[Brian Williams]

IYHO, who do you think of when you are asked "Which army was the best"...

In other words who would you rate as some of the top organized Armys of the History of the world in terms of training, supply, staff/officer/enlisted, combat proven.etc. I am not talking about hordes (Goths) or fighters (American Plains Indians), but organized military units.


Not in any specific order
1. Sparta
2. Roman legions
3. the Germans pre 1943
4. WW1 and WW2 Marine Corps
5. the Isrealis circa 60's and 70's

[bad LT]

Gota include some others:
1. Alexander the Greats Army - he concored the world and defeated many armies 6-8 times his size

2. Mongols under Ghengas Khan - ditto

3. 3rd Amry Under Patton - kicked much Nazi a%% in the BIG WAR

[modifiedbrowning]

Napolean's army was pretty good until he tried to invade Russia.
The Prussians were really good in their day.

[George Hill]

1. Roman Legion.
2. The Muslim Army which ran up to Constantinople and around North Africa and up through Spain... only to be stopped by #3.
3. Charles Martel, aka "The Hammer" and the creator of "Heavy Cavalry" that changed the whole social order of Europe. His army crushed the Muslims advance and pushed them out of Gaul back over the mountains back into Spain.
4. Napoleon.
5. Patton.
6. George Washington.
7. The Army Air Corps.
8. Charlemagne.
9. Otto I
10. The Vandals. (who's rampage across Europe even then still has meaning today as the word describing those who create chaos and destruction)

[Wildalaska]

Yall gonna rate ol Blood and Guts so high ya ought to toss Zhukov in there, both got their reps on the blood of their soldiers......

WildmostamericangeneralsareundistinguishedAlaska

[George Hill]

Sorry WA -Pushed the wrong blue button! Why is "EDIT" where "REPLY" should be? :o

Anyways... As I was about to say - Napoleon pretty much owned Europe for awhile, so that puts him right up there.

[middy]

1. United States Armed Forces: Any other conventional military force, past or present, is outclassed and annihilated against this courageous, well trained, and high tech group of American kids.

2. The Mongols: Genghis Khan's unstoppable horsemen, who carved out an unprecedented empire from Poland to the South China Sea, from the Persian Gulf to Korea.

3. Carthaginian Cavalry: Followed Hannibal over the alps. In the winter. Played around in Italy for 15 years, trouncing the Romans more often than not, even while outnumbered, with their advanced cavalry tactics.

4. The Swedes under Gustavus Adolphus: The direct ancestor of the modern U.S. Army, they taught the rest of the world the power of teamwork, self-respect, and innovation.

5. The British. Since the middle ages the British military tradition has consistently fielded a world-class army, with too many brilliant leaders to name.

6. Napoleon's great armies proved once and for all that the French do make excellent soldiers... as long as their leader is not French.

[HungSquirrel]

The French.

[jobu07]

The prussians were pretty good, small and efficient were thier motto. Threatened to use that tool a lot too. Charlamagne seemed pretty good too, united all of Germany and all. I'll agree Napolean had a good army, a little too ambitious though. The old Roman legions were pretty top notch for a while. I mean, everyone seems to have been on top at one time or another. We all fall down eventually...

[oweno]

Say what you want about the way he waged war, Sherman's army rates near the top.

Sheridan's cavalry was pretty good too.

As was the Army of Northern Virginia in places like Chancellorsville. Flat out amazing feat of generalship.

[HankB]

The gladiator army of Spartacus was pretty good - it crushed a number of Roman legions, and it took the combined might of multiple Roman armies to defeat it.

The WWII Air Commando groups of the USAAF were quite effective, combining bombers, fighters, and troop carrier/cargo aircraft in one organization.

The Boers of South Africa really chewed up the British, and were only forced to capitulate when the Brits rounded up Boer women and children and placed them into concentration camps.

[MrMurphy]

The Boers weren't really an organized army, they were guerrila groups of farmers on "Commando" (mounted infantry i.e dragoons) which is where the Commando term comes from in WW2 (the guy who suggested it was South African).

[Lonestar.45]

All good choices above. I'll have to throw in the Texian army of the pre-Republic of Texas. Whipped Santa Anna and made sure he stayed south of the border. :)

Best of all time? The US Military forces, no question. Since the time of George Washington to the present, there has been no other military with quite as impressive a record.

[Nazirite]

What about William Wallace and those crazy Scots.

[mattk]

A bunch of you guys are going to hate to read this but I vote for the Vietnamese. In a number of conflicts the Viets have proven to be outstanding fighters.
Examples include the French Indochina War. The Sino-Vietnamese Conflict to name a few.

[Ala Dan]

I voted for the Vietnamese as well. Old Charile was well trained and
highly motivated, and engaged in some mighty fierce battles with
U.S. troops.

[El Tejon]

Using your criteria, it must be the Mongols.

Training: from birth. Mongol boys were expected to excel at three things in life--wrestling (Mongolia Sut Gao "fast wrestling" is still a much respected form of martial art), horsemanship, and marksmanship (on and off horse). It was a martial culture; the purpose of living was to fight.

Supply: mobile and fed off enemy. Privation was part of Mongol culture, i.e. they weren't a bunch of soft, flabby sissies whining about their gullets.

Staff: it was not a mob, but organized down to squad level. Leadership was beyond outstanding.

Combat Proven: history gives all the evidence you need here.

Just my $.02.

mattk, don't you mean Sino-Viet conflictS. :D

[NMshooter]

Which Roman legions? It makes a big difference...

The Mongols were amazingly effective, making people think they had "hordes" when they did not.

Napoleon did well early on, then he turned into another "frontal assault" general.

The Germans did pretty well for themselves on the Eastern Front, but the Soviets had Hitler on their side, so the Germans were ultimately doomed... ;)

The American military does well when it its leaders are willing to use the indirect approach. Sometimes Patton did that, sometimes he didn't.

The Vietnamese did very well, but they paid for it.

I bet the IDF is wishing they had the force they used to have...

[cxm]

This is fairly straight forward:

1. Spartans
2. Romans
3. Ottoman Turks
4. First Republic (Franch... retch!!1)
5. British Army (Emprie era and WWI/WWII)
6. Confederate Army
7. Germans WWI/WW II
8. Russian WWII
9. U.S. Army WW II
10. Israili 1967

[rhkirk1]

There is no better army than the Army of Northern Virginia prior to Gettysburg.

[Bear Gulch]

What are your criteria? I would be willing to nominate the Red Army at Stalingrad, except their victory was chiefly a function of STAVKA being willing to feed more troops into the meat grinder.

[smokemaker]

In the 30's and early 40's the Japanese were on a tear across the Pacific, until they awoke the sleeping giant.

The Vietnamese were no slouches.

I'd also have to throw a vote for Sherman's army. But the Confederates had their elites too. The Germans from 1939 to June or so of 1944. Mogols, Romas, Ottomans, Napoleans army, IDF, all top shelf.

But remember who finishes world wars. That would be the US armed forces.

[T.Stahl]

How about the Swiss Army?
They haven't lost a war since...uuh...when?

[richyoung]

1. Spartans, - when led by Brasidas, or at Thermopolae.
2. The Ten Thousand, as chronicled by Xenophon.
3. Alexander the Great's army.
4. Roman legions, especially when led by Julius Ceaser or Constantine
5. Patton's Third Army
6. Anything following Marshal Zhukov's orders
7. Anything following Robert E. Lee's orders
8. Third Reich, pre-'43, particulary on the Eastern Front, but not Rommel, so much.
9. "The Hammer"
10. The multi-generational Muslim offensive finally stopped by the Hammer.
11. Anything led by Sun Tzu - (hey, we are still reading about him...)
12. Anything led by Clauswitz - (ditto)
13. Anything led by Napolean - (ditto)
14. The Mongols - (would have been higher if they had a classier opponent to show their mettle against...)
15. IDF - up til Lebanon - (ditto)
16. U.S. -Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm (ditto)
17. U.S. - Operation Iraqi Freedom (ditto)
18. Army of the Republic of Texas (ditto)
19. U.S. Army - Mexican-American War (ditto)
20. Finland - against S.U. and then Germany, very good accounting for themselves against desperate odds.

[Bulldozer]

7th Century BC Assyrians under Sennacherib and Assurbanipal -- combined arms concept of archers, slingers, 3 and 4-man chariots, infantrymen with long spears, and light cavalry. First to use iron weapons in large quantities.

5th Century BC Persians under Cyrus and Darius. They used the first modern "centralized" concept of generalship. Immortlas carried both bow and spear, but their weakness was lack of heavy armor.

Hoplites of Philip and Alexander. 'nuf has been said in prior posts.

Hannibal's carthigian forces. ditto.

Norman Knights under William the Conqueror in 1066.

The Mongols under Genghis and Kublai Khan.

Spanish Conquistadors under Pizzaro and Cortes. Look how small groups savaged a population many times their size.

Post English Civil War -- "New Model Army". This marks the professional development of the British military tradition. Thank Cromwell for this development.

Turkish Jannisaries.

18th century Prussians

Stonewall Jackson's "Foot Cavalry", 1st Virginia brigade

The Gurkha Regiments

The Zulu Armies under Shaka. he created new weapons (assegai) and tactics to conquer huge swathes of what is now South Africa.

The Boers. Incredible case of David kicking in Goliath's teeth.

The Afrika Corps under Rommel.

IDF Air Force and Armored Corps in the 67 and 73 Wars.

[middy]

The Vietnamese were impressive fighters for one reason, they outworked everyone else.

Spend all night digging tunnels, setting booby traps, and laying ambushes, then spend all day working rice paddies. Try this for a while, all on a poor diet and with poor sanitation. See how long you last.

Physically, they were no match for Americans. Most of them were near-sighted with poor night vision (believe it or not) due to poor nutrition. They had stamina, but were just not big and strong enough to stand up to a typical American, Australian, or Korean hand-to-hand. Their casualties were consistently high relative to Americans, by body count they lost the war.

But they had the one thing that America lost in the conflict. The most important part of any army. The will to win.

[HankB]

But they had the one thing that America lost in the conflict. The most important part of any army. The will to win. The way I see it, their success in war came primarily from their success in recruiting others to their cause. Jane Fonda and Lyndon Baines Johnson, just to name two.

[Tory]

"In the 30's and early 40's the Japanese were on a tear across the Pacific, until they awoke the sleeping giant."

Easy to conquer in the near-utter absence of opposition. Hardly the stuff of legend; i.e., ANV, Roman Legions or the DAK.

What organized resistance did the woefully unprepared Chinese and Korean forces offer the Japanese version of blitzkrieg? The Nationalist Chinese spent as much time fighting Mao's Communists as they did the Japanese invaders.

As for our forces in the Pacific, with NO reconnaissance, our planes still lined up in nice, neat, tight rows; ammo locked up so the natives could not get it, and forces still using gear from WWI - well, we know how that worked out........ :banghead:

The IJA and IJN were great on DEFENSE, but faired poorly in head-to-head attacks against an equal force. Battle of the Phillipine Sea, anyone? Midway? Marianas Turkey Shoot? :D

[cookekdjr]

Spartans
Didn't the Athenians kick their a$$?

[Outbacker]

Uhhh...the French.

When in doubt, SURRENDER IMMEDIATELY.

:)

[Gunsnrovers]

5. The British. Since the middle ages the British military tradition has consistently fielded a world-class army, with too many brilliant leaders to name.

I always thought the Germans pretty much put their finger on the British with the description, "Lions led by donkeys."

[Bear Gulch]

ANybody but the French

[Nitram68]

Usmc,wwii

[Cosmoline]

The US Strategic Air Command from 1948 to 1988. Bar none, the most powerful and effective military force in the history of the world. It had the power to utterly destroy, down to atomic particles, any other military force.

[TheLastBoyScout]

I'd say the US military of the 20th-21st centuries... Military tech and strategy is cumulative, not epochal (as in the best old army would likely have its ass handed to it by a mediocre modern force) and the US military has been THE dominant force of the modern era.

The Wehrmacht gets an honorable mention... Faced with overwhelming force, they consistently gave better than they got.


Many of the "great armies" listed here have gotten reputations not for their effectiveness at their particular method of warfare, but for their opponents' inability to cope with a new strategy, such as the Europeans' inability to deal with mounted archers, or the Persians' (and Greeks') inability to deal with Alexander's variations on the phalanx "theme".

[crewchief]

I know that a lot of people don't like to say it or recognize thier strenth, but I would have to say that Nazi Germany was one of the most powerful, well orginized, and inventive armys ever. When you look at the amount of fronts they faught at one time and considering they gave all the so called superpowers (USA, Russia, Great Brittan....so on) a run for their money at the same time. I mean it took a combined effort from all the superpowers to take them down. Like it or not the truth is that without a combined effort we (USA) or any other single country would not have been able to take them down.

So even though I believe it was horrific what Nazi Germany did and what they stood for, I have to give props where they are due and say that IMHO Nazi Germany was the greatest force to come to power.

[4v50 Gary]

The Mongols. Mobility combined with terror and deception gave them most of the civilised world. As the "scourge of God," they even kicked butt on the Moslems armies.

Greek Phalanx of Alexander the Great's. Whupped the Spartans when they tried to rebel against Macedonian rule. One of the great early empires.

Late Roman Republic. Good enough to whup everyone including Hannibal. OK, three Legions got whupped by Herman the German but hey, by then it wasn't the Republic but the Empire.

French Army under Napoleon. Terrific until Napoleon's ego got them overstretched in time to be overwhelmed by opponents who finally adapted to modern warfare. By 1813, everyone had modernized their army and the French lost their advantage (that and Napoleon didn't fight geriatric generals anymore).

British Army of 1800-1900s. Yep, they got whupped by the Afghanis, by the Zulus, Boers and even the Dervishers. But like the Romans they came back and even built an empire for Victoria.

US Army. Almost undefeated. Got whupped plenty of times though by their fellow Americans (the Corn-feds). Whupped the Kaiser, Hitler, Japanese.

Israel - modern Sparta. Innovative which gives her an edge but can be defeated. Look at the War of Atonement and how close that was.

[carebear]

Recently read the book "Battle". The author points out that Napolean's tactics were not at all revolutionary compared to Alexander's. That the artillery of the time had only a marginal superiority to ancient seige engines (primarily mobility) and that the lethality of the musket was at very short range and Alexander's combined arms tactics would not necessarily have done poorly at closing the firepower gap and causing havoc in shock action.

So, as far as the ancient world?

Alexander's (Philip's) Macedonian combined arms army. Took the shock capability of the West and melded it with the combined arms of Darius' East.

The Romans adapted from him and the now doctrinal concept of "hammer and anvil" envelopment and "center of gravity" strikes can pretty much be laid at his doorstep. Weapons have modified but even today we aren't covering ground at an average pace faster than Alex, than Rome, than Napolean, Patton or Stormin' Norman.

[psyopspec]

Strictly pointing to results, the Mongols.

Napoleon's campaigns, and the armies of Alexander that brought him down the first time (though certain strokes of luck were in play there, they have been for most successfull military forces).

American Revolutionaries. Did very well given what they had vs. what they were up against.

Vietnamese.

20th century US armed forces.

[Delmar]

Another nomination for the US Military-WWII. As vaunted as the Axis powers were, America took on all 3 at once, and had to sail the oceans to do it. The only continent we did not occupy was the South Pole, and only because the enemy was not there.

Even if the Axis powers had truly united, they had neither the production nor the facilities to do what America did.

In Europe, the 3rd Army gets a lot of well deserved accolades, but in truth, the 1st Army under Courtney Hodges seized more ground, and killed/wounded/captured more enemy.

The Army launched the largest amphibious operation ever seen-D day. The Pacific was no less bold with the Marines/Navy/Army taking islands one after another. Some folks got crap duty in China, Alaska, Greenland-you name it, and Kilroy was there.

It's much easier to name the places America wasn't in that war than where it was, not only in troops and materiel, but in supplying our allies in the process.

No single nation has ever done all of that in the history of the world, and is even more striking by the fact that we were a late commer in the battle-I think our air forces were like #16 in strength at the start of the war. America not only spent a billion dollars to develop the first atomic bombs, but spent 3 billion on the airplane to deliver it. All this and more after coming out of a depression.

Think about training the millions of Americans in the short time in which this happened. Germany, Italy and Japan were all modernizing their forces and training hard while the US forces drove cargo trucks with a sign on the side saying "Tank", and wooden machine guns. The enemy developed a lot of truly impressive battlefield machines, but the one thing they could not build in a factory......Will.

And after all of that, America funded the rebuilding of the world, asking only a small piece of their ground to bury our dead. Who can top that?

[Dr.Rob]

The mongols. Training, technology (the stirrup anyone) mounted cavalry using the compsite bow, terror tactics, still "the boogyman" evoked across central Asia and southern Russia.

The US Military... from rag-tag citizen soldiers playing guerilla until they could be trained in European tactics, to the most technologically advanced butt kicking machine on earth. The blood of our heroes has kept the tree of liberty well watered.

The British Royal Navy... while the sun nver set on the empire, colonial soldiers were FAR outnumbered by the navy boys keeping the trade routes to the colonies. The Army and its comomnwealth allies, get second billing. No disrespect meant to and Tommy, Anzac, Canadian or Ghurka that served. guts and baynets are in NO short supply in the Army.

The French... while we chide them in the post WW2 era, the French pretty much held their own against every european power until Napolean finally met his waterloo. Wasn't it the French at Dien Bien Phu who left the message... "go tell the Spartans, today we shall do them honor?" And let's NOT forget Cornwallis surrendered to Washington AND the French fleet.

The Romans arguably were the best trained troops ever prior to modern times. The thing is most of them in the end weren't Roman at all.

I'd like to give a shout out to the Vikings, who figured out with their secret miltary texh (longboats) that ANYTHING in Europe was plumb ripe for the taking. They don't call it Normandy after a character in Cheers. hardly 'organized' enough but historically significant.

Wasn't it von Kaluswitz who said something like "I'd like to have 2 armies, one in shiny brass buttons and marching with great pomp, and another in the shadows wearing camoflauge and packing serious firepower and intent."

[LAK]

First I have to take issue with MrMurphy.

During the Great Boer War of 1899 to 1902, although viewed by the British as a mere rebellious colony, the Boers formed an organized army with leadership and a command structure. Commando was simply a term used in lieu of regiment etc, and although they lacked the manufacture and supply of standardized weapons, equipment and uniforms, they were certainly well organized with cohesion. They employed every modern weapon of the time, from the bayonet and sword to the most powerful artillery.

Their command structure was simple, but it is evident that the actual control and discipline was on average more than adequate - often superb. It was their leadership, organization, strategies, tactics and discipline that made them so successful against the British army of the time. It was eventually largely a matter of sheer numbers and logistic capability that gave the victory to the British - who were taught some very severe lessons during the first half and even later stages of the war.

Incidently, a excellent overall work on this conflict is by Arthur Conan Doyle - a writer more commonly associated with fiction. For those who can not track down the book in hardcopy, there are various online editions such as ...

http://www.online-literature.com/doyle/boer_war/

In addition to the Boer army of 1899 through 1902 others that come to mind are;

The Finns during the war with, and invasion by, the Russians from 1939 to 1940.

The Rhodesians during the 1970s.

The Germans at the outset of WW2, at which time there was probably not a military in the world that could match them. Although this was to change, they did still demonstrate at various times that their ultimate defeat was probably more due to their political leadership than anything else.

[igor]

Not commenting others, there is an angle to what the Finnish Army did during WWII. The Winter War of 1939-40 is without doubt a major tour de force in military history - and the politics of the 1930's that led us to it an invaluable lesson to any country on how not to deal with a superpower...

Towards the end of the war, though, it was only the race to get to Berlin that forced Stalin to pull out significant muscle from the Finnish front. That timing saved our hide.

As to the Lapland War in the fall of 1944, there was not so much of a spirit of "throwing out the Germans" there... it was the Allied (Soviet) in-country Commission that forced our last reserves to even take contact with the retreating Wehrmacht. It all started as a mutually understood game of "you go first, we'll follow at a distance, so long and thanks for the help" but, mostly due to the Soviet threat, escalated into a bitter falling out with a scorched, mine-infested Lapland as the result. That was the price we paid for using the Nazis to our purpose.

A healthy reminder, though: there were only three capital cities of war-going countries in Europe that weren't occupied during WWII. They were London, Moscow and Helsinki.

[Llywelyn]

Greetings,

well, people may laugh at me for saying this, but the Canadian Army during WWII in Europe pretty much thrashed anyone they came across. Some of the best pilots too. Nothing should be said about the Canadian millitary now, its pretty embarassing.



In Service,
Llywelyn

[T.Stahl]

It amazes me what Americans think about the German Wehrmacht. If I, as a German, would make similar claims among Germans, they'd call me a neo-nazi or revisionist.

[Jon Coppenbarger]

Molon Labe Spartan's

[TheLastBoyScout]

It amazes me what Americans think about the German Wehrmacht. If I, as a German, would make similar claims among Germans, they'd call me a neo-nazi or revisionist.

Are you disputing the fact that the Wehrmacht was one of the greatest (1:1) fighting forces in history, or are you commenting on your fellow Germans?


I'm not sure based on your post

[smokemaker]

If I can get trounced for saying the Japs, than I can trounce against the Canadians, with one word: Dieppe

Seriously the Canucks have been a big help to us (USA) in many conflicts.

And don't be so quck to put down the Japanese. Lets not forget- the Wehrmacht didn't exactly go through the toughest armies in the world to control Europe, did they? Poland? The Low Countries? France?? France actually possessed a modern, capable army at the time, but didn't have the will. That and they put way too much faith in the stupid Maginot line.

[TheLastBoyScout]

Smoke... Were it not for Hitler declaring war on America, the Germans would have beaten Soviet Russia. As it was, they came pretty damn close...

[carebear]

Yeah, if they just hadn't of bombed Pearl Harbor......

[TheLastBoyScout]

Germany declared war on us out of a sense of solidarity with their Axis ally Japan. This was not necessary; after all, Japan didn't give Russia a "second front" when he invaded.

Admittedly, FDR wanted to smash Hitler more than he wanted to beat Japan, but without Hitler's declaration of war, it would have been hard to get a declaration against Germany; if such a declaration came at all, it would likely have come too late (after we beat Japan, giving Hitler enough time to finish off Russia, and possibly overrun Britain).

Even if the British held on long enough for us to deal with Japan and ride to the rescue, I wouldn't put great odds on an invasion of Western Europe without the Eastern front to serve as a sink for German resources.

[richyoung]

Wasn't it the French at Dien Bien Phu who left the message... "go tell the Spartans, today we shall do them honor?"


..that was mostly French Foriegn Legion, composed largely of ex-SS troops under assumed names - so actually more credit for the Germans, in a way.

[4v50 Gary]

Spartans
Didn't the Athenians kick their a$$?

The Athenians did kick Spartan butt on the Island of Pylos. The island's rocky terrain was unsuited for the Spartan hoplite. Light troops who were more agile was needed but the Spartans sent 3-400 hoplites there anyway. Well, the Athenians didn't quite know how to oust the Spartans. Then one careless Spartan started a camp fire which became a brushfire and removed all their cover. With the Spartans easily viewable, the Athenian peltasts (light infantry) swarmed them and prevailed.

Still the lesson of the necessity of light infantry was lost on both the Spartans and the Athenians who still relied primarily on hoplites and phalanx tactics.

However, this had little effect on the war. The Spartans whupped the Athenians. The two Scilian expeditions doomed many of Athens' soldiers/sailors/citizens. Even when Athens began to recover, a Spartan Admiral, Brasidas, (and Spartans weren't known for seafaring), tricked the Athenians to beach their ships and break for chow. The Spartans swooped down and captured the fleet and won the thirty-three year Peloponnesian War.

[T.Stahl]

Are you disputing the fact that the Wehrmacht was one of the greatest (1:1) fighting forces in history, or are you commenting on your fellow Germans?
I was commenting on the objectivity of the Americans vs the attitude of my fellow Germans. ;)

[carebear]

I was commenting on the objectivity of the Americans vs the attitude of my fellow Germans.

Don't give us too much credit. It's easy to be a gracious winner.

When your side ended up on the losing end, it's easier to disassociate yourself by saying "well that was "the Nazis" that lost, not really us Germans".

Whatever floats their boat.

[Glenn Kelley]

Smokemaker,
Not sure what your point is about Dieppe.It is a good example of what it takes to convince a few generals that an undermaned frontal assault against heavy fortifications without the promised air support won't work.

The taking of Vimy Ridge in WW1 was a job that no one else was able to accomplish.Vimy is probably where we truly became a nation.

On D-Day the Canadians were the most successful at accomplishing their objectives. They beat the Germans best in Itally.

At the time of Vimy we were probably only 8 million,about 12 million by WW2.

[smokemaker]

Hey Glenn,
After a little reading up on WW1, and knowing the foul stink of Dieppe wasn't the fault of the men who fought and died there, I will totally concede. That and the longest sniper shot recorded just went to a canuck in Afganistan. (He was assigned to an American unit I believe)

Maybe it's because I like Alexander Kieths India Pale Ale so much, maybe it's because I live within 20 miles of Canada, or maybe, just maybe, you're right.

[Crownvicman]

I think the French Army of WWI deserves a little more respect.

[M99M12]

Crownvic...in what way?

[NMshooter]

The French Army did not lack "cran", they lacked sensible tactics.

You can't charge entrenched machineguns, and artillery will not get them all.

Bruce Gudmundsson's "Stormtroop Tactics" is an excellent book on the subject of WW1 fighting.

[LAK]

Smokemaker,

The French army of WW2 was no match for that of Germany; not on an individual troop level, armor, artillery, or air force. The Germans had opened with the first really organized and effective mechanized infantry tactics in history. The French never stood a chance, as neither did Belgium nor Holland. Were Britain not an island it would have undoubtably have fallen as well.

[Crownvicman]

M99M12, the British made the same type of stupid charges during the first World War. But the French, by their numbers and willingness to actually try and defend their homesoil (something they were not willing to due during WWII) were the backbone of the Allies of WWI. When the AEF went to France, they used French tanks, airplanes, artillery pieces and horrible French machine guns. The destruction of WWI was terrible. The Germans surrendered in 1918 because they didn't want the kind of destruction that had been inflicted on France to happen to their own country. Of course, that lack of destruction allowed the Germans to convince themselves they didn't really lose WWI and had been betrayed by someone. But I'm getting off topic.

[middy]

Glenn,

I have to step in and give props to the Canadians, too. Some exceptional accomplishments by units and some very impressive individual soldiers have come from the Great White North.

*sigh*

Where have you gone, Red Ensign?

[Rico567]

In being around guns and gunners for over 40 years (as fine a bunch, taking one thing with another, as the human race produces) I have learned not to expect consensus, so the variety of responses was perhaps no surprise. I think that the criterion is too broad, and that is why so many lists of armies have proliferated that do little to enlighten. (I don't mean to imply that all the armies I've seen weren't good, but....) Instead, I'm going to set up my own criteria, then pick the army (singular) that I think best fits.

I'm going to pick an army, that was a highly trained and cohesive fighting force that was not only motivated but had a very flexible and redundant command and control structure that allowed units that had taken horrible casualties to still function with great effectiveness. This army had a highly competent, and sometimes brilliant officer corps that led with great effectiveness. This army also had generally superior technology compared with most of the technology it faced. Finally, this army inflicted enormous casualties on its opponents.

Any guesses?

And the winner is- The German Wehrmacht 1939-1945.

{Note: my criteria have nothing to do with whether or not the army selected won a particular battle or war or not, nor do they explore the government, ideology, or circumstances that do not pertain to the purely military....so please spare me any comments that they lost WWII, or that the Nazi regime was among the most despicable and inhuman in history. These things are surely true, but irrelevant in this context.}

[slzy]

everyone should read or re-read Vimy Ridge. the New Model Army was splendid,and Hannibal should get his props.

[GoRon]

This is just a parenthetical break to say how much I have enjoyed this thread.

Please don't mind me, continue on.... :)