privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
The thread doesn't mention a lot of things, stop being pedantic and recognise that without that your thread would have died days ago...
Most Efficient Army
- Thread starter Sarevok
- Start date
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
i couldnt care less, i dont come to this forum that often anyways. this thread IS dead already. just cut the war crimes crap.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Or what? You'll whinge some more? Moderator Action: Or warned for threadjacking, and flaming, and general obnoxiousness, Lefty
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889 If you don't care you don't care, don't claim you don't care then blatantly do care, if you feel it was so far off topic then whinge to a moderator to close said topic or edit the posts, otherwise quit acting like a baby.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889 If you don't care you don't care, don't claim you don't care then blatantly do care, if you feel it was so far off topic then whinge to a moderator to close said topic or edit the posts, otherwise quit acting like a baby.
Zardnaar
Deity
I would rate the American army rather low for efficency. Consider the last 3 major engagements they've been in- Vietnam, Gilf War, and Iraq. Without going near Vietnam..
1. Gulf War. A 6 month build up followed by a 6 week bombing campaign. What other campaign in world history has given the attacker over 7 months to prepare the battloefield?
2. Iraq. Beating aup a poorly trained adnd equiped army crippled by 12 years of sanctions.
I rate the American Airforce and Navy however entirely differently.
I would rate the German army of WW2 as the best modern army. They lost but it took the USSR, America and Britain and the rest 6 years to do it. Population wise the Germans were outnumbered by at least 5 to one and England alone made more tanks than Germany. when you add in the fact Germany had a minimal Navy and basicly built its airforce in 6 years (33-39) you start to get an idea of how well the average German soldier fought. And they still just about won (and probably would have had Hitler not interfered in military decisions).
Looking at American military history I would rate the Americans as a country as average in terms of fighting ability. They constantly underesitmate their foes (Japanese, Battle of the Bulge, Vietnamese, Iraq, and probably the Soviets as well) and usually win their battles through firepower and technology (post 1945 or so).
The modern American MILITARY (not army or marines they all support each other) is the best in the world. Definatly not the most efficent though.
1. Gulf War. A 6 month build up followed by a 6 week bombing campaign. What other campaign in world history has given the attacker over 7 months to prepare the battloefield?
2. Iraq. Beating aup a poorly trained adnd equiped army crippled by 12 years of sanctions.
I rate the American Airforce and Navy however entirely differently.
I would rate the German army of WW2 as the best modern army. They lost but it took the USSR, America and Britain and the rest 6 years to do it. Population wise the Germans were outnumbered by at least 5 to one and England alone made more tanks than Germany. when you add in the fact Germany had a minimal Navy and basicly built its airforce in 6 years (33-39) you start to get an idea of how well the average German soldier fought. And they still just about won (and probably would have had Hitler not interfered in military decisions).
Looking at American military history I would rate the Americans as a country as average in terms of fighting ability. They constantly underesitmate their foes (Japanese, Battle of the Bulge, Vietnamese, Iraq, and probably the Soviets as well) and usually win their battles through firepower and technology (post 1945 or so).
The modern American MILITARY (not army or marines they all support each other) is the best in the world. Definatly not the most efficent though.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Hey,
Using the Gulf War and the current Iraqi War as proof of the ineficiency of the American Army does not pan out. So they had six months to build up in 1990. The enemy gave them six months, so of course they used it. The Iraq Army now isn't degraded so much because of sanctions, Iraq had no qualms using UN loop holes to buy military equipment instead of food. It is because of the pimp slap the Allies gave them in 91.
So really what you are saying is we have no idea what the efficiency of the American Army is beacuse it has never been properly tested.
-Pat
Using the Gulf War and the current Iraqi War as proof of the ineficiency of the American Army does not pan out. So they had six months to build up in 1990. The enemy gave them six months, so of course they used it. The Iraq Army now isn't degraded so much because of sanctions, Iraq had no qualms using UN loop holes to buy military equipment instead of food. It is because of the pimp slap the Allies gave them in 91.
So really what you are saying is we have no idea what the efficiency of the American Army is beacuse it has never been properly tested.
-Pat
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
true, but that is something most would rather not see.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
who wouldnt. I was thinking about it and you are indeed right, germany really did have a very efficient army that held its enemies for 6 years. mind you that rome held for 1,000
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
naturally. empires dont really last that long anymore, let alone countries.
philippe
FYI, I chase trains.
The Flemmisch warriors. 
But on the list i would choose the arabs in the 7th century
But on the list i would choose the arabs in the 7th century
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
they were pretty dangerous as well.
Similar threads
- Poll
