Which army performed best after WW2?

Do you remember the thread about best army ever? Many voted for the US army. Reasons are obvious, right?
Just read a book about military failures and this made me wonder which army really had the best performance after WW2. After all only in combat an army shows whether it is good or bad.

Here are my thoughts:

The USThey had no war with an equal or superior enemy. However, there were 4 major wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1 and Iraq 2. Korea and Vietnam were not very impressive. In Korea the US did not realize when to stop and had a disastrous time when the Chinese interfered. Vietnam was not successful, too. Even though some say that the US did not loose, the US could not win against the Vietcong. Instead of stabilizing the region they left chaos in Laos and Cambodia.
Iraq 1 was very, very successful. Bush stopped in time. (Though most think he should have gone further). Iraq 2 is still going on. Though the pure military campaign was very successful the situation is still not clear.
Of course there were some minor military activities (Grenada, Libya, Iran) but they were too small to judge the potential of the US.

The USSRWas a military superpower until the 90ies. Although they were quiet aggressive there were not that many wars. If you do not count the CSSR then there is only Afghanistan left.

GB and FranceBoth could not keep their colonies. France lost in North Africa and in Vietnam. GB won the Falkland war.

ChinaThe Peoples Army won the civil war, won the Korean War (or at least reached their target) and the invasion of Tibet (although the enemy there was not very frightening).

Conclusions:
• Although there were many military conflicts since WW2 the big nations were only involved in a few.
• China’s army performed best. In total the big armies did perform very bad in military conflicts.
• However, they were very successful besides that: the US army saved peace and freedom. No other nation ever dared to attack a country where US soldiers were stationed. The Red army managed to keep the communist block together for a long period. Maybe big armies should be kept as a force in being, reaching their goals because they do not fight.

I did not expect a result like this. What do you think? I am not an expert and maybe I miss something important. So please correct me!

You may argue that the armies were great but could not do their jobs because of stupid governments, wrong diplomacy or lack of public support. Well, an army can never be good without good political and public support.

The USSR was in Korea just like the Americans that were trying to spread democracy the Soviets were trying to spread communism during this time I don't know if they were in Vietnam but they probably sent supplies and weapons to the communists in Vietnam so theres my two cents.

~:cheers:

Israel deserves a mention. Whatever you think about the current day situation in the middle east, their army handed all their neighbors a beating at the same time on several occasions.

Although the british empire broke up, this was I belive more often than not a political rather than a military decision. In malaysia for example the british army put down insurgencies and then withdrew upon independence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

GB and FranceBoth could not keep their colonies. France lost in North Africa and in Vietnam. GB won the Falkland war.

---

In most colonies Britain pulled out peacefully. The Suez operation in the 50s would probably have succeded had America not pulled the plug out on us.

If we are to look at losses the tables are turned. And I wouldn't say the Chinese won in Korea, they merely made sure that the UN forces (yes it was a UN action) didn't win overwhelmingly. It was a draw.

A lot of the conflicts have been influenced greatly by politics, and so have curbed the military's abilities.
Personally I can't judge the scores. But I would tend to lean towards the British. Won in all their conflicts and rather overwhelmingly. Malaysia, the small conflicts in Africa and the Falklands (which was a surprise to many back then).

Damn you guys are fast... When I posted there was one answer.

I say Israel. Their victory in the six day war was the most impressive military achievements after WWII for me.

If we're talking purely about military performance and not about which nation won or lost any given war then the US military wins hands down. I don't think anyone comes close to our kill:loss ratio in the post WWII era.

But as far as I know the only nation to achieve most of its tactical and strategic objectives in the WWII era is Israel. Israel's miltary acheivements are particularly impressive when you consider the geopolitical landscape it has had to deal with since its inception.

Vietnam perhaps?

Given their opponent and resources. They seemed to do pretty well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Do you remember the thread about best army ever? Many voted for the US army. Reasons are obvious, right?
Just read a book about military failures and this made me wonder which army really had the best performance after WW2. After all only in combat an army shows whether it is good or bad.

Here are my thoughts:

The USThey had no war with an equal or superior enemy. However, there were 4 major wars: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1 and Iraq 2. Korea and Vietnam were not very impressive. In Korea the US did not realize when to stop and had a disastrous time when the Chinese interfered. Vietnam was not successful, too. Even though some say that the US did not loose, the US could not win against the Vietcong. Instead of stabilizing the region they left chaos in Laos and Cambodia.
Iraq 1 was very, very successful. Bush stopped in time. (Though most think he should have gone further). Iraq 2 is still going on. Though the pure military campaign was very successful the situation is still not clear.
Of course there were some minor military activities (Grenada, Libya, Iran) but they were too small to judge the potential of the US.

The USSRWas a military superpower until the 90ies. Although they were quiet aggressive there were not that many wars. If you do not count the CSSR then there is only Afghanistan left.

GB and FranceBoth could not keep their colonies. France lost in North Africa and in Vietnam. GB won the Falkland war.

ChinaThe Peoples Army won the civil war, won the Korean War (or at least reached their target) and the invasion of Tibet (although the enemy there was not very frightening).

Conclusions:
• Although there were many military conflicts since WW2 the big nations were only involved in a few.
• China’s army performed best. In total the big armies did perform very bad in military conflicts.
• However, they were very successful besides that: the US army saved peace and freedom. No other nation ever dared to attack a country where US soldiers were stationed. The Red army managed to keep the communist block together for a long period. Maybe big armies should be kept as a force in being, reaching their goals because they do not fight.

I did not expect a result like this. What do you think? I am not an expert and maybe I miss something important. So please correct me!

You may argue that the armies were great but could not do their jobs because of stupid governments, wrong diplomacy or lack of public support. Well, an army can never be good without good political and public support.

---

the tibetans might not have been very frightening though the chinese army was severly hampered and had alot of men and equipment losses

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Vietnam perhaps?

Given their opponent and resources. They seemed to do pretty well.

---

Good points ~;) , I didn't really think of them :embarassed: . I'll go with
Israel even though they have gotten a nasty surprise or two, before recovering nicely.

Israel, with the US coming in a close second. The US soundly defeated vietnamese forces everytime they had the guts to confront the US. The "loss" in vietnam was purely political.

Israel,I also think they have the best landforces in the world today.They are conscripted,but they dont go only to training,but in the conflict.No other coyntry can compete against Israel in the numbers of their Weteran soldiers. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Israel, with the US coming in a close second. The US soundly defeated vietnamese forces everytime they had the guts to confront the US. The "loss" in vietnam was purely political.

---

Perhaps the loss was purely political - but the war was also purely political, as were almost all wars involving either the US or USSR in the post WW2 era. The army to have performed best after WW2 is by a mile Israel. They are a small nation surrounded by enemies and still control probably the best army in the world which has seen nothing but success since its creation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Israel, with the US coming in a close second. The US soundly defeated vietnamese forces everytime they had the guts to confront the US. The "loss" in vietnam was purely political.

---

It doesn't matter how many battles you win, all that matters is if you win the war. Victory is not decided by how many enemies are killed versus how many casualties you suffer, but by who achieves the objectives of the war.

US objective was to prevent the spread of communism by stopping North Vietnam conquering South Vietnam. North Vietnamese objective was to conquuer South Vietnam. North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam, despite the efforts of the hundreds of thousands of US troops stationed there. Therefore, North Vietnam won the war.

What you are saying Panzer is the same thing as saying that the Germans beat the Soviets in WWII, because 20 million Soviets died, while the Germans only lost a tenth of that.

I'm surprised that you are trying to claim that the Americans won the Vietnam war based on comparing casualties.

I agree that Israel had propably the best army with the best performance. Leaders, public and army are working close together. Also the Vietcong. Total unit of leaders, population and army. Managed to fight the French and the US (and the Chinese if my mind serves) successfully. Incredible.

So let me add this to my conclusions:

Conclusions:
• Although there were many military conflicts since WW2 the big nations were only involved in a few.
• China’s army performed best. In total the big armies did perform very bad in military conflicts.
• However, they were very successful besides that: the US army saved peace and freedom. No other nation ever dared to attack a country where US soldiers were stationed. The Red army managed to keep the communist block together for a long period. Maybe big armies should be kept as a force in being, reaching their goals because they do not fight.

• The best performing armies are from smaller countries like Israel and Vietnam that fight for their existence against superior forces from foreign countries.

Do you agree?

Yes, Vietnam beat the crap out of a Chinese invasion in 79, and they deposed Pol Pot.

It might be best to go with the "whole package" rather than just the "army." Since there are also special forces, Air Force, Navy, and Marines to consider that have varying degrees of impact on the ground campaigns.

I'll go with Israel.

The U.S. Army has continuously improved. Korea provided some embarrassment, but also some high points. Political aspects prevented victory. As with Vietnam, there was no way to win without going after the staging areas more directly, and those were in China. You have to remove the supporting power's ability to influence the war if you want to win the war. (Vietnam differs in that much of the political aspect appears to have been in Vietnam itself...not the U.S. homefront that distracts too many of my countrymen.)

Well Red, if the US had bombed the staging areas in China don't you think that would ahve triggered a rather nasty response? Hadn't China just popped their first mushroom? Two-three of those would have been catastrophic. I understand why that action wasn't taken.

I think the sentiment in China would be 'You just couldn't let the war stay in Korea could you?!'
Besides how effectively can you stage troops 350 km from the front?

Part of my question was: Why did all the big armies do such a bad job? Does it pay to have them if you cannot use them? Or do they pay if you do not use them?

I think that one of the main reasons why all the big armies did badly, or at least not as well as you would've expected them to considering the fact that their opponents were always militarily inferior to them, was the way in which they were used. Almost always, they were the giant evil, be it capitalism or communism, invading the homeland of another people. These people would fight the invaders with everything they have, as they were fighting for survival, while the aggressors often had little or no reason to be there. Incidently, these homelands were often very alien in nature to the invaders - be it hills, as in Afghanistan, jungle as in Vietnam or anything else. This gave the indigenous people a huge advantage. That, coupled with the fact that they were fighting for their homes, allowed them to wage hugely effective guerella warfare against the invaders.
The difference with Israel is that it was usually that small nation struggling to survive, and it has become very good at that. Obviously if you pitched Israel's military against that of the USA or the former USSR in open battle, if such a thing is possible in modern warfare, on 'neutral' ground, then they would be in a really bad state really soon. Same goes for any of the other opponents of the superpowers post-WW2. However, this was rarely the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Well Red, if the US had bombed the staging areas in China don't you think that would ahve triggered a rather nasty response? Hadn't China just popped their first mushroom? Two-three of those would have been catastrophic. I understand why that action wasn't taken.

I think the sentiment in China would be 'You just couldn't let the war stay in Korea could you?!'
Besides how effectively can you stage troops 350 km from the front?

---

Nope, 16 October 1964 is the date I have for the first Chinese nuke test. They didn't get started until the late '50's. We were fighting them with at least one arm tied behind our back, and in their own backyard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Nope, 16 October 1964 is the date I have for the first Chinese nuke test. They didn't get started until the late '50's. We were fighting them with at least one arm tied behind our back, and in their own backyard.

---

Hmm... Ok.
Yes, I see the point, andthen it would have helped. But remember that Korea was not a US/S. Korea joint venture, it was a massive alliance of nations as it was basically all UN nations that could spare anything (I still wonder why there wasn't a single Danish soldier there). So if the US suddenly chose to expand the war they would go home, and that would quite likely be as bad as not bombing. China had a good point in that it 'feared' a US army at its borders. Btw, since they had learned their lesson of not boycotting the UN there would never be a resolution to include China (after the war began China and the SU came rushing back and tried to do damage control).

So it would certainly be a US alone operation in a place where the soldiers certainly hated the land more than the enemy. Yes they would fight the enemy for the sake of their friends and buddies, but they would not like to get the war expanded, it would ruin their morale.

Kraxis,

Since China had attacked UN forces and was actively engaged in killing UN personnel, I fail to see anything other than *self imposed* restrictions in the way of hitting the Chinese air bases and supply centers (sinking ships, and otherwise attacking the Chinese capacity to make war.) I don't know what the politics of the time would have allowed, most likely it would have been directly following the U.S. lead. Europe was still getting back on its feet.

To win against a Korean/Chinese field army, the natural and logical way to do it would be to hit their supply lines and depots, and air cover. China was launching and recovering Migs from its own bases. (Whether or not to use nukes is a separate matter. The allies were understandably alarmed about nukes because of Russia on their doorstep.)

One thing about war, the only way to win once the shooting starts is to take the war to him. We didn't do that in Korea because it meant attacking China directly.

Interestingly, Atomic Annie (nuclear artillery piece) was tested shortly before the final cease-fire. It was a clear signal to the Chinese that if this continued, we were going to be more direct about bringing the war to conclusion.

Well which army performed the best after WW2. Its really a matter of what time period after WW2 are you talking about.

Is it between the time period of 1946 to now.

Recent events would tell you the United States Army has preformed the best since the days of WW2.

100 hours to smash the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait in 1991, and then the smashing of the Iraqi Army in 2003.

Then there is the failures of the United States Army during the same time period.

Panama and Somilia.

Followed by successful (somewhat) Peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo.


Now if your wanting to look at the performance of the a military from the 1946 to present then one would have to give the Israeli Army as having some of the best constant performance - and even that army you kind find lots of fault in their performance in carrying out combat operations.

Israel. They defeated much more numerous opponents quite easily.

The Chineses did not perform very well. They almost conquered Korea, but they were more than 1 million, much more than the UN (US and South Korea army), and in the end, they got heavily defeated until the Pam Mun Jong treaty.
They also lost their war against USSR and perhaps against India (not too sure about the last one). Invading Tibet is not a big achievement, since Tibetains mostly did not fight back.

Quote:

---

Followed by successful (somewhat) Peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo.

---

Wait, I thought Russia, France, Germany and UK were part of these missions, no ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Wait, I thought Russia, France, Germany and UK were part of these missions, no ?

---

Sure they were - but so was the United States. Kosovo was initially a United States Led mission - the rest followed the American Lead in that one. Bosina while under the UN flag was a United States Mission for the soldiers that performed that mission. Just like the British soldiers there were performing the mission under their flag for the United Nations.

Conclusion : UN are great ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Conclusion : UN are great ~;)

---

Not at all - but that is a different topic.

Problems with UN missions are numerous. Politicial infighting between nations in the mission, poor communications, lack of common doctrine, lack of uniformity of equipment, and many many more. That some peacekeeping missions are a success is not because of the UN - but because of the will power of the soldiers of the nations performing the tasks.

I'd say military wise
Israel or USA

Israel has defeated numerous opponents, etc.

However the United States has gone against North Korea and China in the Korean War, and fought them to a stalemate. Vietnam is the same kinda thing. They have sucessfully defended or detered the USSR from attacking Europe, the United States itself, and I guess you could say the Middle East (Afghanistan).