What military force was the most efficient ever?

[Republic of Coldwater]

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)

Even so, the guys you listed on the CSA side are a little weird in my opinion. Johnston barely did shit, and Armistead was only famous because of Pickett's Charge. He was another brigade commander.

[Post War America]

In terms of Manpower to Landmass acquired ratio it would have to be either the Mongols under the Ilkhanate & Golden Hordes, or the British Empire in the years leading up to the Great War. Both gained huge territories (the latter holding a quarter of the world's landmass and some other huge chunk of the world's population), with relatively small forces.

In terms of destruction wrought I'd have to go with the Late War Red Army, which had managed to transform itself radically from an inefficient and weak fighting force that damn near lost to a force 1/10th the size, to one capable of crushing the Nazis almost single handedly (roughly 4/5ths of the Wehrmacht was tied up fighting the Russians, including most of the Wehrmacht's best units) and then turning around and dismantling the one remaining relatively intact Japanese Army in just a few days.

[DARGLED]

What do you mean by efficient?

[Imperium Sidhicum]

In terms of Manpower to Landmass acquired ratio it would have to be either the Mongols under the Ilkhanate & Golden Hordes, or the British Empire in the years leading up to the Great War. Both gained huge territories (the latter holding a quarter of the world's landmass and some other huge chunk of the world's population), with relatively small forces.

In terms of destruction wrought I'd have to go with the Late War Red Army, which had managed to transform itself radically from an inefficient and weak fighting force that damn near lost to a force 1/10th the size, to one capable of crushing the Nazis almost single handedly (roughly 4/5ths of the Wehrmacht was tied up fighting the Russians, including most of the Wehrmacht's best units) and then turning around and dismantling the one remaining relatively intact Japanese Army in just a few days.

I'd argue against British Empire and Red Army though.

While the British Empire did indeed have the most advanced army and navy of the day, much of what it did was pacifying savage tribes in the colonies, a task that for most part didn't require much skill and could be accomplished by any Western armed force. As the British performance during the Great War indicated, British army in particular proved incapable of defeating a technologically-comparable foe in open combat, their victory ultimately being brought by economic rather than military means.

In short, the Brits forged their empire mostly by non-military means, by treaties, trade concessions and offering protectorate status to the native rulers, military only being brought in when rum, guns and glass beads weren't convincing enough. Also, British land forces weren't particularly exceptional for the time, unlike their navy. Overall, Brits weren't so much exceptional fighters as they were excellent logisticians, a skill that enabled them to maintain supply lines and project their forces almost anywhere on the world.

As for the Red Army, while it might score points for quick reorganization and owning the Axis forces, I'd call it anything but efficient. The only thing Red Army was really efficient at was getting it's own people killed.

I mean, drowning the enemy under the corpses of ill-trained and ill-equipped concripts driven into the meat grinder under threat of summary execution is hardly a sign of efficient or sensible use of manpower. If casualty-to-territory-gained/held ratio is any measure of efficiency, the title of the most efficient fighting force should go to the Wehrmacht, which generally suffered 3 up to 10 times less casualties in most engagements with the Red Army despite nearly always being heavily outnumbered.

As with Britain in WWI, USSR won the war through economic rather than tactical means, being able to produce more equipment and supplies than their enemy. Even this economic victory that the Russians these days are so fond on gloating about is somewhat questionable, given how heavily it relied on the Lend-Lease shipments especially in the first half of the war.

[Post War America]

In terms of Manpower to Landmass acquired ratio it would have to be either the Mongols under the Ilkhanate & Golden Hordes, or the British Empire in the years leading up to the Great War. Both gained huge territories (the latter holding a quarter of the world's landmass and some other huge chunk of the world's population), with relatively small forces.

In terms of destruction wrought I'd have to go with the Late War Red Army, which had managed to transform itself radically from an inefficient and weak fighting force that damn near lost to a force 1/10th the size, to one capable of crushing the Nazis almost single handedly (roughly 4/5ths of the Wehrmacht was tied up fighting the Russians, including most of the Wehrmacht's best units) and then turning around and dismantling the one remaining relatively intact Japanese Army in just a few days.

I'd argue against British Empire and Red Army though.

While the British Empire did indeed have the most advanced army and navy of the day, much of what it did was pacifying savage tribes in the colonies, a task that for most part didn't require much skill and could be accomplished by any Western armed force. As the British performance during the Great War indicated, British army in particular proved incapable of defeating a technologically-comparable foe in open combat, their victory ultimately being brought by economic rather than military means.

In short, the Brits forged their empire mostly by non-military means, by treaties, trade concessions and offering protectorate status to the native rulers, military only being brought in when rum, guns and glass beads weren't convincing enough. Also, British land forces weren't particularly exceptional for the time, unlike their navy. Overall, Brits weren't so much exceptional fighters as they were excellent logisticians, a skill that enabled them to maintain supply lines and project their forces almost anywhere on the world.

As for the Red Army, while it might score points for quick reorganization and owning the Axis forces, I'd call it anything but efficient. The only thing Red Army was really efficient at was getting it's own people killed.

I mean, drowning the enemy under the corpses of ill-trained and ill-equipped concripts driven into the meat grinder under threat of summary execution is hardly a sign of efficient or sensible use of manpower. If casualty-to-territory-gained/held ratio is any measure of efficiency, the title of the most efficient fighting force should go to the Wehrmacht, which generally suffered 3 up to 10 times less casualties in most engagements with the Red Army despite nearly always being heavily outnumbered.

As with Britain in WWI, USSR won the war through economic rather than tactical means, being able to produce more equipment and supplies than their enemy. Even this economic victory that the Russians these days are so fond on gloating about is somewhat questionable, given how heavily it relied on the Lend-Lease shipments especially in the first half of the war.

I can certainly see the argument with the British though I would make the counter argument that the same small number of British Regulars managed to perform very well against a substantially larger German force in the opening campaigns of the Great War. I would also make the argument that competent logistics is a valid measure of the efficacy of a military force, as all the fighting skill in the world means jack shit if you can't apply that skill anywhere.

Your conception of the Late War Red Army is somewhat flawed however. While the statements you made would for the most part hold true about the Early War Army, however by the last phases of the Eastern European Theater (Late 1944 into 1945), you are dealing with a radically different beast. It is true that they did take very heavy losses even then but at that point they were on the strategic offensive (attacking an enemy in their "home" territory. Several of those battles also occurred involved the Soviets attacking cities (which is almost always a meat grinder for the attacker). Another point I would make is the speed at which the Red Army (predominantly Eastern Divisions which were under-equipped compared the European Divisions) managed to dismantle the Kwangtung Army (which was the only remaining relatively intact army the Japanese had and was comprised of Veteran troops, many of whom were professionals).

[Gim]

What do you mean by efficient?

More kills; less casualties.

[Imperializt Russia]

While the British Empire did indeed have the most advanced army and navy of the day, much of what it did was pacifying savage tribes in the colonies, a task that for most part didn't require much skill and could be accomplished by any Western armed force. As the British performance during the Great War indicated, British army in particular proved incapable of defeating a technologically-comparable foe in open combat, their victory ultimately being brought by economic rather than military means.

Fucking wat.

No-one was really capable of "defeating a technologically comparable foe in open combat" until 1916, really.
In 1914 the BEF was probably the best equipped and best trained force in Europe, it was just small and when both sides inevitably were bogged down because of how insurmountably destructive the heavy machine gun was, it took heavy losses. As did all sides.

[Mashalgd]

While the British Empire did indeed have the most advanced army and navy of the day, much of what it did was pacifying savage tribes in the colonies, a task that for most part didn't require much skill and could be accomplished by any Western armed force. As the British performance during the Great War indicated, British army in particular proved incapable of defeating a technologically-comparable foe in open combat, their victory ultimately being brought by economic rather than military means.

Fucking wat.

No-one was really capable of "defeating a technologically comparable foe in open combat" until 1916, really.
In 1914 the BEF was probably the best equipped and best trained force in Europe, it was just small and when both sides inevitably were bogged down because of how insurmountably destructive the heavy machine gun was, it took heavy losses. As did all sides.

If you call open combat barely advancing every few weeks over trenches I disagree with the statement "Defeating a technologically Comparable for in open combat until 1916"

[Imperializt Russia]

Until the tank, there was no technology to counter the machine gun. The methods just weren't available to commanders to break a line fortified by machine guns until late in the war, where combined and co-ordinated use of artillery, armour, combat engineers and infantry were able to coalesce and break fortified lines.

[FutureAmerica]

I'd say the Israeli Defense Force.

[Sun Lands]

The armies of Alexander the Great. Who never lost a battle... allegedly.

[Radiatia]

New Zealand. There's a reason we've never been invaded.

Our enemies boast they can shoot our planes out of the sky in minutes - joke's on them, we have no air force.

And when invading armies landed on our beaches, they took one look at our own and died from laughter.

[ElitesOfDoom]

Mongols,Romans , Macedonians (under Alexander the Great's leadership) , Greeks and the Carthaginians (under Hannibal)

[Kraylandia]

I'd say the Israeli Defense Force.

Very efficient at killing children indeed.

[Dyeilax]

the Roman Emipre

[Imperium Sidhicum]

While the British Empire did indeed have the most advanced army and navy of the day, much of what it did was pacifying savage tribes in the colonies, a task that for most part didn't require much skill and could be accomplished by any Western armed force. As the British performance during the Great War indicated, British army in particular proved incapable of defeating a technologically-comparable foe in open combat, their victory ultimately being brought by economic rather than military means.

Fucking wat.

No-one was really capable of "defeating a technologically comparable foe in open combat" until 1916, really.
In 1914 the BEF was probably the best equipped and best trained force in Europe, it was just small and when both sides inevitably were bogged down because of how insurmountably destructive the heavy machine gun was, it took heavy losses. As did all sides.

I'd hardly call BEF the best-equipped, seeing how they lacked both adequate hand grenades and machine guns, or tactics to effectively use them, a problem that Germans had addressed shortly before the war, which in large part explains their early success.

Even as these technical issues were being resolved and new kinds of weapons became available, the ineptitude of British high command in dealing with this new kind of war was further demonstrated in the infamous First Day on the Somme, where a combination of poor decision-making, technological flaws, obsolete tactics and callous disregard for soldiers' lives led to the outcome that we know. This, and the fact that the British command repeated the same mistakes over and over again until the development of infiltration tactics late in the war, a development that wasn't pioneered by the British at that, demonstrates that the British Army was hardly the most efficient fighting force of the Great War.

Your conception of the Late War Red Army is somewhat flawed however. While the statements you made would for the most part hold true about the Early War Army, however by the last phases of the Eastern European Theater (Late 1944 into 1945), you are dealing with a radically different beast. It is true that they did take very heavy losses even then but at that point they were on the strategic offensive (attacking an enemy in their "home" territory. Several of those battles also occurred involved the Soviets attacking cities (which is almost always a meat grinder for the attacker). Another point I would make is the speed at which the Red Army (predominantly Eastern Divisions which were under-equipped compared the European Divisions) managed to dismantle the Kwangtung Army (which was the only remaining relatively intact army the Japanese had and was comprised of Veteran troops, many of whom were professionals).

While the Red Army did indeed grow some serious muscle over the course of the war, both technologically and organizationally, their victories were still ultimately scored largely by drowning the enemy with overwhelming numbers in any case.

At Kursk, for example, German tanks ran out of fuel and ammunition sooner than Russians ran out of tanks to throw at them. For every Tiger tank made in Germany, Soviet factories would churn out 80 T-34's, inferior in pretty much every respect, but still tanks more than capable of killing Tigers. The same scenario would repeat in pretty much every major battle following Stalingrad, Soviets throwing wave after wave of troops and armor against the Germans to soak up fire while burying their lines in artillery shells, until German defenses would eventually collapse. Soviet leadership realized they had an incredible numerical advantage in every respect, and pressed that advantage ruthlessly.

Field Marshal Zhukov, credited for capturing Berlin, was particularly known for his callous disregard for the lives of his troops. When Eisenhower met him shortly after the war and inquired how Zhukov's forces had managed to cross the extensive minefields protecting Berlin, Zhukov responded that he had simply sent a few penal battalions to trample them before advancing. Eisenhower politely pretended to have not understood the answer. In this respect, Zhukov didn't even particularly stand out as ruthless among his peers, many Soviet commanders employing similar practices.

Fact of the matter is, while the Soviet army grew qualitatively much stronger over the war, the command's general attitude towards waging war did not. Consequently, Soviets suffered a tremendous amount of otherwise avoidable casualties even late in the war.

As for the Soviet Army defeating the Japanese in Manchuria, I find it was hardly a challenge. The Japanese had never developed much in a way of heavy armor, anti-tank defense or personal automatic weapons - the very things that had helped Soviets secure their victory over Germany. That, and the fact that the Kwantung Army was demoralized and undersupplied, Japanese manufacturing capacity effectively being reduced to rubble by the US strategic bombing campaign, made them hardly a challenge for the Soviets who could send in battle-hardened veteran forces from Europe. These factors were further compounded by strategic mistakes on part of the Japanese command.

Also, the majority of Kwantung Army was composed of inexperienced conscripts by then, most veterans being transferred to the Pacific against the US forces. It was effectively little more than a garrison force to keep Manchuria under Japanese control, and couldn't mount a serious resistance to a much larger, better-equipped and experienced force designed specifically for offensive operations.

[Imperializt Russia]

Fucking wat.

No-one was really capable of "defeating a technologically comparable foe in open combat" until 1916, really.
In 1914 the BEF was probably the best equipped and best trained force in Europe, it was just small and when both sides inevitably were bogged down because of how insurmountably destructive the heavy machine gun was, it took heavy losses. As did all sides.

I'd hardly call BEF the best-equipped, seeing how they lacked both adequate hand grenades and machine guns, or tactics to effectively use them, a problem that Germans had addressed shortly before the war, which in large part explains their early success.

Even as these technical issues were being resolved and new kinds of weapons became available, the ineptitude of British high command in dealing with this new kind of war was further demonstrated in the infamous First Day on the Somme, where a combination of poor decision-making, technological flaws, obsolete tactics and callous disregard for soldiers' lives led to the outcome that we know. This, and the fact that the British command repeated the same mistakes over and over again until the development of infiltration tactics late in the war, a development that wasn't pioneered by the British at that, demonstrates that the British Army was hardly the most efficient fighting force of the Great War.

I never claimed they were, I merely believed your assessment entirely incorrect.

[Verdiga]

It's either the Mongols, the Romans, Alexander's Army, or the Grande Armée.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

I'd hardly call BEF the best-equipped, seeing how they lacked both adequate hand grenades and machine guns, or tactics to effectively use them, a problem that Germans had addressed shortly before the war, which in large part explains their early success.

Even as these technical issues were being resolved and new kinds of weapons became available, the ineptitude of British high command in dealing with this new kind of war was further demonstrated in the infamous First Day on the Somme, where a combination of poor decision-making, technological flaws, obsolete tactics and callous disregard for soldiers' lives led to the outcome that we know. This, and the fact that the British command repeated the same mistakes over and over again until the development of infiltration tactics late in the war, a development that wasn't pioneered by the British at that, demonstrates that the British Army was hardly the most efficient fighting force of the Great War.

I never claimed they were, I merely believed your assessment entirely incorrect.

Perhaps my statement could have used more precise formulation, but I stand by it. Britain has always been a prime naval power, but the performance of their land forces in the 19th and early 20th century has been above mediocre at best. Unlike Prussian/German forces, the Brits never fought a major land war against another European power, with the exception of Crimean War, in the 19th century, their action being restricted largely to colonial wars against ill-equipped tribal irregulars. Furthermore, the British army suffered several humiliating defeats at the hands of an inferior foe, such as during the Mahdist War in Sudan, and particularly the First Boer War.

The fact that the army of the world's greatest empire was bested by sword-wielding savages or armed peasants doesn't necessarily mean the British were poor soldiers. Rather, these humiliating instances demonstrate overconfidence, arrogance and tactical inflexibility on part of senior officers. British society has always been conservative and traditionalist, to the point of becoming synonymous to conservatism, and their military was no exception, particularly the top brass being resistant to change. This resistance to innovation did on a number of times impede British military advancement, and resulted in avoidable losses and defeats.

Prussian/German military, on the other hand, was much more open to innovation, partly out of practical necessity - Prussia/Germany fought a number of major wars throughout the 19th century, all of them against other European powers. Unlike Britain who relied on her navy to keep enemies at bay, Germany had no such luxury and had to constantly devise new tricks and tactics to stay ahead of would-be enemies. The ample experience provided by their wars, especially the Franco-Prussian War, helped shape the German army into the efficient fighting force that it demonstrated itself to be in 1914.

The experiences of the Franco-Prussian War in particular define early German military supremacy. Unlike the Brits, who weren't around to benefit from these experiences, Germans were the first to learn the importance of heavy artillery, proper defense against it, and proper deployment of machineguns. This consequently showed in the Great War, which Germans entered with an already established doctrine of using heavy artillery, machinegun crossfire and heavily-reinforced trenches to score their early victories. Their unit rotation system also facilitated an extensive and well-built trench network, Germans lavishing themselves in well-designed trenches with artillery shelters and reinforced concrete dugouts while their Allied counterparts still had to contend themselves with little more than ditches balls-deep full of mud, their commanders deliberately forbidding the construction of more sophisticated shelters in fear that the men might "get too comfortable" and less willing to fight.

---

Hence I maintain that British victory in WWI was largely an economic one, the fight being decided first and foremost in harbors and factories rather than the trenches (which is the essence of industrial warfare), the actual combat efficiency of their ground forces being rather mediocre.

[Gim]

It's either the Mongols, the Romans, Alexander's Army, or the Grande Armée.

Romans or Alexander's. Mongols had a great deal of resistance in their Eastern fronts.

[ErVaReAn rEpUbLiC]

I never claimed they were, I merely believed your assessment entirely incorrect.

Perhaps my statement could have used more precise formulation, but I stand by it. Britain has always been a prime naval power, but the performance of their land forces in the 19th and early 20th century has been above mediocre at best. Unlike Prussian/German forces, the Brits never fought a major land war against another European power, with the exception of Crimean War, in the 19th century, their action being restricted largely to colonial wars against ill-equipped tribal irregulars. Furthermore, the British army suffered several humiliating defeats at the hands of an inferior foe, such as during the Mahdist War in Sudan, and particularly the First Boer War.

The fact that the army of the world's greatest empire was bested by sword-wielding savages or armed peasants doesn't necessarily mean the British were poor soldiers. Rather, these humiliating instances demonstrate overconfidence, arrogance and tactical inflexibility on part of senior officers. British society has always been conservative and traditionalist, to the point of becoming synonymous to conservatism, and their military was no exception, particularly the top brass being resistant to change. This resistance to innovation did on a number of times impede British military advancement, and resulted in avoidable losses and defeats.

Prussian/German military, on the other hand, was much more open to innovation, partly out of practical necessity - Prussia/Germany fought a number of major wars throughout the 19th century, all of them against other European powers. Unlike Britain who relied on her navy to keep enemies at bay, Germany had no such luxury and had to constantly devise new tricks and tactics to stay ahead of would-be enemies. The ample experience provided by their wars, especially the Franco-Prussian War, helped shape the German army into the efficient fighting force that it demonstrated itself to be in 1914.

The experiences of the Franco-Prussian War in particular define early German military supremacy. Unlike the Brits, who weren't around to benefit from these experiences, Germans were the first to learn the importance of heavy artillery, proper defense against it, and proper deployment of machineguns. This consequently showed in the Great War, which Germans entered with an already established doctrine of using heavy artillery, machinegun crossfire and heavily-reinforced trenches to score their early victories. Their unit rotation system also facilitated an extensive and well-built trench network, Germans lavishing themselves in well-designed trenches with artillery shelters and reinforced concrete dugouts while their Allied counterparts still had to contend themselves with little more than ditches balls-deep full of mud, their commanders deliberately forbidding the construction of more sophisticated shelters in fear that the men might "get too comfortable" and less willing to fight.

---

Hence I maintain that British victory in WWI was largely an economic one, the fight being decided first and foremost in harbors and factories rather than the trenches (which is the essence of industrial warfare), the actual combat efficiency of their ground forces being rather mediocre.

Even the efficiency of their navy could be questioned to an extent. Consider for example the Battle of Jutland, during which the British took heavier casualties and material damages than the Germans, because the British still hadn't upgraded to trinitrotoluene (TNT) for explosive filler for their shells, instead still using picrid acid mixture, unlike the Germans who had adopted to TNT quite some time ago. Many believe the exchanges in casualties and material damages would have been fairly even in other case.

Also, during WW2 it could be argued that the German Navy was more efficient than the British in that it really pressured Britain hard during the Battle of the Atlantic, only through a force of submarines whose total tonnage was much lower than the British Home Fleet.

Also, compared to the Imperial Japanese and the American navies the Royal Navy relied more on the traditional battleship as the capital ship and less on aircraft carriers even as CV-centric navies proved superior to traditional ones for many occasions (though it could be argued that a CV-based navy was less useful for the British Home Fleet, given geographic proximity to the Isles).

[Oil exporting People]

No force prior to mechanisation can reasonably considered more efficient than any force that came after mechanisation.

I'd argue that's an extremely bad arguement to make. No one can dispute the power of Rome's legions, the Mongol hordes, Napoleon's forces, etc.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Perhaps my statement could have used more precise formulation, but I stand by it. Britain has always been a prime naval power, but the performance of their land forces in the 19th and early 20th century has been above mediocre at best. Unlike Prussian/German forces, the Brits never fought a major land war against another European power, with the exception of Crimean War, in the 19th century, their action being restricted largely to colonial wars against ill-equipped tribal irregulars. Furthermore, the British army suffered several humiliating defeats at the hands of an inferior foe, such as during the Mahdist War in Sudan, and particularly the First Boer War.

The fact that the army of the world's greatest empire was bested by sword-wielding savages or armed peasants doesn't necessarily mean the British were poor soldiers. Rather, these humiliating instances demonstrate overconfidence, arrogance and tactical inflexibility on part of senior officers. British society has always been conservative and traditionalist, to the point of becoming synonymous to conservatism, and their military was no exception, particularly the top brass being resistant to change. This resistance to innovation did on a number of times impede British military advancement, and resulted in avoidable losses and defeats.

Prussian/German military, on the other hand, was much more open to innovation, partly out of practical necessity - Prussia/Germany fought a number of major wars throughout the 19th century, all of them against other European powers. Unlike Britain who relied on her navy to keep enemies at bay, Germany had no such luxury and had to constantly devise new tricks and tactics to stay ahead of would-be enemies. The ample experience provided by their wars, especially the Franco-Prussian War, helped shape the German army into the efficient fighting force that it demonstrated itself to be in 1914.

The experiences of the Franco-Prussian War in particular define early German military supremacy. Unlike the Brits, who weren't around to benefit from these experiences, Germans were the first to learn the importance of heavy artillery, proper defense against it, and proper deployment of machineguns. This consequently showed in the Great War, which Germans entered with an already established doctrine of using heavy artillery, machinegun crossfire and heavily-reinforced trenches to score their early victories. Their unit rotation system also facilitated an extensive and well-built trench network, Germans lavishing themselves in well-designed trenches with artillery shelters and reinforced concrete dugouts while their Allied counterparts still had to contend themselves with little more than ditches balls-deep full of mud, their commanders deliberately forbidding the construction of more sophisticated shelters in fear that the men might "get too comfortable" and less willing to fight.

---

Hence I maintain that British victory in WWI was largely an economic one, the fight being decided first and foremost in harbors and factories rather than the trenches (which is the essence of industrial warfare), the actual combat efficiency of their ground forces being rather mediocre.

Even the efficiency of their navy could be questioned to an extent. Consider for example the Battle of Jutland, during which the British took heavier casualties and material damages than the Germans, because the British still hadn't upgraded to trinitrotoluene (TNT) for explosive filler for their shells, instead still using picrid acid mixture, unlike the Germans who had adopted to TNT quite some time ago. Many believe the exchanges in casualties and material damages would have been fairly even in other case.

Also, during WW2 it could be argued that the German Navy was more efficient than the British in that it really pressured Britain hard during the Battle of the Atlantic, only through a force of submarines whose total tonnage was much lower than the British Home Fleet.

Also, compared to the Imperial Japanese and the American navies the Royal Navy relied more on the traditional battleship as the capital ship and less on aircraft carriers even as CV-centric navies proved superior to traditional ones for many occasions (though it could be argued that a CV-based navy was less useful for the British Home Fleet, given geographic proximity to the Isles).

Not necessarily. Until fairly late in the war, British carriers were actually better than American ones, featuring a fully armored flight deck unlike early American carriers that still had wooden flight decks. A single direct hit by a bomb or a kamikaze could put out a Yank carrier out of action for several months, while the Brits could simply sweep away the wreckage, put a patch on the hole, and be back in operation in a few hours. Granted, Brits built only a few aircraft carriers compared to the US, given their tactical situation that didn't require as much power projection over vast distances. Since their closest and most immediate opponents had no carrier capacity whatsoever, the Royal Navy could focus on the production of light escort carriers to protect their convoys (something already being generously supplied by the Americans), the Germans having little to counter it.

In any case, British reliance on battleships was borne more out of practicality in the given tactical situation rather than adherence to tradition, as was the case with the Japanese, who needlessly expended huge resources constructing largely useless monster battleships (Yamato and Musashi, respectively) rather than built more fleet carriers which had far greater importance in actual combat.

[Ugatoo]

Have you seen the DoD budget? America is pretty much the least efficient ever.

[The Tungsten Horde (Ancient)]

It's either the Mongols, the Romans, Alexander's Army, or the Grande Armée.

Romans or Alexander's. Mongols had a great deal of resistance in their Eastern fronts.

No matter how much you want it to be true, the Koreans didn't resist the Mongols effectively.

They got looted several times, and then became a vassal state.