Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Given the small size of the American army (less than 100 divisions) and it’s effectiveness one can reasonably argue the American soldier was as good as any. If you count artillery as ground troops (and what else can it be?) that stacks up better yet given that it’s generally held the Americans had the best artillery.
The problem with the concept of the thread is any man to man fight during a war is probably irrelevant. It would be unit against unit. And due to shipping constraints the American Army sent replacement soldiers to fill existing formations instead of trained teams, new divisions, to pass through and take over for an expended division. Something criticized in Vietnam with the claim that the American Army units didn't have 5 years of experience but that a lot of soldiers came in with nothing and left with a year's worth of experience which started all over again when the next soldier finished his advanced individual training and was deployed to Vietnam.
No idea where you came up with the idea that British and Americans inflicted twice as many causalities as received.
Neither have I as i never wrote that. Compared to the Soviets.
Quote:
The German soldiers may have respected the British Paras but they did not fear them. In contrast German soldiers were terrified of the Soviet Army.
Quite the opposite.
Quote:
I get that you have pride in your nations contribution to the war effort but lets not be delusional here. I'm an American and even I will admit that had the Soviet Army of 1945 gone to war with the US Army. On land they would have rolled over us like a semi-truck hitting a speed bump.
I doubt it...………..you forget America was fighting a two theatre war. Bring all our forces in from the pacific and it would pretty much even the sides...…...besides Russia basically had no bomber force...….
US land forces in the Pacific were not that great. The British had more boots on the ground than the USA - 2.6 million marched into Burma.
US forces in western Europe were poorly utilised due to Eisenhower's broad front strategy. Spread too thin to make any impact anywhere.
Nope. I think that honor would go to the US Marines in the Pacific War.
Yes of course the Marines deserve respect for their valor in the Pacific. But statistically there were more Army troops deployed in that theatre than Marines. And the Australians. Brought back from North Africa they fought brilliantly pushing the Japanese back in New Guinea along the Kokoda Trail.
If someone hasn't already mentioned them William Slim's Indian sappers, Ghurkas, and Sikhs fighting in the jungles under very tough conditions would be very much in the running for toughness and endurance.
Have to agree what really brave men they all were...
US land forces in the Pacific were not that great. The British had more boots on the ground than the USA - 2.6 million marched into Burma.
US forces in western Europe were poorly utilised due to Eisenhower's broad front strategy. Spread too thin to make any impact anywhere.
2.6 million? What the...???? I doubt Great Britain had 2.6 million troops combined world-wide at any given time in WW2. They didn't have the manpower to sustain that. I love reading your threads because the are so amusingly biased pro-british but they tend to get into the realm of absurdity.
You are thinking commonwealth troops - Indians mainly, but also Anzac, Canadians, Africans from the colonial areas, also some Chinese and US troops.
Yes I know that India was part of the British empire at the time but I doubt that Indians would appreciate being labeled British Troops.
If someone hasn't already mentioned them William Slim's Indian sappers, Ghurkas, and Sikhs fighting in the jungles under very tough conditions would be very much in the running for toughness and endurance.
Have to agree what really brave men they all were...
2.6 million? What the...???? I doubt Great Britain had 2.6 million troops combined world-wide at any given time in WW2.
I doubt that Indians would appreciate being labeled British Troops
Yes, I wrote 2.6 million marched into Burma. It was called the British Indian Army, a part of the British Army. When you declared war on Britain, you declared war on one third of the world's population. It is that simple.
Yes of course the Marines deserve respect for their valor in the Pacific. But statistically there were more Army troops deployed in that theatre than Marines. And the Australians. Brought back from North Africa they fought brilliantly pushing the Japanese back in New Guinea along the Kokoda Trail.
US troops were outnumbered by British and Soviet. British and Aussie combined, even greater again than US boots on the ground.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
