Greatest Military of All Time?

[Higgins86]

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?

Rommel's ineptitude? The man nicknamed the "The Desert Fox"? :roll:

 

[Jredbaron96]

Rommel's ineptitude? The man nicknamed the "The Desert Fox"? :roll:

And Stalin was called the Man of Steel even though he was a short, hunched over man with a withered arm.

Yes, Rommel's ineptitude. Rommel was a fantastic tactician who's ability to "feel" the weakness of an enemy's tactical disposition was impressive. But while he was great at the tactical level he got progressively worse the higher up he went; his operational planning was poor, he had no real grasp of strategy and he constantly overextended his logistics. His defeats were almost entirely the result of him pressing on despite a poor strategic/supply situation.

Some generals are remarkable in some categories while terrible in the other. Montgomery was the opposite; he was a poor tactician but a great organizer with a keen strategic understanding of the war that not many other generals possessed.

 

[Jack Hays]

Rommel's ineptitude? The man nicknamed the "The Desert Fox"? :roll:

The greatest of the German generals (IMHO), Manstein and Guderian, thought Rommel courageous but too rigid and unimaginative. He was dubbed "the Desert Fox" to diminish British embarrassment, and he had the great posthumous good luck to be portrayed by James Mason.

 

[Fledermaus]

And Stalin was called the Man of Steel even though he was a short, hunched over man with a withered arm.

Yes, Rommel's ineptitude. Rommel was a fantastic tactician who's ability to "feel" the weakness of an enemy's tactical disposition was impressive. But while he was great at the tactical level he got progressively worse the higher up he went; his operational planning was poor, he had no real grasp of strategy and he constantly overextended his logistics. His defeats were almost entirely the result of him pressing on despite a poor strategic/supply situation.

Some generals are remarkable in some categories while terrible in the other. Montgomery was the opposite; he was a poor tactician but a great organizer with a keen strategic understanding of the war that not many other generals possessed.

Would it be fair to say Montgomery was WWIIs McClellan?

 

[Higgins86]

The greatest of the German generals (IMHO), Manstein and Guderian, thought Rommel courageous but too rigid and unimaginative. He was dubbed "the Desert Fox" to diminish British embarrassment, and he had the great posthumous good luck to be portrayed by James Mason.

I think you're overlooking the fact he has to ultimately report to Italo Gariboldi and that often had to resort to insubordination in order to execute his strategy.

Again though Americans always have an interesting take on WW2. Always overlook the fact that the Nazis they faced were not the same armies in 1939-41, the Eastern front had gutted their ranks and exhausted their supply lines.

 

[Jack Hays]

I think you're overlooking the fact he has to ultimately report to Italo Gariboldi and that often had to resort to insubordination in order to execute his strategy.

Again though Americans always have an interesting take on WW2. Always overlook the fact that the Nazis they faced were not the same armies in 1939-41, the Eastern front had gutted their ranks and exhausted their supply lines.

Your second paragraph has nothing to do with my point. I agree with you that the Eastern Front chewed up the Wehrmacht. Americans never faced either Guderian or Manstein.

 

[phattonez]

Again because the bulk of our armed forces were in Europe and North Africa lol

Where they weren't having much success either.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Would it be fair to say Montgomery was WWIIs McClellan?

In some ways.

The most accurate assessment I've heard of Montgomery was he was a solid if unremarkable General who happened to fail in his biggest test (Market Garden) for reasons that were both his and not his fault.

 

[Higgins86]

Where they weren't having much success either.

Sent from my HTC phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.

If Britain doesn't hang on to North Africa you have no second front.

 

[Jack Hays]

0:21


Patton Clip

amishpower

YouTube - Feb 13, 2013

 

[Rich2018]

If I had to put them in a rough order off the top of my head it would be this:

US Military (Today: Navy Seals, Stealth, etc.)
Nazi Germany
Japanese Samurai
Romans
Spartans
Mongol Hourde
Spanish Conquistadors Empire
British Red Coats
English Long Bowmen
Japanese Empire

Strictly speaking "military" refers to ground forces.

Japanese Samurai ? Seriously ?
Who did they ever beat ?

The Spartans ?
What did they achieve ?

Spanish Conquistadors ?
Who did they ever beat ?

By redcoats do you mean the British army during the period they wore red?
The British army has never been that powerful - except perhaps in WWI
The power behind the British Empire was the Royal Navy

 

[Jack Hays]

By redcoats do you mean the British army during the period they wore red?
The British army has never been that powerful - except perhaps in WWI
The power behind the British Empire was the Royal Navy

Except for sacrificing themselves to stop the Germans in 1914.

Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

These, in the day when heaven was falling,
The hour when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling,
And took their wages, and are dead.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay.

A.E. Housman

 

[Rich2018]

Except for sacrificing themselves to stop the Germans in 1914...

I did say with the exception perhaps of WWI


Though in 1914 the British army - though wonderfully equipped and trained - was still to quote Wilhelm II, contemptibly small.

 

[Jack Hays]

I did say with the exception perhaps of WWI


Though in 1914 the British army - though wonderfully equipped and trained - was still to quote Wilhelm II, contemptibly small.

Yes. It was a professional army whose mission was to police the Empire. That is why German propaganda called them "mercenaries" and helped create Housman's fabulous poem.

 

[Evilroddy]

The greatest military of all time is either the US Armed Forces or the Red Army of the Soviet Union. The US for training, professionalism and over the last 35 years, technical advantage. The Soviet Red Army and supporting forces for sheer size and extensive mechanisation. The Soviets would have run into severe logistical problems had the Cold War gone hot in Central and Western Europe but their sheer weight of forces may have either collapsed NATO conventional forces or led to an escalation to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons by one side or the other.

Today there is no doubt that the US Armed forces are the greatest military standing right now.

If one adjusts for historical, technological and training/professionalism then there are many candidates through out military history. The Sumerians and Akkadians for inventing armies are probably first in recorded history. Then the Hurrians or Mitanni for inventing and perfecting the light chariot and making warfare mobile on good ground at least. Then comes the New Kingdom Egyptians or the Middle Assyrians for developing a well balanced and partially professional combined arms force (by Bronze Age standards) which included heavy infantry, medium infantry, light infantry, massed close order bowmen (especially the Egyptians) and very effective light chariotry. The next marker on the road of military greatness was the Middle and Neo-Assyrians who perfected heavy shock chariots and far more importantly developed both regular skirmishing bow armed light cavalry and bow and lance armed shock cavalry. The next marker would be the Macedonians under Phillip and later Alexander for the best pike armed phalanx infantry and the best use of heavy shock cavalry. Then comes the Romans for effective use of mechanical artillery, exceptional fortification skills, military professionalism and the ability to replace man power after defeats and set backs. The Polybian Manipular legions and the Later Imperial Legions stand out as special for their effectiveness. Parthians and later Byzantines are next for the development and perfection of super heavy cavalry - cataphracts.

I've got to go now but I will continue later.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Jack Hays]

The greatest military of all time is either the US Armed Forces or the Red Army of the Soviet Union. The US for training, professionalism and over the last 35 years, technical advantage. The Soviet Red Army and supporting forces for sheer size and extensive mechanisation. The Soviets would have run into severe logistical problems had the Cold War gone hot in Central and Western Europe but their sheer weight of forces may have either collapsed NATO conventional forces or led to an escalation to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons by one side or the other.

Today there is no doubt that the US Armed forces are the greatest military standing right now.

If one adjusts for historical, technological and training/professionalism then there are many candidates through out military history. The Sumerians and Akkadians for inventing armies are probably first in recorded history. Then the Hurrians or Mitanni for inventing and perfecting the light chariot and making warfare mobile on good ground at least. Then comes the New Kingdom Egyptians or the Middle Assyrians for developing a well balanced and partially professional combined arms force (by Bronze Age standards) which included heavy infantry, medium infantry, light infantry, massed close order bowmen (especially the Egyptians) and very effective light chariotry. The next marker on the road of military greatness was the Middle and Neo-Assyrians who perfected heavy shock chariots and far more importantly developed both regular skirmishing bow armed light cavalry and bow and lance armed shock cavalry. The next marker would be the Macedonians under Phillip and later Alexander for the best pike armed phalanx infantry and the best use of heavy shock cavalry. Then comes the Romans for effective use of mechanical artillery, exceptional fortification skills, military professionalism and the ability to replace man power after defeats and set backs. The Polybian Manipular legions and the Later Imperial Legions stand out as special for their effectiveness. Parthians and later Byzantines are next for the development and perfection of super heavy cavalry - cataphracts.

I've got to go now but I will continue later.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

The US Air Force cuts off the head of the snake.

[h=3]The Third World War: August 1985: General Sir John Winthrop Hackett ...[/h]
[url]https://www.amazon.com/Third-World-War-August-1985/dp/0425101924
[/URL]

The Third World War: August 1985 [General Sir John Winthrop Hackett] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Top-ranking NATO generals and ...

 

[Bodi]

Strictly speaking "military" refers to ground forces.

Japanese Samurai ? Seriously ?
Who did they ever beat ?

The Spartans ?
What did they achieve ?

Spanish Conquistadors ?
Who did they ever beat ?

By redcoats do you mean the British army during the period they wore red?
The British army has never been that powerful - except perhaps in WWI
The power behind the British Empire was the Royal Navy

Nope. Military refers to "armed forces".

Spartans defeated the Persians.
Spanish conquered an entire continent.
Redcoats and British had the largest empire in the history of Earth.
Samurai are just awesome.

 

[Jack Hays]

The Mighty 8th Air Force.

 

[Evilroddy]

The US Air Force cuts off the head of the snake.

[h=3]The Third World War: August 1985: General Sir John Winthrop Hackett ...[/h]
[url]https://www.amazon.com/Third-World-War-August-1985/dp/0425101924
[/URL]

The Third World War: August 1985 [General Sir John Winthrop Hackett] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Top-ranking NATO generals and ...

Jack Hayes:

That was the theory to be sure. But in war theories often fall by the wayside. Since the Red Army/Warsaw Pact never tangled operationally with the NATO Alliance we will never know how well Western air forces could have suppressed the Soviet Operational Manoeuvre Groups and Motor Rifle/Tank Divisions. It would be hard to launch air strikes from air bases under direct attack from Soviet VDV infantry, rocketry, missiles and maybe even NBC attacks. So yes, I agree the air power of NATO might very well have been the great equaliser or might have even tipped the scales in favour of the West, but we don't know for sure. Using Middle Eastern analogues to predict Soviet performance in a Cold War gone hot is risky and thus how things might turn out is at best an educated guess if combat remained conventional throughout the conflict. To be clear I am not saying you made this comparison with Soviet kit equipped Arab armies, that's my point.

I read Hackett, Suvorov, Isby and many other military analysts work on mobile warfare in the 20th Century back in the day. They all had their takes on what would happen in a Cold War Conflict and there was no consensus. I like to think that like reading Liddlehart, JFC Fuller, Tukhachevsky and Guderian in comparison with more conservative writers no one really new how World War Two would play out on the battlefields until October of 1939 when German schwerpunkts cut the powerful Polish army into pieces to be defeated in detail. France was surprised too seven months later and Stalin's Red Army barely held on in 1941 while under attack from inferior and far fewer German attackers than the Russian defenders. Nothing is written in stone in war except the grave stones of those who were sure they would win.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack Hayes:

That was the theory to be sure. But in war theories often fall by the wayside. Since the Red Army/Warsaw Pact never tangled operationally with the NATO Alliance we will never know how well Western air forces could have suppressed the Soviet Operational Manoeuvre Groups and Motor Rifle/Tank Divisions. It would be hard to launch air strikes from air bases under direct attack from Soviet VDV infantry, rocketry, missiles and maybe even NBC attacks. So yes, I agree the air power of NATO might very well have been the great equaliser or might have even tipped the scales in favour of the West, but we don't know for sure. Using Middle Eastern analogues to predict Soviet performance in a Cold War gone hot is risky and thus how things might turn out is at best an educated guess if combat remained conventional throughout the conflict. To be clear I am not saying you made this comparison with Soviet kit equipped Arab armies, that's my point.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Most interesting aspect of the book for me was that Warsaw Pact forces launched from what was called a "standing start" -- no observable build-up -- and attacked on a Sunday in August because they knew much of the NATO chain of command would be absent.

 

[Evilroddy]

Most interesting aspect of the book for me was that Warsaw Pact forces launched from what was called a "standing start" -- no observable build-up -- and attacked on a Sunday in August because they knew much of the NATO chain of command would be absent.

Jack Hayes:

It's been more than thirty years since I read the book and I honestly don't remember much about it. It was mixed up with reading books about a brave stand by the Canadian 5th Mechanised Brigade trying to survive on the North German Plain, a Canadian Civil War scenario, some Early Tom Clancy stuff and a couple of historical fictions from the Soviet POV. It's all a jumble to me now. One day I'll dig those books out of my basement storage and reread them but there is no time now for that now unfortunately

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[uptower]

Sentinelese. Never been conquered; repelled all invaders.


....to soon?

 

[Fledermaus]

Strictly speaking "military" refers to ground forces.

Japanese Samurai ? Seriously ?
Who did they ever beat ?

The Spartans ?
What did they achieve ?

Spanish Conquistadors ?
Who did they ever beat ?

By redcoats do you mean the British army during the period they wore red?
The British army has never been that powerful - except perhaps in WWI
The power behind the British Empire was the Royal Navy

How much history DON'T you know?

 

[Fledermaus]

Nope. Military refers to "armed forces".

Spartans defeated the Persians.
Spanish conquered an entire continent.
Redcoats and British had the largest empire in the history of Earth.
Samurai are just awesome.

And they held off the Mongols. Twice.

 

[Bodi]

And they held off the Mongols. Twice.

Word... and they were dresses.