What is the best army ever? [Archive]

Rosacrux redux

02-03-2005, 12:26

Best Armies in their respective timeframe:

- Classical antiquity: Greeks of Alexander's era
The first introduction of what we call today "combined arms" approach. Great logistic support, superior mobility great morale, tons of wins outnumbered and with minimal losses, great integration of different elements, the first use of cavalry as shock troops, excellent leadership in all ranks... the ideal ancient army.

- Late antiquity: Roman Legions
Their record was not spotless but they had a formidable strength, excellent organization, the best logistic support in the "western" armies before the 18th century, professionalism, great tactics, solid low-rank leadership (although the supreme commander were not always on par), discipline and were extremely effective in building a huge empire and taking on many completely different enemies.

- Medieval times: The Mongol Horde
Unmatched mobility (the decisive factor in their success) tactical supremacy against anything and everything they faced, unparalleled ferocity, hardyness and cunning, superior organization and leadership, winning even when heavily outnumbered - definitely an army way ahead from what Europe (or anyone else) had at that time.

- "Age of Reason": Fredrick's Prussians
For a long period of time, a small army was the ultimate ruler of the battlefield. Despite Friedrich not being the Great general, the robotic discipline, superior training and the "natural" predesposition of the Germans in the war business, brought the Prussian kingdom from a backwards ex-principality, to a major player in European business.

-19th century: Moltke's Prussians (runner up: Napoleon's French)
This is a hard one. Moltke's army was the first "modern" army. His French campaign was the most perfectuly executed campaign on a huge scale and took advantage of all modern (at the time) inventions and teachings. A ferocious war machine, that has won the war even before it started. Napoleon's army was exemplar in many ways and before the Russian campaign was an extraordinary fighting force, with the best cavalry and infantry of it's times and of course the best possible commanding officers (from top to bottom). They both deserve mentioning here.

- 20th century: German Wehrmacht
All the qualities of the German (Prussian) tradition are here: Discipline, very good leadership in all ranks, great use of the advantages and disadvantages, great use of terrain, adoption to very rough conditions, extreme percistency (or even stubbornes) brought this army in a position to threaten the whole world. Too bad it was used by the vilest regime ever...

Since we can't really compare armies from different timeframes, there can't be a "best overall army". But sentimentally I am with Alexander's army, as "Best of all times" ~D

cegorach

02-03-2005, 14:16

The best army ever ?

Napoleon’s La Grande Armee (1805–1807 AD) - no doubt.

+ for patriotic reasons

Polish army during its best time - 1577-1621

only 1 defeat - Cecora 1620,

- two strategical failures - Moscow 1612 and 1618,

and over 20+ devastating victories vs Russia, Sweden, Tatars, Turks, Wallachians, Hapsburgs and western mercenaries & rebels
-> the most devastating
Kirkcholm 1605 loses - Sweden 9000, Poland around 200 (starting troops Sweden 11500, Poland 3500).

Regards Cegorach/Hetman ~:cheers:

caesar44

03-06-2005, 19:51

the roman army was dominant from c 300 bce to 378 ce (with several major defeats) . there is no army in history to have such dominance .

Steppe Merc

03-06-2005, 20:34

Byzantine Prince

03-06-2005, 21:01

BDC

03-06-2005, 21:26

The best army was the Turkish Janissary Regiment. All were equiped with bows. No two of them had the same weapon. All were completely dedicated in every meaning of the word. There is only one ideal win or die. How could anyone beat such an army?
Well, for example from the list above, Germans in tanks.

Unless they were really powerful bows anyway.

*thinks of anti-tank bows*

Orda Khan

03-06-2005, 21:40

The Mongol army........No contest

.......Orda

Byzantine Prince

03-06-2005, 22:19

Well, for example from the list above, Germans in tanks.

Unless they were really powerful bows anyway.

*thinks of anti-tank bows*
We were talking anachronistacally. I could say the same thing about some other army 50 years from now. For their time though the JAnissaries were unbeatable.

Ash

03-06-2005, 23:34

The best army was the Turkish Janissary Regiment. All were equiped with bows. No two of them had the same weapon. All were completely dedicated in every meaning of the word. There is only one ideal win or die. How could anyone beat such an army?Actually they were quite beatable but only with the best of troops.

Malta 1565 - Knights Hospitallers, Spanish arquebusiers and Matese men-at-arms withstood overwhelming Ottoman odds. Many Janissaries died there.

Lapento 1571 - Turkish fleet was defeated by the short-lived "Holy League", Spanish arquebusiers again defeated the Janissaries.

Mind you the Ottoman's hight of power was the 16th century.

In the following age the Janissaries became outdated and could not force a victory like they could in the 15th and 16th centuries.

Pindar

03-06-2005, 23:50

This question should be divided into eras something along the lines Rosacrux redux attempted.

nokhor

03-07-2005, 04:12

i think if you split them up into eras, then it kinda defeats the point because each of those armies listed were the best in their respective locales at their respective time periods. thats why they made the 'best of' list in the first place.

my question is what qualities did they share that made them the best? generals, discipline, training, officers, weapons systems, tactics? if we could ressurect and tech up the ancient macedonian army and set them against an equal number of modern day americans? or if we tech down the grande armee and train them as horse archers and set them against the mongols who would win?

Empirate

03-07-2005, 10:51

I think the question for the best army must be answered with the strategic goals in mind that were laid down for each specific army. But strategic goals are formulated by the political, as opposed to the military, elite of a country. In ancient and medieval times, there wasn't much difference between these, but nowadays they differ greatly.
Note that political elites don't always grasp the concepts of strategy, nor even the limits of their militaries' capabilities. That statement even holds true for political leaders that are also military leaders, like Alexander the so-called Great.
So we should be comparing strategic goals and how well a given army was capable of fulfilling it.
Some examples: Alexander had one of the most powerful instruments of tactical warfare the world had ever seen in his hands. Nothing could withstand the "combined arms" approach of macedonian pezhetaires (hoplites) and kataphraktoi (heavy cavalry). But on a strategic level, Alexander's army just wasn't enough to really conquer all the lands they tried to. Oh, on historical maps it looks like a neat takeover of all Persian territory, but in actuality, nobody could hope to KEEP that much land and rule it as a centralized country: The reason for the satrap system the Persians had employed, and the reason why Alexander adopted the same system. His armies were capable of destroying every force fielded against them, but they were not able to be everywhere at once. Against a more strategic threat, they would have been helpless because it takes half a year for an army to march on foot from Asia Minor to the Indus. Alexander died before he found out, but his successors were never able to really claim all he had conquered for their own. The largest diadoch realm was that of the Seleucids, and it had to fight continually to keep the farther regions (today's Afghanistan and Kazakhstan) under control, failing most of the time!
The Roman army was much better able to keep the large empire more or less intact for hundreds of years. Why? Because the Roman political leadership saw the capabilities of the legions correctly: They were a superior fighting force, but not enough to be everywhere at once. So they first used client states on their borders to buffer enemy invasions, while in the hinterland the legions were marched up from their barracks. The strategic threat was reduced to a tactical one this way, and the legions were easily able to deal with that. When the client state system fell to pieces later on, a system of preclusive defense was adopted that opted for reconnassaince above all else: Low-level threats were held by the limes and similar fortifications, while more powerful threats were met by combined armies of the legions and auxiliaries (which nicely complemented the raw "shock" capabilities of the legions with combined arms) before they reached roman territory. Still later, a system of defense-in-depth was implemented using heavily fortified places combined with a smaller, mobile force. But now, the enemy incursions had become so frequent and dangerous they had to be allowed to march deeply into roman territory in order for them to lose some of their impact, before they could be intercepted. Over the course of these developments, the defense of the empire became ever more relying on infrastructure, and thus, cost-inefficient. In the third century A.D., the whole system had become so highly inefficient that barbarian raids were able to penetrate as far as Milan or Adrianople.
So, always match an army's capabilities with it's strategic goals, any other comparison seems empty to me! For example, it's one of the "strategic" (or, in this case, political) goals of today's US forces to lose as few men as possible. They're very good at that. Were they to adopt a more "liberal" approach as to lives lost, they could easily be much more militarily active in more places than they are, because operations wouldn't require such massive manpower to pull off.

Oh, my personal favorite: Saladin's army with which he conquered Syria and Mesopotamia, defeated the crusaders at Hattin, as well as held out against the various elements of the third crusade. No other army could be kept in the field for five consecutive years in that time! It was just enough to accomplish the tasks it was set to. It was also superbly suited to the kind of strategy Saladin used to win: a prolonged war of repeated raids and skirmishes, excellent use of terrain and climate, feints and bluffs.

nokhor

03-07-2005, 18:13

hey Empirate,

have you read Luttwak's "The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire"? it touches on a lot of the points you made about the romans, and if you haven't, i highly recommend it.

Empirate

03-08-2005, 01:14

That's right nokhor, that's exactly where I have my intel from. That is one truly intelligent book! I wanted to edit my post to include a reference to it but forgot.
I also enjoyed his more well-known "Strategy. The Logic of War and Peace" very much, although it's less about historical times. The examples are mostly from the twentieth century. Very inspiring argumentation, though!

caesar44

03-08-2005, 20:10

Bah, Romans?
Mongols were excellent, as were some eras of the Byzantine Army... but it was so large, it had difficulty mainting it, and they went through some really bad times.
And I wouldn't consider Philip's army that great... it didn't include as much cavalry as Alexander, such as the Persians and other Eastern horsemen.

is there any culture that stood against the romans for 600 years ?
who ? the macedonian kingdoms collapsed 1 by 1 in less then 40 years
the punics in 70 years
the celts , the germans , the numidians , the parthians (the only empire that managed to survive) , the gaetulians , the maurians , the nabatheans , the armanians , the pontics , the thracians , the ilirians , the britons , the dacians , the sarmatians , the italic tribes and on and on for centuries ?
the mongolian empire collapsed immediately after gengis was gone !
after a big shock the very small east europeans "kingdoms" managed to hold europe from the barbaric invasion , and again how a small armies of feudals managed to block the invasion
don't forget the failure in taking japan
the mongolians (who were very powerful) smashed a collapsing chines empire , muslim empires and russian tribes !!!
please , don't hold cheap my opinion it is a very based opinion
to say "bah" about the romans is to say "i really don't know history"
:book:

caesar44

03-08-2005, 20:17

empirate
i agree !
including about alexander the so calld ...
strategy is not a football match
~:cheers:

Redleg

03-09-2005, 06:25

General Robert E Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, is one of the best armies ever fielded in American History.

Big_John

03-09-2005, 08:48

- Medieval times: The Mongol Horde
Unmatched mobility (the decisive factor in their success) tactical supremacy against anything and everything they faced, unparalleled ferocity, hardyness and cunning, superior organization and leadership, winning even when heavily outnumbered - definitely an army way ahead from what Europe (or anyone else) had at that time.well put. the horde gets my vote for 'best army ever'.

Drisos

03-09-2005, 10:02

I'd go for the teutonic army. (an enemy of Rome in the Roman time)

Empirate

03-09-2005, 11:02

Are you serious, drisos? The Teutons were only a bunch of disorganized barbarians! They hadn't the first idea about where they were going and what they were facing, they only were many and savage. But they were easily outmaneuvered by Marius, intercepted and destroyed as a people, courtesy of the best army in the world back then!

English assassin

03-09-2005, 12:56

Putting the question as which army was best able to serve the strategic goals of its political leadership is an interesting slant, even if it may be an bit anachronistic.

For instance, it suggests that its unlikely that the British Army at any period of its history would carry the crown, since Britain's main strategic arm has always been sea power.

It puts the Wehrmacht into an interesting perspective too. (Presumably the exclusion of the Waffen SS was deliberate, certainly it's relevant in this context.) In terms of tactical ability, arguably there was as much of a gap between the Wehrmacht and its opponents fior most of the war as there has ever been between two comtemporary armies, (if only the British had read Liddell Hart rather than leaving it to Guderian). Yet the Wehrmacht was ultimately unable to acheive Germany's strategic goals, probably because of a disconnect between those setting the goals and those who understood what was actually possible. Also the divisions between the professional army and the Waffen SS (surely the true instrument of nazi strategic thinking) are telling.

Whilst it was short lived, Napoleon's army deserves serious consideration not only for tactical success, but for political innovation as the first modern example of a nation under arms and the huge advantage that gave them. But without Napoleon wouild it have been so formidable? The question isn't who was the greatest general after all. Its also very tempting to give the prize to the Romans, but there is the fact that rather than being an instrument of policy the imperial army, at least, became all too involved in internal politics at the expense of serving the true interests of the state.

On the whole I would vote for the republican Roman army: an extremely successful example of citizens under arms acheiving the goals of their society as a whole.

Spartakus

03-09-2005, 17:21

The Normans were IMO the most capable fighting force of their time. Following the founding of Normandy in 911, they defeated virtually every foe encountered, often severly outnumbered. This includes enemies as diverse as Franks, Bretons, Anglo-Saxons, Lombards, Greeks, Arabs and Turks. Numerous sources attest to their superiority, not to say natural predisposition, as warriors.

Also, one can speculate regarding the triumph of the First Crusade, which included a significant number of Normans, compared with the later and less successfull ones, which did not.

Normandy was absorbed by the French kingdom in 1204.

Randal

03-09-2005, 19:26

hey Empirate,

have you read Luttwak's "The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire"? it touches on a lot of the points you made about the romans, and if you haven't, i highly recommend it.

That's right nokhor, that's exactly where I have my intel from. That is one truly intelligent book! I wanted to edit my post to include a reference to it but forgot.
I also enjoyed his more well-known "Strategy. The Logic of War and Peace" very much, although it's less about historical times. The examples are mostly from the twentieth century. Very inspiring argumentation, though!

Lutwak wrote a very important book, but nowadays much of his theories regarding the "grand strategy" of the Roman Empire have been refuted. (Amongst others, refer to Isaac, B., The limits of Empire, the Roman Army in the East (New York, 1990) and Ferril, A., 'The grand strategy of the Roman empire', in: P. Kennedy (ed.), Grand Strategies in war and peace (New Haven 1991) 71-85.

Basically, systems like "defense in depth" probably never were conceived as ideas by Rome, but arose haphazardly and coincidentally as individual commanders tried to cope with the military realities.

Although I must say Luttwak still wrote a lot of sensible things, and some of Ferril's criticism pertains to things Luttwak never said, and Isaac's extreme revisionist approach seems unlikely in the extreme. For one thing, he denies the Roman army ever thought about defense, and was purely focused on offensive campaigns, the acquisition of booty, and any garrisons were purely for the suppression of rebellion and disorder among the oppressed provincials.

Still, Luttwak's notion of a "mobile" field army is simply anachronistic. Armies moved so slowly in antiquity that interception by any save local forces would have been impossible unless the enemy force stayed in Roman territory for very long times, or penetrated towards the heartlands. Luttwak probably came up with the notion because "defence in depth" was the prevailing NATO grand strategy in Western Europe when he wrote the book.

Empirate

03-10-2005, 01:17

That's very interesting, thanks also for the pointers, Randal!
But I think Luttwak was very conscious of the problem of slow movement. He dedicates many pages to arguing with it. The idea of his "defense-in-depth" of roman times is more that a legion-based force, but smaller and with more cavalry, was able to make use of the good roman roads to intercept an enemy army many miles inside roman territory, while the enemy was impeded and sometimes prevented from using the same roads by roadstops, watchtowers, barricades, all the way up to true fortresses. These were not able to fight off the enemy, but they were able to buy the mobile forces time, watching the enemy's moves, constantly harassing them and so on. All the while preserving the fighting power of the garrisons, since most barbarian armies had no idea how to lay siege to a castle, albeit a small one. And Luttwak himself attests to provincial or even local leaders as the origin of these concepts. I think what he calls the "grand strategy" is in these times more to be understood as "what those in charge (on a local level) saw as the successful paradigm of defense".

O man, way off topic now. Sorry folks!

Randal

03-10-2005, 11:50

Yes, Luttwak was more concious of the slow movement problems than many of his critics seem to believe.

But he still holds to the erronous belief that the late roman cavalry-based armies can move faster than the early-roman infantry based ones. They can't, really. Over long distances a man on foot is just as fast as a man on horseback. (Unless you're a mongol with 3 spare horses trotting behind you, and superb discipline to boot)

The "defense in depth" system more likely arose the other way around:

It became apparent that the Roman border defences no longer could cope with all attacks. Therefore, raids deep into Roman territory became far more common. The provincials, not being crazy, defended themselves against this by fortifying their towns, granaries and farmsteads, to limit the damage a barbarian incursion could do. This was not done out of any "grand strategy" to lure the barbarian's deep into Roman territory before destroying them, it arose out of necessity.

The system of field armies accompanying the emperor, likewise, was not part of a border defense strategy, in all likelyhood. It makes much more sense as a political decision. If the emperor has the best divisions of the army with him, the chances of succesful generals on the border being proclaimed Emperor are much lower, and if a rival does arise, the current emperor can deal with it far more easily. The problem is, though, that it does weaken the border defences, as a field army with the emperor can't really reach a threatened area in less than a couple of months.

...yes, totally off topic. So, to compensate, I'll answer the original question:

I agree with Empirate. The Romans were the best army ever, because they were the only ones to consistently achieve all strategical and tactical goals over an extremely long period of time. They also get point for the capability to adapt themselves to changing circumstances, and copying effective enemy weapons and tactics.

caesar44

03-10-2005, 19:12

Steppe Merc

03-12-2005, 01:06

to say "bah" about the romans is to say "i really don't know history"
Oh, I see... I'll let that one go.
But Romans weren't warriors. Most of their conquest was done over a long time, and a lot of it was based on political rather than military conquest. The Mongols were warriors, every male that survived to adult hood was a warrior, because of the harsh environment they lived in. They conquered all their land in one block of time, not over hundreds of years. All this was done by people who were dissimessed and still are as barbarians. I'd take a Mongol army, or any steppe army over a Roman army any day.

Gildas

03-12-2005, 01:27

Its almost an impossible question to answer.Even leaving aside modern armies, as they have the rather obvious advantage of guns, armies from different periods are uncomparable. How for example would the Mongols have coped with the English Longbowmen?
Add to this the importance of leadership and the point becomes even more muddled. The removal of Henry v as war leader saw the collapse of English interests in France, without strong leadership the Mongol empire disintegrated. Alexander's death saw his empire crumble. with that in mind I'd have to say the Roman army was the finest. It endured for so long and it endured with at times leaders who where at best unbalanced and at worst insane.

Empirate

03-12-2005, 10:57

Well, SteppeMerc, I would take a platoon of U.S. marines over 10.000 mounted archers every day, but then that's only me...
We're not trying to compare armies of different times directly, we're trying to sort out which army was the best able to cope with what it's time threw at it. Also, the question wether a people was more or less militaristic doesn't have that much influence on wether the armies it could field were capable at their job. Or would you call today's U.S. a warrior nation? Or the French back around 1800?

On a different note:
Leadership is certainly very important and can't be dismissed from a comparison of armies. But the structure of some armies make them more liable to function even without a good supreme leader, while others need a very good commander-in-chief to accomplish anything. E. g. the roman legions could function well at all times, as long as they were left to their own officers. A field commander originating from the political sphere without the first idea about strategy and tactics could spell disaster for them, though (Terentius Varro and Quinctilius Varus come to mind). But normally, the legions would always do reasonably well due to the reliance on lower ranks to provide a lot of leadership (centuriones) and very well trained standard tactics.

The Wizard

03-12-2005, 17:29

The Mongol army........No contest

.......Orda

I wholly concur, but the Romans come close...

How about the armies of the Caliphate 7th-10th centuries? Excellent generals like Khalid ibn Whalid made the formidable Muslim armies (who in that time would have expected them to be so?) invincible.

BTW, regarding the so-called total dominance of Rome for 650 years? Not true. The Romans suffered a complete breakdown in the 3rd century AD already. Barbarians roamed freely across the frontiers, the Dacian salient and the Rhine-Danube salient forming the crux of the axis had to be abandoned, Gaul seceded, Britain seceded, the Sassanids overran Mesopotamia, while the Palmyrans had taken control of all of Asia, Syria, Iudaea and Aegyptus. Menahwile, the Roman army was completely unable to cope with the situation.

Why? Not a lack of competence or ability, certainly. The Romans were simply too busy fighting each other. Emperors only lasted a couple of years. Foes like the Goths were able to cross into Asia while Romano-Gauls and Romano-Britons claimed their own Empires. Finally, at the end of the century, a series of soldier-emperors stood up, who ended what is today termed the Crisis of the Third Century. It is no wonder that emperor Aurelian got the title 'Restitutor Orbis', Restorer of the World. Still, it is probably in this century that the cause for the fall of the Roman empire can be found -- emperors relied fully on the army to support their claim to the throne. Soldiers understood that they held real power, and abused that fact. As a result, discipline declined while armies kept on elevating their leaders to the status of emperor, even if they did not want to become Augustus. Soldiers simply wanted a piece of the pie: they wanted the riches that came from their leader if he became emperor.

~Wiz

Drag0nUL

03-13-2005, 13:02

I'd go with the german Wermacht as the best army ever.It was an entirely new concept of warfare that proved overwhelmingly superior to any other army it encountered: French infantry based army disintegrated almost instantly,English and Russians fared little better(I'm speaking of the initial phase of the war).In fact I think the decisive role in bringing down the Nazi war machine should go not to the allied armies but to German high command and Hitler.They overextended their area of operation far beyond their logistics possibilities and failed to use the greatest tool at their disposal: mobility to its full extent.I am firmly convinced that the German army had the potential to destroy Russia and then go on to conquering the rest of Asia and Africa if only they had a capable leader(like Manstein or Guderian).

ah_dut

03-13-2005, 19:52

I think the modern US army...head to head all those billions od dollars of machinary are worth something you know...

Empirate

03-14-2005, 02:44

nokhor

03-14-2005, 04:49

excluding the commanding general, what's the most important quality for an army to have?

a) discipline
b) equipment
c) training
d) junior officers
e) morale
f) something else

Productivity

03-14-2005, 13:34

excluding the commanding general, what's the most important quality for an army to have?

a) discipline
b) equipment
c) training
d) junior officers
e) morale
f) something else

I don't think any one will matter most for every army, I think that it will vary depending upon how the army was organised.

Also by equipment, I hope you mean equipment compared to that of it's contemporaries, not equipment in a 3000 year time span, or else a single warship today wins it easily...

Drag0nUL

03-14-2005, 16:49

Maybe, DragonUL, and maybe not. They just didn't have the manpower to conquer "all of Asia and Africa" all by themselves. The racist bias didn't allow much recruiting outside Germany, and the industrial power of the U. S. wasn't even beginning to be brought into play during the initial phase of the war in Europe. Don't forget that Russia had a huge industrial and especially "human capital" capacity, too. Mobility is nice, but you also need numbers. And it's not as if the Russian commanders didn't learn from their German counterparts, later employing the very same tactical means that had made the initial successes of the Wehrmacht possible.
All in all though, let's just be glad Hitler and company didn't make it, right? I'm German and I can't even begin to imagine what the world would be like if Hitler had done what you hold at least possible!

Indeed germans were vastly inferior in manpower to the allies, but the strategy they employed in the first years of war made their numbers irrelevant. The key role was played by armoured divisions which were only a small fraction of the army. Of course, in a lengthy war they will always be at the losing end(as reality shown), but I say they could have won the war before U.S. and Russia's huge economical and demographical advantage could make any significant impact and before their armies had the time to adapt to the blitzkrieg tactic.As for the last part I agree. God knows what would today's world look like had Hitler won the war.

Drag0nUL

03-14-2005, 16:59

excluding the commanding general, what's the most important quality for an army to have?

a) discipline
b) equipment
c) training
d) junior officers
e) morale
f) something else

I would go for training and discipline. I think these two are the most important qualities in the army(however nowdays equipment has an increasingly important role: you can't shoot down a B-2 with a crossbow no matter how well trained you are ~:) ).two examples come to my mind : The Spartans and Napoleon's Imperial Guard. These figting forces weren't significantly(if at all) better equipped than their opponents, but usually managed to win against the odds due to the sheer 'quality'(aka. training, morale and discipline) of the soldiers

Empirate

03-16-2005, 19:28

I'd go for training, too, but leadership is at least as important. No army can win even the smallest battle without somebody who has a grasp of the concepts of tactics and strategy, who develops goals and a plan to reach them and who communicates these to the forces under her/his command.

DukeofSerbia

03-16-2005, 19:48

The best Serbian army was under emperor Dushan Stephan Nemanjic 1331-1356. :duel:

Pooma

03-27-2005, 05:45

I'm going to throw a weird one into the mix and go with the Commonwealth forces of WW1, and not just becuase everyone else seems to forget about them all the time! In the interest of reason I'm going to argue only for the forces available at the beginning and the end of that particular horror-show though.

There were only 5 (???) divisions in the British Army at the dawn of WW1, with Canada, Australia and New Zealand able to supply troops that were in essence homogenous. They were mostly expended (how I hate that term, but it does fit here) by the time of the First Ypres, but by that time even the germans had recognised them as incomparible.

They were a tiny force, therefore mobile and cheap. They were a social revolution in their all-volunteer status. Their technology was first rate, the artillery piece of their day was a positive ion cannon compared to the guns of even 30 years before. (Although the French probably did have the lead there).

Recall that at Mons the BEF comported itself well, actually better than well, it was an army of thoroughbred riflemen against an army still adapting to the lessens of effective infantry firepower. Don't forget that it was able to retreat intact from Mons after the collapse of the French frontier war. With it's equipment mostly intact, and that there was only one mutiny, which was basically overcome by an officer with a toy trumpet if you believe the story (or possibly propaganda in this case).

That army was able to break down into its constituents for movement, and yet still act coherently - at the dawn of radio communcation, a feet the Mongols are often singled out for (admitedly with no radio at all, but their opponents weren't able to lay out telephone lines either).

How about the forces at the end of the war? Well, strange to tell the Commonwealth ran rampant, and started to see a lot of the characteristics of infantry warfare of WW2. Fire-and-movement, and the idea that you really could maneuvre, but only as part of a battlespace managed by officers with a solid awareness of what was going on was largely a Canadian innovation; and one that was made by officers at the front. In the last few weeks of the war British and Canadian troops were storming defenses long considered impenetrable and took more prisoners than everyone else combined.

So we've got:

Solid leadership at the middle level
Ridiculously capable leadership at low level
With the innovation of the field telephone integration of artillery with infantry for vertical integration
With the innovation of moving the machine guns up as part of an assault - a much lower level combined force
Very solid logistics

And dicipline enough to survive actually going to hell and staying there. I'd put the Western Front up as being just as solid as Stalingrad as an example of mans ability to invent gigantic piles of crap to haul himself into. Except that it lasted far longer, and people were throwing poison gas at one another. Also that's where the flamethrower got invented. Also the shotgun with bayonet attached. And the trench-mortar. And tunnelling under your opponent to pretty much build the biggest bomb your technology can allow under him. Then having to fight him underground as he does the same thing right back at you.

Actually stuff it, since they could take that for years, since Canadian troops could still fight after Vimy Ridge, since British troops still fought after Passchendaele and all the other battles around and no one has suggested that they killed large numbers of Belgian civilians they get my vote for their conduct from beginning to end.

I guess the difference here is that the Commonwealth often feels it was dragged into a war it alone couldn't possibly gain from (possibly a bit unfair on the doughboys, but American did gain immeasurably in stature and was able to impose it's peace on a war Britain largely paid for), and that it was 'ordinary blokes' dragged off to fight. They did. They won. But more than that: some of them were even telling jokes in a hell I can't even imagine. By and large they came home and lived blameless lives.

They were just as tough and as powerful as we needed to be, stuck it out for as long as we needed them, and then they went home and rebuilt. If we are trying for any kind of measurement for the quality of an army it surely must be it's value to the country it represents. Since the commonwealth armed forces represented so many countries (let's remember the Indian troops who died, just to name on other forgotten group) and re-inforced the bond between so many of them I can't see how anyone can match the contribution that they made. I hope I have also argued with a measure of success that like everyone else who has ever been ground into meat for his country they paid the full price for that measure of value.

Craterus

03-27-2005, 21:49

how can you compare a german WW2 army (with GUNS - things that kill people instantly, and from long range) with an ancient army (with SWORDS)?

you can't fairly compare them, surely? ~:confused: i don't think you can and that's my opinion,

Kaiser of Arabia

03-28-2005, 04:03

Wehrmacht

Uesugi Kenshin

03-28-2005, 04:55

That's a tough one. I think I would go with the German army in WWII. At the outset it was a superbly trained, well equipped, well motivated, disciplined, efficient and mobile fighting force with some of the best generals in the world and some of the best tactical and strategic innovations of the century. If Hitler was not such an imbecile and a racist they could have won the war. If they had finished off the RAF, not attacked Russia, disowned Japan after Pearl Harbor they may have won. Of course if Hitler was not such a bad guy then them winning would not have been so bad. A loss of independence and a short war, short due to blitzkrieg, would not be so bad compared to how Europe treated Germany before it uited to form the most powerful European nation of the time.

Al Khalifah

03-28-2005, 23:32

Post WW2:
The Israeli Armed Forces
Israel is perhaps the only nation in the world with modern armed forces that is in a state where the nation itself is in constant danger of an armed assault and has been since its birth.
The IAF uses slightly outdated American technologies in addition to home built ones, but the true strength of the force is the training and experience of its soldiers. At current, man for man, I do not think there is another armed-forces in the world that combines such discipline throughout its ranks and officers, combined with modern weapons and combat technologies, steeped in military experience.

The opening of the 6 day war is simply stunning and all students of stratergy should be familiar with not just the combat itself, but also with the build up to appreciate how serious a predicament Israel was in. The air offensive against Egypt is superior to Pearl Harbor in that it rendered the enemy completely impotent in the skies by destroying nearly all their aircraft on the ground and making the runways unusable with tarmac-shredding penetration bombs so that a second wave could destroy the remainder. In the ground operations in the Sinai, within 4 days the Israeli army had destroyed the largest and most well equiped Arab army while simultaneously defending itself against several others.

I'm waiting for criticism and objection (America cud kick ur a$$!!!)...

PanzerJaeger

03-29-2005, 01:00

The German Armed Forces. 1936-1945

You must also include the Waffen SS despite their politics. They, especially the armored units, played critical roles in the east and in normandy. The Germans were on the cutting edge of everything military throughout the war, and if it wasnt for Hitlers decisions, they would have surely come out the victors.

Ironically, if it wasnt for Hitler, they probably wouldnt have been the best in the world..

The US military of today's time is a close second. It is before unheard of to take over countries with so few casualties.. and if the american public was willing to accept more casualties and an aggressive foreign policy, who knows how much the US could conquer..

Uesugi Kenshin

03-29-2005, 04:33

I believe they are the IDF, they share the acronym with the Ireland Defense Force and the Iceland Defense Force. At least those two anyway. They are also a contender, definately for post World War II, but I think the US may beat them out. The Israelis do have some of the best if not the best Spec Ops though.

Al Khalifah

03-29-2005, 10:50

Best Special Operations Unit is the SAS (and SBS). I don't think there's any point in even arguing that one. There's a reason why the US (among many MANY others) specifically requested them to train their counter-terrorist and special operations units.
The Israeli special operations units are top-rate and are possibly the second best in the world, but they don't have the equipment, experience, training or support staff that the SAS do. That Ultimate Force program they show in Britain makes me sick with what it makes the SAS out to be. If they worked like that on the missions they are given, they'd all be dead, quickly.

Uesugi Kenshin

03-30-2005, 04:27

I was thinking they might be up there and may be better than the Israeli special forces, I read a book about theri exploits in WWII, but I was not aware if they had kept up their insanely high standards. Nice to hear they are still doing well.

Brenus

03-30-2005, 22:35

The best army ever?
Difficult to answer, because it depends of the context. The German Army at the start of the WW2 could be a good choice, even if I doubt that to defeat the Polish army, equipped with light tanks, few airplanes, cavalry and immense courage isn't a real great achievment. Same comment on the attacks against Holland and Belgium. The attack on French and English armies, the superb trap wich ended in Dunkirk, the movement throughout the Ardennes, brilliant... But after? The Barbarossa operation ended with a complete defeat in front of Moscow. Leningrad, failure, Stalingrad, no comment, Kursk and after the retreat until Berlin...
The common idea is that Germany had the best weapons, the best general and the best tactic. The only problem Germany didn't have the best strategy, and certainly not the one needed to defeat the russians. No Strategic Bomber Command, short range fighters (remember the Me109 had only 15mm fuel on London). The Panzer III got a very nasty surprise when they first met the TA34 and KV. In 1944, most the German's artillery was still on horses power...
The best army in 1940 is the German's one, in 1945, the Red Army in the western Front, the US army in the Pacific.
The most courageous, the polish fighting against all hope, the English, standing alone, the Italians climbing in their tanks that a bullet from a Bren could pierce, the Finish defending the land against Stalin's aggression...
And don't forget the Vietnamese, fighting successfully against the French, the Americans and against each others. And the French and the British in the trenches when the Germans wanted the defeated then with iron against flesh...
But, if I have to choose one, I will go the the French Revolutionary Army, with their oldest general aged 29, wich defeated the powerful European armies sent against the new republic. Because they were followed by the Napoleonic adventure, they are often forgotten. But they combined innovation (first use of a captive balloon for observation), new tactics in the use of artillery and of course courage... Unfortunately, they opened the way to Napoleon, but that is history...

PanzerJaeger

03-30-2005, 23:42

The attack on French and English armies, the superb trap wich ended in Dunkirk, the movement throughout the Ardennes, brilliant... But after? The Barbarossa operation ended with a complete defeat in front of Moscow. Leningrad, failure, Stalingrad, no comment, Kursk and after the retreat until Berlin...

I think a large part of the failures after France was the increasing interference of Hitler into military affairs.

The European campaigns were planned long before Hitler even came to power, he simply allowed the army to impliment them. The german high command knew exactly which moves to make and had plans b and c in case of failure.

The russian campaign, however, was contrived very much by Hitler and the government alone, not the generals. They were forced to attack such a huge nation without the careful planning that had been done for years before the Euro campaigns.

This is not to say the wehrmacht knew they were going to lose beforehand, quite the contrary. They did conquer and area far larger than all of their european conquests, captured and killed millions of russians, and nearly pulled it off.

Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kursk can all be attributed to Hitler going against his generals.

Stalingrad was lost due to Hitlers obstinence, but Kursk was his own invention. He allowed a very long, obvious buildup of forces, giving the russians plenty of time to build huge defenses. And when his forces were actually on the verge of victory.. he called off the costly attack due to the landings in sicily..

I am of the opinion that if Hitler had left the war to his generals, Barbarossa could have succeeded.

Uesugi Kenshin

03-31-2005, 04:39

I think if Hitler had abandoned Japan and left the war to the men that knew how to fight a war they could have won.

Drag0nUL

03-31-2005, 08:43

The European campaigns were planned long before Hitler even came to power, he simply allowed the army to impliment them. The german high command knew exactly which moves to make and had plans b and c in case of failure.

You are wrong on this. Indeed the initial plan for the attack on France was quite old(and very similar to the WWI attack through Belgium adn Holland),but a few months before the scheduled date for the offensive, a plane in which an officer from the army's HQ was travelling landed in Belgium due to bad weather.This officer was carrying the full attack plans, which fell into belgian hands.The attack was therefore postponed and the new plan(attack through the Ardennes) was the work of Erich von Manstein.

Brenus

03-31-2005, 20:06

I think a large part of the failures after France was the increasing interference of Hitler into military affairs.

Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kursk can all be attributed to Hitler going against his generals.

Stalingrad was lost due to Hitlers obstination, but Kursk was his own invention. He allowed a very long, obvious buildup of forces, giving the russians plenty of time to build huge defenses. And when his forces were actually on the verge of victory.. he called off the costly attack due to the landings in sicily..

I am of the opinion that if Hitler had left the war to his generals, Barbarossa could have succeeded.[/QUOTE]

It was the usual blame from Hitler's former general to put the blame on him for each defeat or mistake.
The German's defeat is first due to the courage and the sacrifice of the people who resist.
And, no, Moscow wasn't in Hitler intentions. It was his general who wanted to take fro few reason, some good (centre of communications, railways) some bad for prestige...
And when Zoukov launched his counter offensive, it was Hitler's decision to keep the ground wich save the Germans army from a total debacle (according Rokossovski).
And the attack on USSR was planned, long before. That is why Heydrich mounted this beautiful spy strap. convincing the paranoid Stalin that his generals were plotting against him. Stalin killed all his skilled generals (Marshal Tchoukachsky, brilliant general, in particulary) and hight ranking officer until the post of Chief of Regiment, leaving alive only Zoukov, this one being fighting and defeating the japanese at Galing Gol... (I apologize for the misspelling of the Russian names). He reinforced the power of the NKVD and political officers with the results we know.
Stalingrad wasn't the primary objective of the offensive, but the petrol of Baku. And again, like for Leningrad, it is because his generale said they can do it then Hitler changed his mind. And Stalingrad didn't fall because the Russian's heroism and sacrifice...
A Kursk was a political gamble: Hitler realising that he could't win, wanted to push the Soviet to negotiate. He thought if he was able to weak them enought, he could do it.
Manstein alway pretended that it could have won the battle if Hitler didn't stopped the attack. Well, no. The germans troop never succeeded to even reach the third line of defence, and only briefly the second one.
And no, the germans couldn't win. For the reasons I shortly explained in a previous message: no adequate material. No strategy to reimplace the blitzkrieg.
Most the Panthers lost in Kursk were because gear box too fragile and a strong inclination to start to burn without enemy intervention...
I can't see how the absence of Hitler should have prevented the Russian to built their almighty Red Army, to give the germans generals the skill to fight against Zukov, Koniev, Rokososky and all the other. Or against Paton, Monty, on the Western Front. It won't built the fighter need to distroy the US and British bombers... Kesselring was completely free in Italy and was defeated by the allies. He conducted a great defensive war, but Cassino was lost, the Carigliano was lost, the Gothic line was lost etc...

PanzerJaeger

04-01-2005, 01:11

You are wrong on this. Indeed the initial plan for the attack on France was quite old(and very similar to the WWI attack through Belgium adn Holland),but a few months before the scheduled date for the offensive, a plane in which an officer from the army's HQ was travelling landed in Belgium due to bad weather.This officer was carrying the full attack plans, which fell into belgian hands.The attack was therefore postponed and the new plan(attack through the Ardennes) was the work of Erich von Manstein.

Exactly my point. They had a plan b and c. They had thought through the war many times over in many different variations, whereas the russian campaign was ad hoc at best after the initial phase.

And, no, Moscow wasn't in Hitler intentions. It was his general who wanted to take fro few reason, some good (centre of communications, railways) some bad for prestige...And when Zoukov launched his counter offensive, it was Hitler's decision to keep the ground wich save the Germans army from a total debacle (according Rokossovski).

Yes and it was a good idea to take the city. Hitler diverted resources away from the moscow area after the winter offensive.

And the attack on USSR was planned, long before. That is why Heydrich mounted this beautiful spy strap. convincing the paranoid Stalin that his generals were plotting against him. Stalin killed all his skilled generals (Marshal Tchoukachsky, brilliant general, in particulary) and hight ranking officer until the post of Chief of Regiment, leaving alive only Zoukov, this one being fighting and defeating the japanese at Galing Gol... (I apologize for the misspelling of the Russian names). He reinforced the power of the NKVD and political officers with the results we know.

The military aspects of the invasion were not well planned beforehand like the european campaigns. The German military was not given the time to anticipate the terrain and the weather and supply their men accordingly. Shortly before barbarossa, the German military was anticipating an invasion of britain, not russia.

Stalingrad wasn't the primary objective of the offensive, but the petrol of Baku. And again, like for Leningrad, it is because his generale said they can do it then Hitler changed his mind. And Stalingrad didn't fall because the Russian's heroism and sacrifice...

Von Paulus did not want to stay in the city and there were objections in the general staff as to why the army was sustaining such casualties when the battle could have been won out of the city where the forces were more effective. Stalingrad was Hitler's mess.

Russian sacrifice and heroism took a backseat to their enormous numbers also.

A Kursk was a political gamble: Hitler realising that he could't win, wanted to push the Soviet to negotiate. He thought if he was able to weak them enought, he could do it.
Manstein alway pretended that it could have won the battle if Hitler didn't stopped the attack. Well, no. The germans troop never succeeded to even reach the third line of defence, and only briefly the second one..

The Germans could indeed have won the battle. They had progressed every day until Hitler called off the attack. It was extremely costly, but it was not a lost cause.

And no, the germans couldn't win. For the reasons I shortly explained in a previous message: no adequate material. No strategy to reimplace the blitzkrieg.

I disagree. The only person more inept about fighting a war than the russians was hitler. The war could have been won in the first two years.. after that it was a lost cause though.

Most the Panthers lost in Kursk were because gear box too fragile and a strong inclination to start to burn without enemy intervention...

Most german tanks were not lost due to russian fire.. somewhat ironic. ~;)

I can't see how the absence of Hitler should have prevented the Russian to built their almighty Red Army, to give the germans generals the skill to fight against Zukov, Koniev, Rokososky and all the other.

With a proper military leader, there would not have been a 2 front war and the russians would have been easily defeated the first year of the war.

Or against Paton, Monty, on the Western Front.

You cannot compare allied generals to those of the germans as they had such a material and manpower advantage.

My guess, however, is given the same amount to work with, German generals were far more skilled than those of the allies.

won't built the fighter need to distroy the US and British bombers...

Had a couple that could easily do the job. Production and lack of replacement pilots was the problem.

Kesselring was completely free in Italy and was defeated by the allies. He conducted a great defensive war, but Cassino was lost, the Carigliano was lost, the Gothic line was lost etc...

Completely free? He was constantly dredging the barrel for men and supplies. He had partisans and Rommel's competing plans to deal with. Those are just the start of his troubles.

Germany failed in ww2 of course. However, if they had a leader who understood the problems Germany faced in ww1, they would not have gotten themselves into the strategic mess they did with basically the whole world against them. That was not a military issue but a political one.

Uesugi Kenshin

04-01-2005, 04:32

I think Rommel was probably the best general of the war, if Hitler had not been around he could have led Germany to victory. Another redeeming trait: He hated Hitler, he was mainly fighting for his country, not Hitler.

I think they diverted resources away from Moscow to attack some oil fields, is that right?
If Germany had knocked off the RAF instead of bombing London they could have taken Britain. This would have stopped the strategic bombing campaigns and would have allowed German industry to continue full tilt even though the US was in the war. Then after finishing Russia with superior tactics and equipment (despite a few notable exceptions German troops were better equipped) Germany could have forced a peace or aided Japan against the US. It would not have been good because of Hitler, but it was a possibility.

PanzerJaeger

04-01-2005, 04:41

Also war with Russia and america was far from an inevitable in 1941. Hitler put his awesome war machine in possibly the only scenario it could not succeed in - fighting every major industry in the world..

Ash

04-01-2005, 09:17

It's one thing to achieve militairy successes. It's quite another to consolidate strategic positions.

I think Hernan Cortes is probably one of the most succesful generals in history. He conquered a great empire with only 300-500 men through propaganda, superstition, atrocities, chemical warfare (smallpox...:p), brilliant militairy stratagy and political intrigue (mobilizing oppressed allies for his cause).
All this in like 2 years time.

Not only did he destroy the Aztecs, he perserved Mexico for Spain, and it would remain in her hands for centuries to come.

Brenus

04-01-2005, 19:48

Quick answer to some comments: Rommel didn't hate Hitler. He hate defeat. For what I remember from my reading, Rommel was even the chief of Hitler's bodyguards... Before the SS took this place... Rommel never challenged any orders from Hitler and left his Africa Korps facing defeat and was his willing object of propaganda...
Von Runsted (not sure of the spelling), a real ant-nazi, was right against Rommel's opinion in the defence of the Fortress Europe... The Naval power of the Allied fleet(s) effectively destroy all the attempts from the Panzer divisions to launch counter-offensive against the beach heads...

I didn't say that the germans tanks were all destroy by accidents or malfunctioning. I spoke specifically of the Panthers. The Tigers, at first, were lost on mine fields that the very skilled germans pioneers didn't detected...
No, the germans tanks were destroy by the charge of the Red Guards division which just took advantage of the slow motion of the tigers, and by the russian infantry attacking the unprotected Elephant (no heavy machine gun on board, probably Hitler's personnal interaction!!!) and others panzerjagers...
That was called "the Shield and the Sword" tactic, engaging the germans with anti tank weapons, obliging them to use their amunition and the petrol against minor targets, then to launched the tanks offensive... Wich was what exactly happened. The Russian Plan worked... Not the German's one... And the shelling of the german regroupment positions was a genius trait, even if wasn't so much effective...

:furious3: The problem I have when I read things like the german were defeated by numbers and only that is when the german army was attacking weak enemies, Poland, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark. Yugoslavia, Greece etc or unprepared (Russia), the Germans' defenders find that perfectly normal. But, when the waves changed, when the germans faced what they inflicted to others, it is not.
To destroy with Panzer II, III, small number of IV and T38 (Check),Stukas and Me109 the Polish cavalry, the few Dutch and Belgium light tanks, the first generation of russian tanks, the I16 and other Polikarpov, and biplanes, that was heroic... But to faced as much modern armies, well trained and commanded that isn't.
It is the modern version of the stab in the back after the WW1, when the German Generals succeeded to convince their people they didn't lost the battle but we betreated by the civilians and the Reds... :furious3:

By the way, Paulus is not a Von... I know, it is a common mistake... ~:)

Paulus refused to evacuate Stalingrad for good reasons... The 6th army couldn't do it... The luftwaffe couldn't provide the air cover, not enough petrol, the soldiers were completely demoralized. And I don't think that the Russians wouldn't react in case on try to break the siege... A routed army had to cover 60km in snow? The slaughter shouldn't be nice to see with the TA34 on their back and the Stormovick on their heads....
What we can reproach is his lack of courage to surrender when the Russian came with their offer... He could at least had saved the life of thousands of his soldiers...
And yes, the poor Kesselring had to face a lot of problems... He had too many enemies... Probably what the Polish thought that also, with on one side the Germans and the other side the Russians, or the Serbs, with the defection of two Croatian divisions, attacked by the Italians, the Hungarians and the Bulgarians... But that was fair play for some...
Germany lost the war because they didn't have the resources to win... Even with the efficient Spear as minister, they couldn't produce enough weapons... Remember, the Tigers and Panthers were answers to the T34, and when the KV85 then the Josef Stalin arrived, they had to go back to drawing table...
And we discuss as much you want about the ME262, and other Arrado I don't remember the serial number, it was too late, first, and the US and English also started to develop their own... The U-boat lost the technical war, and the german army learned the power of the machine gun in front of the red army (witch itself learned it against Finland... And read the battle of Kursk. When Hitler call back the offensive, the Red army had still two armoured ARMIES in reserve... And the second axe of the german offensive didn't developed so well, never succeeded to reach its objectives... I don't deny the fighting spirit of the german soldiers, nor their general capacities. But I certainly disagree with the legend built around them... And I don't buy the "only Hitler is to blame for every mistake and atrocity" attitude.
What is the truth is the Germans lost any initiative after Kursk, succeeded some beautiful defensive battles. But you can't win in defensive...
And certainly, you can blame the Allies to be better prepared, better equiped, better trained, better motivated and to win the war...

PanzerJaeger

04-02-2005, 00:01

The problem I have when I read things like the german were defeated by numbers and only that is when the german army was attacking weak enemies, Poland, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark. Yugoslavia, Greece etc or unprepared (Russia), the Germans' defenders find that perfectly normal. But, when the waves changed, when the germans faced what they inflicted to others, it is not.
To destroy with Panzer II, III, small number of IV and T38 (Check),Stukas and Me109 the Polish cavalry, the few Dutch and Belgium light tanks, the first generation of russian tanks, the I16 and other Polikarpov, and biplanes, that was heroic... But to faced as much modern armies, well trained and commanded that isn't.
It is the modern version of the stab in the back after the WW1, when the German Generals succeeded to convince their people they didn't lost the battle but we betreated by the civilians and the Reds....

I must disagree.

It is true that the smaller countries in europe that you mentioned were not a real obstacle. the Germans also fought and thoroughly beat the French and the English on land. The french had a larger army and better tanks if im not mistaken, and the english were 1st class aswell.

So i dont think that its right to say the german victories were pushovers..

Also, battles such as those in Italy, Normandy, and operation Market Garden showed that the germans had the skills and weapons to take on the allies late in the war..

You cannot underemphasize the numbers.

Paulus refused to evacuate Stalingrad for good reasons... The 6th army couldn't do it... The luftwaffe couldn't provide the air cover, not enough petrol, the soldiers were completely demoralized. And I don't think that the Russians wouldn't react in case on try to break the siege... A routed army had to cover 60km in snow? The slaughter shouldn't be nice to see with the TA34 on their back and the Stormovick on their heads....

As i understand it, Paulus didnt want to be in the city after a few weeks of battle.

Germany lost the war because they didn't have the resources to win... Even with the efficient Spear as minister, they couldn't produce enough weapons... B]

Germany lost the war because their leader, Hitler, committed the military to too many wars.

Had britain been silenced, had war not been declared on America, had the russian campaign been postponed.. it could have been won in my opinion.

Of course the country didnt have the resources to fight all those countries at once.. Bad leadership, not a bad military.

[B]Remember, the Tigers and Panthers were answers to the T34, and when the KV85 then the Josef Stalin arrived, they had to go back to drawing table...

Tiger wasnt.. And both tanks were fully capable of defeating the IS-2. The russians had horrible tank training and that tank wasnt well thought out.

And we discuss as much you want about the ME262, and other Arrado I don't remember the serial number, it was too late, first, and the US and English also started to develop their own...

I was refering to the FW-190.

The U-boat lost the technical war, and the german army learned the power of the machine gun in front of the red army (witch itself learned it against Finland...

The Germans knew the power of the machine gun and used that well against the Russians.. check the body count. ~;)

And read the battle of Kursk. When Hitler call back the offensive, the Red army had still two armoured ARMIES in reserve... And the second axe of the german offensive didn't developed so well, never succeeded to reach its objectives... I don't deny the fighting spirit of the german soldiers, nor their general capacities. But I certainly disagree with the legend built around them... And I don't buy the "only Hitler is to blame for every mistake and atrocity" attitude.

Hitler was to blame for the strategic position the German military found itself in. Had he have made better strategic decisions, the German military could have won the war.

And certainly, you can blame the Allies to be better prepared, better equiped, better trained, better motivated and to win the war...

I think the Germans were plenty prepared, equipped, trained and motivated.. they just didnt have unexhaustable resources and manpower. Had Hitler used his military in a more responsible way, things could have turned out very different.

Stefan the Berserker

04-02-2005, 00:30

The problem in WW2 and third Reich was not the Quality of the Army, it was the foolish Leader at the Top. Indeed the Wehrmacht could in 1:1 defeated any enemy, but it wasn't 1:1 unless only with the right political leadership you have the strategic position to do that.

Bismarck was genius with his three wars, Hitler was far away from reality. However, Napoleon a century before and Hirohito in Japan had the same problem. You did need to be "Hinterfotzig".

Papewaio

04-02-2005, 07:30

The Wehrmacht even lead by Rommel did not fare particularly well in 1:1 or even with 5:1 advantages against opposition that was already in a war ready status.

North Africa swung back and forth and the Desert Fox did not win every battle and places such as the 240 day seige of Tobruk where an utter failure.

Most of the German victories where Bltizreigs... massive mobilised and having superiority in numbers along the battlefront. When the Germans became bogged down they fared no better against battle hardened troops. Against the Yugoslavian and other mountain troops the Germans did poorly. The strongest victories for the Germans had elements of surprise and attacking either opponents who where not ready or as the French not expecting attack from that quadrant. It was strategy, speed and numbers not superior quality of troops that was the primary factor in German victories.

This is seen in North Africa and in the Battle of Britain. Against prepared foes the Germans did not win in 1:1 battles. In fact the Germans despite surrounding Tubrok with 5:1 odds where the ones in fear of the nightly raids coming from the besieged defenders who would attack and steal their artillery, sights, ammunition and tanks.

caravel

04-02-2005, 16:10

Most effective determined and, disciplined are in my opion these:

1) The Japanese Samurai
2) The Mongols
3) The Gernan Wehrmacht (WW2)
4) The Romans (all periods)
5) Aztecs of Mexico under Emperor Guatemozin (16 century)

There were other armies, but they were not so consistent. These armies had real stomach and were nearly unstoppable.

Brenus

04-02-2005, 16:16

Yes, I agree. Against the French and the British, the tactical knowledge and the "savoir faire" of the Werhmacht was superior... The Hight Command and officers were better trained. And yes, the french tanks were superior quality, as the Somua S35 and the Char Bis de rupture were able to prove it in the battle of Gamblou. But the air superiority allowed the Stuka to be used and to break the french assault. About the English, well the Matilda and Crusaders aren't renown as the best tank ever produce. Too slow and under-guned, a major default to all the british tanks until the Churchill, the Firefly and the Comet.
The problem for the Anglo-French was the doctrine...The Franco-British hight command wanted to do the war they won (WW1) and failed. The Generalisme Gamelin issued an order saying: Without intention to intervene in the actual battle... He was in charge of the battle!!!!
That is where the germans were superior. Their tactic, applied on the western front (in the so-called battle of France) was better.
So, I agree that at this time, the Wehrmacht and the OKW were the best armies.

What I am saying now is when it was a need of a change in the tactic, when the blitzkrieg failed, they didn't succeeded to find one.
So, they gave the rank to some others, for me, you probably understood, the Red Army and the STAVSKA. But, I am sure because the Pacific campaign and the really good Naval Assault Tactic followed by the US army and Navy...

If you study the germans production of tank, we will have to come to the conclusion that most of them were design for defensive. The Hertzer, the jagtiger and jagpanther, all the series of jagpanzer were design for defensive purpose and were good at this.
The choice of the 88mm Flack canon on the Tiger, then the Royal Tiger, or Elephant was to give a longer range and bigger fire power to knock down the allied tank from far... The problem was when the allied succeeded to reach the germans lines (especially the Russian), these Panzers were not manoeuvrable enough. The turret was too slow...

And I agreed, the FW190, all the serial, was good. Nowotny choose it as his fighter. Erich Hartman (360 something victories) was on 109, if I remember well... But, sorry to insist, the P51 Mustang was better, the Thunderbolt, the Spitfire in the last version were better... And I can prolog the list...
If you want to know if a material was good, just follow their modifications...

The body count is a mirage... See the americans in Vietnam.
Stalin and Zukov bought time against blood. That gave time to carry the war manufactories in the Ural and then to push back the Germans until Berlin...
Stalin was as much brutal and cynical than Hitler, that is why they had to fight each other.

Of course the germans had machine gun, and the MG42 is still in use in modern armies. What I wanted to show is the flaw in the german conception of what was suppose to be one of the trump in battle. A beautiful machine destroyed by infantry equipped of hand grenade because one man just forgot that a tank without infantry is just a lost piece of metal...

Now, if we speak about the politic: Wich country was prepared for war. The French: No. The English: No. These two stupid countries didn't want to sent their young men between 17 and 40 years old to slaughter. They thought, the really dump, that you can negotiate, that a bad peace is better that a good war. They tried as hard they can to avoid the conflict. And it was stupid. Because when you have a Hitler in front of you, you have no choice. But that is easy to say it after.
But the Germans: Yes. If it was ONE country ready for the war, it was the Nazi Germany... Years and years of rearmament, of ingeneering, of training first in Russia (remember the Ribentrop/Molotov agreement?), of mental conditioning of all a population, the development of new tactic... And that gave results, as all modern armies know, sweat saves blood... So we have the operation on Aben Emael, the battle of France. But after...
So, the lack of 4 motor Bomber, the short range of their fighters... I forget... Hitler... The lack of winter clothes... Hitler (welllll, it is part of every soldier clothing and equipment, but hey the generals thought they could win before winter). I still wait to see the order from Hitler to the OKW to leave this equipment in the barracks....
Organization of the war: Don't tell me that the General Staff ignored that the space between the Railway tracks were different in Russia than in Germany. Don't tell me that the OKW ignored it was a need of 5l of petrol for one arriving on the front.... That is was no roads in Russia, that Rasputista happenned (the mud)... So the Panzer needed larger catapillars, or a special order from Hitler prohibited this small technical improvment?
Plus, Napoleon slept in the bed of the Tzar, and Moscow burned. Did the Russian surrounded? No.
And all the germans generals (well, perhaps except Sepp Dietrich) were well educated and had read the Napoleonic Campaign in Russia. They knew that winter is cold...
As one famous german General said (his name will come back): If you can't predict the weather, we can predict the season...

Hitler decision to go in war as soon as possible against Russian was based on his fear of the opening a second front in Europe. Let say, he didn't... Let say he waited one winter more: Do you remember what happened? Do you think the Japanese should have postponned their own plan? They were also in desperated need of petrol (6 months of reserve)... And because the Iron Pact, and because Roosevelt just waited for the moment, (Germany first), it would just have make the things worst...

About Paulus, I don't know if you are aware of the army regulations, but you can't say, well, I don't feel this one, can I withdraw? You have to explain why, at least, and not only in the Nazi Germany. No, the germans soldiers and officers (I don't included the always pessimistic) were sure to take Stalingrad. They reached the banks of the Volga. Few factories more to take, and jod's done. But, like I think Napoleon said, a plan never resist the first bullet. The stubborn untermenshen, sub-human Slavs refuse to give-up... Yes, they died by thousands for Rodina... And when the germans, after sending the Croatians units against Red October realise they couldn't do it... More, the almost defeated USSR, after millions of prisoners, after loosing all the major cities, succeeded to break throughout the Italo-Hungarians-Rumanians lines... The 6th army was besieged... And we know what happened...

Happy to have this debate, remind me when I was young. By the way, I also thought at these times that the Germans were better and unlawfully bitten by the allies....

PanzerJaeger

04-02-2005, 21:54

The Wehrmacht even lead by Rommel did not fare particularly well in 1:1 or even with 5:1 advantages against opposition that was already in a war ready status.

I disagree.

North Africa swung back and forth and the Desert Fox did not win every battle and places such as the 240 day seige of Tobruk where an utter failure.

Firstly, one must remember that Rommel was ver far away from his supply lines here. Secondly, one must remember that Rommel did beat off, I believe, two British attacks aimed at breaking through to Tobruk. Thirdly, let us not forget that later in 1942, Rommel was able to take Tobruk in a single day.

As for being numerically superior.. thats just wrong. Germany was typically outnumbered (this was especially the case with France) yet manged to concentrate troops locally. This surely indicates the German mastery of operational art. Germans did not have superiority along the entire battlefront, but in certain location which they exploited.

Also, not all German victories were Blitzkreigs (eg. Market Garden)

When the Germans became bogged down they fared no better against battle hardened troops.

Casualty rates do not reflect this assertion, for example in cases such as Monte Cassino, the Courland pocket, etc, casualty rates were highly skewed in their favour despite being outnumbered.

The strongest victories for the Germans had elements of surprise and attacking either opponents who where not ready or as the French not expecting attack from that quadrant.

I do not believe that the fact that the Germans were able to achieve tactical suprise in Manstein's masterful strategy to defeat France should be held against them. Also, what about in cases such as Operation Merkur, where the defenders of Crete were well prepared yet lost.

It was strategy, speed and numbers not superior quality of troops that was the primary factor in German victories.

You havent offered any evidence of a lack of quality in German troops.

This is seen in North Africa and in the Battle of Britain.

Cherry picking arent we? What does German troop quality have to do with the Battle of Britain? Why do you ignore all of the German victories in North Africa despite extended supply lines and against large numbers of enemies?

Against prepared foes the Germans did not win in 1:1 battles

Not true. See: Kharkov, for one example.

Your thesis that the German army lacked quality is wrong, in my opinion.

PanzerJaeger

04-02-2005, 22:18

Also Papewaio -

In regards to your assertion that the Germans did poorly in 1:1 battles. Wouldnt that statement be better ascribed to any of the allied nations? I can think of far more battles in which the Germans won on a 1:1 level than the allies, cant you? In fact i cant think of hardly any battles where the allies won without clear numerical and material advantages.. :bow:

Brenus -

It will take me a while to address all of your points, tommorow! ~;)

Papewaio

04-03-2005, 00:03

Fall of Crete which the Nazis won at great cost: 1/3 of the elite German troops died against poorly equiped Commonwealth troops.

...though Crete with its strategic importance had fallen to the Germans, even General Kurt Student admitted that Crete had been "the graveyard of the German paratroopers".

Such an attrition rate was unacceptable to Hitler and after Operation Merkur, he ordered that all future attacks involving the paratroopers of Germany should be part of an infantry attack.

North Africa went back and forth the contenders won battles but no decesive victory until El Alamein.

Tobruk seige was not a victory for the Axis (as the AIF chose to leave and the evacuation did so without casualties) yet up to that point the AIF was causing more damage to the beseigers despite the Axis having overwhelming numbers, bombers and other equipment.

A look at battles where Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders fought and you will find that the Germans where up against a foe that did not care one whit for racial superiority and the myth of being supersoldiers. The ANZACs (NZ 28th Bat.), Canadians, Gurkhas etc showed that the Germans where not some sort of super soldiers.

Tobruk:

The siege was only a couple of months old when the renegade Lord Haw Haw, broadcasting from Berlin, said they were "caught like rats in a trap" and applied it to the garrison because most of its men could find shelter only underground while the bombers were overhead. Our men accepted the title with relish. To one another, they were "the rats." To the Axis they were rats with razor-sharp teeth. They became "The Rats of Tobruk"

Tobruk patrols were of two types - fighting and reconnaissance. The job of the reconnaissance patrol was to gather information and, if possible, to secure prisoners for identification. Its members used all their bushcraft to avoid being discovered. Like stealthy shadows, they saw without being seen. But the fighting patrol went out to fight. Its aim was to do as much damage and to kill as many of the enemy as possible. Its members would creep up on an enemy post, surround it and then, at a given signal, rush in with the bayonet and kill-soundlessly A few brief minutes of bloody, sinew-straining work and the foray would be over, with not a shot fired.

So persistent and so deadly were the Australian night patrols that the enemy, living in the perpetual shadow of silent, stealthy death, was soon reduced to a state of almost panicky nervousness. On the slightest provocation, and often on no provocation at all, he would put down artillery and mortar barrages.

Two typical examples of AIF offensive patrols are quoted. In the first, the raiders crawled in single file for two miles through a minefield to attack an observation post, the position of which had been revealed by reconnaissance patrols on the previous day.

The patrol started on its journey after midnight and was preparing for the final assault when Very lights lit up the scene, and the enemy post opened fire with rifles and machine guns. Five of our men then charged in with bayonets, Tommy guns, and grenades. Despite a volley of hand grenades from the enemy, the patrol stormed on, killing 15 and wounding many of the estimated 50 enemy before crossfire from supporting posts forced a withdrawal. The patrol regained its own lines, suffering only slight casualties.
The second classic patrol won for its leader, Lieutenant William. Horace Noyes, the Military Cross. With an NCO, Lieutenant Noyes stalked and destroyed three light tanks and led a bayonet attack against the enemy garrison. His unit captured the post and killed or wounded the garrison of 130, as well as the crews of seven machine-guns and 11 anti-tank guns and their protective infantry. It also damaged a heavy tank.

Add to that the Kokoda trail which was the first land defeat of the Japanese Imperial Army by the chocos, and and the first World War and my vote for best soldiers go to the Gurkhas and the ANZACs. For air bombers the Canadians, for the Battle of Britain all (with a slight bias to New Zealand :D)

Uesugi Kenshin

04-03-2005, 04:49

The Battle of Britain would have been won, however, the germans lost focus because of Hitler and stopped mauling the RAF airbases. They could have kept up small staggered raids 24/7 to tire out the RAF, no matter how good an armed force is when it cannot sleep it makes mistakes and mistakes made at altitude kill. The RAF was an exceptionally well equipped and trained force by the Battle of Britain, that is an exception.

Brenus

04-03-2005, 22:45

Just few remarks after a long day:
The aim of the Battle of Britain was to push the RAF in the north in order to allow the German Fleet to proceed to the invasion. With which boats is still a question? I never heard about German LCT, LCI and other LSD.

PanzerJager, no the Germans weren’t outnumbered. You just forget that the French had to deal with the Italians, so they couldn’t put all their troops in front of the Germans. And it was a good decision, because the Italians attacked in the Alps. And were defeated, but not their fault. They were poorly trained, poorly equipped, no motivation and had to climb.
So, de facto, the Anglo-French had to face two fronts, not the Germans.
The mastery of the Germans in concentrating troops is obvious as obvious is the stupidity the French HQ. Did you know that the advance of the Panzer in the Ardennes was pictured by the French Air Reconnaissance, but was denied as none reliable by all the French General Gamelin. The same thing happened when the 5th Bureau (Spies) gave him all the plan of the Germans…
Von Manstein plan was risky, for sure, for the good reason that few years before, the French Mechanised Army, in manoeuvres, crossed the Ardennes forests. But it was considered not realizable in war by the French HQ. Imagine one moment if they decided that, right, we have to protected the Maginot Line on this flank.

Well done, just what I said earlier. The Germans won defensive battles, which were just temporary, as History showed. My favourite is Market Garden because it was the one I chose to convince my friends, paratroopers, that they couldn’t sustain an armoured division assault. Monte Casino, well nothing to say apart a stupid tactic of the New Zealander General I don’t remember his name. However, when the French of Gal Juin broke the line by turning the position on the Carigliano, well, they had to retreat…
I still have a great admiration the Green Devils, the Fallshirmjagers. At least, they didn’t kill their prisoners, weren’t involved in the Death Commandos (forgot the name in German) and were never guards in deportation or extermination camps.

I do not believe that the fact that the Germans were able to achieve tactical suprise in Manstein's masterful strategy to defeat France should be held against them. Also, what about in cases such as Operation Merkur, where the defenders of Crete were well prepared yet lost.

I agree with this statement. Do the same when the allied have the same elements in their favour. Monty’s plan in Normandy worked. Well, not like he wanted it, but Falaise cost more to the Germans army than Stalingrad…

Where I give you a point is the ability of the Wermacht to recover and the organisation in Kampfgroup, the Battle Group from routed unit from all branches and armies…
And the defenders in Crete weren’t prepare because, you will laugh, in order to keep the surprise to the German that the surprise was discovered, the British HQ didn’t inform their soldiers, NCO and officers what will happened.
To be fair, the Germans paratroopers had also an amazing system. They jump equipped with only a small gun and had to find containers with their other machine gun and heavy equipment in order to be able to fight. So, they got hard time in doing so…

In fact i cant think of hardly any battles where the allies won without clear numerical and material advantages

The 2nd battle of the Ardennes (the Battle of the Bulges in English, I supposed). The Germans had more tanks, more troops, were better equipped, better prepared, the weather denied the Allied Air Superiority, and they had the initiative… Remember Bastogne?
The several offensives against Tito in Yugoslavia…
The first hours of the D-Day will do?
Or perhaps the landing in Provence?
The liberation of Paris by the French Resistance?

I can probably find some others, but it starts to be late, and I have to go to work tomorrow…

I really enjoy this debate... And it isn't humour or being sacarstic...

PanzerJaeger

04-03-2005, 23:50

Pap,

Fall of Crete which the Nazis won at great cost: 1/3 of the elite German troops died against poorly equiped Commonwealth troops.

It still fell against well prepared defenders did it not? That would go against your premise..

North Africa went back and forth the contenders won battles but no decesive victory until El Alamein.

Tobruk seige was not a victory for the Axis (as the AIF chose to leave and the evacuation did so without casualties) yet up to that point the AIF was causing more damage to the beseigers despite the Axis having overwhelming numbers, bombers and other equipment.

You seem to only use north afrika as an example of poor German troop quality.

In fact, Rommel kicked the eigth around for many battles before he simply ran out of supplies as hitler didnt want to bother with the little african sideshow. Not to mention the americans knocking on his back door. Im astonished that you can look at the numbers and supply statistics involved and then look at the accomplishments of the DAK and come to the conclusion that they were of poor quality.. ~:eek:

A look at battles where Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders fought and you will find that the Germans where up against a foe that did not care one whit for racial superiority and the myth of being supersoldiers. The ANZACs (NZ 28th Bat.), Canadians, Gurkhas etc showed that the Germans where not some sort of super soldiers.

The commonwealth troops had great troubles in normandy. Their inablity to take Caen for weeks held up the allied advance. The famed desert rats were mauled at villers bocage. Only with overwhelming numbers and supplies were they able to achieve victory. Sound familiar?

Brenus,

PanzerJager, no the Germans weren’t outnumbered. You just forget that the French had to deal with the Italians, so they couldn’t put all their troops in front of the Germans. And it was a good decision, because the Italians attacked in the Alps. And were defeated, but not their fault. They were poorly trained, poorly equipped, no motivation and had to climb.
So, de facto, the Anglo-French had to face two fronts, not the Germans.

Hehe, you forget the anglo-french had two proffessional armies at their disposal. The italian attack was meaningless in the grand scheme of things. If i remember correctly the French alone outnumbered the Germans, not even counting the British.

I agree with this statement. Do the same when the allied have the same elements in their favour. Monty’s plan in Normandy worked. Well, not like he wanted it, but Falaise cost more to the Germans army than Stalingrad…

The allies also had many other things in their favor including numbers, supplies, airpower, ect. Of course none of that matters without quality troops..

And the defenders in Crete weren’t prepare because, you will laugh, in order to keep the surprise to the German that the surprise was discovered, the British HQ didn’t inform their soldiers, NCO and officers what will happened.

Hehe, wasnt very nice of them.. ~D

The 2nd battle of the Ardennes (the Battle of the Bulges in English, I supposed). The Germans had more tanks, more troops, were better equipped, better prepared, the weather denied the Allied Air Superiority, and they had the initiative… Remember Bastogne?

Yes Bastogne is a good example. But the entire german thrust was only turned back when the weather cleared and the allies moved larger armies against the germans.

The first hours of the D-Day will do?

Hitler handicapped his forces..

I really enjoy this debate... And it isn't humour or being sacarstic...

Me too, ~;)

Uesugi Kenshin

04-04-2005, 03:50

In the beginning of the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe was attempting to destroy the RAF in the air, but then Hitler told them to pummel London due to some percieved insult. I forget what it was at the moment, I will try to remember.

discovery1

04-04-2005, 04:06

I think a German bomber accidentally bombed London. Churchill retaliated by sending bombers to Berlin. Hitler was outraged, and orded massive relatiatory bombings.

Longshanks

04-04-2005, 04:45

Add to that the Kokoda trail which was the first land defeat of the Japanese Imperial Army by the chocos

The Japanese Army had been defeated earlier than that on land actually. They were completely beaten by the outnumbered and outgunned defenders at Wake Island on Dec 8th, 1941. There were really two battles for Wake. The first Japanese assault was completely repulsed, and having also suffered naval losses the Japanese task force limped home. A much larger Japanese force returned roughly two weeks later and captured the island only after fierce resistance.

Here's a a bit of trivia...the initial Japanese assault on Wake Island was only the occasion during WW2 that an amphibious assault was defeated on the beaches.

Uesugi Kenshin

04-04-2005, 23:07

I think that may have been it, you would think the bomber would notice London landmarks and the huge quantities of AA fire.

discovery1

04-05-2005, 01:53

A lone bomber I suppose could get through undetected, especially considering that the radar nets only covered the approches to Britian, not the airspace inland(I think). Also London's a big city, the pilot may or may not have been close to the major landmarks. Isn't there an old airfiled south of East London? Something Hill? I think it served as an RAF base during the war.

Uesugi Kenshin

04-05-2005, 03:08

About every spare inch of Britain was an airfield it seems...

It may have been undetected by the radar, however, a decent navigator would hopefully notice they were off course and you would hope the men manning the AA guns would notice the swastikas under the wings.

Course anything can happen in war so it could have happened and stranger things have happened in war.

Brenus

04-08-2005, 22:12

A German Pilot did a mistake and launched this cargo on a civilian part of London. London as port and industrial zone was a legitimate target, but the pilot just dropped the bombs where he thought the target was… Not that the idea to bomb civilians was really a problem for the Luftwaffe (see Rotterdam), but that wasn’t the plan, Hitler still hoping to make an alliance with the English against the Russians.
Churchill just jumped on the occasion and ordered the Bomber Command to retaliate. I think knowing the result, but it will reduce the pressure on the RAF.
You have to remember that Goering said that if one enemy plane flies on Berlin you could call him Mayer. ~:)
For Hitler, the shock for his pride was too big, and in term of propaganda he had to answer (for one bomb, I will drop 1000 bombs)
So, he diverted the Luftwaffe from the primaries objectives (to destroy the radars and the Airfields and to push the RAF to the north). That was the first step of the bad direction, a really clear one.
Begin Hill is quiet far from London, and wasn’t alone.

The Battle of Britain was too costly for the Germans. You have to remember they lost (I am not sure of the figure) around 600 planes during the campaign against Poland and France. They took back the pilots from the POW camps (Peiper for example), but they couldn’t against England. They didn’t lose only the planes, but the crews. The Day of the Eagle (Der Aldertag?) took place the 3rd of September… It was late and the dad weather started on the English Channel. So, it would have been difficult to launch a fleet of invasion, mainly flat boats… The invasion was postponed, then it was Operation Punishment against Yugoslavia and Greece, and Barbarossa, June 1941.

PanzerJager, the French didn’t have a professional army… From the Revolution (1789), they built their ideology on the ‘Peuple en Armes” until the (stupid) Chirac cancelled the conscription (I don’t remember the exact year, but it is quiet recent. In 1939 most of the French Army was made of conscripts who aren’t synonym of mediocrity, but poorly motivated, equipped and trained, poorly commanded, except the 1st Mechanized Army in front of Belgium, where the Germans were supposed to attack. The better material arrived (planes, tanks, riffles arrived, but too few, too late)
It is also supposed to prevent a Military Coup, which was proved inefficient in the case of Napoleon, but efficient in Algeria (after the Independence, well not really but too complicated to explain…)
And most of the troops were in the Maginot Line…
So, no, the German were not outnumbered.

You judge the Italian army after the battle… At this period, the Italians were seen as trained soldiers, having fought in Libya, Ethiopia and during the Spanish civil war. Not a threat that the France could have just deny.
I think that just to climb in a M40 tank was a pure act of heroism… This “tank” was destroyed by bullets from a Bren…

Hitler handicapped his forces, yes and no… Yes, because he wanted to control the use of the Panzer Divisions. He thought (well, he was convinced by his generals. He thought that the landing will happen in … Normandy) that the main attack will come from the Pas de Calais… So, it was logic to wait. He just waited too much.
No, because to send the divisions directly under the fire of the HMS Rodney, HMS Erebus and HMS Roberts was a deadly mistake as the Germans learnt after. To be efficient, the Panzer had to be gathered, and it wasn’t so easy with the absolute allied air superiority. The 2nd SS Panzer Divison “Das Reich”, coming from the south of France (after few massacres in the Region – Tulle, Oradour sur Glane-) was delayed by the French Resistance which destroy the railways and bridges, and finished by the US Mustang and Thunderbolt.
The SS Division Gotz von Berlinchingen arrived near Caen the 12th of June 1944. Even with the two days lost because Hitler, during this period of time, the Allies put on land 86 000 men, 12000 vehicles and 26000 t of material on Utah Beach only…

However, I would agree with you about the superiority of the German soldiers on this side of the battle field. Most of the US soldiers (and even the English, Canadians) were absolutely green and never fought before… The German soldiers (most of them) had the experience of the Russian Front. They also have the advantage of the knowledge of the battle field, good for defensive and well prepared for the events: bunkers, prepared positions, mines field, more and more trained units (well the officers and NCO, at least), strategic reserves. From the beginning of 1944, the Western Front becomes a priority in Hitler’s mind. If the Anglo-American’s armies can be defeated, that means he will be able to turn all his strength against the Russians…
On the six armoured division in Normandy, only one experienced combats, the 2nd. The operation EPSOM was done by men who never fought before (except the 4th Armoured Brigade)…

The difference is the Allies will recover from theirs loses, the Germans never. And they will train.

Kalle

04-09-2005, 02:04

Best army ever;
The Karoliner-army

Created and organised by Charles XI of Sweden and put to the ultimate test by his son Charles XII, a test it failed in the end, due to pretty much the same reasons that some people above think was the cause of germany loosing wwII.

Kalle

Franconicus

04-19-2005, 15:13

Here’s Franconicus’ final all time chart of armies:

Good Armies
Hanibal’s Carthagian army
The English yeomen (longbowmen and billmen)
The Swiss Pikmen
The Crusader Army of Richard the Lion-Heart
The Prussian Army (Friedrich II)
Wellington’s British infantry
The Zulu Impis
Vietcong
The German Wehrmacht (1939-1942 AD)
The United States Army 1991-1998

Very Good Armies
The Greco-Macedonian Army (During the Reign of Phillip and Alexander)
Napoleon’s La Grande Armee (1805–1807 AD)
The Prussian Army (Moltke)

Excellent Armies
The Roman Legions (53 BC-180 AD)
The Israeli Armed Forces (60ies-90ies)

Outstanding Army
The Golden Horde

Vietcong had an excellent moral and the strength to suffer. But they were poorly equipped. Similar are the Impis. They were very disciplined but had no modern arms. Both showed that what people can do when they defend their home.

Longbowmen and Pikmen were new formations that ended the domination of the knights. However it was not really a special army. And they didn’t conquer that much.

Prussian Army was well trained and very disciplined. However, Friedrich took too many risks and in the end he was very lucky that he did not loose everything. His land was poor due to the non-stop fighting.

Wellingtons army, very well trained and disciplined, was too defensive and too small to beat the Grande Armee. The English fleet was much more important then.

Wehrmacht: They ruled just for 3 years. Not very impressive. They had good equipment, good strategy and excellent tactics. However, their industrial fundament was poor and they were led by a mad and criminal leader. Also German general staff was not that good. There were many different opinions and they did not work together.

US Army: Very big, incredible resources and equipment, although a lot of it are just gadgets. Not very disciplined, not very good leaders. Do not have the strength to take heavy losses.

Macedonians: Excellent in logistic, but to much dependant on one person.

Napoleon: Excellent equipment, excellent tactics, willing to die for their Emperor. Did not know how to end the war. To much focused on Napoleon.
Moltke: Excellent too; brilliant organisation, strategy and tactics; brilliant staff; but only in small field and for a small period. In 1914 most of the strength was gone.

Israel - best army after WW2. High motivation, very good equipment, perfect performance of the German blitz strategy, very mobile; they lost a lot during intifada when they were forced to fight against civilises.

Roman: ruled the world for centuries!

:bow: The Golden Horde: outstanding; poor nomads conquering the biggest empire in short time. Tough guys; extreme mobile, excellent tactic and strategy; :charge:

Finally a word to special units. To me they are nothing but a joke. With there secrets, their funny sense of honor; they are expansive and the results are poor; look at the German, British and US paratroops. Heavy losses! No, you do not need them!

caesar44

04-19-2005, 19:21

very good list , agree with the first 3
one remark - one can say "hey the romans and the mongols established empires and the state of israel is a small state so ..." the simple answer to that is this - the romans and the mongols ruled by absolute emperors in times of conquests and israel is a democratic state (lets put politics aside) in modern times with no intentions of expanding (the return of sinai in 1977 , the exit from lebanon in 2001 and so on)

Duke Malcolm

04-19-2005, 22:43

The British Army. Always has been, always is, always shall be. From Time Immemorial, to 1633, to now.

And hence, from the list, it is the Duke of Wellington's Army. There ain't no finer soldier than a Royal Highlander (now called the Black Watch). Trained to be the best, and with pure fighting skill in their blood. Nemo me impune lacessit.

Butcher

04-19-2005, 23:10

In fact, Rommel kicked the eigth around for many battles before he simply ran out of supplies as hitler didnt want to bother with the little african sideshow. Not to mention the americans knocking on his back door. Im astonished that you can look at the numbers and supply statistics involved and then look at the accomplishments of the DAK and come to the conclusion that they were of poor quality..

Do not forget the fact that through ULTRA the British were able to read all the German codes, and so could sink transports at will (in particular petrol), as well as know the exact disposistion and plans of Rommel.

If i remember correctly the French alone outnumbered the Germans, not even counting the British.

The French had at the commemcement of the invasion of France:

94 Infantry Divisions (Germans 136; although total allied divisions amounted to 135)
10,000 Artillery pieces (Germans 2,500)
And possibly the most important:
Tanks 4,000 (Germans 2,600)

The breakdown in tanks was:
French:
300 Char B (Virtually invulnerable to existing german AT weapons)
250 Somua (Both these tanks superior to the original PzkW 3 and 4's)
800 Hotchkiss H35's and H439's
1,000 Renault R35's
2,500 Renault FT's (although these were comparable to the Pzkw 1, mere machine gun carriers in effect)
The Germans had:
525 Pzkw 1
955 Pzkw 2 (both of these were obsolete)
350 Pzkw 3
280 Pzkw 4 (Only the Pzkw 3 could really damage the Somua)
228 Pz 38(t) and Pz 35(t) (Czech tanks) with the same 37mm gun as the Pzkw 3.
Source: Panzerkrieg, P mcCarthy and M Syron)

The germans were outnumbered, outgunned and out armoured. It's only numerical superiority was in aircraft.

Yes Bastogne is a good example.

The Americans in Bastogne were encircled for less than a week, and knew that there would be relief soon.
In the Cholm pocket on the Eastern Front, 4,000 German troops held out for 3 1/2 months against 128 assaults, suffering 1,550 dead. "Nuts!" indeed.

Uesugi Kenshin

04-20-2005, 03:51

Bastogne also has one of the best military exchanges ever. Allied Commander to German Commander, Nuts.

Franconicus

04-20-2005, 08:30

The topic here is best army ever. I wonder why most of the posts discuss WW2 topics :dizzy2: . If there is the need to discuss WW2 in detail, why not open another thread (or maybe several) for that. Let us do the discussion about best army ever. Maybe we should start to poll!

el_slapper

04-20-2005, 08:40

Butcher

04-20-2005, 10:11

Oh I agree in some respects, but the fact remains that if the tactics and stratergy of the French and British had been correct, the Germans would've been stopped, or at least had it made so costly that another WW1 situation might have developed.
But anyway, this is OT..

caesar44

04-20-2005, 11:28

Duke Malcolm

04-20-2005, 16:19

The revolution was only successful because the territories were isolated form the rest of the Empire, and couldn't get much in the way of supplies. We did win wuite a few battles, you know.

Gallipoli was not caused by any lack of skill of the soldiers.

caesar44

05-03-2005, 14:37

ah yes the zulu war of 1879 - 1,300 british soldiers with the best weapons of the day , massacred by naked people with steaks hhhmmmmmm ~:)
:book:

Duke Malcolm

05-03-2005, 14:41

PanzerJaeger

05-04-2005, 02:57

Butcher, there's a point you're forgetting - the point that made the difference, 'cause our generals did overlook it too. German tanks were mobile. The B1-B was a slow-moving turtle fortress. Once bypassed, it was useless as the Maginot line. Why bother having more armor & firepower if the enemy is already in your back cutting your supplies? THIS is the lesson of the Blitzkrieg. Firepower only matters when you can bring it where you need it (for France in 1940, it meant behind our backs). As we couldn't, fight was no more an option.

The french had many good tanks that were relatively mobil. If i remember, the Somoa 35 and Hotchkisses were rather speedy and well made.

Therefore, despite numbers, despite caliber, despite armor, German tanks were superior - as soon as the front was not frozen, and he never was as soon as action really began.

Mobility alone doesnt make a better tank. The B1 was very slow yes, but the French had other tanks that were able to do what needed to be done. Training and doctrine was a failure, not french technology.

Remember how well the massive and slow German tanks did in the east. Some tiger units had 100:1 kill ratios.

discovery1

05-04-2005, 03:28

Mobility alone doesnt make a better tank. The B1 was very slow yes, but the French had other tanks that were able to do what needed to be done. Training and doctrine was a failure, not french technology.

In a way french armor tech was a failure. No radios, except in the lead tank. But that's more doctine I guess.

Remember how well the massive and slow German tanks did in the east. Some tiger units had 100:1 kill ratios.

Weren't the very best panzer crews given the tigers? So even if given mediocre tanks they would have done very well, I think.

PanzerJaeger

05-04-2005, 07:23

In a way french armor tech was a failure. No radios, except in the lead tank. But that's more doctine I guess.

True, but the Panzers 1 and 2 had many failings aswell. Many historians tend to overlook just how crappy they were to perpetuate the myth that germany was always on the forefront of tank design. That only came later in the war..

Weren't the very best panzer crews given the tigers? So even if given mediocre tanks they would have done very well, I think.

Yes i believe that is correct. I have read accounts of tigers taking on the best of the Russian tank elite and having very little problems.. of course one could argue if the best of the russian tankers were as good as their german counterparts..

Colovion

05-04-2005, 08:12

Orda Khan

05-04-2005, 17:13

Yes Timur certainly was a man who was born for one purpose, War. Unlike Chingis Khan he lacked the political prowess and I still think I would side with the Mongols for what they achieved as a nomadic nation

.......Orda

Brenus

05-04-2005, 18:17

[QUOTE=PanzerJager][B]
The french had many good tanks that were relatively mobil. If i remember, the Somoa 35 and Hotchkisses were rather speedy and well made.

The Somua was quiet good but under crew. The commander of the tank was also in charge of reloading of the main gun. The hotckiss was merely the equivalent of the panzer 1.

The doctrine was wrong. The French saw the tank as support of the infantry (meaning you have as much tanks in the normal infantry divisions than na the alpine one). The german develop with Guderian the fist of Iron, meaning you concentrated you tanks on one point and you exploited the gap.
An other problem for the French: Their tanks were using the same petrol than plane (kerosene). The Germans were able to refuel on the French civilian petrol station and used the roads (things they could't in Russia, one of the reason Barbarossa went wrong and the Blietzkrieg with it).
The French (and English) wanted to do the war they won (WW1) and ignored their own lessons. The Tanks broke throught the germans lines in WW1, not the infantry.

Colovion

05-04-2005, 20:23

Steppe Merc

05-04-2005, 20:26

Huh. That is enteresting seeing Timur's armies. I need to read up more on him... how was his generalship?

Orda Khan

05-04-2005, 20:41

Yup! It is one thing to conquer but a whole lot more to hold on to your conquests. This is something that Timur never really managed on any grand scale. Having to reconquer shows a lack of a certain something IMO

.......Orda

Colovion

05-04-2005, 21:46

Huh. That is enteresting seeing Timur's armies. I need to read up more on him... how was his generalship?

Generalship was similar in the draw he had to mean to his banner; a la Alexander and Hannibal. A conglomeration of different peoples; he had the same tolerance the Mongols did, perhaps to a greater extent as he was born and raised in a crossroads of cultures. He was able to, similar to Scipio's army, have his army rush at the other, and have their directions shift almost immediately before contact; confusing the enemy and allowing him the initial control of the battlefield. He would remain in the center with his army core, have the stronger mounted men on the right flank and effectively was able to pivot his entire army on his center axis; holding the left with the weaker force while swinging the crushing right arm around.

Undoubtedly, out of any battle ever fought; I'd most like to have seen Toktamish's and Timur's battle which pitted the Golden Horde against the new up-and-coming Steppe force. Horsemen against horsemen. Timur was victorious even though Toktamish's line extended beyond his own by nearly a mile in either direction.

I'd suggest reading a number of Harold Lamb's books.

A number of ones dealing with the Steppe people's:

Ghengis Khan (http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=2557203&wauth=harold%20Lamb&matches=90&qsort=r&cm_re=works*listing*title)
Tamerlane: The EarthShaker (http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=6542963&wauth=harold%20Lamb&matches=33&qsort=r&cm_re=works*listing*title)
March of the Barbarians (http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=4180385&wauth=harold%20Lamb&ptit=The%20march%20of%20the%20barbarians&pauth=Lamb%2C%20Harold&pisbn=&pqty=58&pqtynew=0&pbest=4%2E28&matches=58&qsort=r&cm_re=works*listing*title)

edyzmedieval

05-04-2005, 21:56

Well, I prefer for Medieval times the Golden Horde, and for "new" times the Waffen SS troops of Hitler's Nazi Germany... They were the elite of the Nazi army.....

caesar44

05-05-2005, 15:04

An unfortunate day...
But it is hard to say that when you compare it to the Defence of Rorke's Drift, when less than 150 British soldiers (many of whom were injured) defended an outpost against thousands of the Zulus.

every empire (including the british) had its bad days
looking at the big picture the british were the strongest kingdom/state/nation since 1790 to 1918 - 1/4 of the world !!!

lonewolf371

05-06-2005, 00:07

Not hard to defend an outpost with few men when you have machine guns... if you're referring to the Boer War.

Hands down the US army today wins this competition, the fact that the US has a higher defense budget than the next eight countries (I think it's eight right now) combined makes the US army by far and away superior to every other army on the planet. Presently, we're also investing in newer and different types of missile systems, I believe a new type of US carrier is being produced, and our aircraft are unchallenged in the air. While some may argue that an Su-30 has more speed and maneuverability, US planes are generally equipped with much better ECMs and detection systems, a US plane should be able to shoot down an Su-30 before the Su-30 even knows its there. The US also way ahead of every other nation in the world in precision bombing, and can deploy larger numbers of troops in foreign areas where many other nations, even Europeans, would have great difficulty, due to neglect of simple things such as supply trucks and organization of supply routes. The US has advanced tanks in the Abrams, a reliable weapon in the M16 and new M4, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons, long-range cruise-missiles, and large numbers of helicopters. A US missile can be fired from a plane into a bunker, go down a certain number of stories and then proceed to explode. As far as I know, no other nation even thinks about catching up with the US. China continues to invest in Russian technology, which follows an old and outdated military doctrine, and Europe repeatedly cuts their defensive budgets, in addition to constant refusal to United States offers to share some of its technology, such as missile defense systems.

The difference between the US army and armies of the past? With Alexander, the difference in technology between his armies and those of the Persians was sparse, the key difference was military doctrine. Same thing with the Romans, and the Mongols, and Napoleon, and the Second Empire of Germany. The difference now is not that the US has the best military in the world, it's the fact that the US has a military that's so far ahead other nations cannot even challenge it. In the past, nations in opposition to great powers could defeat them by adopting a superior military doctrine, but with the same technology, examples being the Thebans against Sparta, the Gauls against Rome, Napoleon against all of his more established enemies, then the British against Napoleon, the Prussians against the French, and later the British and Americans against the Germans.

Uesugi Kenshin

05-06-2005, 04:13

The Wizard

05-06-2005, 16:01

The Mongol Horde is the obvious choice - for second.

It is the choice when you neglect to notice that Timur-i lang adapted and expanded upon the aspects of the Mongol War Machine and Empire. Unfortunately his Empire did not live past his lifetime and so it gets scant research in the Western hemisphere. In Asia, it is said, there were three men who ruled the world: Alexander, the Khan and Timur.

link (http://www.silk-road.com/artl/timur.shtml)

Plus, you can't argue with a guy who created a more difficult chess (http://www.pathguy.com/chess/Tamerlan.htm) because the original version bored him with it's simplicity. :dizzy2:

Yes, Timur was certainly a tactical genius, and in purely military sense a strategical one as well. He used many novel formations when the normal ones did not work, as at Delhi in 1398. There he employed a series of formations compromised of an equal percentage each of the different troop types in his army. He thusly created a series of formations which were capable of supporting themselves, and equalled the Roman cohorts in their effectiveness. Suffice to say, the forces of the Sultan of Delhi were annihalated.

Steppe Merc: Buy The Age of Tamerlane from Osprey -- it gives an excellent overview of Timur and his successors' armies. Unfortunately it gives little to no information on campaigns and battles (besides Delhi, the campaign against Toqtamish and the campaign against Beyazid Yıldırım). Its plates are also of excellent quality.

~Wiz

lonewolf371

05-06-2005, 23:35

Lonewolf just to let you know the M-8 line by H&K is replacing the whole M-16/M-4 series of weapons. It is even more reliable, more accurate and comes in marksman, LMG, carbine and rifle variants that I know of, could be another that I forgot. The rifle almost always comes with a scope, which costs more that the weapon...

It is lighter than the M-4 and M-16, due to carbon polymers. It has been extensively tested and is easily moddable. It can fire a lot without any maitenance and with its modular design it is very easy to clean.

One thing I am unsure of is how US helicopters match up against the KA-50 Werewolf. It has a great deal of survivability due to its twin main rotors and is equipped with great armor and is all around a great helicopter if you look at its stats. Anyone know how it faired in reality? When compared to Apaches and upgraded Apaches (now called Longbows) ?
Here is a link on helicopter gunships:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_gunship

A slight mention of the Ka-50 and the AH-64D is at the bottom:

The gunship was developed to its current form, in particular the AH-64D which some feel is the pinnacle of a high technology gunship, at least until stealth technology is fully brought over to rotary wing aviation. The Russians are currently deploying the Ka-50, and Mi-28, but at a command and control system level, they aren't as linked with ground troops as current American equipment. Many feel that this is a requirement since they are considered support elements by most of the Armies of the world.
If you could provide another link on those two helicopters, I would be interested. Also, you confused me on the M-8 thing, I only found a submachine gun by H&K called the XM-8, which is what I think you were talking about. Looks interesting, don't really see much bad with it except for the fact that some people say it weighs too much.

Uesugi Kenshin

05-07-2005, 03:32

Sorry about confusing you, the rifle is called the XM-8 or M-8, it is being deployed this year so it is basically operational, though I am not sure any soldiers have gotten their hands on them yet.

I do not see how it could be too heavy, though the OICW (the weapon system used for Land Warrior expirements that birthed the rifle) was much too heavy due to its IR and NV scope, camera and 40mm 6 round magazine computer controlled grenade launcher was too heavy the XM-8 is very light, even compared to the M-4.

It is also available in so many variants that you can refer to it as a submachine gun, carbine, rifle, marskman's rifle, or light machine gun.

Thanks for the link to wikipedia. From what I have read the KA-50 is far superior to the Comanche in most areas of practical helo combat, other than stealth, but I have heard of no comparisons between the Longbow and the Werewolf.

Uesugi Kenshin

05-07-2005, 03:46

Lonewolf I did some searching for the KA-50 and AH-64D, it appears that nobody is quite sure which is superior. The KA-50 is generally discounted, such as in the recent competition for Turkish attack helicopter contracts because it is not as proven as the Longbow except in its own country. It looks like it will be a while until the answer is known, if the answer is ever known.

Link to something on the comnpetition: http://www.defensedaily.com/cgi/rw/show_mag.cgi?pub=rw&mon=0300&file=03rwcover.htm

artavazd

05-07-2005, 09:53

The Wizard

05-07-2005, 13:20

Actually Armenia was a playground for wargames between the Romans and the Parthians, and that state of constant conflict over the place got heightened when Armenia became Christian in the fourth (or was it third?) century AD.

By then, the Parthians had been succeeded by the Sassanid Persians, who were deeply Zoroastrian and gave war between Christian Rome (later on in the fourth century) a religious tint.

Somewhere along the way in warfare between Persia and Rome, in 428, an agreement was reached between the Eastern Romans and the Persians, giving most of Armenia to Rome (don't know if this was as a province or client state; I think the latter), and a part, namely the eastern part, to Persia. These Persarmenians were highly regarded in Persia for their martial skills, and one of the aspets of Armenia, Smbat Bagratuni (sounds suspiciously like the Georgian royal family of the high Middle Ages...), who was a Persarmenian, defeated a Hephtalite (White Hun) invasion in 619.

~Wiz

caesar44

05-07-2005, 19:17

caesar44 i agree with u about the romans and their powe over the many tribes and nations, but they did not have a hold on the parthians nor the armenians (Carhea 53B.C) rome had control of armenia for 3 years 114 AD to 117AD and thats all

well as you know artavazd . several roman emperors conquered the parthic eastern capital . ctesiphon . no parthian general had ever never went western than the taurus mnt'
about armenia . it was a buffer kingdom and never a threat to rome
:book:

Steppe Merc

05-08-2005, 23:51

So? Why would it matter if they were a threat to Rome or not? The world didn't revolve around Rome, even that late. Why should the Armenians and Parthians care about the Romans?
And I'd take a well lead Parthian army over a well led Roman army anyday. The only reason the Parthians lost anything to Romans was infighting, not due to Roman's military superiority, as they sucked at the sort of fighting neccassary to fight nomadic influenced forces.

caesar44

05-10-2005, 20:40

if so why the parthians never ever got west of the taurus mnt' and rome came from italy to ctesiphon ? why we never saw any parthian , armenian or persian army to take rome ?
the parthian greatest territorial achievement against rome was to rule judea for 3 years (40 bce to 37 bce)
why trying to ignore simple facts ?
one carhae in 53 bce against roman superiority for 400 years ?
what about antonius , corbulo , traianus , verus , severus and on and on roman smashing victories ?
you have to understand that rome did not saw any advantage to stay beyond the tigris , it was a great border for her empire .
:book:

The Wizard

05-10-2005, 21:38

Actually, the Romans certainly had designs on taking Iran from the Parthians, but they just did not get any further than Mesopotamia because of the resilience of Parthian partisans, as well as the fluidity of the Parthian state itself. Mesopotamia never became more than a military district, and that only for a limited time under Trajan, while Marcus Aurelius claimed control over it (but did not have it).

Take a look at the last Roman campaign against the Parthians, who were then ruled by Artabanus V, the last Arsacid shahanshah. They penetrated until quite far into Iran, where they were decisively defeated by Artabanus, who got eastern Armenia and Mesopotamia for his victory. Ironically, this was the only major tactical victory the Parthians could celebrate over Rome since Carrhae, and after this campaign, Artabanus was crushed by Ardashir, the first Sassanid King of Kings.

And also take a look at the campaigns of Pacorus and Marcus Labienus against the Romans. The armies of Pacorus actually got to Caria on the Aegean Sea! After a year or so (in which western Asia Minor was only raided, not conquered) the Romans counterattacked under Marcus Antonius and defeated Pacorus at Tarsus in 42 (?) BC. Pacorus later died while assaulting a Roman camp in Syria.

But on the subject of Roman tactical hegemony, I must say I must contradict you, Steppe Merc. The only great Parthian tactical victories over the Romans were Carrhae in 56 BC, and the defense of Iran proper in the late 210s/early 220s AD. The Romans were easily capable, with their units of dense, heavily armed, well-drilled infantry, to halt the ambling charge of cataphracts, while massed skirmishers (preferrably slingers of Kurdish descent) kept the horse archers at bay. The best example of this is the battle of Tarsus.

No, Parthian armies were not so superior, if not for their failures against good Roman commanders, then for the dissension amongst their ranks that Rome sponsored from the 1st century AD and onwards. The Sassanids were far superior, already shown in the fact that Ardashir had a standing army instead of a feudal one.

~Wiz

Steppe Merc

05-10-2005, 23:25

if so why the parthians never ever got west of the taurus mnt' and rome came from italy to ctesiphon ? why we never saw any parthian , armenian or persian army to take rome ?
As I said, why should they care about Rome? The land sucked for horsemen and didn't fit the Parthians general style of warfare. The world didn't revolve around Rome for the Parthians, despite the view of many Latinphiles.

But on the subject of Roman tactical hegemony, I must say I must contradict you, Steppe Merc. The only great Parthian tactical victories over the Romans were Carrhae in 56 BC, and the defense of Iran proper in the late 210s/early 220s AD. The Romans were easily capable, with their units of dense, heavily armed, well-drilled infantry, to halt the ambling charge of cataphracts, while massed skirmishers (preferrably slingers of Kurdish descent) kept the horse archers at bay. The best example of this is the battle of Tarsus.

No, Parthian armies were not so superior, if not for their failures against good Roman commanders, then for the dissension amongst their ranks that Rome sponsored from the 1st century AD and onwards. The Sassanids were far superior, already shown in the fact that Ardashir had a standing army instead of a feudal one.
Yes, the feudal fights is certaintly a problem with them. Again, Romans used political rather than pure military advantage to fight an opponent, but they couldn't defeat them, mainly because of the Sassanids rising.
As for massed infantry and skirmishers, that would probably work. But why bother engaging them an open battle? Lead them on a long chase, tire them, and destroy any attempt of them for foraging, forcing them to stay in their protective ranks. They probably will either go away, or get tired and make a mistake.

Colovion

05-10-2005, 23:39

basically doing what the Red Lion did to many Crusaders

harrass, attack supplies, don't give battle, devastate all land surrounding, raid the camp at night, use higher mobility to strangle the larger infantry army

there are many more tricks a cavalry army can pull than an infantry army can

Steppe Merc

05-11-2005, 00:31

That's what all Nomad and nomadic inspired armies did. From Scythians to Huns to Seljuks to Mongols to Timur up to the Manchurians.

IliaDN

05-13-2005, 17:34

Russian!!!!!!!!!!

ah_dut

05-13-2005, 19:03

As I said, why should they care about Rome? The land sucked for horsemen and didn't fit the Parthians general style of warfare. The world didn't revolve around Rome for the Parthians, despite the view of many Latinphiles.
They have a large army and money? Extortion knock knock

Yes, the feudal fights is certaintly a problem with them. Again, Romans used political rather than pure military advantage to fight an opponent, but they couldn't defeat them, mainly because of the Sassanids rising.
As for massed infantry and skirmishers, that would probably work. But why bother engaging them an open battle? Lead them on a long chase, tire them, and destroy any attempt of them for foraging, forcing them to stay in their protective ranks. They probably will either go away, or get tired and make a mistake.
Neither side ever beat the other...until 1453 when the Romans collapsed. Any reason? Neither side is inherently superior overall, your preference of one type of army is irrelevant to the fact neither side ever managed to triumph overall in that period. :duel:

Steppe Merc

05-13-2005, 19:18

I do not consider the Byzantines as Romans, per se. I actually respect them, as they know how to fight properly.
I was talking about very early Imperial Rome, when the Parthians and Romans actually fought.

They have a large army and money? Extortion knock knock
But they are very far away from each other, with totally incompatible military styles and cultures. Why bother fighting them unless they invade?

ah_dut

05-13-2005, 19:31

But they are very far away from each other, with totally incompatible military styles and cultures. Why bother fighting them unless they invade?
raiding coughcough...which happened of course. Late in the empire I am aware that the Parthians extorted money from Rome but were too politically unstable to take advantage that resulted in even temporary victory

Steppe Merc

05-13-2005, 23:12

Raids from Iran into Italy? ~:confused:

RollingWave

05-14-2005, 12:40

How do you measure best? realtively? but pretty much every "great" army or army of "great" empire suffered major defeat one way or another.

Warfare is also not simply about going up there and defeat the other army. most military fans consider the german army of WW2 to be of much higher quality than their US and Soviet counter parts. yet they still lost the war. there are so many stories about the Spartans, but they were only briefly politically dominanent in the Greek world, and the greek world soon fell apart after reaching their highest point.

Using China as a example, the dynasty most famous for it's army also happened to be one of the shortest lived, while the one most famoused for it's cowardest acturally lasted sevearl century and only failed because of their retraction from their anti war stance.

In the end, espically in pre modern warfare, the "best" army is one lead by the best general. it's make up usually matters far less, societies with better systems of picking good generals tend to be more successful. imagine today, if the US army is REALLY led by Bush (as in, he commands the army down to the detail of where to go and how to fight) do you think the US forces would be nearly as good? while technology have become a much more important factor in warfare towards the modern age, leadership still usually ends up as the most important factor.

CrownOfSwords

05-15-2005, 10:44

If you know anything about history its impossible to select the German Wermacht as a winner for the 20th century. Because they were able to beat the French and Polish does not make them a supreme fighting machine. And I saw a post about their adaptation to the situation, extreme bs. Russia was a huge failure, Hitler failed to prepare them for the winter whatsoever. His idea of an elite unit was a bunch of fairy blond hair blue eye boys who had often never seen combat. When you point at a good army for the 20th century why not U.S. we did spank Germany a good one. Our organization and tactics were far supreme to those of Nazi Germany. Our elite troops consisted of extremely trained soldiers like the badass who held Bastogne.. uncomparable.

As far as least about of casaulties taken and, innovative tactics for their time peroid I would have to say with the Mongols or Alexander.

King Arthur

05-18-2005, 13:13

I would have to say in turms of standing the test of time . THE roman legions are the best army ever .They conquered and held huge swathes of land in Europe for hundreds of years unlike the other armies such as Allexanders which vanished after short amounts of time. Although leaving their legacies in the dynasties eg ptolemic .but the roman legiions held on all uptil the division of the empire.

cunctator

05-18-2005, 19:25

I also think the roman imperial army is the best ever.

I do not consider the Byzantines as Romans, per se. I actually respect them, as they know how to fight properly.
I was talking about very early Imperial Rome, when the Parthians and Romans actually fought.

The romans reacted more quickly to parthian tactics. Tacitus mentioned roman horsearchers in 15ad as part of an army that operated in germania. That`s their earliest use on the roman side I know, but their might be even earlier units. Contarii and cataphracts were also raised as early as the very late 1st and early 2nd century ad.

Raids from Iran into Italy?

Syria was one of the richest roman provinces, a good target for raiding.

I think one of the main reasons that keeped the imperial romans from conquering Iran, besides that the euphrates was a fine borderline, was not the parthian army but enemys on other sides of the empire. The roman army on it`s peak in the 2nd century ad defeated the parthians in all major wars.

After Trajanus had ocupied mesopotamia and ctesiphon in 115-116ad rebellions in the easter part of the empire forced him to send large parts of his army back to deal with them.

After Lucius defeated the parthians and sacked ctesiphon in 165ad, germanic marcomani tribe attacked pannonia. The following wars lasted until 175ad so that the romans could not exploit their victories in the east.

After Septimus Severus again defeated the parthians in the 190ties unrest at the northern frontier and the following war in caledonia made it necessary for the emperor to be at the other part of his empire.