What is the best army ever?

[Duke Malcolm]

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]

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]

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

[Franconicus]

The topic here is best army ever. I wonder why most of the posts discuss WW2 topics . 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]

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.

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.

[Butcher]

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]

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.

you forgat the american independence war 1776 - 1783 ...... the largest lost of territory ever ...
galypuli 1915

[Duke Malcolm]

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]

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

[Duke Malcolm]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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]

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]

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]

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

Those who saw Timur's army described it as a huge conglomeration of different peoples - nomad and settled, Muslims and Christians, Turks, Tajiks, Arabs, Georgians and Indians.

Plus, you can't argue with a guy who created a more difficult chess because the original version bored him with it's simplicity.

[Orda Khan]

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]

[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]

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

politics? nation building?

I thought this was about armies....

[Steppe Merc]

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

[Orda Khan]

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]

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
Tamerlane: The EarthShaker
March of the Barbarians

[edyzmedieval]

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]

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]

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]

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) ?

[The Wizard]

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

Plus, you can't argue with a guy who created a more difficult chess because the original version bored him with it's simplicity.

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]

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]

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]

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/s...=03rwcover.htm

[artavazd]

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

[The Wizard]

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