Infantry of World War 2

[trackend]

So how would you class the Army Commandos D each had to pass a very stiff selection but in terms of numbers it ran into several battalions all had high unarmed combat and self sufficientcy skills and specilist covert or raiding abilitys.
Inverary was a highly regarded although extremely dangerous training course.
To me these where the elite British force during WW2 as they where a large enough group to take on the Germans head on but also skilled enough to operate in small unit covert or raiding operations. this made them formidable all round soldiers.

For the Germans I would go for the Paratroops all selected for fitness and physical abilities and excellent combat troops tough, skilled and in my opinion the equal too any allied units.

I have always liked the US 29th rangers having trained alongside the British Commandos at Achnacarry they fought alongside and carried out many raids with and without the Commandos proving themselves to be troops of the highest order and effectivness,and there cliff scaling abilitys became a speciality un matched by any other units.

The SOE had some extremely efficient and courageous operatives the bravest generally being the radio operators due to the incredible almost suicidle risks they ran for each transmition.

 

[Glider]

PLan D your last post was first class. Hard to disagree with any of it and it sums things up pretty well.

 

[plan_D]

I don't consider the Commandos a specialised force because, as you mentioned, they were in large enough numbers to take the enemy head-on. They landed on the beaches on D-Day and were an Army fighting unit, just like the Airborne.

They were extremely effective in combat and were the élite along with the Airborne. The British Army is difficult to generalise because different regiments have different cultures, as it were. The whole idea of the same people from the same area joining the same regiment gives a sense of competition, which makes each regiment different from the next.

As I said earlier, the Allied equals to the German infantry were the U.S and British Airborne, Commando and Ranger units. The majority of the U.S and British Army were too cautious making them less effective soldiers.

The Fallschirmjager were élite and were extremely effective and brutal soldiers. The Fallschirm and Waffen-SS were the two élite sections of the German fighting machine. I think the stand made at Monte Cassino is enough to make the Fallschirm go down in history as a great fighting unit.
There was also a SS-Fallschirmjager battalion but don't let the name fool you, they weren't élite. It was a penal battalion.

The SOE were remarkable and definately worth mentioning. Extremely brave and skilled, they were certainly a great asset to the Allied war effort. The most famous SOE action has to be the destruction of the Heavy Water plant in Telemark...

People often forget the SAS beyond North Africa, I find. The SAS were in action far ahead of the Allied forces in North West Europe causing havoc among German supply lines. They were remarkable soldiers also, extremely aggressive and brave.

Thank you, Glider. You get me going I just can't stop!

 

[Glider]

Don't tell the wife

 

[plan_D]

Is she missing out?

I had to recover, you sick "*%£"!

 

[trackend]

The Commandos did a lot more than land on D-day, D ( St Nazair was not a big unit action)

 

[plan_D]

I was using D-Day as an example of their full unit strength actions.

 

[P38 Pilot]

Personally I think some of the best divisions we had here in the US were the Paratroopers. 101st and 82nd had to be the best of the best. And about the Japanese infantry, thats all they had were Banzai tactics. Using crappy weapons like that. They didnt even have proper SMGs! I dont think they spent a lot of time on their Land Armies but instead on their Naval Fleets and somewhat aircraft.

I think the Germans had the best infantry overral. But when it comes down too power, size, and reliable weapons, the United States had the upperhand in Europe and the Pacific.

 

[evangilder]

Ever heard of the 17th Airborne? The were in the largest and most successful aiborne invasion in history. The British 6th Airborne was also part of that. It was called Operation Varsity. This is an operation that is mostly forgotten in WWII history. If it was better known, the 17th would be as famous as the 82nd and 101st, if not moreso.

 

[plan_D]

I already mentioned the best of the U.S being Airborne and Rangers. Of course, my Airborne would include all the U.S Airborne not just the famous 82nd and 101st. Operation Varsity, the drop on the Rhine - it didn't go as well as planned but it worked.

P38, go tell people fighting in the jungles of Burma that all the Japanese had was the Banzai charge. The Japanese were masters of concealment, night marching and self-reliance. Matters of war are not simply the combat, it's getting into combat and being able to get out of combat.

Reliable weapons, the U.S? What makes the U.S weapons more reliable the German weapons? It's alright being patriotic but really, don't go over the top or you're not going to learn anything.

 

[KraziKanuK]

I know it is going to hit the fan but the best common Allied(non American) soldiers were from the 'Colonies'.

 

[Nonskimmer]

Heh. I have a great uncle who wholeheartedly agrees with that. Ex-Airborne.

 

[trackend]

Its only right that you show your colours KK I think that most guys are going to go with their own nationalities my old man worked along side Canadian,US,Australian,Gurka,Poles, and British troops as well as coming in close contact with German and Japanese troops he always said each had there merits and there faults the perfect soldier is yet to be invented.

 

[plan_D]

Absolutely no evidence to back that up though, KK?

Although they weren't the best, the British colonials were excellent fighting troops. Why say "non-American", the American troops weren't the best and far from it.

All the British Airborne units were remarkable soldiers, and that goes for Colonial troops also. You will find that many Canadians, British, Australians, New Zealanders etc. etc. fought alongside in the same regiments during the war.

The "Colonials" were just as bad, and as good, as the British troops. The only "Colonial" troops that do stand out for me are the Ghurka and West African troops, who were in action in the CBI.

I feel it seems to be something to do with the anti-British sentiment; if the British were always such poor fighting troops, how did they own one third of the Earth and all the oceans?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yeah so, how big was the american empire

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The German Paratroopers were great fighters. Fort Eben Emael which was considered impregnable in Belgium was taken in about 30 hours by only 85 paratroopers (some sources say only 38 to 80) led by a Seargant. They rehearsed it the operation over and over and over on a replica of the fort before they did it.

Their second operation, which this time included parachuting and glider landings, was a month later in the invasion of western europe. They did what paratroopers do best, and captured vital river bridges behind enemy lines which the advancing german armor needed to cross, and a formidable belgian fortress, Eben Emael, which guarded other key bridges.

Eben Emael was manned by about a thousand belgian soldiers and was strongly fortified. It was a set of seven large fortified artillery positions, with 18 artillery guns, surrounded by many machine gun positions, mine fields, barbed wire, a moat, and connected via underground bunkers and tunnels.

On May 10, 1940, at dawn, this fortress was attacked by just 78 Fallschirmjager troops which landed on top of it with 10 gliders. They were equipped with light weapons and with several 100 pound armor piercing explosive charges. Before the raid these 78 paratroopers trained on a full size model of the Eben Emael fortress. They landed precisely on the roof of the large fortress in total surprise, and with their far superior fighting skill over the shocked belgians they were able to quickly take over the roof area and confine the defenders to their fortified bunkers which they cracked one after the other with their special explosive charges. The german losses were just six dead and twenty wounded. A day later, when the paratroopers were joined by german ground forces, the hundreds of remaining belgian defenders inside the fortress surrendered.

The small elite force of just 78 german paratroopers defeated a greatly larger force in a mighty fortress. It was a great success which remains one of the most daring and successful raids in history, a model of what elite soldiers can achieve in properly planned raids.

Kurt Student himself suffered a severe head injury in the fighting in Holland, but survived. A year later he was back on duty and he and Erwin Rommel proposed a large scale airborne operation. http://www.2worldwar2.com/fallschirmjager.htm

But when it comes down too power, size, and reliable weapons, the United States had the upperhand in Europe and the Pacific.

Not to take anything away from the US weapons. They had great weapons like the M-1 and so forth but K98 Mauser was a great weapon and so was the Karabiner 43, FG 42, Gewehr 43, MG34, MG42, Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, and Sturmgewehr 44. Some of these weapons were some of the best of the war. The British aswell had some great excellent weapons that were very reliable.

FG 42

Caliber: 7.92x57mm Mauser
Weight:
Version I - 4.5 kg (9.92 lb)
version II, 4.9 kg (11.2 lb)
Length: 937 mm (I); 1060 mm (II)
Magazine Capacity: 10 or 20 rounds
Cyclic Rate: 900 (I); 600 (II) rounds per minute
Effective Range: roughly 500 meters (550 yards)

Gewehr 43 and Karabiner 43

Caliber: 7.92 x 57 mm Mauser
Muzzle velocity: 775 m/s (2,328 ft/s)
Action: Gas operated
Overall length: 1130 mm
Barrel length: 546 mm
versions with barrel lengths of 600, 650 and 700 mm existed as well
Weight: 4.1 kg, (9.7 lb) unloaded and without the scope
Rate of fire: 20 to 30 rounds per minute
Magazine capacity: 10 rounds
Sights: One of several scopes, typically 4x or 2.5x, backup "iron sights" as well.

K98 Mauser

Barrel length 600 mm
Ammunition 7.92 x 57 mm Mauser
Magazine 5 rounds internal box
Action
Rate of fire approx 15 rpm
Muzzle velocity 745 m/s
Weight 3.7 - 4.1 kg
Length 1110 mm
Variants
Number built 10 million +

MG34

Caliber: 7.92 mm
Load: continuous belt feed (50 or 200 round strips) or 75 round beltless saddle drum
Action: selective fire, air cooled
Rate of fire: 800 to 900 round/min
Weight: 12.1 kg (26.7 lb)
Weight with tripod: 19.2 kg (42.3 lb)

MG42

Calibre 7.92
Barrel length
Ammunition 7.92 x 57 mm
Magazine belt (50 or 250)
Action recoil, roller locking
Rate of fire 1200
Muzzle velocity
Weight 11.6 kg
Length
Variants none
Number built 400,000

MP40

Cartridge 9 x 19 mm
Action Blowback
Rate of fire 500 rpm
Muzzle velocity ~380 mps
Effective range ~ 100 m
Weight (Unloaded) 3.97 Kg
Length 63 cm (stock folded)
83.3 cm (stock extended)
Barrel 25.1 cm
Magazine capacity 32
Viewing sights Blade front
tangent U-notch
Variants MP36, MP38, MP40, MP40/1, MP41
Number built Over 1 million

Sturmgewehr 44

Cartridge 7.92 x 33 mm
Action Gas-actuated
Rate of fire 500-600
Muzzle velocity 685 m/s
Effective range 300 m
Weight (Unloaded) 5.22 kg
Length 940 mm
Barrel 419 mm
Magazine capacity 30
Viewing sights Blade front
Tangent U-notch rear
Variants ??
Number built 425,977

Needless to say the AK-47 was influenced by the 44.

 

[Nonskimmer]

The ol' Sten was one of those love/hate weapons with the Commonwealth troops. My great uncle George would say it was a "bastard of a thing" that had parts sticking out every which way, getting caught up and snagged in webbing and uniforms. He said it was awkward to hold (He was referring to the earlier Mk.II Sten, which had no grips save for the magazine.), and that you had to watch that you didn't wind up shooting the men around you with it. But...it worked! It was a simple, cheap, easy to produce wartime sub-machine gun that was there when it was needed most.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with you on that.

 

[trackend]

That sounds familiar Skimm my old man said the same as your uncle George about the Sten the bolt had such a poor safety and weak spring on a heavy bolt that it did not always engage on the casing of a chambered round could cause a live round to be pushed up the arse of an expended cartridge and fire the round out of the ejector slot. I believe 2 million Sten MKII's where produced this cartoon says it about right

 

[Nonskimmer]

Heh! That's probably your dad and my Uncle George.