Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
A friend many years ago said there are no better warriors than the Americans, Brits, Aussies and Canadians, there is just something in those cultures that produce men who like to fight.
That may be an Anglophile prejudice - and even if it was true, the cultures changed a lot even during the past 15 years. Past observations from past wars may be entirely irrelevant in this regard.

Nevertheless, the assumption is quite questionable with a look at the 20th century: Judging by performance / men the English-speaking armies weren't exactly the most efficient during the 20th century. The before mentioned Finns and Germans were much more efficient during the their first three war years (afterwards exhaustion took its toll).
The examples of Crete and Narvik show that this isn't purely attributable to organizational advantages.

Oh yeah, and he forgot the Gurkhas who certainly have a favourable reputation as 'warriors', just as many other nationalities/tribes.


Assertions about quality of soldiers linked to nationality are generally very tricky.
The French built their doctrine till 1914 on a perceived national preference for the offense, in part because it was assumed that the French soldier was (the) best in the tactical offense.
The Germans meanwhile had at the same time the opposite view on French soldiers.