Best army in history?

Reply 140

the vietcong :P

Original post by ChaoticSkills

No one cares, they did the impossible and established an empire that went on for decades. In some wars they had more soldiers, in some they had less. I.E the one below for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Keresztes

Their losses were still larger as a proportion of the total number fielded. And they couldn't take Vienna with vastly superior numbers.
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moh%C3%A1cs_%281687%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Slankamen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zenta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aspindza

Reply 142

435540

14

French Foreign Legion.

End of.

Reply 143

ChaoticSkills

12

Original post by domino0806

Their losses were still larger as a proportion of the total number fielded. And they couldn't take Vienna with vastly superior numbers.
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moh%C3%A1cs_%281687%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Slankamen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zenta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aspindza

Then you have battles like this..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Preveza

Yes they won and lost some with larger numbers. But some of the greatest battles and wars were won and lost with greater numbers. Like the ones below for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_Landings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign

The empire became weak, they started to cecede territory all over it was ineveitable that they would lose. Anyway that's my thoughts on the matter, maybe I'm being too nostalgic or patriotic :happy2:

Reply 144

Tomac

The Spartans and The Tartans.

Standard:

Oh, I forgot with my earlier post, the Irish Army during this action made a good account of themselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jadotville

A company of 150 or so Irish soldiers held off up to 4000-5000 local tribesmen, Belgian colonists and mercenaries, using out-dated gear (including a couple of WW1 era vickers guns), suffering 0 KIA and 7 WIA against 300 KIA and 300-1000 WIA of the enemy, before surrendering following a ceasefire, and failed attempts by Sweedish and Gurkha forces to break the seige.

"The besieged Irish radioed to their headquarters: "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"

Reply 147

Planar

15

The poll tax rioters? They took care of you Maggie

Reply 148

spepe

A.) The British Army has always been the best in the modern world

B.) Because my grandfather fought here :smile:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Reply 149

zxh800

13

Original post by spepe

A.) The British Army has always been the best in the modern world

B.) Because my grandfather fought here :smile:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Amazing, the Italians lost more aircraft than they originally had!

Reply 150

MickJB1989

Original post by zxh800

Amazing, the Italians lost more aircraft than they originally had!

This could be as a result of squadron confusions. During the Battle of Britain, the reason spitfires notched up so high a kill count is because they counted casualties by the squadron. This is a fine method of accounting, provided the enemy play ball and organise their squadrons in the same numbers as yours.

However, as the German fighter squadrons were smaller (half the size IIRC) than British Squadrons, it meant grossly exaggerated kill reports. Perhaps a similar event occured here.

Reply 151

Martyn*

13

Probably the Mongols or the Spartans.

Reply 152

Cesare Borgia

10

Original post by DonBorat

Tamil Tigers

Bro, title's the best army in history, not the ugliest.

Reply 153

Cesare Borgia

10

Seeing as they were largely separate from the Wehrmacht I'm going to say the SS, may not have been the soundest lads going but they did kick a disproportionate amount of arse.

Reply 154

Alex-jc123

13

By far, the Red Army in WW2. It was the largest (and still largest) force to ever walk the earth as 34 million strong. The Soviet propaganda directed at the Wehrmacht following Operation Barbarossa also made many of the soldiers fanatically committed, thus making them disciplined and high in morale. The Russian T-34 tank was also the only one that could effectively take on the German King Tiger.

Reply 155

DH-Biker

14

The current American Armed Forces.

Flexible, adaptable and with a response time of full-military deployment anywhere in the world within 48 hours, that's pretty phenomenal to me.
With the world's best armoured vehicles, weaponry, aircraft, naval-units, missiles, rounds, bombs, tactics, strategies and logistics, I'd go as far as they are the world's best army of all time.
They'd be able to singlehandedly take on pretty much any nation in the World at present. Russia and China not being quite the "big-bad-bodies" as many consider them to be.

So yeah; the current American Armed Forces.

Reply 156

DH-Biker

14

Original post by Alex-jc123

By far, the Red Army in WW2. It was the largest (and still largest) force to ever walk the earth as 34 million strong. The Soviet propaganda directed at the Wehrmacht following Operation Barbarossa also made many of the soldiers fanatically committed, thus making them disciplined and high in morale. The Russian T-34 tank was also the only one that could effectively take on the German King Tiger.

It was only large once they'd managed to reform themselves after Stalingrad. Up until that point, they'd been beaten back and back relentlessly. Had the Germans defeated Britian, not had to worry about the Africa-Campaign, they'd have easily beaten the Russians into submission.

Largest? Yes. Most disciplined? Certainly not. The had no constraints on them whatsoever. Granted, Germany had done some pretty morally inconviviable things to them, but the Russians did worse on their return. The Commisars couldn't control them at all.
Nor did they have high-morale. Need only look at the number of men killed by their own Commisars and men due to retreating, for that.

Lastly, the T-34 could NOT take on a Tiger II with a high chance of winning. Firstly, there were only 25 Tiger IIs on the Eastern-Front. Belonging to the s.Hz.P.Abt 501.
The Tiger II's armour ranged up to 7" thick, and with the T-34 only armed with a 76.2mm weapon, it would have to fire point blank to even have a remote chance of penetration.
The T-34's armour, even with the revolutionary sloping-design, was still only 2-5" thick. The Tiger II was armed with an 88mm weapon; it would punch through it like wet paper.
Perhaps if the Tiger II had a damaged track unit, there were multiple T-34s and it was the only enemy around - then yes it might. Even then it'd be slight, the Tiger II had the new German turret-motor in it, and could turn 360 degrees in about 8-10 seconds. The T-34's could only turn in 15.

The T-34 was a terrific tank. And I've no qualms with the title "best tank in World War II" - But the German supiriorty in armour meant they took the prize there. Well, would depend what you catagorized them in; "Most kills", "Most numerous", etc etc.
It would, however, be the Tiger I that fought them more often. Even then, it would be a fairly one sided fight. Sloping armour was revolutionary, no doubt, but the fact the Tiger used the Flak-88 as its main-weapon just left the Russian tanks in pieces left, right and centre. Were the T-34 not a tank they could quickly mass-produce, it'd have been a loss on Russian Armour again, and again.