@Adlertag:
@zerohour49:
Who would win Marine Raiders or S.S.?
I think you might find some answers here :
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/
click > Publications, then > TDI-reports, and then the choice is yours.
I will recommend this TDI-report:
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/pdf/e-4epw1and2final.pdf
scroll down to chapter 6, or F=Conclusions on page 61.
It looks like the US forces combat effectiveness was 20 % inferior to the German performance.
UK combat effectiveness was 50 % inferior to the Germans, and USSR was 300 % inferior. The Italian combat performance was even poorer than the russians.
Very good info. Thanks!
Just to add to what I’d written above–I looked at the study in question, and it appears the data for the U.S. versus German soldiers is based mainly on the Battle of the Bulge (late '44 - early '45). Elsewhere, I’ve seen it noted that the German Army of 1944 was a shell of what it had been in '41. All else being equal, one would suppose the Americans would look better against the dilapidated version of the German Army (what they encountered in '44 and '45) than they would have against the German Army of '41 or even the summer of '43.
I partially agree with the study authors’ conclusion that the Soviet Army might, on a man-for-man basis, have been below average by WWII combatants’ standards. But a lot of the differential was probably also due to the German Army being significantly above the man-for-man standards set by any of its major adversaries; especially when the German Army was in its prime.
@Wikipedia:
Among [the German recruits for the Battle of the Bulge] were Volksgrenadier units formed from a mix of battle-hardened veterans and recruits formerly regarded as too young or too old to fight. Training time, equipment, and supplies were inadequate during the preparations.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_bulge