Best Fighting Forces in Modern History (1700's-Present )

[Neuhausen]

The Red Army, since the Red Army was able to adopt, improve and innovate as the war went on. If your army can do that on the Red Army's scale, they'll win. Because if your job is just to keep fighting, you win. And in warfare, victory is what matters. When WWII began, Nazis were on the zenith, Red Army was on the nadir. Flipping tables on Nazis within a few years was an amazing feat, unrepeated in human history.

I wouldn't say that this is unreapeated in human history though.

[Shofercia]

I'm curious, under what circumstances do you possibly see a Nazi victory against the Soviets?

Even taking into consideration that about the time that Stalin [b]stopped interfering[/b] and the Red Army recovered from the purges, which was coincidentally when the Germans stopped winning such stunning victories and the technological gap sharply decreased, the Soviet Union stretched from Poland to the Pacific Ocean, the European USSR stretching from Poland to the Ural Mountains.

And the Soviets were prepared to defend every meter of it.

There is no situation where Hitler wins that fight.

Stalin remained a major force for not only propaganda and morale for Soviet troops, but was also involved in the reorganization of industry that fueled the war effort; he less stopped interfering, than just started applying his talents where they belonged.

Stalin's disastrous purges did far more damage to the Red Army than his later assistance helped. If there were no purges, we'd be in Berlin by 1943. Maybe earlier. And here's how: M-R Pact either doesn't go through, or goes through but we only lightly occupy those defensive lines, preparing instead a defense in depth integrated with Partisan Warfare. Wait for Hitler to advance until his lines are stretched thin, and then steam roll his ass all the way to Berlin.

[Shofercia]

The Red Army, since the Red Army was able to adopt, improve and innovate as the war went on. If your army can do that on the Red Army's scale, they'll win. Because if your job is just to keep fighting, you win. And in warfare, victory is what matters. When WWII began, Nazis were on the zenith, Red Army was on the nadir. Flipping tables on Nazis within a few years was an amazing feat, unrepeated in human history.

I wouldn't say that this is unreapeated in human history though.

Please provide other examples of million-men armies flipping the tables on one another, when one army starts out at the zenith, and the other at the nadir.

[Neuhausen]

I wouldn't say that this is unreapeated in human history though.

Please provide other examples of million-men armies flipping the tables on one another, when one army starts out at the zenith, and the other at the nadir.

Can you please explain zenith and nadir for me? I think I know what you mean but just want to make sure before I answer.

[Shofercia]

Please provide other examples of million-men armies flipping the tables on one another, when one army starts out at the zenith, and the other at the nadir.

Can you please explain zenith and nadir for me? I think I know what you mean but just want to make sure before I answer.

In the context of my previous posts:

Zenith - army at the top of their fighting capability.
Nadir - army at the bottom of their fighting capability.

[Omorov-Nier]

The afghans. The afghans so much. They defeated three great powers infinitely more powerful than them.

[Imperial City-States]

The afghans. The afghans so much. They defeated three great powers infinitely more powerful than them.

The Russian's and who else ?

[Neuhausen]

Can you please explain zenith and nadir for me? I think I know what you mean but just want to make sure before I answer.

In the context of my previous posts:

Zenith - army at the top of their fighting capability.
Nadir - army at the bottom of their fighting capability.

Soviet Army wasn't at the bottom of their fighting capability when the war started. They just didn't know how to defend - or weren't very good at it. Soviet army was built to attack not to defend. Of course they had to stop German assault before they could use their own potential - something they accomplished.

[Shofercia]

The afghans. The afghans so much. They defeated three great powers infinitely more powerful than them.

The Russian's and who else ?

He's referring to Brits, Russians and Americans. I disagree, but I think my candidate's better.

[Imperial City-States]

The Russian's and who else ?

He's referring to Brits, Russians and Americans. I disagree, but I think my candidate's better.

Well i regret to inform him but the Afghan's Haven't Beaten my Country ..

[Shofercia]

In the context of my previous posts:

Zenith - army at the top of their fighting capability.
Nadir - army at the bottom of their fighting capability.

Soviet Army wasn't at the bottom of their fighting capability when the war started. They just didn't know how to defend - or weren't very good at it. Soviet army was build to attack not to defend. Of course they had to stop German assault before they could use their own potential - something they accomplished.

Yeah they were. The Red Army was/is a true meritocracy, heavily dependent on the Officer Cadre. Additionally, the Red Army's initial counterstrokes didn't materialize, because they were poorly planned. Prior to WWII, most wars were fought using the linear methodology, i.e. you set up lines of defense. WWII was fought using chokepoint methodology, i.e. the chokepoints mattered more than the lines. Had the Red Army Officer Cadre grasped these points as soon as the war started, which they would have, but for the purges, Nazis would've been pwnd. General Panfilov was able to grasp these tactics, and once applied, the results were quite remarkable. A single battalion was able to hold back an entire Nazi corps, and destroyed three or four Nazi battalions while at it: http://www.lib.ru/PROZA/BEK/volokola.txt

And such results were almost universal in Panfilov's Division.

[Costa Fierro]

Soviet Army wasn't at the bottom of their fighting capability when the war started. They just didn't know how to defend - or weren't very good at it. Soviet army was build to attack not to defend. Of course they had to stop German assault before they could use their own potential - something they accomplished.

The Soviets pretty much lacked an experienced/competent command system below the regimental level in the early parts of the Great Patriotic War. It's not that they didn't know how to defend, it's that they were taken by surprise by an army with much more combat experience, initially superior tactics and had competent middle-rank commanders. The Soviets only managed to rectify everything by 1943.

[Omorov-Nier]

The afghans. The afghans so much. They defeated three great powers infinitely more powerful than them.

The Russian's and who else ?

I'm pretty sure once the US withdraws the Taliban will defeat the puppet government, just like they destroyed the british pupped government, massacred most of the british in the country and forced the remaining ones to march all the way back to India in 1842.

EDIT: Do you know how many brits living in Afghanistan survived the massacre? One. I mean, they quartered Sir Burnes alive, the guy who made the expedition to Bukkhara in 1831. And Sir Elphingstone? They cut his legs, arms and head and then put his torso on display in a bazaar.

[United Marxist Nations]

Stalin remained a major force for not only propaganda and morale for Soviet troops, but was also involved in the reorganization of industry that fueled the war effort; he less stopped interfering, than just started applying his talents where they belonged.

Stalin's disastrous purges did far more damage to the Red Army than his later assistance helped. If there were no purges, we'd be in Berlin by 1943. Maybe earlier. And here's how: M-R Pact either doesn't go through, or goes through but we only lightly occupy those defensive lines, preparing instead a defense in depth integrated with Partisan Warfare. Wait for Hitler to advance until his lines are stretched thin, and then steam roll his ass all the way to Berlin.

Without Stalin's industrial reforms of the '20's and '30's, there's no way that would have happened. The M-R pact was a last resort; Stalin had been trying to get an alliance with Britain and France as early as 1936, but it failed to go through. Stalin got the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact expecting France to hold Germany until such time that the Red Army would be capable of an attack on Germany; with German forces tied up on the Western Front and depleted, it would have been an easy victory. Also, the situation you described is what happened, like, exactly; except for the 1943 part.

[Imperial City-States]

From what i've seen the Three Most Mentioned Military groups are as follows

( no particular Order )

Soviet Red Army ( WW2 Era )
German Wehrmacht ( WW2)
United States Military ( Modern day )



While people can still feel free to add in their opinions i believe that instead of running circles between the comparisons of the Soviets and the Germans we try and narrow down to who exactly was the Best Fighting force of the Modern era ( this will change as people add more ideas later on )

Please try and back up your arguments with statistics and sources because even things that sound totally outrageous ( KV-2 incident for example ) can actually be true which was mentioned earlier in this Thread .

I am impressed with the Educated Debates that people have brought forth and hope we can reach a conclusion between these Three so far

[Neuhausen]

Soviet Army wasn't at the bottom of their fighting capability when the war started. They just didn't know how to defend - or weren't very good at it. Soviet army was build to attack not to defend. Of course they had to stop German assault before they could use their own potential - something they accomplished.

Yeah they were. The Red Army was/is a true meritocracy, heavily dependent on the Officer Cadre. Additionally, the Red Army's initial counterstrokes didn't materialize, because they were poorly planned. Prior to WWII, most wars were fought using the linear methodology, i.e. you set up lines of defense. WWII was fought using chokepoint methodology, i.e. the chokepoints mattered more than the lines. Had the Red Army Officer Cadre grasped these points as soon as the war started, which they would have, but for the purges, Nazis would've been pwnd. General Panfilov was able to grasp these tactics, and once applied, the results were quite remarkable. A single battalion was able to hold back an entire Nazi corps, and destroyed three or four Nazi battalions while at it: http://www.lib.ru/PROZA/BEK/volokola.txt

And such results were almost universal in Panfilov's Division.

Maybe we disagree one this one but I don't say that you are wrong either.

And my answer to the question who has turned around war like that would be Estonians during Estonian War of Independence - of course the scale of the war is not big as it is with World War 2 - but you can apply your idea there. When the war started Estonian had no army but students who volunteered to fight. Estonia built their army during the war.

[Costa Fierro]

I'm surprised few people have mentioned the IDF.

[Imperial City-States]

I'm surprised few people have mentioned the IDF.

Well only Two people have mentioned the IDF that i have seen , four for the Modern US Military , Two for the Red Army and Two for the Werhmacht

[Neuhausen]

I'm surprised few people have mentioned the IDF.

Well they are good but they really aren't the best.

[Costa Fierro]

I'm surprised few people have mentioned the IDF.

Well they are good but they really aren't the best.

I beg to differ. 1967 and 1956, not to mention 1948 and 1973 were successes and quite stunning ones, were they not?

[Hollorous]

The Russian's and who else ?

I'm pretty sure once the US withdraws the Taliban will defeat the puppet government, just like they destroyed the british pupped government, massacred most of the british in the country and forced the remaining ones to march all the way back to India in 1842.

EDIT: Do you know how many brits living in Afghanistan survived the massacre? One. I mean, they quartered Sir Burnes alive, the guy who made the expedition to Bukkhara in 1831.

Taliban =/= all Afghans. It's tough to call a win for the Taliban a win for the Afghan nation.

[Omorov-Nier]

Well they are good but they really aren't the best.

I beg to differ. 1967 and 1956, not to mention 1948 and 1973 were successes and quite stunning ones, were they not?

Any army with a significant technological advantage can do that.

[Omorov-Nier]

I'm pretty sure once the US withdraws the Taliban will defeat the puppet government, just like they destroyed the british pupped government, massacred most of the british in the country and forced the remaining ones to march all the way back to India in 1842.

EDIT: Do you know how many brits living in Afghanistan survived the massacre? One. I mean, they quartered Sir Burnes alive, the guy who made the expedition to Bukkhara in 1831.

Taliban =/= all Afghans. It's tough to call a win for the Taliban a win for the Afghan nation.

Bah, most of the Taliban are afghan. (Are they?) What I mean is, the Afghans are a warring people like the world has never seen.

[Neuhausen]

Well they are good but they really aren't the best.

I beg to differ. 1967 and 1956, not to mention 1948 and 1973 were successes and quite stunning ones, were they not?

They haven't been really wars but conflicts which have lasted less than a week. I have no doubt that IDF is a good fighting force but there are better armies out there.

[Costa Fierro]

Any army with a significant technological advantage can do that.

Thing is, there really wasn't that much of a technological advantage that the Israelis had for almost all of those wars listed. Hell, countries like Jordan were using the same or similar equipment to what the Israelis were using.