# How Did the American Soldier Stack Up Against the Enemy in WWII? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2001, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677 "2001-11-16T04:44:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/61 "2013-01-17T16:48:29Z")
> [@chacoguy](#): > > Only to be vaporized in a nuclear fireball, a few months later. Launched from where? If the Soviet government had collapsed following the fall of Moscow in winter '41, it’s highly unlikely that the UK would still be in the war in summer '45. If the bulk of German forces were freed from the Eastern front, Operation Sealion II becomes a real possibility. And even if Britain wasn’t invaded the threat of invasion might have been enough to force a truce. Remember also that the atomic bombing of Japan occurred when the U.S. had complete air superiority. Flying similar missions straight into the teeth of a full-strength Luftwaffe with no forces tied down in the east would be a very different proposition. I’m not saying that the atom bomb wouldn’t have defeated the Nazis even if the Soviets had been eliminated early in the war. But until the ICBM was developed in the late 50’s, the delivery of atomic weapons to their targets depended very much on conventional air combat. It would by no means have been a sure thing. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/62 "2013-01-17T17:33:20Z")
> [@aksiram](#): > > I don’t believe there is evidence that Hitler had a disdain for freedom. Hitler frequently told his military leaders and the general German public that Americans were weak and ill-prepared for war, so he’s on record disdaining _Americans._ Freedom _per se_ is a different issue, but I don’t think we can call ol’ Adolf an admirer of human rights and freedoms. The whole concept of [Führerprinzip](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip) indicates otherwise: [QUOTE=Wikipedia] The Führerprinzip, German for “leader principle”, prescribed the fundamental basis of political authority in the governmental structures of the Third Reich. This principle can be most succinctly understood to mean that “the Führer’s word is above all written law” and that governmental policies, decisions, and offices ought to work toward the realization of this end.[1] In actual political usage, it refers mainly to the practice of dictatorship within the ranks of a political party itself, and as such, it has become an earmark of political Fascism. [/QUOTE] Does that sound like it emphasizes individual freedom to you? > [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > The British Historian Max Hastings has written that whichever way you slice it, the German infantryman was pound-for-pound the finest fighting man in the conflict. The reason being that soldiers of the Anglo-Americans who advanced in the western front were born and raised in liberal democracies. They were citizen soldiers, civilians who by and large wanted to get the business over with and go home. The soldiers of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were born and raised in totalitarian regimes, indoctrinated and terrorised into fighting with ruthless discipline. Victor Davis Hanson, although I do not agree with other things he has said, has made a case for the idea that citizen-soldiers of democracies are uniquely more effective than those of totalitarian regimes, most pointedly in his book _The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny._ There aren’t many such armies in the broad sweep of history, but they do have a pretty good record. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > He was a murderous control freak who regarded his fellow Germans as expendable. Indeed. Most historians I’ve read seem to agree Hitler _did not want_ Germany-the-state, nor individual Germans, to survive him. The German people had “failed” him and deserved to go down with him Götterdämmerung. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Launched from where? If the Soviet government had collapsed following the fall of Moscow in winter '41, it’s highly unlikely that the UK would still be in the war in summer '45. If the bulk of German forces were freed from the Eastern front, Operation Sealion II becomes a real possibility. And even if Britain wasn’t invaded the threat of invasion might have been enough to force a truce. > > Remember also that the atomic bombing of Japan occurred when the U.S. had complete air superiority. Flying similar missions straight into the teeth of a full-strength Luftwaffe with no forces tied down in the east would be a very different proposition. At the risk of a hijack, I contend that Germany would have lost air superiority in any event once she engaged the United States. It might have been a while before it was “safe” to run B-29s in to Berlin, but it would have happened. Let’s not forget the enormous amount of supplies the US sent the Soviets (and the comparably enormous effort to deliver them). A collapsed Soviet Union would have freed up all that materiel and supporting infrastructure to increase the weight of the US blow against Germany at the same time it would have freed up the Luftwaffe units from the Eastern Front. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/63 "2013-01-17T17:53:48Z")
In response to the OP: the old 1977 Avalon Hill wargame, Squad Leader, took an interesting view of the question. It was put together by “grognards,” serious-minded amateur armchair generals and wargame aficionados. Whether that makes it less – or _more_ – reliable an interpretation of reality is up to the reader. _In the game rules_, mind you: American infantry in WWII has a _lower_ chance to pass a “morale check” when under fire, but is not subject to a penalty (which applies to everyone else) to recover morale quickly. If I am remembering rightly, this stemmed from the designers’ impression that US units did not stand up to punishing casualties with the grim determination their enemies showed, but after getting out of the immediate killing zone, much more readily returned to the line to fight again, even without charismatic leadership to rally them. I don’t know how realistic this was, but it sounded plausible to this teenager back in the day. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/64 "2013-01-17T18:58:46Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Let’s not forget the enormous amount of supplies the US sent the Soviets (and the comparably enormous effort to deliver them). A collapsed Soviet Union would have freed up all that materiel and supporting infrastructure to increase the weight of the US blow against Germany at the same time it would have freed up the Luftwaffe units from the Eastern Front. The issue with that scenario would actually be in the logistics. Yes without the Eastern Front the resources would be freed up to head westwards, _but_ the materials would still be an issue. Much of the transportation infrastructure was totally wiped out, so you would have the issue of getting the raw materials and crude oil back to Germany and into the manufacturing infrastructure. One of the huge issues towards the middle and end for the Germans was the lack of petroleum and other crucial war effort materials. Even if they regained access to the eastern oil fields, with no trains to easily move the crude, with the distilling facilities bombed out you still have issues transporting the fuel. If you try to truck the fuel 1000 miles back westward, you quickly start burning up the fuel the war effort needs for the planes and tanks [and assorted transports.] ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/65 "2013-01-17T19:49:57Z")
> [@](#): > > The American soldier has a long history of guerilla fighting…in fact, it’s how they won the revolutionary war over the more powerful British forces. And they learned it from the American Indians, who were among the best guerilla fighters the world has known. This tradition stood them in good stead against the more regimented Japanese army. This is false in many ways. We DID have significant guerilla units, but they did not win battles. The British were not ignorant of guerilla fighting. They had their own units that fought in “skirmish” formation as they called it. Further, if guerilla units won battles, why did the US forces try to hard to emulate the European mode of fighting? The entire point of hiring Von Steuben to train soldiers at Valley Forge was that they could not win on the battlefield without mastering the British way of warfare. ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/66 "2013-01-17T19:56:03Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Nor should there have been. Our army was basically built over night, it was poorly trained and equipped, especially in armor, and didn’t have much combat experience to make up for the lack of training. By this time most of the other combatants had been fighting hard for years All true. The thread title carries with it an implicit criticism, but you can’t fault the American soldier. They were brave, highly motivated and adaptable. The problem was that during the interwar years, the American military completely forgot how to make war. It was up to a handful of old-school soldiers to mobilize and train millions of citizens with no institution or infrastructure to support them. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/67 "2013-01-17T20:00:43Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Victor Davis Hanson, although I do not agree with other things he has said, has made a case for the idea that citizen-soldiers of democracies are uniquely more effective than those of totalitarian regimes > [@Sailboat](#): > > _In the game rules_, mind you: > > American infantry in WWII has a _lower_ chance to pass a “morale check” when under fire, but is not subject to a penalty (which applies to everyone else) to recover morale quickly. Perhaps if this were true in real life it may explain the effectiveness of soldiers from democracies. They are not _as_ imbued with stories about how absolutely cowardly it is to run in battle, and are not as likely to get in trouble if they do run. So when the sensible thing to do is run, they run. Then they regroup rather than get slaughtered on the spot. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/68 "2013-01-17T20:08:33Z")
> [@sidecar\_jon](#): > > In the words of a real German (EX pow stayed behind in UK) who was captured in France… > > If British troops came along the road and we had a a go at them , we knew that in half an hour they would be back with fixed bayonets and we were in for a real fight. If the yanks arrived they would with draw a distance, and we knew they would throw everything at us, air strikes, artillery and mortars would come over before they reappeared. > > Now despite dammed silly ideas of heroism who was the sensible one, fight hand to hand or stand back and paste em… I believe it is in Stephan Ambrose’s _Citizen Soldier_ that discusses American soldiers in Aachen, which was their first battle that took place on German soil. The Germans would no longer retreat and were preparing for house-to-house fighting like Stalingrad. An American commander, when he saw how deadly the fighting could be, ordered his howitzers to blow holes through the row houses so his soldiers could advance under cover instead of in the street. A captured German officer later called this “unfair”. Americans fought a “soft”, rich war because they could. As you said, this makes perfect sense. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/69 "2013-01-17T21:11:59Z")
> [@aksiram](#): > > Since Germans, Russians, British and Americans are mostly similar to one another, the soldiers were probably all equal in terms of what they could accomplish physically. I don’t think physicality is as much a factor as things like equipment and training. Morale too, of course, but I doubt the morale of Americans fighting to defeat the Nazis was any lower than Germans fighting for the Fuhrer. FWIW, I would bet that the individual German soldier was superior, one on one, to the individual American. More experience in fighting, for one thing, given their early victories over France, etc. But the Allies didn’t win the war because the individual American soldier was better. They won because America was the greatest industrial power on earth. And once the US geared up to a war time economy, and developed weapons that were, so to speak, WWII era instead of WWI, it was a foregone conclusion that the _Tausand Jahre Reich_ was toast. The US could not only fight a war in the Pacific. They could also fight (to a lesser extent) in Europe _and_ supply their own army as well as the British and Soviets with tanks and planes and bullets and shells and food and trucks and medical supplies and everything else that was needed. Amateur soldiers talk tactics. Professionals talk logistics. A major point of battle planning is _not_ to fight a fair battle, where the sides are evenly matched and you find out which army is better one on one. That’s why Napolean talked about the concentration of forces at the critical point - so that when it actually comes to the sharp edge, those guys are overmatched, not only in soldiers but in what soldiers use to kill each other. Maybe Fritz is a 30% better shot than Billy. If Billy has twice the ammunition, the law of averages says he is going to win a shoot out. Especially if Billy has a belly full of nice hot food, waterproof boots, and Fritz has been strafed for the last twenty four hours. IYSWIM. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/70 "2013-01-17T21:36:27Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] That’s why Napolean talked about the concentration of forces at the critical point - so that when it actually comes to the sharp edge, those guys are overmatched, not only in soldiers but in what soldiers use to kill each other. [/QUOTE] Huh…I thought that was Clauswitz (the schwernpunkt IIRC, though gods know how it’s spelled). But I think your post is spot on…it’s not about the individual fighting ability of your soldiers, but the effectiveness of your military. The US military wasn’t trying to win fairly or prove we had the best soldier or best tank…we just wanted to win so we could go home and have some fun. I remember seeing a show on the History Channel where they were talking to a German tanker. He was bragging that his Tiger was just dominating some section of road. It had killed 5 US Sherman tanks, which he was total in contempt of. He went on to say that his platoon was eventually wiped out (including his own tank) when the US basically cheated and called in tactical air and artillery to pound the shit out of their tanks while a flood of additional Sherman tanks managed to flank them, get behind them and shoot them in the ass. You could tell he didn’t think much of this, that it wasn’t sporting or right, and that he knew that his tank and his fellows were the better men because they had the best tanks…which did them no good in the end, since the US could afford to lose those 5 tanks to take out a single Tiger, and that such a ratio was actually ridiculously in our favor (though hard on the tank crews…one of my pet peeves is how badly the US prepared for war in the past and the crap we sent our troops into combat with, the bad training and little preparation we gave our troops, and the fact that we relied our our guys to learn by a trial of fire every time we went into battle up to fairly recent times). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/71 "2013-01-17T22:18:32Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Huh…I thought that was Clauswitz (the schwernpunkt IIRC, though gods know how it’s spelled). Maybe he did. I heard it first in connection with Napolean ([cite](http://www.civilwarhome.com/napoleontactics.htm)). But it is a key tactical concept, so no doubt Clausewitz talked about it as well, as well as every other general of the last few hundred years. > [@](#): > > I remember seeing a show on the History Channel where they were talking to a German tanker. He was bragging that his Tiger was just dominating some section of road. It had killed 5 US Sherman tanks, which he was total in contempt of. He went on to say that his platoon was eventually wiped out (including his own tank) when the US basically cheated and called in tactical air and artillery to pound the shit out of their tanks while a flood of additional Sherman tanks managed to flank them, get behind them and shoot them in the ass. You could tell he didn’t think much of this, that it wasn’t sporting or right, and that he knew that his tank and his fellows were the better men because they had the best tanks. Reminiscent of what my sensei used to say about the two best things for your assailant to say after a fight. Best thing is “hey, what happened?” Second best is “No fair!” 😃 > [@](#): > > one of my pet peeves is how badly the US prepared for war in the past and the crap we sent our troops into combat with, the bad training and little preparation we gave our troops, and the fact that we relied our our guys to learn by a trial of fire every time we went into battle up to fairly recent times. Hear, hear. Which is why I was heartened by what I saw in the first Gulf War, which was a twenty first century army vs. a Viet Nam era army. For once, our generals (especially the late lamented Schwarzkopf) were not preparing to fight the last war, but the one in front of them. I always enjoy reading what you have to say about military history and tactics. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/72 "2013-01-17T22:36:45Z")
Yeah, it’s a pretty common concept. I just remember it from On War, so that’s where I associate it from. [QUOTE=Shodan] Reminiscent of what my sensei used to say about the two best things for your assailant to say after a fight. Best thing is “hey, what happened?” Second best is "No fair! [/QUOTE] We must have had the same sensei. 🙂 There is no such thing as a fair fight, either individually or in war. It always amuses me when people talk about the US military being unfair with their use of drones and reliance on tactical air, precision artillery and long range strikes. > [@](#): > > I always enjoy reading what you have to say about military history and tactics. The feeling is mutual. ---
**Author:** ![RandMcnally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@RandMcnally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandMcnally)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2013, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/73 "2013-01-17T22:55:44Z")
> [@Love\_Rhombus](#): > > Since someone brought up the Philippine–American War and I’m honestly curious: did we use many guerrilla tactics there? Or was it a mass-army push? I don’t know much about it and it doesn’t get the love WWII or even Nam & Korea do. In order to end the insurrection we mostly used the tried and true methods of concentration camps, scorched earth, and the “water cure.” ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/74 "2013-01-18T00:25:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > FWIW, I would bet that the individual German soldier was superior, one on one, to the individual American. More experience in fighting, for one thing, given their early victories over France, etc. I read a book (title and author long forgotten, I’m afraid) maybe 30 years ago that attempted to analyse the combatants’ performance in WWII, at several levels. This was using statistical analysis and normalising situations to extract performance out of the randomness of combat situations. His conclusion was that the German soldier was 50% better, as an individual, than any of his counterparts in the war. That is that 2 Wehrmacht were equal in combat outcomes to any 3 other soldiers. As you quite correctly say, this was eventually fairly irrelevant to the outcome of the war. But there is no real other explanation for the performance of the German Army from 1939-1941 than they were simply better man-for-man. Being 50% better doesn’t help much when you’re fighting 5-1 odds all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/75 "2013-01-18T01:10:07Z")
> [@XT](#): > > There is no such thing as a fair fight, either individually or in war. It always amuses me when people talk about the US military being unfair with their use of drones and reliance on tactical air, precision artillery and long range strikes. Even from an objective standpoint, the worse kind of battle is a “fair” one. That just means the sides are evenly matched, which guarantees a lot of people on both sides are going to die. A battle where one side has an “unfair” advantage will be over quicker and produce fewer casualties. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/76 "2013-01-18T01:15:17Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > I read a book (title and author long forgotten, I’m afraid) maybe 30 years ago that attempted to analyse the combatants’ performance in WWII, at several levels. This was using statistical analysis and normalising situations to extract performance out of the randomness of combat situations. That sounds familiar. I think the book you’re talking about was written by Ernest and Trevor Dupuy (a father and son team of military historians). ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/77 "2013-01-18T01:20:30Z")
> [@XT](#): > > the schwernpunkt IIRC, though gods know how it’s spelled You were only off by one letter. It’s schwerpunkt. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/78 "2013-01-18T02:36:40Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > I read a book (title and author long forgotten, I’m afraid) maybe 30 years ago that attempted to analyse the combatants’ performance in WWII, at several levels. This was using statistical analysis and normalising situations to extract performance out of the randomness of combat situations. > > His conclusion was that the German soldier was 50% better, as an individual, than any of his counterparts in the war. That is that 2 Wehrmacht were equal in combat outcomes to any 3 other soldiers. As **Little Nemo** said, presumably the author was Trevor Dupuy, he wrote a number of books on this issue such as \*Numbers, Predictions and War \*and _A Genius for War - the German Army and General Staff, 1807-1945_ and incorporated his Quantified Judgement Model and Tactical Numerical Deterministic Model in many of his other works. To nitpick he found the Combat Effectiveness Value of German formations to be on average 20% higher than those of the Western Allies and the casualty rate they inflicted to be 50% higher. From [here](http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/pdf/v2n1.pdf), warning pdf file: > [@](#): > > But on the average, German performance, as measured by CEV and casualty tradeoff, was better than the Western allies by a CEV factor averaging about 1.2. and a casualty tradeoff factor averaging about 1.5. Not so nitpicky though, his conclusion was **not** that the German soldier was 50% better as an individual; it was that in organized combat formations the Germans were 20% more effective. Though in this case he is comparing Arab and Israeli performance, the same applies to his analysis of the Germans in WW2; from [Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1947-1974](http://www.amazon.com/Elusive-Victory-Arab-Israeli-Wars-1947-1974/dp/0060111127/ref=pd_cp_b_0) > [@](#): > > in the 1973 war . . . the Israeli combat effectiveness superiority was nearly two-to-one. In other words: 100 Israelis, in effectively organized military units, were approximately the combat equivalent of about 200 Egyptians similarly organized. It is evident that a single Israeli soldier was not on the average twice as strong, or twice as intelligent, or twice as good a soldier as his Egyptian counterpart. In fact, on a man-for-man basis, there appears to be little qualitative difference between the opponents. So the comparison is valid only in terms of organized units. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/79 "2013-01-18T04:45:44Z")
They stacked lower, meaning less dead. Kidding aside, I haven’t seen any interesting study in comparing units from squad- to company-size in WW2. It was only the US army that introduced increased firepower at the squad level. This was with the introduction of semi-auto rifles and an automatic rifle designed for small unit use (the BAR.) The Britons had a similar make-up but not as pronounced as the Americans. The Germans, on the other hand, focused on the machine gun as the primary small arm in actions involving platoons or bigger. There was one account of American soldiers encountering elite German paras (starts with an ‘f’, I could never remember the spelling.) I can’t quote the supposed report of the American commander since I can’t find that article. Clue: he implied the US shouldn’t be fighting the Germans. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2013, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677/80 "2013-01-18T05:26:41Z")
Fallschirmjäger [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-did-the-american-soldier-stack-up-against-the-enemy-in-wwii/93677.md?page=5)