Worst Army of WW2

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
Locked
User avatar
Alpini Arditi
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 04 Jan 2022, 00:15
Location: North Wales

Worst Army of WW2

#1

Post by Alpini Arditi » 23 Feb 2022, 23:03

I know that this is going to be a subject open to all opinions, based on various criteria and circumstances. Countries whose armies collapsed after only a matter of hours, like Denmark's, would probably be a strong choice at first glance, but other conditions could be said to have occured there, like undefendable terrain. Italy could be said to be the most ineffectual that launched major offensives, and Bulgaria could be said to be the worst of the Axis as it contributed little, a few counter-partisan operations and it's air force intercepting flights of Allied Bombers, but not with the success of Hungary and Romania. How can the various Chinese Nationalist Armies be assessed, over 8 years, vast terrains and with different warlords in charge? I've read 'not so good' until bolstered by the Americans, but is that only a generalisation? So, a lot of 'ifs and buts' in trying to determine the poor performances of the armies of WW2.

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Worst Army of WW2

#2

Post by daveshoup2MD » 24 Feb 2022, 04:58

Alpini Arditi wrote:
23 Feb 2022, 23:03
I know that this is going to be a subject open to all opinions, based on various criteria and circumstances. Countries whose armies collapsed after only a matter of hours, like Denmark's, would probably be a strong choice at first glance, but other conditions could be said to have occured there, like undefendable terrain. Italy could be said to be the most ineffectual that launched major offensives, and Bulgaria could be said to be the worst of the Axis as it contributed little, a few counter-partisan operations and it's air force intercepting flights of Allied Bombers, but not with the success of Hungary and Romania. How can the various Chinese Nationalist Armies be assessed, over 8 years, vast terrains and with different warlords in charge? I've read 'not so good' until bolstered by the Americans, but is that only a generalisation? So, a lot of 'ifs and buts' in trying to determine the poor performances of the armies of WW2.
Have the define the parameters of the comparison, though. The strategic problem facing the US in 1941 was astronomically different than any of the European or Asian combatants, in terms of the objectives and distances involved, and the US Army (and Marine Corps, which numbered more than several of the "major" combatants did, in terms of deployable ground and air forces), were organized and equipped and led and fought in a different manner, generally, than a lot of the other combatants.

The other point, of course, is that every mobilized force had a certain percentage of formations of high, low, and middle capabilities, and pretending any "single" army had advantages across the board is simply myth.


ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Worst Army of WW2

#3

Post by ljadw » 24 Feb 2022, 12:44

Alpini Arditi wrote:
23 Feb 2022, 23:03
I know that this is going to be a subject open to all opinions, based on various criteria and circumstances. Countries whose armies collapsed after only a matter of hours, like Denmark's, would probably be a strong choice at first glance, but other conditions could be said to have occured there, like undefendable terrain. Italy could be said to be the most ineffectual that launched major offensives, and Bulgaria could be said to be the worst of the Axis as it contributed little, a few counter-partisan operations and it's air force intercepting flights of Allied Bombers, but not with the success of Hungary and Romania. How can the various Chinese Nationalist Armies be assessed, over 8 years, vast terrains and with different warlords in charge? I've read 'not so good' until bolstered by the Americans, but is that only a generalisation? So, a lot of 'ifs and buts' in trying to determine the poor performances of the armies of WW2.
The problem is that there are no parameters that can be used to define good,bad,very good, very bad armies ,as the successes /failures/defeats of armies depend also on the strength/weakness of the opponent .
In 1940 the Wehrmacht defeated the BEF,but in 1943 the British Army defeated the WM .
Conclusion ? There is no conclusion .

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Worst Army of WW2

#4

Post by daveshoup2MD » 24 Feb 2022, 14:32

ljadw wrote:
24 Feb 2022, 12:44
Alpini Arditi wrote:
23 Feb 2022, 23:03
I know that this is going to be a subject open to all opinions, based on various criteria and circumstances. Countries whose armies collapsed after only a matter of hours, like Denmark's, would probably be a strong choice at first glance, but other conditions could be said to have occured there, like undefendable terrain. Italy could be said to be the most ineffectual that launched major offensives, and Bulgaria could be said to be the worst of the Axis as it contributed little, a few counter-partisan operations and it's air force intercepting flights of Allied Bombers, but not with the success of Hungary and Romania. How can the various Chinese Nationalist Armies be assessed, over 8 years, vast terrains and with different warlords in charge? I've read 'not so good' until bolstered by the Americans, but is that only a generalisation? So, a lot of 'ifs and buts' in trying to determine the poor performances of the armies of WW2.
The problem is that there are no parameters that can be used to define good,bad,very good, very bad armies ,as the successes /failures/defeats of armies depend also on the strength/weakness of the opponent .
In 1940 the Wehrmacht defeated the BEF,but in 1943 the British Army defeated the WM .
Conclusion ? There is no conclusion .
Well, there's one pretty basic parameter - which military force(s) succeeded on the battlefield in destroying their respective enemy or enemies? Pretty clear answer there:
USS Missouri VJ Day.jpg

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2623
Joined: 25 Feb 2013, 21:23

Re: Worst Army of WW2

#5

Post by gebhk » 24 Feb 2022, 14:50

Hi Ijadw

While I have some sympathy with your view (in the more 'what's the point' sort of way), I have to disagree that there are no parameters that can be used. On the contrary, they evidently can and wargamers routinely use them to decide who is the winner of a wargaming engagement. This is especially true if we move away from fuzyy and value-laden subjective terms like 'bad' and its superlative 'worst' to the more objective and measurable efficacy and effectiveness.

To use an example, the 303 squadron is often cited as the 'best' or 'most effective' squadron in the BoB becasue (a) its ratio of kills to losses was the most positive. This standing is often further enhanced by noting that it achieved that ouctome despite (b) flying crappier aircraft than its nearest competitors for the crown and (c) achieving this in less time. There is no reason why you cannot extend such calculations more widely to entire armies, albeit, clearly, that would require a great deal of labour.

Needless to say how good or bad an army is at killing the opponent at least cost to oneself (In casualties but also resources/finance), that is (b) above, is only one measure of quality but it nevertheless is one and a damned good one at that. (b) is only relevant if you are interested in comparing the quality of the human element alone. (c) is only partially useful because the shorter the time period, the greater the likelihood of chance factors distorting the picture. For example on the basis of alleged German figures provided, the Danish army of 1940 might be considered one of the most effective land force ever, achieving kill rates of over 10:1 and significantly higher if Danish losses to airpower are excluded from the equation. However the very short time period for this contest mean that battle was never joined fully and risk of chance error is high. Clearly it reflects very well on the Danes who used shooting accuracy, use of terrain and movement to great effect. However it does not reflect badly on the Germans who were simply prevented from bringing their military expertise to bear by winning the campaign too soon! Also fatalities and woundings are not the only measure - so is the taking of prisoners. When the prisoners taken by the Germans in the Danish campaign are taken into account, the ratio becomes much less favourable to the Danes.

On the other hand the longer the combat lasts, the greater the chances that fatigue and attrition will set in lowering the average achievement. Indeed, the endurance a force exhibits is a significant measure of its quality in itself. And so on and so forth. You can make it as complex as you like, but it is doable. I would suggest that the real problerm is finding rerliable data to plug into these parameters rather than lack of parameters per se. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that the militaries of the world have not done this sort of exercise repeatedly because it is one of the best guides to developing one's own armed forces.
Last edited by gebhk on 24 Feb 2022, 15:04, edited 2 times in total.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Worst Army of WW2

#6

Post by ljadw » 24 Feb 2022, 20:22

daveshoup2MD wrote:
24 Feb 2022, 14:32
ljadw wrote:
24 Feb 2022, 12:44
Alpini Arditi wrote:
23 Feb 2022, 23:03
I know that this is going to be a subject open to all opinions, based on various criteria and circumstances. Countries whose armies collapsed after only a matter of hours, like Denmark's, would probably be a strong choice at first glance, but other conditions could be said to have occured there, like undefendable terrain. Italy could be said to be the most ineffectual that launched major offensives, and Bulgaria could be said to be the worst of the Axis as it contributed little, a few counter-partisan operations and it's air force intercepting flights of Allied Bombers, but not with the success of Hungary and Romania. How can the various Chinese Nationalist Armies be assessed, over 8 years, vast terrains and with different warlords in charge? I've read 'not so good' until bolstered by the Americans, but is that only a generalisation? So, a lot of 'ifs and buts' in trying to determine the poor performances of the armies of WW2.
The problem is that there are no parameters that can be used to define good,bad,very good, very bad armies ,as the successes /failures/defeats of armies depend also on the strength/weakness of the opponent .
In 1940 the Wehrmacht defeated the BEF,but in 1943 the British Army defeated the WM .
Conclusion ? There is no conclusion .
Well, there's one pretty basic parameter - which military force(s) succeeded on the battlefield in destroying their respective enemy or enemies? Pretty clear answer there:

USS Missouri VJ Day.jpg
One could reply with a picture of Wainwright capitulating to Homma on May 6 1942 .Was the reason for this capitulation that the Japanese army was ''superior '' or that the US army was ''inferior '' ?
War is a a coin with two sides,at least two sides ,because there are countless other factors as:the mission (defensive or aggressive),the terrain, climate,bad or good luck,quantitative and qualitative superiority (in the Western historiography of WW 2,qualitative superiority is overestimated,quantitative superiority underestimated, there is also the role ( also exaggerated ) of logistics .Etc,etc...

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Worst Army of WW2

#7

Post by David Thompson » 25 Feb 2022, 06:47

Locked as an opinion thread.

Locked

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”