ALL HAIL........THE GLORIOUS WEHRMACHT

Asromanista2001 SG

i remember reading articles written by US and UK military historians and officers and they all agreed that the German soldier was the best of WW1 and 2............

in WW2..........they reckon 1 German soldier is worth 4-5 Russian ones..........

the Brits came in 2nd i think...........followed by the Yankees...........

### i think the most Goddamned useless were the Italians...........simply no guts............the Japs have the guts but not the skills..............

weasel1962 SG

Doesn't say much.

In the Russo-Finnish war of ww2, Finland inflicted 5-1 losses on Russia with barely any foreign aid, whilst outnumbered 100-200 to 1 in terms of tanks and aircraft.

That would make the Finns more effective than the Germans.

Such comparisons are meaningless. The Italians eg Ariete division were a lot more effective under Rommel. And the Japanese inflicted the biggest defeat in British history by taking Singapore.

We're lucky the Italians did not have the stomach for war. If they had taken Egypt and the Middle East in 1940/41, we would now be speaking Japanese.

Asromanista2001 SG

don't forget the Finns had military help from Germany plus the Russians reserved their best to fight the Germans.......

S'pore was a giveaway by the Brits...........most of the best men and weapons are in Europe so walkover for the Japs...........

the Italians have proven they're only good for designing fanciful cars and clothes and play football................fancy kana whacked by Ethiopians armed with bows and arrows...........

the Germans are undoubtedly the best............helping the Austrians against Russia and Italy in WW1............and helping the Italians in WW2.............

if the Italians were as good as the Germans.....................the good guys would have won WW2.....

Sepecat SG

Generally most of the soldiers in the various nations in WW2 fought hard and valiantly. However, many times it is the leadership ( or lack of ) which failed the soldiers.

Remember that there is no such such thing as a lousy soldier ; only lousy generals.

I-like-flings(m) SG

Generally most of the soldiers in the various nations in WW2 fought hard and valiantly. However, many times it is the leadership ( or lack of ) which failed the soldiers.

Remember that there is no such such thing as a lousy soldier ; only lousy generals.

u talking about Liu Bei right? haha...

weasel1962 SG

don't forget the Finns had military help from Germany plus the Russians reserved their best to fight the Germans.......

Factually incorrect. The Germans actually blocked Italian weapons & supplies to Finland. The bulk of Finland's airforce was actually UK-sourced gladiators. Not surprising as there was a tentative detente resulting in the polish carve out between Stalin and Hitler.

Voroshilov, the general in-charge of the Finland operation was actually the People's commissar of defence. The equivalent of head of army. The war was actually conducted by the "quarters" which included Stalin, Shaposhnikov, Molotov and Kutnetzov besides Voroshilov. All of whom commanded in the latter parts of WW2. After the initial failure, Stalin sent Timoshenko and blamed Voroshilov for the failures. Timoshenko shouldn't need any introduction.

The Russkis used their first line heavy tank and tank bdes. As to the reasons why they didn't succeed, reading Voroshilov's explanation of 28 Mar 1940 is actually enlightening and credits the Finns far more than I can do justice.

If one wants to consider how to conduct a static defence against overwhelming odds, looking at the Finnish experience is a good read esp with their skillful employment of camoflage, skis, SMGs, mines/atk obstacles and mortars.

The finns actually had the military equivalent of the SS or Italian black shirts known as the Suojeluskunta.

weasel1962 SG

S'pore was a giveaway by the Brits...........most of the best men and weapons are in Europe so walkover for the Japs...........

Also incorrect. The Brits never had "best" formations. Although the ones in the Middle East were more successful, their organisations eg the 6th Australian or the 5th Indian didn't differ much from those that deployed to Singapore.

There were weapons diversions before the invasion primarily aircraft to Egypt which was the main focus in 1941. However Singapore was far more defended in 1941 than Egypt was in 1940.

Tactical blunders eg defence at Jitra was responsible for the defeat. Percival failed to concentrate his forces allowing first the Indians to be lightly defeated in turn followed by the Australians, allowing the capture of sufficient supplies for the Japanese to continue its advances. By the time the Japs reached Singapore, the British forces were already demoralised by numerous losses whilst the Japs had assumed the air of invincibility.

Even in the air, the brits did send 52 Hurricanes via SS Sussex in convoy DM1 but then deployed these piecemeal. They had radar which the Japs didn't have but deployed their aircraft to get shot down beyond radar coverage. They even sent light tanks via BM11 convoy to Singapore. Losing 80-100,000 troops contradicts the intention to giveaway Singapore.

Asromanista2001 SG

u talking about Liu Bei right? haha...

Liu Bei not lousy lah............he's a jinx.......some more he got no good advisors mah...........