Best Military of all time?

[Scyobayrynn]

No, we're left with you have not the vaguest notion of what you're talking about.
At all, and you know you don't which is why you're avoiding making an actual claim.

I'm saying that the idea that the modern US Army is the greatest military force there has ever been is ludicrous when a bunch of Iraqi farmers with no military training whatsoever were able to hand them their collective asses.

But then I would argue that the USA hasn't had any sort of unambiguous victory in a military campaign since Korea.

Fedayeen were farmers and wait wait let me get this straight you say Korea was an "unambiguous" victory and expect to be taken seriously.

Say, look at our casualties in Iraq from day one of the invasion until today...then explain this handing us our ass thing.
Also enlighten yourself into the various force structures in Iraq over the course of decade's long conflict.

Then explain how in the fuck Korea was an unambiguous victory .

Once you've done those things beat yourself with a history book until you separate a retina, since I can't reach you myself.


I mean seriously how dare you speak like you have even the vaguest notion of the subject at hand.
I'm embarrassed for you.

[Scyobayrynn]

Grenada?
I mean based on your argument then there must be no "greatest military" since like WW2 since the major powers have been mostly fighting peasant miltia like the USSR against the Afghans...

Which would be why when I gave my argument earlier in the thread I threw it in with the Mongols.

Yeah, I said the Mongols...remember you quoted me.

However you're not saying merely not the greatest in history.

You're suggesting an ineptitude of epic proportion yet you base it on fantasy not fact.

[Ayreonia]

The Wehrmacht brought the most powerful empires on earth to their knees in the span of a few years. They achieved in that short span more than Napoleon in a decade and the Romans in centuries.

Not to mention they were raised out of a nation that was an imploded hellhole for the last couple of decades.

They had the technology, numbers, training, equipment, and tactics. They fell victim to their leader's insanity and some outside factors. Nevertheless, they fought to the bitter end.

Had there not been so many bad choices, Great Britain herself likely would've been subject to an invasion. If such would happen, it would be VERY significantly harder for British forces in Africa.

The war could very much have ended differently. If the war ends with Nazi Germany surviving, imagine the possibilities for their technology.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Which most powerful empire might you be referring to? France, Poland or Denmark? Maybe Norway, Yugoslavia or Greece? The way I see it, the Wehrmacht were best at stomping badly organized or ill-prepared forces.

Contrary to popular myth, German technology wasn't that much better than what other countries had. In aircraft, they lost to Britain and the USA. In tanks, the Soviets had them beat. Both the USA and the USSR out-produced them.

Their training and tactics were good, but not miles ahead of the rest of the world.

They could have never taken Britain without a fleet.

[Palakistan]

The Liechtensteiner Army, they went to war against Prussia in 1866 with 80 soldiers, and they returned home with 81 soldiers.

Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

ha.

[Rio Cana]

The QIn military was impressive. When it came to war, China and Korea use to wage wars with huge armies which dwarfed the military of Europe, Africa and other Asian nations.

Example of Qin military
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNlI-YCVbU

[Sekuo]

From a contemporary standpoint...

Singapore. Smol city state with arguably the best military in the Southeast Asia region, and one of the best in Asia. South Korea and the Israeli Defense Forces are honorable mentions.

From a purely historical standpoint? The Venetian military. Ye ye, they fought back against the Ottomans, so like, bonus points. But of all time? The Mongol military under Genghis Khan. Simple as that.

[The Planet of Oceanis]

The Wehrmacht brought the most powerful empires on earth to their knees in the span of a few years. They achieved in that short span more than Napoleon in a decade and the Romans in centuries.

Not to mention they were raised out of a nation that was an imploded hellhole for the last couple of decades.

They had the technology, numbers, training, equipment, and tactics. They fell victim to their leader's insanity and some outside factors. Nevertheless, they fought to the bitter end.

Had there not been so many bad choices, Great Britain herself likely would've been subject to an invasion. If such would happen, it would be VERY significantly harder for British forces in Africa.

The war could very much have ended differently. If the war ends with Nazi Germany surviving, imagine the possibilities for their technology.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Which most powerful empire might you be referring to? France, Poland or Denmark? Maybe Norway, Yugoslavia or Greece? The way I see it, the Wehrmacht were best at stomping badly organized or ill-prepared forces.

Contrary to popular myth, German technology wasn't that much better than what other countries had. In aircraft, they lost to Britain and the USA. In tanks, the Soviets had them beat. Both the USA and the USSR out-produced them.

Their training and tactics were good, but not miles ahead of the rest of the world.

They could have never taken Britain without a fleet.

France was a very powerful nation, and was defeated very quickly. Britain as another, as I said, was brought to its knees after France had fallen. (Our conceptions of 'to their knees' may differ, mind you)

Also, do you know anything about their late-war tech? Jet fighters, Jet bombers, Guided ballistic missiles, night vision, fully automatic assault rifles (Not LMGs like the BAR) and they were working on nuclear fission.

Compare that to allied forces.

Also, do you honestly think the technology of the allies is the sole reason they won? Britain didn't win just from having better planes at the time, the RAF was skilled and they had Radar, which, yes, counts as technology, but no, does not count as planes. If they didn't have Radar, they wouldn't be able to predict German bombing raids beyond espionage and recon, both of which are extremely dangerous. The US air force didn't have anything special, either.

And on the topic of tanks, Soviet tanks weren't just plain 'better'. Sure, later on, they had a lot of tanks that out-performed the then-outdated tanks of the Wehrmacht. But what time frame are we talking about? Their height. Any other time frame wouldn't make sense for any of the candidates. At this point, the Germans were occupying tons of countries, bombing Britain, and pushing on Moscow. Sure, they'd lost in northern Africa, but they'd won in Europe (for the most part, at least).

Although, I just realized, this would render my comment on late-war tech for the most part irrelevant. However, the Wehrmacht did have the upper hand in armored warfare at the time. Until the British had Radar, they also, for all intensive purposes, had air superiority.

Although, this can be a bit tricky to describe, as they had control over most of Europe for a relatively large time frame of the war, during which, a number of things had changed and happened.

I won't dispute production, as I know that to be true. However, that was dependent on the nation itself. On that note, one may point out that anything an army uses is dependent on its respective nation. To that I will say this: Unless I am wrong about the concept of this thread, it mean that the force has a set amount of equipment and whatnot. Therefore, any extra production would be taken out of the picture.

I also agree with you on tactics and training. Good, but not miles ahead. In case you say I implied otherwise, then that's entirely you, because I never believed, at any point, that they were an army of SEALs or something like that.

On your comment about the Wehrmacht only being good at stomping badly-organized or ill-prepared forces, take a look at the Romans. They had only faced two other major empires. The rest of their enemies were literally barbarians.

Compare it to the late Red Army, who steamrolled over then-exhausted Axis powers.

I won't bother telling you to compare it to the Swedish, because honestly, they didn't achieve much compared to the people we're discussing.

If you manage to formulate the same result, that is why I chose the Wehrmacht.

Guten Tag.

[Saint-Thor]

Best military of all time? So I guess that for most people, history began 2 centuries ago. And most are making abstraction of techonology, numbers, logistic and command.

I think the Revolutionary War US Army was the best military of all time.

They managed to defeat the most elite military on the planet of their day, in spite of all the odds stacked against them and the colossal difference in equipment, training, expertise, and the numerous and many mercenaries that were hired to attack them; the Americans managed to force their opponents to capitulate with the Treaty of Paris.

But the Battle of Wabash tells me otherwise. Does it means the Indian confederacy were the world's elite?

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm saying that the idea that the modern US Army is the greatest military force there has ever been is ludicrous when a bunch of Iraqi farmers with no military training whatsoever were able to hand them their collective asses.

But then I would argue that the USA hasn't had any sort of unambiguous victory in a military campaign since Korea.

Fedayeen were farmers and wait wait let me get this straight you say Korea was an "unambiguous" victory and expect to be taken seriously.

Say, look at our casualties in Iraq from day one of the invasion until today...then explain this handing us our ass thing.
Also enlighten yourself into the various force structures in Iraq over the course of decade's long conflict.

Then explain how in the fuck Korea was an unambiguous victory .

Once you've done those things beat yourself with a history book until you separate a retina, since I can't reach you myself.


I mean seriously how dare you speak like you have even the vaguest notion of the subject at hand.
I'm embarrassed for you.

The idea that the Iraqis fighting America were all farmers is absurd. I recall hearing that some of them were actually former members of Saddam Hussein's military.

However, your idea that victory is determined by who killed more people is far worse. Frankly, it has a downright genocidal undertone to it. And it has no basis in reality. Killing more of the enemy is irrelevant if you ultimately fail to achieve your goal. And unless you believe that leaving Iraq a crippled wreck and the rise of ISIS were American goals, or at all compatible with American goals, Bush's invasion of Iraq was a failure.

In any case, when you respond in a debate by expressing violent desires towards the other person, even as a joke, you've pretty much lost the right to be respected.

[Scyobayrynn]

Fedayeen were farmers and wait wait let me get this straight you say Korea was an "unambiguous" victory and expect to be taken seriously.

Say, look at our casualties in Iraq from day one of the invasion until today...then explain this handing us our ass thing.
Also enlighten yourself into the various force structures in Iraq over the course of decade's long conflict.

Then explain how in the fuck Korea was an unambiguous victory .

Once you've done those things beat yourself with a history book until you separate a retina, since I can't reach you myself.


I mean seriously how dare you speak like you have even the vaguest notion of the subject at hand.
I'm embarrassed for you.

The idea that the Iraqis fighting America were all farmers is absurd. I recall hearing that some of them were actually former members of Saddam Hussein's military.

However, your idea that victory is determined by who killed more people is far worse. Frankly, it has a downright genocidal undertone to it. And it has no basis in reality. Killing more of the enemy is irrelevant if you ultimately fail to achieve your goal. And unless you believe that leaving Iraq a crippled wreck and the rise of ISIS were American goals, or at all compatible with American goals, Bush's invasion of Iraq was a failure.

In any case, when you respond in a debate by expressing violent desires towards the other person, even as a joke, you've pretty much lost the right to be respected.

Fedayeen were trained to operate as insurgents, the Iraqi military wasnt defeated, they took off their uniforms because they knew they couldnt win stand up fight. There is no shame in that, you fight to win, not be fair.
But indeed, pretending they were farmers is ridiculous.

No, my idea of as he put it "getting our ass handed to us" is determined by numbers, victory is a political outcome of military operations, not a military outcome perse. As far as engagements with the enemy in Iraq, very few of them ended with Iraqi victories.

And he also said Korea was an "unambiguous" victory for the United States, but of course anyone with a 6th grade education knows it wasnt a victory at all, of any kind.

So please reread the full exchange, and dont make assumptions based on a single post.

As for respect, this is NSG, respect doesnt even know this place exists.

[The Romulan Republic]

The idea that the Iraqis fighting America were all farmers is absurd. I recall hearing that some of them were actually former members of Saddam Hussein's military.

However, your idea that victory is determined by who killed more people is far worse. Frankly, it has a downright genocidal undertone to it. And it has no basis in reality. Killing more of the enemy is irrelevant if you ultimately fail to achieve your goal. And unless you believe that leaving Iraq a crippled wreck and the rise of ISIS were American goals, or at all compatible with American goals, Bush's invasion of Iraq was a failure.

In any case, when you respond in a debate by expressing violent desires towards the other person, even as a joke, you've pretty much lost the right to be respected.

Fedayeen were trained to operate as insurgents, the Iraqi military wasnt defeated, they took off their uniforms because they knew they couldnt win stand up fight. There is no shame in that, you fight to win, not be fair.
But indeed, pretending they were farmers is ridiculous.

No, my idea of as he put it "getting our ass handed to us" is determined by numbers, victory is a political outcome of military operations, not a military outcome perse. As far as engagements with the enemy in Iraq, very few of them ended with Iraqi victories.

And he also said Korea was an "unambiguous" victory for the United States, but of course anyone with a 6th grade education knows it wasnt a victory at all, of any kind.

So please reread the full exchange, and dont make assumptions based on a single post.

I'm not discussing the Korea issue.

As to the question of America's success/lack of success in Iraq, if you are referring purely to the American military's ability to win engagements, maybe you're right that they did well. However, I would still point out that winning a battle is also determined by weather you achieve your goals, not simply weather you kill more people.

[Padnak]

Which most powerful empire might you be referring to? France, Poland or Denmark? Maybe Norway, Yugoslavia or Greece? The way I see it, the Wehrmacht were best at stomping badly organized or ill-prepared forces.

Contrary to popular myth, German technology wasn't that much better than what other countries had. In aircraft, they lost to Britain and the USA. In tanks, the Soviets had them beat. Both the USA and the USSR out-produced them.

Their training and tactics were good, but not miles ahead of the rest of the world.

They could have never taken Britain without a fleet.

The fundamental problem with the German military during the second world war (and many western militarizes for that mater) is that they focused on the tactical and operational strategies over the strategic, which in a total war is a recipe for disaster.

[Scyobayrynn]

Fedayeen were trained to operate as insurgents, the Iraqi military wasnt defeated, they took off their uniforms because they knew they couldnt win stand up fight. There is no shame in that, you fight to win, not be fair.
But indeed, pretending they were farmers is ridiculous.

No, my idea of as he put it "getting our ass handed to us" is determined by numbers, victory is a political outcome of military operations, not a military outcome perse. As far as engagements with the enemy in Iraq, very few of them ended with Iraqi victories.

And he also said Korea was an "unambiguous" victory for the United States, but of course anyone with a 6th grade education knows it wasnt a victory at all, of any kind.

So please reread the full exchange, and dont make assumptions based on a single post.

I'm not discussing the Korea issue.

As to the question of America's success/lack of success in Iraq, if you are referring purely to the American military's ability to win engagements, maybe you're right that they did well. However, I would still point out that winning a battle is also determined by weather you achieve your goals, not simply weather you kill more people.

Then please reference non-achieved military objectives... do not reference political objectives.
Also note, insurgent objectives in all cases is maximum casualties, of which they failed abysmally.

So I invite you to make your case on this specific subject.

Show me the military failures in Iraq.

Or are you blowing the same uninformed hyperbole of the other kid?

You can of course concede ignorance on the subject, thats the respectful thing to do if you really arent familiar with it. Which by all things shown so far, you arent familiar with it. Since you seem to have perhaps read where insurgents had been former members of Saddam's military.
So, you know discussing the results against the Mahdi Army, dealing with fedayeen, Iranian backed bad actors as well as actual Iranian Revolutionary Guard, The Yassin Brigades, foreign Mujahideen, Members of Ansar al Islam...

Lay it on me, maybe Im clueless.

[Padnak]

The US military has done admirably given the tasks its been presented with in Iraq

Counter insurgency, specifically in a place as diverse and hate filled as Iraq, is an incredibly hard task as it is; compound on top of this the international support for and religious dedication of the insurgents and it becomes almost impossible.

[Scyobayrynn]

The US military has done admirably given the tasks its been presented with in Iraq

Counter insurgency, specifically in a place as diverse and hate filled as Iraq, is an incredibly hard task as it is; compound on top of this the international support for and religious dedication of the insurgents and it becomes almost impossible.

Keep in mind, Im not suggesting it makes them best, Im refuting the statement "they got their ass handed to them".

[The Romulan Republic]

Then please reference non-achieved military objectives... do not reference political objectives.
Also note, insurgent objectives in all cases is maximum casualties, of which they failed abysmally.

I wasn't trying to argue that the military failed to win battles in Iraq, or that the military failed at all. I was trying to argue that Iraq was a defeat regardless of what the military did and that killing more people is not the same as winning, not just in this specific context but generally.

Though I would point to the well-documented torture of prisoners by US military personnel as a military failure. Actions conducted by members of the military that harmed America's reputation and no doubt made it harder to maintain the public's support for the war and easier for insurgents to propagate their propaganda and recruit people. Not a battlefield failure, but certainly a military failure.

If you're going to play talking condescendingly to your intellectual inferior, maybe you should make sure that you know what I'm actually talking about first.

So I invite you to make your case on this specific subject.

See above.

Show me the military failures in Iraq.

Or are you blowing the same uninformed hyperbole of the other kid?

Hardly.

You can of course concede ignorance on the subject, thats the respectful thing to do if you really arent familiar with it. Which by all things shown so far, you arent familiar with it.

Well, I don't have a PHD on this subject, but I read and watch the news.

Since you seem to have perhaps read where insurgents had been former members of Saddam's military.

My vagueness is due to not recalling the original source. Long time ago and I have a lot to keep track of.

I suppose I could try to dig something up.

So, you know discussing the results against the Mahdi Army, dealing with fedayeen, Iranian backed bad actors as well as actual Iranian Revolutionary Guard, The Yassin Brigades, foreign Mujahideen, Members of Ansar al Islam...

Yes, I am aware that their were a bunch of players in Iraq. Note that I suggested some insurgents had been part of Hussein's military. Not all. Something you conveniently left out when posting your straw man to mock my supposed ignorance.

Lay it on me, maybe Im clueless.

Indeed you are, in more than one way.

[Neo Philippine Empire]

The Red ArmyThe Wehrmacht

[UED]

The WehrmachtThe Red Army

Afghanistan much?

[Scyobayrynn]

Then please reference non-achieved military objectives... do not reference political objectives.
Also note, insurgent objectives in all cases is maximum casualties, of which they failed abysmally.

I wasn't trying to argue that the military failed to win battles in Iraq, or that the military failed at all. I was trying to argue that Iraq was a defeat regardless of what the military did and that killing more people is not the same as winning, not just in this specific context but generally.

Though I would point to the well-documented torture of prisoners by US military personnel as a military failure. Actions conducted by members of the military that harmed America's reputation and no doubt made it harder to maintain the public's support for the war and easier for insurgents to propagate their propaganda and recruit people. Not a battlefield failure, but certainly a military failure.

If you're going to play talking condescendingly to your intellectual inferior, maybe you should make sure that you know what I'm actually talking about first.

So I invite you to make your case on this specific subject.

See above.

Show me the military failures in Iraq.

Or are you blowing the same uninformed hyperbole of the other kid?

Hardly.

You can of course concede ignorance on the subject, thats the respectful thing to do if you really arent familiar with it. Which by all things shown so far, you arent familiar with it.

Well, I don't have a PHD on this subject, but I read and watch the news.

Since you seem to have perhaps read where insurgents had been former members of Saddam's military.

My vagueness is due to not recalling the original source. Long time ago and I have a lot to keep track of.

I suppose I could try to dig something up.

So, you know discussing the results against the Mahdi Army, dealing with fedayeen, Iranian backed bad actors as well as actual Iranian Revolutionary Guard, The Yassin Brigades, foreign Mujahideen, Members of Ansar al Islam...

Yes, I am aware that their were a bunch of players in Iraq. Note that I suggested some insurgents had been part of Hussein's military. Not all. Something you conveniently left out when posting your straw man to mock my supposed ignorance.

Lay it on me, maybe Im clueless.

Indeed you are, in more than one way.

Just not about the subject at hand. Least not that you have shown.

[Seraven]

Objectively, the U.S. armed forces. We outspend any of the other global powers by far, are capable of quick global projection from land/sea/air, and we are second-to-none in terms of conventional warfare. People may say how recent unconventional conflicts expose our weakness, and that is true. But Russia/China would have the exact same problem, and with a weaker military.

So you think that Roman Army, Alexander's Army, Mongol hordes, British Empire, are not best as well?

[Replevion]

The QIn military was impressive. When it came to war, China and Korea use to wage wars with huge armies which dwarfed the military of Europe, Africa and other Asian nations.

Example of Qin military
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNlI-YCVbU

Indeed, nobody beats China for fielding massive armies millennium after millennium.
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-amb ... nt-2014-11

[DBJ]

Oh, for god sakes:

(Image)

Does that help? Or how about this:

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?t=347838&f=20&view=unread

Quantity does not equal quality. Nor does money equal effectiveness.

I mean the Iraqi insurgency was doing a pretty good job of kicking in the US Military until they ran off screaming "WE WON!".

No, they actually didn't.

[Neo Philippine Empire]

The WehrmachtThe Red Army

Afghanistan much?

Crap...I striked the wrong army sorry -_-

[Ascended Rome]

Clearly the undisputably greatest military of all time was the Roman Legion. It's so great, I don't even have to justify it.

[Deanson]

Speaking on a purely objective power scale, it is obviously the US military, which is currently decades ahead of the next most advanced force and is admittedly one of the main reasons we have a decent amount of global stability today.

Subjectively, the Roman Legion kicked the most ass. I know, unoriginal, but for their time they were absolutely unprecedented and would set a cultural framework that would persist for thousands of years. Special shout-out also goes to the Red Army (WWII era), just because they would get absolutely slaughtered but still succeed through raw numbers and ruthlessness. Definitely not the best strategic or technological force even for its time, but they were undoubtedly badass.