• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Greatest Military of All Time?

joko104 said:
Battleships. :doh
Click to expand...

IIRC, last deployment was New Jersey or Wisconsin for coastal bombardment in Vietnam. Navy friend told me that with all the teak and the polished brass "you could not build that ship today." Too bad.
 
Jack Hays said:
IIRC, last deployment was New Jersey or Wisconsin for coastal bombardment in Vietnam. Navy friend told me that with all the teak and the polished brass "you could not build that ship today." Too bad.
Click to expand...

If I am not mistaken one was deployed to Lebanon in the 80s and used for fire support
 
Rexedgar said:
Two examples by prior posters included Napolean’s Grand Armee and the Third Reich’s Wehrmacht. Although not a “military,” the Russian winter and hubris defeated these forces. Germany’s error compounded by history only a little over a century earlier.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing the Wehrmacht posted here, but I'm not sure that they're better than the German Empire's Wehrmacht. In WWI Germany knocked out Russia and nearly took out France. Was the Nazi Wehrmacht superior for getting lucky using a risky tactic and taking out France in 6 weeks?

Then again, it's hard to compare given that we'll never know what the German Wehrmacht could have done had Hitler allowed the 6th army to break out of Stalingrad.
 
Sweden said:
WWII

Armies: German, British (including Australian Canadian and other Commonwealth), Russian, US, Japanese, French, italian. In that order-
Click to expand...

Putting the British so high and the Japanese so low is absurd.
 
markjs said:
Had it not been for hitlers madness and all that final solution stuff, with a bit of patience, they'd have taken all of Europe, and, it's arguable, if Hitler was a better politician, he could have won our backing under some possible scenarios. It's a fascinating idea for a time travel gone wrong book or script.
Click to expand...

I can't see that possible with the Nazis using horses for their supply lines, but the Soviets having American Jeeps.
 
False comparisons because in history, a country was expected to be hunter gatherers. (conquerers)

If the US had been equally interested in hunting and gathering countries say 1945...what could it have done ?

BTW, the Mongols captured more than Alexander and just stopped IIRC...at Germany.
 
Jack Hays said:
IIRC, last deployment was New Jersey or Wisconsin for coastal bombardment in Vietnam. Navy friend told me that with all the teak and the polished brass "you could not build that ship today." Too bad.
Click to expand...

Reagan restored and recommissioned the New Jersey and the Iowa. ($250 million by 1982) The last time any US battleship saw action was in support of the Iraq war of 1991.

He didn't need to 'build that ship' it was already built.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sunk in April 1945 by US aircraft.
Click to expand...

She and her sister ship, Musashi, were the heaviest and most powerfully armed battleships ever constructed, displacing 72,800 tonnes at full load and armed with nine 46 cm (18.1 in) Type 94 main guns, which were the largest guns ever mounted on a warship.
Click to expand...

My point stands.
 
phattonez said:
Putting the British so high and the Japanese so low is absurd.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put either of them very high.

The British Army's performance in WWII was pretty lackluster all around but it had some high points, the most impressive being Slim's 14th Army in Asia. The performance of the Royal Navy and the RAF on the other hand was pretty good throughout the war.

The Japanese are fanatical but have very little else going their way. The Imperial Japanese Army was effectively just an army of light infantry that was well suited to fighting in the jungle and mountains, until someone could match them and then they tended to lose badly. Their ability to hunker down and hold territory against much larger opponents was impressive in it's own right but overall was of little effect in impacting the overall strategic situation in their favor.
 
phattonez said:
I keep seeing the Wehrmacht posted here, but I'm not sure that they're better than the German Empire's Wehrmacht. In WWI Germany knocked out Russia and nearly took out France. Was the Nazi Wehrmacht superior for getting lucky using a risky tactic and taking out France in 6 weeks?

Then again, it's hard to compare given that we'll never know what the German Wehrmacht could have done had Hitler allowed the 6th army to break out of Stalingrad.
Click to expand...

According to Germans who served in both world wars, the Armies of Imperial Germany were better disciplined than the Wehrmacht, but how much of that is true is debatable, especially given that the Imperial Armies had decades of doctrinal and organizational development to work with whereas the Wehrmacht exploded into existence and then subsequently expanded very rapidly.

But that does make it worth mentioning; many of the Wehrmacht's forces were composed of relatively poorly trained conscripts with a very large number of them over the age of 40 and therefore past their prime in terms of physical fitness. The Wehrmacht was furthermore organized around a doctrine of rapid penetration and armored thrusts that it was not logistically prepared to handle, and would undermine it's efforts throughout the war.

So yes, I would place the armies of Imperial Germany above those of Nazi Germany, but I wouldn't consider them overall to be the best military in history.
 
phattonez said:
Putting the British so high and the Japanese so low is absurd.
Click to expand...

Why? Japan ran riot in the Far East mainly because we were fighting for our lives in Europe and North Africa. Japan struggled to fight on multiple fronts as demonstrated when the US entered the war and much later Russia.
1 on 1 the British absolutely pummel 1941 Japan.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
I wouldn't put either of them very high.

The British Army's performance in WWII was pretty lackluster all around but it had some high points, the most impressive being Slim's 14th Army in Asia. The performance of the Royal Navy and the RAF on the other hand was pretty good throughout the war.

The Japanese are fanatical but have very little else going their way. The Imperial Japanese Army was effectively just an army of light infantry that was well suited to fighting in the jungle and mountains, until someone could match them and then they tended to lose badly. Their ability to hunker down and hold territory against much larger opponents was impressive in it's own right but overall was of little effect in impacting the overall strategic situation in their favor.
Click to expand...

El Alamein and the North African campaign in general....
 
If the discussion is WW2 then two US groups and battles stand out: US Marines on Iwo Jima, and in Europe US daylight bomber crews of the 8th Air Force. They sustained the highest casualty rates of any US forces in our country's history, and prevailed.
 
Higgins86 said:
El Alamein and the North African campaign in general....
Click to expand...

The performance of the British in North Africa isn't exactly the high point of British history.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The performance of the British in North Africa isn't exactly the high point of British history.
Click to expand...

With no support in the early years they managed to not get pushed off the continent and then went on to give the Nazis there first defeat in open battle? You Americans have interesting takes on WW2.
 
Desert Storm said:
Alexander the Great. His army went undefeated during his reign.

He had also conquered a huge part of the world

main-qimg-8048ae0e7ac6b1588806c6a7f0a0db56
Click to expand...

And Alexanders army was quite brilliant for more than just its tactics, Philips radical reforms to the logistical structure of the Macedonian army was crucial in laying the foundation for Alexander to pacify Greece after becoming King and then moving onto his Persian conquest.

People often forget the role of logistics, the unsung heroes of many a successful campaign.

But ultimately Alexanders success was many a Kings later nightmare, as they continued to believe the Phalanx was the superior unit, eventually the Romans would cut them to pieces due to the rigidity of sticking to what had become a severely outdated strategum.
 
Higgins86 said:
With no support in the early years they managed to not get pushed off the continent and then went on to give the Nazis there first defeat in open battle? You Americans have interesting takes on WW2.
Click to expand...

You mean a second rate German Corps managed to repeatedly defeat the British despite Rommel's ineptitude when it came to strategy and logistics, and it wasn't until the complete collapse of the latter did the British manage to eek out a victory?
 
Higgins86 said:
Why? Japan ran riot in the Far East mainly because we were fighting for our lives in Europe and North Africa. Japan struggled to fight on multiple fronts as demonstrated when the US entered the war and much later Russia.
1 on 1 the British absolutely pummel 1941 Japan.
Click to expand...
Japan only struggled against the US. They demolished Britain on multiple fronts. Or did you forget about Singapore?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan–United_Kingdom_relations

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom