Weekly Poll Results - Who had the ''stronger'' army ? - Medal of Honor Mods, Maps, Patches & News - GameFront

This article was written on an older version of FileFront / GameFront

Formatting may be lacking as a result. If this article is un-readable please report it so that we may fix it.

Published by PKM 10 years ago , last updated 2 years ago

Who had the ''stronger'' army ?
America for it's sheer production assets .	48.6% (56)


Germany for it's sheer fanaticism .	31.3% (36)


Russia for it's sheer manpower .	20% (23)


Total: 115
Start: 02-20-2009 04:50
Last: 02-27-2009 00:51

Germany--professionalism, not always fanaticism. Only a few units displayed what we could call true fanaticism, and German generalship was rivaled only by Russia in terms of the number of really good commanders at the highest echelons. Russia--the bluntest, but most destructive instrument of WWII. Tactical prowess was often discarded in favor of simply battering the Germans into submission. America--some truly excellent commanders, as well as some truly horrendous ones. Elite units as good or better than anyone else in Europe (Rangers, Airborne) but a generally lackluster army without the drive of the Germans and the near-suicidal courage of the Russians. Many historians and German soldiers have described the American (and British) armies in northwest Europe as weak, lacking the necessary motivation to create and exploit opportunities in an enemy that was inferior in numbers, supplies, and heavy equipment; however one may have put it best when he remarked that the Americans "weren't slow; they were cautious".

excellent points all around .

Germany had the best army, but not because of their fanaticism. Simply because they had more troops, better supplies, and better training than the Americans. And the But the Russians had more people than the two combined. They just lacked the training required to make a difference, until after the Battle of Stalingrad.

You've never seen Marine Corps training have you?

Marines FTW But we're talking armies here ; )

Me too: an army of Marines :D.

You know it only just now occurred to me... why wasn't Japan the choice for fanaticism? Nothing like ideologically indoctrinating an entire generation to believe it is better to die than to surrender.

The Germans didn't have "more supplies", "fanaticism" or "more troops". It was just the unique blitzkrieg doctrine combining fast armored spearheads with motorized flank cover and fast encirclements of enemy units. The quality and experience of officers and generals was also incomparable with any other axis or allied armys. In comparsion to that, the Red Army just set on a strategy of Defence in depth tactic allowing rapid counterattacks. This meant an effective distraction of enemy targets, but also resulted in extremely high manpower losses. Altough the Soviet losses were frightful, they managed to inflict the German enemy three time more losses then in the whole French Campaign. After effectively stopping the hostile offensive later in the theatre, they set on a fast row "human wave" offensives. The US Army built up in just 3 years was deployed to the european theatre to meet forces which have sunk low after nearly 5 years of uninterrupted war. While the german armored elements were still superior (altough the M26 "Pershing" was ready to be deployed in end of 1944), the Axis lacked in manpower, supplies, oil, and effective air defense as well as attack air force and logistic elements. This made it the Allies easy to

.....whipe them out of France. That's all what I have to say.

Germany, because they make better beer. :beer: :) :beer: -Angrybob

Yes, I have seen Marine Corps Training. But that is Marine Corps training TODAY, not Marine Corps training 70 years ago.

wait, wait, wait, you can't do this because A) America was fighting from overseas, entered the war in 1942, was not under any blockade, did not enter the Western war until very late in the war, meanwhile... Germany and Russia had been running campaigns since 1938, had industries under assault, were in the midst of fighting while committed to multiple fronts, were economically blockaded (especially the USSR, even with the later Lend-Lease, and remember since 1917, while germany had been decimated by 1918, and then disarmed, and then bankrupt...) You can't compare them absolutely. The Russians scored the hardest victories, took the most casualties, under the hardest circumstances... The germans come close, but the USA is totally discounted, you just can't historically compare them, if you can even compare the circumstances of the germans and russians What it all comes down to is: Russian, German, American, they all fought hard to kill one another, and it can be said they were each determined to do that as vigorously as possible.

I have one point Why no British or CommonWealth option!?!? :confused: im a Brit myself and i hate how we are forgoten in WWII games and discusion!

reply for comment #1 You kidding ME? The americans and british were the only ones of that bunch that had A REASON to fight. Thats something that the for the germans, all but the ss had none of, and that the Communism-opressed russians CERTAINLY never had. Your comment of lacking courage was most DEMINATELY not true.

oh, the word DEMINATELY (not really a word) should be DEFINATELY

#14 You kidding ME? The americans and british were the only ones of that bunch that had A REASON to fight. If you're saying the Russians had no reason to fight, then you are stupid. The life conditions under a German-controlled Eastern Europe where 1000 times more horrible and painful than living as an easy, non-political proletarian in Soviet Russia.

Yeah... Sorry 14, you lose. I admire your westward-oriented patriotism, however, you are clearly not a scholar of history. Further, you did not carefully or correctly read my comment. Perhaps you should go back and look at it again and see if you can discern the actual meaning of it, as well as whose opinions are being portrayed. 13--Brits contributed some of the most valuable resources to WWII, namely, the fortitude to hold out against German aggression. Their resistance was a beacon of hope to those nations who fell under the Nazi shroud, and their existence allowed America to have bases from which to participate in the conflict. The North African campaign, as well as the defense of Malta, are among the most crucial actions no one ever talks about. By Normandy, however, the British had passed their prime. By sheer necessity, as a result of having lost vast amounts of manpower, the British army was forced to adopt a doctrine of caution and conservatism that helped characterize them as the least enthusiastic of all the Allies. The Canadian forces operated with great efficiency and valor at first; however similarly, manpower shortages meant that the really good units could not sustain their sharpness or weight of numbers very long, and were reduced to more piecemeal action while American forces continually grew in number and quality as the campaign in Western Europe wore on. You are not forgotten by those who read and investigate, rather than simply play games.

Ok, #16, you are ignorant. You still dont understand that Americans had way more reason to fight than either the germans or soviets (commies, remember). All the soviets had going for them was a good and produceable tank, thats it. Any comment saying that americans lacked in bravery is totally wrong. ElMariachi, you apparently need to study your history as well, as i have already studied mine.

#18, That's completely wrong. First, I never said that America had no reason to fight, but saying the Americans had "way more" reasons to fight is imprudent and incorrect. Of course the Russians had tons of reasons to fight, they were attacked, their houses being burned down, their families dead through German Air Force or artillery, hundreds of thousands of their friends, loved ones and family members being brutally killed, they're dreams and jobs and hopes destroyed, spending every night in horrible fear of being killed by bombings or being captured and tortured. You got no idea what you were saying anyway. Probabaly you think that every Russian citizen was or even is just nothing but a stupid communist.

The Russians weren't all ardent "commies", just like the Germans weren't all ardent Nazis. I'm sure the millions of civilian dead in Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and everywhere else didn't give the Russians motivation? America had plenty of reason to fight the JAPANESE; the Russians and Germans flat out hated one another. Hate is a great motivator in war. I declare this argument over.

You are TOTALLY forgetting that russia contributed little to the war, and 19, you just said plenty of what happened to the british, french, and americans, so you have totally just forgotten about that. Back to russia. Anyway, they contributed little compared to the americans and british. The russians only contributed stalingrad, which i agree was an important battle, but it was their only major contribution. The americans contributed to the single-handed takedown of japan, the brits, americans, canadiens, and free-french all landed and dropped into normany, arguably the largest successful invasion in history, let alone recent history, and GUESS WHO WASN'T THERE! (if you cant guess this you are too uninformed to argue in this debate). The americans and british were successful at el amein, the battle that essentially drove the axis out of africa and ultimately forcing them to fight on their own soil. The RAF, who were considered inferior to the luftwaffe, single handedly destroyed the luftwaffe, something the russians never did. What did the riskies contribute? A big whopping ONE MAJOR BATTLE!!! Give those ruskies an undeserved hand, wouldja??? We could just say that russia sucked without the help of the western armies. I could go on, but i think this is enough evidence.

Alright, #21, you are either a stupid idiot, or a Russian-hater. You probably only know Stalingrad as one battle on the whole eastern front. There were dozends of other victorious and important battles which were devastating to German armies, like the Battle for the Baltic 1944, Operation Bagration, the Jassyâ€“Kishinev Offensive, the Budapest Offensive, the Crimean Offensive, the Dnieperâ€“Carpathian Offensive and of course, the Berlin offensive. The Russian death toll in WWII was 20 MILLION, that's more than twice as the US Army was ever in total size. Also, the Red Army tied 75% of the whole German Army from 1941 to 1944. So the Allies only had to fight against 25% in 1944. I NEVER but really NEVER said the allies did nothing against the Axis, it's of course true that the British are heroes as they fought against the Germans almost alone until 1941 and defended their island from invasion, and of course America with their huge industrial capacity fighting at three fronts at the same time. But you are really an idiot totally ignoring the enormous Russian efforts against the fascist aggressor.

Comments on this Article

There are no comments yet. Be the first!

Please wait...