For PanzerJaeger, comparing the armies of WW2

[CBR]

Please stay on topic and less snide remarks thank you.

Just a few comments:

The Finnish-Soviet border was about 1200 Km. The overall German-Polish border (Slovakia incl) apparently was about 2300 Km. Even if we straighten it out and allow the Poles to pull back a bit its still 1200+ Km.

From maps of the initial deployment, one can see several Polish divisions positioned at the Soviet border. I doubt Finland wasted many troops guarding the Swedish and Norwegian borders at the begiining of the Winter War.

There also does seem to be quite a difference in the initial phase of the two wars as Finland mobilized quite early and was as ready as they could be when the Soviets finally attacked. The Polish mobilization was late and their army was not ready when war came.

The German offensive was well prepared and they attacked on multiple front whereas The Karelian Isthmus became the main effort for the Soviets. They seem be have been confident and initially did not have that great a numerical superiority and the first offensive was a failure.

Terrain and logistics was certainly in favor of Finland compared to Poland. It left the Soviets with a lot fewer options than Germany. The results should be quite obvious: Soviet head-on assaults against prepared postions in Karelia versus multiple German armies aiming for the classic encirclement of the enemy.


CBR

[KarlXII]

Please stay on topic and less snide remarks thank you

My apologies. It just bugs me.

[PanzerJaeger]

What do you guys think of the American military?

It certainly had some good units, but without the massive support it usually had at its disposal, it was prone to falter - especially the regular infantry divisions.

In the pacific, however, the Marines dominated. Does that speak to their skill or the deficiencies of the Japanese?

[Marshal Murat]

I think that I'm going to upset some Finns here, but I don't think that they were the 'best'. The Finns were given some advantages that were held by only some other nations.

1. Highly motivated armed forces
2. Inept Soviet armed forces
3. Natural terrain

I'm not saying that the Finns weren't good, but I don't think that they were the best army. I'll grant that they were able to hold off Soviet attacks, but most were against inept Soviet formations led by commissars, stuffed with conscripts. The Soviets then marched into the woods, and surprise! They were annihilated in some mottis. Others pinned down significant Finnish forces, like the great motti. The Finns were good, but great? No.

The Japanese were good in some areas, bad in others. Their tanks were worse than Italians. Their men, however, were motivated and skilled. Some generals were adept, others not. You get that in many forces. I think it's more because of Hollywood and the 'evil japs'. In Burma, the Japanese did put Slim on the ropes. The army wasn't as big a focus since Japan was an island. Like Mahan said, naval power means national power.

I would say the best would be America, just because I know everyone is going to disagree.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The fact that the Finns used the advantages given to them effectively, whereas the Poles did not, which goes to show something. The Poles had better ratios in terms of men, tanks, and aircraft than the Finns, which was their advantage. The Finns had better terrain and logistics. This at least speaks for the quality of the Finnish officer staff.

By the way, Finland also had a conscripted army.

[rotorgun]

What do you guys think of the American military?

It certainly had some good units, but without the massive support it usually had at its disposal, it was prone to falter - especially the regular infantry divisions.

In the pacific, however, the Marines dominated. Does that speak to their skill or the deficiencies of the Japanese?

While I am certainly proud of the history of our army during WWII, I should like to point out one fact often overlooked by many. In fighting the Germans in Europe, at no time, except possibly during the Ardennes campaign, did the Western Allies face more then roughly one fourth of the German Army. The balance was in the east, where the majority of the elite SS and Whermacht mobile units were assigned. In many cases, the Americans and Allies were fighting second rate troops, backed up by some elite forces who were badly outnumbered and dominated from the skies. Even then, the Germans came close to inflicting a stalemate upon them.

If there was any area in which the US Army excelled in, it was probably the coordination of its artillery fires. Theirs was the fastest, most flexible, and accurate overall of all the Armies of WWII. The British could occasionally deliver faster predesignated barrages, but they sacrificed accuracy to do so. The Germans could make more accurate fires sat times as well, but never with anything near the speed. The fire control system of the Americans often enabled the massing of all available batteries within range of a specific target in less than 10 minutes. It was this that enabled them to defeat the 1st SS Panzer Corps at Elsenborn Ridge during December 1944 as one example.

Another trait of the American Army was, and still is, an uncanny ability to adapt its doctrines, tactics, and strategies on the fly, so to speak. This often makes us unpredictable. As Field Marshall Rommel said of us:

"The reason that the Americans learn to fight so quickly is that War is chaos, and they practice chaos on a daily basis." I have observed this characteristic on numerous occasions in over thirty years service in the US Army, and have practiced it myself from time to time.

In the Pacific, the Marines were the perfect opponents for the Japanese, being nearly as stoic. I'll have to sort out my thoughts as to why they were so dominate. Certainly the overwhelming material advantages they had were one factor, but this alone was not the only reason.

PS: Goodnight friends, I'll have to take it up tomorrow as it's a bit late for an old dude like me to be up when I have to work in the AM.

[PanzerJaeger]

PS: Goodnight friends, I'll have to take it up tomorrow as it's a bit late for an old dude like me to be up when I have to work in the AM.

Thanks for the writeup.

I feel their ability to adapt allowed them to surpass the British as a fighting force, even though the Brits had more experience fighting the Germans.

I wonder if anyone would disagree.

[Tribesman]

Before I explain my opinion I have to explain number of tanks into polish army.
As tanks were counted here vehicles called "Tankietka". It was small (2 people staff) vehicle with heavy machine gun - generally worse that armoured car.

Wow thats fascinating a tank armed only with machine guns , you mean just like the Germans and Russians had ,and the Brits and Americans French Italians Finns Japanese . But of course all those other armies didn't count little machine gun armed tanks as tanks they called them tanks instead .
Now of course that would just be a little comparrison , for another comparrison you could take some more similar tanks , or even identical ones say perhaps Polish and Finnish ones (though of course not little toy tanks but real ones with guns that go bang) The Finns managed to get most of theirs into action despite bad weather , the Poles kept them in reserve then drove them to Romania .

[Martok]

What do you guys think of the American military?

It certainly had some good units, but without the massive support it usually had at its disposal, it was prone to falter - especially the regular infantry divisions.

My own opinion of our military forces in WW2 is that they were....okay. Decent, but not great. I suppose one could potentially argue that ours was the best (due to our significant advantages in men and material), but I usually prefer to grade such things on a per capita basis.

American commanders were generally competent but not brilliant (aside from a few notable exceptions such as Patton). Our training and doctrine was solid & fairly well thought-out, while still allowing for innovation & adaptation when necessary. American vehicles, guns, and equipment generally weren't anything particularly special (I always think of the very-average Sherman tank), but they were relatively reliable and fairly easy to service.

The one area in which I would say the US excelled was in logistics -- again, at least partially because of our resource advantage. We seemed to do pretty well at keeping our troops reasonably well-supplied on a (more or less) consistent basis.

In the pacific, however, the Marines dominated. Does that speak to their skill or the deficiencies of the Japanese?

I'd say it's a bit of both. In addition to the Marines being somewhat better and more thoroughly trained, we were also able to take advantage of the Japanese' faulty tactics and doctrine.

The IJA seemed to suffer from a "personal skills in combat are more important than the whole" syndrome, and never fully adopted the more standard "professional" stance used by most other major armies at the time. I don't think Japanese army commanders ever truly grasped the full meaning & importance of coordinating one's units to achieve objectives -- they were too locked into traditional "samurai mode" (so to speak).

Of course (as mentioned before), we also had the overall advantage in personnel & equipment, which definitely helped. The fact that the US Pacific Navy had managed to cut off support to Imperial troops certainly didn't hurt either.