Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

who is the most overrated army in WW2?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> who is the most overrated army in WW2? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
who is the most overrated army in WW2? - 7/6/2000 3:57:00 AM   
sven


Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline 		and why are they? I would haphazard my vote to be for the mighty French Army of 1939-1940. I am a very minor league WW2 scholar compared to some of the posters here, but I would have to say France is the country that mislearned the most lessons from WW1. I am curious as to how they failed so totally when a lot of the factors weighed in their favor during the Sitzkrieg period. Was their Strategic coordination to blame, or was the will to fight sapped away due to the French expenditures concerning the First World War? I have my opinions and am dying to hear yours. regards, sven ------------------ Give all you can all you can give.... [This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-05-2000).] [This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-05-2000).] [This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-05-2000).]

_____________________________
Post #: 1
- 7/6/2000 4:13:00 AM   
Tankhead

 

Posts: 1352
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Yukon Territory Canada
Status: offline 		Well here's my 2 cents. They never learn how to utilize what they had were still thinking the old school. The Germans prove that in Poland and in France they had good trainning plus they utilize everything they had to is maximum potential, the days of trench warfare were over. Even the rest of the allies took some real losses before they realize how to use what they had to maximum potential. But hey what do I know. Tankhead ------------------ Rick Cloutier [email]rcclout@telusplanet.net[/email] Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources http://sites.netscape.net/rcclout [This message has been edited by Tankhead (edited 07-05-2000).]

_____________________________

Tankhead


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 2
- 7/6/2000 4:21:00 AM   
Seth

 

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline 		Oh boy, the French. Never has so little been done by so many, with so much. I'm a francophile, and I love the country, but boy did 1940-44 serve them right. They had such potential. Wonderful tanks, some really great new aircraft designs, a huge navy, and they totally failed to even put up a respectable showing. I feel bad agreeing with you, but I do. I think you're right in your reasons for their failure. To add to their incompetent staff and inexplicable timidity, one must also consider sabotage, disorganisation, and an industrial capacity rivalled in patheticness only by Italy.

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 3
- 7/6/2000 4:31:00 AM   
Tankhead

 

Posts: 1352
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Yukon Territory Canada
Status: offline 		Earlier in the war everybody was saying the Germans have better this better that, but in reality the allies had good stuff too but they did not know how to use it too it's advantage. Like I said in my 1st post it took a few good beatting before they realize what to do with all those new war tools. Tankhead ------------------ Rick Cloutier [email]rcclout@telusplanet.net[/email] Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources http://sites.netscape.net/rcclout

_____________________________

Tankhead


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 4
- 7/6/2000 4:34:00 AM   
Sgt Stein

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline 		As if the French armed forces were alone in being caught with their collective pants down! Seems to me all the Allies were woefully unprepared for Blitzkrieg tactics. Witness the early Allied failures against the German army, not to mention the brave but foolish tactic of Polish cavalrymen vs panzers.

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 5
- 7/6/2000 4:38:00 AM   
sven


Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline 		I think the second most overrated army was the Soviet. I know I will take a lot of heat for that but hear me out. There are logical reasons for this viewpoint enumerated in several sources. 1) Uncle Joe taking his senior leadership out behind the woodshed in the thirties was not a good move for the implementation of professionalism, or new theory in the Red Army. 2) I am not meaning to imply that Ivan did not get results, only that Ivan got results at a prodigious cost that better training may have curtailed. 3) Soviet domestic production sucked in several strategic areas. (truck production, waterproof wire construction, supercharger production, advanced oil refining techniques.) If the UK and US had not loaned Uncle Joe those things there would have been an even greater strain placed on the Soviet people. 4) Uncle Joe's policy on being a P.O.W. was extremely reactionary and paranoid. He was almost Japanese-like in his abject hatred of anyone who got caught.(including his own son) 5) Any military that cannot handle an opponent it outnumbers twenty to one sucks. I will always have a special place in my heart for the Finns because they beat the hell out of Ivan twice. God bless that little country. regards, sven ------------------ Give all you can all you can give....

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 6
- 7/6/2000 4:39:00 AM   
Tankhead

 

Posts: 1352
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Yukon Territory Canada
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Sgt Stein: not to mention the brave but foolish tactic of Polish cavalrymen vs panzers.
This one should be put in the top 100 blunder book Tankhead ------------------ Rick Cloutier [email]rcclout@telusplanet.net[/email] Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources http://sites.netscape.net/rcclout

_____________________________

Tankhead


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 7
- 7/6/2000 4:44:00 AM   
Sgt Stein

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline 		Re: top 100 blunders Nay, those brave men and beasts fought valiantly with the best that they had at the time. And they so impressed the Germans that some pz I and II crews were in tears as they mowed down horse and man alike.

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 8
- 7/6/2000 4:45:00 AM   
sven


Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline 		Also... I think Blitzkrieg is an extremely overrated doctrine as understood by most people. It requires your enemy to remain stupid forever in order for it to remain a sound method of advance. Just ask the Nazis after Kursk, or Crusader. A lot of the success of Blitzkrieg was because of the Strategic ineptness of it's victims. If an enemy could absorb the initial thrusts and learn to counterattack it effectively it fell apart as a doctrine. After the middle of the war the Germans were using Classic combined arms warfare and not the fabled shock armor advances. my two-pence, sven ------------------ Give all you can all you can give....

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 9
- 7/6/2000 4:47:00 AM   
Tankhead

 

Posts: 1352
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Yukon Territory Canada
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Sgt Stein: Re: top 100 blunders Nay, those brave men and beasts fought valiantly with the best that they had at the time. And they so impressed the Germans that some pz I and II crews were in tears as they mowed down horse and man alike.
Really brave mens, could you imagine the horror Tankhead ------------------ Rick Cloutier [email]rcclout@telusplanet.net[/email] Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources http://sites.netscape.net/rcclout

_____________________________

Tankhead


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 10
- 7/6/2000 4:54:00 AM   
Sgt Stein

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Tankhead: Really brave mens, could you imagine the horror Tankhead
I cannot, having never ridden a horse onto any battlefield, but my grandfather was in one of those pz I's(and he still gets tears in his eyes over that battle).

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 11
- 7/6/2000 4:56:00 AM   
Drake666

 

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by sven: Also... I think Blitzkrieg is an extremely overrated doctrine as understood by most people. It requires your enemy to remain stupid forever in order for it to remain a sound method of advance. Just ask the Nazis after Kursk, or Crusader. A lot of the success of Blitzkrieg was because of the Strategic ineptness of it's victims. If an enemy could absorb the initial thrusts and learn to counterattack it effectively it fell apart as a doctrine. After the middle of the war the Germans were using Classic combined arms warfare and not the fabled shock armor advances. my two-pence, sven
Got to desagree with this. Blitzkrieg was the first true use of combined arms warfare and many of its princibles are still in use today. The reason they did not use it later in the war on the same scale was becouse commanders had less freedom to act and had to get orders from higher up mainly the crazy and stupped Hitler.

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 12
- 7/6/2000 4:57:00 AM   
Sgt Stein

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline 		exactly

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 13
- 7/6/2000 5:05:00 AM   
Drake666

 

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline 		who is the most overrated army in WW2? Now as to that question as it is posted I would have to say the US army. Most people talk about how good the US army was late in the war but it was the US Air force that was doing all the work. If it was not for the US air force haveing so great a advantage the US Army would had their asses kicked off of the beaches of Italy and France. Hope I dont heart to many peoples feallings with this, HeHe.

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 14
- 7/6/2000 5:06:00 AM   
sven


Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Drake666: Got to desagree with this. Blitzkrieg was the first true use of combined arms warfare and many of its princibles are still in use today. The reason they did not use it later in the war on the same scale was becouse commanders had less freedom to act and had to get orders from higher up mainly the crazy and stupped Hitler.
That is why I said "as understood by most people" if you ask Joe six-pack what Blitzkrieg was he'll tell you, "Great big assaults with lots of tanks!" That analysis was incorrect by the way. Early Blitzing was combined arms assaults with stress put on the shock value of armor. Well trained armies were not as shocked by the armor after '43 and unsupported armor advances became more and more deadly for the aggressor against opponents who had decided to defend in depth. I do not care how much freedom the German Commanders would have had the tactics they used against Poland, and especially France early in the war would have had disasterous results later- especially in the east where Ivan figured out how to neuter the Shock Armor advances.(albeit at great cost) regards, sven ------------------ Give all you can all you can give....

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 15
- 7/6/2000 5:09:00 AM   
Tankhead

 

Posts: 1352
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Yukon Territory Canada
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Drake666: The reason they did not use it later in the war on the same scale was becouse commanders had less freedom to act and had to get orders from higher up mainly the crazy and stupped Hitler.
True Has many commanders were restricted of what they could do. Finnaly they even try to kill Hitler. Poor Rommel was force to commit suicide, because of is implication in the plot against Hitler. Tankhead ------------------ Rick Cloutier [email]rcclout@telusplanet.net[/email] Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources http://sites.netscape.net/rcclout

_____________________________

Tankhead


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 16
- 7/6/2000 5:18:00 AM   
sven


Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Drake666: who is the most overrated army in WW2? Now as to that question as it is posted I would have to say the US army. Most people talk about how good the US army was late in the war but it was the US Air force that was doing all the work. If it was not for the US air force haveing so great a advantage the US Army would had their asses kicked off of the beaches of Italy and France. Hope I dont heart to many peoples feallings with this, HeHe.
Yep I am sure the Italian, French, Polish, Soviet, Hungarian, Norweigian, Danish, and Belgian armies were all superior to the US Army. Furthermore Hats off to the awesome US ARMY AIR CORPS contribution during the Battle of the Bulge. I'll bet the grunts fighting during the fog were thinking, "God I suck! I sure am glad those fancy planes are doing all the work during this inclement weather!" Funny how a guy that was just singing the accolades of combined arms is discounting two thirds of the US version. Air power is a wonderful thing.... providing you have.... a) air superiority b)good weather and c)ground assets to exploit the gains air strikes make I suppose that the US Army should have not used IT'S (USAF was born in '47)inherent advantages to seem more manly. regards, sven former 11h and airbase town rat. ------------------ Give all you can all you can give....

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 17
- 7/6/2000 5:18:00 AM   
U235


Posts: 103
Joined: 5/7/2000
From: Chesapeake, Virginia USA
Status: offline 		Well the British can be thankful the channel separated them from the rest of Europe. I fear they would have suffered the same fate as France. That would have put an interesting twist on the war. But, according to some accounts, Adolph admired the British (at first)and hoped they would see the "light" and prehaps even join the cause against the Soviets. I don't think his heart (and stomach) was in Sealion. I think it would have been possible to create a large enough beachhead with airbourne troops (abit with subtantial losses)then provide support with available landing craft and transports. They could have used those Stuka's to attack British shipping instead of wasting their crews over the island. U-boats, surface ships and even shore batteries in some cases (with air support) could have protected the supply corridor. If the French didn't learn from the WWI experiance, then the same can be said of the Germans too. Don't fight a two (or more) front war.

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 18
- 7/6/2000 5:22:00 AM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		The polish army was pretty overrated. Remember, the allies thought Poland could hold out for months due to the 'courage and tenacity' of the polish troops. Not that they weren't. The poles had high quality troops, but what can you do when you've lost the battle before you've left the blocks? They're doctrine and equipment sucked. France doesn't have the equiptment excuse though. They didn't have just good tanks, they were GREAT for the time. Anyone who's played SPWAW long campaign in 1940 knows how good the tanks were. What a waste of 37mm ammunition. Grumble. Tomo

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 19
- 7/6/2000 5:24:00 AM   
Sgt Stein

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline 		Hehehe well said sven! I doubt those poor grunts stuck on the frozen ground in Dec '44 had much regard for the mighty air force.

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 20
- 7/6/2000 5:28:00 AM   
McGib

 

Posts: 395
Joined: 6/26/2000
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		The French also had domestic problems going at the same time. There was a fair amount of public unrest during the 30's directed against the French gov't. Poor turnouts when their reservists were called up. I've read accounts about how poorly Class B Divisions looked when inspected by Foriegn officers. The French and British(to a lesser extent) high commands had very 19th century attitudes, i.e. the common foot soldier was a second class citizen and his needs did not matter in the least. I could go on for sometime on this topic (just finished reading a book about it) but then I would be writting a book

_____________________________

Ready Aye Ready

(in reply to sven)
Post #: 21
- 7/6/2000 5:37:00 AM   
Desert Fox

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Drake666: who is the most overrated army in WW2? Now as to that question as it is posted I would have to say the US army. Most people talk about how good the US army was late in the war but it was the US Air force that was doing all the work. If it was not for the US air force haveing so great a advantage the US Army would had their asses kicked off of the beaches of Italy and France. Hope I dont heart to many peoples feallings with this, HeHe.
Well I will have to disagree with this. First, just for your knowledge, there was no US Air Force at the time. The Air Force was created in 1947 as a separate service, and up until that time, they were known as the Army Air Corps. Ok, now the reason I disagree with this is because of the simple fact that no aircraft can take and hold ground. This is what the grunts have to do. And the US troops in WW2 did that very well. There was no Air Corps help in the Hurtgen forest. There was no Air Corps help in the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge. When the Air Corps bombed Monte Cassino, it only added to the ground troops problems. Lets not forget Bradley's fiasco with the air planning while he was trying to breakout of Normandy. And that kind of thing happened all too often because of the complete lack of ground/air coordination. The Army Air Corps did not do close support like the Marine Corps aircraft did in the Pacific. The ground troops had to clear the way on their own using artillery that could be called in precisely or by direct fire. If allied planes appeared overhead, it was just as probable that the allied armor would be bombed as the german armor. Yes, the Army Air Corps did some good work, but because of the lack of coordination, close air support was risky, and often non-existant.

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 22
- 7/6/2000 5:39:00 AM   
Drake666

 

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline 		Did not say they were no good sven. Just overrated and I would not site the Bulge as some great feat. They were faceing a army more worred about getting their hand on the US fuel supplies then anything and it was not like that attack had much of a chance of doing anything in the first place.

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 23
- 7/6/2000 6:01:00 AM   
sven


Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Drake666: Did not say they were no good sven. Just overrated and I would not site the Bulge as some great feat. They were faceing a army more worred about getting their hand on the US fuel supplies then anything and it was not like that attack had much of a chance of doing anything in the first place.
I guess I misunderstood the point I was making concerning the inability(according to yourself)of the US Army to penetrate and gain ground.(ala kicked off beaches) If the United States Army (without it's AIR CORPS) was so unable to fight the Mighty Wehrmacht then it would stand to reason that in any case where the ARMY AIR CORPS was not at the scene the US ARMY would fail. I also have not seen a lot of CAS during the initial phases of an amphibious assault.(at least not during WW2 in any of the histories I have read) The ARMY AIR CORP'S primary mission was interdiction to prevent the Germans from reinforcing the beaches. I, by the way, do not concur with your hypothesis. I will issue you a challenge. Show me one WW2 campaign where a grossly inferior army was made totally victorious by Air Superiority. I would haphazard using the US ARMY WAR COLLEGE's formula used in WW2 for operational planning. I have yet to find it, but I do hope you will illuminate me. effectiveness= how much damage can a unit inflict*how much can it take*mobility(and in some analysis *the effectiveness of Leadership) The faith in the religion of Air Power is a very dangerous one. It was largely this faith that allowed the decline in r+d for the ground forces between WW2 and Korea, and between Korea and Vietnam. We are falling into the same trap even now after our Vienam experience. Vietnam led to the Bradley, and Abrams, and MLRS, and even the Crusader.(not to mention the Apache, and Blackhawk) Air Power is a great tool in a good military. One problem with an overreliance on it however is the lack of flexibility in it's use. If you only have a hammer for a tool then every problem eventually looks like a nail. The US's recent Kosovo experience should highlight some of the failures of pure airpower. Milosevic had deployed three mech divisions to the area and managed to have 2 and one-half survive. What a great day for the USAF.(not the ARMY AIR CORPS) regards, sven ------------------ Give all you can all you can give.... [This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-05-2000).] [This message has been edited by sven (edited 07-05-2000).]

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 24
- 7/6/2000 6:41:00 AM   
clipper69

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/19/2000
From: france
Status: offline 		Here are what i think : French Army was "in late of a war" in 1939, because of the great losses of the WWI (1.800.000 deads) which put in the mind of the french politicians that a good fortification Line (Line Maginot) was the lone way to prevent a german invasion, so prevent great losses. Another reason, for my own, is Marechal Petain : as winner of the battle of Verdun in 1916 (a defensive battle), he had great influence on the french generals and on the french politicians, especially those in charge of the army politics. So, he always discouraged partisans of another army politics as minister Paul Reynaud or Colonel De Gaulle who published in 1934 "au fil de l'epee" where he described how should be the future war : a mechanized war. That book, some says, was the prefered military book of General Guderian, father of the german blitzkrieg !!!

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 25
- 7/6/2000 7:13:00 AM   
Alastair Anderson

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Taunton, Somerset, UK
Status: offline 		I think it is an error to state that the French army was overrated. Certainly the "Maginot Mentality" of the 1930s encouraged Daladier and his ministers to ignore European political develoments, sacrifice Czechoslovakia for the sake of Appeasement and ultimately watch Poland suffer her cruel fate. It is probably also correct to note that the French High Command was still looking at the tactics of 1918 - but then again so were the British and to be honest most of the German High Command too, bar Guderian. Tactically the French were not far off their German opponents. The problem with looking at the French performance in 1940 is that it is dominated hugely by the breakthrough by Guderian and Rommel at Sedan on the Meuse. This crossing was protected by a thin screen of second grade troops and once Guderian hit open country and deliberately ignored Hitler's orders to halt his lightning quick advance the fate of the bulk of France's best fighting troops was sealed. They were encircled in the north along with the BEF and most importantly were cut off from their supplies and were facing constant Luftwaffe attacks. The evacuation from Dunkirk was the end result. Note that after the evacuation the French units holding the line north of Paris fought extremely well - one division [number escapes me - I'd have to check my notes] fought almost to the last man against massive odds. The politicians may have failed them and strategically the Germans caught them napping at Sedan, but was the French army really a poor outfit?? No. It was outmanouevred, encircled, cut off and strangled. Had the crossing at Sedan been prevented we might well have had a very different 1940... Cheers Al

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 26
- 7/6/2000 7:29:00 AM   
sven


Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Alastair Anderson: I think it is an error to state that the French army was overrated. Certainly the "Maginot Mentality" of the 1930s encouraged Daladier and his ministers to ignore European political develoments, sacrifice Czechoslovakia for the sake of Appeasement and ultimately watch Poland suffer her cruel fate. It is probably also correct to note that the French High Command was still looking at the tactics of 1918 - but then again so were the British and to be honest most of the German High Command too, bar Guderian. Tactically the French were not far off their German opponents. The problem with looking at the French performance in 1940 is that it is dominated hugely by the breakthrough by Guderian and Rommel at Sedan on the Meuse. This crossing was protected by a thin screen of second grade troops and once Guderian hit open country and deliberately ignored Hitler's orders to halt his lightning quick advance the fate of the bulk of France's best fighting troops was sealed. They were encircled in the north along with the BEF and most importantly were cut off from their supplies and were facing constant Luftwaffe attacks. The evacuation from Dunkirk was the end result. Note that after the evacuation the French units holding the line north of Paris fought extremely well - one division [number escapes me - I'd have to check my notes] fought almost to the last man against massive odds. The politicians may have failed them and strategically the Germans caught them napping at Sedan, but was the French army really a poor outfit?? No. It was outmanouevred, encircled, cut off and strangled. Had the crossing at Sedan been prevented we might well have had a very different 1940... Cheers Al
I am partly inclined to agree, but when you say that tactically the Frogs were close to Jerry are you including the unusual disposition of their armor, and the extreme centralization of command? I am not a Francophile, but do rather enjoy playing them when the mood strikes. I think that Guderian was a visionary, but he was not the only one. regards, sven ------------------ Give all you can all you can give....

_____________________________


(in reply to sven)
Post #: 27
- 7/6/2000 9:08:00 AM   
B52g

 

Posts: 115
Joined: 6/22/2000
From: Youngstown, Ohio, United States
Status: offline 		Here is my two cents. First off, for me, in order for an army to be over rated, it must win many major battles in the first place. So that eliminates every country that was knocked out early. I dont see how to over rate a country that didn't survive a few months. So here is my candidate: Japan. Were they tough? You bet. Were they dedicated? You bet. Would we have suffered Millions of casualties if we would have had to invade their home islands before they decided to surrender? Absolutely. Did they ever really stand a chance of defeating the United States? No. Their only hope was to inflict enough casualties that they could negotiate and hold on to what they had taken. Even if they had destroyed the entire U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor, thats actually worse news for Australia than it is for the United States. So my point is that there was never any real hope of victory, so they were a limited threat.

_____________________________

John

(in reply to sven)
Post #: 28
- 7/6/2000 9:25:00 AM   
PanzerMeyer

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 6/12/2000
From: Ourimbah, NSW, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by sven: [B]Also... I think Blitzkrieg is an extremely overrated doctrine as understood by most people. Got to agree with you there. Blitzkreig was successful early in the war because the victims were unprepared. Have a look at the later battles, even Barbarossa, Blitzkreig as a tactic pretty much went by the book. In the book "Knights of the Black Cross" by Perret, it states that Blitzkreig was a nonentity anyway. The main strategy used by the germans in ww2, even in the early campaigns of France and Russia was "Vernichtungsgedanke", which is basically encirclement and destruction. Notice how many 'pockets' of the enemy were captured? Dunkirk, Poland, Russia, even as late as the Ardennes, units fell victim to the german Vernichtungsgedanke principle. Oh yeah, blitzkreig was good, but overrated. I mean, the name "Blitzkreig" was coined by a western journo!! Still, i must say that Germany was the most prepared tactically for the war, even though the equipment wasnt up to date (Pz IIs and Is). In every book ive read by german vets they tell how they were taught how to command, and what to do if their CO was killed. Even Junior Officers were taught to take the initiative (without radio-ing back for authority) when they saw the opportunity. This resulted in a highly effective fighting force. It wasnt till later in the war, just before the first winter offensive in 1941-2 when hitler began to interfere and when he finally introduced his no retreat policy that things began to go downhill. The German Oberleutnants and Hauptmanns could no longer take the initiative w/o permission basically from Berlin itself. As for the most overrated army, that would have to go to the British. Lots of Glorious defeats, and one major victory i can think of (El Alamein), which was due entirely to the unpreparedness of the enemy and the amount of US equipment recieved. (NB, im only referring the the Brits in Europe/NA, in Asia it was a different story, also units like Maj Howards paras, the LRDG and SAS were nothing like the "regulars") Also, the British were handicapped without their commander. The same system (though not to the extent) as the Germans had late in the war existed in the British Army. Ando how could we forget such incidents as were the County of London Yeomanry had stopped for tea in Enemy territory when a guy named Wittman came along and wiped them out. Sorry to any Brits out there, I like england, been there a few times, loved it. Its only military talk, not personal.

_____________________________

Meine Ehre HeiBt Treue 4SSPzRgt "Der Furher", 1939-45

(in reply to sven)
Post #: 29
- 7/6/2000 9:46:00 AM   
Elvis

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 6/20/2000
From: Clarion, PA
Status: offline 		<<< Yep I am sure the Italian, French, Polish, Soviet, Hungarian, Norweigian, Danish, and Belgian armies were all superior to the US Army. >>> Now here is a pearl of wisdom... I'd love to hear you prove a claim like this one. Please do, in detail. <<< I suppose that the US Army should have not used IT'S (USAF was born in '47)inherent advantages to seem more manly. >>> Yet another pearl. I suppose that it would have been more "sporting" to forgo the use of tactical air power, even though it was an "inherent advantage." Every standing army from 1939-45 had inherent strengths and weaknesses. The factors involved are many; quality of equipment, quantity of equipment, quality of training, elan, pride, tactics, ability to adapt, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Basing an opinion on any one of these factors without taking the others into account renders any "rating" argument invalid. On a tactical level, I'm sure every army had its share of stunning victories, and each had its share of catastrophic defeats. What does this prove? Nothing - until you take a look at the overall picture. It does a great injustice to the fighting men of all countries involved in the War to make generalizations based on 50 years of hindsight, especially from those of us who were not there... ------------------ alea iacta est [email]sooperduk@hotmail.com[/email] [This message has been edited by Elvis (edited 07-05-2000).]

_____________________________

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -- George Orwell

(in reply to sven)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> who is the most overrated army in WW2? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.750