Which was the best army?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Actually, I had always believed that the German tanks weren't of the best calibre (tech wise). They were also supremely arrogant, not adopting sloped pattern armour until much later. Ironically that was due to their unprecedented successes in the use of doctrine. I think the french tanks were actually superior to the German ones at war's start, but being fielded as infantry support in the WW1 manner made them very vulnerable to the mechanised combined arms forces of the Wehrmacht.

    German design also took an unfortunate turn later in the war, and although they made supreme armour units, they had many faults. High fuel consumption, and a complicated design that slowed manufacture, as well as the inability to recover damaged units to any great effect (Tigers were forbidden from towing other Tigers, they risked ruining their engines), and dedicated recovery vehicles were scarce.

    On the other hand, the mass produced armour of the Americans and Soviets would simply overwhelm any resistance, simple design and manufacturing might winning the day.
    Kalantigos
    Master Chief Petty Officer.
    Game Moderator
    EN Community Support
    Bytro Labs | Call of War

  • Kalantigos wrote:

    Actually, I had always believed that the German tanks weren't of the best calibre (tech wise). They were also supremely arrogant, not adopting sloped pattern armour until much later. Ironically that was due to their unprecedented successes in the use of doctrine. I think the french tanks were actually superior to the German ones at war's start, but being fielded as infantry support in the WW1 manner made them very vulnerable to the mechanised combined arms forces of the Wehrmacht.

    German design also took an unfortunate turn later in the war, and although they made supreme armour units, they had many faults. High fuel consumption, and a complicated design that slowed manufacture, as well as the inability to recover damaged units to any great effect (Tigers were forbidden from towing other Tigers, they risked ruining their engines), and dedicated recovery vehicles were scarce.

    On the other hand, the mass produced armour of the Americans and Soviets would simply overwhelm any resistance, simple design and manufacturing might winning the day.
    I like that evaluation. I knew a good bit of that already but you have opened up something I want to look into, How would one go about "recovering" or basically repair a tank that has been knocked out? It sounds like the amount of damage requiring a tank to need to be brought out of the field for repairs would be more elaborate than making a new tank.

  • Butter Ball Bill wrote:

    miech wrote:

    B17 came into play
    The Liberator, while still American, kicks the 17's ass. I think it was the B-24.
    My favorite is definitely Russia. Khalkin Gol, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Odessa, Russia kicks ass. The only thing I have a problem with is how they treated German prisoners. They vivisected 7 of them.
    That one was later and more advanced of course. I meant the Lancaster reigned surpreme until the B17. Sorry if it wasnt clear.

  • Iron Guard24 wrote:

    Kalantigos wrote:

    Actually, I had always believed that the German tanks weren't of the best calibre (tech wise). They were also supremely arrogant, not adopting sloped pattern armour until much later. Ironically that was due to their unprecedented successes in the use of doctrine. I think the french tanks were actually superior to the German ones at war's start, but being fielded as infantry support in the WW1 manner made them very vulnerable to the mechanised combined arms forces of the Wehrmacht.

    German design also took an unfortunate turn later in the war, and although they made supreme armour units, they had many faults. High fuel consumption, and a complicated design that slowed manufacture, as well as the inability to recover damaged units to any great effect (Tigers were forbidden from towing other Tigers, they risked ruining their engines), and dedicated recovery vehicles were scarce.

    On the other hand, the mass produced armour of the Americans and Soviets would simply overwhelm any resistance, simple design and manufacturing might winning the day.
    I like that evaluation. I knew a good bit of that already but you have opened up something I want to look into, How would one go about "recovering" or basically repair a tank that has been knocked out? It sounds like the amount of damage requiring a tank to need to be brought out of the field for repairs would be more elaborate than making a new tank.
    Yes, interested, didnt know those facts. -0.1 for German tanks then;).

    The French tanks were indeed better..sort of. But if the unit isnt used properly, what use is it? Its the total package.

    As someone said every army had certain strengths - some just had more of them or used them better.

  • Well going past the WW2 to the Vietnam war, the GIs were really good soldiers. That was also when one of the first real appeariances of the Navy Seals were. Previously there was a platoon ( in comapny name that I forgot ) with the liteanent training his soldiers as hard as he could. Later they would do special operations like destroying the German artillery behing the lines and so on. Then the idea cought on and they made school of Skouts and Raiders which trained their soldiers hard, but they were one of the best you could get. They helped during Operation Torch and helped on landings such as the ones in Normandy D-Day. And the thing that I like about the more advancly trained GIs is that if they thought they were trailed by enemy troops they woud advance more and set up an ambush and then capture the enemies or just kill them, but the killing option did't occur that often.
    :00008356:

    "May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't"
    -George S. Patton

    "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination"
    - Albert Einstein

  • Pablo22510 wrote:

    Sandevot wrote:

    I have always respected Spain for the fact that she kept neutral and not to succumb to propaganda from its allies.
    Gee thanks, mate! :D BTW, I also think the American army was the best. The cost of one King Tiger was equal to 50 Shermans, and a King Tiger couldn't kill 50 Shermans. Obviously, the U.S.'s industrial power plays an important part too, but the U.S. Army in my opinion was the best. Germany comes a close second.
    Everything depends on the evaluation criteria. Discussion of this topic can be divided into two different parts - "What country has had the best technique" "Which country played an important role in the victory." The answers to these two questions will be different. I am ready to agree that American technology was good, but I will never agree that the American machinery (army) brought victory in this war - it is not.

    If we talk about the tanks - M4A2 Sherman tank was very good. The Americans sent 4,000 tanks of the Soviet Union and our people are well aware of this tank. It was comfortable and his armor was better than the T34. But there were three major problems: 1) poor permeability in complex terrain 2) poor reliability and the difficulty in repairing 3) failure in the cold. It's a good tank for America, Asia and Africa, but the Soviet Union in the war against Germany, he was useless.
    Have you read the book "Death traps"? This book was written by an American Belton Cooper - a war veteran. It tells a lot of unpleasant historical facts, which fans of American tanks may not like. Reading this book, the impression that this tank was crap

  • I agree with you Sandevot, but I think that it was the combination of all the countries' efforts that made Hitler loose the war. Some country delivered some results and positives and some delivered other good results and positives.
    :00008356:

    "May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't"
    -George S. Patton

    "The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination"
    - Albert Einstein

  • Sandevot wrote:

    Pablo22510 wrote:

    Sandevot wrote:

    I have always respected Spain for the fact that she kept neutral and not to succumb to propaganda from its allies.
    Gee thanks, mate! :D BTW, I also think the American army was the best. The cost of one King Tiger was equal to 50 Shermans, and a King Tiger couldn't kill 50 Shermans. Obviously, the U.S.'s industrial power plays an important part too, but the U.S. Army in my opinion was the best. Germany comes a close second.
    Everything depends on the evaluation criteria. Discussion of this topic can be divided into two different parts - "What country has had the best technique" "Which country played an important role in the victory." The answers to these two questions will be different. I am ready to agree that American technology was good, but I will never agree that the American machinery (army) brought victory in this war - it is not.
    If we talk about the tanks - M4A2 Sherman tank was very good. The Americans sent 4,000 tanks of the Soviet Union and our people are well aware of this tank. It was comfortable and his armor was better than the T34. But there were three major problems: 1) poor permeability in complex terrain 2) poor reliability and the difficulty in repairing 3) failure in the cold. It's a good tank for America, Asia and Africa, but the Soviet Union in the war against Germany, he was useless.
    Have you read the book "Death traps"? This book was written by an American Belton Cooper - a war veteran. It tells a lot of unpleasant historical facts, which fans of American tanks may not like. Reading this book, the impression that this tank was crap

    Im going to have to correct you, Im pretty sure the T-34 had superior armor to the Sherman. The thickness of the armor of the Sherman isn't a good comparison for the T-34, the sloped armor of a T-34 effectively doubles the effective resistance of the armor.

    An example: 1.5in armor sloped at 30 degrees is equal in penetration resistance to 3in of armor in addition to an increased chance of deflecting rounds upward over the tank, Sherman did not have that feature.

    Im pretty sure the M4 was inferior to the base T34 models in every way. I won't dispute your other claims on the M4, however most tanks didn't work well in the cold, not even German ones, only the USSR could master the cold.

  • Iron Guard24 wrote:

    Sandevot wrote:

    Pablo22510 wrote:

    Sandevot wrote:

    I have always respected Spain for the fact that she kept neutral and not to succumb to propaganda from its allies.
    Gee thanks, mate! :D BTW, I also think the American army was the best. The cost of one King Tiger was equal to 50 Shermans, and a King Tiger couldn't kill 50 Shermans. Obviously, the U.S.'s industrial power plays an important part too, but the U.S. Army in my opinion was the best. Germany comes a close second.
    Everything depends on the evaluation criteria. Discussion of this topic can be divided into two different parts - "What country has had the best technique" "Which country played an important role in the victory." The answers to these two questions will be different. I am ready to agree that American technology was good, but I will never agree that the American machinery (army) brought victory in this war - it is not.If we talk about the tanks - M4A2 Sherman tank was very good. The Americans sent 4,000 tanks of the Soviet Union and our people are well aware of this tank. It was comfortable and his armor was better than the T34. But there were three major problems: 1) poor permeability in complex terrain 2) poor reliability and the difficulty in repairing 3) failure in the cold. It's a good tank for America, Asia and Africa, but the Soviet Union in the war against Germany, he was useless.
    Have you read the book "Death traps"? This book was written by an American Belton Cooper - a war veteran. It tells a lot of unpleasant historical facts, which fans of American tanks may not like. Reading this book, the impression that this tank was crap
    Im going to have to correct you, Im pretty sure the T-34 had superior armor to the Sherman. The thickness of the armor of the Sherman isn't a good comparison for the T-34, the sloped armor of a T-34 effectively doubles the effective resistance of the armor.

    An example: 1.5in armor sloped at 30 degrees is equal in penetration resistance to 3in of armor in addition to an increased chance of deflecting rounds upward over the tank, Sherman did not have that feature.

    Im pretty sure the M4 was inferior to the base T34 models in every way. I won't dispute your other claims on the M4, however most tanks didn't work well in the cold, not even German ones, only the USSR could master the cold.
    Maybe you are right. I was based on stories of Soviet veterans of war and literature - I do not remember any of the Soviet soldiers criticized Sherman's armor. Of course we must remember that while technology is developing very fast pace - after modernization of Soviet and German tanks and armor-piercing shells first versions of the Sherman became outdated very quickly. But as far as I know our soldiers in a battlefield on their own strengthened design of the tank mounted panels and metal sheets welded or attached sandbags. This impairs maneuverability, but there was no choice.
    Images

    • 8446231ror.jpg

      95.21 kB, 758×570, viewed 850 times

    • 206980548.jpg

      77.89 kB, 785×573, viewed 295 times

    • 206980557.jpg

      128.9 kB, 785×600, viewed 264 times

  • Italy did that with sandbags as well to compensate for poor armor. The Sherman armor was never really good, its predecessor the M3 had the same armor thickness, the M4 Sherman just had better firepower, accuracy, and speed to the M3. Our military at the time didn't put much value into the armor of our tanks until 1945 when we starting using our first heavy then the Pershing. The UK, Germans, and of course the USSR were constantly working new armor upgrades into their tanks and tank destroyers, while the US really only improved the armor of our light tanks through out the war.

    Really the M4 Sherman really was best suited to dealing with light tanks and supporting the infantry, In numbers it can stand up to medium tanks but having a tank destroyer unit support the M4s would compensate for its weaknesses, but it is massacred by heavy tanks, luckily an M4 could simply call for an airstrike on superior tanks rather than engage them.

  • The best country is Switzerland it sits in the middle.

    Plus US only added a bigger gun thus the Firefly is born
    the Sherman was an average tank mass produced unlike the Panzer 4 which was a good tank with less production
    Tiger and Koingtiger are the same, USSR had the best armor to counter the Germans UK had the best armor for Africa mostly the valentine, but they Commonwealth helped uk too, the ANZAC corp was effective and easy to maintain.
    Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning Erwin Rommel
    Meep Meep Meep Morke

    Forum Gang Best website in the world

    The post was edited 1 time, last by qwokadile: Cause I give more info ().