What is the greatest military orginiztion of the 20th century?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I would have to say hands down The United States Marine Corps. No other service has such a magnificent battle record in the history of the world . We dont loose battles its plain and simple.

[yesdachi]

All of America’s military is pretty great (Even the American Coast Guard could send some countries into the stone age) but the forces are small and already stretched thin. The forces are powerful and surgical in precision but lack the numbers to make the “requested changes” of any offensive stick, as we are seeing Iraq today. That’s why we are training the Iraq military to take care of themselves because we simply cant do it.

In MTW terms a provinces loyalty determines rebellion and is controlled by the number of troops present not the quality of them. Even thought the marines are the “greatest” there are only a few thousand of them (or less) and the number is not likely to change much as the American people hate to see their little boy “over there” at Christmas or for birthdays, Easter, thanksgiving, Columbus day, Sunday, etc.

Greatest? Marines, sure, they do have a great record of winning but maybe an even more specialized force like the deltas or another special forces unit that “we” are not suppose to know about are the greatest attackers but for taking over or occupation I don’t know, America has never “conquered” anything I can think of, WWI & II, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, etc. maybe the last time America conquered something was America and I think we are on the verge of rebellion right now! The Native Americans have been saving all the casino money for a huge offensive against the white man!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Im talking of winning major battles here. Again no service in modern times compares to the United States Marines record in this matter. Not even our own army navy and airforce.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I would have to say the US military as a whole, but more specifically the USAF or USN. Yes the USMC is the greatest infantry force in the world, but they would be high and dry without the USAF and USN transporting them and destroying pockets of significant resistance. No force in the world approaches the destructive potential of either the USN or the USAF.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'd beg to differ Gawain. The USMC might have the best people, and the hardiest reputation. But they aren't necesarrily the "greatest" as in the most powerful.

Thats not what I stated. Im speaking of their battle record. The Navy army and air force dont come even close.

Yes the USMC is the greatest infantry force in the world, but they would be high and dry without the USAF and USN transporting them and destroying pockets of significant resistance.

Wrong they have their own airforce. Again tough Im talking about their battle record .

[Don Corleone]

Hmmm, I don't know. The Afrikiakorps, when it was being properly supplied was a pretty damned impressive fighting force. In the end though, yeah, I gotta go with the USMC. Give them enough lead & oil to keep pushing ahead and no beach in the world is safe.

[yesdachi]

Seriously, Marines freak me out.

I watched a marine and a navy seal argue in a bar about a similar topic, that freaked me out

[PanzerJaeger]

What do you mean by "organization" Gawain? Army, corps, military forces, branch, division?

The marines are awesome, but Id put the Großdeutschland division against any marine division, and there are many other German commands that I would say performed better than the marines, against tougher odds. Some of the things SS Wiking did were simply amazing, and of course the tiny afrika korps kicked around the 8th army for a good while.

Its really hard to compare though, because the supply and reinforcement situation was so different, not to mention the difference in technology.

I will say though that the Germans were the first to master close air support and other tactics that the marines use these days, that says a lot.

[Kagemusha]

What do you mean about military organization Gawain?In 1900`s not even a single Finnish battalion has surrendered.Finnish army while we have been independat have never lost a singe campaign by surrendering.Also our army is the only army that have won or ever will win Soviet Union in war,because Soviet Union is old news.

[Kraxis]

I would say the Polish victory over the SU in 1920 (right year?) counts as a victory.

[Kagemusha]

I would say the Polish victory over the SU in 1920 (right year?) counts as a victory.

Or the Finnish victory in 1918.With all respect Kraxis Russia was still at civil war in 1920.

[Kraxis]

Also our army is the only army that have won or ever will win Soviet Union in war,because Soviet Union is old news.

I stress the point that you said only. I pointed to the fact that Poland won a war as well.

Btw, while coming Soviet Union (it wasn't formed as such until 1922) was deep in the Civil War in 1918 it had all but been won in 1920 and the Red forces could concentrate on Poland. So your argument has sort of backfired.

[Kagemusha]

About the victory.I dont mean the 1918 conflict,but winter war in 1939.Finland was then the only country in war against Soviet Union.That wasnt a war of independancy.You know what i mean.

[Kraxis]

Ohh... but in that case it was a loss.
Sure it was glorious defeat, with bravery and superb tactics employed by a smaller and badly equipped army against a juggernaut. But the war ended in a finnish defeat. What else do you call the result of the breakthrough at the Karelian Peninsula, where that and most of Karelia was lost and Hangö was to be rented out for, was it 30 years?

[eadeater]

Or the Finnish victory in 1918.With all respect Kraxis Russia was still at civil war in 1920.

Actually, neither of those technicaly count as victories over the Soviet Union because it didn't exist until 1923. After the October Revolution in Russia, the Bolsheviks called their newly formed state RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic), and only in 1923 was this effectively renamed to the USSR, once the civil war was truly over, the NEP instituted and a number of areas belonging to the Russian Empire reclaimed.
As for the Finnish victory you're talking about kagemusha, I presume the liberation of most of Karelia by Finnish armies in 1941 in the Continuation War, which was, literally, a continuation of the Winter War of 1939 in which these lands were lost by Finland. Granted, the Finns did indeed beat back the Russians into Leningrad but their attack coincided with Operation Barbarossa, and after the German retreat, the Finns too, were driven back, and most of Karelia even now belongs to Russia, so the extent of this victory you speak of is doubtfull.
Now, for the original question about the most formidable fighting force of the 20th century. I would put forward the Red Army of the 60s and 70s. Their planes, tanks, submarines and so on were more than a match for their American counterparts, as was the size of the military as a whole. What's more, due to compulsory military service for all males, the Soviet Union could call upon millions of already trained and able men. Also, we seem to forget that the most influencial weapons of the 20th century are nuclear weapons, and during the aforementioned years the Soviet Union presided over the largest nuclear arsenal. The missiles which would deliver these deadly payloads were also better than their American counterparts; even now Russia has the world's fastest nuclear missile type - one which cannot be shot down by conventional methods.

[Kagemusha]

How can you call that a defeat?Finland lost under 100 km of land and Soviets lost over million soldiers.And it happened again 1945 biggest battle in Nordic history.Tali- Ihantala.In Winter war Soviets took only one major city from Finland.Finland didnt surrender.Soviets didnt even get to the inner Finland.Odds were 1:10.Do you understand the facts.Finland also drew away the German forces from Northern Finland after peace with Soviets 1944.The same amount of troops that conquered Norway in few months.We were the only little country in the war that wasnt occupied.No other country could stop Soviet Major Attack.If that isnt victrory,i dont know what is?
About Hanko Finnish took it back in summer 1941.And it was never leased after that.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but Id put the Großdeutschland division against any marine division, and there are many other German commands that I would say performed better than the marines, against tougher odds. Some of the things SS Wiking did were simply amazing, and of course the tiny afrika korps kicked around the 8th army for a good while.

Again were talking battle history here. How about you let me pick the Marine division to go against them. Also they lost did they not ? There gone just like almost every other orgainzation that was mentioned here. Can any of you even name a major battle the Marines lost? How about a small one? Your going to have to drop down pretty low on the order of battle to find Marine losses.

[Azi Tohak]

The IDF and IAF. No one has ever done more with less than those groups. They've never lost, because they can't afford to. The West is afraid to help too much because of oil... but it doesn't matter. Israel has done just fine.

(I know Lebanon was a screw-up, but the military did not blow that one.)

Azi

[Proletariat]

Thats not what I stated. Im speaking of their battle record. The Navy army and air force dont come even close.

Does the Mossad or Delta Force count according to your criteria?

[Kagemusha]

Again were talking battle history here. How about you let me pick the Marine division to go against them. Also they lost did they not ? There gone just like almost every other orgainzation that was mentioned here. Can any of you even name a major battle the Marines lost? How about a small one? Your going to have to drop down pretty low on the order of battle to find Marine losses.

I agree that US Marines are the elite.But you have never been the underdogs since the Wars of independancy.Im sure you know what would happen to the marines in amphibious assault without the support of Airforce and Navy.

[eadeater]

How can you call that a defeat?Finland lost under 100 km of land and Soviets lost over million soldiers.And it happened again 1945 biggest battle in Nordic history.Tali- Ihantala.In Winter war Soviets took only one major city from Finland.Finland didnt surrender.Soviets didnt even get to the inner Finland.Odds were 1:10.Do you understand the facts.Finland also drew away the German forces from Northern Finland after peace with Soviets 1944.The same amount of troops that conquered Norway in few months.We were the only little country in the war that wasnt occupied.No other country could stop Soviet Major Attack.If that isnt victrory,i dont know what is?
About Hanko Finnish took it back in summer 1941.And it was never leased after that.

The battle of 1945 you speak about, Tali-Ihantala, actually took place in 1944 and Finland and the USSR were at peace by September 4 1944. Also, this battle was certainly not the biggest battle in Nordic history as Finnish losses totalled 8,561 men and Soviets about 18,000; these were largely to artillery fire. True, Finland didn't surrender, but only because the only terms the Russians would accept was unconditional surrender - Finland sued for peace on June 21st. As for you claiming it was a victory - I still beg to differ. Finland lost Vyborg. True, the Soviets didn't get to inner Finland, so it wasn't a total defeat, but they still had their borders pushed back and lost a major city which they never reclaimed - they were beaten.
As for the Winter War, again, a Soviet victory. Huge costs but a victory nonetheless. Finland lost 10% of its land and 20% of its industrial capability, as well as some 440,000 citizens. Granted, the Soviets suffered horrendous losses considering they outnumbered the Finns 3:1 (not 10:1), and were better equiped. However, all that the Finns received for their losses was international sympathy.

[Kagemusha]

The battle of 1945 you speak about, Tali-Ihantala, actually took place in 1944 and Finland and the USSR were at peace by September 4 1944. Also, this battle was certainly not the biggest battle in Nordic history as Finnish losses totalled 8,561 men and Soviets about 18,000; these were largely to artillery fire. True, Finland didn't surrender, but only because the only terms the Russians would accept was unconditional surrender - Finland sued for peace on June 21st. As for you claiming it was a victory - I still beg to differ. Finland lost Vyborg. True, the Soviets didn't get to inner Finland, so it wasn't a total defeat, but they still had their borders pushed back and lost a major city which they never reclaimed - they were beaten.
As for the Winter War, again, a Soviet victory. Huge costs but a victory nonetheless. Finland lost 10% of its land and 20% of its industrial capability, as well as some 440,000 citizens. Granted, the Soviets suffered horrendous losses considering they outnumbered the Finns 3:1 (not 10:1), and were better equiped. However, all that the Finns received for their losses was international sympathy.

Im sorry about the confusion in 1944 and 1945.But i still dont believe you the ratio 3:1 is in Winter Warabout infantry.if you count armed forces,airforces and artillery.We are at 10:1.Soviet goal in Winter war was to take whole of the country in 5 weeks.They failed miserably.Soviet Union concentrated one fourth of their military against Finns in winter war and couldnt take their goals.For a defender that has nothing to gain in that kind of war.I call that victory.About Tali-Ihantala its not about the casulties,but troops involved.If you can tell a bigger battle than Tali-Ihantala being a biggest single battle in Nordic history,please share with us.And you should maybe also count armor losses 400-600 hundred soviets,also aeroplanes 120-280.If you take your figures out of the wikipedia and start a conversation with someone who is a native and has read about this war for over a decade.You will get this kind of reaction. Its not my idea.But some very respectable Historians.And the terms of peace in 1944 Finland had stopped all Soviet attacks on the fronts before peace.Tali-Ihantala and Ilomantsi PS. On personal note My grandfather lost two brothers in that war.

[PanzerJaeger]

Again were talking battle history here. How about you let me pick the Marine division to go against them. Also they lost did they not ? There gone just like almost every other orgainzation that was mentioned here. Can any of you even name a major battle the Marines lost? How about a small one? Your going to have to drop down pretty low on the order of battle to find Marine losses.

And the Germans won much greater battles than the Marines... and fought much tougher enemies with much less supplies and reinforcements, thats my opinion at least.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Im sure you know what would happen to the marines in amphibious assault without the support of Airforce and Navy.

Again they have their own air force and naval gunfire was proved not be as effective in softing up islands. Besides which we no longer have naval gunfire.

And the Germans won much greater battles than the Marines.

What Germans are you speaking about? Now you want the Marines to take on the whole Wermact? They also lost many great battles, This canr be said if the Marines. We kicked their ass at Belleau Woods and never looked back.

and fought much tougher enemies

I doubt you will find a tougher or more tenacious soldier than the Japanese ones on Iwo Jima. No other fighting force I know of takes the sort of casulties and presses on to victory like the Marines since the Black Watch and Napleons Imperial Guard.

[Kagemusha]

I think the marines are the spearhead of US armed forces.And i didnt think of Naval Gunfire i thought about cruisemissiles.Of course you have the greatest Armed forces in the world.You spend it the same amount as the rest of the world together.But if Marines were against modern Israelis without your Airforce bombarding them back to the Stone age.I dont think your invidual marine is superior.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

A little appreciated fact about the Pacific Campaign is that the vast, vast majority of the troops were, in fact, Army.

But the vast majority of major assualts were done by the Marines who either left the mopping up or garrisoning of the island to the army.

The best part of the Marine hym is the final lines in the third and last verse.

Here's health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve
In many a strife we've fought for life
And never lost our nerve;
If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes;
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines.


OOOoooo Raaaaaahhh

[eadeater]

Firstly - I do not mean to offend or insult you or your country, I'm simply debating the extent to which it was victorious. As for where I get my facts from - I get my numerical facts from any reliable source - if they are wrong, do correct me. Unfortunately I don't personally know statistics so must draw them from somewhere. If you consider Wikipedia to be unreliable, then I have found an alternate source of statistics - winterwar.com - should be fairly credible, no? It confirms Wikipedia's stats in some respects. The total number of Finnish defenders at the beginning of the war was 337 000. The numbers of Soviet invaders seems to be very difficult to estimate as figures range wildly. However, it seems that the initial invasion force was in the order of 1 million - ie. 1:3 However, the total invasion force is placed at about 1.5 million as reserves and reinforcements were poured in to replace casualties. This change in balance is offset by the fact that 111,300 replacements were provided for the Finnish army. Therefore my estimate of a ratio of 3:1 remains fairly accurate.
Nevertheless, the issue remains unresolved, simply because there is more than one way to define a victory in this case. True, the Soviets failed in their objective to capture all of Finland with 5 weeks, so you could say, since they failed in their ultimate objective, they lost. However, following a similar argument, the objective of the Finns must've surely been not to allow a single Russian to set foot upon their land; this was also not achieved. So, neither side achieved their ultimate aim, but at the end of the whole affair, it was the Finns who had to concede land for peace. Whether this was worth nearly half a million killed or wounded is a different matter all together. Likewise, the fact that the odds were stacked unfairly against Finland doesn't feature either. If a big kid attacks a little kid, and the little kid does really well and really hurts the big bully, but still has to give up some of his sweets to the bully at the end of it, the bully still won.

[AggonyDuck]

Well basically in Finland we have this term called "Torjuntavoitto", which basically means a "Repelling Victory". Both the Winter War and the Continuation War were Russian victories, but were also "repelling" victories for the Finns. Also it should be noted that we did succeed in our primary goal in both of the wars, which was to keep Finland independent.
Thus I think it's entirely natural for Finns to refer to these wars as a sort of victories, because they are victories for the Finnish people.

[eadeater]

True - I agree with that. That's what I'm saying - these events were victories for the Finns and Russians. For the Finns, as you say, a Repelling Victory. The Red Army was not actually beaten by the Finns, simply stopped, repelled. Well summarised 1pain1duck.

[PanzerJaeger]

What Germans are you speaking about? Now you want the Marines to take on the whole Wermact? They also lost many great battles, This canr be said if the Marines. We kicked their ass at Belleau Woods and never looked back.

You still havent said what you mean by organization. I guess the SS could be compared to the marines - in a way. It was separate infantry force from the regular army. I would put any of the SS divisions that fought in Russia up against the marines and expect a victory. The marines were still bombing themselves in an effort to figure out close air support 5 years after the Stuka was developed for that very purpose.

I doubt you will find a tougher or more tenacious soldier than the Japanese ones on Iwo Jima. No other fighting force I know of takes the sort of casulties and presses on to victory like the Marines since the Black Watch and Napleons Imperial Guard.

The Japanese might have been tenacious, but they were not good by any account. Id like to see how the Marines would do against a soviet army circa 1944.