Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zedeneye1)
    that was a civil war against bangladesh, which the indians helped...and not just a war between pakistan and india..

    The Bangladesh armed forces were in the main under the control of Pakistan ( being then East Pakistan rather than bangladesh) who were reposnible for executing students and dissedents to start the call for indepedance off.
    The bengali armed resistance were a small paramilitary, the Mukti Bahini rebels who heavily were outnumbered but fought with guerilla tactics.
    Most of the actual military confrontation came between Indian and West pakistan forces, and the whole war lasted a little under a fortnight when the indian air force decimated most of the pakistani airforce and naval supply line.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    What dreamland are you living in? One look at America's military spending vs the world should give you the answer.
    Ever heard of Vietnam?

    When Argentina took the Falklands us military commanders thought it was impossible for Britian to re take them. The us army is streets ahead in some respects. But in others (intelligence, Iraq wmd's?) they suck. Badly. Their making no easier wok of Afghanistan than the soviets.

    Imperial Brits. Seem to have spent most of their time attacking spear wielding primitives.

    Germany have a strong claim because of how they made up for vastly lesser numbers with superior strategy. But their naval strategy wasnt on the same level and failing to plan for a winter is bad planing.

    Imperial Japanese. The kamikaze terrified the enemy. Nobody else was of that mindset at that time. The type of socialization that leads to fearless self sacrifice is a very powerful weapon particularly when its combined with a world class level of intelligence and technical know how. Organized, disciplined, clever and feared. But they overstretched. If theyd stuck to their original plan id say them.

    Romans. Yeah I think so. At the time everyone had swords and shields so it was their strategy that set them apart and their tech in other areas such as building meant they could move troops quickly. On the occasion someone had some bit of tech they didnt have they soon adopt it and once they did theyd win through their organisation and strategy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Aye, but most of their victories came from literally riding through the enemy. Yes, they did well, but they were not a 'great army', in terms of tactics, training or any particular victories. Indeed, they are far surpassed in every catagory by some other army.

    Too much is made of a lot of Mongol tactics, I mean you read the Wiki entry and it makes them sound like pioneers in everything they did. So once again, a very good army yes, using unseen tactics along with swiftness to overrun their enemy. But once people got wise they suffered crushing defeats.

    comparativley they excelled in almost any facet of ware-fare. In all aspects were highly ingenious and highly brutal (possible a consequence of being a mix of chinese and russian racial stock) they introduced use of incediaries into warfare , rudimentary explosives and gunpowder. They used technologies from lands they conquered and modified for the battlefield, including chinese engineering to create short range catapaults and the compound bow.

    They took on and defeated the Persian empire (the largest and richest of the time) - in todays terms that would be like Nepal counquering and colonising China.
    The fact that they were almost genocidal was in fact a psycological weapon for them as many nations simply surrendered to them rather than fight them.
    The fact that mongol armies of 2m defeated in combat 50m i think speaks for itself
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Me + MW2 + OnemanArmyPerk + noob tubes and nuke
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Thinking about it id say Israel, for its size, is far more impressive than the states atm. Far more battle hardend and feared.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
    comparativley they excelled in almost any facet of ware-fare. In all aspects were highly ingenious and highly brutal (possible a consequence of being a mix of chinese and russian racial stock) they introduced use of incediaries into warfare , rudimentary explosives and gunpowder. They used technologies from lands they conquered and modified for the battlefield, including chinese engineering to create short range catapaults and the compound bow.

    They took on and defeated the Persian empire (the largest and richest of the time) - in todays terms that would be like Nepal counquering and colonising China.
    The fact that they were almost genocidal was in fact a psycological weapon for them as many nations simply surrendered to them rather than fight them.
    The fact that mongol armies of 2m defeated in combat 50m i think speaks for itself
    Can I get a source for your facts please? On the numbers things mainly.

    Also, there was no Persian Empire at the time?

    Add to that the fact that the Mongol Empire spanned 200 years or so, it's not like there was one big fight of 2 million verses 50 million, and those figures I doubt somewhat.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Salvation Army
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Can I get a source for your facts please? On the numbers things mainly.

    Also, there was no Persian Empire at the time?

    Add to that the fact that the Mongol Empire spanned 200 years or so, it's not like there was one big fight of 2 million verses 50 million, and those figures I doubt somewhat.
    http://home.tiscali.nl/~t543201/web-...ol-battles.htm details al the major conflicts including the wars with the Persian empire, even though you dont beleive in them. 2m vs 50m is the estimate stephen fry quoted on QI, ive no reason to disbeleive him
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
    http://home.tiscali.nl/~t543201/web-...ol-battles.htm details al the major conflicts including the wars with the Persian empire, even though you dont beleive in them. 2m vs 50m is the estimate stephen fry quoted on QI, ive no reason to disbeleive him
    Is that 50 million opposing warriors defeated though? Or 50 million people killed? Considering the Mongols ponchonet for genocide and whatnot, it makes rather a difference.

    ANd what PErsian Empire do you reference? I can find no evidence of a 'Persian Empire' at the time?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Irish National Liberation Army. Brave principle soldiers!
    Took out Billy "the rat" Wright to lol.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Its obviously the scots army under Robert the Bruce, they beat an experienced english army four times its size
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Aye, but most of their victories came from literally riding through the enemy. Yes, they did well, but they were not a 'great army', in terms of tactics, training or any particular victories. Indeed, they are far surpassed in every catagory by some other army.

    Too much is made of a lot of Mongol tactics, I mean you read the Wiki entry and it makes them sound like pioneers in everything they did. So once again, a very good army yes, using unseen tactics along with swiftness to overrun their enemy. But once people got wise they suffered crushing defeats.
    Such as?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'd go with the British in the 19th century. They are the only force to win a war with an infinite k/d in under an hour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Vikings: The Great Heathen Army

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heathen_Army
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Emile Heskey?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The Roman Army. Or Alexander the Great's lot. They both conquered much of the entire known world at the time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Akuma)
    Thinking about it id say Israel, for its size, is far more impressive than the states atm. Far more battle hardend and feared.
    How can Isreal be more battle hardened than the US? The US is in an almost perpetual state of war.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    How can Isreal be more battle hardened than the US? The US is in an almost perpetual state of war.
    Against people with weapons older than the soldiers themselves, no military training and next to no support. Knocking over middle eastern countries is no more battle hardening for the US army than the British armies wars in Africa (incidentally, great job taking 10 years to win in a small country, the British record is 37 minutes)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Romans or spartans.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Russia's army now.

    Ruthless leadership, and nukes. USA match them.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    But if you mean relative to time period, Augustus' battle-hardened Imperial Legions were pretty tidy. Disciplined, advanced, organised...you name it, they were the shizz. In the classical period, I think only Alexander's Macedons (under Alexander himself) would have competed. He had a great combined-arms force, more balanced than the Legions of Rome (certainly more balanced than any of the Diadochi's armies).
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.