I vote for the German army. Overall, it was definetly the best trained, best equiped, and best lead army.

Note: dont choose the US or Russia just because they were superpowers, think about their armies over all, with specific attention to the world wars.

Same here I too would like to go with Germany as the World was rolled by them before World Wars and even after they were defeated they didn't loss it all.

Thanks to the weapon of mass destruction also Russia can crush every state (including USA).

If we will consider only 'traditional' weapon, I doubt if USA can win with Chinese army (win - means conquer and control a country).

Germany certainly had a well trained army, but it's troop's quality and fighting spirit probably came more from the fitness and competitiive values imbued into them by the Hitler Youth, than what they learned in the army training camp.

Their C in C was Hitler, making them one of the worst lead armies ever.

Their equpment most certainly was good in some highly glamourous areas, they also had a good deal of mediocre and pretty poor equipment in less well publicised areas. Overall equipmentwise they were no better than average.

I don't think that the Hitelr Youth was so popular that all German soldiers were members of it. Also, what you say applies mostly to infantry. What about tank crews? They didn't have better equipment than their opponents but they were better in combat. What about officers? The German officers showed a superior tactical and strategical awareness than everyone else in the war(s).

I don't understand why someone would vote for the US. What have the US accomplished? Plus, Russians won due to quantity of means, not due to quality.

The British are so eager to fight that the British army accepts gays in order to have sufficient manpower! (Apart of this it's very probable that indeed the Brits are now the best trained)

The equipment and tactics of the Red Army after 1943, and specially in 1944 and 1945 was the best of the world. Between 1945 and 1985-90 was  the strong  land army of the Earth, and the importance of the RA in the 30's was huge, with greats contributions to the concept of Blitzkrieg.

bye

The best land, air and sea armed force of the history is not a small achievement  If you ask me about the WW, that is other thing...

If the British armed forces were as big, they would be better.  Or if you shrink down teh US armed forces to the size of the UK armed forces, the UK's will be better.

i meant modern army as in from 1900-2006.

i meant modern age army.

yea man, the US army is coming up with the craziest equipment ever thought of!

the US army in 50 years is going to kick some serious a$$, although it already does, it will kick more!

I wasn't taking into consideration the air forces.

USA have indeed the best airforce. On land however, I don't know if they are that good, that they can surpass the Wehrmacht or the WW2 Red army. (They can not actually)

Originally posted by barish What is Austro-Hungarian if we are talking about the modern age?

i made a mistake, forget austro hungary and italy.

Now I can cast my vote. And it goes to the Americans. Here's why...

The quality of an army is a combination of these factors: training, equipment and leadership. If we are to sum up these factors for each of the armies specified, this would be the overall score:

Germans: looking at the 20th century, this is probably the best trained army of all. The reason for their failure in both WW is bad leadership and equipment.

British: Very good equipment, but a poorly led army. Training OK.

Russians: What to say? The best description of the Russian army is average. Average leadership, average training and average equipment. They managed to get themselves on almost every wining side in the last century, but that's a political thing really...

French: The French generals should thank god for the Italians, because if there were'nt any, the French army would the worst led army of all. Excellent equipment, mediocre training.

Austro-Hungarian: Like the French, these should also say: "thank god for Italy", this time in the area of training. The main focus of A-H army training was to make the soldier look good on parades. Their equipment and leadership abilities were no better.

Italian: No comment.

American: The quality of their training has had a continuos improvement throughout the century. Not the best equiped, but not far from it. The best led army most definately

Japanese: "Thank god for Italy", this time in the equipment category. Substandard all the way, only thing bailing them out is a good airforce. A good leadership and bad training.

Germans had bad equipment? They had probably the best weapons among WWII members. Aeroplanes: Me 109, FW 190, Me 262, Ju 87 - they were the best aeroplanes of their categories. Only German bombers were inferior to British or American. 

Tanks: Tigers, Panters - were there better tanks in WWII? I think that no. The best submarines, artillery, etc. etc. Germans really had no problem with quality of their weapon. IMHO German problem was the ammount of its army. Enemies had much bigger armies and therefore Germany lost the war.

Lot of reactions I see. That's good. Now let me elaborate a bit. Under the category of equipment I don't only mean the quality of a single piece, but also the overall quantity of it. So 30.000 T-34's beat 6000 Tigers. Get it? It really baffles me when people compare the Tiger to T-34 and are amazed how could the Germans lose to the Russians. Like the JS series never existed, or like the mainstay of German armoured units wasn't the Panzer IV

German airforce had nothing on the Brits, much less the Americans. It didn't really help that the commander of the Luftwafe was apointed through party line.

Artillery? Flak 88 was great, but the British 17-pounders weren't much worse. Number game evened them out.

British submarines were far better then the German ones, unfortunatelly they weren't mass produced.

WWI? Allowing yourself to be pulled into a drag out war with an enemy that has three times more resources-not a good decision.

Besides the Big Bertha, German equipment in WWI didn't have any advantage in comparison with the Antanta.

People, this is not the question about WWII, but the 20th century! That's what I'm talking about.

So you have to consider WWI, WWII, Afganistan, Algeria, Vietnam etc. and debate on all of that, like I do.  

Edgewaters:

As the 1930s progressed, both the War Department and the Navy Department understood that the Phillipine Islands were indefensible.  Much had changed since 1898, most obviously Japan becoming the Great Power in Asia, and with all her military strength concentrated there.

As the second WW developed, 1939-41, it became obvious that the US would be involved soon, and that Germany was the more serious opponent.  That would always be the first priority.

In 1941, the US navy did not have the numerical strength (mostly left over from treaty restrictions) to cover her interests in both Atlantic and Pacific.  Large numbers of warships were under contruction but unavailable; armaments manufacture was just gearing up, and the army and navy were beginning to expand with as yet untrained and inexperienced personnel.

Military leadership understood that the Phillipines were expendable, including MacArthur and Jonathan Wainwright.  There were almost no modern armaments on Guam or the Phillipines, and the navy's Asiatic squadron was small and with old units.  Defense was delegated mostly to 10 or 11 older submarines.  The "Phillipine Army" was new and poorly equipped.

Bataan and Corregidor occupied substantial Japanese forces, and attention, that otherwise would have been turned on the communications between Australia and the US much sooner.  Yes, US forces were defeated there, but valuable time was gained, almost six months.  Within that time, naval forces had been transferred from the Atlantic, and much intensive training conducted with newer arms and equipment. 

The Phillipines constituted a well conducted delaying action (mostly by Wainwright) against overwhelming odds, but in the three months after Corregidor's fall, Coral Sea and Midway occurred, US forces were ashore on Guadalcanal, and Australian troops had been concentrated on New Guinea.

Sometimes you have to make what you can of a defeat.  That is part of military leadership too.

As far as the Russians go, I don't consider the tactic of sacrificing your troops en masse particulary brilliant. And this has been the main strategy of the Red Army. The fact that the soldiers didn't respond to this tactic by shooting their commanders (well, not too often) is a sign of good training. Zhukov had some exceptional results, but I see him only as a gambler with a lot of luck.

WWII is a shining moment for Russian military equipment in armored units, but infantry troops were underequipt and there was practically no airforce for most of the war. Best allies of the Russians in this war were General Winter and General Clay, who claimed as many German casulties as the Red Army

Afghanistan was lost despite the fact that Russian forces had superior equipment and numbers. Leadership-lousy.

WWI and the civil war 1918-1922 are more or less identical-won on the fact that Russian generals were willing to invest more corpses than their enemies, and even that wouldn't of been enough in WWI where victory was pracitally carried out by the French.

Russian army buried more men then N.Korea ever had, so you can scratch that.

North Korea has a World War II army with 1950s doctrine, just as Iraq had.  In the limited geography of the Korean peninsula, contemporary air power would devastate it.

Most of the people has selected America as the best Modern Army and most of them has claimed that US has the best in Air, Land and Naval.

I would like to say (my point of view) that just take away the air force of american army and send them to Afghanistan and after some time you will soon be able to see their name on the list along with the Mighty Britain (of then) and the Super-power Russia (of then).

What I mean by this comment is that all the american army has, is its advance AirForce (don't know much about their Naval forces), and that they are not able to fight well on land without the air support.

A good reference to this cliam could be the situation of american forces in Afghanistan where they even don't try to attack a small village (with only some innocent villagers and peasants in it) without the air support, first the air crafts (as modern as B-52) demolishes the area then the land forces enters (hah! that could be even done by a group of 15 years old boys with only light guns (unlike the heavy machine guns of US forces), where there is nothing to fight against as everything has already been demolished).

On the other hand some people commented that why Germans:

The easiest answer to this question could be wait until the american forces vanishes (as the Germans did in WW2) then see if they can get back as strong as the German Army is today.

One problem, China doesn't have contol of the Pacific. China is at quite a disadvantage, they wouldn't dare go to war with us. America has the greatest modern army and has proved itself through three wars of masterful military brilliance: Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom with special emphasis on Iraqi Freedom.

Disputed. British Army officers are very, very highly trained (I would probably rate Sandhurst above West Point). Training similarly is very good, not only that but more general experience and a wider depth of abilities.

The RAF i will admit is nothing compared to USAAF. Similarly for the Royal Navy thanks to budget cuts.

The Army however is very good aside from bad equipment. It is designed differently to the American army thats all.

However i vote for the American army as taking Modern to mean 1990+ they have a better army than any in the world overall.

Well said Russian. Winter did help the Ruskis out, you cant deny that, yet at the same time Mr Winter didnt take Berlin.

Can you really say who had the best armies during WW2 Russia, America, Germany???? I dont think you can. I would include Japan but some of their equiptment was junk. They all made advances in certain fields.

Is it just me or do some Americans think that the Soviet troops were ill-trained and poorly equipped?????

Yup, but i would argue many Russian troops were badly trained compared to other nations. Russia had some very good troops (for example the Siberians) and some very bad (the tribal conscripts). As for ill equipped Russians had some of the best equipment, the T-34 was superior to all Allied tanks of the same class (like the Sherman or Cromwell) as well as being better than many German tanks (Mk III, IV). American troops were not particually well trained either in many cases.

German Army was probably the second best in the last 100 years..the US Forces I have to picked first. Wars are won in Land, Air, and Sea with support of great training, good supply lines, equipment and etc...of which America has.

and I don't believe being gay has anything to do with the quality of being a good soldier or not. for thousands of years, gays had fought wars, won and loss wars, gained glory and honor so forth alongside normal people. <no im not gay>.

To prove that there is evidence that Thebes Sacred Band, probaby the best Hoplite Regiment in Greece was all gay or had large numbers of homosexuals. Similarly homosexuality was common in much of the ancient world but that has not stopped them having good soldiers.

Germany produced many awesome tanks, sorry dont know all their names but the Ferdinand was a moving fortress, Too bad the electronics were rushed.

Did the Ruskis have anything like the Ferdinand. Im sure i read a German soldiers account about unknown tanks during the Battle of Kursk *They should make a movie on Kursk, biggest armoured battle to ever take place*.

Umm..OK not girly men gays but then again wussy men dont make great soldiers either.

As for German tanks they were the best (Tiger, King Tiger, Panther, Jagdpanzer etc) but the m,ain tanks were the Mark III and IV's which were inferior to the T-34. The difference is that Russian tanks lack sophistication but are cheaper, far more reliable and use less fuel. Something likem a King Tiger is brilliant but electronics are failures and most such 'super tanks' were crippled with either no fuel or mechanical problems.

Originally posted by Russian Hi guys, I am new on the forums, joined because kinda interested in these discussions here. I would say this: Russia undoubtedly has most powerful land army and largest unclear arsenal in the world RIGHT NOW, american army stands nowhere near russian or chinese. guess what happens if US starts land operation in Iran, IT LOSES, not in liberating country, not in anti-terrorist stuff, it loses the full scale war, because it is not made to be in full scale war, while armies like Russian or Chinese are, US land army is made to resolve small military conflict or invade small country like Iraq, it is different philosophy of war. America has most powerful NAVY and aviation, but NEVER land army, they also have second largest nuclear forces. Americans won ECONOMIC war (Cold war), going in to war with Soviet Union was NOT possible, at least not feasible, if allies would go war on USSR, USSR would not even notice them, within months Stalin would be sitting on shores of Atlantic with all europe being communist, and looking for USA, looking for how he can make it USSA (United Socialist States of America) The problem was US nukes, they were not enough to destroy Red Army, but Red army also didn't want to take risk, in this sense, US literally saved Europe. and Yes, it is funny to say Average about Russian SS-18, which is feared by americans, or Topol M, or Smerch MLRS, and of course S-400, compare these to their american counterparts and you will easily find out which land army is the most powerful, also I would suggest comparing these units by cost, speed of manufacturing and other production factors my friend, and then make any conclusions about "average" russian land army. Also, I agree with edgewaters, saying that russian equipment is average is top of ignorance, please, tell me which rocket artillery is better than Smerch, which Anti aircraft defence is better than S-400 and which ICBM is more powerful than SS-18? After you give me answers for these, you can call russian equipment average, the problem is, you will not be able to, get a clue about equipment and then post, Maljkovic. Also, few words for Gharanai, if Russia or America want it, they will kill all afghanistan people in a year, trust me on that one, the problem is that the reasons of war were different, not to slaughter all afghanis and leave, but to fight terrorism and other stupid causes. If Russia or America wants, it will, without any air support completely anihilate Afghanistan from the map of the world. Also, General winter is a common misconception, how did winter help Stalingrad or Moscow? It stopped german tanks and vehicles, what does it mean? THAT THEY ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH and not reliable enough, not that winter helps russians, russians, however, had reliable vehicles, General winter is a common MYTH invented by germans and French who didn't like that Russia defeated them, especially germans, invaded How many times did Russia take Berlin? One, NOPE, two times, one more during Katherine rule, apart of course from WW2. Soviet Union was, as has been stated, the MAJOR force that defeated germans, it was not americans, not british, it was soviets, it was only after soviets started pushing germans back, allies opened second front, US now tries to undermine the role of soviets or russians in WW2 by saying "AHHHH, it was russian winter, our help and that's it, we won", that's not true, Hitler admitted in the beginning of the war that he made mistake by attacking Russia.

 100% AGREE!!! BUT, HOW YOU FORGOT TO METION THE GREATEST EVER WEAPON CREATED BY MANKIND?   THE AK-47 KALASHNIKOV!!!

I even have heard that Russians have weapons which can change the tilt of the earth by several degrees, thus making the US shrink under water. Though it might seem unrealistic, but as I have been a part of the USSR with many elder people telling me stories from the secret bases, I think that it could very much be true!!!

RUSSIAN - just telling the truth to the blind peple!

You are right, I have been to the US once, I really find most(not all) of them narrow minded, they really dont know the whole pictore(not only in this case, but in EVERY case), yet speak to 100% sureness and certainty. Which is upmost stupidity!

I really have not met Russians saying that they are the dominant country or they will crush somebody, yet they have as many right to say so, as the US people, but they think a bit before speaking, and I gues they are more educated rather than those cowboys in texas!

Talk to John Steakley about the narrow minddness of Americans.

I have to say i hae met quite a  few Americans and some are narrow minded and others are great guys.

Personally I wouldnt put Russia as the best army because frankly their equipment is outdated or non existent, draft dodging is rife, discipline in some units is godawful,  air/naval support lacking, old tanks/MBT's, lack of training. Remember armies include air force/navy too (US Air Cavalry or German Stukas etc being tactical assets more for ground forces than air).  Mobility is lacking. All Russia has are numbers but in todays war that isnt enough. Spetnatz are brutal though.

Chechneya is not a good example as Russia is only holding her own not winning as opposed to America which won the war in Iraq and is now dealing with the insurgency. If Russia truly was the best army she should be winning, no?