Infantry of World War 2

[CharlesBronson]

I think you're downplaying the Japanese a little too much there

Maybe, but that is my way of thinking.

They were remarkable at night marches and were able to fight well in the jungle

But even in this combat ground was machted and defeated by the Chindits and Marauders.

They were also good a living off the land - they would hunt, fish and forage in the jungle for food.

yea, I have to agree, some living off the land to 1960s.

They were certainly determined though! A unit of Japanese would lay down and die before giving up the land they held. They were also fercious but after 1942 this worked against them. The Banzai charge was soon overcame when the Allied troops were taught not to fear it. This made the Banzai Charge merely target practice for the Allied gunners.

...And that is what I am talking about, there is a deference between be brave, courageos and being fatalistic about your future.
The so-call banzai charge is only other of the imbecilic and non-inteligents japanese fighting tactics.

[plan_D]

The Marauders and Chindits were excellent fighting units - some of the best in the war. They were used well tactically as well and a lot of experience was gained while they were in the jungle.

The Chindits were created under the idea of 'The Japanese are great at fighting in the jungle, marching in the jungle and living in the jungle but we're going to train you to be better at all of them!'

The Marauders were only one regiment too, that's little over 3,000 men. Not exactly the whole army, they were a specialised long range penertration group. The whole Japanese Army was capable of actions like that.

[trackend]

The problem with the Japanese tactics was it instilled an if I'm caught I'm dead ideal amongst its opponent's so in situations such as Kohema or the Pacific Islands the allied forces out fought the Japanese and refused to give ground ending up with actions like the battle of the tennis courts because they knew to pack in was a death sentence the Japanese wasted too many of their troops in one off attacks as did the Russians Zhukov was not a great commander he would be willing to loose hundreds of thousands of his men to obtain his objective. Eisenhower as you say PD was not a great tactician but without him winning the European campaign would have been a very dodgy affair his ability to hold the alliance together with primadoners like Monty and Patton floating about and Churchill poking his useless tactical nose in can never be over stated Ike was vital to the success of the campaign.
I think it is not recognized just how close things got In the Ardene's to a catastrophe my old man was given a cross roads to cover with a Lewis gun, to pull naval personnel ashore for soldiering duties means the situation was very serious indeed.
As for the best troops Its a hard call overall I would tend to agree that the German Infantry in general was probably the best of the infantry but not perfect there command structure was a bit too ridged and removing the command line tended to have a more profound effect than in some other forces.
I also agree with you D that the prowess of the Japanese as jungle fighters was matched and bettered by many troops including the Marauders, Gurkha's ,and Chindits.
Each army had its pluses and faults the Japanese had fanatical obedience but this did not make them a better soldier in my opinion.
As a foot note (one thing that they became well known for was there skill and use of 50mm knee mortars, a very effective weapon)

The US undoubtedly had the finest logistics of any force if the Germans had the same it would have been goodbye Europe and Russia in double quick time fortunately they did not.

So to pick the best infantry is not easy many had bravery but not the skills at the beginning of the war and it was a case of learn or die this was what made many infantrymen stand out, the learning process was extremely quick and combat hardened troops stood out from the new intake like sore thumbs. six weeks basic combat training is not as effective as 1 hour of the real mc Coy so by later in the war the German army began to consist of raw recruits, kids and old men (basically civvies wearing uniforms) going up against battle hardened veterans who had fought across Europe or the Russian plains.

Specialised fighting units are a different subject in my opinion.

[plan_D]

"...Zhukov was not a great commander..."

I disagree, I believe that Marshal Zhukov was a great commander. He excelled in armoured warfare and was very quick to exploit any breakthrough. He was mobile and was willing to use his resources to the full.

The Red Army was always willing to give up life for land. Zhukov was merely a product of his culture, it's hardly suprising that he threw in men like they were nothing. He did, however, grasp the idea of warfare; maybe not as good as his German counter-parts but he did. You also have to look at the pre-war actions at Khalkin-Gol where Zhukov soundly defeated the Japanese with a classic pincer movement of his fast armour.

" Eisenhower as you say PD was not a great tactician but without him winning the European campaign would have been a very dodgy affair his ability to hold the alliance together with primadoners like Monty and Patton floating about and Churchill poking his useless tactical nose in can never be over stated Ike was vital to the success of the campaign."

I couldn't agree more. Eisenhower was a diplomat and an excellent one at that. I could think of no great feat that quelling the egos of both Montgomery and Patton while keeping the war on track. He would have probably made the name of best commander in history if he had some tactical ability but no one can be perfect. I also do agree that the campaign in North-West Europe might have been a little different had Eisenhower not been there to throw water on the Allied High Command fire.

"I think it is not recognized just how close things got In the Ardene's to a catastrophe my old man was given a cross roads to cover with a Lewis gun, to pull naval personnel ashore for soldiering duties means the situation was very serious indeed."

I think it's thrown completely out of proportion to be honest. The Wehrmacht had no chance to defeat the Allied army with the Ardennes Offensive. They lacked the vital reserves to exploit any breakthrough. The bulge might look big on a map but if you take into account the fact that there was nothing behind that bulge, it's really just an invitation to be encircled.

Montgomery had already moved some of U.S 9th Army to cover the River Meuse anyway, so if 1st Army did completely collapse the Germans would have had to drive over the Meuse which 9th Army was covering - then by some miracle manage to hold off U.S 3rd Army and 21st Army Group counter-attacks. It wasn't going to happen.

It is amazing that the only people that actually paniced were Allied High Command except a few. Patton would have let the Werhmacht drive all the way on to Paris, if they wanted. He knew they had nothing left.

"As for the best troops Its a hard call overall I would tend to agree that the German Infantry in general was probably the best of the infantry but not perfect there command structure was a bit too ridged and removing the command line tended to have a more profound effect than in some other forces."

I've heard the opposite. The German infantry were just as remarkable as individuals as they were with units. Take Operation Market Garden for example; the German units in Arnhem and Oosterbeek were caught completely off-guard yet without any official command the units there managed to fight British 1st Airborne to a point where they had no chance of success.

They didn't even organise into company or platoon strength. They just went out from wherever they were and headed to the sound of shooting. Lone German troops would just march to the action and dive in the line - they didn't need an officer prodding them in the back all the way.

Overall the German infantry had the advantage of being in a fascist culture. They were willing to die but were well educated [in combat] enough to not throw away their life in senseless charges (like the Red Army or Japanese). Where Allied troops would have surrendered, the German carried on fighting.
In an encirclement the Wehrmacht were the best. Even in 1944-1945 if the Soviets were encircled (or just shocked for that matter) they would surrender, their morale was extremely low even in times of victory! It was easily broken, and they were easily cracked.

There are many German encirclements, which are remarkable. If you read the state of the man and machine, it's just amazing they held on. Often they could have broken out but Hitler ordered no retreat, a shame for them really.

"I also agree with you D that the prowess of the Japanese as jungle fighters was matched and bettered by many troops including the Marauders, Gurkha's ,and Chindits."

No doubt about it. They had to be superior to the Japanese at their own game, it was the only way the Chindits and Marauders had any chance of victory. Interestingly enough only 3rd Battalion of the Marauders were any good at the start, they were seasoned veterans from the Pacific. 1st and 2nd Battalion were made up of the lowest population in the USAC.

"Each army had its pluses and faults the Japanese had fanatical obedience but this did not make them a better soldier in my opinion.
As a foot note (one thing that they became well known for was there skill and use of 50mm knee mortars, a very effective weapon)"

I agree. Their suicide fantasy of giving their life for the emperor often cost the Japanese Army more than if they had accepted defeat and retreated. It was basically what Hitler was doing to the Wehrmacht, the only countries able to hold land to the last man and pull it off are countries with massive amounts of manpower e.g China, Soviet Union and India.

The Japanese were very good at bringing all kinds of weapons to bare at once. The Japanese were extremely good at concealment and often in an ambush there would be everything ranging from a LMG to mortar to 75 mm infantry cannon. It gives the impression of more than there actually are.

The Japanese were mostly let down by their poor equipment, I think. And lack of unit action. Of course they acted as a unit but I've never read anything of unit support for one another, they fought as individuals on the ground like they did in the air.

"The US undoubtedly had the finest logistics of any force if the Germans had the same it would have been goodbye Europe and Russia in double quick time fortunately they did not."

They had the biggest economy, they certainly did not have an efficient supply system. The North-West campaign was a shining of example of poor supply. The advanced of the Allied armies often halted soley due to lack of supply. It was also a case of discipline, the U.S Army had a severe lack of discipline.

The Wehrmacht were extremely efficient in getting supply to the front quickly at the start of the war but with Allied air power destroying anything that moved, it was tad harder in 1944-1945.

"... German army began to consist of raw recruits, kids and old men (basically civvies wearing uniforms) going up against battle hardened veterans who had fought across Europe or the Russian plains"

And they still gave the Allied and Soviet armies a hard time. The Allies were not willing to sacrifice life, no matter how battle-hardened they became they weren't aggressive, they were scared of tanks and they were too cautious.

A whole Allied column would often be stopped by a blocking position of 20 men, one FlaK 88 mm and a StuK40 because the infantry leading the advance stopped everything. If they had a little more tactical mind they could have just out-flanked the blocking position because the Germans never covered their rear against the Allies because they knew the Allies would not out-flank them!

"Specialised fighting units are a different subject in my opinion."

What do you consider specialised? SOE, SAS, LRDG etc? They were specialised and the best in the war, in my opinion.

The Chindits weren't specialised, they were just excellent combat troops. And I'm proud that my Grandad served with them (had to throw that in there) It's the same for the Waffen-SS (who had over 100,000 troops at one point). The Airborne, Rangers and Marines weren't specialised either. And I'm talking about the Royal Marines not the U.S Marines. The U.S Marines were equals to their Army counter-parts, the Royal Marines were more experienced and well trained.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I believe one thing that hurt the German Infantry and the rest of the Wehrmacht was the fact that the Field Commanders had no complete control over there forces. Everything was governed by The Party. Before a German Field Marschal or Commander could exploint something on the battlefield to his advantage it had to be approved by the OKW and higher.

Anyhow I just bought and recieved a 10 book set call the Journal of Ober Kommando der Wehrmacht. It completely covers the whole war based off of actual reports from the Wehrmacht. It includes day to day situation reports and battle reports including actual copies of the reports. It should be interesting to get some info from these books. It covers 1939 to 1945.

[trackend]

So how would you class the Army Commandos D each had to pass a very stiff selection but in terms of numbers it ran into several battalions all had high unarmed combat and self sufficientcy skills and specilist covert or raiding abilitys.
Inverary was a highly regarded although extremely dangerous training course.
To me these where the elite British force during WW2 as they where a large enough group to take on the Germans head on but also skilled enough to operate in small unit covert or raiding operations. this made them formidable all round soldiers.

For the Germans I would go for the Paratroops all selected for fitness and physical abilities and excellent combat troops tough, skilled and in my opinion the equal too any allied units.

I have always liked the US 29th rangers having trained alongside the British Commandos at Achnacarry they fought alongside and carried out many raids with and without the Commandos proving themselves to be troops of the highest order and effectivness,and there cliff scaling abilitys became a speciality un matched by any other units.

The SOE had some extremely efficient and courageous operatives the bravest generally being the radio operators due to the incredible almost suicidle risks they ran for each transmition.

[Glider]

PLan D your last post was first class. Hard to disagree with any of it and it sums things up pretty well.

[plan_D]

I don't consider the Commandos a specialised force because, as you mentioned, they were in large enough numbers to take the enemy head-on. They landed on the beaches on D-Day and were an Army fighting unit, just like the Airborne.

They were extremely effective in combat and were the élite along with the Airborne. The British Army is difficult to generalise because different regiments have different cultures, as it were. The whole idea of the same people from the same area joining the same regiment gives a sense of competition, which makes each regiment different from the next.

As I said earlier, the Allied equals to the German infantry were the U.S and British Airborne, Commando and Ranger units. The majority of the U.S and British Army were too cautious making them less effective soldiers.

The Fallschirmjager were élite and were extremely effective and brutal soldiers. The Fallschirm and Waffen-SS were the two élite sections of the German fighting machine. I think the stand made at Monte Cassino is enough to make the Fallschirm go down in history as a great fighting unit.
There was also a SS-Fallschirmjager battalion but don't let the name fool you, they weren't élite. It was a penal battalion.

The SOE were remarkable and definately worth mentioning. Extremely brave and skilled, they were certainly a great asset to the Allied war effort. The most famous SOE action has to be the destruction of the Heavy Water plant in Telemark...

People often forget the SAS beyond North Africa, I find. The SAS were in action far ahead of the Allied forces in North West Europe causing havoc among German supply lines. They were remarkable soldiers also, extremely aggressive and brave.

Thank you, Glider. You get me going I just can't stop!

[Glider]

Don't tell the wife

[plan_D]

Is she missing out?

I had to recover, you sick &"*%£"!

[trackend]

The Commandos did a lot more than land on D-day, D ( St Nazair was not a big unit action)

[plan_D]

I was using D-Day as an example of their full unit strength actions.

[P38 Pilot]

Personally I think some of the best divisions we had here in the US were the Paratroopers. 101st and 82nd had to be the best of the best. And about the Japanese infantry, thats all they had were Banzai tactics. Using crappy weapons like that. They didnt even have proper SMGs! I dont think they spent a lot of time on their Land Armies but instead on their Naval Fleets and somewhat aircraft.

I think the Germans had the best infantry overral. But when it comes down too power, size, and reliable weapons, the United States had the upperhand in Europe and the Pacific.

[evangilder]

Ever heard of the 17th Airborne? The were in the largest and most successful aiborne invasion in history. The British 6th Airborne was also part of that. It was called Operation Varsity. This is an operation that is mostly forgotten in WWII history. If it was better known, the 17th would be as famous as the 82nd and 101st, if not moreso.

[plan_D]

I already mentioned the best of the U.S being Airborne and Rangers. Of course, my Airborne would include all the U.S Airborne not just the famous 82nd and 101st. Operation Varsity, the drop on the Rhine - it didn't go as well as planned but it worked.

P38, go tell people fighting in the jungles of Burma that all the Japanese had was the Banzai charge. The Japanese were masters of concealment, night marching and self-reliance. Matters of war are not simply the combat, it's getting into combat and being able to get out of combat.

Reliable weapons, the U.S? What makes the U.S weapons more reliable the German weapons? It's alright being patriotic but really, don't go over the top or you're not going to learn anything.