Which Country had the most Effective SOLDIERS of WW2

In this episode, we try and determine which of the main fighting forces of World War 2 had the most effective Soldiers at their disposal.
Buy us a KoFi to help support the channel & team! 🎭
•ko-fi.com/thefront
Check out some of the music we use in our videos!🎶
•bit.ly/RelaxJackYT
Join other history buffs on our Discord!📚
• / discord
🎬Video Credits:
Narrator - Cam [[e-mail]]
Editor - Giorgi [[e-mail]]
Writer - Nick [[e-mail]]
Fact Checker - Stefan [[e-mail]]
Intro Music - • ♩♫ Epic Horror Synth T...
For business inquiries and to learn about our team check out our website🌐:
•frontiermediaco.com
Chapters
0:00 Introduction
1:26 Clarifications
2:45 The Soviet Union
4:22 Great Britain
6:16 The Empire of Japan
7:49 The United States
9:07 Nazi Germany
11:49 Conclusion

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

There is a joke. A division of troops were standing around when they hear that they have been surrounded by unknown forces. They decide to fire a shot. If they respond with precision rifle shots, they are British. If they respond with deadly, accurate machine gun fire, they are German. If your front line gets blown up by a grenade, they are Canadian. If they respond with a massive wave of people and tanks, they are Russian. If they respond with a banzai charge with people waving swords, they are Japanese If they surrender, they are French. If nothing happens for a couple minutes, and your entire front line disappears to artillery and air strikes, then they are American.

[@carl1592]

lmao i get it all

[@Stevenwoodward-ii1uw]

Lol

[@redacted9694]

And if your lines get demoralised by intensive swearing, they’re Australian

[@charlesstuart7290]

Germans always complained that the Americans wouldn't engage unless they had artillery and air superiority.

[@clothschickensogs2947]

If you are manuevered by guerilla tactics. And swarms of soldiers hiding and sniping you. They are Filipino

[@zyrelcoronado9825]

Early German Units are OP , until the nerf patch of attrition

[@dank_lord]

@Cpl. Rook and we all know that soviets only lost in the first half because of the massive -50% org penalty from the great purge national focus. Once they finished the lessons of war focus, they basically won.

[@VypeFX]

Cpl. Rook they definitely were op as france defenses where shocked by their ability to keep pushing forward without sleeping and stopping for DAYS. USSR army is not as strong as the germans and they simply used their manpower, weather against hitlers blindness of not retreating.

[@VypeFX]

Cpl. Rook I can agree on the part in the fight against the french and british but defenitely not on the eastern front. German military had more quality in man and in the beginning also in their armament, planes etc . The german ardenn offensive was heavily carried out with drug use which also added to their power. Idk certain but I think I heard that this offensive was one of the fastest ever in human history. Can also be bullshit tho

[@audunms4780]

@@VypeFX ehemm, google, the manchurian campain. I love zuckow chan.

[@joseemmanuelosegueracamare4044]

*Finland

[@brianpetersen2364]

A quick add-on to the German infantrie, they trained their NCOs and Junior Officers to be proficient in the use of all small arms and heavy weapons including heavy MGs MG34&42 mortars/light artillery and anti tank weapons so they were very flexible in combat situations being able to use any equipment in any situation and pass that knowledge on to their men

[@fangslaughter1198]

Same with the Canadian infantry. Simply the Best!!🇨🇦

[@aswaltan8962]

​@@fangslaughter1198I'm still believe most effective army ww2 are German nazi but they are cruel ,brutality and killer robbery.

[@aidankitson7877]

The Finnish army was remarkable in how it stood up to the might of the USSR

[@LSgaming201]

More Soviet incompetence rather than Finnish skill. But still remarkable.

[@georgeousthegorgeous]

@@LSgaming201 more like finnish winter rather than finnish skill

[@grandadmiralthrawn3164]

There was no real infrastructure in the area which meant that the ussr could not bring their entire military to bear on the Finnish

[@LSgaming201]

@@grandadmiralthrawn3164 They outnumbered the Finns in nearly every battle fought for the entire 9 month war. The Soviet battle plan was idiotic and when Stalin fired Voroshilov the war suddenly turned in the USSRs favor. Because Voroshilov had no idea what he was doing.

[@grandadmiralthrawn3164]

@@LSgaming201 yes I know the Finns fought valiantly and when Semyon Timoshenko took over the tide immediately turned, however if the infrastructure had been better even a incompetent political officer like Voroshilov could defeat Finland thanks to massively overwhelming numbers

[@wardaddy6595]

@9:45 German son: "Dad what did you do in the war"? German Army Dad: "Eh, what did you say, let me get my hearing aide in". German son: "I SAID WHAT DID YOU DO IN THE WAR"?!! German Army Dad: "Well son I was an improvised bi-pod for an MG 34"

[@lit-litaly1204]

this is very under rated

[@travisdozier1357]

I’ve shot an mg42... not a mg53.. and I’ve owned an mg34.. great gun. Never had a problem with it.. the m1919 I owned..what a pos. Nothing but a boat a anchor.

[@ninjagamingxplayz6585]

No wonder he needs hearing aid

[@theinvictus9130]

@@travisdozier1357 I'v got a dog. I usually walk him at least twice a day cause he a big boy. After that he gets his food

[@Phozz4]

The correct german term is "Fleischlafette".

[@cryingcatgoesbark310]

Therapist: “hitler with diabetes isn’t real he can’t hurt you” Hitler with diabetes 1:09

[@GuitarAndWhatevs]

Too many luftwaffles

[@cryingcatgoesbark310]

Daniel Guzman, lol he also put some *insert ww2 food sounding thing here* on his waffles

[@Daesarul]

*wide hitler*

[@picklerix6162]

I was thinking WWE Hitler.

[@js11238]

He needs a manzier. (Ref. Seinfeld)

[@dylandgb]

I’m English but Germany had by far the most effective infantry of ww2

[@vanmust]

watch it...when you say English what side? French (Norman) or German (Saxon)?where was your great great great great grandfather during the battle at Hastings?

[@vanmust]

Normans came from the Vikings...France's king allowed them to habitate Normandy and take on french customs

[@tabarnacus5629]

There's no contest here, it only takes 1 half blind Canadian soldier to capture/liberate a city.

[@skylerkelsey3684]

Leo Major be like.

[@sbwmurray3988]

They Love to keep Canadians out of the Mix in these..Hands down he best fighting units.

[@rome316ae3]

Komedy achieved 🤡

[@iwantlee9510]

@@sbwmurray3988 except they werent

[@skylarsoper241]

Crazy canucks all the way to V-day !!

[@ariserusic]

Theraphist: diabetic hitler doesn't exist it cant hurt you Diabetic hitler: 1:09

[@maximilianolimamoreira5002]

🤣😅

[@jaypea30]

D E A R G O D

[@whyhellothere9822]

@@jaypea30 theres more

[@maximilienlonca7006]

diabetic Hitler has an Eddie Hall strongman body now...

[@addieloveswheelies5672]

💀

[@Hans-hy5jp]

Therapist: Adolf Thiccler doesn't exist, he can't hurt you Adolf Thiccler: 1:08

[@clumsycommissar5260]

Hans wait... are you the bad guy?

[@Hans-hy5jp]

@@clumsycommissar5260 yeah

[@Yuki_Ika7]

The German bulk bogan

[@Yuki_Ika7]

@Jim lastname idk, i just know some people call fat people Bulk Bogan, that's all

[@roskcity]

@@Hans-hy5jp we are the baddies man

[@ingsocofficial2464]

I agree with you on that German Units were most effective during WWII. Great video!

[@NHOJ11]

United states and german units were good

[@ruffnecky3]

@@NHOJ11 Battle of Wizna? 40:1? with their equipment Polish soldiers would finish Germans in 1939, even fighting with Soviets on second front at the same time

[@megasbasileios3154]

@@ruffnecky3 lol Poland obliterated in 4 weeks by Germany what you're taking about? The definition of destroying someone is what Germany did to Poland

[@marks665]

@@megasbasileios3154 The Polish actually put up a good fight. It wasn't until the Soviets invaded from the East that they really started to collapse. But that's to be expected when a small country is fighting a two front war against two much larger countries.

[@theeater8906]

@@ruffnecky3 The Polish soldiers fought bravely, they were probably among the most valiant fighters during the whole war (saying this as a German). However they were lacking the equipment, manpower and logistics to compete with Germany. I think some people judge soldiers too easily because their nation lost quickly. Everybody jokes about France but if you truly analyze how and why France lost the war and how French soldiers sacrificed themselves in order for British soldiers to be able to retreat to GB, you get a different picture.

[@user-en1mj8uc5f]

No wonder why the attack on the Shanghai warehouse took so long. The Chinese who stood their ground there were trained by German trainers.

[@MominEnjoyer]

Me, when he pronounces Wehrmacht and Blitzkrieg right: "Impossible"

[@Perceval777]

The Germans themselves didn't actually use the word Blitzkrieg during the war, though.

[@fnnsvnssn2164]

@@Perceval777 It's still a german word.

[@jozzaprouductionsHD]

​@@Perceval777 bewegungskrieg is correct

[@phuckos]

but then pronounces english words wrong lol

[@cxtcutsml706]

@@phuckos how tf? He pronounces English word perfectly fine.

[@renlin8925]

5:47 “British infantry made good use of the Lee Enfield” *shows an American with a Springfield*

[@thesnake2620]

Also he insinuated that the Thompson was inferior to the Bren because "The barrel couldn't be swapped out" even though they are completely different types of weapons...the video was entertaining but pretty poorly researched.

[@severedsage5867]

The Snake yeah the video is very flawed and probably heavily scripted with typos

[@mofal_bluk9472]

He called the thompson a machine gun (not that big of a deal, since you could think it was a typo) and then compared it to the Bren, which means he actually meant machine gun. And later on he said MP42 instead of MP40.

[@renlin8925]

Mиша haha gotta love the mp42, the mg42’s little brother.

[@mofal_bluk9472]

@@renlin8925 cousin of the FG42

[@MDzmitry]

There is actually a joke made by the soviet soldiers that if you need to capture an alive Fritz all you needed was to be of a higher rank and shout out commands loud and clear enough

[@citizennoble9231]

there was also a joke made by the german soldiers...a soviet soldier.

[@user-io3ph5ll6w]

@@citizennoble9231 nobody laughing since 1943 tho

[@headhunter1945]

@@user-io3ph5ll6w Technically correct, but more accurately, people in the Soviet Union had actually not laughed since at least 1922.

[@user-io3ph5ll6w]

@@headhunter1945 noone in ex soviet countries enjyoing their lives since 1991

[@headhunter1945]

@@user-io3ph5ll6w the difference is that now they are allowed to complain about it without being shot

[@kaunas888]

It was amazing that the Germans managed to hold out for so many years. The allies had to simply spend years slowly and relentlessly grinding them down at great cost.

[@AHLSPUDS]

I mean, not really. Upon America entering the war they took Africa fairly quick, then Italy fell even faster. Afterwards they moved so fast through German territories that they had to stop for a winter to resupply, they moved quicker than they could get trucks with ammo to the front. While the Soviets had great cost, the British and American's lost a good bit less than Germans and Soviets, and it definitely wasn't slow.

[@pc86914]

@@AHLSPUDS agreed. D-Day could have happened a lot earlier if the technology and logistical expertise needed to pull it off had already existed. The long wait for D-Day was more to allow technology and supply to catch up and make it possible rather than the Germans being too powerful. Many troops that landed on D-Day had already been in the UK for over a year by that point.

[@trololoev]

Germany and allies is 300 million people.

[@pastek93]

Americans would have delayed the D-day if they could. They landed in Europe because Stalin was steamrolling the Wehrmacht in the east towards Berlin. USA wanted to reach Berlin first.

[@AHLSPUDS]

@@pastek93 They landed in Europe because the Soviets kept demanding they did and threatened to slow down.

[@lillyie]

it's heartbreaking that WW2 movies often depict german soldiers as weak ineffective forces that were easily gunned down. In reality the allied forces had to face hell in order to defeat the german war machine

[@Jibbermidget]

What fucking movies are you watching?

[@rob5944]

@@Jibbermidget American ones.

[@rob5944]

@Noah But they always loose.

[@rob5944]

@Noah Well in Patton-A Lust For Glory it shows them winning at the Kasserine Pass and at Arnhem in A Bridge too Far....not the whole film of course...

[@mrcool2107]

Hollywood propaganda makes others weak

[@davidhernandez-du7dh]

When the whole world gets together to stop you... you are the best.

[@massivepussylips1752]

Yes the whole world

[@walawalayaga8116]

yes the whole world

[@biggussdickuss5184]

Yes the whole world

[@heresy8384]

Ah yes, because Isis is obviously the best. American soldiers can't even compete with some 11 year old conscripted child with a pipe bomb who is told to run at the nearest US Base.

[@spolarn]

Yes im sure it wasnt because of the rapant expansionism, militarism and genocide

[@thisiswhereweare9006]

Speaking as a Brit, the Germans were the best fighters in WW2 by a mile.

[@thegreenskull4244]

yes

[@burnsmatkin9606]

Well that's a slap in the face when we Canadians saved your butts with shock troops and materiel through out the war. You might want to look up Ortona or the fact that on D-Day the Canucks held out against the 12th Panzer when the rest of the allies faced regular troops. We did that in WWI too. Frankly, your generals suck.

[@thegreenskull4244]

@@burnsmatkin9606 but he's right

[@swampdonkey1567]

@@thegreenskull4244 he ain't though.

[@thegreenskull4244]

@@swampdonkey1567 then who is

[@Niko-zu7mj]

Those Finns had definitely one of the best ratio and the Soviets one of the worst. If I'm thinking of who's was the most effective, I'm thinking of the RATIO (kills vs losses) and the total casualties. The deadliest sniper ever in history (Simo Häyhä) is one of the examples. Total casualties (the Winter War): Finland (70,000) vs the USSR (381,000) Total Casualties (the Continuation War): Finland (225,000) vs the USSR (944,000)

[@davecopp9356]

With the help of the germans. Finns alone would have been finished way sooner. And Finns were ungrateful like the italians who changed sites whenever things got tough.

[@xii600]

50% of the comment section angry Finns wanting a shoutout

[@ieat10kittens94]

REEEEEEESEEEEEESESEEESESESESEESES

[@brianpetersen2364]

Based upon their performance in the winter war against the USSR they would have won hands down, Leadership bravery and tactics they were in my opinion one of the best armies of WW2

[@samisha5834]

@@brianpetersen2364 If a guy with modern soldier equipment shoots down 10000 inmovilized teenagers is he the best soldier ever? Cause that is what the fins did. When encountering a decently prepared Soviet army later (while trying to invade) they didn't cause almost no harm.

[@carfentanyl1223]

@@samisha5834 let’s crunch down the facts the Finns had 300,000 soldiers fighting in the war and the soviets had over one million fighting in it even if they were poorly trained they had better gear more efficient weapons tanks and planes ect and all the Finns had were guns, sticks and burning vodka so Finland fought better than the Soviet Union and if they had the same gear and manpower as the soviets thy would of probably been in the top 5 most powerful military’s in ww2 change my mind

[@MagicButterz]

@@brianpetersen2364 they were annoying too attack so Russia ignored them, they were as significant as Brazilians in WW2

[@angryfoxzd5233]

The fact that it took the help of Americans, British, French, Canadians, and Russians to make Germany surrender is statement of how tough the German army is.

[@chrissmith-td3iu]

Not the British but the British Empire (including natural resources, manpower etc) French Empire (including natural resources, manpower etc)

[@Gleichtritt]

@L.C. Champlain I have to disagree with parts. The generals pictured Hitler as a mad man after the war, but he was not. He was evil ofc, but not mad or stupid. The generals believed in old manner, its enough to take the capital city, while Hitler saw the economic warfare. Therefore he did not want to go for moscow in the first place, but was not that "dominant" with his decisions, as he was later. His idea was from day one, to go straight for the caucasus and take Russias oil. The idea, that he wanted Stalingrad only for its name, is one that I only saw in one American documentary....and its flat out not true. Stalingrad, besides other important factors, guarded the wolga river, where a very important amount of supplies for russia came through. Eventually Germany could not proceed its successful blitzkrieg strategy against russia, because they had not enough oil to run all the machines. Horses saved them eventually, because again, there was not enough oil to execute the war in the way they wanted. And to Clear Kim I can only say, that this picture is a very simplified idea of Russia at that time. Russia's industry was simply underestimated plus they received gigantic amounts of supplies from the western allies. Also Russias technology was not that far behind Germany's, a good example is their T34, which was for quiet some time superior to German tanks, forcing them to develop new tanks, just to engage this enemy.

[@l1ouston]

Actually the list is a bit longer: - France (icluding it´s colonies = French Indochina, Afrika) - British Empire (including all of it´s colonies = Britisch Malaya, Afrika) - Australia - New Zealand - India (not really manpower but it´s resources) - Canada - USA - Russia - Luxemburg - Belgium - Netherlands (inlcuding the Dutch East Indies) - Denmark - Greece - Yugoslawia - Poland i think that´s about it...

[@silent00planet]

you forget the allies were decent people fighting monsters the fins were decent people

[@JDP2104]

@L.C. Champlain you underestimated the amount of Soviet deaths by about 7 million

[@MJ-bz2by]

So many nations should get further credit. French infantry covering the rear of British retreat to Dunkirk did well (terribly lead). Poles were the soldiers who finally captured Monte Cassino, Aussies at Tobruk who wouldn’t bend for Rommel, Canadians, Indians, South Africans all tough. But ultimately your summary is fair and the Wehrmacht infantry was head and soldiers above all comers.

[@gregorycraig9882]

While I agree with your final conclusion, I think leaving out Canadians was a huge over sight. Let's also not forget the USA was the last to join the fight by years, giving them lots of time to arm and train and enter the war fresh when the others were already war weary.

[@18roselover]

@@AchiB918 NO , just a member of the british commonwealth s africa palestine , india , rhodsia, australia new zealand etc

[@thebigsad5402]

The US joined the war effort early in the war. While they weren't a huge presence in Europe, in places like the Pacific, Africa they were fighting in 1942. Some say they were in the war on day 1 with the constant supply they kept giving to both the British and Soviets in the Alantic.

[@gregorycraig9882]

@@thebigsad5402 Early? Should have been there in 1939, like Canada.

[@corey2232]

@@gregorycraig9882 Canada was still very attached to the UK, like Australia, so of course they joined shortly after the British... Also, this wasn't a WW1 situation. The other forces weren't all depleted or "war weary," by that point, and you act as if the US wasn't heavily supplying & supporting the Allied forces. But then again, Canadians have this constant obsession to point out their superiority over the US & differentiate themselves at every opportunity because they totally, for real, definitely, are not just like Americans themselves....absolutely, I promise guys, they're SO different!

[@georgeousthegorgeous]

Canadians barely did anything in the war. Even US army was rather small, and canadians' were like a drop in an ocean. Barely 100'000 whereas USSR's army was 5'000'000+

[@streifitm3908]

The mp40 wasn't used more than the 98k, there were 1 or 2 SMG s per squad and 4 to 5 rifles

[@julianbinder3244]

Definetly true. In fact the germans prosuces relativly small numbers of smgs compared to the other major nations. Except Italy...

[@markmanuba1741]

From 1943-1944 every German soldiers prefer to have a SMG than a rifle. During this time Germany is on a extensive defense and more fighting fought at cities rather than open fields, thus the production of SMG or disposable SMG and ammunition are tripled. So his facts are true.

[@pepperidgefarms1772]

Streifi TM yeah only 2 smgs 4 to rifles and the squad most works around with MGs mostly the MG34 or 42 was used to suppress the enemy then rifle and smgs would mostly finish and move up

[@fenrirunshackled4319]

He might have misread the script, or had a typo. He may have meant "were used more" instead of "more were used" and was stating that a very large portion of German infantry tactics were centered around them, and that they were used more effectively than the rifles. He also could have just done shoddy research, idk.

[@dimakapeev3156]

And considering the fact Soviets outfitted entire battalions with submachine guns, that statement is false.

[@FadirDungeon]

Considering the fact that Germany took on about half the world, and was very succesfull for a good while, and held out for a long time on several fronts, I'd say Germany was the most effective war machine with the best soldiers. But that's just my opinion.

[@justinusberger3933]

An opinion that happens to be 100% correct.

[@hentaimaster6221]

I wouldn’t say that, Their Soldiers were elite, tho they weren’t good at close combat like the Soviets, and they relied on Quality over quantity, so they didn’t have nearly as many tanks as the other nations, and their tanks and planes were over engineered, and required lots and lots of resources to maintain, and lots of resources like oil was something Germany didn’t have a lot of.

[@GalaxyGamerITA]

@@hentaimaster6221 your name is making me die from laugh

[@GalaxyGamerITA]

@@hentaimaster6221 but you're right

[@ErikLikesLemonLime]

​@@hentaimaster6221 Not really the germans were alot better than the soviets at close combat. If we take stalingrad for example the germans had captured almost the whole city despite being outnumbered. One of the biggest reasons they lost the battle was because the romanians who where covering the flanks outside of the city got overrun and that resulted in the germans being surrounded inside of stalingrad.

[@brokenbridge6316]

What a great video. Nice job.

[@RockerFinland]

If we're talking about the most effective soldiers, I'd definitely pick Finland. They won almost all of the Battles in the Winter War & the Continuation War when they faced the Soviet Union. It's crazy to look how hugely outnumbered those Finns were (their ratio was amazing. Even the deadliest sniper in history is a Finn)

[@kirohaas3193]

They even beat the Germans in the Lapland war, after they signed an armistice with the Soviets, and they had to agree to evict all German troops (with whom the Soviets were still at war) from Finland. The Germans did not agree to go peacefully.

[@Editzsbyunemployed]

This was a really non nazi depiction of wehrmact this was very good

[@TheFront]

Thanks, Muneeb!

[@zexal4217]

I'm curious what you mean by that?

[@tavish4699]

@@zexal4217 well the fact that the german soldiere wasnt called nazi about 25 times in this video makes it much more enjoyable

[@zexal4217]

@@tavish4699 Ehhh, despite what some early literature may say, the average German soldier (and Wehrmacht as a whole) was pretty nazified with quite fanatical and evil men within it. Of course not ALL were like this, but a significant enough majority to justify referring to it as such.

[@Editzsbyunemployed]

@@zexal4217 if you watch 90% videos on internet about this you will see that the German soldiers as a whole were spawn of demons and they had evil magic powers sort of things if you know what I mean and then they were defeated by righteous allies so yeah it was a good non nazi video

[@haroldearlgray5629]

F's in the chat for Italy

[@colonialbred3399]

*sad pizza time noises*

[@derkernspalter]

Imagine France is already beaten and when you try to go in and occupy South France your troops are driven out by the remaining french militias.

[@aclarkk5462]

Italy’s forces weren’t too bad, it’s a common misconception. They had very poor leadership and had to little recourses. Italians under German command were much more effective.

[@flyingsac]

And for the French LOL

[@Yuki_Ika7]

F

[@Dragon_Rider]

Outstanding video. No nonsense. Subscribed.

[@scottjohnstone6204]

New to the channel, thankyou by the way - not trying to be "that guy" and I'm betting it's open source copyright free music but that intro is Ballen in my head, just because I've watched his videos and he's a prolific producer. As I've written this though it occurred to me that there will be people who haven't heard of his channel or watched his videos and will only associate that music with your videos! Perspective is everything!

[@Blackaceed]

Swizerland. Every Soldier was equipped with a Letter that wrote: "HI, surrender! We have all your money."

[@akshayjb8205]

Unfortunately they still got accidentally bombed by both sides

[@kh2b573]

@@akshayjb8205 your sources? if you say mark felton i wil slap you for not watching Military Aviation History you uncultured swine

[@gerovon2558]

@@kh2b573 well my dude mark felton lmao

[@latenight3111]

Even the nature in Switzerland is neutral and they are the most prepared nation in the world since 19th century, they have planned for everything, even Zombie apocalypse. They are immune to viruses. Be like a Swiss.

[@toxicelamain2494]

Late Night Tune Their one and only reason to exist is to produce endless amounts of milka.

[@markusmatt7209]

I think that the japanese had a bit more experience becose they were fighting in china before ww2 even started

[@markusmatt7209]

@Capitalism i was talking about the second Sini-japanese war whitch started in 1937

[@markusmatt7209]

@Capitalism i ment sino*

[@bigredwolf6]

If we’re being technical here they started WW2. They were the first aggressors.

[@siggisten278]

markus matt But at the same time both the germans, italians and soviets had experience from the spanish civil war where they all learned alot from.

[@bigredwolf6]

leafonabreeze Even if they were forced to fight China, they still invaded Manchuria for the resources and committed some serious war crimes. Like the rape of Nanking

[@taisei8485]

Well done video!

[@amardave84]

What about the Indian, French, Canadian, ANZAC, and Italian units? They should be included in the comparison.

[@Trajan2401]

The ANZACs were the best fighting combination ever for their populations

[@tk9839]

Here's my humble generalization: The Germans, the most efficient...The British, the most tactical...The Russians, the most resilient...The Japanese, the toughest or most hardcore... The Americans, the most confident.

[@NapoleonBonaparde]

The Italians the most spaghetti

[@Joe_biden_for_communism]

The french.... fastes runners

[@Number-py1bs]

T K Germans were most tactical, efficient and most confident , and most patriotic

[@edvard8449]

The Germans, the most efficient and creative, The British, the most cautious, The Soviets, the bravest, The Japanese, the most fanatic, The Americans, the most methodic

[@Cta2006]

The Norwegians ...

[@xcd87]

that german flag gave me a shock😂😂😂😂🤣🤣

[@codycampbellfishing2007]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣ikr

[@ambermaynard2412]

Lol

[@comradesam3382]

Hulkler?Adolk?

[@bluejayfrosty2410]

Toby Wareing no it gets demonetized if youtube picks it ip

[@ln7929]

The original nazi flag

[@westlywilliamsemple3441]

Great video!

[@captainamerica6525]

The American 101st Airborne Div, Screaming Eagles were a fine example of American infantry.

[@menachemelkayam153]

Yuppp

[@hitman_zulu]

I mean there are alot, 82nd as well 1B1M Big red One

[@menachemelkayam153]

@@hitman_zulu exactly. But no, we’ll ignore that and say that the army which was high on meth was the strongest 😆

[@hitman_zulu]

@@menachemelkayam153 yeah lots of overlooked points here, like USA had the smallest standing army at their entry into the war. US was forced to invade two fronts that were not even remotely close to their own home. Not to discredit the germans, but i dont see how US isnt #1

[@menachemelkayam153]

@@hitman_zulu exactly! Ppl keep on saying “oh the Wehrmacht were the best!” But the Wehrmacht were training and war equipped from the beginning. The fact that America woke up and created such a powerful force out of the blue is very impressive

[@user-xg6ol9rb9g]

"Nobody respects a country with a poor army, but everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army" Josef Stalin, April 6th, 1948

[@bige1106]

Indeed, Stalin making such a toast was a big surprise, many where shocked by his toast, it for sure is one Hell of a statement to come from Stalin and is telling of the stubborn character of the Finns.

[@andyz.5431]

@Alex Adamson Germans inflicted 50% more in the west, in the east it should be around 100-200% more. About Finns we have to consider that Soviets attacked a fortified line (Mannerheim Line) during winter, the worst circumstance for an offensive, while German fought mostly mobile battles. Nevertheless still a great performance of the Finns which for sure knew how to use their landscape.

[@otom20]

@@andyz.5431 The strongness of the Mannerheim line was mostly just russian propaganda. It was stubborness and courage of thr Finnish infantry that kept it's positions no matter what.

[@andyz.5431]

@@otom20 It was a fortified line with bunkers and tunnel systems, quite strog in a winter war. Without it the Finns would have been overrun fast.

[@Viljapossu]

@@andyz.5431 Mannerheim line was strong, or at least the first line of it was, but Finns used it only at Winter War, and not during the Continuation War, which lasted far longer. And Mannerheim line covered only the Karelia area till the shores of Lagoda (as you probably know) and Soviets attacked on width of the whole border. As a Finn, I'm not that intrigued about why the Finnish soldiers were so strong, but why the Soviets were so terrible during the Winter War. I know about the cleansings and purges of Soviet military system, but still, it's baffling that how terrible they were. Kudos to them about learning fast thou.

[@Jabols999]

American Infantry tactics: Artillery Support Air Support

[@tiwabrutu3211]

Nuke support

[@monkeychromosome]

@@tiwabrutu3211 lmao

[@paulcoy6081]

Tiwa Brutu 2 nuke support

[@ramonmartinsoto3717]

and is that supposed to be a bad thing? also ignore how they somehow kicked the nazis all the way out of France and past the Rhine in less than a year, through some of the most perfect defensive terrain in the world (the french Bocage)

[@raka522]

@@ramonmartinsoto3717 Less than a year ... wow! And that with the factor of 10 to 1 superiority in the air and in tanks. Respect, real heroes! And how many weeks did the Wehrmacht need in 1940 to conquer the same territory against an enemy who was at least as strong? Just a question ...

[@quinnmarchese6313]

i would've loved to see comparisons with more minor players as well, French resistance, The Italians, Canadians, Polish, etc

[@benkeller6027]

Germany for sure. Harder training regime, all soldiers were literate, technology and technical expertise were better than any other.

[@amishdinkledork]

dont forget the meth

[@Matthew-bx5yf]

Yeah, you forgot to mention the Crystal Meth.

[@LINAZAS]

But soviets had better tanks... :( they started to produce up and in late 1942 and 1943 they oped the T-34's :( this is very sad ... to sum up Axis had no real allies..

[@ZHBraden13]

@@LINAZAS Yea, that's why you had German tank aces killing dozens of Russian t-34's at a time, one guy (Michael Wittmann) even almost wiped out an entire tank platoon with a Sturmgeschütz III by himself; It wasn't until the end of the war when the Russians started using the t-34-85's that they started faring better.

[@starred1096]

Wehraboo spotted, MEMPHIS BELLE ACTIVATED.

[@jimmyteerex2177]

The great Erwin Rommel ranked Australian and New Zealand infantry extremely highly, famously remarking he would use the former to take hell and the latter to hold it.

[@kidd32888]

Just like in the WWI, these are first rate troops

[@johnlshilling1446]

Aside from Crocodile Dundee and Shrimp on the Barbie... this is why we should be eternally grateful to them for being our allies.

[@suspiciouscanadian6478]

Cries in Canada

[@bahamut149]

Not if hell hold by 3 heads Emus.

[@johnlshilling1446]

@@bahamut149 Uuuhhh... Could you rephrase that? It makes no sense to this American. 😕 I don't claim brilliance, so forgive and indulge me, please.

[@skykeg4978]

Finland had the most effective fighting force of the Second World War. Size notwithstanding, the Finns laid a heavy toll on the Russian forces arrayed against them. The average Finnish soldier was considered an “Elite” combatant for another country. What the Finns accomplished is simply remarkable.

[@silent00planet]

apparently stalin was told that the soviet army had stopped for afternoon tea when the fins attacked he executed every officer

[@Blankskeen]

@@silent00planet Classic Stalin

[@JackoBanon1]

The problem was that the whole offensive was badly organized because of the purged high command and that the Soviet troops were not really ready to fight at temperatures that reach up to -40°C. The Fins on the other hand sent people with skis in the darkness of the night to put the tents and material on fire with the help of molotov cocktails or snipe down uncareful soldiers. The fact that a great amount of Soviet soldiers was lost to the harsh weather conditions while Finish snipers terrorized them combined with the fact that the Russian population didn't see this war as a just war had an extremely bad impact on the morale of the soldiers. The Fins on the other hand knew about the danger of a Soviet invasion and were well prepared for it with hidden bunkers and they knew where and how to ambush the Soviets best. And they defended their home very bravely as well.

[@davecopp9356]

With the help of the germans. Finns alone would have been finished way sooner. And Finns were ungrateful like the italians who changed sites whenever things got tough. The germans had the worst allies during ww2.

[@seyidkurmanci3963]

When the US, UK, France and Russia fight togethter with an enemy then you know who are the best

[@putitinreverseterry]

yessir the allies forsure!

[@shrekthesoviet3187]

wehraboo

[@jayseswick5773]

@@shrekthesoviet3187 is he wrong ? Lmao

[@shrekthesoviet3187]

@@jayseswick5773 if they were really the best they could’ve beaten them. napoleon had more success than hitler

[@jayseswick5773]

@@shrekthesoviet3187 Germany could still have a superior army in terms of quality ( which they did in almost * all areas) and still loose because of the sheer number of enemies they fought. It’s like a boxer who has the most skill but can’t beat 4 others at once. It’s not hard to understand. I’m not even German man it’s just common sense to me . Not trying to be rude

[@odellkeyes6218]

amazing video thx!

[@jmt2727]

I think Finland had even more effective soldiers

[@happysamoan97]

Those 6 guys fought like hell

[@Alias_Anybody]

"If there were 40 million of you, we'd rule the world together"

[@whoismarkk]

Finland's efforts are often overlooked because Soviets are somewhat underrated

[@hectichazerdus]

they were certainly underestimated and considering they were out numbered i believe it was like 10-1 against soviet union they are worthy of a mention

[@dapperfield595]

Did Finland have soldiers? I don’t see them anywhere...

[@thecheezybleezy7036]

The soldier is only as good as his gun and orders. Sometimes being badass just isn't enough

[@terrycoontz]

My thoughts exactly I doubt any soldier one on one was really surpiror just tactics at play.

[@AHLSPUDS]

@@terrycoontz American, M1 Garand had more ammunition than most rifles, and fired faster than all of them

[@terrycoontz]

@@AHLSPUDS again comes down to logistics. And planning not the individual soldier.

[@AHLSPUDS]

@@terrycoontz I'm well aware, but we are speaking of the individual soldier in a fight, not the war. Logistics and planning matters of course. And even then, that would belong to the American war machine that produced ships within a week made to carry supplies.

[@silence-humility-calmness]

luck too,

[@georgepalmer5497]

I read in a book about U.S. Airborne in WWII titled "Curahee" that during the invasion of Normandy those paratroopers let a butter bar lieutenant form up a platoon of men and march them down the center of a road. They came under fire, and the formation was dispersed. It didn't say anything about casualties. Vietnam era soldiers would never have let a Second Lieutenant do that to them. They believed that E6 in the trenches had more situational awareness than a newbie lieutenant, and he was the one who ran the show.

[@georgewilkie3580]

Im an American combat Vet. (US Army 505 82nd Airborne Division). While I proudly served as an 82nd Airborne Division Paratrooper, I asked many older senior NCO's, some of who served In WW2, Which of the fighting sides had the best Military, and best trained combat Troops? Without exception they All either replied, "The Germans!", or that, "The Germans were our equals!".

[@XxTooMuchStupidxX]

Thompson’s weren’t really swapped for sten. Thompson’s were actually pretty expensive for the time. Coming in at around $50 for one gun. Both the Americans and British loved the gun, but as the war went on Britain couldn’t get more and they were too pricey. The sten was created from a program in Britain at the time to make cheap weapons with minimal supplies found on her shores. It was a imperfect weapon often supplied to resistance movements. Around the same time the Germans also created a similar program introducing many new inferior weapons from the high quality machined weapons we know and love. These were stamped sheet metal and incredibly inferior weapons. The Germans and brits adopted essentially the same doctrine late war when it came to supplies.

[@OhioYANKEE1865]

Thompson’s came in at 200$ a piece man.

[@dansmith9724]

No mention of the Owen gun, still used in Vietnam. Also superior jungle gun.

[@dansmith9724]

I heard old aussie soldiers say they werent keen on the sten as it jammed too much. They seem to have a preference for the tommy gun, i recall them saying the tommy gun was heavier then the sten but not an issue compared to throwing a bren gun around. It would be fun to have a crack at them all to see first hand.

[@satiresatori658]

@@dansmith9724 Pretty sure a Thompson with a standard 20 round mag is about 10 pounds. Wonder what the 50 rnd was like.

[@dansmith9724]

@@satiresatori658 i guess alot of these weapons arent that heavy in isolation but i guess it depends on what else they were carrying and if they were in new guinea, everything was up or down a muddy hill. A 50 round drum mag and a few spare would be quite bulky but would be handy fighting in the jungle.

[@bodasactra]

Germany and Finland hands down.

[@markusk1015]

My thoughts exactly

[@hnys7976]

And Japan. They were extremely brutal but they were very brave. Japanese soldiers would slit their throats in world war 2 to avoid being captured. They blew themselves up flying planes into battleships during kamikaze attacks. This was because it was embedded into their culture and religions that it's very dishonourable to surrender.

[@bodasactra]

@@hnys7976 Phanatical behavior and bravery alone does not make a great fighter. Sorry, I could never put Japan near the above two in effectiveness when they were wiped out so many times doing so little in return.

[@cringe5157]

@@hnys7976 for the miso soup

[@hnys7976]

@@bodasactra I know it doesnt make a great fighter. But the original comment was talking about bravery and effectiveness. I'm not Japanese, but they were very effective in ww2...Japan invaded China in 1937, and were the last country to surrender, after Italy and Germany.

[@Jagdtyger2A]

The most terrifying scenario that I can imagine would have been the Wehrmacht infantry armed with the FG-42 and the MG-42 throughout the army. Thank God for inter service rivalry and the "not invented here" aversion of the army against the Luftwaffe paratroop rifle. The MP-44 was a help, but slightly under powered and far too late in adoption. Adopting a modified DG-44 with the mag on the botton back in 1940 would have been bad for us and the allies

[@halaldunya918]

I respect the Japanese, an isolated people in a random backwater island in the low shores of Asia. Turned into a competent force in such a short amount of time. Europe was in a cross cultural exchange, for centuries with the Middle East and China and itself. The Japanese had to develop on their own for the most part.

[@sandvenexplorer]

Finland must have had some pretty good soldiers, being able to fight the entire Soviet army and keep them at bay..

[@sammuller8331]

Take a look at the Russian uniforms and the terrain brown uniforms on white snow kind of stickout .

[@otom20]

@@sammuller8331 Finland fought against russia four years.. there was also summer battles..

[@Mitke420]

@@otom20 cuz Russians didn't bothered that much, they just underestimate Finland but.still won

[@kennykash6089]

Except for that minor detail of the aligning with the Nazis at the start of the war.

[@Sinn0100]

This Fin's had The White Death and he made the Soviets pay for crossing the border of his country...yes, he owned it. ;)

[@jspec-vz3mc]

If Hitler is still in Argentina, do you think somebody cared to bake him a birthday cake this year?

[@Nich-ib7xv]

Eva Braun

[@Clem_Fandango11]

It would be massive with the number of candles required.

[@georgyzhukov6409]

What if napoleon is still alive?

[@jspec-vz3mc]

Dammit@@georgyzhukov6409 Napoleon does not live in Argentina.

[@Clem_Fandango11]

@@jspec-vz3mc Technically possible....exiled to South Atlantic, rumour he was going to escape and lead revolutions against the Spanish in South America.....or so it said in one the Sharpe books 😁

[@apuchowdhury3542]

Excellent analysis - Dr. Apu Chowdhury

[@derwal1543]

1:08 that picture on the right is your average wehraboo

[@aurathedraak7909]

Do Gurkas vs Japanese. Chinese vs Japanese. Italian vs Americans. Japanese vs British Russian vs Japanese Japanese vs Russian

[@EugeneRimmer]

Gurkhas win Japanese win Americans win

[@mfp5431]

@@EugeneRimmer Nice, simple answer based on the training (shooting, hand to hand combat, strategies like geography and maths) of those soldiers. Very good answer

[@hiimryan2388]

Eugene Rimmer well... random rice farmers isn't as good as trained rice farmers... But god the Japanese was merciless.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@@EugeneRimmer Except the Japanese lost the Burma campaign in 1944 whereas the British won, so that's the other way round.

[@greyscaleb1537]

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- that's because they were losing the war altogether and can no longer supply their garrisons, ofcourse they lost

[@Marcfj]

Yes, I agree that Germany had the most effective soldiers in World War Two. However, I came to this conclusion long ago after having read extensively on the history of that conflict.

[@ireviewshtuff]

The Germans actually had such a strong officer corps that they had the smallest special forces of any field army, because it just wasn't needed in an army that encouraged initiative. Of course, they also had the smallest logistic department as well...

[@Marcfj]

@@ireviewshtuff - But they had the terrible misfortune of having an Austrian Corporal as their Commander-in-Chief.

[@ramramonrainer6453]

Marcfj True but the German army would have never become that good without him. Anyways without him they would not have needed this kind of army

[@Marcfj]

@Edward Roberts - Are you being deliberately stupid, or are you just a genuine ignoramus who knows nothing of the history of World War Two?

[@ramramonrainer6453]

Edward Roberts there are just two battles the Germans really LOST. 1st one is Stalingrad. They lost only because they weren’t prepared for the Russian winter. 2nd one is dday. And there they lost just because of the big big luck on the allies side. The German defense was too effective but the allies had enough soldiers and if the battle on Omaha would have gone a little bit longer the US would’ve lost all troupes down there.

[@itsguardiantime4928]

Great video, but is there a place where I could find the sources used?

[@GunRunner3]

It's good to see the German soldier get the credit he deserves. One thing left out of the discussion was his incredible courage and his willingness to fight on against overwhelming odds. The German soldier has always been slammed because he fought for the wrong cause but the winner always writes history. These men followed orders because they no choice regardless what today's popular thinking is.

[@redaug4212]

German Generals were allowed to rewrite the history of the eastern front to excuse their participation in Nazi war crimes, to downplay the performance of the Soviets, and to cover up their own incompetence. And unfortunately the west has bought into their false narratives for decades. Winners don't write history, people do.

[@stephenpacania569]

5:50 is a Springfield, not an Enfield also some of the comparisons didn't really make sense, a Thompson isn't in the same class as a Bren gun. Was hoping for a little more in depth exploration of how the doctrines combated one another, but decent video.

[@tertwigsmash356]

Springfeild was from america. British didnt use it

[@tertwigsmash356]

YEah it is weird why they show a springfield tho

[@TheFront]

Regarding the Thompson/Bren issue, I think I made a slip-up in the script. As for the doctrines, I agree. Perhaps a longer video would have been better. There's always next time!

[@tertwigsmash356]

@@TheFront Still loving the content keep it up!

[@trumpetscall8910]

As a Norwegian, i would have to say Finland.

[@stevenjohnson4283]

yes they had the worlds best sniper.

[@hardgay7537]

Ah, the White Death. Legendary Commie killer.

[@sgtmonkeypirate]

Hard Gay no scope

[@agentsquid9079]

Hard Gay he killed hundreds of russians by himself

[@trumpetscall8910]

​@@agentsquid9079 probaly over 1000, around half would be comfimed.

[@economicerudite4924]

It is very important to highlight the change in resources available to soldiers during the war. The German military had very good initial success because it was able to commit it's resources to 'bewegungskrieg', or 'war of movement'. An aggressive method of waging a war to avoid the stalemate of the trenches and shock the enemy into surrender by combining, efficiently, the use of air superiority, armour and rapid infantry maneuvres. However, their ability to wage this type of warfare rapidly deteriorated because they were running out of necessary resources. Chief among this, the Wehrmacht required oil to keep up this sort of warfare (oil to fuel the tanks and planes as well as move troops around quickly and taxi aircraft on runways). Because of the decision by Britain to remain in the war and blockade external oil supplies to Germany, the German High Command concluded that they would run out of oil by October 1941. "Britain, wooed to the last moment, had declared war on him, placing him in a position of strategic and economic dependence on the state whose annihilation was his central objective, the Soviet Union." [German Official History, pg. 19]. "It is crucial to seize quickly and exploit the Caucuses oil fields, at least the areas around Maikop and Grozny. In oil fields that have not been completely destroyed, it will take about a month to resume production, and another month for its transportation. We will have to seize those areas no later than the end of the operation's second month. If this proved unsuccessful, we must expect the most serious repercussions, with unpredictable consequences for military operations after 1.9.[1941] and for the survival of the economy." [Georg Thomas, March 1941]. The Germans were, at the time, relying on Romanian oil fields which only provided 5,200,000 tons of crude oil in 1941, whilst the Germans required just under 10,000,000 tons at minimum to sustain their lands in Europe, let alone to supply the Wehrmacht. As such, they aimed to invade the Soviet Union and claim the oil supplies in the Caucuses (notably, seizing Maikop and Grozny, whilst taking Stalingrad to cut the Soviet Oil supplies from Baku and the Volga-Urals). They had to invade the Soviet Union because it was the only realistic source of oil. The Middle-Eastern oil industry was in its infancy and there was no feasible method of transporting it to Germany. They did attempt to seize oil in Africa, but failed and also could not transport it across the Mediterranean. It is worth noting, with regards to logistics, that the Italian fleet (the dominant Axis fleet in the Mediterranean) had been stuck in port due to a lack of oil supplies, leaving the Royal Navy dominant and preventing Axis forces from transporting African or Middle-Eastern oil supplies. "The occupied territories would drain Germany's meager petroleum reserves within a year unless the Third Reich took immediate action to expand its supplies by invading the Soviet Union." [Toprani, The First War for Oil]. As we know, the Wehrmacht was unsuccessful. In 1941, they failed to capture the Caususes oil fields or Volga river before having to dig-in for the winter. By the time they, in 1942, did achieve these objectives it was too late and the fuel crisis had arrived. As such, German forces began to de-motorise (which, as established, significantly weakened their strategy of bewegungskrieg). In-short, the loss of oil meant that the German military became much less effective than it had been in the early-periods of the war. "Tellingly, at a time when the Soviets were rapidly rebuilding and mechanising their forces, the Wehrmacht was in the process of re-equipping its reconnaissance units with bicycles. This demodernisation of the Ostheer did not bode well given that the success of the campaign depended on seizing objectives more than eight hundred miles from the German start line, an operational and logistical challenge greater even than that of the previous summer." [Ostkrieg, pg. 237]. "Fuel, too, was in such short supply that the Wehrmacht High command cut the fuel ration to the Ostheer considerably, a blow to its mobility accentuated by the serious loss of horses." [Ostkrieg, pg. 237]. "As a result [of the fuel crisis], the Wehrmacht was forced to rely extensively on horse-drawn transport, which led to further problems: the tremendous differences in the pace of march between the motorised and other units raised the issue of when and how to close pockets; horse-drawn columns were vulnerable to attacks that aggravated logistic problems; and the lack of fodder and replacement animals put a strain on civilian supplies." [Ostkrieg, pg. 83]. The change in fortunes and military capability, in-effect, gave the Soviet forces a huge advantage over the German forces. There was, essentially, a reversal in their military fortunes after the Wehrmacht were hit by the fuel crisis. This change in attitude is highlighted by the swapping of Manstein for Model (Manstein being the maneuvre general, with Model being more defensive). Tl;dr: A major influence in the effectiveness of military units during the Second World War was their access to key resources. Without key resources, certain things were unachievable. For instance, the German military relied extensively on a combined assault of mobilised infantry, tanks/armour and aircraft (all in communication) to shock the enemy into quick surrender (the fall of France being a good example of this). However, this relied heavily on oil, which the Wehrmacht were quickly running out of, meaning that they had to change their strategy in 1942, leading to their units being much less combat effective.

[@klums7651]

Congrats u passed the exam

[@trajan6927]

Very well written. Good job.

[@trajan6927]

And to think that the mighty U.S.A. had plenty of resources. The tyrants time was limited from the start. I asked my father, "was the U.S.A. concerned about losing the war?" "He said we never thought that we were going lose," we always knew that we would win, losing was never discussed, we just knew it would take some time."

[@pyoung512]

Is that you Tick?

[@tangfors]

I would say Finland. Admittedly, there were hardly any officers in the red arm, but it was much better equipped, or yes it was at least more expensive equipped may not necessarily be better. Then white clothes and skis were perhaps better equipment than tanks in the Winter War. Sometimes you can not always look only at military training. In the Nordic countries, for example, sports and leisure activities have long been popular, giving you advantages in war. Such are, for example, skiing, biathlon, orienteering, horseback riding, motocross, hunting.

[@tombranstetter68]

I feel that at different stages of the war the answer could be different. At the beginning of the war it seemed like the Germans were well further ahead in training and technology and tactics than any other nation. The longer the war went on it seemed like the allies did a nice job at closing that gap and it also helped that Germany couldn't replenish its experienced troops and dwindling resources. Overall i feel that this video is correct in its conclusions taking into account only the major players.

[@jpigg86]

In Rise and Fall of the Third Reich the author talks about the stark contrast after the fall of France between healthy tanned German soldiers and the captured British forces. He theorized that early militarization of society along with the Hitler Youth programs gave the German Army an early tactical edge. In any case losses of experienced personnel drastically limited German combat effectiveness by the end of the war. While the Allies ended with stronger units.

[@volbound1700]

Agreed although keep in mind Germany was not fighting the Soviets or United States until 1941. The only major powers that Germany had to deal with prior to 1941 was a France Republic broken by WW1 and the British who historically focused more on air and naval than land warfare.

[@North862]

What about Canada? The canadian Infantry were some of the best soldiers throughout the war and fought through treacherous terrain in the Netherlands to free the dutch and other European Countries. The ruthlessness of Canadians in world war 1 and 2 left German forces terrified of facing them in battle.

[@jantschierschky3461]

Actually during WW1, WW2 Canadians, kiwis and Australians were greatly respected, but not feared.

[@noah5524]

Jan Tschierschky during ww1 they were feared because they executed prisoners

[@fogfullofsilhouettes5842]

I agree Canadian infantry were probably amongst the most fearless of WW2, they were extremely effective and in some situations even whilst outnumbered, could do extremely well against their foes.

[@rinatdying735]

was it some ps4 release? as far as i know NO one saw canadians on a battle field with thair pants on...

[@jantschierschky3461]

@@noah5524 well Canadians done well in later part of the war, vimy Ridge etc, so have Australians and NZ. I can tell you Canadians had great respect, but no actual fear. I read German soldiers letters, reports etc. They literally called all commonwealth colonial troops as fire-fighters and did not distinguish between them.

[@toothpasteboy2019]

1:09 Hitler after eating too many luftwaffles

[@man-yp1gb]

I would say that the Japanese infantry man had the will to fight to the last in total defeat under horrid conditions w/out supplies or reinforcements. Had they had the updated weaponry and strategic oversight in battles then they would of been a serious challenge to the allies.

[@dagoobertron]

I dont know this idea of japanese small arms being subpar either. The arisaka was tested after the war and showed extreme durability, unlike the enfield with had issues under stress. arisakas also had very good accuracy at long range from the smaller rounds they fired. Nambu machine guns can be regarded well as they were still accurate and easier to maintain then saw the german MG's, what you sacrifice in a high fire rate you get back in easier maintenance.

[@user-pn3im5sm7k]

@@dagoobertron Yeah that can only be said for their handguns, the Arisaka was founded to be literally the best bolt receiver of any country, even last ditch examples. Many Japanese ships, submarines, torpedoes, and planes also never got beat in terms of objective measures.

[@dragonstormdipro1013]

Great video, although there should be a video like this on the various Commonwealth forces in WW2. Aussies were insane in Tobruk, Nigerians oblitarated Italians in Addis Ababa, Indians and Nepalese faced the strongest Japanese troops in Burma and ended up with highest per-regimental medal tally in the British armed forces, Anzacs were incredible in Crete....all around brave SOBs

[@TheFront]

Thanks, man, and thanks for the suggestion.

[@mechghost5742]

You forgot us canucks

[@dragonstormdipro1013]

@@mechghost5742 liberating a town by one guy alone...madlads

[@-----Alcatraz------]

1:08 You expected a German flag. BUT IT WAS ME, HITLER!

[@davidvasquez08]

*Nani?!?!?!*

[@realmario979]

It's fatler

[@-----Alcatraz------]

@@realmario979 Adolf Fatler? Thats not bad.

[@Gussyboy06]

Thiccler

[@ap-dk5yw]

Isszzz dat a *JoJo reference* insert jojo with lazer eyes

[@ICE69ROG]

Good job 👍

[@OldWolflad]

In WW2 the Germans were incredibly strong, and also well armed and very well trained, especially its storm-troopers and Panzer divisions and fanatical SS brigades. What they did as a force was incredible but eventually naive. The Russians by contrast were very brave but poorly armed but manpower was no problem and fighting on the eastern front was incredibly tough and grim. The British Empire Army contained excellent, highly-motivated, wholly-volunteer armies like the excellent-ANZACS, Canadians, and South Africans, who were rightly or wrongly often viewed as being 'Brits abroad' at the time, certainly in WW1. Adopting skills from life in their new native Countries, they were able to input skills that ordinary British soldiers arguably just didn't have, certainly with the ANZACS in the uncomfortable heat of North Africa. The ANZACS became amongst the elite of the British Empire Army, undoubtedly. The Indian contribution was immense as well, and they were very brave soldiers though initially undertrained. Also free-fighting, highly-motivated units of Polish, Greek, Israeli, Czech and Free-French were extremely effective. But the British Army itself, like the French, was in comparison largely conscription-based so inevitably not as effective man for man and less-highly-driven, and initially the 8th Army was poorly-trained in anything other than defending a position as with a WW1 doctrine, and certainly poorly trained for offensive desert warfare, and poorly equipped (certainly with slow, low-calibre tanks that had appalling casualty rates). Hence they were initially poorly motivated and morale was low. Crucially, British units also had little faith in most of their backward generals. They struggled to cope with mobile desert warfare initiated by Rommel's fast-moving high calibre Panzer divisions, at least until the British acquired American Grant tanks and later Shermans - that helped turn the tide massively in the North African arena. Whilst the British depended considerably on the ANZACS and its own excellent 7th Armoured Division initially, certain highly-trained British units like the 15 Commando Units, the superb Para's, Gurkhas, Black Watch, Coldstream Guards Brigade, Welsh Guards, Irish Guards, Northumbrian Division, and the 78th Battleaxe division were just as good as any others but casualty rates high and manpower was a serious issue in gender-imbalanced Britain, following WW1. Like the French, the British lost hundreds of thousands in WW1 and so manpower-wise they were more cautious. The French had some equally effective highly-skilled divisions, but again as it was largely a conscript-army you cannot compare chalk and cheese. The Italians are often mocked and Rommel's view of them alternates, but at times they showed that they too could be excellent troops despite being underpaid, underfed, poorly equipped, and having artillery and tanks that were ineffective in the main. They simply were not massively invested in war against the allies. You cannot fault the bravery of the US Army, but they entered later on when everyone else was battle-weary and they helped tip the balance and quickly gained experience. But they excelled in the Pacific and under Patton at Omaha, with exceptional resource supply. The 82nd Airborne Division and US Rangers were highly-feared. The Japanese were excellent soldiers too though fanatical, and as others have said, the Finnish Army though small was excellent in that terrain. Don't forget the Poles, Czechs, West Africans who were also as brave and effective given the right equipment and support, as any. In summary, the top units of every Country were excellent and probably as good as each other given the same equipment and support, whilst Conscript divisions were in comparison inevitably slower, less-motivated and less effective, certainly in relation to offensive manoeuvres.

[@ivaniceangle]

Worth considering the Poles who fought ferociously, the Gurkhas who fought heroically and the Finns who humiliated the Soviets.

[@xstrawarot]

didnt the soviets won that war?

[@TheTestyDuck]

xstrawarot Yeah, but the casualties were stagnating. Pyrrhic victory yeh?

[@xstrawarot]

@@TheTestyDuck nobody cares now. VICTORY BABY! USSR USSR USSR BLYAT

[@Daniel-qz3pk]

@@xstrawarot great with a massive bloodbath among Soviets and just wasting many young man's life's. That's just out numbering and not exactly effectiveness. And the Soviets had gulags which are similar to KZs BTW

[@TheTestyDuck]

xstrawarot one nation survived into the 21st century, one didn’t tho lmao

[@cheesetomato9140]

You got it right mate, the Germans never let anybody down for a dam good battle and were worthy adversaries even when they were street fighting the Russians in Berlin! They took on too much on too many fronts and this overstretched their resources and their armed forces high command must also have some credit, Heinz Gudarian and Von Manstein along with Walter Model were brilliant planners of campaigns.

[@davecopp9356]

Also the germans had the worst allies during ww2 like the italians who changed sites whenever things got tough or the Finns who took material and help from Germany but did not reciprocate. Only Japan was firm in his position but also did not attack the sowjet union from the rear like A.H. wanted.

[@raybees4114]

@ 44 seconds, the respect the soldiers have in a nearly destroyed Church is amazing

[@mikespencer4922]

My dad fought all the way through North Africa and Italy. He didnt talk much about the war. He admired the Ozzies and Kiwis, Yet when as a kid I asked him who were the best soldiers he answered with one word... "Jerry".

[@papasha408]

I agree with your assessment. General Harold Alexander in writing a despatch to Lord Allen-Brooke wrote 'We are fighting the finest army in the world. What men!'

[@srpskabalI]

My moneys on Finland 🇫🇮, those dudes where brutal fighters.

[@paulcoy6081]

Yeah and they had a good sniper to

[@paul8158]

@@paulcoy6081 And invented the Molotov-cocktail! Cheers!

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

Exept they are not a major power, that's why only 5 are on the list.

[@obaolori]

kyllä

[@davefeinglass9118]

Would love to see a comparison of the differences in skill, experience and technique between the US Army ground forces in Europe and the US Marines in the Pacific. Two separate wars vs two different enemies, both successful but both fought in much different ways. As a former US Marine who has heard the Esprit de Corps side of things, would love a non-biased comparison of the two different American armed forces.

[@thenevadadesertrat2713]

At Arnhem the U.S. 82'nd, 101'1st, the Polish 100'air, th British 101th air all got eliminated. The 82'nd had to be entirely rebuild. The Bittrichbattle group had two tough SS divisions with new Tigers. Out of 10,000 Allied troops only 2,000 returned. A stunningly high casualty rate.

[@redaug4212]

It would probably be impossible to reach a consensus on the quality of Army forces during WWII since the size disparity was so enormous. Something like 600,000 in the Marine Corps compared to 12 million in the Army. A better comparison might be Army units in the Pacific compared to Marine units in the Pacific, but even then there were about three Army divisions in the PTO for every Marine division.

[@simoncordingley3122]

Also, the aggressor is always at a distinct advantage, which partly goes towards explaining Germany's early successes. Defenders can never quite tell where the main thrust is coming from and so must often disperse their troops over a wider front, making them less effective. The aggressor, on the other hand, determines when and where they attack, what they are going to attack with and with what number of troops. Winston Churchill made it quite clear in his accounts that the allied forces, for example, were bound by treaties with neutral countries (They couldn't cross Sweden without their permission to aid Finland. They couldn't put troops into Belgium against the initial German push into France) and with agreements between each other (League of Nations). Not to mention Britain was a democracy with strong opposition parties who pressed parliament to take a pacifistic approach and were opposed to rearmament. They also had a Prime Minister (Chamberlain) who was resolved on appeasement in the pre-war years. A dictator, such as Hitler, was under no such limitations. He was no respecter of treaties, alliances, or neutrality and could absolutely do as he pleased. All these, and many other factors, go a long way towards explaining the lack of relative apparent effectiveness in allied forces and why Germany had the jump.

[@alpbartuakdemir6489]

a close call between germans and finns but definitely not americans who relied entirely on air force and navy. without the air superiority, american performance would be like that of hürtgen, a complete catastrophe.

[@davidedwards3465]

True summary that.

[@77Brandon77]

As the content always is from this channel- this is excellent.

[@TheFront]

Thanks, Brandon!

[@tplyons5459]

When you taked about the Enfield rifle you were showing the US Springfield M1904A4 sniper rifle,

[@David-infantryst]

Respect to all that served all deserve respect

[@thetankcommander3838]

The Front, if you were talking about the Lee-Enfield, why was the picture a Springfield Model 1903?

[@rcheek207]

because he clearly does not know what he’s talking about with small arms

[@clumsycommissar5260]

oof

[@thetankcommander3838]

skankhunt45 that was a bit uncalled for

[@Daniel-qz3pk]

My grandpa had to fight in the Wehrmacht too at the age of 21 He fought on literally ALL fronts as a machine gunner. He was not a Nazi, just a "landser" ( son of a farmer as most in the Wehrmacht) But he said his unit always had to fight against overwhelming enemies forces no matter on which front (maybe except France or Poland) and still gained some big victories. They were largely well trained and had a harsh discipline. Most soldiers didn't care for politics, just wanted to fight to survive. He said he wondered how many men the Soviets just threw at them and they simply didn't have enough resources on all fronts to win, but still did a very good job in what soldiers do and even counterattacked successfuly in the late years of the war. I don't want to say that other countries didn't have good solider too, but over all the conditions were the worst for German soldiers and still, they often gained victories in helpless situations.

[@rommyjoj326]

Only way germany had a chance to win the war was to get all the resources before the war Outcome of the war speaks itself

[@rodafowa1279]

@@rommyjoj326 This is the definition of a nothing statement.

[@ibims1baum175]

@@rommyjoj326 only way germany had a chance to win the war was not to attack the f*ckin' Soviets, Napoleon lost the same way, how can u be that stupid and do the same thing again? Sry, I forgot, it was Hitler🙄

[@ibims1baum175]

@Vinny Fuchs He can attack the Soviets, but not in 1941. If he bombed Britain to the ground, blocked the supplies from the US with the U-boats he could easily defeat Britain, especially when he made a few friends in the middle east. AFTER that he can attack the Soviets and they had stood no chance. They only could fought so hard, because they were that many and the US barely kept them alive and Hitler made some major mistakes (Stalingrad).

[@zexal4217]

Sorry to say, but odds are that if he served on the Eastern Front, he likely did some less than savoury things... 6 million out of 10 million Wehrmacht soldiers on the Eastern Front committed atrocities (as per David Stahel and Alex Kay) so if they supposedly didn't care about politics, why did they commit such evils?

[@michaelciullo4788]

"Its barrel wasn't as easy to swap out as the Bren gun, but it was still a force to be reckoned with" (M1A1) the Thompson was a .45cal submachine gun and likely fought the entire war with the same barrel. The Bren was a light machine gun. Totally different and incomparable beasts. The STEN or mp40 is the M1A1's comparisons.

[@talknight2]

If you turn on captions you'll see he was actually meant to be comparing the BAR to the Bren there. I guess they accidentally recorded that wrong.

[@jacobjones4766]

@@talknight2 even so. The bar might have been used as an lmg but john browning never designed it to be so.

[@talknight2]

@@jacobjones4766 That's why it wasn't that good an LMG compared to the Bren. It was designed for WWI and was outdated for WW2.

[@RRaquello]

@@talknight2 Even so, in my younger days I knew and talked to US veterans of the war and American soldiers loved the BAR. I guess maybe because it was reliable and light weight for the amount of power it packed. I don't know exactly why, but the soldiers liked it.

[@ravenmoon5111]

@@talknight2 The BAR scared the hell out of the Germans. According to a veteran I know well, they would often go after the BAR with a tank round just to silence it

[@kavirajselvam5148]

Hi, would you mind doing about who had the best navy ?

[@mangyhyena9239]

You mean the US? Not hard to guess that one.

[@redpillproductionscanada5563]

Man you picked a hard topic lmao great idea for a video, subscribed.

[@redem_up4534]

I would love To see A version about minor nation like china finland and or yugoslavia! Great video😄

[@williampressley9645]

Yes, Finland by all means.

[@Vemppu_Lutku]

Minor eh? Finland isnt quite the minor if i say so myself

[@Ellerion2]

Neither was Yugoslavia. In fact, the battle at Neretva was one of the battles where germans and their lakeys got owned even thougj they were on the offensive. Tito's Partisans blew up the bridge across Neretva to fool germans and then built a bridge to evacuate civilians, many of whom were badly ill, across that bridge. They also repulsed the german attacks and Chetniks who both tried zo destroy Partisans and capture Tito. Considering that they were on enemy teritory even though it was their homeland, they certainly had it where germans didn't.

[@theworldwarsinlego3682]

Yugoslavia was part of ussr for a few years

[@redem_up4534]

@@theworldwarsinlego3682 Eh. No not around 1940

[@Joseph-mw2rl]

German squad tactics: We got 1 machine gunner, then 9 ammo carriers

[@gururaven]

I'd like to see similar summaries with the Australian, Canadian, Indian, Greek, and Italian infantries.

[@SCP--zj7xy]

Russia: Mosin-Nagant, PPSH-41, DP-28, SVT-40 UK: Lee-Enfield no.4, STEN, Bren Japan: Arisaka, Type 100, Type 97 USA: Springfield 03, Thompson, BAR, M1 Garand Germany: Kar98, Mp40, MG42, Gew 43

[@notsosilentmajority1]

These were the 5 main participants of WWll so you chose the correct infantries to assess. Anytime there is only a small sample of anything, the results can end up twisted so not examining any other nations was just the fair thing to do. Your analysis was spot on and seemed quite fair and not partial. Far too many times we see a result that has been decided upon before the exam has even begun. From the experience of relatives that were actually there, it appears as though they would agree with your conclusion. Well done. 👍🏼

[@jessewilliams9195]

Fascinating

[@anthonygibbs9245]

I have heard that intro music from another youtube channel, cant think which one though