QuoteReplyTopic: Greatest modern army? Posted: 18-Mar-2006 at 06:16
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)
What is Austro-Hungarian if we are talking about the modern age?
i made a mistake, forget austro hungary and italy.
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
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: 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.
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.
"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..."
sacrifice...they didnt manage to get themselves on the winning
team...they were the winning "team", both world wars, without Russia,
France and England were gonners...
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 winingside in the last century, but that's a political thing really...
All the Allies managed to get themselves on the winning side, so you could say it was a political thing for any of them. But Russia was certainly the largest single contributor to Germany's defeat. The Western front wouldn't even be possible without Russia.
Also, Russian forces were definately not headed by "average" leadership. Zhukov was particularly brilliant, for instance. Nor were they necessarily technically inferior - the T-34 was an excellent design, and extremely well-suited to production realities, which inspired advanced German designs like the Panther. All modern armour still uses the principle of the sloped glacis which was a revolutionary part of the T-34's design.
The Tiger and Panther were statistically better, but their production cost was enormous, particularly in terms of critical resources which the Germans could not afford. Even the Americans, with their massive industrial capacity, realized that it was better to have a tank that offered more per dollar rather than per tank.
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.
French military wasn't that bad, but its weakness in the face of the German attack is overrated. The same encounter that defeated France had Britain calling the retreat of the BEF a "miracle" because they managed to get their butts out of there in time. The German victory was not so much due to superior forces of any kind, but to a superior and revolutionary strategy - namely Guderians application of Liddell Hart's "deep battle" theories.
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
Only somewhat true - the Americans had numerous leadership gaffes, such as the ones which led to the loss of the Phillipines and the defeats at Bataan and Corregidor.
All the Allies managed to get themselves on the winning side, so
you could say it was a political thing for any of them. But Russia was
certainly the largest single contributor to Germany's defeat. The
Western front wouldn't even be possible without Russia.
Also, Russian forces were definately not headed by "average" leadership. Zhukov was particularly brilliant, for instance.
At the beginning, the soviet leadership was miserable (with the
exception of Zhukov), but at the end of the war was the better of the
world and not less brilliant than the best german leadership of the
begininning-middle of the war. You must added to Zhukov: Rokossowsky,
Vasilevsky, Koniev, Vatutin... and many more young generals, excellents
officers.
French military wasn't that bad, but its weakness in the
face of the German attack is overrated. The same encounter that
defeated France had Britain calling the retreat of the BEF a "miracle"
because they managed to get their butts out of there in time. The
German victory was not so much due to superior forces of any kind, but
to a superior and revolutionary strategy - namely Guderians application
of Liddell Hart's "deep battle" theories.
Agree with the french army and the german superiority with the
blitzkrieg, but Guderian didn't take all his theory from Liddel Hart,
he took Liddell Hart, the experience of the armies in 1918 and the
theories of Tujachewsky, all.
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
Only somewhat true - the Americans had numerous leadership gaffes,
such as the ones which led to the loss of the Phillipines and the
defeats at Bataan and Corregidor.
Agree, the only two (in land army) good generals of the
americans was Patton and Simpson, and they couldn't do all they want.
The american army of the WWII was not a brilliant machine in the fields
of tactic and strategy.
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.
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.
I am actually considering that maybe N. KOREA has the greatest modern army. But maybe only in numbers. If we are talking in the number strength then certainly N. Korea is the great one.
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.
I am actually considering that maybe N. KOREA has the greatest modern army. But maybe only in numbers. If we are talking in the number strength then certainly N. Korea is the great one.
Russian army buried more men then N.Korea ever had, so you can scratch that.
I am actually considering that maybe N. KOREA has the greatest modern army. But maybe only in numbers. If we are talking in the number strength then certainly N. Korea is the great one.
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.
The United States, without a doubt, is the best. Through sheer economics, the United States can crush any nation's army.
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).
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.
"In the absence of orders go find something and kill it!"
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
You need update your knowledge about the Red Army , there is a deep evolution between 1941 and 1945.
Post WWII, they were much more powerful than the United States army (many many more tanks and soldiers) and could easily have steamrolled Western Europe. The US had to rely on its nuclear deterrant to prevent such a showdown.
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.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum