What Army Is The Best in The World

[red^blade]

Originally Posted by WiseSage2005

Supposedly, one reason was that Stalin had killed so much of the officer corp of the Soviet Army during the purges.

Yep I will support you there.

But I heard that Germen machinery had trouble come winter because of the harsh Russian climate.

[Lembitu]

Ofcourse they had trouble with climate. But even more trouble they had with long supply routes wich were very long and unnder constant attacks of partisans. They had even more trouble - most of german infantry walked all way from Germany to Russia because of the lack of transportation devices. More trouble - tanks lacked fuel supplys and spare parts.
But even with these troubles they still reached very far.
As I told - size is not always decisive.
About Stalin - he is known mass murderer and killing hes own army officers dont make im better.

[p_panzerschreck]

Yes as I said numbers are not always decisive. As you said germans were ounumbered from the beginning of the 2. WW. But they still managed sweep through the Europa and take big part from Russia. This means that their army - soldiers and leaders - were way more better trained then USSR ones. If not then how do you explain this fact that the war lasted 5 years? Allied side had every number of equipment more then Germans. But they still managed last 5 years. You said that in the beginning of war Germany had ~5000 tanks and USSR 20000. This makes 1 against 4. And if we take into consideration that USSR tanks were in this time far better then German ones it makes me wonder how the hell Germans managed to get so far after all? Answer - art of manoeuvre and very good soldier and leader training.

The Germans couldn't have gone very far if Stalin used his brains.

First of all, the Russians were taken by surprise, or rather Stalin was. This has mostly to do with Stalin's unshakeable belief that the Third Reich was unlikely to attack only two years after signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. He also was convinced the Nazis would probably finish their war with Britain before opening a new front. Despite repeated warnings from his intelligence services, Stalin refused to give them full credence, fearing the information to be British misinformation designed to spark a war between the Nazis and the USSR. The German government also aided in this deception. They told Stalin that the troops were being moved to bring them out of range of British bombers. They also explained that they were trying to trick the British into thinking they were planning to attack the Soviet Union, while in fact the troops and supplies were being stockpiled for an invasion of Britain. It has been established that communist spy Dr. Richard Sorge gave Stalin the exact launch date; also Swedish cryptanalysts led by Arne Beurling knew the date beforehand. As a result of all this Stalin's preparations against a possible German invasion in 1941 were halfhearted. (Wikipedia)

Secondly, if the Germans were so well trained, why couldn’t they take Leningrad? Answer: because garrisoned inside the city was a large number of die hard Soviets.

Thirdly, if the Germans were so highly trained, why couldn’t they hold Stalingrad? The Battle of Stalingrad required much training because of close quarter battles. (Strength: Axis-500,000; Soviet-1,700,000)(Casualties: Axis-750,000, 91,000 captured; Soviet-1,500,000) The Germans couldn’t take Moscow. (Strength: Axis and Soviet- 1,500,000)

Stalin purges, as said before killed many good ideas.

And one more thing, the Soviets won the war. Besides, the Americans who had much better training couldn’t kill the spirit and the passion of the Vietnamese.

Of course I don’t deny the fact the importance of training. The Italians in Africa couldn’t beat the British (the Italians weren’t very motivated that time, they fought a little and than surrendered, 250,000 surrendered early 1940). The British SAS, SBS and SRR and the American OSS was vital in the outcome of the war. I am confident that you that numbers are important but you think training are more important. I just think the opposite and find spirit and desire to war important. If wasn’t for the Brits Special Forces, Hitler might create the first atom bomb!

[Lembitu]

You said: The Germans couldn't have gone very far if Stalin used his brains.
This applyes to leadership training.
Btw - if Hitler managed to keep away from leadership of te army things could be different maybe. This happens when corporal tryes to lead armys instead of squad.
About Stalingrad - it was utmost stupidity from Germans to try to take it at the irst place. I think that point was in city name - if Stalingrad were called for example Gladejevsk I dont think that they were ordered to attack this place, but name STALINgrad decided all.
Im sure that if germans had a city called Hitlersburg red army 100% sure tryed to take it in first place even if this operation was tactical and strategical madness.

[p_panzerschreck]

Ah but the Soviets STILL won the war, even with Stalin's brains.
If you watched Enemy at the Gates, or read a book, Stalingrad was important. It was the gateway to the oil fields at the Caucasus. So what if the name was so important? Do you consider destroying your enemy’s morale tactical and strategically madness?

[Lembitu]

I consider tactical and strategical madness to attack so deep into enemy territory that your supply lines grow thin. Germans attacked without adequate supplys and other front wasnt following them. In other words madness.
About USSR winning - if western allies were supporting germans instead USSR then history could be different. USSR must be thankful to US military and economical support. This made war about 2-3 years shorter.
And you are wrong - not soviets won the war, the Allies did it.

[CitizenRouge]

Originally Posted by Lembitu

I consider tactical and strategical madness to attack so deep into enemy territory that your supply lines grow thin. Germans attacked without adequate supplys and other front wasnt following them. In other words madness.
About USSR winning - if western allies were supporting germans instead USSR then history could be different. USSR must be thankful to US military and economical support. This made war about 2-3 years shorter.
And you are wrong - not soviets won the war, the Allies did it.

Lembitu

If western allies were supporting Germans, the whole history of the world would have been different.

Did you know when the west intervene to the war? It was after 1942 when things started to even up. The most disastrous years of WW2 Soviets where fighting all by themsleves.

Plus the war on the west was different from the war that Hitler waged on the East. In countries such as France & Netherlands there was just a Nazi occupation, without heavy distractions, without continious walfare, with Germans enjoying the beautiful France and going out with French girls. While in the East there was a real heavy uncompromissing war, hell on the earth best to refere. Hitler himself said that War in the east would be different than war in the West, this would be a war for extermination.