This is a poll for what you think was the strongest World War II soldier. Of course, there are many controversies which still revolve around the issue. Technically speaking, most historians agree that the strongest 'mobile' units belonged to Germany. However, we are talking on a soldier's quality's basis, and are completely excluding any sort of naval power, air power, or vehicles, only a "man with a firearm, along with basic equiptment (i.e. helmet, gernade, other parcels). The soldiers who are renoun to be the most adapted to their environment was the Russian "Red" army. They rejoice being able to hold off *most* foreign invaders, such as the French army led by Napoleon, (this happened before WWII, in case that statement got you confused), and Germany's army led by Adolf Hitler. In harsh cold climates, the Russian army boasted many skilled snipers, and their generals throughout the war had some of the best strategic plans. However, the Russians did have some faults... they were unable to stand up against the Mongols, (led by Ghenghis Khan), and, a few decades before world war II, they lost to the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war. Speaking of the Japanese Army... The strongest "Jungle fighters," were the Japanese in WWII. While a British/American soldier needed a plentiful supply of equiptment and food to maintain a healthy, able body, a japanese soldier was able to manage with 3/4'ths of a pound of rice, and they were able to salvage/forage food with surprising skill. It comes as no surprise, Japan was a highly militaristic state which was a proud country that had never been successfully invaded by foreigners for over 2,100 years. The Japanese forces also enjoy being credited to have the highest mental devotion to their country. Many foreigners believe that "banzai," and "kamikaze," are just insane last ditch efforts made by the Japanese Imperial Army. This is competely untrue. As Admiral and commander of the Japanese Combined Fleet, Isoroku Yamamoto proclaimed, "I will fight the Americans and prove victorious again and again for a year. After this, I cannot guarantee anything." This statement proved true. The pacific offense by the Japanese army was so fierce and quick, and expertly manuevered, that the Japanese were thought of as "invincible," worldwide, until a string of unfortunate events caused their dramatic loss at Midway. With that loss, Isoroku Yamamoto was never able to take the offensive again, and the Japanese held onto their hard-won fortunes in the phillipine island with a sturdy line of defense. The Americans were the most well-armed soldiers in the war. This, is no surprise to anyone, particularly the highranking japanese. The Americans "underestimated," their opponents, calling the Japanese "paperloving people wearing kimono's who can't properly fly their aircraft," while the Japanese superiors openly admitted, "Americans have 10x the industrial power of Japan [...] for every 1 plane we build, they have the capability to make 10." This is why the famous quote was handed down to all Japanese defenders, "jibun no inochi wo tatsu mae ni, tekihei wo 10 nin korose," which translates roughly to, "before you die, kill 10 enemy soldiers." Up to this point I have only talked of the Russian, Japanese, and briefly, the British forces. There are many others who took part in the war. I believe that the Japanese were the strongest, by far. Although they ultimately lost the war, they're mentality was so powerful, that even at these 10 to 1 odds, they were able to win against the mighty American nation for 1.5 years, and clung onto their own expanded territory for another 3 years. As historian Teimor suggests, "The Japanese soldiers were unsurpassed in skill, [...] their inevitable loss was due to lack of Japan's economic and industrial power," I believe the same. Please, feel free to vent your own comments here, hopefully we can share and exchange ideas.
In my opinion it was the German infantry of the elite divisions. Good in attack and defence, well armed and a very effective soldier. *Moderator* Added More Poll Options - Gnomey
My view is that this is a very difficult question which I do not feel qualified to answer on the information I have read over the past 40 years. Your vote is for the Japanese and you are welcome to your view. If Japan won the war you may have committed Hara-Kiri or to be a bit more formal - Seppuku yourself as you would not have been able to voice that view. "The Strongest Soldier" - Physically (Strength & Adaptability), Mentally, (Emotionally balanced or Unbalanced), Dependant on the circumstances of the battle, the isolation of the habitat, the support, the comraderie and the conditions of the environment. Japanese soldiers were strong mentally & courageous fighters (sometimes stupidly so), however they were also vicious in their execution of indiginous inhabitants whether it be men, woman or children. They showed no mercy even to their Asian brothers to whom they preached unification, and even though they professed outwardly a code of honour, these actions showed they had "No honour" except to themselves and the Tyrannical rule that would follow. This was not strength, it was a form of idealogical brainwashing no different to any crazy sect leader that purports to be the agent of the "whoever" and ask's that they die needlessly. (in Japan's case - it was for the Emperor who liked the idea of Imperialistic rule over most of Asia.) "The Strongest Soldier" - "The Japanese" Could not give you my vote however enjoy the board.
This is very difficult question to answer. Some of the candidates were certainly champions of particular aspects of infantry fighting, however failed miserably at others. I guess it is a matter of weighing up who made the most rounded and complete infantry? I agree that the Japanese were fanatical and courageous fighters on an individual basis when in battle. Unfortunately, as Spidge advises, the fight to the death mentality and related tactics often did Japanese formations far greater harm than good when attempting to achieve objectives during battle. The importance of force preservation was something they underestimated....and paid dearly for. Rgds Tim
I will go for japanese soldiers, master of the jungle,.. they survive without supplies up till 1974,.. yet to discover few left at the Phillipines. In particular those from Kagoshima, the origins of fine warriors from generations highly prise by Gen Kuribayashi. cheers Gumalangi
If memory serves me right there was a guy who insisted that one race was superior to others in all aspects including fighting. I believe his name was Hitler. How do you determine who is the best soldier? Physical strength and ability? Physically fit and unfit usually die from a bullet in about the same way. Mental ability (emotionally balanced and unbalanced)? - Well, from what I've read about WWII, specifically eastern front there very few soldiers that were emotionally balanced. German soldiers at the begining of the war were far better trained than their opponents. Russian soldiers had stronger will. Anyway, I can not really approach the right angle to discuss this question.
Originally posted by hunter07@Jun 22 2005, 04:07 PM If memory serves me right there was a guy who insisted that one race was superior to others in all aspects including fighting. I believe his name was Hitler. [post=35666]Quoted post[/post] think you missed the point, this not about which nation is the best.. but simply which soldiers YOU think could outperform others with your own arguments,.. you might be right i might be wrong, just bring it on whatever it is, be it logical or not,.. As most,.. when we follow stories of WW2,.. at least i do,.. build a certain perception of this better than that,.. or i like this than that... anyway this what forum are for.. cheers
Unfortunately, as Spidge advises, the fight to the death mentality and related tactics often did Japanese formations far greater harm than good when attempting to achieve objectives during battle. The importance of force preservation was something they underestimated....and paid dearly for. [post=35636]Quoted post[/post] [/quote] Of course. At guadalcanal, in a banzai charge, the death ratio of Japanese:American was 3:1. About 3,200 Japanese soldiers death, compared to a rough estimate of 380 American dead, 600+ wounded. It was a grim toll for the Japanese.
Of course. At guadalcanal, in a banzai charge, the death ratio of Japanese:American was 3:1. About 3,200 Japanese soldiers death, compared to a rough estimate of 380 American dead, 600+ wounded. It was a grim toll for the Japanese. [post=35695]Quoted post[/post] [/quote] How about Iwo jima,.. 2400 death to 7000 US marine lost
Originally posted by GUMALANGI+Jun 22 2005, 04:23 PM-->(GUMALANGI @ Jun 22 2005, 04:23 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-hunter07@Jun 22 2005, 04:07 PM If memory serves me right there was a guy who insisted that one race was superior to others in all aspects including fighting. I believe his name was Hitler. [post=35666]Quoted post[/post] think you missed the point, this not about which nation is the best.. but simply which soldiers YOU think could outperform others with your own arguments,.. [post=35667]Quoted post[/post] [/b] It is possible, however, I don't think I missed the poin. I was trying to say that Russian, Germans, Americans, French soldiers are all the same. France lasted only a week against Germans. Does that make French the worst soldiers in WWII? I think soldiers are the same, no matter who they are. They bleed the same, they die the same. I think the correct question would be: which country had the best training? or which country had better resources? or which country had better logistics? or which country had better strategy? According to a couple of books that I've read British used to think that American soldiers were worse than Italians. I think it is completely wrong way of looking at things. Americans were just at a disadvantage because they had Patton on their side. (sorry, could not resist). Something else to remember, there were a lot of different nationalities fighting for Germany: Romanians, Slovaks, Italians, Russian, Ukranians, French. As for the Soviet Union, there were over 200 different nationalities fighting in the Soviet Army: Russians, Ukranians, Kalmiks, Gergians, Chechnians, Polish and so forth. So, how can you determine which soldier is the best? However, as I said, I might be wrong, English is not my native language and I might be misunderstanding the question. But if I had to answer the question as is, I am gonna have to say that Russian soldier is the best. Let me make an analogy. Alekhin, one of the best chess players at the turn of the century, when he was asked, why Russians make such a good chess players, he answer: "Russians are able to make a sacrifice to win at the end". We were able to sacrifice millions of people to win at the end and in my opinion any army that is willing to do so can not be defeated.
I suppose the strongest soldier has to be the smartest and also the luckiest to come out alive. From this angle, he has to be one with well balanced training, with brawn and brains, with initiatives, motivation and importantly knowing when the odds to the cut loss and run. The American soldier!
Originally posted by GUMALANGI+Jun 23 2005, 11:16 AM-->(GUMALANGI @ Jun 23 2005, 11:16 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-ryobreak@Jun 23 2005, 01:11 AM How about Iwo jima,.. 2400 death to 7000 US marine lost [post=35696]Quoted post[/post] [/b] It seems from this that ryobreak posted these figures which as stated below are very much incorrect. The official figures for Iwo Jima show: Of over 20,000 Japanese defenders, only 1,000 were taken prisoner. Casualties to the US Marines were 25,000 casualties, with nearly 7,000 dead. Similar figures to those of Guadalcanal 24,000 Japanese - United States 6,000 Too many on both sides!
Originally posted by spidge+Jun 24 2005, 03:10 AM-->(spidge @ Jun 24 2005, 03:10 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by GUMALANGI@Jun 23 2005, 11:16 AM <!--QuoteBegin-ryobreak@Jun 23 2005, 01:11 AM How about Iwo jima,.. 2400 death to 7000 US marine lost [post=35696]Quoted post[/post] It seems from this that ryobreak posted these figures which as stated below are very much incorrect. The official figures for Iwo Jima show: Of over 20,000 Japanese defenders, only 1,000 were taken prisoner. Casualties to the US Marines were 25,000 casualties, with nearly 7,000 dead. Similar figures to those of Guadalcanal 24,000 Japanese - United States 6,000 Too many on both sides! [post=35733]Quoted post[/post] [/b] I don't remember writing those numbers? The garrison at Iwo Jima, led by Kuribayashi was averaged to number 22,000. Allied bombing and malnutrition caused minor losses before the Americans arrived. I don't remember the exact number, but I believe it was roughly 300+ Japanese soldiers taken prisoner in the battle there. American fatalities were in the 6,000's, and if the wounded were included, the number factored something fairly close to the Japanese troops stationed there. Points of reference-- Mt.Suribachi, 1200 Japanese defenders. After 6 days of fighting 150+ troops retreat, amazingly 58 made it back to friendly lines, although lieutenant Nishi came close to beheading them for being 'cowards,' The meatgrinder was another place of heavy fighting, Kyushu boys (known to be the strongest + headstrong soldiers) protected hill-38, where they held their position for three days.. If the navy was included the American task force numbered over 100,000, compared to the 22,000 Japanese troops dug deep within natural caves + tunnels at Iwo... the outcome of the battle was apparent even before it began. Historically, Iwo Jima was noted as the start of an inland defense- artillery no longer concentrated at stopping the enemy at the beach-- instead the strategy was concentrated more on causing casualties. Okinawa followed similarly-- American troops participating in operation Iceberg were surprised that the beaches were silent.
Spidge, It was GUMALANGI who wrote those numbers, not me. <_< Please don't blame wrong numbers on me, I wouldn't write something (especially numerical figures) if I didn't know them
Originally posted by ryobreak@Jul 29 2005, 12:57 AM Spidge, It was GUMALANGI who wrote those numbers, not me. <_< Please don't blame wrong numbers on me, I wouldn't write something (especially numerical figures) if I didn't know them [post=37022]Quoted post[/post] My apologies. Gumalangi was the culprit.
Strongest? Could this question be more vague? Strongest what? Physical strength? Mental? Weapons? Tactics? Support? This question is laughable as there's so many areas of strength.......
Originally posted by Stich@Aug 9 2005, 05:55 PM Strongest? Could this question be more vague? Strongest what? Physical strength? Mental? Weapons? Tactics? Support? This question is laughable as there's so many areas of strength....... [post=37449]Quoted post[/post] Agree with you wholeheartedly Stich. See my post #3. The poster was pushing his own barrow, looking for a bite and he got a few. Geoff
