WWII,how do you rate the nations who fought.

[Kebabman]

How do you rate the performance of the combatant nations of the second world war.To kick off,heres my take on them.

Germany.   Land  Good
                Sea    Good
                Air      Fair-Good

USA          Land   Fair
                Sea    Good
                Air      Good

Soviets      Land   Fair-Good
                Sea    -----------
                Air      Fair


French      Land  Poor
               Sea    Poor
               Air      Poor

Japs         Land   Poor
               Sea    Good
               Air      Poor-Fair

UK           Land   Poor
               Sea    Good
               Air      Good
               

           

[Hurley]

ok this will get hot....this is based on equipment and what they where best at.

Germany.   Land  (late war German tanks where the best but no enough numbers.)
             

USA          Sea   (US carries and their pilot R&R cycling won the war in the air for the us.) 


Soviets      Land (T-34)



French      Land  cause at the start of WW2 they actually had good tanks and defenses but crap leadership.


Japs          Air (the zero rocked for most of the war, just didn't know how to keep/train pilots)

UK           Land (they had the best tanks and AT guns of the Allies)

[Luddite]

Hmm...interesting...reducing the whole performance across all theatres from 39-45 to a single word rating...

OK, i'll bite...

(mine in Red)

I've also added in two extra critical factors; 'Logistics', 'Strategy'



Germany.   Land  Good            Good
               Sea    Good           Good
               Air      Fair-Good     Good
               Logistics     Fair
               Strategy     Poor

USA          Land   Fair              Poor
               Sea    Good            Fair
               Air      Good           Fair
               Logistics     Good
               Strategy     Fair

Soviets      Land   Fair-Good        Good
               Sea    -----------
               Air      Fair                Fair
               Logistics     Good
               Strategy     Good

French      Land  Poor       Fair
              Sea    Poor       Poor
              Air      Poor       Poor
               Logistics     Poor
               Strategy     Poor


Japs         Land   Poor       Good
              Sea    Good       Good
              Air      Poor-Fair       Good
               Logistics     Fair
               Strategy     Good


UK           Land   Poor       Good
              Sea    Good       Good
              Air      Good       Good
               Logistics     Poor
               Strategy     Fair

[Last Hussar]

1 word for the entire war is impossible. UK Poor? Why- maybe in 40, but the chief factor there was they were effectively a green army, fighting an army that, if not bloodied in Spain, at least had the knowledge of Spain filtering down.  By 44 it was a professional army, relatively well equiped.  Something you ghet in a number of rules is a 'broad brush' - often inaccurate - of British troops being unwilling to advance into fire. "US troops are obviously better because the will charge". Surely that's the difference between Veteran and Green!

[Luddite]

1 word for the entire war is impossible.

Not really.  On balance the overall performance can be expressed.  E.g. Russians at the start of Operation Barbarossa - appaulingly bad.  By late '44-45, excellent - overall 'Good'

UK Poor? Why

Yeah, don't get this one either.

Even on the retreat to Dunkirk their performance on all theatres was excellent.  Mounting a successful fighting withdrawal is exceptionally difficult...one of the most difficult actions to undertake actually and only a well-trained, well motiviated and well led army can do it and not have it collapse into a disasterous rout.  Even at this early period the British were excellent - it's just that their strategy and planning at that stage, like everyone else, was hopelessly outdated when faced with the 'step change' that was the German blitzkrieg.

In pretty much every other theatre, they performed admirably, but were typically let down by poor strategy and dreadful supply and logistics problems.

Definately not 'Poor'...   

[Kebabman]

Hi all,thanks for the response.I posted the list because I am keen to know as many peoples opinions on this subject as possible.I dont want to insult/wind up anyone,if you think I have missed the mark on any of the nations,let me know.None of my opinions are set in stone,if you think Im wrong educate me....

Luddite,thanks for your idea of adding Logistics and stategy.I did think about having command but wanted it nice and simple.I have to agree with you though,it did need them.I also agree with  most of your ratings for the nations,however I think for the UK logistics should be good or at least fair.Logistics during WWII were the British secret weapon (Mulbery,pluto Atlantic convoys).Logistical excellence were the UKs greatest asset of WWII,we may not of manufactured all of the good we moved,but by god we got them to the countries that needed them (with a little help from Canada).As for Jap logistics,difficult to move your supplies without a merchant navy (thaks to the US Navy),so they would have to be poor (at best).This brings me to Soviet logistics,I think I will let that one go at good but I could go on for hours about the ups and downs of Soviet logistics,they range from bloody pathetic to excellent.

A defence of my posistion on Uk land forces being rated as poor-fair.

1.Very poor at combined arms.
2.IMO the regimental system that had been the cornerstone that provided discipline and cohesion in earlier wars failed to provide an effective mechanism for decision making at the platoon level during WWII.In other words,the brittish army never gained the flexibility necessary for modern warfare.
3.Officer corps hamstrung by the old boys network.


Hurley.I dont care how good the French tanks were,they didnt have a clue how to use them.The german tanks at the start of the war were fair at best but they knew how to use them...

[ronan]

Hello

I've just read this topic, and I also think it's silly to resume quality on ONE word.
How could you compare a Russian Guard division to another one ? a ''siberian'' one to some underequiped one ?
How could you compare some german paratroops to luftwaffe div ? (yes they did fight on foot !)
How can you rate French army as poor ? Did you heard about the Battle of Hanut ? first clash between tanks army (France1940) ? Did you read some germans books, where they explain a large part of french army fought really fiercely ?
and at last, how could you rate the french navy as poor ? it was one of the most feared navy, even US et England asked France to not give this fleet to the ennemy...

I only speak for the armies I know, I think it must be the same with some other countries..

For years it was said "the germans were the best" (but why did they loose ?) Then it turns to "the other countries were the best"
This long war can't be resume.
IMHO you CAN'T resume quality with one word.

(I also remember French army in Italy, just learn about general Juin and his boys... )

But it's a good idea to THINK about it, some players I know did'nt think at all !