Were the anzacs actually the best troops of the western front or is it just a tale to make aussies feel better about joining the war?
>>372761
>the best troops of the western front
That would be the Canadians
>>372766
>muh fortified beach
Most combat effective unit on the western front was the wehrmacht
I swear every Australian ever is indoctrinated into thinking ANZAC troops were some kind of godlike unbeatable warriors while their role in history is so retardedly marginal it possibly couldn't be more irrelevant.
the six (was it?) divisions of the anzac corps were a tiny drop in the war effort, so have that in mind
however, they had the advantage of not having their manpower being drawn from mostly urban and mostly poor youth like the british troops
BUT even more importantly, they kept the square organization (as opposed to the triangular one), which however was not reflected in planning
what it means is when they got a part of the line - just as wide as anyone else in the commonwealth army - they had the advantage of fielding four battalions per brigade as opposed to just three batts like for example the british
it would be the original bef or the guards units which would be the true cream of the crop, but the above definitely helped the anzac troops to secure a solid reputation - which would obviously snowball
>>372761
>Were the anzacs actually the best troops of the western front or is it just a tale to make aussies feel better about joining the war?
As an all volunteer force earning three times the rate of UK soldiers, who had been indoctrinated into a "fuck shit up" mentality, Australians made useful active raiders on the western front. They also had a "push push push" mentality in advance. They suffered massive losses due to this stupidity and then a series of mutinies when their command wanted to merge battalions.
Whether going out at night and murdering Bavarians for sport makes you "the best" is a silly question.
>>372761
Whether they were actually skillful is up to debate but man did they face some hellish conditions in both world wars.
>>372761
they ran into some shit for sure
Why does Australia send like 1,000 men to every conflict ever? I actually kinda like it.
>>372801
funny, in the Vietnam War, Aussies were extremely cautious as compared to American troops
>>372810
ANZAC!
As a proud US citizen, I have to say that the best nations to serve in the Western Front were Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Pound-for-pound they were fierce and determined.
It also helps that 2 of the best Allied commanders in that theater were Aussie and Canadian; John Monash and Arthur Currie.
As an Australian it's thankfully not pushed that much that we where like the Spartans of WWI, I think the fact that we where used as cannon fodder perhaps gave a better historical insight than most of the other forces.
>>372783
ww1
>>372783
this is WWI not II you fucking inbred kraut
in WWI Canadians kicked ass and were arguably the greatest of the war. in WWII they did alright and kinda non glorious bitch work, like after dday, clearing out Holland and north germany.
Churchill once said something along the lines of he would be unstoppable with US tech, British officers, and Canadian soldiers.
ANZAC got that crazy reputation tho
>lost to the decaying remains of the Ottomans
>best troops
nah
>>374373
Don't forget such things like shoving live grenades into the pockets of german prisoners, and pulling the pin.
>not the 442nd
>>374649
>British commanders AKA Churchill, fuck up the plan, ruin their element of surprise decide to go along with it anyway
Nigga they did the best they could, and earned the respect of the Turks whilst they were at it. There's this sick cunt quote by Atturk about it but I'm posting from my phone.
>>374345
As Sir Henry Deterding, the head of British Petroleum, commented, in 1914 Britain had controlled only a small part of the World's known oil reserves, mainly in Burma and Persia, but by 1918 it controlled about 50%
ANZACs were in effect mercenaries for the British ruling class, invading a Muslim country that posed no threat whatever to Australia and New Zealand, purely to serve the interests of British imperialism
>>374685
I think it's this one?
>>374060
Yeah sure, and Long Tan wasn't lucky by a free opposed slope for 3/4 of the company.
Go rape Cairo again.
>>374709
Fucking disgusting t*rckoroaches
>>373983
The insurance policy: blood for great power support "incase."
The ANZAC's have nothing to do about being good soldiers, or even proficient soldiers.
- It was the countries first attempt at being a 'big boy' in front of the world, though really they ended up being britain's kek
- It's more about the sacrifice than actually winning
- The social climate at the time was 'fuck yeah, war' since it was the countries first ever actually need to go to any sort of conflict.
>>374706
Hey, nobody put a gun to the Turks' heads and forced them to join the Central Powers against their will. The Ottomans gambled big and lost big, and their empire lost its territories to another. Them's the breaks
>>374997
I'd say the Ottoman war minister did when he convinced Germans sailors to dress like Turks to make Russia attack the Ottoman Empire to force them to join the war on the Central Powers' side.
>>372761
They were crazy as fuck and rebellious as fuck but they got shit done
>>372761
>Were the anzacs actually the best troops of the western front or is it just a tale to make aussies feel better about joining the war?
Aussies didnt want to join the war, they fucked up the draft and didnt contribute nearly as many men as expected.
So there was a campaign to get them to commit more people, including making a royal australian corp and saying how elite they are.
However volunteer troops will normally be better than drafted troops. Among volunteers you will mostly have fit and energetic men who want to fight, while among drafted ones you might find many more wimps and manchildren.
Overall its a tiny drop of truth, as in they were probably better than the late drafts from India, overall there is no reason to say they were the best at anything.
I think there is one statistic where they were responsible for the capture of more hostages compared to their number than other colonial troops, but nothing else.
>>374709
Mustafa "Sitting On Top Of The Hill Machine Gunning Every Australian He Sees" Kemal, a friend to aussies everywhere.
"If I had to take hell, I would use the Australians to take it and the New Zealanders to hold it."
>>375017
i don't see how that's britain's fault. turkey got itself into the mess of WWI and their empire ended up in british and french hands. it sucks for them, but getting dragged into a disastrous war by a retarded egomaniac is something that most european nations have experienced at least once
in any event, turkey joining the central powers cut the russians off from a vital supply line and put a hostile army within striking distance of the suez canal, so the british would have ended up occupying most of that territory to neutralize that threat even if they didnt have designs on the oil.
>>375047
IIRC ANZACS (with NZ obviously) had the greatest casualty rate compared to any other country, with Canada second
>>375137
That doesnt mean they were good. If anything, it means they were bad.
Generally in battle it is considered a failure to have many casualties.
>>372793
Yeah, 1st im hearing about them.
>>375137
Not just fatalities including wounds, and due the absolute smaller number of troops, does this suggest that they were subject do disproportionate amounts of combat per person
"baptism of fire"
>>375181
They dont suggest superiority either. Dying more doesnt mean you are a better soldier.
The question is if they were the best troops, and there is zero reason to believe they were, other than the praise they got as part of the propaganda to recruit more men.
>>372761
they were alright
we had a goat general though
>>375196
Is there any country that doesn't use propaganda in war
I wouldn't say the 'best' because no one can claim that, but at least in contention for it
>>375196
Plus it was from some reasonably pleb history book I remember, it may not even be accurate
>>375053
>Mustafa "Sitting On Top Of The Hill Machine Gunning Every Australian He Sees" Kemal
>Turks having that much ammo
>Not knowing about the bayonet assault
Your ignorance hurts on a physical level
>>375246
Also organised a fascist army after the war.
>>374214
>As a proud US citizen, I have to say that the best nations to serve in the Western Front were Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Pound-for-pound they were fierce and determined.
Stop watching some many movies Americlap. You're already confusing drama for reality.
>>375246
Got the same birthday as this mad cunt.
There's literally no such thing as an inherently good or bad fighting force. All things (weaponry, geography, experience, and so on) being equal, all troops are roughly the same.
>>375488
>all troops are roughly the same
Roughly is the mos important bit of the post
>Fresh troops who never saw the bloody previous actions
>Small force selected purely from volunteers and professional soldiers equipped with all their state has to offer
>Get assigned in one bloc in flanking maneuvers
Jeez I wonder why. Canadians, Australians speak as if the other nations who massed the main fronts head on did not exist and will jump on any occasion to snatch a tiny bit of military glory to compensate for what they never had.
b-but muh Gallipoli
muh mateship
muh kekolda
muh long tan
