In WW2, which army (in it's prime) would've been hypothetically the best?

Question

During WW2, if the U.S. army, at it's peak, had gone up against the German Wermacht at it's zenith, which army would've most likely won out? I'm speaking in terms of equipment, training, manpower, strategy, leadership, resources, etc. Which side do you think would've had the edge and why? Yes, this is purely hypothetical speculation.

Answer 1

Assuming that all other factors like sustainability, variations in terrain (choke points), etc. are removed from the equation and that we are looking at one campaign over a period of 6 months to a year, I think if the German Army in 1942 would defeat the Americans or British in 1994/45.

In 42 the Germans had a strong professional officer corps, solid equipment, and high moral. If you took the English and American Army from the summer 44 campaign and put them in France, with the German Army of 42 in Germany and let loose the dogs of war, the Germans win 4 times out of 5. The Luftwaffe would have created air superiority (or at least deny it to the English/Americans) while the German Tank Corps would outmaneuver the English/Americans. Were the campaign to last more than a year (and the Russians are neutral) it would devolve into a static war similar to WWI.

Now looking at just the Germans of 42 and the Russians of 44/45 its an interesting question. As the Red Army advanced through Poland and into Germany, the German Army put up one hell of a fight. In 44/45 the strength of the German Army was ebbing or at its low point in terms of material and manpower, yet the Germans were still able to break up offensives and launchserious counter attacks. Yet the 44/45 Red Army had the Stalin tanks, massive amounts of shock troops, strong ground support air units, and an effective supply pipeline.

I'll still put my money on the Germans though I'll reduce the probability to 6/8 or 9. I think a full strength Luftwaffe would neutralize the Russian Air Force, with no side having air superiority. The German Army had better tactics and experienced leadership from the command level down to the sub unit level. The Germans would have had enough Armour units to disable the massive Stalin tanks, and the Soviets wouldn't be able to replace them fast enough. The Germans would have greater mobility than the Red Army both in tactics and actual maneuvering capacity (mechanized troops, trucks etc). This again assumes a 6 month to a year campaign. Any longer than a year and the Red Army would wear out the Germans by sheer weight of numbers.

Answer 2

The best army in the world would have a German general staff, British non-coms and American soldiers but at its zenith it would be hard to beat the Germans. Their primary edge was not equipment, or numbers, or training or resources. Their advantage was in tactics. Blitzkrieg was new and unstoppable and allowed them to conquer most of Europe. The German army had to be overwhelmed by huge numbers and even then (Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge) they proved to have a nasty habit of surprising their enemies.

The British army was beaten on every front until El Alamein and the only reason they won there was overwhelming odds. They where probably the finest professional army of the time with an incredible tenacity hampered by a total lack of creativity.

The Russian army was a paper wall hiding a sledge hammer. Everything about it was amateur. There is very little there to praise other then the courage of its soldiers.

The French army? Umm . . . Maginot Line. A defeatist attitude from the beginning.

The American army. My biggest reason for admiring the US Army was its ability to be given weapons built by the lowest bidder and still win but when they did encountered the German army on anything like an equal basis they came away second best. Kessarine Pass and the Battle of the Bulge come to mind and look how long they held the allies in Normandy. It took Blitzkrieg tactics to break out by a general that had understood the way to do it. Of course that was Patton.

Answer 3

The zenith of the allies (circa 1944-1945) meant air superiority, innumerable tanks (shermans & T-34), as well as enormous supply reserves. The zenith of the Werhmact (1940-41)meant inferior tanks and planes when compared to the allied zenith. Remember, the Tigers and Panthers didn't make it to the front in large numbers until after Kursk (1943) and even then, they were few in number compared to the allied numbers.

If the Wehrmact could've matched the allied numbers in 44 and 45 with their superior tanks, jets, V1/V2s, then the Wehrmact would've had the advantage.

Answer 4

In the end I actually favor the American army! The overwhelming technical and material strength of the Americans could not have been matched by the Germans. In this hypothetical "game" we have to pit Germans with Panther and Tiger tanks against Americans with Pershing (M26) tanks and M56 tank destroyers, ME 262's and Stukas against P51's , P47's, and B26's, and German AM radio's against American FM radio's.

The Americans also have many advantages, like radar or the crushing weight of their artillery firing with "proximity" fuses, and invaluable "secret weapons" like the C47 transport plane and the 2 1/2 ton truck.

But perhaps most important of all was an intangible you might call American ingenuity. Because none of us (ah, except Wedemeyer) had ever been to the Berlin "War Academy" we were too stupid to know that being outflanked or surrounded meant that you had to retreat or surrender.

We just kept fighting, like at Mortan where the U.S. 30th division was overran by the German 2nd Panzer and 2nd Panzer SS divisions but held their ground and drove them back.

Answer 5

I think the Germans would have won.