Infantry of World War 2

plan_D · 07-20-2005, 07:04 AM

Prior to World War 2 many developments in technology occured which made World War 2 the first "modern" war. Planes zoomed through the skies at speeds reaching 600 mph - tanks and armoured transport carried forth the banner of many militaries and massive aircraft carriers sailed the oceans bringing with them a new era in naval warfare. But what would these massive leaps in military might achieve without the infantry? Nothing.

Infantry is the oldest military "machine" from cavemen beating each other with clubs to, well whatever the future may hold. Infantry is the one arm that cannot and will not be replaced. It can be modernised changing from march to motorised infantry but the man with the club, spear, sword, pike, musket, rifle or assault rifle will always be the man raising the flag above a captured position.

So, in World War 2, who had the supreme infantry formations? Individual natural talent does exist among soldiers but which nation trained their infantry to a point of excellence beyond all others? Which infantry formations inside the nations were the best? Who was the best at what?

Personally, I believe the German infantry to be the best. I have read a lot about their training and their combat actions which lead me to believe they were the supreme combat troops. For anyone who has seen Band of Brothers - imagine the combat prowess of Easy Company in almost every company of the Army, and you've just about got what the Wehrmacht had. The Germans gave better than what they received during World War 2 in terms of losses - with little over 4 million deaths on all fronts. When in equal numbers no Soviet, British or American force on battalion level could hope to defeat the German force.

However the Wehrmacht did have something missing by late 1944 - men. Germany had suffered massively during the war and lost many of it's experienced veterans and able bodied men. So, by the time the Red Army reached Berlin they were fighting old men of the People's Guard or young children of the Hitler Youth - hardly the experienced, well-trained and combat capable men of the yesteryear. Imagine a Berlin defended by the élite infantry that stormed across Poland, France and the Lowlands and Russia in 1939-1941...

...you could count on the Soviet losses being much-much higher.

evangilder · 07-20-2005, 08:08 AM

All the airplanes and ships are great to have and an invaluable asset, but you are right, wars are won with boots on the ground. They have to take, and hold the territory.

At the beginning of the war, the Germans had some of the best men and equipment available. The Blitzkrieg tactics and highly mechanized force coupled with aircraft like the Stuka made for a powerful force that the allies were ill-prepared for. The early war German generals were skilled tacticians who knew how to fully utilize their strengths while not exposing their weaknesses.

The allies did have some skilled generals like Patton and Montgomery later in the war that observed and learned from previous mistakes. The main problem the allies had at the beginning of the war was force stagnation and technical malaise. The allies were also studying the tactics and battles of previous wars, like WWI, where trench warfare were common.

While everyone else was allowing their forces to get smaller and not spending tons of money on their armies and R and D, the Germans were covertly, and in some cases overtly preparing for war. Because of this, they were able to use these strengths to their fullest advantage early on.

It is still hard for me to imagine that a country the size of Germany, could take over almost all of Europe, sections of North Africa and parts of Russia. That says alot for their infantry and military as a whole.

plan_D · 07-20-2005, 08:26 AM

It was an amazing feat, Nazi or not you have to admire the combat prowess of the German nation during World War 2. A common misconception is that Germany had the supreme technological advantage that allowed it to gain all it's victories. While true that Germany was in advance of the Allies and Soviets in rocketry and aerodynamic study, they never achieved victory with their technology. They achieved the real victories of 1939-1941 with inferior equipment!

The Werhmacht was well equipped for a Blitzkrieg type war. That was the only war that would secure victory for Germany and the High Command knew it. The whole idea of an Armoured (Panzer) Division with everything sub-ordinate to the tank was new and farout in 1936 but because of people like Heinz Guderian these formations were in existence in 1939 and they were the winning factors. With close infantry support the armour provided the breakthrough, encirclement and ultimately victory.

During the French campaign there was one unit in the Wehrmacht that was an excellent infantry formation. Fully motorised (in a time when only the ten Panzer Divisions were motorised); these three infantry regiments handed many great defeats to the Allies. The SS-VT (which would become the dreaded Waffen-SS) were only three regiments during the Fall Gelb but they provided invaluble service and secured their place in history as an excellent military organisation despite the fact that they're shrouded in myth about their policy. They probably were the greatest formation in the war when fully equipped.

It is quite hard to believe how Germany managed it - but manage it they did and it was excellent co-operation between man and machine that did it.

evangilder · 07-20-2005, 08:36 AM

I believe that alot of it had to do with superior tactics. One big advantage the Germans had was with airpower. They learned alot during the Spanish Civil War that enable Luftwaffe crews to gain valuable experience. They also realized that if you control the skies, you can control the battle. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I don't think they could have adequately prepared for the massive amount of bomber formations.

plan_D · 07-20-2005, 08:41 AM

They also realised that aircraft had to be ready to attack on area anytime and anywhere. All formations had an air liason officer to call in air support within minutes. The Allies in 1944-'45 perfected the same system by having aircraft continually circling above the battlefields ready to go down on a call.

I've got some opinions of the different nations' infantry - I'll try and find them. One is of the British take on the Japanese and the rest are of the German opinion of the Soviet, American and British troops.

Glider · 07-20-2005, 01:15 PM

Like most my money is on the Germans as being the best. PlanD if you could find those opinions it would be very interesting, in particular the Germans views of the others.

plan_D · 07-20-2005, 01:19 PM

I'm in the process of finding them. They're short but still quite interesting.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-20-2005, 02:55 PM

I think the main problem of the Wehrmacht was that they were spread to thin and they could not recover from there losses like the allies could.

wmaxt · 07-20-2005, 04:30 PM

I think both Plan_D and adler pretty much said it. At the start of the war the German soldier was the best and the tactics were also very good. The problem in the war was that Hitler thought tacticly not strategicaly, blinded by his own ego. Around mid '44 the Allies had gained a lot of experiance, people like Patton were in place at the same time the most experianced Germans were much fewer and their support was less effective allowing the Allies to at least match their combat effectivness.

I also think this was matched by the Japanese in the PTO/CBI where they were effective until the Allies caught up.

wmaxt

plan_D · 07-20-2005, 06:39 PM

I don't believe the Allied infantry matched up to German infantry even in the late war months. German troops were under a fascist regime and it was victory or death much like in the Soviet Union but German troops were actually good in combat and didn't foolishly throw away lives. What that did do though was make them aggressive and aggression often saves more lives than it costs - tell that to the soldier on the ground though and he'll say "I don't care - I just don't want to get shot" he's naturally cautious.

Allied Generals never matched their German counter-parts. Almost all Allied Generals were egotisical and always against each other - which often caused a breakdown in the war effort. The British and Americans did not get along too well during that war - which affected strategy. Alexander was probably the best Allied Commander in the ETO.

I don't think the Japanese infantry were massively impressive overall. They were excellent in the actions prior to combat but in actual combat they were often clumsy - although tactically they had some decent generals and often moved for the flank almost with pure instinct.

If the Allies had an a Manstein with troops like the Waffen-SS, the war could have been won in 1944.

The closest the Allies had as frontline units comparable to German units were in the USAC - the Rangers and Airborne. In the British Army the Marines and Airborne.

The British were the experts of guerilla warfare and special forces though. No one matched them - they had the SOE, SAS, Commandos, LRDG and Chindits. Although the Chindits were ordinary soldiers but I don't know where to place them because they were not just part of the army as such - they were just all taken from the army. Plus, they never fought the Germans...

evangilder · 07-21-2005, 08:10 AM

You raise a good point, d. There was alot of in-fighting amongst the allied commanders. Patton and Montgomery were always competing for resources. It is amazing that Ike was able to hold it together with all of the problems. But what is good is that during the North Africa campaign, new tactics were developed for communication and command and control to allow joint operations that were used for the rest of the war.

While the allies made the best of it and were able to achieve victory, there were often times when things were clumsy and improvisational. Being able to adapt and proceed was a good thing for the allies. Unfortunately, experimentation in combat can be deadly.

plan_D · 07-21-2005, 12:39 PM

Eisenhower did an excellent job as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe - he wasn't a good tactician (far from it) but he held together the Allied forces in North West Europe at a time when the whole world knew the alliance was close to cracking.

Cracking the Alliance on the ground and in the minds of the commanders was the point of Wacht Am Rhein. A lot was learnt in North Africa but unfortunately a lot had been forgotten or cast aside in North-West Europe.

Above Divisional level - command was appalling, especially the supply command. They cast aside the lessons of exploitation and the inter-service and inter-commander revialry was something that made the North-West campaign possibly one the worst military campaigns (in my opinion). It was a certain victory from the start and they were handed victory on a plate time and time again - and they never gripped it.

One fine example is the Ardennes Offensive; three German Armies punched through U.S 1st Armys line and aimed to cut off Antwerp and split the U.S and British forces. Many German commanders knew it would not work, they did not have the reserves to exploit the success. With another Panzer Armee behind what they used, they could have won but they didn't. Even Patton said "Let them drive all the way to Paris, we'll just cut them off at the back" but what did happen? They got drove a wedge and then were exhausted and halted. In no defensable positions at all and Eisenhower pushes the bulge out instead of cutting it off at the back. U.S 3rd Army and British 2nd Army could have met on the East side of the Ardennes and trapped enough German troops and equipment to make Stalingrad look like a local action!

evangilder · 07-21-2005, 12:47 PM

Yep, that is a very good example of letting a major operation get away. Encirclement and capture would have been the perfect way to stop that offensive. Plus it would have taken alot of those Wehmacht soldiers out of the war instead of letting them retreat to fight again.

CharlesBronson · 07-21-2005, 08:55 PM

Quote:

I don't think the Japanese infantry were massively impressive overall. They were excellent in the actions prior to combat but in actual combat they were often clumsy - although tactically they had some decent generals and often moved for the flank almost with pure instinct.

I always tough that the japanese fighting spirit and equipement ( like val, A6M) was completely overrated.

If look at the infantry , the japs are fighting with a 1890s rifle the 6,5 Arisaka, and other litle more modern of 7,7 mm, making logistic hard.

The infantry MG was in little cuantity and quality, even the submachinesguns are not present.

The war crimes and atrocities comited by the Katana armed officers are only comparable with the SS Einzatzgruppe and even worst.

The all samurai bullshit and the alleged "code of honour" of this asian soldiers concealed in many ways this poor perfomance in fighting, lack of iniciative of his commanders and others severe faults.

plan_D · 07-21-2005, 09:09 PM

I think you're downplaying the Japanese a little too much there. The Japanese soldier as an individual was a determined, deadly and obidient soldier.

Some Allied PoWs even believed that the Japanese soldier was treat more harshly than themselves when they saw them marching past them on the roads. Massive packs which weighed, sometimes, over 100 lbs on the small frame of a Japanese soldier was something to marvel. They had to be pulled up when they sat down due to the huge weight.

They were remarkable at night marches and were able to fight well in the jungle. They were also good a living off the land - they would hunt, fish and forage in the jungle for food.

As a unit they weren't the best, far from it. The battalion, regimental and divsional commanders had a good sense of battlefield tactics. They were good tacticians and, as I said before, went for the flank almost by instinct. Below that though, they lacked a certain edge, they were clumsy in combat.

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.

If you read about the Japanese in Burma and India, there's quite a lot of differing views from great to clumsy. I cannot quite make up my mind about them.