The Best Army in the World

The Best Army in the World (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

Commander -> The Best Army in the World (6/19/2002 3:31:15 PM)
Hi folks!! What is the best army in the world? I don't mean size or weapons, I mean the whole army. My opinion is: 1. Israel army (All time number 1) 2. Finnish army (1939-1942) 3. German army (1939-1943) 4. Afghanistan guerilla forces (80's) What do you think?

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (6/19/2002 7:01:23 PM)
Canadian Army (yes I am biased). Able to leap tall buildings with no bound (politicians are cuting costs by eliminating modern innvoations like "bounds", even a single new one). Faster than a speeding locomotive, just watch how fast we try show up where we can't possibly be prepared to go. Hey just cause you can't actually see us for numbers doesn't mean we aren't there). Yes it's the superman army from Canada (or at least that's what Ottawa thinks of it). What else can you say about a country that uses gear that didn't cut it 30 years ago. Pay that isn't impressive, how DO they get people to join? Tours of duty that are so constant our troops would be better off not getting married at all (if you are in a fighting unit, take a lot of pictures so you can identify that vaguely famliar man or woman calling your name). Yep I would stack Canada up against anyone out there. Who else can claim the ability to win wargames against the US (we can eh), and do it as poorly equipped as we normally are.

Egg_Shen -> (6/19/2002 11:54:34 PM)
German Army 38-43

OKW-73 -> (6/20/2002 12:58:03 AM)
Finnish Army 1939-2002 ;)

ananias -> (6/20/2002 2:27:39 AM)
1. Finland 1939-1945. Now we have "puolustusvoimat"(Defence forces), remember? 2. Vietminh/kong 40愀, 50愀, 60愀 and early 70愀. (can you call them an army?) 3. Israel. Gotta love those Merkavas. 4. Red army. Who could not love those poor, fatalistic bastards?

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (6/20/2002 3:03:15 AM)
I would object to all the pro "Finnish" nonsense but they are so like Canadians eh. Hard to hate someone that's like us:D

robot -> Army (6/20/2002 9:01:02 PM)
Turks 1914 1918

KG Erwin -> Best army of all time... (6/20/2002 9:56:22 PM)
...or the modern era (1900-)? If it's the best of all time, it's either the Mongols led by Genghis Khan and his successors, or Philip/Alexander's Macedonians. In the modern era, I gotta rate the Central Command's US/Allied air/ground forces deployed in the 1991 Gulf War as the best of the 20th Century. IMHO, they could've beaten ANYBODY. We may never see another force (of that size and combat power) deployed again, at least in our lifetimes.

Mojo -> (6/20/2002 10:03:24 PM)
:mad: Argh. KG Erwin beat me to it. I had decided on the Mongols and Macedonians while I was shaving.

Belisarius -> Agree (6/21/2002 12:29:55 AM)
The organization, strategies, tactics and skills of the Mongol army is so impressive it's scary. :eek:

Fallschirmjager -> (6/21/2002 1:02:28 AM)
The La Grande Armee of 1803-15 Red Army 1944-1945

bigtroutz -> Re: Agree (6/21/2002 1:37:01 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belisarius [B]The organization, strategies, tactics and skills of the Mongol army is so impressive it's scary. :eek: [/B][/QUOTE] Dang, then lets send them in the take care of the Iraqi's, with UN sanction, of course. Mebbe the Iraqi's will resist and the Mongols will raze their cities ! We could send them into North Korea too.:D

Fallschirmjager -> (6/21/2002 9:25:00 PM)
[QUOTE]Dang, then lets send them in the take care of the Iraqi's, with UN sanction, of course. Mebbe the Iraqi's will resist and the Mongols will raze their cities ! We could send them into North Korea too.[/QUOTE] The Mongols in their hayday all ready had taken both :D Back before the days of Atomic weapons and complex diplomacy you didnt take over an area because they pissed you off you took over an area because it was their.

bigtroutz -> (6/22/2002 1:12:14 AM)
Fallschirmjager, Yes, of course, you are correct. I was merely poking fun at the use of present tense in that post and also poking fun at the typical brutal but effective tactics pursued by the Mongols where cities which resisted were razed and their entire populations massacred once captured. Also poking fun at trying to compare armies of any particular period in history to another period's. one wwII - present infantry batallion with enough ammo could annihilate the entire mongol horde.

msaario -> (6/22/2002 5:09:50 AM)
1. Hannibal Barca of Carthage (actually, I'm a fan of the Romans) and his "troops" (remember Cannae?) 2. Gurkhas (ok, I have a kukri on my shelf) - not an army though. 3. The Finnish Army of 1939-40 (The Molotov's cocktail is now a drink :) - how much can one do with so little? Still applies... taxes you know... 4. Samurais (just watch the documentary "Seven Samurais" :) 5. The early Roman army 6. Alexander (I'm not that familiar with the guy, though) --Mikko

pbhawkin1 -> Australia is up there too! (6/25/2002 2:46:29 PM)
Les the sarge said, [QUOTE]Yep I would stack Canada up against anyone out there. Who else can claim the ability to win wargames against the US (we can eh), and do it as poorly equipped as we normally are.[/QUOTE] AUSTRALIA has also kicked USA's *** regularly, eg: 1) Every year at the RIMPAC Naval exercises, Australia has sunk a US aircraft carrier despite being protected in it's Carrier Battle Group! 2) Every Year at the Kangaroo exercises we have caused major upsets. Not too long ago we managed, through deception, to hide an armoured and Infantry battalion (despite USA's satellite coverage) and when the USA attacked what they thought were our positions they found them to be empty!! Imagine their further shock when they were attacked from their rear/flank and destroyed (according to the umpires)!! 3) recent events in Afganistan show how a smaller and well trained and led force (SAS) can produce results far beyond that of a larger equivalent (rangers/seals). 4) in Vietnam, Gen W. Westmoreland (Comd. Allied Forces in Vietnam) [QUOTE]ordered a training school, based on Australian SAS methods, for Americans and other troops[/QUOTE] . [QUOTE]Other soldiers think of the jungle as being full of lurking enemies. Under our system, [I]WE[/I] do the lurking[/QUOTE] . 5) etc Just a few things to take into account! Of course I may be a little biased ;)

Unknown_Enemy -> (6/25/2002 7:06:45 PM)
1-2-3-4-5 Alexandre the Macedonian : Macedonian phalange ! 1-2-3-4-5 Roman army empire : their cohortes stormed the civilized world. 1-2-3-4-5 Wermacht 38-41 : blitzkrieg. 1-2-3-4-5 La grande armee : Napoleon's redefinition of strategy in battle. 1-2-3-4-5 91's Golf war : USA redefine the battlefield with the domination of air-power. "1-2-3-4-5" is just that I am not able to choose a particular order, too different timelines....

NaKATPase -> (6/25/2002 9:01:26 PM)
Spanish Army of 1808.... No one else captured a French Army that year ;)

troopie -> (6/26/2002 12:52:28 AM)
Depends on what era and for what mission. Today, the US Army. 1980's for COIN and small ops, the South African Army. For large wars, the US or Soviet army. Armies rise and fall in quality. The Russian Army of 1918 was not the Russian Army of 1914. Armies are often terrain specific. The Wehrmacht of 1939-44 was very high quality for its for Europe and North Africa. Put them in, say Burma, chasing Wingate's guerrillas, and I trow they would flounder and fail. troopie

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (6/26/2002 1:08:46 AM)
I think some people here are mistaking powerful with superior. I have nothing against the US specifically, but remove their nuclear shield and make them fight with Canadian gear and I think just about any army could beat them. As for the Aussies, weeeeeeell considering the only way to tell the difference from a Canuck and an Aussie if to wait for one of us to speak. I am more than happy to say the Aussie's can whoop some major butt. I have avoided mentioning the Israelis, not because I don't think highly of them, but look at their opposition....it's easy to look good fighting the worlds most useless opponents (sorry if I offend any in the Arab community), but you have to admit, when have you ever NOT gotten the snot beaten out of ya by the Israelis lately.

AmmoSgt -> (6/26/2002 1:57:14 AM)
I register my Vote for the US Army 1941-1945.. They Won , and they did it across Oceans, Nobody else even comes close to what makes an Army Great , Aside from Heroic Stands like Bastogne, and Unbelievable Assaults like Iwo Jima , Normandy, It was the only Army that could operate with it's own Equipment, ( not that I am knocking lend lease, but lets face it , if the US wasn't equiping the rest the allies , they wouldn't have been in the war ) , In ANY Terrain , ANYWHERE on the Planet and do it with co-ordinated Land, Air, and Sea units that could actually be kept supplied , and did it with lower casulities than anybody else, while inflicting higher casulities than anybody else. You can agrue that other Nations had better Soldiers if you want, Better tanks or planes if you want, better shoelaces , I don't care..But if the Category is "Army" then the overwhelming power , logistics, flexibility, and winning tactical and strategic planing of the US Army can NOT be matched. No other Army fought in as many areas , in as varied terrain , with longer supply lines and won, and had a better record for being humain in their treatment of the enemy.

Belisarius -> (6/26/2002 2:26:36 AM)
Umm.. yeah, if you'll limit it to U.S. Army 44- ~50 I think you have a point. U.S. Army, Class of '41 was nowhere near what you mention ;) A lot happened in those three years.

Egg_Shen -> (6/26/2002 3:11:53 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AmmoSgt [B]I register my Vote for the US Army 1941-1945.. They Won , and they did it across Oceans, Nobody else even comes close to what makes an Army Great , Aside from Heroic Stands like Bastogne, and Unbelievable Assaults like Iwo Jima , Normandy, It was the only Army that could operate with it's own Equipment, ( not that I am knocking lend lease, but lets face it , if the US wasn't equiping the rest the allies , they wouldn't have been in the war ) , In ANY Terrain , ANYWHERE on the Planet and do it with co-ordinated Land, Air, and Sea units that could actually be kept supplied , and did it with lower casulities than anybody else, while inflicting higher casulities than anybody else. You can agrue that other Nations had better Soldiers if you want, Better tanks or planes if you want, better shoelaces , I don't care..But if the Category is "Army" then the overwhelming power , logistics, flexibility, and winning tactical and strategic planing of the US Army can NOT be matched. No other Army fought in as many areas , in as varied terrain , with longer supply lines and won, and had a better record for being humain in their treatment of the enemy. [/B][/QUOTE] YAAAA!!! yippy!! waves US flag :rolleyes:

Hades -> (6/26/2002 4:28:30 AM)
I'd have to say the the Russian Horde near the end of WW2. They covered the most ground and took more losses than most of the other armies.

AmmoSgt -> (6/26/2002 5:43:49 PM)
If taking the most losses and getting your own troops killed is what makes an Army Great , ahh hmmmm ok , The Russians . But if the criteria is taking care of your own Troops, and minimizing your own losses, while inflicting the most damage and losses on the enemy, Then I'm back to the Americans. I think that to be "Great" as a minimum, You have to have at least 1 Rifle per Soldier, I know this sounds sorta PC, but sending troops into combat telling them to share the squad Rifle and to pick it up if the Guy carrying it gets killed , could effect the self-esteem of the folks not chossen to carry the Rifle to start with.

Kanon Fodder -> (6/26/2002 11:31:22 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AmmoSgt [B]... could effect the self-esteem of the folks not chosen to carry the Rifle to start with. [/B][/QUOTE] Hmmm ... now that's a quandary. Do I want to be the guy who gets the "squad rifle" first or last ? I think it's likely a moot point. The only difference, probably, is whether or not you actually have a weapon in hand at time of death ...

Randy -> (6/27/2002 11:51:06 AM)
Though not an "army" but as a ground combat unit, I want to submit the USMC from 42-45. The Marines and Japanese troops each fought with a great deal of tenacity. Having to come ashore and root out the Japanese troops from their bunkers took a hell of a lot of guts. Storming beaches and jungle combat is pretty intensive, doing it successfully is phenominal.

Hades -> (6/27/2002 12:53:26 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AmmoSgt [B]If taking the most losses and getting your own troops killed is what makes an Army Great , ahh hmmmm ok , The Russians . But if the criteria is taking care of your own Troops, and minimizing your own losses, while inflicting the most damage and losses on the enemy, Then I'm back to the Americans. I think that to be "Great" as a minimum, You have to have at least 1 Rifle per Soldier, I know this sounds sorta PC, but sending troops into combat telling them to share the squad Rifle and to pick it up if the Guy carrying it gets killed , could effect the self-esteem of the folks not chossen to carry the Rifle to start with. [/B][/QUOTE] Well they were on the winning side and they did scare the crap out of America for 40 or so years.

Knife -> (6/27/2002 1:33:26 PM)
How can you all forget the British Army???? I don't think I have seen one answer as that. The British army are easily the best trained in the world right about now, and what we lose in numbers we make up in tactics, strategy and training. This being the modern british army BTW.

Commander -> THANKS! (6/27/2002 4:14:11 PM)
Thanks for everybody! I think my question was too big and wide, sorry about that. My own idea was 1900-2000 but I didn't say it. But I think we got good answers for every era! Commander [I]Per aspera ad astra[/I]

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.953125