Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Which army during WWII improved the most and how?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Which army during WWII improved the most and how?

    With the first contact in combat all armies begin to receive lessons learned in fighting techniques, weapon systems, training, support requirements.... Which army seemed to use these lessons the best and by what means did they improve their capabilities?
    Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

  • #2
    IMO the US in a major advancement in it logistics and force projection.
    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

    Comment


    • #3
      Red Army.
      There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

      Comment


      • #4
        In terms of technology and logistics, the US Army. In terms of fighting efficiency, the Red Army.

        Comment


        • #5
          The US Army. It went from being a woefully inadequate, 250,000-strong WWI relic in 1941 (smaller than the army of Rumania) to the most powerful fighting force on the planet, capable of smashing two first-rate enemies on opposite sides of the globe simultaneously in the space of just 4 years. No other army in history can boast such a feat.
          Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

          Comment


          • #6
            Well there was only one in at the kick off remember, and still on the winning side, at the final whistle... that'd be us then!

            The long toll of the brave
            Is not lost in darkness
            Over the fruitful earth
            And athwart the seas
            Hath passed the light of noble deeds
            Unquenchable forever.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Von Richter View Post
              Well there was only one in at the kick off remember, and still on the winning side, at the final whistle... that'd be us then!

              That'd be true if you were Chinese!
              Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BobTheBarbarian View Post
                The US Army. It went from being a woefully inadequate, 250,000-strong WWI relic in 1941 (smaller than the army of Rumania) to the most powerful fighting force on the planet, capable of smashing two first-rate enemies on opposite sides of the globe simultaneously in the space of just 4 years. No other army in history can boast such a feat.
                It's more a questions of ressources allocation than important doctrine changes.
                There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                Comment


                • #9
                  I would say the Red Army. There performance in 1940 against the Finns and in 1941 when the army lost millions of men was poor. Of course it was Stalin's fault with his bloody purge of the best and brightest senior officers in the late 1930's.
                  War is less costly than servitude

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kendrick View Post
                    I would say the Red Army. There performance in 1940 against the Finns and in 1941 when the army lost millions of men was poor. Of course it was Stalin's fault with his bloody purge of the best and brightest senior officers in the late 1930's.
                    Not really. Maybe even the opposite.
                    There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                      Not really. Maybe even the opposite.
                      The opposite to what, the Red Army did well in 1940 and 1941 or Stalin only killed the most stupid Generals. Neither I think is correct.
                      War is less costly than servitude

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                        It's more a questions of ressources allocation than important doctrine changes.
                        Well when it is asked 'which was the most improved,' surely increasing its size by a factor of 34 over the course of a few years counts as a nearly unparalleled achievement. In terms of doctrine the US Army had to make important changes in how they approached their enemies as well, both in terms of tactics and leadership. At first they were badly beaten by the Germans and Japanese, and even as the war went on they found themselves outclassed in certain tactical settings.

                        Having the resources and brute strength to win is one thing, but it took hard experience to develop the skills necessary to do it, in much the same way as the Red Army learned from combat. The deficiency in leadership was more pronounced in the RKKA owing to Stalin's purges, but the overall pattern between the two was remarkably similar as noted by Glantz and others.
                        Divine Mercy Sunday: 4/21/2020 (https://www.thedivinemercy.org/message) The Miracle of Lanciano: Jesus' Real Presence (https://web.archive.org/web/20060831...fcontents.html)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Emtos View Post
                          It's more a questions of ressources allocation than important doctrine changes.
                          That's what the US excelled at and only got better at: Technology and logistics. Nobody compared to them at that.

                          On the other hand, the Red Army started out with a woefully under trained, inept, blundering mass army with many units in a state of neglect. It was very much a paper tiger.
                          Russia paid in blood to learn and re-learn how to fight a war. By 1944 they were a battle hardened force capable of some excellent strategic planning and operational execution. Technologically and logistically they were limited but within those limits they beat the Germans.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kendrick View Post
                            The opposite to what, the Red Army did well in 1940 and 1941 or Stalin only killed the most stupid Generals. Neither I think is correct.
                            The performance in 1940 and 1941 wasn't always bad.
                            In the same way, an important number of generals purged before the war were certainly bad commanders.
                            There are no Nazis in Ukraine. © Idiots

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kendrick View Post
                              I would say the Red Army. There performance in 1940 against the Finns and in 1941 when the army lost millions of men was poor. Of course it was Stalin's fault with his bloody purge of the best and brightest senior officers in the late 1930's.
                              You missed a key point. The red army underwent a massive expansion that diluted the cadre of trained officers and NCO's. Most divisions were short on officers and NCO as well as all sorts of communications gear and logistics. Stumbling Collosus by Glantz has a great deal of data on this. IIRC 90% of rifle division commanders in June 1941 had less than a year's experience.

                              The Red Army's mobile forces were even worse off. They had disbanded their larger tank units as part of the purge but were reassembling them in 1941. Not a single soviet tank or mech division was full strength in June 1941. Most were critically short of logistics and communications.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X