Which army performed best after WW2?

[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.

[Csargo]

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.

[Kraxis]

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).

[Kraxis]

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

[cunctator]

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

[Spino]

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.

[lancelot]

Vietnam perhaps?

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

[RabidGibbon]

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.

[King Henry V]

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.

[The Stranger]

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