WW2 military ratings.

In WW2 which nation had the best Army, Navy, Air Force and Special Forces?

 

The best army, discounting our crappy tanks, was the USA. The only fully mechanized army of the war.

Best navy also goes to the USA.

Air Force I would give to the Brits. The B-29 may have been the war winner in the end, but I think the Lanc could have dropped the A-bomb too.

Special forces didn't really exist in the way that we think about them. A lot of special forces esque units were just regular units given unique missions. If I had to use modern definitions, I'd say Britain again due to the commandos and frogmen units.

 

Best Land Army (Infantry, Special ops) - The Wermacht - Deustchland

Air - USA/Britain

Navy - jap. vs USA

Tank divisions - Germany

 

German panzer divisions were awful. They were always under-strength, smaller than their foreign counterparts, and more than half of most of the panzer divisions had horse drawn equipment.

The Wermacht had less than 10% of its forces mechanized during the war.

 

I do believe some Americans would disagree with the quality of German tanks that performed at the Bulge.

German Panzers led the Blitzkriegs and Barbossa.

 

The Avro Lancaster could have carried the A-bomb, but doubtful it would have survived the bomb blast as the aircraft had to be both a certain distance and at a certain position with regard to the blast in order to survive.

Too slow.

 

Their tanks were good and their tactics were good. No one is arguing that.

But in terms of doctrine and organization when you compare them to their foreign contemporaries, they were behind the curve.

 

Not an issue with the quality of the tanks- sure Panthers and Tigers were superior to Shermans in combat- but Questerr was pointing out that the U.S. was fully mechanized, but even Panzer divisions were often not fully mechanized and were always understrength.

There are things that pop to my mind when thinking of these things- first of all- time- what point of time are we thinking about? End of the war, the allies were superior in every way to the Axis- duh. But often at the beginning of the war the Axis units were superior.

Look how surprised we were by the performance of the Zero and the Japanese long lance torpedoes? But beyond combat equipment there were issues like Questerr pointed out- American forces had trucks and half tracks for virtually all of its units. American troops(along with Canadian and Australian and quite a few others) were well fed and generally healthy- something not necessarily true for German, Russian or Japanese troops.

Pick a point in the war and then it would be easier to address.

 

Soldier for soldier the German Wermacht
US Navy once the war got going
Same for US Air Force
The Brits led the world in Special Forces before during and after the war

 

Which year do you think would be best 1942? At the start of the war the Germans, British Commonwealth and Japanese were better, by the end the US and USSR were better.

 

I will argue that except for the Long Lance torpedo, nothing that the Japanese had could actually be called "superior".

The Zero may have been faster and more maneuverable than allied aircraft, but it had the armor of a cardboard box and its weapons were pathetic in all categories. Similarly, their navy was about 1 generation behind anything its competitors brought forward. The superheavy BB's may have been impressive but their armor and firepower wasn't all that much better than American and British 1941 designs.

 

Their heavy cruisers were every bit the equal of the US Navy's, especially the newer ones. Remember: the pasting the USN took at Savo was mostly delivered by four 1920's cruisers (only Takao-class Chokai, the flagship, could be called "modern", and even she was 10+ years old).

Until October 26, 1942, the Japanese had the best carrier fleet in the world.

Zeros were actually armed pretty well: they each had two machine guns and two 20mm cannon.

 

Then why were the Japanese beating the allies for about a year?

 

You can argue that- but the results showed otherwise. The Zero's were better than the opposition when they first flew- but they remained stagnant while the Wildcats and P-40's were phased out by superior American fighters(including better armor). As pointed out, Japanese cruisers - and torpedo strategy was superior at the beginning of the war. The Japanese BB's were largely less effective side by side but there was a huge range there and frankly BB's didn't play any significant role in the war.

Japanese aircraft carriers were comparable to American carriers of the same time period, and superior to anyone else's but the American's. Their DD's were inferior- except they carried the Long Lance- which made them defacto superior for fleet attacks. The Long Lance was a huge shock and game changer early in the war- not only was it longer ranged- but it was more reliable than the rather crappy American torpedoes. Their dive bombers and torpedo bombers were comparable in evey way to the Americans at the beginning of the war.

But Japan didn't have the resources to compete with the U.S(Yamamato knew this)- and couldn't keep up design wise, production wise- or in trained pilots.

 

The two machine guns were mediums, not heavies and the 20mm carried barely enough ammo to warrant having it.

As for their carriers, they weren't in any way superior to British 1930's designs, they just had more of them concentrated in one place.

 

They had all of their force concentrated rather than spread out all over the world and they had strategic suprise.

 

It could be done year by year- really pretty arbitrary in so many ways- and likely to get bogged down in equipment rather than considering the entirety- and what about quantity vs quality?

 

It also helped that they were good at it. Remember- we didn't win Midway because our Navy was equipment for equipment superior- we won due to:
a) Luck
b) Code Breaking
c) Superior and closer Naval repair yard at Hawaii.
d) Japanese naval theory which insisted on overly complex strategy seperated their forces

This is not to denigrate the courage of all who fought at Midway- but we got very lucky and it was no sure thing.

 

Really? The Illustrious class was designed to carry 36 planes and only later in the war was that increased. Even in late war their compliment was something like 36 corsairs and 15 Avengers- this was typical of Brit carriers.

Japanese carriers however- they carried U.S. size compliments of planes- the Soryu carried 57 planes plus another 16 on the deck- the Kaga carried 90! planes. Japanese carriers- like American carriers- carried more planes than the Brit carriers.

 

The Japanese carriers only managed that because they had no armor. One or two hits and a Japanese carrier was a burning wreck destined for the sea floor.

 

The Wehrmacht was not the German army. That was the Heer.

 

This is too broad a question. Time, location, and even smaller details are important. Each military had their own strength and weaknesses.

 

Nobody but the U.S. used .50 calibers- everyone else used either 7.92 or 20 mm or 30 mm or some combination. The Spitfire of the era had only 7.92. The ME 109E carried 2 20 mm and 2 7.9 mm- and the 20 mm used 60 round drums- so 120 rounds versus the Zero's 100 rounds- hardly a huge difference.

 

So let me get this straight- your preference for a carrier is one that carries less planes but has better deck armor?

Actually they did have armor- but the Brit carriers had superior armor to either American or Japanese carriers.

Me- I would prefer my carriers to have more planes.

 

Name an Italian strength.