Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The best and most elite infantry force of WW2?

Discussion in 'World War 2' started by DesertWolf, Dec 17, 2004.

  1. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    If that were possible, and he did it he would have been the agent that sunk the carrier. then it would be legitimate to compare golfers to aircraft carriers. Where did I make value judgements as to who was "superior"?
    Look to KBO's posts for those kinds of judgements, not mine.

    Are you serious about "surrounding ..and starving them out"?
    This did not happen even once.
    Some islands were bypassed since there was no legitimate strategic reason to waste men on them. All the Pacific island battles were fiercely contested with large casualties counts on both sides. Where do you get this idea of surrounding and starving? Name one island battle that occurred that way..just one.
    The Marines took 25,000 casualties taking Iwo Jima..that sound like a starvation campaign to you?
    People who make totally uninformed statements in a public forum do an injustice to history and to the men who participated in these events IMO.




    I
    The topic of this thread was about comparing different elite forces. if you don't think that is appropriate then don't participate. Show me a passage where I indicated that one elite unit was "better" or "superior" to another.

    Don't put words into my mouth please. I did not put forth the proposition that the USMC was the "ultimate force in the world? Those are your words and your interpretation, not mine. If yu care to rearead my posts you will find that I don't typically indulge in terms like"better", "superior" or "ultimate".
    Cutting and pasting a shortened event chronology (without attribution BTW) about the Guadalcanal campaign does not make you an authority on Pacific island battles of WW II. I do not hold myself up as an authority however in over 40 years of studying the war and with a particular interest in the Pacif war and the USMC I have read nearly every text I could find on the subject.
    Please educate yourself about this subject before embarrassing yourself further by making broad general statements with no basis in fact.
     
  2. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Ok Gentlemen, I am gonna step in now with my Moderator hat on.

    While some good points are being made in this debate, it is beginning to get a little uncivilised. I want to stop this before any rot sets in. We are a friendly forum after all (mostly ;) ).

    Please remember not to make any personal attacks, and (just as importantly) not to interpret any statements made as a personal attack upon yourself, unless they really are blatant. If this happens, contact a Moderator or Admin (myself, Roel or Skua).
    If you make specific statements, presenting evidence/sourcing is good.
    If you require evidence/sources, please ask for it nicely.
    If you are asked, please present it. ;)
    Do not re-hash a point that has been settled.
    Do not put words in each other's mouths.
    If somebody does either of these 2 to your argument, please point out either 1) it has been settled, or 2) I actually meant xyz, not abc.

    Above all - Be Polite. This is debate, not argument.

    Thank you for listening! :)
     
  3. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Your point is well taken, Ricky. Though I stand by the statements I made in my post I do apologize for the somewhat beligerent tone of the comments.

    I did, at least go into this topic confessing my bias towards the USMC and stating my reasons for it :oops:
     
  4. Skua

    Skua New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    Wise words from Ricky. "Be Polite" in size 18, blue letters shall from this day be our official slogan. ;) :D

    I guess we´re all more or less biased towards certain things. But I hope all members of this forum understand the difference between being biased towards ( for example ) the USMC and being biased towards the Waffen SS.
     
  5. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    What prepared them ? Well they became more experienced in waging war Ricky ! ;) Also you forgot Poland and France, wich gave them lots of experience in many different tactics ! ;)


    Hey he started by stating that the U.S. lost alot of men to non combat casualties (maleria), so i responded by pointing out that the Germans lost alot more men to the Russian winter than U.S. did to Maleria ! ;)

    And so it is for every Elite force in history Ricky ;)

    The Jap. soldiers were probably the thoughest soldiers of WW2, but their training was really 'poor', but they were more fanatical than any other force ! The fact that some of their officers were good, doesnt make the whole army good.

    KBO
     
  6. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I think 'Bias' is a strong word, and im sure noone here is 'Biased' towards the SS, if that is what your implying.

    The SS were in a sense Hitlers Assasins, and generally not nice people, but the Waffen SS were nonetheless a 'very' proffessional fighting force !

    KBO
     
  7. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Reading back I have misread your posts and apologise for saying you said the USMC was the most superior or best, however, I do still stand by the surrounding part. I don't concider myself an expert, but have studied battles of the pacific. Not all followed the same patterns, some were fought hard some not so hard, some were well supplied some not (both sides) this is my true opinion from all I have read.

    (btw I normally do give gredit to the source of info I simply forgot).

    Neither you nor I were there so It is down to which sources we believe.
     
  8. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    I accept your apology. It takes a big man to apologize on a public forum IMO. and one doesn't see it very often.

    AS to the Pacific battles there is more here than just opinion. If most Japanese garrisons were starved out rather than killed in battle this would not be opinion but an established fact. The popular image of the starving Japanese soldier is erroneous for the most part. Most Island battles did not continue long enough for starvation to be a factor. On those islands where starvation was reported it was almost always the hold-outs..after the battle had been decided who were starving..one exception to this is Guadalcanal where the battle was long and drawn out and the Japanese were, at times, short on supplies (as were the Marines at times).

    Okinawa, Iwo Jima, Saipan, Tinian, Pelilu, Tarawa etc..any of the major Pacific island battles..the Japanes weren't surrounded and starved in any of these battles. They were killed, almost to the man, with rifles, artillery, hand grenades and flame throwers. The Marines took higher casualty rates in taking these islands than occured in all but the most savage European fighting and I can think of no battles in Europe/Russia which was fought until one side was wiped out. This kind of all out attrition warfare was the most brutal of the entire war. No quarter asked nor offered was the rule rather than the exception, though the US forces did indeed attempt to induce the Japanese to surrender, they learned from experience that it was almost always futile.
     
  9. GP

    GP New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Maybe starved was a strong word, however, I will try to put it amother way. the American forces were resupplied with men, food and ammunitions, the Japs not always. The US prevented most of the Japanese resupplies and as such the moral, and ability to fight was greatly reduced, making it easier to kill more of them.

    If you wish to discuss any further I will take it off line.

    Thanks
     
  10. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Just to put my two cent's worth in, I would much prefer to have the US Marines at my back, rather than the Waffen SS. One big reason for this is the fact that the Marines had and have their own air support component, which the Waffen SS did not. And Marine pilots had no problem with flying low level strike missions in support of their fellow Marines on the ground; you didn't always find that attitude in the USAAF pilots. And the Marine air units were very proficient at close air support. Another reason for my preferring the USMC is that their divisions were bigger and better equipped than the typical Waffen SS division (please correct me if I'm wrong). And I also believe that the quality of leadership in the Marines was, overall, better. Just my honest opinion.
     
  11. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Leadership differs by division and period of course, but the air support factor is a big pro for the Marines. On the other hand, they may have been well equipped for their task but in general a Waffen-SS division was much heavier than a Marine division in terms of armour.
     
  12. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Armor is the only area I would give the Waffen SS an advantage however even that requires some qualification. An SS Panzer division at full strength would have only four infantry battalions to face 3 or 4 infantry Regiments in a Marine Division, in other words their infantry would be outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1. That would be balanced somewhat by the larger armor element in the SS division (provided they were full strength)

    Another factor to consider is the strength on paper versus the real life strength. Depending upon what time frame one talks about during the war often SS divisions were so understrength as to amount to liitle more than a few battalions of effectives.
    Leadership has to go to the Marines. Unlike the SS they did not have an insane dictator micromanaging their battles.
     
  13. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    I think we are talking about divisions on paper rather than in practice, otherwise any comparison would be disadvantageous to the German forces. After all, their nominal division size was around 14,000 but by 1944 the average German division had about 9,000 men in its ranks.

    In terms of leadership the SS definitely had too many maniacs in charge who fanatically wanted to achieve the Final Victory by whatever means they felt were necessary. However, there were some good SS generals among the lot, and especially on the lower levels of command the SS produced officers that could truly achieve a lot with what they were given. I must admit that I know very little about comparable unit-level action by the Marines...
     
  14. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    With Panzers to back them up, the Waffen SS would blast the USMC to smithereens ! Without its airsupport the USMC is nothing compared to the Waffen SS.

    No arguement with that, Hitler was the directly responsible for this. But the German Officers were excellent though.

    Anyway since were talking Elite force's here, the SS FallschirmJäger's were the best trained and most Elite force of WW2. They were a Universal tool, who carried out a large variety of tasks. Man for man they were superior to any force established during WW2.
     
  15. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    KBO, statements like those do nothing to enhance your credibility. On the contrary. I would remind you that though many SS units were blasted to "smithereens" (12th SS HJ for instance in Falaise pocket) you will not find any instances wherein USMC units were blasted to smithereens, as you quaintly put it.
    Statements like those prompt me to ask; are you perhaps a teenager?
    Not meaning to insult you, just curious.
     
  16. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Grieg: the instances where the SS were destroyed all occured when they were quite massively outnumbered and outgunned by the enemy and lacked air support. This is all the more reason not to compare them to the Marines too freely.

    KBO: the whole point is that the Marines did have air support. If the Waffen-SS has tanks, then the Marines have air support of you want to keep it fair. And personally I believe that the Marines certainly weren't helpless even without their planes! After all, they did have assorted AT weapons in their arsenal and they were used to fighting some of the most fanatic and resilient forces of WW2.

    On another note, I see no reason to think that the German paratroopers were superior to the Allied paratroopers except in attitude of being an elite, which has debatable value.
     
  17. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Grieg if the USMC doesnt have airsupport then please explain to me how are they going to handle the Waffen SS equipped with tanks superior to any AFV the U.S. can get a hold of ?

    No im not [Annoyed response edited by Moderator]

    Well then you should think before you speak !

    Thank you !
     
  18. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The SS FallschirmJäger's were better trained and even more professional than the Waffen SS in many cases.

    The basic training they recieved was much the same as the Waffen SS, "but" it envolved a much wider viriaty of natural surroundings and a large viriaty in tactics aswell.
    They trained in mountaneering as the SS GebirgsJäger, and also in their style of tactics, along with all the other tactics used by the Waffen SS.

    The SS FallschirmJäger division's were considdered so Elite that (Do you remember the German Boxer "Max schmeling"), Hitler knew exactly wich force "Max" would join to gain maximum propoganda value.

    Here he is in the magazine "Signaal":
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    But the British and American airborne units surely recieved a comparable amount of training, being expected as they were to hold out for long periods behind enemy lines with only light weaponry? The effects of this can be clearly seen in feats of arms such as the capturing of Pegasus bridge (6th British), the silencing of the Brecourt Manor artillery (101st American), the stand at Oosterbeek (1st British), the stand at the river Salm (82nd American)...
     
  20. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    First of all, Allied paratroops were offcourse properly trained men, no doubt about it.

    Roel the reason they avoided total destruction was because the Germans never knew where they were, that was infact generally true throughout D-day and beyond. The Germans never knew where the U.S. paratroops were, so they couldnt direct an attack against them, the best they could do was to wait, but even then they didnt know in wich direction to expect an attack.

    An example:
    When the backline-Guns firing at Omaha were knocked out by U.S. paratroopers on D-day+1, the Germans in the positions litterally freaked out, because they couldny make out where the attack was coming from. The paratroopers stormed them from the side, taking out one gun at the time, there was nothing the Germans could do.
    ------------
    Also Market garden showed that if even once the Germans knew where to expect the enemy, then they would hold them back, eventhough grossly outnumbered.

    Best regards, KBO.
     

Share This Page