Fresh Perspective (1 Viewer)

[Rob]

Numbers often make the difference. Just look at the Zulu War hehe.
The germans lacked just about everything a modern army needed at the end of the war which was their biggest setback.

Not all germans were evil and remorseless though. My grandmother had some of them quartered at her home a large part of the war. Enlisted men, no SS.
They behaved like gentlemen. After the liberation she had british troops quartered. They behaved like pigs and not like gentlemen with their only goal trying to get laid. She hated the german occupation BTW and still talked about "moffen" (krauts) ever since.

War isn't black and white, there were heroes and villians on both sides.
Calling US enlisted men 'better human beings' is a bit too black and white for my taste.

Didn't you know that already?.Watch any Hollywood film,all British troops were evil,child murdering empire builders.In fact on the Army application form you had to sate how many free countries you'd abused and enslaved,if it was less than ten you were out!!!

Rob

 

[Combat]

Objectively, there can't be much debate that the German soldier was unsurpassed in modern warfare from about 1939-1943. The Germans had begun preparing for war in 1933. They were fully trained and equipped when it started. The comparison with American troops in 1944-45 can't be done in a vacuum since many of the best German units had been depleted by that point or were fighting elsewhere - mostly in the East. There certainly were some elite German units in the west, but it is a bit misleading to conclude that the americans were better troops based on the outcome of the 1944-45 campaign in the west. Factor in total allied air superiority, fuel shortages, ammunition and manpower shortages and the remarkable aspect of the late war is that there was not total collapse or mutiny by the Germans even up to the end. They were the bad guys, but you have to give them their due when it comes to military prowess under those conditions. That is not to take anything away from the allies who had every reason to believe they were the better soldiers after sweeping across France in '44.

 

[RoughRider]

He was a very humble person. He lived a quiet life and died in a nursing home in Brooklyn New York about ten years ago. He lied about his age and went into the army at 16. One of his brother's was 15 when he went into the Navy. Humilty is a great quality trait. My grandfather and all of his brothers were blessed with that characteristic.

 

[marco55]

From what I've read and heard from commanders on documentries The Australians and Canadians were rated better fighting forces then the Germans and Americans.But I think you have to take into account what period of the war your talking about.By the time America entered the Germans had lost hundreds of thousands of their best men.By the end of the war they were putting mere boys in their armed forces.By the way the Aussies were rated the best troops in WW1. They breed them tough down under.
Mark

 

[Currahee Chris]

By the way the Aussies were rated the best troops in WW1. They breed them tough down under.
Mark

I really don't think the Australian contribution will ever fully be appreciated in modern warfare- WW2- GWOT. As long as the CBI and Pacific receive scant attention, the full appreciation of Australian military expertise will never be known. For fans of unconventional warfare- like me, the Aussies were second to none and laid the groundwork for many unconventional warfare unit tactics which are still employed today.

WW2 took the total effort of all combined allies- no one was really better than the other and all countries played to the strengths of each. To say that the Aussies could have engaged the Germans in all out armored warfare- whether or not those tanks were manned by kids or old men- is a bit of a stretch. American and Russian forces were the only real match for that type of warfare. The ANZACs were just suberb in dealing and adapting with what they did best- unconventional warfare- and their efforts paid huge dividends in the CBI, Pacific and North Africa.

 

[Combat]

I recollect that the Germans thought some of the Finnish troops were better than their own under the conditions of the eastern front.

 

[marco55]

I really don't think the Australian contribution will ever fully be appreciated in modern warfare- WW2- GWOT. As long as the CBI and Pacific receive scant attention, the full appreciation of Australian military expertise will never be known. For fans of unconventional warfare- like me, the Aussies were second to none and laid the groundwork for many unconventional warfare unit tactics which are still employed today.

WW2 took the total effort of all combined allies- no one was really better than the other and all countries played to the strengths of each. To say that the Aussies could have engaged the Germans in all out armored warfare- whether or not those tanks were manned by kids or old men- is a bit of a stretch. American and Russian forces were the only real match for that type of warfare. The ANZACs were just suberb in dealing and adapting with what they did best- unconventional warfare- and their efforts paid huge dividends in the CBI, Pacific and North Africa.

Chris,
When I was talking about Australian fighing abilities I was thinking more man to man,hand to hand type of combat.No one disputes that the Germans were masters of armored warfare.lets face it,all were brave men and a lot had to do with type of warfare units trained for and the abilities of their commanders.
Mark

 

[Al Fisher]

Interesting, but three of the most popular toy soldier/military miniature areas of interest . . . Napoleonics, Confederates, Nazis . . . were all losers!

Al

 

[redhugh]

Interesting, but three of the most popular toy soldier/military miniature areas of interest . . . Napoleonics, Confederates, Nazis . . . were all losers!

Al

Very true Probably less well selling but could add American Indians, Spartans and the alamo! There must be something about the losers and the vanquished!

 

[Harrytheheid]

Numbers often make the difference. Just look at the Zulu War hehe.
The germans lacked just about everything a modern army needed at the end of the war which was their biggest setback.

Not all germans were evil and remorseless though. My grandmother had some of them quartered at her home a large part of the war. Enlisted men, no SS.
They behaved like gentlemen. After the liberation she had british troops quartered. They behaved like pigs and not like gentlemen with their only goal trying to get laid. She hated the german occupation BTW and still talked about "moffen" (krauts) ever since.

War isn't black and white, there were heroes and villians on both sides.
Calling US enlisted men 'better human beings' is a bit too black and white for my taste.

with their only goal trying to get laid
Well, what's wrong with that like..?? It's one of my prime goals in life as well. Mind you, results have been know to be variable, right enough....

I get it - I've entered some kind of a parallel universe....

 

[APACHEJOL]

with their only goal trying to get laid
Well, what's wrong with that like..?? It's one of my prime goals in life as well. Mind you, results have been know to be variable, right enough....

I get it - I've entered some kind of a parallel universe....

I do believe that has been a prime directive in my life since I have been around oh thirteen or fourteen years old, have things changed?

 

[storch]

I can understand how Roughrider feels about his uncle, and perhaps that emotional attachment eclipses his judgement. Memory often betrays reality, especially when one becomes old. And let us not forget that the view of a conflict from the perspective of a regular soldier is quite narrow. Every major military historian agrees with the notion that the Waffen SS were some of the best soldiers of all time. If you read some of the accounts of the stuff they did in the last two years of the war, especially on the Eastern Front, you wil understand why. The Germans were fighting against overwhelming odds, and although the Russians would often send waves of unprepared recruits against them, some of the Russian divisions were incredibly tough and well armed. To admire the Waffen SS for their military ability and prowess does not mean that one agrees with the Nazi ideology. I am in awe of the accomplishments of the Mongol hordes from the military stand point, but I am also aware of the genocidal terror that they inflicted. I guess people get a little uncomfortable with the Germans because of the relative closeness of the events and because it is not politically correct to say that they were great soldiers.

 

[jrsteel]

I can understand how Roughrider feels about his uncle, and perhaps that emotional attachment eclipses his judgement. Memory often betrays reality, especially when one becomes old. And let us not forget that the view of a conflict from the perspective of a regular soldier is quite narrow. Every major military historian agrees with the notion that the Waffen SS were some of the best soldiers of all time. If you read some of the accounts of the stuff they did in the last two years of the war, especially on the Eastern Front, you wil understand why. The Germans were fighting against overwhelming odds, and although the Russians would often send waves of unprepared recruits against them, some of the Russian divisions were incredibly tough and well armed. To admire the Waffen SS for their military ability and prowess does not mean that one agrees with the Nazi ideology. I am in awe of the accomplishments of the Mongol hordes from the military stand point, but I am also aware of the genocidal terror that they inflicted. I guess people get a little uncomfortable with the Germans because of the relative closeness of the events and because it is not politically correct to say that they were great soldiers.

I don't think it's politically incorrect to admire the SS. I just think it's sick.
I'm telling you, the toy soldier hobby has been taken over by a bunch of Nazi admirers. And manufacturers and dealers are profiting off of it. You guys can deny it and say "It's just representing history". But why don't the allies sell as much?

 

[damian]

At the risk of great controversy I would suggest that the toughest soldiers of the twentieth century were mostly geurillas. The Viet Cong, the Taliban and other like them. I remeber my cousinn telling me about how ridiculous it was on the border when the Lt in charge of his platoon was a mere 18 months out of highschool in Cape Town and the Swapo insurgents they were trying to fight had been living in the bush for the last 18 years.
Regards
Damian

 

[redhugh]

I don't think it's politically incorrect to admire the SS. I just think it's sick.
I'm telling you, the toy soldier hobby has been taken over by a bunch of Nazi admirers. And manufacturers and dealers are profiting off of it. You guys can deny it and say "It's just representing history". But why don't the allies sell as much?

Warfare and genocide is part of history, yesterday and today. Indeed the NAZI's were probably the most scarily organised mass genocidal machine in operation, in any war.The ruthlessness with which they went thru Jewish,Romany, East European peoples and the mentally ill was unmatched in scale. However the allies took out plenty of civillian populations as well ,
including the citizens of Dresden, numerous fire bombed Japanese cities (see ex US Defence Secretary Mcnamara's excellent documentary "Fog of War") and lastly Hiroshima and Nagasaki.The russians were also infamous for their treatment of different ethnic people carting many groups off to exile in siberia and worse.There were many other brutal examples from both sides. While it was "not official policy" for Allied personnel to take no prisoners, "over wide reaches of the Asian battleground it was everyday practice."
When I collect soldiers , I ain't collecting them on the basis of how many civilians were murdered or how many POW's were murdered by whatever side , but from the warfare aspect. IMO your comment is far too simplistic in this regard

 

[fmethorst]

The outcome of WWII in 1942 was very much in doubt. It was the inclusion of the third major world empire, the United States (Britain and Russia being the others) that the tide turned against the Axis, fortunately for the world. It was the American economy and industry that won WWII. The amount of material exported to Britain and the Soviet Union was enormous.

While the alliance between the western powers and the Soviet Union certainly helped defeat the Axis it casts some doubt on those that claim the moral high ground rested with the Allies. Stalin was every bit the villain that Hitler was. If numbers matter, the Bolsheviks killed more people than the Nazis. The western powers didn't go to war to do the right thing and help the people of the world, they went to war to defeat the Axis powers which posed a threat to their interests.

The thing that sets the Nazi atrocities apart from all the others is that Germany was a modern well educated country and the killing was industrialized.

I think any debates about which soldiers were better than others is incomplee without considering all the factors involved. If one considers air superiority, it follows that those that had it were generally more successful than those that didn't.

In regards to the quality of German troops. Like all armies it varied from unit to unit. There were many elite Wehrmacht units such as the Panzer divisions, Fallschirmjager and Gebirgsjager divisions. The GrossDeutschland Panzer Grenadier division was certainly an elite division. The SS diviisons were a total mixed bag. The panzer divisions 1st SS "LSSAH", 2nd SS "Das Reich", 3rd SS "Totenkopf", 5th SS "Wiking", 9th SS "Hohenstaufen", 10th SS "Frundsberg and 12th SS "HitlerJugend" should all be considered top tier units. The remaining SS Gebirgs, Cavalry, Panzer Grenadier, Freiwilligen divisions generally went down in quality the higher the number. A number of the higher numbered units in the 20s and 30s consisted mostly of foreigners. Some of the worst attrocities commited by Waffen SS units can be attributed to these units. While the SS units were indoctrinated into the concept of a racial war of extermination the Wehrmacht is definitely complicit in the crimes of the Nazi regime.

Why are people interested in German soldiers and vehicles? Perhaps it is that people find the uniforms and vehicles more interesting. Take the Tiger II. There were only 487 produced. Compare this to the tens of thousands of M4 Shermans or T34s that were produced. 487 is a small enough number that one can research individual vehicles and crews. The paint schemes varied considerably over this tiny run of vehicles. You can identify vehicles by looking at their characteristics . German uniforms, camouflage in particular, are more varied again than allied uniforms.

Personally I collect both Axis and Allied toy soldiers. I have no illusions that the Axis regimes were evil but I would be appalled if political correctness and historical revisionism took hold in the hobby and Swastika's (Hakenkreuz) suddenly started to be replaced by Balkenkreuz or even the Tatzenkreuz.

 

[Rob]

American industry and output played a huge role-but lets not forget it was the men who used it and gave their lives in doing so that won the war.

Rob

 

[Currahee Chris]

At the risk of great controversy I would suggest that the toughest soldiers of the twentieth century were mostly geurillas. The Viet Cong, the Taliban and other like them. I remeber my cousinn telling me about how ridiculous it was on the border when the Lt in charge of his platoon was a mere 18 months out of highschool in Cape Town and the Swapo insurgents they were trying to fight had been living in the bush for the last 18 years.
Regards
Damian

Yeah, I am REALLY glad you didn't continue going down that line of thought. It's a slippery slope. Trying to compare guerilla fighters to actual soldiers is really like mixing apples and oranges. One side, the guerillas, are trained to do one or two missions and are very succesful at it. Soldiers albeit American, British, SA, ANZAC, etc are all trained to respond to threats globally- not to just run around in the desert or mountains of afghanistan- your really drawing conclusions between apples and oranges. I think either of those groups you mention would flounder if they were dropped into a heavily urban environment, artic environment or even a subtropical environment. The versatility of operation just isn't there. How well would a Taliban "soldier" respond if the PRC were to launch a mechanized invasion of Taiwan where their guerilla tactics really wouldn't matter for much.

The stats are somewhat skewed as well- in a fashion very similar to that of the kill ratio of the German soldier in WW2. The Taliban and VC were fighting on their home turf- as were the Nazis when we invaded France. When fighting on your own turf, you know the lay of the land, typically have public support to some measure and are entrenched in a defensive position. The Taliban and VC never invaded a country so where never on the offensive (outside of their own land). No one knows how either of these groups of "Soldiers" would have reacted if they were storming the coasts of Taiwan, England, San Francisco, etc, etc

And regarding the comment of 18 years olds- that criticism is leveled many times over here in the US as well. However, correct me if I am mistaken but the HJ tore up several elite American, British and Canadian units during WW2. They were absolutely fanatical and very highly trained. If memory serves, Audie Murphy, Americas most decorated WW2 Vet was no more than 20 (i'm not sure exactly but I don't think he was much more than that). Time and again the over 18, under 20's are proving it where the metal meets the meat. If they are to be held at fault, I think one needs to look deeper at the training regimen that may have got them to where they are- it isn't a function of age.

 

[fmethorst]

American industry and output played a huge role-but lets not forget it was the men who used it and gave their lives in doing so that won the war.

Rob

Trust me. I never lose sight of what people have done for me. I have never seen war (and never want to).

Rememberance Day is very important to me.

 

[Capitolron]

I don't think it's politically incorrect to admire the SS. I just think it's sick.
I'm telling you, the toy soldier hobby has been taken over by a bunch of Nazi admirers. And manufacturers and dealers are profiting off of it. You guys can deny it and say "It's just representing history". But why don't the allies sell as much?

Yeah - a lot Nazi admirers collecting Napoleonics