Most powerful military in history?

[Mrakvampire]

I really love americans for their way of thinking!!! ^-))))))))))))))))))))))))))) lol
America could not defeat major power 100 years ago, it could not 50 years ago, and it cannot do it now. Why? Lack of morale. It's simple. Americal soldiers can not fight well in bad conditions. You may argue, but history facts and modern US campaigns (Iraq, Vietnam, and so on). Without good supplies US army looses morale.
Germany before 1945 were the best disciplined army, and best-equipped army in the world. But... It was stopped by Soviet army, without serious help from Allies (only in 1944 Allies attacked Germany in Europe). Why? I'll tell you.
As I've said earlier - good army must know, and must be able to fight not only in ideal conditions (good supplies, good weather), but it must have willpower to fight, when all you have to eat is 250 g. of bread, and you know how to endure cold conditions. Big war is big war. It does not look like Vietnam operation, or Afganistan, or Iraq. Those were 'operations' - not full scale war conflict with adequate enemy.
In modern era war army will face even more problems than in 1941-1945. Modern tactical rockets (not nukes), aircraft - can in few minutes destroy all and any supply lines. What will US Army marines do whithout fuel for thier famous carriers and Naval Air Force, which always support them? Have US army an experience in full scale conflict? When number of soldiers are counted by millions, not by thousands.

Heh... I like americans for their overconfidence. ^-))))

 

[alex994]

Putting troops on the Mexican border was enough to scare the supposedly great French army under Napoleon III.

The said Great French Army was also having a little wee difficult time holding down Mexico as well as a trying to keep a hostile Prussia from her borders... Shown in later years with the Fall of the French Empire

 

[Verbose]

The said Great French Army was also having a little wee difficult time holding down Mexico as well as a trying to keep a hostile Prussia from her borders... Shown in later years with the Fall of the French Empire

Your point being that Napoleon III was a fool trying to score domestic political points with stupid military adventures all over the place? (A fairly universally accepted assessment.)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

again mrakvampire you make youre lack of historical knowledge prevalent. The Soviet Union was on the recieving end of a program called 'Lend-Lease." Basically, this was the US and Great Britain shipping billions of tonnes of war materiel to the USSR, and equipping their vast army. The Soviets were caught so off-guard by Operation Barbarossa that they couldnt moblilize correctly, and lost much of their matieriel before they got their act together and moved their factories east of the Urals. It was as common a sight on the battlefield to see a British-made Valentine or Crusader tank as it was a Russian T-34/86, and the Russians loved the British Sten guns too. The Allies also resonded effecively in N Africa and later the Italian front, drawing much needed German units to those regions, and away from the Eastern Front. Dont get me wrong, no one fights like a Russian in my book, but the Soviets certainly werent in it alone before 1944.

I wish to know what major power we could not defeat 100 years ago, and what major power we didnt defeat 50 years ago, since you have made such a reference, i call on you to back it up with proof.
Also, in regard to your comment about American morale, it is the highest of any army in the world. The all-volunteer army is dominant and knows it's dominant, and they know they have the best training available. And as far as Americans not being able to stiff it out in bad conditions, perhaps youve heard of the Island Hopping campaign, the Ardennes Offensive? The Seige of Quebec? The Korean War? The Siege of Fort Ticonderoga? THe Crossing of the Delaware? The French and Indian Wars? In every case, it was Americans holding out not only against the enemy, but the elements as well.
There is so much more that you are mistaken about, but i fear i might run out of space in one post to correct it all.
In short, do some research, or actaully pick up a history book and read it for once.

Edit: i knew id forgotten to say something:its not overconfidence if you win pal

 

[Sohan]

Even the most powerful military in history is weak against certain threats. Strengths and weaknesses, in addition to the given situation/scenario, have a huge impact on how successful a military can be. I would say, hands down, the United States had the most powerful military in history at a certain point in time in respect to the rest of the world. However, even that wasn't enough to accomplish all the goals of the American leadership. Simply put, even the most powerful military in history would be defeated by a substantially weaker force in many situations.

Now I'll just summarize my thoughts on the others.

Mongols - During the 13th and 14th centuries, I'll admit that the Mongols were one of the strongest military forces in the world. In large part this was due to mobility, tactics, weaponry, quality of soldiers, and leadership. They lacked in quantity of troops and were dependent on pastures but they more than made up for it. In 1227, Genghis Khan died and was succeeded by Ogedai Khan. This happened way before the Mongols touched Europe. Nonetheless, the Mongol invasions (by 1241) had reached Poland, Hungary, and Egypt. The main reason the Polish/Hungarian invasion ended was because the Khan had died and it was tradition for all Mongolians everywhere to attend the funeral services in the homeland. Thus, even though the Mongols could've continued invading and winning land/pillage, they decided to stick close to tradition. They never got that close to the heartland of Europe again. As for their invasion of Egypt, this failed because of military reasons. The Arabs were not necessarily a superior force, but their knowledge of the local terrain and their unique tactics (actually quite similar to Mongolian tactics) allowed them to defeat the Mongols. Furthermore, the Mongols tried invading Japan, but failed due partially to Japanese military strength and partially to weather. Thus, while an awesome military force for their time period, they proved inadequate in several cases.

Rome - The Romans were powerful for their time period, with only the Chinese civilization boasting as much power during the same time. However, the Romans didn't stand a chance of conquering the world. Their political, economic, and military situation did not yield well to this idea of expanding into every corner of the world. Under guys like Trajan and Hadrian, the Roman Empire expanded to its maximum reach historically, but they had overextended themselves. They could not maintain their far-reaching borders and eventually they had to cut back, abandoning such provinces as Dacia and Babylonia. They had a powerful military, but it was relatively small. The Legion and its trademark strategy, the Turtle formation, was vastly superior to the Phalanx of the Greeks. Furthermore, they developed a navy that eventually surpassed that of the Carthaginians. They cowed such former greats as the Egyptians and Persians in battle. However, they received their own fair share of beatings, even during their early stages of expansion. Hannibal anyone? I would say the Romans were tough, but the main argument that they weren't the most powerful military in history has to do mainly with the fact that even at their height, Rome barely matched China in power. They never really surpassed the Chinese, whom they barely knew even existed at the time anyways.

Great Britain - During the 18th and 19th centuries, the three most powerful militaries were clearly Britain, France, and Russia. Britain had a key advantage though, in that they had a huge, powerful navy. The best in the world. And at that time period, a strong navy was more valuable than a large army (Russia's trademark) so inevitably the British had the edge in military strength during the days of Imperialism. I would argue that even during the Napoleonic Wars the British retained the title of strongest military in the world. Napoleon might have had most of Europe, but Britain controlled the pathways to the rest of the world practically. The Franco-Spanish navy, although no pushover, paled in comparison to the British. Furthermore, they had good leadership. Nonetheless, superiority at sea is only part of the equation, as is a worldwide empire. Controlling 1/4 of the land, a huge population, and a powerful navy was not enough to stop Napoleon in continental Europe. It took a bunch of allies and a couple key mistakes on Napoleon's part for those wars to end in a British victory. So, I would argue, that even at their height, British power was not great enough to give them the advantage in several scenarios.

I won't even bother with the rest, as I am tired.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I really love americans for their way of thinking!!! ^-))))))))))))))))))))))))))) lol
America could not defeat major power 100 years ago, it could not 50 years ago, and it cannot do it now. Why? Lack of morale. It's simple. Americal soldiers can not fight well in bad conditions. You may argue, but history facts and modern US campaigns (Iraq, Vietnam, and so on). Without good supplies US army looses morale.

Sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Dreadnought]

the US lost in Vietnam because the media, not the Vietcong, beat us.

 

[craig9897]

Hitler's germany, by far. Was not sustained very long like Rome, but that maniac annihlated whoever he wanted.

 

[Mrakvampire]

again mrakvampire you make youre lack of historical knowledge prevalent. The Soviet Union was on the recieving end of a program called 'Lend-Lease." Basically, this was the US and Great Britain shipping billions of tonnes of war materiel to the USSR, and equipping their vast army. The Soviets were caught so off-guard by Operation Barbarossa that they couldnt moblilize correctly, and lost much of their matieriel before they got their act together and moved their factories east of the Urals. It was as common a sight on the battlefield to see a British-made Valentine or Crusader tank as it was a Russian T-34/86, and the Russians loved the British Sten guns too. The Allies also resonded effecively in N Africa and later the Italian front, drawing much needed German units to those regions, and away from the Eastern Front. Dont get me wrong, no one fights like a Russian in my book, but the Soviets certainly werent in it alone before 1944.

Mmmm... I really don't even know HOW to answer such posts. Really, don't know. There is so much... LACK of knowledge, so I even can't find right words to answer such posts. But I'll try.
"Billion's of tones of war meteriel" is about of 4,3% or 4,8% of total war production of Soviet Union industry. You may rewrite history as many times as you want, but there are documents and official data of military production of USSR in that time.
Yes, it was common sight to see Valentine at the battlefield... As one of ten or twelve soviet tanks.
And don't even tell me about drawing 'much needed' German units...
All the best German units were at Easter Front. Our grandparents died by millions, defending USSR and defeating German army and Allies do nothing! They opened West Front in 1942? No. They were afraid. Do you know about what Rousvelt and Cherchill said about it? They said, that me won't help soviet army, because it is retreating and loosing, it's pointless to help lossing country. And you dare to say, that multi-million US army helped us in that war? Where? I haven't seen any of you soldiers in Spain, France, Holland not in 1941, not in 1942, not even in 1943. Three God damn years our soldiers fought ALONE.
All that could do 'mighty' US army - was to fight in Africa? Uh? To destroy less than 1% of German army? Africa was so important in that war...
Maybe it was more important, than liberating France?
How many american soldiers were at war? How many enemy soldiers they killed?


I wish to know what major power we could not defeat 100 years ago, and what major power we didnt defeat 50 years ago, since you have made such a reference, i call on you to back it up with proof.

Tell me about ANY victory of US army with adequate enemy? Not about attacking Iraq (compare Iraq and US. lol), attacking Vietnam (compare)...
Did US army participated in any, any major war? When army was measured in millions of people, and enemy was as mighty as you?
Russia (Soviet Union) has such victories. Mongols, France (Napoleon), Turkey, Germany (Hitler)...

And about morale. Morale is not about knowledge of best training and best equipment. It is about a willpower to die for the country. And try search these forums for topic "Being Drafted..."... look at the results, and then talk to me again abou morale.
10% of US citizens will help invaders... 10% will flee the draft... Any more words?

 

[privatehudson]

Looking at lend lease as a percentage of total industrial output is just the wrong way to look at the issue. Russia was able to produce so many homegrown tanks, SPGs and planes precisely because western lend lease was building the majority of the other types of equipment needed, i.e. trucks, jeeps, radios, food and so on. Without a doubt the Russian economy after say 1943 could have provided these but that's not the point, the point is that it would have taken them longer to provide these and therefore impacted on their war effort. The ability to concentrate on specific types of production went a long way to making Russian production so high, if she'd needed to diversify into other forms it would have hurt the production levels.

The allies invaded mainland Europe in September 1943, not 1944, just because it wasn't an area you wanted doesn't make it irrelevant. In fact you could argue that invading a neutral state such as Spain would only cause more problems for the allies. Much easier to attack Italy than Spain which was closer to existing campaign areas. The idea that this was primarily because we wanted the Russians to die first or that we wanted to see if they'd survive is also fanciful. Invading a continent held by a highly efficient army is no easy business, you don't just turn up 2 months after you've declared war and invade Normandy, it takes years of planning and production of equipment dedicated to the effort. Africa and Italy might not have seen as large a diversion of resources and effort from the Germans as the Eastern Front but it was just about the best the allies could do whilst preparing to return to NW Euope. You certainly don't just ignore it in favour of those preparations in case the Germans reach all that lovely oil they craved so much and you fail in your invasion because you rushed the matter. The allies couldn't afford Dieppe on a larger scale.

And if you're looking for a country's population that fought with the enemy when invaded you really shouldn't need to go as far as the USA. Just take a look at how many ethnic minorities in Russia quite happily decided that fighting with Hitler was a much better option than defending Mother Russia. It's also a damn sight easier to get people to fight for you in a totalitarian regime than a democracy. Which isn't to say that the Russians didn't have patriotism because they clearly did, but you really can't make the claim that the Americans were the only WW2 ally with dissenting sections of their population.

Oh and the statement that "All the best German units were at Easter Front" is obviously false after D-Day. Aside from the high proportion of SS Panzer and other elite formations in Normandy I can think of at least 2 other occasions when Hitler made the western front a priority for units or quality replacements - Arnhem and the Bulge. The almost constant presence of at least 4 SS panzer divisions in the west up until the Bulge would also make the claim that "all the best" were in the east totally wrong.

 

[Mrakvampire]

The allies invaded mainland Europe in September 1943, not 1944,.

Please, learn history. Second (Western Front) was opened in 1944.
Until you admit it, further dispute is pointless.
I don't know what prpaganda do you hear today, but do not rewrite history.

 

[Ukas]

Please, learn history. Second (Western Front) was opened in 1944.
Until you admit it, further dispute is pointless.
I don't know what prpaganda do you hear today, but do not rewrite history.

And what was Italy then?

 

[Mrakvampire]

And what was Italy then?

It was not full-scale operation. Attack on Italy was tactical maneuver. After that operation, Alles do not attacked other Nazi countries (to the North).
So it was minor operation. And all history books state this.
Second FRONT was opened in 1944.
As I said earlier, you may state that operation in Afrika was second front. Nothing will change, though, the fact that allies started real war in Europe in 1944.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That Italy was not a full scale operation is a load of crap, but then again i guess that pales in comparison to the other communist mumbo-jumbo propaganda you bought. The entire Italian campaign was masterminded by the two best generals in the allied army, Patton and Montgomery. If it was not a full-scale operation, then why, my friend, did we overrun the Nazis in about a month and a half? Italy is a very tough nut to crack, thats why the Romans resisted invasion so well. Sicily is the same thing, basically a big island with mountains everywhere, no real 'plains' to speak of. now im not sure if youve ever SEEN a real mountain before, Mr RUssian Communist, living on the plains and all, but its very hard, a lot harder than, say, being able to look out and find your enemy easily because its so flat all the way out to the horizon.

Oh, and in case you forgot, the US was a little busy in the early years, fighting the people who you couldnt beat: the Japanese. If you want to get into who caused what, the Russians directly allowed the Japanese to create the emipre they did by LOSING in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. THat would have just destroyed any kind of a wind-up they had going into China and SE Asia. So yea, while we were busy taking back the Pacific in the island hopping campaign ( jungle is hard to fight in too you know, and Russians have never done an amphibious landing in their history) we couldnt very well have just marched into Nazi Europe ill-prepared and undermanned.
Also, there was a front in Greece.
THe North Africa campaign was a drive by Hitler to reach the Oil in the Middle East, thats why the Brits had to stop him at Egypt. You Russians fear German tanks so much, but what do they run on? Oil. Oil refined in Russian Refineries in Romania, we prevented it, and like it or not, Russia could not have won your Great Patriotic War without the Allies, and that includes the US.
You also knock the US for using the Atom Bomb, well heres something to chew on: had we not nuked the Japanese into surrender, there would have been an invasion of hte Japanese HOme Islands, and Russians would have been helping. Losses would have been in the Millions, in fact many times more than the Atom Bomb killed. IN fact, the fire bombing of the cities of Dresden and Tokyo killed more each than either Atom Bomb did, ehy not critize those as well?

 

[privatehudson]

Please, learn history. Second (Western Front) was opened in 1944.

In September 1943 the allies invaded the Italian mainland and therefore mainland Europe, I didn't say anything about a second front, that was you. I don't need to learn history to know when the 2nd front was opened thank you, perhaps you need to read other peoples replies more closely though.

Now assuming you've finished assuming ignorance of timelines on my part:

You might like to start with how you imagine the Allies could have sucessfully invaded NW euope anytime between 1941-43. Perhaps going onto why on earth you suggested that invading neutral Spain would be more valuable to the allied cause than invading Axis Italy. Then all the other points I made as oppposed to ignoring them and concentrating on a point I did not make.

 

[CruddyLeper]

As I said earlier, you may state that operation in Afrika was second front. Nothing will change, though, the fact that allies started real war in Europe in 1944.

If the Allies hadn't been bombing the crap out of the German factories for 2 years, you'd have had a shed load more guns, tanks, planes and bombs to destroy.

Even with strategic bombing, German war production was higher in 1944 than in 1943... so imagine just how many more Panthers etc would have come your way without that. And without at least threat of invasion in 1943, would have been extra 6 Panzer and 30 odd extra infantry divisions on the Eastern Front.

Land war is not only war. But it is, admitedly, the DECISIVE part of war.

 

[Dreadnought]

It was not full-scale operation. Attack on Italy was tactical maneuver. After that operation, Alles do not attacked other Nazi countries (to the North).
So it was minor operation. And all history books state this.
Second FRONT was opened in 1944.
As I said earlier, you may state that operation in Afrika was second front. Nothing will change, though, the fact that allies started real war in Europe in 1944.

not a full scale operation? What was it? Half an operation?

Italy had to be brought down somehow. When the invasion began Italy almost immedietly surrendered.

 

[Mrakvampire]

I'm not communist.
And if you think about Italian operation as a full-scale... Tell me, great brilliant torch of knowledge, how many German divisions were defending Italy? How many tank were there? How many planes?
How many divisions used Allies?
And btw tell me how many Italian divisions were fighting in that war on the fronts, not being garrisoned in conquered territory?
Look, I understand, that you try to glorify Allied victories, but do not even compare such minor operations with a GREAT war on the Eastern Front.

BTW
"Fighting against Japan"
"Strategic Bombing of German factories..."

It's as striking an elephant with a needle?

I can barely sit on my chair. US army was fighting Japan.
Where? In indonesia?
The allmighty US army could not attack Japan directly, they simply bombed civilians with nukes. How brave and noble...

Really, I do appreciate that UK fought against Germany, French resistance... I know that those nations lost a lot of people in that war.
But allmighty US army...
US was just waiting when Germany will defeat Soviet Union, and when the outcome will be clear it would attack the weakest nation. Jackals.
And US attacked, when it became clear that Germany will lose.

I don't want to prove to you, zombied victim of US propaganda, anything. You may think that US army is the greatest army in world. We'll see... We'll se...

 

[rilnator]

If the Allies hadn't been bombing the crap out of the German factories for 2 years, you'd have had a shed load more guns, tanks, planes and bombs to destroy.

Even with strategic bombing, German war production was higher in 1944 than in 1943... so imagine just how many more Panthers etc would have come your way without that. And without at least threat of invasion in 1943, would have been extra 6 Panzer and 30 odd extra infantry divisions on the Eastern Front.

Your second paragraph contradicts the first. You suggest that the western allies were hitting German factories hard since 42 and yet you admit that the Germans peaked production 2 years after the bombing began. The Allies are taking out the factories sucessfully and yet German production increases?????

Its a much acknowledged fact that strategic bombing very rarely hit its targets. The number one way that bombing inhibited war production was by denying the workers sleep with the round the clock raids, not by levelling factories.

Even without the threat of invasion the germans would have to have maintained a certain amount of troops in occupied countries. I don't think 30 extra divisions would have made any difference at all during Kursk and Bagration

 

[rilnator]

Oh and the statement that "All the best German units were at Easter Front" is obviously false after D-Day. Aside from the high proportion of SS Panzer and other elite formations in Normandy I can think of at least 2 other occasions when Hitler made the western front a priority for units or quality replacements - Arnhem and the Bulge. The almost constant presence of at least 4 SS panzer divisions in the west up until the Bulge would also make the claim that "all the best" were in the east totally wrong.

After D-Day? Compared to ordinary German army units in 1944 the SS was in pretty good shape admittedly. But they were renowned for their high casualties and 3 years on the eastern front, not to mention the battle of Kursk you have to wonder if they were still of the high quality they used to be. Their recruiting standards had certainly been lowered. School boys fighting in Normandy and the Bulge for instance.

Comparing the amount of Soviet deaths in pow camps with the amount of Soviets who died fighting their former masters is no comparison at all. There was the Vlasov army, and a few SS divisions. Given the choice of dying slowly in a pow camp or serving the Nazis its understandable a lot of men chose the latter.