What military force was the most efficient ever?

[Hoyteca]

They couldn't have invaded Britain in a timely manner mostly because they had no idea that the invasion of France was going to succeed as well as it did. They would have needed years to build the landing craft and troop ships, the most optimistic American estimates said it would take until 1943 to build that large of amphibious force, and that's with the most productive shipyards in the world at the time. Germany didn't stand a chance in hell.

I doubt that intensely. The entire Mainstein Plan took into account it was based on speed. The French, the bumbling tacticians they are, decided the best way to stop a German offensive was to build 50 forts in the place they didn't attack last time. It isn't that time consuming to drive Panzers through the Ardennes forest and take Paris.

The point of those forts was to force the Germans to attack in a smaller area. That's exactly what the Germans did. They invaded where the French wanted them to. So the forts were a success.

What wasn't a success was using slow WWI tank tactics in a war where success hinged on momentum.

[Gim]

I doubt that intensely. The entire Mainstein Plan took into account it was based on speed. The French, the bumbling tacticians they are, decided the best way to stop a German offensive was to build 50 forts in the place they didn't attack last time. It isn't that time consuming to drive Panzers through the Ardennes forest and take Paris.

The point of those forts was to force the Germans to attack in a smaller area. That's exactly what the Germans did. They invaded where the French wanted them to. So the forts were a success.

What wasn't a success was using slow WWI tank tactics in a war where success hinged on momentum.

Well, the French ended up getting conquered, right?

[Hoyteca]

The point of those forts was to force the Germans to attack in a smaller area. That's exactly what the Germans did. They invaded where the French wanted them to. So the forts were a success.

What wasn't a success was using slow WWI tank tactics in a war where success hinged on momentum.

Well, the French ended up getting conquered, right?

Had less to do with the forts and more to do with relying on WWI tank tactics. France had more tanks and said tanks were of superior quality. Had the French generals attempted to devise tactics against a strategy Germany had used successfully mere months before, WWII would have been a short war. They already forced Germany to go through a chokepoint, after all. Instead, what should have been a guaranteed victory was quickly turned into a humiliating defeat.

[The Nihilistic view]

The Turkish Air Force, top aces.

[Imperializt Russia]

Good point.

That was mainly because by late 44 Hitler was tripping balls tactically. If he kept Rommel in Europe instead of pursuing the quite pointless cause of the African front, we may have seen a very different European Front.

If Rommel was in charge, he would have told the Luftwaffe to sit down and let the Wehrmacht to do it's job. The Kriegsmarine would have diverted surface ships from convoy raiding to supporting a Wehrmacht assault on England. England was not heavily fortified, and while Churchill's ''fight to the last man'' rhetoric sounded quite nice in theory, you are not going to be able to give every man in the British Isles a rifle and bullets to be able to fight the Wehrmacht. The Royal Navy was not in the best of shape in '40. The Navy was spread across the Empire, the Germans were standing toe to toe with relatively same-sized naval engagements. Look up what happened to Hood.

Morale drops alot more when you have Panzers in London rather then dumb bombs hitting unimportant structures.

Bullshit.

Hero-worship Rommel all you want, Goering controlled the Luftwaffe. Rommel wasn't going to keep him in line. Nazi high command was too complicated for Their Saviour Rommel to wrest control and magically make the unwinnable situation the Nazis put themselves in suddenly viable.

[Bentrada]

The Brotherhood of Steel.

They lost to the NCR, who are dress up as Korean & Vietnam War soldiers.

Not to mention that the Brotherhood are a bunch of stuck-up, xenophobic, self-righteous assholes who will maul you without a second thought if you have a piece of tech they want.

[Aethrys]

The Brotherhood of Steel.

They lost to the NCR, who are dress up as Korean & Vietnam War soldiers.

Not to mention that the Brotherhood are a bunch of stuck-up, xenophobic, self-righteous assholes who will maul you without a second thought if you have a piece of tech they want.

Yes, though their kill ratio was said to be quite good.

Hey, come on now. BoS East will usually ask you to hand it over before they disintegrate you.

Ad Victoriam!

[Mashalgd]

They lost to the NCR, who are dress up as Korean & Vietnam War soldiers.

Not to mention that the Brotherhood are a bunch of stuck-up, xenophobic, self-righteous assholes who will maul you without a second thought if you have a piece of tech they want.

Yes, though their kill ratio was said to be quite good.

Hey, come on now. BoS East will usually ask you to hand it over before they disintegrate you.

Ad Victoriam!

Please keep this forum to Real military forces, if you'd like to make a forum for video game military forces to do on a new thread.

[The Blaatschapen]

Warning: Only read OP

Most efficient?

Probably the Slovenian Territorial Defence during the Slovenian war of independence. The war was short, their goals were realized and the amount of casualties on both sides were small.

[Ethel mermania]

ISIS, look at how few people are tying up how much of the world's military, police, and humanitarian forces.

[Grand Britannia]

ISIS, look at how few people are tying up how much of the world's military, police, and humanitarian forces.

It's harder to win a war if all you do is send planes.

[Ethel mermania]

ISIS, look at how few people are tying up how much of the world's military, police, and humanitarian forces.

It's harder to win a war if all you do is send planes.

Planes are expensive.

[Gim]

It's harder to win a war if all you do is send planes.

Planes are expensive.

Yet, not very effective some of the time.

[Grand Britannia]

It's harder to win a war if all you do is send planes.

Planes are expensive.

Also mostly useless at taking and holding territory making ISIS more lucky than a western nation doesn't want to invade them directly rather than efficient.

[Ethel mermania]

Planes are expensive.

Also mostly useless at taking and holding territory making ISIS more lucky than a western nation doesn't want to invade them directly rather than efficient.

Look at paris, I stand by "efficient".

[The Tungsten Horde (Ancient)]

Also mostly useless at taking and holding territory making ISIS more lucky than a western nation doesn't want to invade them directly rather than efficient.

Look at paris, I stand by "efficient".

I'm pretty sure the Black Hand has them soundly outmatched.

[Republic of Coldwater]

In terms of use of men, I would give Genghis Khan when fighting the Russians, or Nathan Bedford Forrest at Brice's Crossroads the title. With fewer men, they were able to defeat a substantially more powerful force.

[New Decius]

Well I find it difficult to narrow it down to one force considering the varying technologies and tactics of the different time periods, so I shall list out the ones which in my opinion have been the most efficient.

The Roman Army (Specifically during the time of Caesar and Octavian)
The Mongol Army
The British Royal Navy (Their period of dominance is rather easily spotted)
The Prussian Royal Army (During the reign of Frederick the Great and following the military reforms which took place after the Prussian defeat in the War of the Fourth Coalition, and said period continuing forward up until German unification in 1871)
The Grande Armee (You would have a hard time arguing that Napoleon's Grande Armee was not a highly efficient force, they did conquer half of Europe and bring the world's Great Powers to their knees)
The Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe/Kriegsmarine (Despite what many will automatically think simply because the German's lost the war (I am talking mainly of those whom are not very interested in a more intense study of the WWII era, I know there are still many persons whom are knowledgeable in this area of history), these three forces were among the most efficient military forces of their time. Largely because of progressive tactics and effective use of such along with efficient integration of advancing technology. Lack of funding, overextension, war exhaustion, and not to forget a power hungry nut as German Commander-in Chief were what eventual brought these forces to their knees.)
The French Foreign Legion (Particularly in recent times in how the Foreign Legion has become an elite force to be reckoned with)
The United States Marine Corps/United States Navy (Needs little expansive explanation)
The Russian Federal Armed Forces (I am citing very recent times in reference to this point. Recently one can see that the Russians are developing better training regimes, formulating effective tactics for modern warfare usage, and integration of newer more advanced technology such as the T-14 Armata which is truly a marvel of battlefield technology)

[The Brand New Salvatagard Republic]

I'm choosing between the Red Army and the White Army. It's tough. I would choose the White Army because Tsar Peter the Great and his White Army conquered lots of land during the 18th century compared the to early Russian armies who conquered not that much land in its very early days besides the 17th, 16th, and 15th centuries.

[Gim]

In terms of use of men, I would give Genghis Khan when fighting the Russians, or Nathan Bedford Forrest at Brice's Crossroads the title. With fewer men, they were able to defeat a substantially more powerful force.

Definitely the right choice for land military. For navy, I give credit to Horatio Nelson and Yi Sun Shin.

[The Brand New Salvatagard Republic]

In terms of use of men, I would give Genghis Khan when fighting the Russians, or Nathan Bedford Forrest at Brice's Crossroads the title. With fewer men, they were able to defeat a substantially more powerful force.

Civil War! Thanks for reminding me. The army of Northern Virginia and the army of the Potomac were the 2 major armies of the Eastern Theater of the Civil War. Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, Jubal Early, Thomas "Stonewall" J. Jackson, James Longstreet, Richard Ewell, Lewis Armistead, George Pickett, and John Bell Hood for the army of Northern Virginia. Irvin McDowell, Winfield Scott, George B. McClellan, Ambrose E. Burnside, Joseph "Fighting Joe" Hooker, George G. Meade, and Ullsysses "Unconditional Surrender" S. Grant for the army of the Potomac.

[Hong Kong]

In terms of use of men, I would give Genghis Khan when fighting the Russians, or Nathan Bedford Forrest at Brice's Crossroads the title. With fewer men, they were able to defeat a substantially more powerful force.

Pretty sure that wasn't Genghis in Russia...

*minor nitpick*~

[Republic of Coldwater]

In terms of use of men, I would give Genghis Khan when fighting the Russians, or Nathan Bedford Forrest at Brice's Crossroads the title. With fewer men, they were able to defeat a substantially more powerful force.

Civil War! Thanks for reminding me. The army of Northern Virginia and the army of the Potomac were the 2 major armies of the Eastern Theater of the Civil War. Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, Jubal Early, Thomas "Stonewall" J. Jackson, James Longstreet, Richard Ewell, Lewis Armistead, George Pickett, and John Bell Hood for the army of Northern Virginia. Irvin McDowell, Winfield Scott, George B. McClellan, Ambrose E. Burnside, Joseph "Fighting Joe" Hooker, George G. Meade, and Ullsysses "Unconditional Surrender" S. Grant for the army of the Potomac.

Thanks for listing the cast for the movie "Gettysburg".

[Cartagine]

You'd have to define efficiency in this context first I think.

This.
Also the time period is a crucial matter as most of history relied on generals when talking about military successes. Basicly if all Carthaginian commanders were like Hannibal than the Romans wouldn't be as large as they became. Even though Carthaginian troops were mostly bad and filled with mercenaries, they did brought histories greatest successes by Hannibal.
Just as the example above, it relied on the general 99% of the time so when talking about a military force, should one look at its capabilities on its own or its capabilities under a good general?

[Swiss Austria-Hungary]

Civil War! Thanks for reminding me. The army of Northern Virginia and the army of the Potomac were the 2 major armies of the Eastern Theater of the Civil War. Robert E. Lee, Joseph Johnston, Jubal Early, Thomas "Stonewall" J. Jackson, James Longstreet, Richard Ewell, Lewis Armistead, George Pickett, and John Bell Hood for the army of Northern Virginia. Irvin McDowell, Winfield Scott, George B. McClellan, Ambrose E. Burnside, Joseph "Fighting Joe" Hooker, George G. Meade, and Ullsysses "Unconditional Surrender" S. Grant for the army of the Potomac.

Thanks for listing the cast for the movie "Gettysburg".

youre welcome but i was listing the major leaders of the Army of the Potomac and the army of Northern Virginia. (im Salvatagard)