Which were better at fighting in WWll the Americans or the Russians?

Answer 1

I would say the Americans.

Soviet tactics from the start of the counterattacks on the Germans through the collapse of the USSR were predicated on the notion of spending blood like water--an offensive was in effect a mudslide that flowed around and over the enemy, and if massive casualties were the cost, than so be it.

The US, not being able to command such enormous bodies of men in an unquestioning manner, developed the practice of using weapons instead of men to explore the enemy's positions--why sent a squad when artillery rounds will do? Why use artillery when tactaical airpower is available? We spent blood far more economically than the Red Army (a must in a democracy), which forced us to continually reevaluate our battlefield tactics.

In the end, the Red Armies were primarily responsible for the destruction of the Reich's armies in the field--but the cost was horrific, and left the Soviet Union short of able-bodied men for over a decade after the end of WWII. Few, if any nations are capable of sustaining such damage more than once.

Answer 2

"better at fighting"....hmmm, we (the Americans used carpet bombing and overwhelming air superiority to fight, while the Red Army employed massive 'human wave' tactics, along with overwelming tank forces.

Which is better? I'd say they both were successful, tho i prefer the American method.

Answer 3

Neither, the Canadian Army was most feared by German troops.

Answer 4

The Americans had the best trained and equipped men, and the best physically prepared.
The Russians, thru desperation, had to throw men into combat before they had more training than to load and fire their weapons.

Answer 5

Tactics used by the Soviets caused many problems. One issue was the distribution of supplies. The SOviets sent the supplies to the units that were advancing the most. This deprived the other units of needed ammo and food. The 'better' units ended up far past their flanks.

Answer 6

The americans, they had the best trained and equipped troops, the russians just had a incredible amount of men they were willing to commit to the war, and late on a very decent tank, equal to the germans ,something the US and other allies never really fielded. The russians couldnt beat the germans in a straight up fight, however once the US joined the Allies Hitler had to devide his forces between two massive fronts with a powerful adversary on each. Niether the Americans or the russians could have beaten the Nazis alone, but with one on each flank Hitler never had a chance. He was winning just fine against the russians until the US came in . if he hadnt made the mistake of barbarossa and attacked Russia prior to finishing of the brits he could have handles the US if we got involved either way he wins, but with american men and more importantly technology and production on the west , and the massive russian army on the east, the outcome was a given.

Answer 7

The Americans. The industrial world war which was World War II logistics was everything. America had that. That's always been America's main strength. Getting supplies from point A to point B to make sure your troops will never get hungry and will always get a clean pair of socks.

Russia didn't have that even with Stalin's programmes in the 30s. Instead the Soviet Union had to beg for supplies from America.

Anyways it's often said was won by American factories and Soviet soldiers. That much is true

Answer 8

The Americans, you commie!!!

Answer 9

I want to say the Russians because they had a tactical geographic advantage from the ill fated German armies.

Americans joined the war in the last stretch of it, and although they helped immensly, I don't believe that they ended the war with Germany. Germany's biggest mistake was marching into the freezing Russia unprepared and unaware of the harsh freezing conditions.

Answer 10

Americans had better equipment, and better trained men, and more men at the rights times