters an ROF of over 600 RPM is undesirable as it results in a lack of controlability.

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.

The grease gun was an interesting weapon in that it could be made to fire both .45 and 9mm and a number of other strange modifications were made to it in its life time, like a special curved barrel to shoot around corners. But, it was unerganomic, poorly made and its rate of fire was only 400-500 RPM.

The STEN gun was a poor weapon by all accounts. It was a cheap rip off of the MP-40 (which had been designed to be cheap in the first place) and was unreliable and unsafe and it's ROF was slower than the MP-40, it only fired at 450 RPM. The other British SMG of the war that we all remember on the other hand, was superb. The Sterling was, and still is, one of the most reliable SMG's ever made. It was accurate, controlable, had a folding stock and a good ROF of 550 RPM. Indeed, the sterling was the only one of the WWII SMGs to challenge the Uzi and MP-5 for popularity in the post war period.

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.

Ah, the soviet weapons. Now, whilst good, they had problems of their own. The PPsch-41 was too long, too heavy, unsafe after wear and tear and its rate of fire too high. However, the 7.62mm TT amuntion gave it much better range than the rivals from other nations and the 71 round drum made it effetive as both an SMG and an impromtu support weapon when the time arose.

the PPS-43 was very good. It had the positive features of the '41 without the weight, length and seafty problems. In addition it also sported a reduced ROF which helped controlablity.

Personally I'd take the Sterling, but it cannot really be considered becuase it was not widly deployed.

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.

Absolutly, but if we're getting into the BAR vs STG-44 debate then the prize would probubly go to the Bren gun. More accurate (well, too accurate to be honest, then again, who cares?), more easily fired from prone, more efficent in street fighting and it's clip was 10 rounds bigger (or 80 if we can count the drum mags on some earlier models.:E ) If the Jerries had had the MP-44 in greater numbers or earlier in the war then they may have done better (yeah, they'd still have been defeated but the surrender might have been different)

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.

SMLE = fastest bolt action military rifle in the world. 30 aimed RPM. and 800 yards? The .30-06 round, like the .303 and 7.92mm was vastly over powered and could take down a target at 2000 yards +. The problem with the garand is that until very late in the war it was imposible to reload a parially empty magazine. Also, the semiautomatic system was inherintly less accurate than the boltactions.
The best rifle of the war was probubly the SVT-40 - 10 round mag, semi-auto, reliable, can be reloaded mid clip, etc...

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.

The MG-42 offered simple manufacture, a high rate of fire, decent accuracy, etc. Whilst the .30 M1919 was good (It was designed by J.M. Browning, how could it not be good?) it lacked in these features. It had a slower ROF, was heavier and more complex. Other weapons filled the role more effectively.

The overheat was not too much of a problem because of the rapid change barrel, the fact that they were issued with atleast one spare barrel, more frequently 2 or 3 and the open bolt operation allowed very quick barrel cooling. Also, the MG-42 has been the base of many modern MGs and is still used in several countries in 7.62 NATO. And if the .30 was so great why did the US try and copy the MG-42 to replace it? And the only company that continued to make Browning based weapons in this role (FN) based their post war MG (the FN MAG, known as the M240 in the US) on the BAR system not the M1919's.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I was refuring to the units such as the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler becuase although they were very definitly a bunch of lunatics who commited war crimes, they were never the less highly effective in combat.

This is also true. Notice how I made reference that these could only truely be classified as militarily elite because of their performance in battle.

The fact that SS troops commited such atrocities and the enemy knew it ment that they could not surrender, even if they wanted to.

And yet, it was these attrocities and political distractions that rendered the calling of the entire SS branch elite, a fallacy. Militarily they suffered because of political indoctrinations over proper military training. The fire brigade tactics was something invented in the field by Waffen-SS troops, not in the classroom by Waffen-SS NCO's and Instructors.

You see, out of the 30 plus divisions that were eventually made available to the branch itself, only 16 sustained themselves in combat for more then a months worth of fighting. The phrase, 'combat experience' in the eyes of SS Political Executives meant also meant not just participating in battles or campaigns, but the purging of Partisans and Refugee's through mass executions. So unfortunately certain terms become associated with those who don't paticularly deserve them.

I also don't consider massacre's ideal methods of testing oneself for combat or whats nessecary to show a dedicated prowess to military conflict. As I've stated, while I agree there were more then eight or nine divisions I'll concede to being Elite or Combat Participants, the rest unfortunately are known to history as Political Figurehead Security units and Death Camp organizations.

I'm not argueing against those units who proved themselves later in combat, but against the Branch itself. The lack of NCO's, the lack of transferring or training properly SS NCO's, the lack of combat experience and method, and overall, the increase of political indoctrination is what I believe fails the branch.

You believe the LSSAH a good elite unit? I'd agree with you there, but not with the entire wing of SS being militarily elite.

The tommy gun in all its forms cannot be considered a counter part to the MP-40. It is expencive, complex and far too heavy.

Were'nt you the one who argued the allied equivelants or counterparts were laughable in comparison? I believe one submachine gun could be compared to another. A counterpart, might have a different calibre, different weight, different look, but if the functions the same yes I can compare them.

Like if I compared the .30 Calibre to the MG42. Even though they have different weights, employments, calibres and looks, they're still Support Weapons. They're still Machineguns.

It lacked the adaptability of the MP-40 becuase of its fixed stock, which ment it was too bulky for use as a PDW or for mechanised troops to use easily.

The only adaptable feature of the MP40 was its stock. I'll concede on that, but where one gains an advantage in one feature, it also gains a disadvantage in another. The Thompsons stock, although undetachable, was a much more stable and efficient shock absorber.

This was because of its shape and the fact it was a full stock. Much rather then the metallic one equiped with some MP40's, which boasted two support bars and a metallic, open, shoulder brace.

The MP40 may have been more adaptable in its stock feature, but it could'nt hit a target with much quicker succession that the Thompson was capable of. Where a weapon has drawbacks, it also had advantages. For weapons of these, it lends itself on preference. I would choose the MP40. It's a weapon I'm more familiarized with.

Also, the rate of fire was Too high. For anything but very close quaters an ROF of over 600 RPM is undesirable as it results in a lack of controlability.

Not true. If you can control your weapon, a single shot or three round burst would work over long ranges. Even MP40 users had to do that.

The rest of what you say, I agree with. I'll be back later ...

 

[Venmoch]

And thats because they are in the navy.

Navy = ghey

I dare you to say that in front of a Royal Marine

 

[Kangy]

Royal Marines are awesome because they're the heaviest trained conventional army in the world, I think. Something like that.

Anyway, during WW2, I'd say Russia due to the fact that they just overwhelmed the enemy regardless of what they were working with.

 

[Stigmata]

I'm gonna say all the Allies equally, out of pure technicality

 

[DeusExMachina]

I'm gonna say all the Allies equally, out of pure technicality

Yes, I agree. Well, the major Allies anyway. America/Britain/Russia.

 

[FieryGoose]

Yes, I agree. Well, the major Allies anyway. America/Britain/Russia.

Well yes, I would include the UK and the US, but not russia because the only thing that really saved Russia from being completely overtaken was the Russian Winter. Also during the siege of Leningrad the civilians had no supplies to eat hardly some were forced to make soup out of glue and spices, and most died from it. 1/3 of their 3mil. population died, the city could have been taken but the Germans didn't want to concentrate all of their resources on the eastern front since they were being constantly bombarded by the french resistance and the fins along with the other allies. Just look at the Russian casualties, the statistics are absolutely horrible, the russian leadership was also poor, Russia didn't mobilize their troops in time therefore they paid dearly. Overall the red army couldn't be considered the most capable army, just think what would have happened if the US and British along with the Canadians, ect. didn't launch operation overlord, how would the Russian's of done then when the germans would have concentrated all their forces on russia, they were already really close to occupieing it how easy would it have been to take the rest? Sure the Russians had numbers on pretty much everyone, but they didn't have to capabilities to back up their numbers everytime they entered a battle they would get slaughtered as far as casualties go.
But back onto the main topic: I would have to say at the beginning of the war '39 the germans were on top with a huge arsenal of supplies and was highly mobile. but in '42-'45, the UK and US came out on top, the germans didn't have enough support on the Homefront (after the beginning of the war they just stopped pumping out supplies like they did before.) like the americans did, with war bonds, victory gardens, ect... Also as someone said before the US suplied the allied nations with most of their weaponry with capabilities of speed mass production. Also I think that a big fact is that when congress passed the Atlantic Charter and we sent 50 destroyers over to the UK, but i'm not going to put one allied country over another since we are friends and fought beside eachother after all , so Most capable for the most time US or UK.

 

[Razor]

Royal Marines are awesome because they're the heaviest trained conventional army in the world, I think. Something like that.

Anyway, during WW2, I'd say Russia due to the fact that they just overwhelmed the enemy regardless of what they were working with.

Yes, 32 weeks , the only other infantry force that comes close is Raf Regiment, which i think is 29 weeks.

Royal Marine - 32weeks
Raf Regiment - 29weeks
US Marines - 18 weeks
French Foreign Legion - 16 weeks
British Army Parachute Regiment - 10 weeks - joins after joining and going through British army training.

 

[Puzzlemaker]

This is a very interesting conversation.

The way I see it:

USA, BRITAIN = Terran
RUSSIA, JAPAN = Zerg
GERMANY = Protoss

 

[The Monkey]

Well yes, I would include the UK and the US, but not russia because the only thing that really saved Russia from being completely overtaken was the Russian Winter. Also during the siege of Leningrad the civilians had no supplies to eat hardly some were forced to make soup out of glue and spices, and most died from it. 1/3 of their 3mil. population died, the city could have been taken but the Germans didn't want to concentrate all of their resources on the eastern front since they were being constantly bombarded by the french resistance and the fins along with the other allies. Just look at the Russian casualties, the statistics are absolutely horrible, the russian leadership was also poor, Russia didn't mobilize their troops in time therefore they paid dearly. Overall the red army couldn't be considered the most capable army, just think what would have happened if the US and British along with the Canadians, ect. didn't launch operation overlord, how would the Russian's of done then when the germans would have concentrated all their forces on russia, they were already really close to occupieing it how easy would it have been to take the rest? Sure the Russians had numbers on pretty much everyone, but they didn't have to capabilities to back up their numbers everytime they entered a battle they would get slaughtered as far as casualties go.
But back onto the main topic: I would have to say at the beginning of the war '39 the germans were on top with a huge arsenal of supplies and was highly mobile. but in '42-'45, the UK and US came out on top, the germans didn't have enough support on the Homefront (after the beginning of the war they just stopped pumping out supplies like they did before.) like the americans did, with war bonds, victory gardens, ect... Also as someone said before the US suplied the allied nations with most of their weaponry with capabilities of speed mass production. Also I think that a big fact is that when congress passed the Atlantic Charter and we sent 50 destroyers over to the UK, but i'm not going to put one allied country over another since we are friends and fought beside eachother after all , so Most capable for the most time US or UK.

But Overlord didn't occur until '44, when the Russians had practically destroyed most of the the Wehrmacht.

 

[FieryGoose]

But Overlord didn't occur until '44, when the Russians had practically destroyed most of the the Wehrmacht.

yea, but nonetheless I say At the beginning: Germany. 43-44 Allies: more specifically UK and US. I really don't think Russia would stand a chance agianst either the UK or US at the time. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Teta_Bonita]

Germany dominated at the beginning of the war, due to their insane blitzkriege tactics and Erwin Rommel totally pwning Africa.
However, by the end of the war America probably could have taken over the world, since we were the only nation with nuclear weapons.

now who was the most capable military power?

I'm gonna have to go with Canada. :rolling:

 

[Razor]

yea, but nonetheless I say At the beginning: Germany. 43-44 Allies: more specifically UK and US. I really don't think Russia would stand a chance agianst either the UK or US at the time. But that's just my opinion.

Germany couldn't stop the Red Army so what makes you think Britain or America could?

 

[bliink]

During which year of WWII?

Early on, Axis powers were probably most prepared.

Towards the end, Russia had enough in numbers to kill everyone, and the US was a war-machine.

Britain took a beating the whole time, that kept their expansion limited somewhat, and france barely clinged in there.

Obviously, Japan was nothing militarily after it was nuked

 

[dys4iK]

How about per-capita? Which nation mobilized the largest percentage of its population?

Then again, I'm pretty sure France actually had more troops than Germany on the western front prior to the invasion, so sheer numbers alone aren't the only indicator.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Obviously, Japan was nothing militarily after it was nuked

An over generalization. Japan still had military power after, "it was nuked", the problem was Herihito (or however one could spell it) realized that this kind of power, continually hitting Japan would eventually whipe the entire country out.

Not wanting to juggle this kind of situation, or realizing the allies bluff, he surrendered. He was preparing every male in Tokyo to repel the planned Tokyo Bay invasion. It most certainly would've been repelled if the Japanese Emperor refused to give up even after the bombings.

Towards the end, Russia had enough in numbers to kill everyone, and the US was a war-machine.

The problem with Russia was its lack of Seaborne Forces. Amphibious assaults were not known to the Russians until much later. Ultimately, the Russians lacked the experience in Naval Warfare the British, Americans, Japanese, and Germans had.

It would be likely the Russians could construct a Navy, but if it ever was to take on the whole world, its plans would've been likely stalled or hit by the Western Allies and their Warmachine.

The allies had readily also a Seaforce capable of intercepting about anything the Russians could send for it. As for the airforce, the Russians, while technically the first to introduce Paratroopers alongside the Americans and British, had very little experience in fielding airborne tactics.

Crossing the sea, wether by air or navy, would've been extremely hard to come by. And while Europe would've sat in the Russians 5.5 million military awe, it also could've been beaten back sufficiently. The Russians would'nt have known the terrain like the Americans, British, French, and Germans would have.

Were also forgetting a failsafe, even though a minor or temporary distraction, the German military at the time of its surrender was ordered to keep its weapons until the end of May or June. The reason being? Just in case Russian came after the allies, the Germans could be put to use against them. They had experience against the Russian warmachine, and they knew how to fight it.

The Russians also would'nt have had an understanding of the countryside, or how to defend themselves at certain positions against Counter-Attacks. The Russian Tank Force, while intimidating, would've certainly been overwelhmed by the Western Allies Air Superiority.

Were also forgetting the long range bombing capabilities the Western Allies had over the Russians. Thats what primarly broke the German's industrial strength.

Just MHO.

 

[el Chi]

You forgot a LOT of nations.

There are other nations?

 

[The Monkey]

If I'm not mistaken, New Zealand had the most military casualties per capita during WWII.

 

[Razor]

Kerberos, weren't the Germans the first to use Paratroopers in combat?

 

[Edgar]

A good mechanized Army, I would pick the Americans for their deployment. Also the finnish army which is not on there for their ski troops.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Kerberos, weren't the Germans the first to use Paratroopers in combat?

No. The first nation to develope the Paratrooper would be Russia. America soon followed suite. The Germans went to Russia before Fall Weiss to train in Airborne Operations and Tactics. The Germans also went to Russia to train their tank NCO's.

Ironic, is'int it?

 

[gick]

No. The first nation to develope the Paratrooper would be Russia. America soon followed suite. The Germans went to Russia before Fall Weiss to train in Airborne Operations and Tactics. The Germans also went to Russia to train their tank NCO's.

Ironic, is'int it?

But they were the first to actually use them in combat, in the Invasion of Crete IIRC. Interestingly enough Hitler considered the whole thing to be an almighty cock-up, whereas Churchill thought 'hmmm, paratroopers, that could be a good idea....'

 

[Razor]

No. The first nation to develope the Paratrooper would be Russia. America soon followed suite. The Germans went to Russia before Fall Weiss to train in Airborne Operations and Tactics. The Germans also went to Russia to train their tank NCO's.

Ironic, is'int it?

Yes, but none of them had used it in combat or even considered using it in combat until Germany used them against Crete.

 

[Bob_Marley]

But they were the first to actually use them in combat, in the Invasion of Crete IIRC. Interestingly enough Hitler considered the whole thing to be an almighty cock-up, whereas Churchill thought 'hmmm, paratroopers, that could be a good idea....'

No, Crete was the last time the German army ever conducted a large scale drop. Paratroopers were used in the invasions of Poland, Norway, the Low Countries and France. Bassically, all the blitzkreig assaults prior to barbarossa. However, following Crete where the paratroops suffered heavy casualties (50%+ IIRC), despite it being an overall victory ment they were never used in this role on a large scale again. They were manily used in the light infantry role, just like other troops.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

But they were the first to actually use them in combat, in the Invasion of Crete IIRC. Interestingly enough Hitler considered the whole thing to be an almighty cock-up, whereas Churchill thought 'hmmm, paratroopers, that could be a good idea....'

Although I appreciate and understand your contribution, please understand that the idea of Airborne Paratroopers, though not having actually been exploited until German interest, was still infact Russian property long before it became used in War Doctrines and Operations.

Though the Germans were technically the first to use them in Combat, the idea was'nt theres. That they got from the Russians. Pardon the redudancy.

Anyway, this is about the same kind of arguement I've had before, with people ignoring where the idea actually originated except instead of paratroopers its about Jet Aircraft instead.

Me: The British where the first to develop the Jet Engine (source)
Someone else: So, the Germans were the first to use Jet Engine powered Aircraft in Combat!
Me: Though that is true, I concede, but its also very true that the original design was invented by the British long before the Germans had it come to their minds.
Me: The thing here is, the British had the capability long before the Germans, but never exploited it not knowing its potential.

I don't mean to sound like I'm mocking you, trust me, I'm not and I'd also like to let you know I've known for quite sometime the Germans were the first to actually put those doctrines to use.

No, Crete was the last time the German army ever conducted a large scale drop.

Crete was'nt the first airborne operation that the German Fallschirmjaeger participated in. Crete, was the one battle that broke Hitler's will and patience with the paratrooper ideal, for it was during Crete that the Fallschirmjaeger suffered heavy casualties. After Crete, he turned the most of the Paratrooper units into ground forces.

Although, not immediately. Otto Skorenzy still had one last operation, or at least, several Special Operation missions that ran from saving Benito and lastily to land in the winter covered landscape of the Ardennes to sabotage allied operations there.

The Germans used Airborne Troops in Fall Weiss, did you know? Also, and primarly, in the Operations Weserubung (the conquest of Norway) and the May 8th Invasion of the Low Countries, and, into France.

 

[gick]

Although I appreciate and understand your contribution, please understand that the idea of Airborne Paratroopers, though not having actually been exploited until German interest, was still infact Russian property long before it became used in War Doctrines and Operations.

Though the Germans were technically the first to use them in Combat, the idea was'nt theres. That they got from the Russians. Pardon the redudancy.

I know that the Russians were amongst the first to develop them. I've seen old stock footage of them sliding off the wings of a TB-3 (the big pre-war Soviet bomber). But the question that Razor asked was:

weren't the Germans the first to use Paratroopers in combat?

Which they were. Which is what I said (although I got the operation wrong). The question has nothing to do with who was the first nation to put paras in the air, it was who first used them in combat. Sorry if this just seems like me going on, but I feel that i've been unjustly rebuked.

The Germans used Airborne Troops in Fall Weiss, did you know? Also, and primarly, in the Operations Weserubung (the conquest of Norway) and the May 8th Invasion of the Low Countries, and, into France.

Now that I didn't know :O

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Which they were. Which is what I said (although I got the operation wrong). The question has nothing to do with who was the first nation to put paras in the air, it was who first used them in combat. Sorry if this just seems like me going on, but I feel that i've been unjustly rebuked.

Sorry, but you did quote me whilst ... answering Razor's question. Sorry, I thought by quoting me, you were directing your comments to me. I do apologize.

it was who first used them in combat. Sorry if this just seems like me going on, but I feel that i've been unjustly rebuked.

No, we understand whats been given us. The Russians came up with it first, but the Germans were the first to actually have employed it. :thumbs:

Now that I didn't know

It's not widely known, let me rip up a couple of sources for you.

 

[gick]

No, we understand whats been given us. The Russians came up with it first, but the Germans were the first to actually have employed it. :thumbs:

I just checked wikipedia, and apparently the Italians were at it as early as 1927. Which is suprising.

It's not widely known, let me rip up a couple of sources for you.

Ta muchly :thumbs:

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Okay, they had operations in Weserubung, and afterward before the Low Countries campaign.

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

(Well, I can't post any links to the prelude of Luftwaffe Fallschirmjaeger forces participating in Poland. Historians used to claim the units pre-operations in Poland were rumors or hoaxes, often times citing German Propaganda statements of, "Poland was captured by Paratroopers!". Which we know it was'nt, but the unit had screened participants and units in that operation.)

If you've reviewed anything about the initial planning of Blitzkrieg Strategey, and this is your next biggest clue, even as early as 1937, doctrines of fast warfare called for airborne troops employment behind smoke screens. If anyone has the book, "Oxford Companion to World War II" (its in the excess of what, 1,000 to 1,500 pages long? Maybe longer?), it has a source citing some Luftwaffe activity in Fall Weiss.

Meh. I was going to look for overviews or detailed drawings on the concepts brought up on, "Blitzkrieg", but, googles a mess right now and I can't find any quick pictures. A book actually would be a good reference for images such as those.

 

[Bob_Marley]

Ah blitzkreig. It works something like this, in ideal circumstances, of course:

1. Air superiority is gained

2. Massive air and artillery strikes on known enemy positions, using fighter cover to minimise losses.

3. Paratroopers attack and cease key positions such as airfields, bridges, comunication stations and such.

4. Rapidly moving panzer divisions smash weakend positions and pocket large concerntrations of enemy forces and releave the paratroopers

5. Motorised infantry and other units move up to secure objectives and deal with pocketed enemy forces with air, tank and artillery support.

I apologise for the crudeness of this description, but it outlines the core stratergy

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Yes it does.

 

[Sulkdodds]

3. Paratroopers attack and cease key positions such as airfields, bridges, comunication stations and such.

and

4. Rapidly moving panzer divisions smash weakend positions and pocket large concerntrations of enemy forces and releave the paratroopers

Sometimes even at the same time!