Who were the best soldiers of World War Two?

I think the Russians were the best soldiers because they showed no fear in death orsorrow for the enemy, they protected their nation in a manner that was never witnessed before in the annals of history. They were able to resist and destroy the largest invasion in history,meanwhile caught by suprise, terror and quick loss of territory.Yet from 1943-45, the Red Army was every inch the Wehrmacht ever was, even more.

Max Hoffman: "Russians... they are fanatics, not men, but some kind of cast iron creatures. They never get tired, and are not afraid of fire."

US and some of the finest were Lee Marvin and Captain Kangaroo (that's the truth)

The Germans pwned....the SS was uber pwnage...it took the entire world to take down the Germans and even then it was difficult

The worst would def have to be the Russians...due to the fact that it was their strength in materiel that won them the war

Well Russians were the worst... probably a toss up between germans, americans, and british. The British Royal Air Force kicked German arse.

The US had a good army, but really all the Americans did was fight/chase vastly outnumbered German forces...not to mention that they had air supremacy...id say the English and Canadians were much more efficient soldiers

The US had a good army, but really all the Americans did was fight/chase vastly outnumbered German forces...not to mention that they had air supremacy...id say the English and Canadians were much more efficient soldiers

Solid_Snake56

Well Russians were the worst... probably a toss up between germans, americans, and british. The British Royal Air Force kicked German arse.

Jfisch93

I'd say that the RAF beating the Luftwaffe was more due to the incompetence of the German high command then the quality of the actual airforce

I am gonna give it to the USA because they played a major roll in driving the Germans out of France and the surrounding countries. They also took on the Japanese, who expected to die in combat.WarEagle1357

Well the Russians could have won the war by themselves by 1942...it was just a matter of time.

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake56"]

The US had a good army, but really all the Americans did was fight/chase vastly outnumbered German forces...not to mention that they had air supremacy...id say the English and Canadians were much more efficient soldiers

Engrish_Major

If you look at certain instances...it is clear that the American soldier was not even close to being on the same level as the Germans

How were Russians the 'worst'? Out of the 27 million Soviet casualties, 'only' 8,67 million were soldiers. Total Axis dead on the Eastern Front were 7, 98 million, consider also the cowardly intervention of the non-aggression pact, German military superiority in the beginning of the war, many anti-Communist movements and high, surprised Soviet casualties in the beginning of the war. The Russians destroyed 75-80% of the Third Reich in both military and territory wise. The Russians were the best, and had legendary artillery I might add. Not even close to how bad the Japanese or Americans were; Americans had the highest friendly casualties than any other country in the war.

it depends, imo the germans were the best at the start of the war until about 1943 as by then most of the best soldiers were either dead or pow's,

the british were probably the consistently best soldiers and holding off the germans for as long as they did is a testament to this,

the russians were pretty meh soldiers but there were a lot of them and they struck the winning blows against the germans,

americans weren't exceptional soldiers but they were brave and well trained and their were a lot of them,

the japanese were great at ambush tactics and guerrilla warfare but in open battles they weren't the best,

and where are the australians, yes we didn't have a huge army or that well trained, however we were instrumental in the victory in africa and we were the first to beat off a japanese invasion and played a major role in the pacific war

All the Russians did was send out constant waves of disposible soldiers. Every other soldier got a gun, and the soldiers inbetween got the ammo.

[QUOTE="WarEagle1357"]I am gonna give it to the USA because they played a major roll in driving the Germans out of France and the surrounding countries. They also took on the Japanese, who expected to die in combat.Solid_Snake56

Well the Russians could have won the war by themselves by 1942...it was just a matter of time.

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake56"]

[QUOTE="WarEagle1357"]I am gonna give it to the USA because they played a major roll in driving the Germans out of France and the surrounding countries. They also took on the Japanese, who expected to die in combat.WarEagle1357

Well the Russians could have won the war by themselves by 1942...it was just a matter of time.

How were Russians the 'worst'? Out of the 27 million Soviet casualties, 'only' 8,67 million were soldiers. Total Axis dead on the Eastern Front were 7, 98 million, consider also the cowardly intervention of the non-aggression pact, German military superiority in the beginning of the war, many anti-Communist movements and high, surprised Soviet casualties in the beginning of the war. The Russians destroyed 75-80% of the Third Reich in both military and territory wise. The Russians were the best, and had legendary artillery I might add. Not even close to how bad the Japanese or Americans were; Americans had the highest friendly casualties than any other country in the war.

SlavaOtechestvo

Well the Russian soldiers were mindless automatons

All the Russians did was send out constant waves of disposible soldiers. Every other soldier got a gun, and the soldiers inbetween got the ammo.

Jfisch93

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake56"]

[QUOTE="WarEagle1357"]I am gonna give it to the USA because they played a major roll in driving the Germans out of France and the surrounding countries. They also took on the Japanese, who expected to die in combat.WarEagle1357

Well the Russians could have won the war by themselves by 1942...it was just a matter of time.

Not the case....they had an enormous amount of supplies and the working force to boot

[QUOTE="Jfisch93"]

All the Russians did was send out constant waves of disposible soldiers. Every other soldier got a gun, and the soldiers inbetween got the ammo.

SlavaOtechestvo

Ummm your using an offensive that occured in 1945 as an example...the Germans were outnumbered 10 to 1 so I think thats inaccurate

[QUOTE="Jfisch93"]

All the Russians did was send out constant waves of disposible soldiers. Every other soldier got a gun, and the soldiers inbetween got the ammo.

SlavaOtechestvo

And no the human wave is not a western myth....its complete fact...NOT ONE STEP BACK

[QUOTE="SlavaOtechestvo"][QUOTE="Jfisch93"]

All the Russians did was send out constant waves of disposible soldiers. Every other soldier got a gun, and the soldiers inbetween got the ammo.

Solid_Snake56

Ummm your using an offensive that occured in 1945 as an example...the Germans were outnumbered 10 to 1 so I think thats inaccurate

Also where are you getting these numbers?....

[QUOTE="SlavaOtechestvo"]

How were Russians the 'worst'? Out of the 27 million Soviet casualties, 'only' 8,67 million were soldiers. Total Axis dead on the Eastern Front were 7, 98 million, consider also the cowardly intervention of the non-aggression pact, German military superiority in the beginning of the war, many anti-Communist movements and high, surprised Soviet casualties in the beginning of the war. The Russians destroyed 75-80% of the Third Reich in both military and territory wise. The Russians were the best, and had legendary artillery I might add. Not even close to how bad the Japanese or Americans were; Americans had the highest friendly casualties than any other country in the war.

Well the Russian soldiers were mindless automatons

i cant tell you b/c i wasnt there. that war was determined by technology not so much by one side having amazing soldiers. but the cake goes to germany. they were fighting everybody with their limited resources and owned most of europe

[QUOTE="WarEagle1357"][QUOTE="Solid_Snake56"]

Well the Russians could have won the war by themselves by 1942...it was just a matter of time.

Jfisch93

Well it also could be the fact that they had huge industrial output

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake56"]

[QUOTE="SlavaOtechestvo"] =I cannot believe how you define life through video-games. That is mere B.S, the Russian human-wave attack is just a Western myth. Look at Vistula Oder offensive or look at Jassy Kishinev Offensive, where Soviets lost 13,000 while germans lost 250,000. Look at Bagration offensive, where Germans lost 4 times as many people as Soviets. In the end of the war, Germans were killed 2.4 times more often on average than Soviets.Solid_Snake56

Ummm your using an offensive that occured in 1945 as an example...the Germans were outnumbered 10 to 1 so I think thats inaccurate

Also where are you getting these numbers?....

So what if this offensive was in '45 or '44? German military advances in Russia were in 41-early 42, when Russians were unprepared, under-equipped, out-numberedand unorganized for wartime. Even by 1943, there were more Germans in Russia than Russian troops.

british and americans then the ss

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake56"]

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake56"]

Ummm your using an offensive that occured in 1945 as an example...the Germans were outnumbered 10 to 1 so I think thats inaccurate

SlavaOtechestvo

Also where are you getting these numbers?....

So what if this offensive was in '45 or '44? German military advances in Russia were in 41-early 42, when Russians were unprepared, under-equipped, out-numberedand unorganized for wartime. Even by 1943, there were more Germans in Russia than Russian troops.

Very wrong

[QUOTE="SlavaOtechestvo"]

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake56"]

Also where are you getting these numbers?....

Solid_Snake56

So what if this offensive was in '45 or '44? German military advances in Russia were in 41-early 42, when Russians were unprepared, under-equipped, out-numberedand unorganized for wartime. Even by 1943, there were more Germans in Russia than Russian troops.

Very wrong

So correct me then. Stating something without logisitical back-up is the equivelant of running out of arguements.

[QUOTE="SlavaOtechestvo"]

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake56"]

Also where are you getting these numbers?....

Solid_Snake56

So what if this offensive was in '45 or '44? German military advances in Russia were in 41-early 42, when Russians were unprepared, under-equipped, out-numberedand unorganized for wartime. Even by 1943, there were more Germans in Russia than Russian troops.

Very wrong

Surely it has to be Britian.

At a point where they (And there Empire/former teritories)were the only country at war with Germany and managed to Win the Battle of Britian against superior numbers.

The Royal Navy winning decisive battles.

And they managed to push the Germans from Africa before america had entered the war.

(Also if this was WW1 the 36th Ulster Division would have won)

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake56"]

[QUOTE="SlavaOtechestvo"]

So what if this offensive was in '45 or '44? German military advances in Russia were in 41-early 42, when Russians were unprepared, under-equipped, out-numberedand unorganized for wartime. Even by 1943, there were more Germans in Russia than Russian troops.

SlavaOtechestvo

Very wrong

So correct me then. Stating something without logisitical back-up is the equivelant of running out of arguements.

Man...your pulling numbers from out of nowhere...im a history PHD and im telling you...with the italian front opening up...the loss of 250,000 troops in Africa greatly reduced German field formations so in 1943 when the Russians were able to rotate units from the front...trading battered units for fresh units that had time to re fit in the hinterland the Germans were using consistently outgunned forces and you have to remember that the German economy did not get to total war footing until 1944...Russian production of war materiel greatly outstripped that of Germany.

[QUOTE="Jfisch93"]

All the Russians did was send out constant waves of disposible soldiers. Every other soldier got a gun, and the soldiers inbetween got the ammo.

SlavaOtechestvo

I give it to the germans, at the start of the war, they were an impressive force, seen from a militery standpoint, fast, effective and determined. The Solders may not have had as much training as the German, but they refused defeat, which is quite admirable...

The English is held about as high in my book, Europe fell and Britain withstood, they had some awesome solders, and thier civiliens were pretty hard aswell ;)

3rd place I would give to the US, mostly for the war against Japan, and thier efforts in Afrika.

The worst major faction in ww2 I give to the Russians, they were not bad, but unlike most other factions they were often used as human shields, to delay the Germans.

Some guy picked some interresting numbers, that was absolutely void of 1943-mid 44. We all know that the russians eventually turned the tide on the Germans, but up till then they pretty much got wasted... Bad... But what could you expect? most Russian soldiers was conscripts without army training, and they did not have enough material to wage war with for most of the war, cant help but to admire such determination

And I think the number of Dead Russian Soldiers were pretty close to 10 mill, opposed to the germans and thier supposed 5,5 mill (includes eastern/western/african fronts)

They had some amazing enginers tho O.o how many tanks was it they could produce a dayat the end of the war? 10? 15? higher?

The US had a good army, but really all the Americans did was fight/chase vastly outnumbered German forces...not to mention that they had air supremacy...id say the English and Canadians were much more efficient soldiers

the ones who lived.

As far as the German "superiority" goes, I will put it like this; If you are at the bar and just go up and punch somebody in the face without them expecting it (suprise attack), you will probably win the fight (unless you are really weak) = early German advantage. However, if you go around punching everyone, eventually someone is going to see it coming and be ready for it and eventually you will run out of steam.rawsavon

That's a really linear way of looking at it

[QUOTE="SlavaOtechestvo"]

[QUOTE="Solid_Snake56"]

Very wrong

Solid_Snake56

So correct me then. Stating something without logisitical back-up is the equivelant of running out of arguements.

Man...your pulling numbers from out of nowhere...im a history PHD and im telling you...with the italian front opening up...the loss of 250,000 troops in Africa greatly reduced German field formations so in 1943 when the Russians were able to rotate units from the front...trading battered units for fresh units that had time to re fit in the hinterland the Germans were using consistently outgunned forces and you have to remember that the German economy did not get to total war footing until 1944...Russian production of war materiel greatly outstripped that of Germany.

I more than doubt you have any history experience since the German field formations were already getting hammeredbylate1941and early 1942 at the Moscow outskirts. And no, there were entire marshal divisions that marched from the front to Berlin without any sort of regeneration whatsoever. The Russians simply launched a large, two pathed war machine going Westwards with losses far smaller thanthe Germans'.

Russia's ability to outproduce the Germans in a skilled fasion showed their technical superiority - simplicity. This factor is why Russian military hardware was the best. As in the words of Georgi Shpagin, "complexity is easy; simplicity is difficult".

The Germans pwned....the SS was uber pwnage...it took the entire world to take down the Germans and even then it was difficult

Solid_Snake56

I was watching a documentary and it said the SS were the least experienced and had the most causualties because they were crazy fanatics and wouldnt surrender