WWII: which infantry company had the most firepower?

[Independent voter]

This would be a generic infantry company with about 175 men or so. By "generic" I mean it's not an engineering company, a commando company, etc.

American
British
German
Russian
Other

Who could do the most damage to a target?

[Puupi]

German of course, they had the best equipment.

[Guy4123]

American.

People are probably going to say Germany because they issued an LMG to each squad but nothing anyone else used compares to having a semi automatic rifle instead of bolt action as your standard issue weapon.

[Puupi]

American.

People are probably going to say Germany because they issued an LMG to each squad but nothing anyone else used compares to having a semi automatic rifle instead of bolt action as your standard issue weapon.

American standard issue weapon was indeed the best, but the LMG and motorized and mechanized support German companies had was superior.

Americans had superior air and artillery support - but those were like... I don't know the right term for it - outside support for the company.

[Miyagie]

The one with the nukes /duh

[Dellis0991]

Its arguable both Americans and Germans had some serious firepower, I remember hearing that the Thompson machine gun almost became the standard for American Infantry but many soldiers felt that the rattling of the Thompson was annoying (funny because the pacific war front got good use out them), the M1 Garand was favorite because semi automatics was the definition of control. The British didn't like the Thompson funny because the sten was a ugly fucking gun but it did the job.

[Guy4123]

American standard issue weapon was indeed the best, but the LMG and motorized and mechanized support German companies had was superior.

Americans had superior air and artillery support - but those were like... I don't know the right term for it - outside support for the company.

I'd say motorized, mechanized, and artillery support are all outside the scope of comparing infantry company to infantry company. We'd need to go up to regiment or division to account for such things.

[zealo]

The Germans didn't have the industrial capacity to start replacing their bolt action Mausers with semi-autos as a main service rifle. The quality of the Mausers issued got worse as the war progressed too as they start cutting corners for the sake of production numbers.

They did equip their infantry with lots of LMGs, but it's debatable just how much better that was.

[McFuu]

Between what's listed, and considering them at their optimal strength...
America with Russia a close second.
Germany is mainly built on myth, their average tank was worse than the Allies average tank, and that's not getting into reliability and supply chain. The Germans most fearsome weapon was likely the stukka dive bomber and their artillery arrangements / anti tank guns.
America and Russia were just better. I know we don't consider Russia too much, but their tank and plane core were top notch, and when properly supplied their troops were fearsome.

[Puupi]

Between what's listed, and considering them at their optimal strength...
America with Russia a close second.
Germany is mainly built on myth, their average tank was worse than the Allies average tank, and that's not getting into reliability and supply chain. The Germans most fearsome weapon was likely the stukka dive bomber and their artillery arrangements / anti tank guns.
America and Russia were just better. I know we don't consider Russia too much, but their tank and plane core were top notch, and when properly supplied their troops were fearsome.

*facepalm*

1. There were situations when the Russians didn't even have a weapon for all soldiers, not to mention a lot of bullets. 2. Tanks and planes aren't part of infantry company.

Russian tanks and artillery were top notch, the best in the world. But infantry? Nowhere close.

[Eldar45]

American standard issue weapon was indeed the best, but the LMG and motorized and mechanized support German companies had was superior.

Americans had superior air and artillery support - but those were like... I don't know the right term for it - outside support for the company.

The German mechanized were superior, when they could actually field them. Germany was hurting for oil and steel.

Besides that, America was fielding basically all of the best equipment.

[McFuu]

*facepalm*

1. There were situations when the Russians didn't even have a weapon for all soldiers, not to mention a lot of bullets. 2. Tanks and planes aren't part of infantry company.

Russian tanks and artillery were top notch, the best in the world. But infantry? Nowhere close.

Like I said in the first sentence, considering optimal strength... Spend less time face palming and more time reading.

Ie post German invasion of Russia and when Russia finally stabilized and got their shit together and their production in order... Their troops were good, they were trained and there were reserves. Germany didn't have this luxury, even at peak Germany, they had training and logistical problems. At peak Russia, they didn't have those issues.

[Puupi]

Like I said in the first sentence, considering optimal strength... Spend less time face palming and more time reading.

Ie post German invasion of Russia and when Russia finally stabilized and got their shit together and their production in order... Their troops were good, they were trained and there were reserves. Germany didn't have this luxury, even at peak Germany, they had training and logistical problems. At peak Russia, they didn't have those issues.

Righto...

Clearly those superior Russian infantry forces explain why Russians lost 10 million troops on the eastern front compared to the 5 million of the axis side.

- - - Updated - - -


The Germans were losing less troops every year of the war on both fronts compared to allies. Germans were superior, but were outnumbered in the end.

[Danuru]

It's hard to say, but I'd have to go with the Germans. America probably takes a close second, but their strength was mainly in a very solid support.

As for whoever voted Russian, I have no clue what you're thinking. They had more men then guns, and they're tactics involved spending that manpower like water as opposed to superior firepower.

[I Push Buttons]

American standard issue weapon was indeed the best, but the LMG and motorized and mechanized support German companies had was superior.

Americans had superior air and artillery support - but those were like... I don't know the right term for it - outside support for the company.

But mechanized infantry was just a small part of the German war machine. A typical US company (ignoring airborne infantry and most of the island hopping in the Pacific) would have been just as mechanized as Germany's mechanized infantry, those units (as in the vehicles, their operators, support, etc.,) would have simply been under a different command, they wouldn't have been part of the company command structure... Where in the case of Germany, many times they were. But its not like that was some huge advantage for Germany, in fact it was probably a disadvantage... That is, individual company commands competing for parts, fuel, etc. (and Germany was already strained in that regard anyways), compared to the well-oiled machine (compared to Germany anyways, it wasn't without its faults) of US logistics and the centralization of their support units, allowing continuous smooth operation.

And as I said in the first sentence, mechanized infantry was the exception for Germany, not the rule... A typical German company would have hardly any mechanization and the vast majority actually relied on horse drawn wagons.

[jackofwind]

SS or Wehrmacht? IIRC there's a pretty big difference between how those units were kitted.

Start of the war vs. end of the war is also a good question, as Germany's outfitting declined as the war went on.

[McFuu]

Righto...

Clearly those superior Russian infantry forces explain why Russians lost 10 million troops on the eastern front compared to the 5 million of the axis side.

- - - Updated - - -


The Germans were losing less troops every year of the war on both fronts compared to allies. Germans were superior, but were outnumbered in the end.

You are misunderstanding this data.

While the lengths the USSR went to stop the German invasion are well known, at the beginning of the Eastern Front Germany outnumbered Russia. As time went on and Russia got it's act together, loses were closer to 1:1 during the counter-attack. This is important because it's similar to the Western Front's ratio of loses. A couple of things about Germany is they excel at fighting in defense, they proved this in their retreat from Italy. As I said earlier, their best equipment was suited to fighting in the defensive, namely artillery and tanks that were usually immobile anyway.

Russia never enjoyed a massive manpower advantage over Germany, it was mostly similar to what the US/UK deployed on the Western side, averaging around 2:1.

So as the question states, considering optimal conditions that these Armies every enjoyed, Russia's efficiency was on par with the US, during the exact same time frame of the war, both attacking into Germany while Germany is fighting from the Defensive, which is likely their strongest suit.

What is also worth noting is that both the US and Russia replace their troops during the later half of the war. So troops in reserve and trained enough to continue the assault on Germany while enjoying similar efficiency to the battle hardened troops they replaced. Germany doesn't get to enjoy this luxury. This is why German aces and snipers have so many kills. There was no going home to Nebraska for Franz, German troops that started the war, ended the war, whether that be in surrender or death.

Russia was as efficient as the US/UK ever were when they were at their best. And it seems most agree that US troops were the superior force during the war (they were) than there is no reason to not agree that Russia was near enough the quality force when they finally got their shit together. Let's not forget the US was completely immune to WWII before they joined, for 2 years Russia was thrust into the war without warning, fending off an attack from an "Ally" of theirs. Comparing overall WWII casualty numbers and applying that as evidence of a forces effectiveness is a bit short sighted. Much of the myth surrounding the Red Army is actually just German WWII propaganda. "Quantity has a Quality all it's own." was never said by Stalin and is actually only attributed to him in the 70's 80's, most likely Cold War propaganda to deflate the USSR.

[Puupi]

You are misunderstanding this data.

While the lengths the USSR went to stop the German invasion are well known, at the beginning of the Eastern Front Germany outnumbered Russia. As time went on and Russia got it's act together, loses were closer to 1:1 during the counter-attack. This is important because it's similar to the Western Front's ratio of loses. A couple of things about Germany is they excel at fighting in defense, they proved this in their retreat from Italy. As I said earlier, their best equipment was suited to fighting in the defensive, namely artillery and tanks that were usually immobile anyway.

Russia never enjoyed a massive manpower advantage over Germany, it was mostly similar to what the US/UK deployed on the Western side, averaging around 2:1.

So as the question states, considering optimal conditions that these Armies every enjoyed, Russia's efficiency was on par with the US, during the exact same time frame of the war, both attacking into Germany while Germany is fighting from the Defensive, which is likely their strongest suit.

What is also worth noting is that both the US and Russia replace their troops during the later half of the war. So troops in reserve and trained enough to continue the assault on Germany while enjoying similar efficiency to the battle hardened troops they replaced. Germany doesn't get to enjoy this luxury. This is why German aces and snipers have so many kills. There was no going home to Nebraska for Franz, German troops that started the war, ended the war, whether that be in surrender or death.

Russia was as efficient as the US/UK ever were when they were at their best. And it seems most agree that US troops were the superior force during the war (they were) than there is no reason to not agree that Russia was near enough the quality force when they finally got their shit together. Let's not forget the US was completely immune to WWII before they joined, for 2 years Russia was thrust into the war without warning, fending off an attack from an "Ally" of theirs. Comparing overall WWII casualty numbers and applying that as evidence of a forces effectiveness is a bit short sighted. Much of the myth surrounding the Red Army is actually just German WWII propaganda. "Quantity has a Quality all it's own." was never said by Stalin and is actually only attributed to him in the 70's 80's, most likely Cold War propaganda to deflate the USSR.

I am misunderstanding the data? lol.

Look at the data again. Now pay attention to the middle, you see the data there is separated by years. Where is this 1:1 ratio you speak of?

Even the US couldn't hold 1:1 ratio compared to Germans.

[McFuu]

I am misunderstanding the data? lol.

Look at the data again. Now pay attention to the middle, you see the data there is separated by years. Where is this 1:1 ratio you speak of?

Even the US couldn't hold 1:1 ratio compared to Germans.

I said close to 1:1. Russia was something like 1.3:1.

Regardless it seems you aren't going to understand, obviously German casualties will be lower for both sides, Germany fields less troops, and is defending. Military doctrine generally goes with a 3:1 ratio for attacker to defender for a successful campaign. Neither US or Russia really exceeded that until late 44 and into 45.

[Mihalik]

sip.

As a rule of thumb every single engagement the Germans ever fought against any of the Allies (not counting countries like Belgium and the Netherlands) they were consistently outnumbered.

What the Germans often did better than the Allies, especially at the start of the war was concentrating their forces in narrow areas giving the impression of overwhelming superiority of numbers, firepower and equipment.

Now the simple fact that after WW2 LMG centric squads have become the universal standard shows the effectiveness and superiority of the unit composition over all other unit compositions tried during the war. Whether American semi-automatic rifles or German LMGs had the superior firepower at company level is somewhat moot, as when it came to actual engagements at squad levels the Germans could reliably put more lead in the air than their opponents in a fight.

Yes, the German armies of WW2 are somewhat mythologized (how else can one explain their apparent overwhelming success on the attack and their tenacity on the defense), the reality is that the Germans simply had better tactics for the gear they had at unit levels.

Their tanks were shittier, their planes were worse, their guns were often outmatched (except their LMGs), but they just had better tactics when it came to using them.

P.S It's worth remembering that more American soldiers died fighting in Europe than they did fighting in the Pacific. And this after the Germans were already exhausted by a massive war of attrition against the Soviets and by years of continuous round the clock bombing.