(jimbotosome @ Dec 13 2005, 02:54 PM) [post=43083]Only 7 nations made the list? I would have thought the commonwealth nations like New Zealand and Australia would have been ranked equal to those of the rest of the Allies. Never saw anything that contrasted them from the British or Americans. That has to make them feel good. I would like to point out what I believe is a myth. That infantry was better or worse than the others. How would you ever know? If you were supported by artillery, air power and armor then you looked like a dominant infantryman. It’s easy to look good when you are overrunning a routed enemy. If the German's were the best fighters, then why did they get mopped up and driven back into their homeland? While I don't believe it was due to the fighting abilities of the German soldier, it certainly does not make a positive statement either. If there is an inference that one soldier is braver than the others, I think it would be difficult to prove and be very subject to opinions. You might as well ask who had the best uniforms. There is not an infantryman of any nation who body does not "sheer in half" when a splinter of artillery hits near them. Not a one that does not bleed to death when a bullet punctures an artery. All of them will fight until it becomes futile and the intelligent ones will surrender when it is hopeless in order to tie up the enemy's resources in POW camps rather than just dying for a "noble" reason. The Germans prepared their army for years. They had war in mind all along. They dedicated their nation to the execution of war. Had the other nations have done the same then the Germans would have looked unprepared. But I think you have to consider results. An intelligent soldier is of far more use than a brave soldier. The Japanese and the Russians were brave as to charge machine gun fire. And how did this accomplish their objective? The Germans fought with their lives to protect a cruel and insane madman. Was this brave or stupid? The Germans also were placed in desperate situations. This means they were forced to fight to survive. They often had no options but to fight. Does this mean they were better? Is it also saying that other infantry with their backs to the wall would not do the same? Do we exalt them because their poor decisions constantly left them in dire straits? Just something to think about. [/b] Leaving my own patriotic bias toward the Allied armies aside for a moment, I think the Wermacht are plainly deserving of veneration - particularly in the last months of the war - simply because of the ferocity of the fight they put up. Fighting alone against virtually the whole civilised world and on two fronts, they made the Allies' pay dearly for every inch of ground, when it would have been so much easier for the individual soldiers to have simply surrendered. Why did they continue to fight? In most cases, not out of a desire to help defend the Nazi regieme, which was widely despised by this time. Rather, it was out of desperation to protect their families and homeland, particularly from the expected barbarism of the communist hoardes. There were, of course, fanatical elements: the SS, for instance, demanding a fight to the death, but on the whole they fought with skill and gusto to protect those they loved. At the end, the Allies were left in no doubt that they had fought a strong and determined enemy, not a militia on its last gasps!!!
In my opinion Germany had the best infantry of the war. After that comes the US, English and Russian ones. I cant however see how some of you can downgrade the Finnish infantry because "they couldnt beat the soviets". How is it fair to say that when Finland then had a population of 3.5 million and Russia had a one of over 300 million? It just isnt fair..
For sheer guts and dogedness, surely the Gordon Highlanders deserve at least a mention. If I remember correctly, don't they have the highest count of Victoria Crosses of any British Infantry Regiment? Just my tuppence worth....
Like the majority of the replies I would put the Germans first, if I had to choose the second best I would go for the Australians and New Zealanders. Whenever they were in a battle they always did well and it must be admitted better than any other army I know of. There were units within Armies such as Para's, Commando's, Rangers who would have a claim to first place over and above the Germans or ANZACs but if we are talking 'normal' armies then I would go for the ANZACs.
(adamcotton @ Dec 14 2005, 08:53 PM) [post=43127]Leaving my own patriotic bias toward the Allied armies aside for a moment, I think the Wermacht are plainly deserving of veneration - particularly in the last months of the war - simply because of the ferocity of the fight they put up. Fighting alone against virtually the whole civilised world and on two fronts, they made the Allies' pay dearly for every inch of ground, when it would have been so much easier for the individual soldiers to have simply surrendered. Why did they continue to fight? In most cases, not out of a desire to help defend the Nazi regieme, which was widely despised by this time. Rather, it was out of desperation to protect their families and homeland, particularly from the expected barbarism of the communist hoardes. There were, of course, fanatical elements: the SS, for instance, demanding a fight to the death, but on the whole they fought with skill and gusto to protect those they loved. At the end, the Allies were left in no doubt that they had fought a strong and determined enemy, not a militia on its last gasps!!! [/b] Sort of how the Japs felt when they tried to come down the Kokoda Trail hey? Rgds Tim D
I have no qualms about being patriotic. The Aussies acquitted themselves magnificently on land, sea & air, with these services performing as a team. Very often outnumbered they were well commanded by officers who led from the front and pound for pound were as good as the best, while in certain circumstances better than the best. Numerically we were inferior to the major powers, but that is where it ended. The Australian 9th division received most of the accolades and deservedly so, as they were given the hard tasks and delivered under huge casualties to achieve their allotted objectives. They, together with British & Australian gunners and the 18th brigade of the 7th division, held Tobruk against the might of the Africa Korps for 8 months where there was only one 24 hour period when they were not bombed by German aircraft. The days were the Germans the nights were the Australians (as General Morshead put it) as the commando units went out everynight and harassed the enemy fuel & ammunition dumps, transport convoys and even killing troops on their way back from the latrines. There is a good sight with video's, stories and great photo's about Australian troops and the countries in which they fought. Just 3 of the 18 episodes below to enjoy. Rats and scrap Iron (Tobruk) Road to Damascus (Against the Vichy French) Beyond all Praise (El Alamein) http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/beyond/index.html
With respect Jukasa I don't personally think that anyone is downgraded or slating the Finns. I think the contributors are looking at the hostilities over all and not for one part of the hostilities. If one looks at what Mannerheim did with his troops and what he was up against the only war he could execute was one of hit and run guerilla tactics. The troops that were sent up to attack the Finnish frontier might not be credited as being of the highest quality but this doesn't detract from the fact that the Finns gave the bear one hell of a bloody nose. If anything Stalin gave the Finns the ultimate compliment by sending and saturating the area with troops. The quality of the Finnish infantry reflected this commitment.
With respect to the moniker of best infantry as it might be applied in respect of the Germans this would come down to a few points. The German junior nco's were allowed more rein to use their initiative and from early in their training. If the nco was in action and he believed a better course of action than a given order he could over ride the order and apply his solution. What happens if he gets it wrong is another matter. I read this off the net. Would others agree with this. There is also the discipline nature of the German male at the time and the strong military tradition / ethic, which pervaded society at that time. This is not to demean or be compared to the other nominees for best infantry, but a suggestion as to perhaps why the German infantry is placed so high in people's estimations.
All infantry run away,stand and fight to the last man, surrender,sh*t themselves,bleed, die. It doesn't matter who they fight for. Every nation's poor bloody infantry does all of these. Glad I never found out myself.
Funny that....(oh herr oberst don't go there) See Angie I censored myself...oops even that sounds bad. Best Infantry of the War Any German Infantry that survived Stalingrad and the Gulags. Any British Infantry that survived being a POW in Burma. Marines that survived Peilalu and Okinawa Now to take a different look. British LRDG or Gurkas....Allies SS Panzer Truppen from LAH, Das Reich, Wiking...Axis
What about the Australian, British, Indian and Dutch infantry that survived being POW in Malaya, Thailand, Singapore, New Britain, Rabaul and elsewhere...and those that didn't? Rgds Tim
The SS were pussy cats compared with either the British Parachute Regiments or the Royal Marine Commandos. All were specially trained for their taskings. Didn't Hitler call the Commandos gangsters, praise enough, thanks mate. Roger
Tim </div><div class='quotemain'>What about the Australian, British, Indian and Dutch infantry that survived being POW in Malaya, Thailand, Singapore, New Britain, Rabaul and elsewhere...and those that didn't? [/b] Now I may get in hot water for saying this but Australian, New Zealand, South African, Canadian, Welsh, Scottish, Scotch, Irish I consider British. Poles, Czechs,Dutch,Indians, Gurkas I call British because they were under British Command. </div><div class='quotemain'>The SS were pussy cats [/b] You wouldn't think so if you were at Avadour or Malmedy The Germans called the Americans Indianer and the Airborne Gangsters as well. Sorry about butchering the spelling of Peleliu
(ourbill @ Feb 10 2006, 08:32 PM) [post=45576]The SS were pussy cats compared with either the British Parachute Regiments or the Royal Marine Commandos. All were specially trained for their taskings. Didn't Hitler call the Commandos gangsters, praise enough, thanks mate. Roger [/b] Well Roger, I wouldnt exactly call the SS pussy cats, but I would agree that they are awfully overrated. And the worst part of this is that you'll find zillions of books about the "Asphalt Soldiers", while you might have quite some hard time looking for books about for instance the 61. Inf Division, the 126. ID, the 215. ID and 290. ID, all of those were Heer units that performed remarkably as part of Heeresgruppe Nord in Estonia and Kurland in 1944-1945.
Yes chaps...the Japs did actually fight someone other than the Brits in Burma and the Yanks in the Pacific.
Just read this and thought I'd add it to one of these old "who was best" threads. What the Germans thought of the British. HyperWar: The War in France and Flanders 1939–1940 [Chapter XXIII] In August 1940, German divisions training for the invasion of England were provided with a report prepared by the German IV Corps, which, in Bock's Sixth Army, had fought the British Expeditionary Force from the Dyle to the coast. It deals mostly with technical details of British fighting methods, but this is the general verdict which it pronounces on its own experience; the underlining (by use of italics) follows the German original:The English soldier was in excellent physical condition. He bore his own wounds with stoical calm. The losses of his own troops he discussed with complete equanimity. He did not complain of hardships. In battle he was tough and dogged. His conviction that England would conquer in the end was unshakeable. … The English solider has always shown himself to be a fighter of high value. Certainly the Territorial divisions are inferior to the Regulat troops in training, but where morale is concerned they are their equal. In defence the Englishman took any punishment that came his way. During the fighting IV Corps took relatively fewer English prisoners than in engagements with the French or the Belgians. On the other hand, casualties on both sides were high.
