LiquidTension
Member
I had to go with Napoleon. Just finished studying him in class 
Your Best "educated" opinion
- Thread starter telewinz
- Start date
- Status
Mike Irwin
Member
"Britian would have fell if the attack were focused just on them"
Silver Bullet,
Two dates for you, and their significance.
June 22, 1940. France falls, Britain stands alone in Europe.
June 22, 1941. Germany invades the Soviet Union.
Britain bore the brunt of the German offensive for almost exactly a year, and didn't fall.
The Luftwaffe never was able to gain air superiority over Britain, and while the U Boat offensive came very close to suceeding in its mission of grinding British war-making capacity to a halt, it too, failed.
Silver Bullet,
Two dates for you, and their significance.
June 22, 1940. France falls, Britain stands alone in Europe.
June 22, 1941. Germany invades the Soviet Union.
Britain bore the brunt of the German offensive for almost exactly a year, and didn't fall.
The Luftwaffe never was able to gain air superiority over Britain, and while the U Boat offensive came very close to suceeding in its mission of grinding British war-making capacity to a halt, it too, failed.
No rule saying you can't include "combined arms" in your calculations. I use the term "army" in the broad sense although how would you take into consideration the air forces? With or without the 20's and 30's I still feel Germany should be near the top of the list. When they went on the march, armies either got out of the way or were destroyed. The Japs still posessed large amounts of china even until the end of the war, but its true they never were "World Class" just highly motivated to the extreme.
I detest being bias, but I have to give the nod to the modern US Army. They seem to have developed the right doctrine and combination to consistently DOMINATE the battlefield with one hand tied so as to limit ENEMY losses
This kind of power (conventional) is unheard of in warfare, what power(s) could defeat us if we went all out (conventional weapons) unhindered?
I detest being bias, but I have to give the nod to the modern US Army. They seem to have developed the right doctrine and combination to consistently DOMINATE the battlefield with one hand tied so as to limit ENEMY losses
This kind of power (conventional) is unheard of in warfare, what power(s) could defeat us if we went all out (conventional weapons) unhindered?stevelyn
Member
I had to think about this for a while before responding and after giving it some thought, I have to give the prize to the Romans. Considering the distances they had to cover with the technology, methods of travel used, supply lines, and communications with the central government and the logistics nightmare that had to be, they were most effective.
The Roman Empire stretched from Britain, across Europe, the Mediterrrainean and middle east. Not only were these lands conquered, they were administered and governed under Roman rule.
I would have to give Ghengis Khan's roaming hordes a close second in military effectivness. I also have a fascination with the Scythians and their methods although little is really known about them.
The Brits, other than having to fight against France, a comparable military power, and defeating the Spanish Armada, never really picked on and defeated anyone their own size. The British Empire established itself in nations that were fairly primitive in culture, economics and military sophistication. British colonies in places like Africa, India, and Malaysia were countries which internally were divided by tribal rivalries. That would leave them suseptable to conquest by anyone with a crude level of sophistication. Furthermore Britain was never able to win a major conflict in the 20th century without outside help. And if the Germans had launched a ground invasion on Britain in combination with the blitz, Britain would have folded and more than likely would be speaking Deutch today.
I do have to give credit to the British naval forces. It was probably due to Britain's naval capabilities they were able to maintain their empire as long as they did.
France was an effective military force and led the world in military technology until the last Napoleonic War. Then it seemed to slide downhill from there. But they did invent smokless powder and changed the face of small arms warfare.
The Roman Empire stretched from Britain, across Europe, the Mediterrrainean and middle east. Not only were these lands conquered, they were administered and governed under Roman rule.
I would have to give Ghengis Khan's roaming hordes a close second in military effectivness. I also have a fascination with the Scythians and their methods although little is really known about them.
The Brits, other than having to fight against France, a comparable military power, and defeating the Spanish Armada, never really picked on and defeated anyone their own size. The British Empire established itself in nations that were fairly primitive in culture, economics and military sophistication. British colonies in places like Africa, India, and Malaysia were countries which internally were divided by tribal rivalries. That would leave them suseptable to conquest by anyone with a crude level of sophistication. Furthermore Britain was never able to win a major conflict in the 20th century without outside help. And if the Germans had launched a ground invasion on Britain in combination with the blitz, Britain would have folded and more than likely would be speaking Deutch today.
I do have to give credit to the British naval forces. It was probably due to Britain's naval capabilities they were able to maintain their empire as long as they did.
France was an effective military force and led the world in military technology until the last Napoleonic War. Then it seemed to slide downhill from there. But they did invent smokless powder and changed the face of small arms warfare.
H Romberg
Member
Deadly, or effective? For effective, I'd have to say that the Romans were the best at imposing their will on the world. The Brits run a close second, and we will hopefully stand the test of time and surpass both. Frogs, and Hermans were both just a flash in the pan,(albeit deadly) and we risk being so too if we're not carefull.
hops
Member
German Army, 1866-1945. Few armies get the respect in defeat that the German Army still gets today. The French Army for example does not even get respect in victory.
Now, who ranks first among the great captains of military history?
Now, who ranks first among the great captains of military history?
DMK
Member
Oh yea, WWII Germany should be very near the top. They had a couple fatal flaws though. One, they had an insane maniac for a leader who often contradicted his generals/admirals some of the most brilliant tacticians of the century - without Hitler, they might have won. Two, they had a weak navy due to the treaty of versailes(sp?). Three, they had no long range heavy bombers. Those last two weren't too important until they reached the coast and went after Britain and the U.S.
Japan had the opposite problem. They were ruled by the military leaders, had a very powerful air force and navy, but didn't have the proper technology or doctrine to keep their foot soldiers effective in an all out land battle with somebody who was their equal.
The U.S. had all these problems in the begining of the war, but we were quick learners. We picked up the best successful tactics of the Germans (U-boat lessons were used against the Japanese, blitzkrieg is a big part of modern doctrine), Japanese(we learned the merits of aircraft carriers and beat them at their own island hopping game) and the British (deception, espionage, commando tactics-ie. Rangers) Of course, most decisivly we were also able to leverage our industrial might to great effect.
None of the Above - the answer would be America 1944-45 until the Soviets got the bomb. America had the military and economic power to destroy/rule the entire world - no single nation or combination of nations could have stopped America from doing just that if it was her desire to do so. No nation before or since has had such unilateral power.
faustulus
Member
I have to agree with JohnBT the Mogols are tops. They perfected the Blitzkrieg, began psychological warfare, used biologial weapons, and held more land than the Romans and Alexander combined. They were held back from Europe by the squabbling over a power vaccum.
Rome would be second. But the Romans demanded great leaders, without which its forces were worse than useless.
Rome would be second. But the Romans demanded great leaders, without which its forces were worse than useless.
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Mike, re. the Brits. I hate to tell you but many of their shore defence artillery pieces made of plywood and wooden poles and the troops stood guard with wooden rifles or guns with just a couple of cartridges. They lost a whole lot of men and equipment at Dunkirk. If Hitler hadn't been cowed by the RAF he could have taken Britain any time.
- Status