What was the best army in WW2? II.

_King_Broseidon_ · Apr 2nd 2016, 8:34pm

oceanhawk wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Has CoW thought you nothing?

Numbers means nothing..

You can't compare a game to real life.....

you serious?

numbers mean absolute nothing..

France had more tanks that the Germans in 1940....

The most important things are a general and his tactics...
well maybe not.. but its defo not numbers

The soviets numbers, didnt win them the war, although I wont deny that it made some impact..
The soviet troops were poorly led, feed and equipped all what you would expect under a communist regime

The Germans were also outnumbered in the first world war on the eastern front...
they also had to fight on two fronts, however unfortuantly this horrible event happened in 1917
which really ruined Russia..

The Germans have always been ahead technological..
they have the best Generals..
with an awful leader..

Americans and brits, were well equiped and also had good Generals and werea good army..

Soviets have always been behind, however you Duck, are too stuck in your view to open up and read the facts...

I hated Conservatives, for a long time, and was like wow the government can do this and all this other crap, then I opened my mind, learnt some economics and am now a hard core conservative..

off topic.. a tad..

point is open your mind,

Germans were a better force.. but just failed to keep production, for many reasons, but that is all because of the allies, UK and America won that war.. the Soviets would never had on their own..

I dont know lots about this but I know they all needed eachother to win lol.

oceanhawk · Apr 2nd 2016, 8:47pm

_King_Broseidon_ wrote:

I dont know lots about this but I know they all needed eachother to win lol.

Nope, America needed to beat Germany to win if thats what you mean?...

otherwise, The soviets, helped, but it could have been done with out the USSR..
what I really would have thought would be a good idea... for Germany

would be really just if Op Valkyrie was a success...
peace with the west, and take the USSR
and take out the SS

_King_Broseidon_ · Apr 2nd 2016, 8:50pm

No thats not what I meant lol.
I meant like all the allies needed eachother to win.
Im pretty sure the soviets helped the allies win.

Quasi-duck · Apr 2nd 2016, 9:11pm

oceanhawk wrote:

Soviets have always been behind, however you Duck, are too stuck in your view to open up and read the facts...

That is a blatant disregard for history. Who was second to have nukes? How many successful long range bombers has Germany developed? What a moronic statement.

oceanhawk wrote:

I hated Conservatives, for a long time, and was like wow the government can do this and all this other crap, then I opened my mind, learnt some economics and am now a hard core conservative..

Irrelevant.

oceanhawk wrote:

but that is all because of the allies, UK and America won that war

You do know that there was many more nations than just UK and US in the Allies, right? Like Australia, Canada, USSR.

Not A Communist · Apr 2nd 2016, 9:13pm

Maximilien wrote:

USA Army in Okinama...

Can I just point out these men are actually US Marines >.>

Quasi-duck · Apr 2nd 2016, 9:13pm

_King_Broseidon_ wrote:

Im pretty sure the soviets helped the allies win.

Good on you! The Soviets caused the most German casualties.

oceanhawk wrote:

and take out the SS

That is a blatant disregard of the SS that did not commit vile acts against humanity. Against Yugoslavia, a SS recon detachment of about 10 men captured and held the capital for about a week before reinforcements came.

oceanhawk · Apr 2nd 2016, 9:21pm

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

and take out the SS

That is a blatant disregard of the SS that did not commit vile acts against humanity. Against Yugoslavia, a SS recon detachment of about 10 men captured and held the capital for about a week before reinforcements came.

My point here was that if the Germans were to survive, they should have followed Valkyrie and I believe that was their best chances at not being defeated..

Im not saying at all the SS were bad soldiers.. they were well trained and fought hard.. excellent victory's....
and really were the best soldiers during the war

but they were harsh and have committed numerous war crimes..

and they are hugely to blame for the invasion of France success in 44

Quasi-duck · Apr 2nd 2016, 9:26pm

oceanhawk wrote:

but they were harsh and have committed numerous war crimes..

That is incorrect, that was mainly the Einzatgruppen (Action Groups, for those of you who don't speak Germany as badly as I do

).

oceanhawk wrote:

and they are hugely to blame for the invasion of France success in 44

Hitler did not listen to Rommel, he acted democratically and did what the majority told him to do which was defend Pas-de-Calais.

oceanhawk wrote:

they should have followed Valkyrie and I believe that was their best chances at not being defeated..

They would still have lost the war, which means they would've been defeated.

_King_Broseidon_ · Apr 2nd 2016, 9:38pm

Im not trying to cause an argument here but If the Germans are so great how come they attacked Russian in their winter and the russians were smart to to let them keep coming through russia because the cold weather was killing most of them off so it wasn't hard for the Russians to defeat Germany lol.

Quasi-duck · Apr 2nd 2016, 9:41pm

_King_Broseidon_ wrote:

Im not trying to cause an argument here but If the Germans are so great how come they attacked Russian in their winter and the russians were smart to to let them keep coming through russia because the cold weather was killing most of them off so it wasn't hard for the Russians to defeat Germany lol.

Exactly. There tanks were bad too and most of their artillery and supply train was horse-drawn.

oceanhawk · Apr 2nd 2016, 9:44pm

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

but they were harsh and have committed numerous war crimes..

That is incorrect, that was mainly the Einzatgruppen (Action Groups, for those of you who don't speak Germany as badly as I do ).

oceanhawk wrote:

and they are hugely to blame for the invasion of France success in 44

Hitler did not listen to Rommel, he acted democratically and did what the majority told him to do which was defend Pas-de-Calais.

oceanhawk wrote:

they should have followed Valkyrie and I believe that was their best chances at not being defeated..

They would still have lost the war, which means they would've been defeated.

For a Brainwashed soviet, you speak highly of the SS.... Although I speak highly for the Germany, I only associate with the Nazis and the SS, for their brillant takeover of Germany and their hatred of communism

Otherwise, I find that the actions of the SS were mostly awful,

Hitler didnt listen to Rommel, true however the best defense would really have been if they listened to Mainstein
I take it you are unfamiliar, however he wanted to defeat the enemy invasion with large amounts of the best Panzer divisions they had, which is cheaper, and could have responded faster to an invasion.. wherever

this combined with parts of Rommel's Atlantic wall, the them just not bothering at all to waste res on shelter for the U boats

would have really changed the tides on D-Day
I agree Rommel was smarter than Hitler,

Also, had SS Panzer Divisions, actually been released on D-Day, the outcome could have been very different..

Well, it is possible that the Allies took the side of the Germans, and their new government and fought against the soviets

or also, had the Allies even just made peace, opened trade
and stoped supporting the USSR
The Germans would have defeated the Soviets
and lets just say for arguments sake, that when Hitler goes, the 3 best German Generals
all run the show, as well as the fact that all AA units, are no longer tied to the bloddy luftwaffa what a great idea..
stupid Goering had all the AA away from the Armour..
by best 3, I of course am referring to Mainstein, Rommel and Guidern

Quasi-duck · Apr 2nd 2016, 10:04pm

oceanhawk wrote:

For a Brainwashed soviet, you speak highly of the SS

I, unlike you, know that to understand a certain period of history, you have to understand all of that period of history. Then look at it all unbiasedly before drawing a conclusion.

oceanhawk · Apr 2nd 2016, 10:30pm

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

For a Brainwashed soviet, you speak highly of the SS

I, unlike you, know that to understand a certain period of history, you have to understand all of that period of history. Then look at it all unbiasedly before drawing a conclusion.

I rather not debate this here, lets take this ~~outside into the ally~~ private chat

Quasi-duck · Apr 2nd 2016, 10:32pm

oceanhawk wrote:

I rather not debate this here, lets take this outside into the ally private chat

No.

Sir Smeal · Apr 2nd 2016, 11:24pm

It is no contest. Only the British and Germans had 'professional' armies, and German troops showed skill and resolve in every battle, winning or losing. The British army was tiny before conscription began.

The US army was based on quantity and mass production. Dentists and teachers just could not match the Germans. With the exceptions of the Garrand M1 rifle, subs, and carriers, equipments wasn't on par with any major army.

The Russian army was even worse. Stalin had purged the officer corps and only NKVD behind them with machine guns to keep them in line gave the army any strength. Again, the material was cheap and mass produced and the soldiers were mostly conscripted peasants. However, some Russian weapons were without peer. The KV1 and T34 at the beginning of the war were untouchable. The Il-2 Sturmovik was the best Stuka in the war with great stability and an armored tub protecting the pilot. Late in the war, the T-34/85 was another unmatched tracked vehicle.

The Japanese army had been fighting for 10+ years before WWII began and was much better than America's generals gave them credit for. Japan's navy was a fearsome opponent, and the Musashi and Yamato were larger, better equipped battleships than any others in the world. The Zero early war was easily the best fighter in the skies. Light, maneuverable, well weaponed, strong engined and versatile, the Zero remained a fighter to be wary of even through the middle of the war. Despite all this, the army was not elite in any way and used mass attacks to make progress.

The Germans had well trained troops and officers, excellent weapons across the board, high morale, and was all volunteer for the first half of the war. It wasn't until 1944 that the country went to a war footing and they rolled over everything and everybody. Some of their weapons were without peer. The German 88mm flak gun was the only gun capable of taking out the KV1 for the first 2 years. Germany's subs and pocket battleships required fleets to track down, and the blitzkrieg tactic was so effective that it became a buzz word still used today. German paratroops did things like landing directly on enemy positions that no other army could match. Russian paratroops by the end of the war were coming close. Otto Skorzeny and his commandos were unequalled the entire war by any special units in any army.

By the way, I did not vote.

Quasi-duck · Apr 2nd 2016, 11:30pm

Sir Smeal wrote:

It is no contest. Only the British and Germans had 'professional' armies, and German troops showed skill and resolve in every battle. The British army was tiny before conscription began.

The US army was based on quantity and mass production. Dentists and teachers just could not match the Germans. With the exceptions of the Garrand M1 rifle, subs, and carriers, equipments wasn't on par with any major army.

The Russian army was even worse. Stalin had purged the officer corps and only NKVD behind them with machine guns to keep them in line gave the army any strength. Again, the material was cheap and mass produced and the soldiers were mostly conscripted peasants. However, some Russian weapons were without peer. The KV1 and T34 at the beginning of the war were untouchable. The Il-2 Sturmovik was the best Stuka in the war with stability and an armored tub protecting the pilot. Late in the war, the T-34/85 was another unmatched tracked vehicle.

The Japanese army had been fighting for 10+ years before WWII began and was much better than America's generals gave them credit for. Japan's navy was a fearsome opponent, and the Musashi and Yamato were larger, better equipped battleships than any others in the world. The Zero early war was easily the best fighter in the skies. Light, maneuverable, well weaponed, strong engined and versatile, the Zero remained a fighter to be wary of even through the middle of the war. Despite all this, the army was not elite in any way and used mass attacks to make progress.

The Germans had well trained troops and officers, excellent weapons across the board, high morale, and was all volunteer for the first half of the war. It wasn't until 1944 that the country went to a war footing and they rolled over everything and everybody. Some of their weapons were without peer. The German 88mm flak gun was the only gun capable of taking out the KV1 for the first 2 years. Germany's subs and pocket battleship required fleets to track down, and the blitzkrieg tactic was so effective that it became a buzz word still used today. German paratroops did things like landing directly on enemy positions that no other army could match. Russian paratroops by the end of the war were coming close. Otto Skorzeny and his commandos were unequalled the entire war by any special units in any army.

By the way, I did not vote.

A helluva lot of that is wrong, shows a bad understanding of technology during the war. The thing that stuck out for me was that you calls the Il-2 a Stuka, which was a German dive-bomber, also known as the JU-87. You also seem to have forgotten Russian paratrooper actions in Manchuria and the horrible casualties taken by German paratroopers. Also, all countries had professional armies.

You seem to be unfair on the US

oceanhawk · Apr 3rd 2016, 12:20am

Quasi-duck wrote:

A helluva lot of that is wrong, shows a bad understanding of technology during the war. The thing that stuck out for me was that you calls the Il-2 a Stuka, which was a German dive-bomber, also known as the JU-87. You also seem to have forgotten Russian paratrooper actions in Manchuria and the horrible casualties taken by German paratroopers. Also, all countries had professional armies.
You seem to be unfair on the US

soviets didnt have a profesional army, he is right

but a little unfair on US I agree..
nice to agree for once..

but otherwise, the Germans really were the best...

really they the best at everything.. like here.. Id still take an mg 42 to war even today,

Quasi-duck · Apr 3rd 2016, 12:38am

oceanhawk wrote:

soviets didnt have a profesional army, he is right

They were paid and trained, they were professional. Unless, of course, there is some other meaning of profesional I do not know of.

oceanhawk wrote:

Id still take an mg 42 to war even today,

Look at it's predecessor, you couldn't throw the 34 into dirt without it breaking. Yet they still used it 'till the end, for some reason, not just on AFV's either. Then look at the early war tanks. No sloped armour, poor guns, and the one decent gun had a short barrel that made it crap. You never mentioned ammo either, which is pretty dumb when going to war. Also, you would have terrible problems getting ammo so it would be pretty short-sighted of you, especially considering that it fires too fast.

Kehsct · Apr 3rd 2016, 4:44am

Sir Smeal wrote:

The US army was based on quantity and mass production.

So true. Many U.S. soldiers were wasted due to bad equipment and bad distribution of men.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Then look at the early war tanks. No sloped armour, poor guns, and the one decent gun had a short barrel that made it crap.

The German's were focused on the Blitzkrieg principle early in the war. You still have to give them credit for the Tiger though. They first came into production in 1941 (a year after the invasion of France), and almost every other country was behind on tank development at the time (especially heavy tanks).

MihailMD · Apr 3rd 2016, 5:39am

oceanhawk wrote:

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Has CoW thought you nothing?

Numbers means nothing..

You can't compare a game to real life.....

you serious?

numbers mean absolute nothing..

France had more tanks that the Germans in 1940....

The most important things are a general and his tactics...
well maybe not.. but its defo not numbers

The soviets numbers, didnt win them the war, although I wont deny that it made some impact..
The soviet troops were poorly led, feed and equipped all what you would expect under a communist regime

The Germans were also outnumbered in the first world war on the eastern front...
they also had to fight on two fronts, however unfortuantly this horrible event happened in 1917
which really ruined Russia..

The Germans have always been ahead technological..
they have the best Generals..
with an awful leader..

Americans and brits, were well equiped and also had good Generals and werea good army..

Soviets have always been behind, however you Duck, are too stuck in your view to open up and read the facts...

I hated Conservatives, for a long time, and was like wow the government can do this and all this other crap, then I opened my mind, learnt some economics and am now a hard core conservative..

off topic.. a tad..

point is open your mind,

Germans were a better force.. but just failed to keep production, for many reasons, but that is all because of the allies, UK and America won that war.. the Soviets would never had on their own..

Of course they would. It would probably take them just a little longer. It is not just numbers that won the war , but the Russian spirit.
One house in Stalingrad held out longer than the all of Europe combined ...

By the way, do you know how many French soldiers does it take to defend Paris?)

Share