British Army vs. Wehrmacht

Both on the wrong track!
The Austrailans with threre small population actually had the toughest Soldiers on the Allied side! not the brits or newzealand or Africans at all (no offence to all of those nationalties)
what let the Aussie down was there population size and relying on Briton to supply them with equitment!
With all this,the Aussie still manage to get the pharses of the germans,this is telling you something!

 

im sure the egos of our australian friends are expanding massively (in fact thats impossible) the oz divisions were good in N africa shocking in malaya and good in n guinea etc.
the NZ troops were perhaps the best and perhaps the greatest soldier of the war was ...
Charles Upham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

rambo cant touch this guy

 

i

As an Aussie myself I can say it surely has.

Now now, we had this discussion in another thread about which country has the best soldiers, and it is in fact no one. Many nations have great tactics and great men and equipment, but each army and every soldier is trained for a certain type of war, look at the Germans fast war in France compared to the slow grueling pace of Russia, The British defense in France to the defense of Tobruk and North Africa. The British RAF defense tactics to those employed by the Luftwaffe later in the war. Each nation has pros and cons.

This man Charles Upham, without a doubt was an excellent soldier who earned the respect of both friend and foe, but that does not mean that the entire NZ Army were "Rambo" type soldiers, they died and bleed like any other. Each Nation distinguished themselves in every way, to the Japanese taking Singapore, the Commonwealth forces in Nth Africa, the Australians in New Guniea. the British at El Alamain, the Russians at Stalingrad and Kursk, the Germans in France, and their defense of Italy, the Americans operations in Normandy, you could go on and on.

But every nation had there downfalls or failed operations, the Canadians at Dieppe, the Germans in Russia, the Americans in many Pacific Islands, the Japanese in taking Port Morseby, the Aussies on the Kokoda failing to finish of the Japanese, and even teh New Zealands.
Of course the New Zealand soldiers just like the many other Commonwealth troops preformed excellent throughout the war, and by the wars end were considered elite troops amoung the British units.

Just to clear something up by Kiwi friend, most of the NZ troops were either Aussie or British men anyways, either being migrants to NZ, or the sons or migrants(I am kidding by the way)


Ps. Heidi, that translator is working wonders for you, keep up the good work, some rep for you.

 

Education, sum experiences, length and depth of training, quality and quantity of the equipment, quality of the military organization/leadership, and morale/motivation have more to with combat performance than national/cultural origin.

With these in mind, all nations produced first class soldiers in varying quantities.

 

Excellent.

I keep of thinking of that thread that someone started about the Spetzanz Vs the Green Bret and what the experts said about it. basically, it depends on the situation, and environment depends on who wins.

 

i wasnt suggesting that kiwis were all rambos but i think its fair to say upham was .....

ps i am a scot not a kiwi

 

That is a very value point you have brought up.
True, every nationaltie had brave soldiers,but if you have emeny soldiers praising and admire one group of nationaties of Allies (Germans praising and admire Australians fighting ways)and no other Alllied smaller country.To me,this sounds like the Aussies got the german attention some how!
To the germans the Aussies were tough and respected soldiers by the germans,but i am affraid to say that have not heard much about newzealand soldiers!

If i mist something about the newzealand soldiers,i am sorry! The Newzealand soldiers are not as documented like the Aussies are.

I check the link which a member has provided above and wilki or more books lol.

Best wishes.

 

Um, Heidi, combat vets aren't praising cultures (unless their individual politics are nationalistic), they're merely identifying the uniforms of the men they're praising. The fact it is not uncommon for combatants to praise the enemy is testament to the fact there is little distinction between a man from one country and a man from another country when you're trying to build a house in any country.
Germans are no better than Ethiopians are no worse than Pakistanis are exactly the same thing as Russians are no different from the Japanese or British. It's just a feller.

 

I have heard German soldiers speak highely of British, Canadian, Austrailan, Indian, South African and American soldiers. I honestly don't think you can say the Germans praised the Australians above all others by any stretch of the imagination.

As has been said, soldiers of different nations vary greatly, all have their strengths and weaknesses and to say any one nation was particularly good or bad is clearly rubbish. Let's face it, in a single company you can have a good platoon and a pretty poor platoon, consider that variation on a national scale. For every 'elite' SS division we see in thie history books there were umpteen pretty average bog standard infantry regiments slogging away and getting their job, that's the way it always has been.

 

My opinion, generally high quality and high combat value:

1. British intelligence services and special units
2. British artillery (1941-1945)
3. British parachute troops

1. German armored and motorized recon (1939-1942)
2. German armored and foot infantry (1939-1942)
3. German tank crews (1939-1943)
4. German parachute troops (1939-1943)

1. US infantry 1945
2. US tank crews 1945
3. US marines
4. US parachute troops
5. US artillery

 

You missed out British Commandos, our infantry too did well enough, we just lacked the numbers.

 

I didn't write it, but I meant them as well when I wrote "special units". There were quite a few feats achieved by these professionals (SAS, commandos, colonial units, etc.) in North Africa, Europe, and SE Asia.

I don't mean to disparage British infantry, but I see them as kind of equal to US infantry units in general. And I think that US troops were at the height of their combat ability in 1945 (but by this time, British infantrymen took a more secondary role).

 

I guess we are talking about different things then, you said which units you thought were of 'high quality' and that British and Commonwealth troops were equal to their American counterparts but that they took a more secondary role (which is debatable depending on what you mean by secondary), however I would say this is more a quantity than a quality issue.

It also seems to be saying 'these troops did the most therefore were the best' but by that logic the Red Army was the finest army in the world, after all, they did do by far the most during the course of the war.

 

No, that's not my reasoning. I'm saying that US armor and infantrymen were very good in 1945 due to their achievements, honed through battle experience and evolving practices.

I have the impression that British infantry divisions were not as heavily committed in vital operations as US assets in 1945. And that in 1944, Caen and Market Garden were the zenith of their deployment.

 

Possibly true, but I would say that this was largely because the war was winding down and the British forces simply couldn't afford the losses, plus of course with changes of government come changes of attitude and so on. I wouldn't however say this was to do with the quality of the troops but the attitude to the progress of the war.

The experience thing is an interesting point, I mean British troops had been fighting for significantly longer than US troops, whether experience gained would be outweighed by combat fatigue etc is an interesting question.

 

I was talking about Australian soldiers, not German soldiers.
yes,they are just only plain old men.

 

yes,ok,all allies were brulliant! I was on the lines on how a small nation Aussies that actaully won a battle against the germans,therefore won expect form the germans.
I have not heard about smaller allied nations getting the same regconition,but if the newszealands/and others were with the Aussies and help fought to win that battle against the germans,well i deeply sorry.
Australia is a bit more documented than the newzealands/and others and i am affriad,i only know the major battles but not the smaller battles.

wait a miniute
i do remember newzealand soldiers! were the N/Zlands soldiers apart of the dersert rats compaine??? if so ,i do recall they fought hard in that battle.

Best wishes.

 

That wasnt our fault we were being ordered around by Brits

 

Yeah the NZ troops fought as part of the ANZAC corps which compromised the first NZ expeditionary force which was roughly equal to a 'Book-Strength' division or in other words 10,000 men. They fought along with 3 Aussie divisions if I am not mistaken.

 

It's often mentioned that the old North Africa divisions and personnel within the British armies in Normandy were psychologically exhausted and felt that they had done their part already.