What nation in HISTORY has been the best at wars?

[Garbarsardar.jr]

Give me 500 good men and in 3 weeks they will all fall.
NO army or airforce in the world can beat us even if they all worked togather!!

Ignorance of history, results often to a history of ignorance. These claims were not strange to all empires that rose and fell in the previous millenia. Arrogance is also a charachteristic of a crumbling empire, but in the case of US this arrogance is a little bit premature since the "world domination" that you boast of, has only lasted a fraction of time, compared to older Empires. I guess that all pupils are tauhght, at some point about the heroic exploits of their ancestors and growing up they managed to separate fact from fiction and past from present.I have to admit that this task is very difficult for a young American, since the empire is still on the rise, and older people in this forum should not loose their temper.We all have been there anyway...

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

I voted for Germany.The Wehrmacht and the Panzer divisions, as well as the paras were in general fantastic fighters.

Oh dear, noncon. I didn't expect this from you. The myth of the German super-army of WW2, with thousands of SS riding around Russia on hundreds of Tiger tanks is just that; myth. They wern't beaten by sheer wheight of numbers, they were beaten becuase they had a worse army than the Allies.

Anyway, overall the best in history is probably the Huns or the Mongols, both of whom were pretty much undefeated. The British are contenders too.

 

[privatehudson]

France in the napoleonic wars was regularly beaten by British armies (with allies of course), often when the British were outnumbered. Also for much of the wars France was not alone, she had allies like the Confederation of the Rhine, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Italy and so on. Even great powers such as Prussia and Austria sided with her sometimes (albeit with extreme reluctance). The french also did not really invent open order fighting in the sense that she became the father of it. British experience in the US revolution lead to considerable changes in that direction almost entirely unaffected by French experiences. They also did not tend to fight that much in open order either during their revolution preferring a mix of that and close order column masses due to them being easier to control.

America I would discount on the basis that she has not been around long enough to judge her "better" than the others. With the exception of WWI and WWII most of her conflicts have also been with small countries of little power compared to european states for example.

As I said, 1/4 of the world from a tiny island just off Europe, that's just too hard to beat

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Moderator Action: Moved to History.

 

[nonconformist]

Oh dear, noncon. I didn't expect this from you. The myth of the German super-army of WW2, with thousands of SS riding around Russia on hundreds of Tiger tanks is just that; myth. They wern't beaten by sheer wheight of numbers, they were beaten becuase they had a worse army than the Allies.

Anyway, overall the best in history is probably the Huns or the Mongols, both of whom were pretty much undefeated. The British are contenders too.

I believe prior to 1941 they were the best army in the world. Prior 1940 certainly. The French had the best tanks in the world, and were totally defeated by Blitzkrieg.
Post 1941, they weren't the best, but retained good formations (the Fallschrimjager at least, and possibly Panzer Lehr). The S.S were never particularly good anyway, based more on political doctrine than a military one. And the Tiger tank was technically obsolete when introduced.

 

[Ramius75]

You left off the Mongolia (the Huns). These guys pretty much captured the world of that age. Oh, and this should be in the History Forum.

The mongolian are not the hun

Ramius

 

[Adler17]

It was not Vienna, but Liegnitz. Also the son of Ghengis Khan died. Only a remark.

Adler

 

[FriendlyFire]

Oh dear, noncon. I didn't expect this from you. The myth of the German super-army of WW2, with thousands of SS riding around Russia on hundreds of Tiger tanks is just that; myth. They wern't beaten by sheer wheight of numbers, they were beaten becuase they had a worse army than the Allies.

Anyway, overall the best in history is probably the Huns or the Mongols, both of whom were pretty much undefeated. The British are contenders too.

Thats true

The Wehmarcht had NEVER more then 70 operational tigers at any one time on the Eastern front.

Many factors resulted in Germanies defeat. The main one was an insane commander-in-chef who lost touch with reality.

 

[privatehudson]

French tanks were good, but flawed, they used 1 man turrets which made controlling th tank, and especially the unit almost impossible in any battle. I would also suggest that the battlefield performances of the Waffen SS's premier formations showed that they were quite good formations. Either way what let the germans suceed early in the war was superior strategy, ie bringing more tanks than the enemy into battle at one point, close air support etc and superior tactics helped by their better designed tanks.

Oh yeah, and to right a wrong assumption, it was the British empire that was larger than any other, including the Mongols

 

[nonconformist]

A French Char B-1 could destroy a PAnzer 38-T or a Panzer II anyday. Same with the Somua. It was pure tactics. Even in Africa, the Germans culd only match Allied tanks with the long barreled 50mm gun on the Panzer III.

 

[privatehudson]

Yet they lost because of the reasons I mentioned, I never said they weren't good tanks in terms of armour, but they were bad in terms of what was needed. The germans were able to outmanouvere, outnumber and destroy the French with relative ease no matter the tank they used. Exceptions to this would be the Arras fighting, but even then the germans halted the heavy enemy tanks with 88s Having a heavily armoured tank with a good hull gun was useless if the tank was poorly controlled and it's formation poorly co-ordinated.

Oh and in africa the germans fielded Panzer IV long barreled tanks in 1942 and tigers in 1943. Most allied tanks were no better than the Panzer III anyway, the 2pndr gun on many British tanks was hardly able to fare better against the germans than the 50mmm did against the British. The matildas did well for a time, but were quickly replaced as a main tank.

 

[nonconformist]

The Matldas were slow, ugly, and had a pea shooter barrel. The odds say the Allies should have won from 1939, but they didn't.

 

[luiz]

I'd say England(post-Norman England).
In this particular subject it's important to separate England from the rest of the UK, IMO.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

I believe prior to 1941 they were the best army in the world. Prior 1940 certainly. The French had the best tanks in the world, and were totally defeated by Blitzkrieg.

Prior to 1941, eh? 5 years (mid 30's- 41), not long is it?

And the Tiger tank was technically obsolete when introduced.

Um, the Tiger was the most advanced tank of the war, excluding the next gen tanks that arrived in the last few months. The amphibious '43 model Tiger was easily the most advanced tank of the war, which is partly why it was so unreliable.

I think the SS 'fire-brigades' were crack units.

Anyway, I'm sticking with the Mongols, with an honourable mention to the British Empire. 26% of the world.

Hehe, I couldn't resist letting a bit of good ol' British patriotism sneak in there.

 

[nonconformist]

Um, the Tiger was the most advanced tank of the war, excluding the next gen tanks that arrived in the last few months of the war. The amphibious '43 model Tiger was easily the most advanced tank of the war, which is partly why it was so unreliable.

No it wasn't. Even the Sherman was more advanced than the Tiger. The Tiger I was one of the few tanks that didn't have sloped armour, the armour it used was vertical which had been obsolete for years. The Tiger was extremely unreliable, and used its sheer weight to kill enemy tanks. From a technological point of view, the Tiger was obsolete.
IIRC, the Germans stopped experimenting with real amphibious tanks after Sealion. They produced various fording devices, and engine "schnorkels", bt not what you'd consider a proper amphibious tank.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Um, the Tiger was the most advanced tank of the war, excluding the next gen tanks that arrived in the last few months of the war. The amphibious '43 model Tiger was easily the most advanced tank of the war, which is partly why it was so unreliable

It was designed BEFORE the germans discovred the advantages of sloped armour. Which reduced the effectiveness of it's armour.

The Panthers L46 ?? 76mm Gun had better penetration then the Tigers 88.
(anyone know for sure ?)

 

[Gogf]

The United States. Did you ever see Rome win a war in one hundred hours?

 

[nonconformist]

Friendly Fire, the Panther's 75 was better than the Tiger's 88.

 

[Rammstein]

I had discussions like this one when I was 12 - and they didn't amount to anything. I think the thread starter needs to put his head in a bucket of ice. "Give me 500 men..." sheesh, what's that? John Wayne meets The Guns of the Navarone?

 

[privatehudson]

IIRC the panther had a 75mm L70 gun The L46 sounds more like the size of the long barreled Panzer IV gun on the J mark. The panther tank surpasses the Tiger anyway in both design and quality.