Worst Participations of WWII

[The Old Lady Hertha]

More WWII here...

I say the Italians were the most incompetent. They couldn't hold the line at El Alemain and had to have the Germans help them. They literally ran away from the Russians at Stalingrad. Most incompetent leadership IMO in Mussolini.

Discuss.

[HerthaBerwyn]

The best way to review the Italian fleet is with a glass bottom boat.

[spejic]

Manstein had lots of good things to say about the Romanians, and he had plenty of experience with them, especially in the Crimean campaign. His main problem with them was that many of the officers, especially the higher ranking ones, rose to their positions for political reasons rather than merit, but that is a common failing among smaller countries. He did admire some of the very highest leaders, like General Dumitrescu (head of 3rd Army) and Marshal Antonescu himself, at least from a military standpoint. The Romanians were also lacking in modern weapons, especially anti-tank guns, and modern forms of training.

[The Old Lady Hertha]

The best way to review the Italian fleet is with a glass bottom boat.

I have a question about your name...why? :D

[HerthaBerwyn]

I have a question about your name...why? :D

Its a play on words involving a suburb of Chicago. Karl Heinz Granitza came to the Sting from Hertha Berlin.

[The Old Lady Hertha]

Ah ok...not a fan I suppose ey? :D

[CrewDust]

Denmark, one day done.

[spejic]

What about the Lybians and Egyptians and other nations of North Africa? Two foriegn powers came and fought in their countries and all they could do is stand by and watch.

[HerthaBerwyn]

Denmark, one day done.

Disagree. Denmark saved their Jews. Denmark pissed on their jackboots. Love 'em.

[minorthreat]

China's effort in the Second World War was a disaster, largely due to the fact that Chiang Kai-Shek was much more interested in fighting Mao than he was in saving his own country from the Japanese.

[nicephoras]

Given how badly he did either, how could you tell?

[bigredfutbol]

How about Croatia? Pavelic's Ustasha turned Yugoslavia into a killing field so savage and gruesome even the Nazis were repulsed, yet they failed to keep control over the place, which was all Hitler needed them to do.

[CrewDust]

China's effort in the Second World War was a disaster, largely due to the fact that Chiang Kai-Shek was much more interested in fighting Mao than he was in saving his own country from the Japanese.


He and about 10,000 others saved themselves, didn't fight hard Moscow told them not to. The Danes fought well in WW2 the army didn't, wonder what it means now.

[spejic]

How about Croatia? Pavelic's Ustasha turned Yugoslavia into a killing field so savage and gruesome even the Nazis were repulsed, yet they failed to keep control over the place, which was all Hitler needed them to do.The Germans had problems with Partisans everywhere. And the 369th Regiment and 15th Staffel of JG 52 both performed very well in the Eastern Front.

[poorvi]

I am suprised that you havent included France in your poll. By far the worst fighters of WWII.


There is a joke I recollect:

Q: Why was the Frenchman with white flag running behind the Italian?
A: The Frenchman was trying to surrender, and the Italian kept retreating.

[spejic]

I am suprised that you havent included France in your poll. By far the worst fighters of WWII.I think this is a gross misunderstanding of what happened. While there was confusion, bewilderment and paralization at the highest levels of command, you can't put the blame on the French troops. They were just suckerpunched by something rather unique and amazing.

[bigredfutbol]

I think this is a gross misunderstanding of what happened. While there was confusion, bewilderment and paralization at the highest levels of command, you can't put the blame on the French troops. They were just suckerpunched by something rather unique and amazing.

Isn't it true that the French actually had more, and better, tanks, but had them spread out as infantry support, while the Germans grouped their tanks into armored units, which were much more effective?

[spejic]

Isn't it true that the French actually had more, and better, tanks, but had them spread out as infantry support, while the Germans grouped their tanks into armored units, which were much more effective?That's partly true, but there was more to it than that. First, French armored units were controled at the Army instead of Corps or Division level, so they were slow to react to the needs of the battle. These units had no organic infantry or artilery, so they had to cooperate with troop of other divisions that had no training in combined arms tactics. The tanks also had poor communications. French tanks - even the heavy Char B1 - had one-man turrets, so the tank commander also had to be the loader and gunner, making his job very difficult.

Generally the tanks were poorly designed for maneuver. The best tactic was to get somewhere important, sit, and then take on whatever came their way - that lowered the workload on the tank commanders, as well as took advantage of the superior armor and longer range guns. But when the enemy is moving faster than you can think, you can't exactly use this tactic often.

[bigredfutbol]

That's partly true, but there was more to it than that. First, French armored units were controled at the Army instead of Corps or Division level, so they were slow to react to the needs of the battle. These units had no organic infantry or artilery, so they had to cooperate with troop of other divisions that had no training in combined arms tactics. The tanks also had poor communications. French tanks - even the heavy Char B1 - had one-man turrets, so the tank commander also had to be the loader and gunner, making his job very difficult.

Generally the tanks were poorly designed for maneuver. The best tactic was to get somewhere important, sit, and then take on whatever came their way - that lowered the workload on the tank commanders, as well as took advantage of the superior armor and longer range guns. But when the enemy is moving faster than you can think, you can't exactly use this tactic often.

Thanks. That's interesting.

[Nanbawan]

Interesting article by the BBC which should inform some on the Battle of France. The French and British did fight, it's annoying when you read the contrary.

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6744752&postcount=206

If we put things back in the context, the French army was so highly regarded after the sacrifices of WWI that this resounding defeat must have been perceived with awe at the time.

My father -who had me late- told me about this day of June 1940, a day he never forgot when he heard the bells announcing the defeat. It was the only time he saw his grandmother cry.

Does someone has info on why the germans did control the sky so easily. france had good airplanes in the Dewoitine D520, but I guess there weren't enough of them or like tanks, they were misused.

Well, after a few research, I found out they only started the production in 1939, some fought during the battle of France though.