Combat in the Second World War *never* took place in a vacuum. There was never *truly*
a **fair fight. Different military units had different strengths and weakness at different
places and times throughout the war, and there were just *way* too many internal and external
factors which could influence the outcome of an engagement. Within a unit, training, leadership,
technology, morale, and numbers were crucial factors. Externally, factors such as terrain,
weather, and just dumb luck must all be taken into account. All of these factors interacted with each
other in some way too. An officer's orders could be misheard in the middle of a deluge.
Mud could choke the mechanisms of a gun. A cornerstone could fall
from an artillery-shelled church and crush the man in its shadow.
With all that said, history *does* tell of military units which revelled in success more than
others, and it may, therefore, be *perceived* that these units were more effective overall.
In this video, we're going to consider the standard army infantrymen of the USSR,
Britain, Japan, the USA, and Germany and provide you with *our* opinion on whose
infantrymen were more effective. Bear in mind that it it's impossible to determine
with total accuracy and objectivity which were *actually* the most effective, and this video
is more of an exercise to get us thinking about all the factors that came into play.
For simplicity's sake, we'll try to ignore external factors such as terrain, weather,
and luck. We must also clarify a few things.
While training, leadership, and technology were integral factors *within* an infantry
unit, training and leadership also facilitated coordination with external,
*non*-infantry units and *their* technology, primarily in the
form of the heavier weapons of war such as artillery, armour, and air and naval forces.
To reiterate, the way in which an infantry unit coordinated with other, non-infantry units was
a factor we must account for when considering their effectiveness. We cannot cleanly separate
infantry units from non-infantry units, nor can we separate them from support units,
such as engineers and medics, and non-combat support services, such as intelligence services.
It may seem that Red Army command cared little about sustaining heavy casualties, adhering to
the principles of quantity over quality, but this wasn't so much the case. There were instances
in which the Red Army spilt into cities like blood from a severed jugular, and in which Soviet
officers shot dead men who tried to tuck tail and flee, but again, this was not always the case.
One of the factors contributing to Soviet defeats in Operation Barbarossa was a lack of experienced
officers following the Great Purge; without solid leadership, their strategy and tactics fell apart.
After Stalingrad, however, they had the resources to advance and deploy their military doctrines.
On a broad scale, Soviet Deep Battle doctrines were employed, and on a squad level,
the Soviets took inspiration from the Germans. They reduced the manpower in their squads,
substituting it for firepower. A machine gunner wielding a DP-27 LMG was introduced,
and he was supported by riflemen with bolt-actions like the Mosin–Nagant
and semi-autos like the SVT-40 and submachine gunners with SMGs such as the iconic PPSh-41.
Their military law compelled Soviet infantry units to hate their enemies and act against traitors to
the Motherland, and while their hatred for the Germans manifested in many unspeakable acts,
they were incredibly brave despite the horrendous losses they suffered throughout the war.
Without this bravery, the outcome of the war would have been very different indeed.
Overall, the training and leadership of British Army infantry units earnt them the reputation
of cautious combatants, preferring to claim small advances and consolidate power rather than
making aggressive and dangerous sweeps. Due to a scarcity of manpower, the Brits did not wish to,
and could not, sustain heavy casualties. British training focused on realism, with, for example,
live rounds being fired in the vicinity of trainees so they could learn to tell the
difference between the sound of a gun firing and a bullet striking something near. In
terms of coordination with non-infantry units, British infantry units were supported by tanks,
and it's worth noting that while British tanks had their uses, they were generally inferior to those
driven by the Germans. When it came to tactics, the British allowed for the adaptation of mission
templates on the fly, but they also discouraged major changes, so as not to confuse their own men.
When assaulting a position, British infantry would force enemy heads and guns down with suppressive
fire, allowing their own troops to advance. Their infantry sections were ten-strong up until 1944;
however, only seven of these ten men would be in combat at once, with three in reserve.
This way, they wouldn't replace the dead or otherwise incapacitated with
"green" troops unfamiliar with the unit. British infantry made good use of the Lee-Enfield rifle,
which surpassed the bolt-actions wielded by the Germans, such as the Karabiner 98k.
The Bren light machinegun saw heavy use, and it bested the US Army's
Browning Automatic Rifle or BAR, in that it held an additional ten rounds and featured
a fast-change barrel which could be swapped out when it overheated. In closer quarters,
British infantry used the American Tommy gun until that was swapped out for the British STEN.
Overall, Japan favoured light infantry supported by air and naval forces
over armour. What Japanese infantry had more than anything else is bravery and ruthlessness.
They endured incredible hardships, and they *certainly* dished it out, earning a reputation as
brutal warriors, even fanatics. They fought like hell on every front, and often to the very
last man, preferring to go out in a suicidal bayonet charge than throw up a white flag.
While on the offensive, Japanese infantry pressed enemy positions with limited supplies,
intending to gather supplies on the road and rip weapons out of their enemies' cold,
dead hands. During World War II, many Japanese infantrymen were thrown into the fray after just
*three months* of training, and many of these men came from agricultural backgrounds. While their
training *was* short, officers enforced strict discipline, beating those who stepped out of line.
Standard Japanese rifles, namely the Type 39 and Type 99 Arisaka rifles, were decent,
but they fell short of the bolt-actions of the other fighting nations. Japanese machineguns
such as the Type 11, Type 96, and Type 99 were cumbersome, unreliable, and lacked stopping power.
Their pistols were straight-up trash. Japanese infantry training prioritised bayonet attacks,
relating the honour of wielding a bayonet to the honour of wielding a katana.
Generally, infantry units of the United States were trigger happy and had the means
of production to back it up. Unlike British infantry, who regularly exercised caution,
American infantry units were willing to accept casualties and go in guns blazing. When attacking
a position, they would light up that general direction with suppressive fire, allowing the
rest of their unit to get into a better position or execute a flank. While the Yanks did burn a lot
of gunpowder, they didn't charge recklessly, opting instead to make good use of cover,
particularly from around corners rather that over the top of an object. When units were on the move,
they could keep pressure on the enemy by hammering the trigger of their M1 Garand, the first standard
issue semiautomatic rifle of the war. These were especially effective rifles — game-changing — but
US small arms innovations weren't limited to the M1. They brought the Thompson submachine
gun into the war and also the BAR, which — while its barrel wasn't easy to swap out as
the British Bren gun — was still a force to be reckoned with. In terms of leadership,
American NCOs got stuck into the fight with their men and were generally respected, but the US Army
was lacking educated officers higher up, and its units often fell under British command.
In this case, we have indeed left who *we* think was the best to last. Ignoring all things Nazi,
German *Wehrmacht* infantry units had better training, leadership, tactics, equipment, and
morale than most other infantry units for at least the first few years of the war. Unlike what many
stereotypes depict, the Germans were not mindless robots. While they were among the most disciplined
and professional soldiers on the battlefield, they were also incredibly creative, using infantry to
support tanks, rather than the other way around like the Brits; inventing mechanized infantry;
inventing the squad machinegun; and capitalising on almost every one of their opponents' mistakes,
even if that meant changing their plans on the fly. They were also capable of mounting
quick counter-attacks and disengaging efficiently and with minimal casualties.
As early *Blitzkriegs* evince, *Wehrmacht* infantry understood coordinated artillery,
armoured, and air support tactics firmly. The MG42 machinegun was perhaps the German infantry's most
pivotal squad-level weapon. Units were built around this very gun, tasked with feeding it
ammo and watching its operator's flanks. German infantry made good use of the iconic
MP40 too, and this weapon outclassed the American Tommy gun, the Soviet PPSH-41,
and the British STEN. Overall, German infantry units used more SMGs than rifles, making them
master's of city fighting, in which their grey battledresses were a fitting camouflage.
German helmet designs were also a cut above the rest, and — like many other
aspects of the German war machine — other belligerents basically copied its design.
The Germans fought a war on two fronts and lost, in short, because of attrition (and,
of course, because Hitler basically trashed most of his best men in Stalingrad). Often,
the Germans were outnumbered one to six and up to one to ten,
and *still* they boasted a death ratio of up to one to five.
As American military analyst Colonel Trevor Dupuy put it,
"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50
percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all
circumstances [...]. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they
had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered,
when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."
The fact that Germany lost the war reinforces the reality that a war cannot
be won by exceptional infantry alone and that it does not, indeed, take place in a vacuum.
Now, obviously these are just five of the many belligerents of the Second World War, but
of these, do you agree that Germany fielded the most
effective infantry? Do you think it was another of these five belligerents?
Do you think it was one we didn't include in this video? Please share your thoughts in the comments.