Slitherine

As you might be able to tell by this point, I'm trying to keep this message board alive while we wait for CTGW to be released. With that in mind, the debatable question I have for us now is: Which Infantry Unit was the most effective for their Country during the Great War????? Was it the Stormtrooper? ANZAC units? The French Poilu? The American Doughboy? or another unit and why?

I definitely appreciate you trying to keep this board alive. (I’m sort of trying to do that with the Team Assault board myself.)


Unfortunately I don’t know enough about WWI to make any intelligent comment on these matters here. But I do enjoy reading the posts that are made.


...... And I cannot wait for this game to come out.

Kudos to you, Sir as well .......

Sometimes it takes a consistent effort from chaps like us to keep up the motivation for long anticipated releases for both the consumer and the producer

An interesting theoretical debate, but those with accurate knowledge have long since passed away or can't even operate a computer.

Unfortunately these days when you say "stormtrooper" most people picture a cloned warrior in shiny, white plastic armor.

Darn you George Lucas!

Canadian infantry were very highly regarded/feared by the Germans I have read.

I dare say not the Italians.....

ElIndio wrote:I dare say not the Italians.....

They actually performed pretty well against Austro-Hungary in WWI, certainly better than their performance in WWII would suggest - think their heart was more in it, as Italy had a long history of conflict with Austria.

True enough they did check the Austrian's advance and did a pretty good job of holding their own territory, like you say I think they had more of a vested interest in the aims of WWI, as opposed to Mussolini's "new Rome" of WWII....

I equally think, that in most of the times, it's a question of motivation and/or leadership.

In case of the Portuguese in WWI, there is that conception, that they were poor soldiers.
Most were exaggerated rumours, but there was a truth beneath that.
The Portuguese troops were not motivated to fight that war. It didn't make sense to them.

I too hate this idea of the Italian being bad soldiers, because of WW2 performance.

The stormtroopers or maybe the Black Watch though I presume British units never got the benefit of the Prussian drill.

I think the answer would depend on the year of the war.

1914, I would rate the British regulars as the best infantry.

1918 first half, I would rate the German Stosstruppen as the best. They had the organization, doctrine, tactics, and appropriate weapons necessary for the assigned tasks.

1918 second half, probably the British. The Germans were exhausted; the Americans were amateurs; the French were struggling.

1916, probably the Canadian infantry.

1917, again, the Canadians.

1915, probably the ANZACS.

The Russians captured more Germans and Austrians than were ever captured on the Western Front.

The Italians and the Austrians were . . . not that great.

Turks fought hard, but they were ill-equipped for the war in so many ways.

The Serbs were tough SOBs!

Belgians were . . . not Serbs.

ElIndio wrote:I dare say not the Italians.....

The Italians actually fought surprisingly well in WW1. A lot of attention has been paid to the defeat at Caporetto, but whilst being a sharp defeat it was not a decisive one, and the Italians regrouped and eventually managed a highly successful offensive in October 1918. The front line always favoured the Austrians, who held the high ground on peaks that were often over 9,000 feet high - hardly a surprise that they were able to defend with fewer troops.

On a side note, most Italians were opposed to entry into war in 1915. The myth of some kind of national 'awakening' was put forward later by the fascists, but the interventionists in 1915 were a noisy and troublesome minority both in parliament and among the populace as a whole. Unfortunately, the Italian government, once the war was under way, yielded to this pressure group and began a grubby and dishonourable auction to see which side would offer them more, and in the end chose the Allies, who offered much more than the Central Powers could. Then the entry into the war was portrayed by the Italian government and press as some kind of new struggle for 'unredeemed lands', conveniently ignoring the fact that Corsica, Nice and Malta were also ethnically and culturally Italian. The war cost the lives of over 600,000 Italian soldiers, over 100,000 of whom died as prisoners in Austrian and German POW camps because the Italian government disgracefully refused to allow the delivery of food parcels from concerned relatives and the Red Cross. It's also worth mentioning that the discipline in the Italian army was brutal and even deliberately cruel, with summary executions carried out for the slightest sign of insubordination.

A7V21 wrote:As you might be able to tell by this point, I'm trying to keep this message board alive while we wait for CTGW to be released. With that in mind, the debatable question I have for us now is: Which Infantry Unit was the most effective for their Country during the Great War????? Was it the Stormtrooper? ANZAC units? The French Poilu? The American Doughboy? or another unit and why?

The British Army was consistently the most effective in relation to its numbers, slightly ahead of both the French and Germans, who also fought well. The worst of the lot was the Portuguese expeditionary force.

marklv wrote:The British Army was consistently the most effective in relation to its numbers, slightly ahead of both the French and Germans, who also fought well. The worst of the lot was the Portuguese expeditionary force.

Well, I suppose that is arguable, and probably you're saying that because of the Battle of the Lys.
But if you notice with which "conditions" they were fighting probably you would not come in a rush stating which was the worst. Some historians don't do a proper research and don't check some sources.
Some of the conditions that lead to the La Lys defeat:
- Some of the best officers, with war experience, were called to Lisbon. Some because of political persecution or others as political favours. The corruption was huge.
- Due to the lack of ships, promised by the British, the troops were never replaced and couldn't go home on leave.
- The moral of the Army was low. The whole thing was so bad planned, that things like the daily ration that soldiers should eat failed. The ration was the British one, corned beef, etc. That was not a part of the Portuguese diet. The moral was so low that there were a lot of desertions, suicides and insubordination acts.
- The day of the battle, was the day that finally, the Portuguese troops would be surrendered by the British from the frontline.
- The flanks occupied by British troops retreated, letting the whole Portuguese Portuguese Expeditionary Force to face the German attack, which lead to its involvement and subsequent annihilation.

I don't know how can anyone just state that the worst of the lot, was an army with only 100000 troops, a drop comparing with others, and which could never had any influence in the outcome of the war.
That's just the usual arrogance that some people seem to have.

I vote for the British Women`s Auxiliary Reserve Balloon Corps under the command of Captain Flashheart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRJyFL3h5WI

Obviously the Swiss Infantery....they were so scary that noone dared to attack them

I think, during strong attacks, french "indigenes" troups where maybe one of the best. German were fearing them telling fantasy stories about them. They were also often the first sent in Forts attacks.
They were also very goods "Bataillons de Chasseurs à Pieds BCP" often sent first before attacks to kille "mitrailleurs" and cut "barbelés".

Guy

1st Marine Div at Belleau Wood marking the beginning of the end of WW1

It's hard to say, the trench warfare do not open much space for bravery or the action of well trained troops. If you want to know the most courageous troops, I would say the Brits, the germans called them "Lions led by donkeys", they had bad leadership, but the most courageous soldiers. The french could hold the ground, but not make great assoults, the courage from the french came form the idea of defending their home land. The russian were bad equiped and led, they had numbers. The AH armies had bad leadership and a multicultural army, no space for coordenation and bravery, many men in the initial stages of the war went to fight for the russians for the freedom of their country form the hands of the AH governament. The serbs where exp soldiers, they had fought in many wars before WW1. The italian, had corage and relative good equipament, but a harsh leadership, extremely harsh. The ottomans, well, the ottomans had so many problems, so many problems, only the desert and distance from brit mainland maintened the brits away from taking palestina, and the mountains of Galipolli. The americans, well, the were brave well equiped, but performed so little in the war it's hard to say they were the best, only the american numbers caused the change that helped the entente forces to hold ground and advance.

If you aim for best trained, equiped and prepeared for trench warfare, these were the stormtroopers, trained to infiltrated the enemy trench, coordenated with lunch of gas shells, they would infiltrated into enemy lines, eliminate the comunications and hard points, alone, with no considerable support by the main body of the german army. The germans were the more prepeared army for trench warfare, therefore they had the best strategies and tactics.

My conclusion, stormtroops were the best fighting force in WW1.

kommandant501 wrote: The ottomans, well, the ottomans had so many problems, so many problems, only the desert and distance from brit mainland maintened the brits away from taking palestina, and the mountains of Galipolli.

I find that a very unfair comment, the Ottoman army defended the Mountains of Galipolli, The allies had superior numbers, much superior equipment and the strategic initiative. In Palestine the Ottoman army before Meggido fought an excellent fighting retreat against an army again much superior in numbers and equipment. It was the courage and ability of the Turkish troops and officers what held the British at Galipolli and for so long in Palestine.