Most powerful military in history?

[JohnRM]

In the Japanese air campaign the US used B-29s which could fly higher and longer whereas in Europe they used B-17s which I believe had to fly lower. Also I think the Germans were just better equipped to defend their cities than the Japanese.

By the time the U.S. Army Air Force was bombing Japan, on a regular basis, the Japanese had very few pilots (and fewer experience pilots), very few planes, and very little fuel to get them airborne. Such was not the case with Germany. The U.S. Army's 8th Air Force was bombing Germany near the height of its power. Generally speaking, the B-17s flew in with little or no escort and faced various types of flak and professional enemy fighter pilots.

 

[sabo]

USA definently. I mean, the USSR lost in Afghanistan. Afghanistan!

Careful there sharpie, or someone might mention Veitnam. Of course it was hard to win a war when you couldn't invade the attacking country and you had to get permission each time you wanted to shoot the enemy, even when he was shooting at you...

 

[blindside]

By the time the U.S. Army Air Force was bombing Japan, on a regular basis, the Japanese had very few pilots (and fewer experience pilots), very few planes, and very little fuel to get them airborne. Such was not the case with Germany. The U.S. Army's 8th Air Force was bombing Germany near the height of its power. Generally speaking, the B-17s flew in with little or no escort and faced various types of flak and professional enemy fighter pilots.

I'd hardly say 1945 was the height of Germany's military power but you are right otherwise.

I believe the allies lost nearly 100,000 men during the air campaign over Germany.

 

[Nyvin]

I think in its day the British Empire must be the correct choice on this poll. They are still a power to be reckoned with. But due to the fact they use to have the worlds largest Empire and the all time largest empire must count for something. It is unfair to simply compaire a modern force to an ancient one .Take the Roman empire duing here time they were unstoppable it would seem. But they couldnt stang up to even a backward modern army or today. So does that mean they would be below them ? of course not its all relative.

It's funny how only people from Britain say it should be britain...Britain only had about half of it's empire for less then a hundred years! And also it's land army was never anything very large or important. It was always in rivalry with France which shows how it couldn't be considered 'the best military in history'...

More like 'best position for their country in history' If they ever had to go one on one with a country based on land they would've been wiped out quite easily. If britain's 150,000 man army had to go up against Germany's 2,000,000 man juggernaut in ww1, it's obvious who would've won...and when Wellington went to France, his numbers were 1/50th of Napolean's army size. Though Britain did win with it's alliance of Russia, Prussia, and Austria assisting them.

Sorry to bump btw, but I couldn't resist.

 

[puglover]

America is a superpower. No nation has ever been so militarily powerful.

 

[silver 2039]

It's funny how only people from Britain say it should be britain...Britain only had about half of it's empire for less then a hundred years! And also it's land army was never anything very large or important. It was always in rivalry with France which shows how it couldn't be considered 'the best military in history'...

France was the most powerful country in Europe for a long time. But of course the Americans and others typically and ignorantly trumpet French cowardice because of WWII

 

[silver 2039]

America is a superpower. No nation has ever been so militarily powerful.

The USSR was just as powerful if not more powerful. In the peroid of the late 1970's and early 1980's the Soviet Union actually had a major advantage over the US and defense analysts predicated that if the Soviet union had attacked in what was known as the "Soviet oppurtunity gap" it would have won.
So yes an other nation has been that miliatarily powerful.

 

[blindside]

In relative terms I would say America around 1990 was the most powerful nation ever to exist on earth.

 

[Xia]

Soviets in the Early 80's or the Khan Empire in the 12th century

 

[alex994]

It's funny how only people from Britain say it should be britain...Britain only had about half of it's empire for less then a hundred years! And also it's land army was never anything very large or important. It was always in rivalry with France which shows how it couldn't be considered 'the best military in history'...

More like 'best position for their country in history' If they ever had to go one on one with a country based on land they would've been wiped out quite easily. If britain's 150,000 man army had to go up against Germany's 2,000,000 man juggernaut in ww1, it's obvious who would've won...and when Wellington went to France, his numbers were 1/50th of Napolean's army size. Though Britain did win with it's alliance of Russia, Prussia, and Austria assisting them.

Sorry to bump btw, but I couldn't resist.

For the record, i voted Britain and i'm not from Britain

Having the most powerful military in history doesn't jsut mean it's army, yes Britain's 150k army would lose to germany's 2 million in a campaign. But the German Fleet was no match for the British Fleet, and plus, it's been proven many times army size doesn't matter! the larger the army, the more food, oil, ammunition and etc it needs to consumer thus the bigger supply routes.

Even if Germany managed to land say 1 million soldiers in Britain during WWII, but was unable to supply them and the British followed the laws of guerille and harrassment in warfare, it's quite obvious that the 1 million man german army would lose to the smaller British one.

 

[Nyvin]

Having the most powerful military in history doesn't jsut mean it's army, yes Britain's 150k army would lose to germany's 2 million in a campaign. But the German Fleet was no match for the British Fleet, and plus, it's been proven many times army size doesn't matter! the larger the army, the more food, oil, ammunition and etc it needs to consumer thus the bigger supply routes. .

Size always matters, the more soliders you have, the more you can do. What your saying is complete fantasy. Yes you see things like the American Revolution and the Dutch vs Spainish and things like that, but in the end if you have one proffessionally trained army against another, the larger one will most likely win. Besides, I don't see how this makes Britain's army 'better' in any way...whose to say that the Germans wouldn't use the same tactics in small groups????

Even if Germany managed to land say 1 million soldiers in Britain during WWII, but was unable to supply them and the British followed the laws of guerille and harrassment in warfare, it's quite obvious that the 1 million man german army would lose to the smaller British one.

I have no idea how Britain would've survived a panzer invasion force on it's home isles, and I have no idea how you come to your conclusion that britain's army would win against Germany's...

 

[frekk]

USA definently. I mean, the USSR lost in Afghanistan. Afghanistan!

Well, I have to vote USA too, but Afghanistan is an awful example. USA lost in Vietnam which is much worse. Afghanistan, at least, has a long history of being the graveyard of empires - even the Mongols and Alexander encountered spectacular resistance and suffered more than a few crushing defeats in the Hindu Kush. The only reason the US is there right now and doing fairly well, is because the Afghans (by and large) preferred that than the Taliban - at least the Americans have some intention of eventually leaving (or so the Afghans think, for the moment anyway). Having the people on your side really does make it quite a bit easier. Afghan was the thorn in Russia's side - what about the thorn in America's side? Good ol' Castro? I mean - at least the Soviets gave it a shot!

There is no parallel to the supremacy of the American military in history - except perhaps its own incompetence! Look at Iraq! The British Empire wouldn't have got much farther than Ireland if it couldn't even pacify a few uppity podunk villagers in just ONE country. The Brits were doing it to a quarter of the planet all at once! And battling other powers at the same time! With a much smaller army!

Still, I put a vote down to the USA because of the nukes and the carriers. Nothing in history has exceeded everyone else's parity so much.

 

[frekk]

Size always matters, the more soliders you have, the more you can do.

It matters, but it isn't the last word in determining victory. The Romans were defeating armies with the advantage of 10 to 1 or more in numbers on more than a few occasions (Roman formations excelled in melee, while disorganized armies often pressed themselves against the wedges of the Roman line and couldn't even lift their arms to strike, nor could they get away from the short hacking swords of the Roman line, the same sort of idea as when soccer fans get trampled etc). Similarly, many of the great battles in history have been a smaller force defeating a much larger force - the Greeks at Salamis, most of Alexander's battles, Cortes in Mexico, the list goes on and on and on.

If you want to look at what wins wars - training and determination are really the key factors. If numbers were the most important element, the Japanese wouldn't have been slicing through Chinese forces like a hot knife through butter in WW2.

 

[Finmaster]

There is no question about it: it's Rome. No other country has managed to have such a huge militaristic edge over any other existing society on Earth. Britain is a close second, but their army would not have taken over Europe. Besides their power was not only based on military.

USA? Doesn't even come close! Their military budged is big, yes, and it would be more powerful than the Roman army simply because of the techonolgy that they have; however I'm considering this question based on which nation had the army that made them powerful during their own time. That's what being "militaristically powerful" mean to me.

USA's power is mainly based on them being a commercial power, not a militaristic power. It is only the most powerful of our time. USA could not, however, take over the world with their army the same way Rome did, in that sense it is not that powerful. But why would it need to be, that's not where USA being a world power is based on.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Well, I have to vote USA too, but Afghanistan is an awful example. USA lost in Vietnam which is much worse.

Why is losing in Vietnam much worse?

Afghanistan, at least, has a long history of being the graveyard of empires - even the Mongols and Alexander encountered spectacular resistance and suffered more than a few crushing defeats in the Hindu Kush.

So did Vietnam to a lesser extent. Zheng He's attemps to conquer Annam (North Vietnam) in the 1420s and the Viet Mihn for exaple.

 

[alex994]

Size always matters, the more soliders you have, the more you can do. What your saying is complete fantasy. Yes you see things like the American Revolution and the Dutch vs Spainish and things like that, but in the end if you have one proffessionally trained army against another, the larger one will most likely win. Besides, I don't see how this makes Britain's army 'better' in any way...whose to say that the Germans wouldn't use the same tactics in small groups????

Tell Napoleon that, for his success against enemies that outnumbered him, as well as his fatal Russian invasion. It doesn't make Britain's ARMY better, the most powerful military doesn't "just" mean the army, it also counts naval and air power. For example(bad example) in modern day, let's say a Chinese Army attacks a Russian one with no airforce. The Russians on the other hand has large amounts of fighters, bombers and etc. The Chinese outnumbers the Russian, but they still lose. Army isn't the only thing that matters

I have no idea how Britain would've survived a panzer invasion force on it's home isles, and I have no idea how you come to your conclusion that britain's army would win against Germany's...

Fine, fine, it was a bad example, but the point is, you can land your troops and conquer things. But you wouldn't be able to hold it due to lack of supplies needed due to a bad naval or airforce, no matter how good your army is.(yes, i think Hitler's crazy enough to land troops without forming a supply route)

 

[alex994]

There is no question about it: it's Rome. No other country has managed to have such a huge militaristic edge over any other existing society on Earth. Britain is a close second, but their army would not have taken over Europe. Besides their power was not only based on military.

One Problem. Rome may have such a huge militaristic edge against any NEIGHBORING existing power, but could it go up against Han China called the other superpower of the Roman Era? Who had already invented steel?

 

[frekk]

Why is losing in Vietnam much worse?

Well, lets see. Vietnam is a long, thin, coastal country, at an altitude that has oxygen. Afghanistan is a landlocked network of mountain valleys at the edge of the biggest mountain range in the world. Vietnam was jungle, but can you make a mountain go away with a cropduster or clear a path through it with a bulldozer and some machetes?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Well, lets see. Vietnam is a long, thin, coastal country, at an altitude that has oxygen. Afghanistan is a landlocked network of mountain valleys at the edge of the biggest mountain range in the world. Vietnam was jungle, but can you make a mountain go away with a cropduster or clear a path through it with a bulldozer and some machetes?

The war wasn't just waged in Vietnam. The war was being fought all over the whole Indochina region in 2 other neighboring countries.

Afghanistan is a landlocked network of mountain valleys at the edge of the biggest mountain range in the world. Vietnam was jungle,

Not really. Vietnam's temperate central highlands is covered by jagged mountains and valleys. Lots of US planes trying to fly low to avoid radar crashed into them sometimes in heavy fog. The far south of Vietnam, around Saigon and the Mekong Delta is flat swampy jungle.

Type Vietnam and Mountains in google image search to see what I'm talking about.

Aside from all that, your ignoring the fact that American forces and allies not only had to deal with a massive Viet Cong insurgency all over the region, they had to deal with NVA regulars all over the Central Highlands. North Vietnam had modern SAMs and a supply of the latest MiG Sukoyan fighters.

 

[T100]

Who knows 200 years from know who might have a united Earth goverment then everynation can be the strongest. But back on topic. If we are talking about right now i would say the USA. History wise i would say Rome.

Yea well Americans would be sure to rule that too.