For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

[KarlXII]

As Panzer has said, this thread is for comparing the Allied Armies and the Wermacht. I did this in order to keep the topic funneled into a thread, and not off topic in the other one.

Debate away.

[KrooK]

Ok but before we start we should divide it on historical periods. Its hard to compare army from 1939/1940 with army from 1944.

[Kagemusha]

In order to throw fuel to the fire. I would claim that Finnish army was the most mobile and manouvarable WWII army from the armies that were not motorized. Both in offense and defense, the Finnish doctrine was to use speed and mobile warfare to defeat the better armed and motorized enemy. From that, exellent example is that during the major offenses of the SU in end of both Winter and Continuation war, not even a single battalion size units were not cut of surrounded nor surrendered to Soviets.
In offensive. The Finnish doctrine was to avoid enemy strong points and surpass them, while attacking the second and behind support troops, with large flanking moves, by that the main enemy forces only had two options, either to dig in and get surrounded by Finnish or start retreating, which allowed the Finnish to attack them while on a move.
In defense, the doctrine was that it was better to loose land then men in operational scale, usually the attacking enemy was lured into exhausting its striking force to a long distance with rapid tactical withdrawals, delaying actions and when the enemy was spread along a large area and lost the weight of its attack, Finnish would counter attack the spread enemy forces with smaller and larger individual task forces from surprising directions, while aiming to cut of the attacking force completely from the main enemy supporting area and defeat it, which is called "motti" tactics.

Battle of Suomussalmi is a classic example of Finnish mobile defense:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...uomussalmi.jpg

[CountArach]

Phear the mighty Australian army!

[Decker]

I have a question then.

Can anybody tell me the difference between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army when both invaded Poland? I've always been curious about this.

[PanzerJaeger]

Ok but before we start we should divide it on historical periods. Its hard to compare army from 1939/1940 with army from 1944.

Early/Mid/Late?

For the Germans, I would say they were strongest in the early and later war. The Blitz was of course deadly in the begining, but towards the mid-war period the allies, especially the Russians, were figuring out how to defeat it. The German military of late '43 to the end was an extremely powerful fighting force, with new advanced tanks and weaponry, and the refinement of the Kampfgruppe. Of course, the absolute numerical superiority of the allies muted that.

As for Hill 262, it is not a good comparison of Polish and German forces. While it did show the bravery and fighting spirit of the Poles, it is hard to say that the Germans were anywhere near their normal capability. Hitler had just single-handedly destroyed the Western front by ordering them into an insane assault and they were trying to get out of the pocket as fast as possible.

In order to throw fuel to the fire. I would claim that Finnish army was the most mobile and manouvarable WWII army from the armies that were not motorized.

IMO, the Finns were far better at fighting than many of the major powers.

[rotorgun]

To the Allies, the main reasons for the early success of the Whermacht over the blundering Allied armies were not appearant at first. Although all the main players (France, Russia, and The United Kingdom) all had "Combined Arms" forces, it was their doctrine which not as well developed. In addition, the Germans made much better use of radio technology, for it was in the area of communications that they made the various arms work as a team. In all fairness, their early war AFVs were not really that superior to the allied vehicles. It was the way they were utilised that increased their effectivness.

As for the Allied and Axis minor countries, they were in much more dire straits. Hidebound to outdated tactics with largely infantry armies, poorly equipped and out-maneuvered (Finns excepeted, with the Soviets providing a bad example of combined arms tactics) by a much more mobile thinking force.

It's not that the German High Command was so much behind the new ideas either. Many commanders, Von Rundstedt for one, were very skeptical about the effectiveness of the Panzer Divisions. They were constantly worried about the risks taken by the practitioners of the new doctrine of exposing the flanks of the armored thrusts as they went deep into the enemy backfield. The vunerability of the flanks of the Schwerpunkt to armored counter-thrusts didn't occur to the Russians until late 1942 and early 1943, proving that they had indeed begun to learn the lessons of a mobile armored warfare. As Napoleon said "Beware of fighting you enemy too often for he will learn your tactics"

[KrooK]

As for Hill 262, it is not a good comparison of Polish and German forces. While it did show the bravery and fighting spirit of the Poles, it is hard to say that the Germans were anywhere near their normal capability.

I can't agree. Its just a myth that polish army was worse trained that German. France developed that myth because they didn't uderstood blitzkrieg. It was just technological advantage of German army and more planes. In the moment when German lost advantage into air, blitzkrieg broke down.

I think hill 262 is good example to compare armies. On the one hand elite of German units ( I claim II SS coprs as elite), on the other elite of Polish units - 1st Armoured division (heavy type). No one had real air support ( I mean planes that attacked enemy positions) during that battle and both sides had tanks. Decisive appeared to be soldiers skill and low rank commander's orders.
I can't agree with opinion that Germans had to fight into not normal conditions. Its wasn't normal that polish tank division had to defend instead of attacking.

Anyway I think that polish army from western front was one of the best from allies. Relatively small (about 100.000 men) but with extremely high morale (no problem with deserters), count from high trained weterans (Poland, France, Battle of Britain, Atlantic, North Sea Conwoys, North Africa, Mediterran Sea, Italy, France) and with good commanders ( Maczek, Anders) - probably the only ones who really understood blitzkrieg (example - Italian campaign 1945 and chasing Germans after Falaise. Poles fought into places where rest failed - like capture of Monte Cassino or support given remainings of british 1st paratrooper division near Arnhem (without sacrifice of polish Paratrooper Brigade 100% of brits would be killed or imprisoned). I think that there were no army similar to that one - especially if we are talking about morale. And of course we had bear soldier.

On the other hand lets talk about bad army. How about Japanese army?
They were good when enemies did not know how to fight against them. They got some luck too (Singapoore) but in the moment when they had to face normal army with good equipment - they were all loosing due to archaic tactic and bad weapon (Japanese tanks were terrible). Example could be Guadalcanal and Japanese assaults - just a waste of men. In addition weakness of high command (lets be fair - their generals were idiots) and terrible war crimes commited by soldiers (Burma, China, Philippines) with full approval of their commanders.

By describing Japanese army I don't mean Fleet - there situation was not the same.

[Kagemusha]

I would like to raise a point. Finnish army lost about generation of men during WWII(largest conscription percent of any side fighting in WWII), Our forces are remembered from winter war. Now in the end of winter war Finnish army was exhausted, look at the end of continuation war as we call it, now the Soviets didint suffer anymore from the self created problems like in winter war, last 8(eight) battles during summer 1944,resulted in decesive Finnish victories,against mostly Soviet guard´s armies, which couldnt be stopped anywhere else?Why did this happen? And also after the Moscow peace treaty,the German army in Lappland was driven away by basically Finnnish conscripts that had not even seen fighting much at all before it?Can somebody please rationalize why things happened like they happened? London and Helsinki are the two capitals , from the countries that fought iin Western Europe that were not conquered during WWII.

[KarlXII]

I can't agree. Its just a myth that polish army was worse trained that German. France developed that myth because they didn't uderstood blitzkrieg. It was just technological advantage of German army and more planes. In the moment when German lost advantage into air, blitzkrieg broke down.

I think hill 262 is good example to compare armies. On the one hand elite of German units ( I claim II SS coprs as elite), on the other elite of Polish units - 1st Armoured division (heavy type). No one had real air support ( I mean planes that attacked enemy positions) during that battle and both sides had tanks. Decisive appeared to be soldiers skill and low rank commander's orders.
I can't agree with opinion that Germans had to fight into not normal conditions. Its wasn't normal that polish tank division had to defend instead of attacking.

Anyway I think that polish army from western front was one of the best from allies. Relatively small (about 100.000 men) but with extremely high morale (no problem with deserters), count from high trained weterans (Poland, France, Battle of Britain, Atlantic, North Sea Conwoys, North Africa, Mediterran Sea, Italy, France) and with good commanders ( Maczek, Anders) - probably the only ones who really understood blitzkrieg (example - Italian campaign 1945 and chasing Germans after Falaise. Poles fought into places where rest failed - like capture of Monte Cassino or support given remainings of british 1st paratrooper division near Arnhem (without sacrifice of polish Paratrooper Brigade 100% of brits would be killed or imprisoned). I think that there were no army similar to that one - especially if we are talking about morale. And of course we had bear soldier.

On the other hand lets talk about bad army. How about Japanese army?
They were good when enemies did not know how to fight against them. They got some luck too (Singapoore) but in the moment when they had to face normal army with good equipment - they were all loosing due to archaic tactic and bad weapon (Japanese tanks were terrible). Example could be Guadalcanal and Japanese assaults - just a waste of men. In addition weakness of high command (lets be fair - their generals were idiots) and terrible war crimes commited by soldiers (Burma, China, Philippines) with full approval of their commanders.

By describing Japanese army I don't mean Fleet - there situation was not the same.

I think you're giving the Poles to much credit. The German army of 1944 was understrenghted, demoralized, and losing on all fronts. This wasn't because of brave Polish fighters, this was because of a prolonged conflict that stretched resources.

I think that there were no army similar to that one

No. Polish troops were eager to fight, and they fought well. But they fought against a dieing enemy. Its like fighting a dieing pitbull. It has a nasty bite, but thats the only one it'll be able to take. Hill 262 was the final nail in the coffin, and the reason the Germans waved repeatedly against FIXED ENTRENCHED positions is because they knew that.

I believe the Finns are deserving of being the best army of WW2. Standing up to the largest country, and encircling and destroying two of its divisions deserves recognition.

[rotorgun]

I would like to raise a point. Finnish army lost about generation of men during WWII(largest conscription percent of any side fighting in WWII), Our forces are remembered from winter war. Now in the end of winter war Finnish army was exhausted, look at the end of continuation war as we call it, now the Soviets didint suffer anymore from the self created problems like in winter war, last 8(eight) battles during summer 1944,resulted in decesive Finnish victories,against mostly Soviet guard´s armies, which couldnt be stopped anywhere else?Why did this happen? And also after the Moscow peace treaty,the German army in Lappland was driven away by basically Finnnish conscripts that had not even seen fighting much at all before it?Can somebody please rationalize why things happened like they happened? London and Helsinki are the two capitals , from the countries that fought iin Western Europe that were not conquered during WWII.

Here are some interesting points made in an online article about the Finnish army of WW2:

Before the Winter War, the Finnish and Soviet tactics had one thing in common. Both were strongly emphasizing the attack, aiming for the encirclement and destruction of enemy forces. The Soviet tactics were, of course, much more demanding in this respect, as were their resources bigger for executing such attacks. After all, while the wartime mission of the Soviet Red Army was officially the defense of the "Socialist state of the peasants and workers", it had adopted the policy of "moving every enemy attack from Soviet soil to the aggressors land". This way of thinking, combined with gigantic resources (both in men and equipment), a fast growing war industry, propaganda and the communist dream of worldwide revolution, it really was the most fearsome attack-oriented army in the world (before the German lightning campaign in France).

The Finnish Field regulations and battle manuals gave only guidelines and advises to various situations while the Soviet Field regulations were more strict and demanding. In other words, to the Finnish officers a high degree of personal initiative and independence was given and to the Soviet officers it was said to be given.

In the use of artillery, the Finns followed a strict policy of concentrating available artillery and the Red Army believed in the policy of dispersing available artillery to several units (at least all regimental and divisional organic artillery).

Winter and forest were regarded as allies by the Finns, whereas the Soviets regarded them to be hindrance for their operations.

Of course, while the actual/practical tactic on the battlefield usually evolves by unofficial literacy, experience, and by individual thinking and initiative, outside the official Field regulations, the leading principles remain. Even when radical changes are made during a war, the peace time "by the book" rehearsals have a prolonged effect in tactics.

It came from this link: http://www.winterwar.com/tactics.htm

I tend to agree with the last paragraph as the main reason for their success-initiative taken by a free thinking soldiery is a potent weapon in and of itself. It was sheer exhaustion which forced the Finns to sign a disagreeable peace with the Soviets. That being said, they were the one of the only Nations bordering the Soviet Union which wasn't occupied by them after the war.

[Conradus]

On the other hand lets talk about bad army. How about Japanese army?

The Japanese did have the highest morale imo in the entire war. Of course that didn't really help them in the end.

I'd have to say that the German army probably was the best of the entire WWII. They managed to conquer most of Europe in under 3 years. It's only logical that they lost, given the sheer amount of men and industrial power massed against them, and the stupidity of Hitler and other german commanders during the latter part of the war.

The Finns of course deserve an honourable mention.

[KarlXII]

Well, I'd give the Japanese some recognition. Tehcnologically inferior land wise, they still managed to conquer a large amount of land the years they were alive.

[rotorgun]

Here is an interesting link where you can take a brief quiz to see what type of army WW II army you would have likely preferred:

http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=194168

Here were my results, which I found interesting in that I am currently serving in the US Army National Guard, and have served as a regular in my past. I guess I have some "Limey" tendencies-odd as I am of French/Canadian descent.

In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
You scored as a British and the Commonwealth
Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.
British and the Commonwealth
94%
Finland
75%
Italy
75%
Poland
63%
United States
50%
France, Free French and the Resistance
38%
Soviet Union
31%
Germany
25%
Japan
13%

Anyone else up for the quiz?

[KarlXII]

You scored as a British and the Commonwealth
Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.
British and the Commonwealth
94%
Finland
88%
Poland
81%
France, Free French and the Resistance
75%
Italy
69%
Germany
56%
Japan
50%
United States
44%
Soviet Union

Surprisingly, Finland was right behind.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You scored as Germany
Regardless of what are your political views, you could have made a career in German army. You believe in effective warfare by method of combined arms and superior military training.
Germany
88%
British and the Commonwealth
81%
Finland
63%
Poland
63%
Italy
56%
Japan
50%
France, Free French and the Resistance
44%
United States
44%
Soviet Union
38%

[rotorgun]

It seems that both SwedishFish and Evil_Maniac From Mars may have a Kamikaze death wish lurking in their deepest subconcious thoughts. You both scored 50% in favor of Japan. Is there some European "Code of Bushido" that compels the two of you? As Mr. Spock might say....Fascinating

[KarlXII]

Is there some European "Code of Bushido" that compels the two of you? As Mr. Spock might say....Fascinating

Must be the viking in me.

[Csargo]

You scored as a British and the Commonwealth
Your army is the British and the Commonwealth (Canada, ANZAC, India). You want to serve under good generals and use good equipment in defense of the western form of life.
British and the Commonwealth
81%
Germany
81%
Poland
63%
Finland
56%
France, Free French and the Resistance
50%
Soviet Union
50%
Italy
44%
Japan
38%
United States
31%

[KrooK]

Japanese army conquered big part of the world but...
1) there were practically no real defense
2) Japanse army had support from powerful Japanese fleet
3) morale were high but what is morale if commanders don't think

[KrooK]

I'm pround :)

In which World War 2 army you should have fought?
You scored as a Poland
Your army is Poland's army. Your tenacity will form a concept in the history of your nation and you're also ready to continue fighting even if your country is occupied by the enemy. Other nations that are included in this category are Greece, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Poland
94%
Finland
88%
United States
81%
British and the Commonwealth
75%
Italy
69%
France, Free French and the Resistance
56%
Soviet Union
56%
Japan
56%
Germany
44%

And quite nice that Finns are high too :)

[rotorgun]

I found this curious site while looking for information about the Japanese Imperial Army (IJA). It's a copy of the actual handbook issued to the US Army describing the IJA. It's a pretty good read, and is a pretty objective look at them, this at a time when propaganda attempted to denigrate the performance of Japan's army.

http://www.diggerhistory3.info/japan/

While reading a Wikipedia article about the IJA, I found it interesting that France had a great deal of influence in the forming of the modern Japanese army and navy. I always thought that it was the British who they emulated. They also developed their concept of a General Staff from the Prussians. Both these facts would explain their emphasis on aggressiveness during an offensive (A French ideal), and the reliance on fortifications and defense in depth (A Prussian-like approach). Here is that link as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army

After reading these articles, one comes away with more respect for the abilities of the Japanese army. It was really the great material deficiencies compared to the US and its allies, and a tendency of rigidity that resulted in their eventual defeat IMO.

[Brenus]

“France developed that myth because they didn't uderstood blitzkrieg.” Blady French, can’t trust them, I am telling you… Bench of cowards and liars, nothing more… Er, when France did produce this myth? (Books, movies, soaps, series, name them, I am interested to know what the Polish like you suppose I learned when at school: by the way, it was the Heroic Polish attacked on both sides…) Not to disturb you, carry on…

“Italian campaign 1945”: A Blitzkrieg, Italy…?

And the Gustav line was broken by the French (battle of Carigliano and Liri) because they had donkeys -named by the English the Royal Brele Force- (Tirailleurs Algeriens) at the price of 7000 casualties. The French won the battle the 13th of May and broke the Gutav Line on 12 km deep. The Polish took Casino the 18th.
“like capture of Monte Casino”: Again, not a denial of the heroism of the Polish soldiers, by the German Paratroopers evacuated Monte Casino (thank to the French, we are welcome) when the Polish took it. The Anzac and others didn’t attack in the same conditions…

I won’t mention all this if you hadn’t your systematic anti-French stance and again, I don’t deny the Polish heroism.

The Finns were probably the best army during the 1st war.
Then I think the best army, from 1943-1944 was the Red Army. The over manoeuvre the Germans, even if some defensive battles of withdrawal from the Germans were stunning. However, in the over all, the soviet tactic in combining Infantry and Tanks, covered by powerful artillery and the best of the Assault planes, just submerge the Germans like they ( the Germans) did to the French, the English, the Polish, Yugoslav etc…

[KarlXII]

Then I think the best army, from 1943-1944 was the Red Army. The over manoeuvre the Germans, even if some defensive battles of withdrawal from the Germans were stunning. However, in the over all, the soviet tactic in combining Infantry and Tanks, covered by powerful artillery and the best of the Assault planes, just submerge the Germans like they ( the Germans) did to the French, the English, the Polish, Yugoslav etc

Shhh! The very name of the barbaric Soviets bring back memories of the genocidal attack on Warsaw in 1920!!!!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Shhh! The very name of the barbaric Soviets bring back memories of the genocidal attack on Warsaw in 1920!!!!

If Krook and I will ever be able to agree on anything, it will be the sheer brutality of the Stalinist regime.

[rotorgun]

This is an excellent source for an analysis of the German army's tactics, it is also an excerpt from an actual US Army WWII publication:

http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/FreeFil...%20tactics.txt

It's a long, but interesting read that might help us all to have some information that will be useful to our discussion. It always helps me to have some sources to refer to.

[rotorgun]

Then I think the best army, from 1943-1944 was the Red Army. The over manoeuvre the Germans, even if some defensive battles of withdrawal from the Germans were stunning. However, in the over all, the soviet tactic in combining Infantry and Tanks, covered by powerful artillery and the best of the Assault planes, just submerge the Germans like they ( the Germans) did to the French, the English, the Polish, Yugoslav etc…

I have to admit, Brenus may have an excellent point. Here is an excerpt from a Wikipedia article that sheds some light:

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army

Deep Operations

Later in the 1920s and during the 1930s, Soviet military theorists introduced the concept of deep battle.[12] It was a direct consequence from the experience with wide, sweeping movements of cavalry formations during the Civil War and the Polish-Soviet War. Deep Operations encompassed multiple maneuver by multiple Corps or Army sized formations simultaneously. It was not meant to deliver a victory in a single operation, but rather multiple operations conducted in parallel or successively were meant to guarantee victory. In this, Deep operations differed from the usual interpretation of the Blitzkrieg doctrine. The objective of Deep Operations was to attack the enemy simultaneously throughout the depth of his ground force to induce a catastrophic failure in his defensive system. Soviet deep-battle theory was driven by technological advances and the hope that maneuver warfare offered opportunities for quick, efficient, and decisive victory. The concurrent development of aviation and armor provided a physical impetus for this doctrinal evolution within the Red Army. Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky stated that airpower should be "employed against targets beyond the range of infantry, artillery, and other arms. For maximum tactical effect aircraft should be employed in mass, concentrated in time and space, against targets of the highest tactical importance."

Deep Operations were first formally expressed as a concept in the Red Army's 'Field Regulations' of 1929, but was only finally codified by the army in 1936 in the 'Provisional Field Regulations' of 1936. However the Great Purge of 1937–1939 removed many of the leading officers of the Red Army (including Tukhachevsky), and the concept was abandoned - to the detriment of the Red Army during the Winter War - until opportunities to use it evolved later during World War II. At that time, the Red Army fought in major border incidents against the Japanese, in 1938 and 1939.

Essentially, once the German impetus was curtailed and the Red Army could introduce newer equipment to implement such a doctrine, that is what they accomplished. It was against such a doctrine that we trained when I was serving during the Cold War period. The idea of encountering such a force was intimidating to say the least-especially the thought of having to use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent a deep penetration.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

At the same time, however, we must remember that the German army was severely outnumbered, at a disadvantage due to Hitler's strategic orders, and generally weakened. In tactical battles, such as this, the German forces proved their superiority in training and tactics (the former of which also began to erode severely near the end of the conflict).

[KrooK]

Yep Blitzkrieg into Italy....
1) When Poles finally broken German defense lines into mountains ( I mean period after capturing Cassino and moron who did not use that victory), tanks made fast and effective offensive to the city of Bologne.

Yep - French myth....
1) When Poland lost campaign 1939 thousands of soldiers went to France and started forming new army. However French high command didn't understood how effective could be massive tank charge (with air support and into one small point) and were sure that German tank we so useful because of complete lack of training for polish soldiers. Thats why some really funny accidents happen when french istructor without war experience teached polish weterans how to shot.

French units broke paratroopers at Monte Cassino....
1) French units (Berbers) flanked Germans but their attack was stopped because...
According to French sources your soldiers raped every Italian woman around.

2) Paratroopers withdraw from Cassino but not only because of French soldiers flanking them. 17 th may Paratropeers defense became broken. If they did not withdraw, they would be defeated into few days. And do not forget about brits and americans who broke through Liri Valley


Best Army was Red Army....
Do not mix army with soldiers. Russian soldiers really believed that they are defending their country. Thats why they were fighting with great heroism. However whole army was much, much worse than German, American or British one. Weak high command, archaic tactic, complete lack of cooperation beetwen field army and air support (why do you think Russians need so many art - their units did not cooperate with planes at all), NKWD, murdering of prisoners of war and lack of respect for soldiers blood (you should read orders given to russian soldiers). Check stats - Russian won campaign but how many of them died for one German soldier?

[rotorgun]

At the same time, however, we must remember that the German army was severely outnumbered, at a disadvantage due to Hitler's strategic orders, and generally weakened. In tactical battles, such as this, the German forces proved their superiority in training and tactics (the former of which also began to erode severely near the end of the conflict).

One of the areas where the German Army was consistently superior than many others was in battlefield recovery of their damaged equipment. As long as they could retain possession of the battlefield at the end of the battle, they were able to recover their repairable vehicles. Once in the hands of their capable forward repair depots, many of these vehicles were returned to service in a reasonably short time. I read a book about the Battle of Kursk that showed the strength returns for both German Panzer Divisions involved before, after, and then within two weeks or so of Prokhorovka,. Almost all of their losses were made good (although the trained crewmen lost were lost for good), and they were nearly at full strength. The Soviet units were in considerably worst shape, and took much longer to recover.

Of course, the Red Army would just rotate more units to the front which the Germans could not. Attrition is what really hurt the Germans in the long run. The Soviets never really achieved complete tactical and technical parity with the Heer, and their logistical services never even came close. Pound for pound, the German Army was a tough nut to crack.