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

[Imperial City-States]

And What Year were the NKDA From ?

The 1990s. This is 1700s to present, right?

That is correct , i was just curious because i've never heard of them and wanted to read up on it

[Neoconstantius]

The 1990s. This is 1700s to present, right?

That is correct , i was just curious because i've never heard of them and wanted to read up on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Ka ... fense_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War

Here you are.

[Ozzy]

As for America - we joined in After Germany had been at war for three years and America was an Industrial super power . "Wear down machines Efficiency " please elaborate on that

Here here
and here

Do tell me about this one. That's just Wikipedia alone, I believe there are many other sites that claim the Allies were victorious in World War II.

[Imperial City-States]

That is correct , i was just curious because i've never heard of them and wanted to read up on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Ka ... fense_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War

Here you are.

Very Impressive ... Very Impressive indeed

[Imperial Nalydya]

Does the fact that from the 1700s to present day is a massive spread bug anyone else?

Not sure what I'd say for early 1700s, but late to mid, definitely the Prussians. Perhaps the French briefly in early 1800s, and British up until mid, where the crown goes to the Union and Confederate armies. Goes back to Prussia and the Germanic states not long after that, and would seem they keep it that way pretty much up until after WWII (with a small break between wars), where it firmly goes to the US.

[Soul Edge]

Oops, better not go into a anti-NAZI fit.

There are many militaries that fit under the category of "best fighting force", I just can't simply think of one in particular. Finnish soldiers of WWII, perhaps?

Feel free to disagree, I'll dig up the internet to refresh my knowledge on the Lapland, Continuation, and Winter Wars.

[Imperial City-States]

Oops, better not go into a anti-NAZI fit.

There are many militaries that fit under the category of "best fighting force", I just can't simply think of one in particular. Finnish soldiers of WWII, perhaps?

Feel free to disagree, I'll dig up the internet to refresh my knowledge on the Lapland, Continuation, and Winter Wars.

The Finnish did indeed to a Paramount job of Fighting the Soviets .. I am asking who people think was " the best " because im interested to hear peoples opinions

[United Marxist Nations]

Call me biased, but the Red Army in 1945; it crushed what was left of the Wehrmacht, and drove the Japanese Army out of Manchuria in less than a week.

[Imperial City-States]

Call me biased, but the Red Army in 1945; it crushed what was left of the Wehrmacht, and drove the Japanese Army out of Manchuria in less than a week.

* looks at Nation's flag and qoutes . Shruggs * Nahh not biased at all


Unfortunately beating what was left of the Wehrmacht was not a difficult task when allied forces on the western front were advancing at a similar rate. And to my knowledge i don't think Manchuria had much of an Imperial Japanese Prescense did it ?

[United Marxist Nations]

Call me biased, but the Red Army in 1945; it crushed what was left of the Wehrmacht, and drove the Japanese Army out of Manchuria in less than a week.

* looks at Nation's flag and qoutes . Shruggs * Nahh not biased at all


Unfortunately beating what was left of the Wehrmacht was not a difficult task when allied forces on the western front were advancing at a similar rate. And to my knowledge i don't think Manchuria had much of an Imperial Japanese Prescense did it ?

You have to remember that it was also the reason I had to say "what was left".

I, for one, call 1.2 million troops, 5000 artillery, 1100 tanks, and 210,000 Manchurian allies a significant presence.

[Imperial City-States]

* looks at Nation's flag and qoutes . Shruggs * Nahh not biased at all


Unfortunately beating what was left of the Wehrmacht was not a difficult task when allied forces on the western front were advancing at a similar rate. And to my knowledge i don't think Manchuria had much of an Imperial Japanese Prescense did it ?

You have to remember that it was also the reason I had to say "what was left".

I, for one, call 1.2 million troops, 5000 artillery, 1100 tanks, and 210,000 Manchurian allies a significant presence.

True and very valid point although im looking into the Casualties and there wasn't all that much fighting involved . But i must (shamefully) admit i do not know much about that Area

[United Marxist Nations]

You have to remember that it was also the reason I had to say "what was left".

I, for one, call 1.2 million troops, 5000 artillery, 1100 tanks, and 210,000 Manchurian allies a significant presence.

True and very valid point although im looking into the Casualties and there wasn't all that much fighting involved . But i must (shamefully) admit i do not know much about that Area

It was somewhat similar to the German attack on Yugoslavia a few years earlier, in that while the defending force was substantial, but the resistance buckled.

[Imperial City-States]

True and very valid point although im looking into the Casualties and there wasn't all that much fighting involved . But i must (shamefully) admit i do not know much about that Area

It was somewhat similar to the German attack on Yugoslavia a few years earlier, in that while the defending force was substantial, but the resistance buckled.

Ah .... Well thats not all that impressive for all the troops there . you'd think something exciting would happen ( joke ) .

And come on lets be serious here ... Japan ... Tanks ?

[United Marxist Nations]

It was somewhat similar to the German attack on Yugoslavia a few years earlier, in that while the defending force was substantial, but the resistance buckled.

Ah .... Well thats not all that impressive for all the troops there . you'd think something exciting would happen ( joke ) .

And come on lets be serious here ... Japan ... Tanks ?

They also had to overcome the Manchuokan navy; not to mention that the army defending Manchuria was the largest and most prestigious part of the IJA. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that they were equipped with the most modern of Japanese tanks, and had a substantial compliment of anti-tank weapons.

[Imperial City-States]

Ah .... Well thats not all that impressive for all the troops there . you'd think something exciting would happen ( joke ) .

And come on lets be serious here ... Japan ... Tanks ?

They also had to overcome the Manchuokan navy; not to mention that the army defending Manchuria was the largest and most prestigious part of the IJA. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that they were equipped with the most modern of Japanese tanks, and had a substantial compliment of anti-tank weapons.

I'm not negating the troops that were there . Japanese tanks were an embarrassment to the name as the Japanese combat doctrine was centered on Island warfare not Inland warfare with Armor units . AT weapons sure

[United Marxist Nations]

They also had to overcome the Manchuokan navy; not to mention that the army defending Manchuria was the largest and most prestigious part of the IJA. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that they were equipped with the most modern of Japanese tanks, and had a substantial compliment of anti-tank weapons.

I'm not negating the troops that were there . Japanese tanks were an embarrassment to the name as the Japanese combat doctrine was centered on Island warfare not Inland warfare with Armor units . AT weapons sure

The forces stationed in Manchuria were dedicated to fighting on mainland China, so their doctrine would have been based on inland warfare. Not to mention that they would have had rivers to provide a defensive barrier (which was the exact thing the Manchuokan Navy was built for).

[Imperial City-States]

I'm not negating the troops that were there . Japanese tanks were an embarrassment to the name as the Japanese combat doctrine was centered on Island warfare not Inland warfare with Armor units . AT weapons sure

The forces stationed in Manchuria were dedicated to fighting on mainland China, so their doctrine would have been based on inland warfare. Not to mention that they would have had rivers to provide a defensive barrier (which was the exact thing the Manchuokan Navy was built for).

Wither they were dedicated or not has nothing to do with the fact that their armor was sub-standard

Sure they would have had AT gun's ect, But as WW1 Proved you can have all the static AT in the world but static defenses have limited effectiveness against an armored opponent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_95_Ha-Go

[United Marxist Nations]

The forces stationed in Manchuria were dedicated to fighting on mainland China, so their doctrine would have been based on inland warfare. Not to mention that they would have had rivers to provide a defensive barrier (which was the exact thing the Manchuokan Navy was built for).

Wither they were dedicated or not has nothing to do with the fact that their armor was sub-standard

Sure they would have had AT gun's ect, But as WW1 Proved you can have all the static AT in the world but static defenses have limited effectiveness against an armored opponent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_95_Ha-Go

The Germans successfully delayed Allied offensives in Italy, and later along the Maginot line.

I will grant that Japanese armor was substandard, but that wasn't the tank the Kwantung Army had, it had: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_97_ShinHoTo_Chi-Ha

I can't find specifics on what all the other armored vehicles that were there, but it's probably fair to assume that some of them were tank destroyers.

EDIT: Even with all the shortcomings of the Japanese defense, it still should have taken more than 6 days to completely mop it up.

[Rahwa]

Prussian army during 19th century. The best the world has ever seen.

[Imperial City-States]

Wither they were dedicated or not has nothing to do with the fact that their armor was sub-standard

Sure they would have had AT gun's ect, But as WW1 Proved you can have all the static AT in the world but static defenses have limited effectiveness against an armored opponent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_95_Ha-Go

The Germans successfully delayed Allied offensives in Italy, and later along the Maginot line.

I will grant that Japanese armor was substandard, but that wasn't the tank the Kwantung Army had, it had: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_97_ShinHoTo_Chi-Ha

I can't find specifics on what all the other armored vehicles that were there, but it's probably fair to assume that some of them were tank destroyers.

EDIT: Even with all the shortcomings of the Japanese defense, it still should have taken more than 6 days to completely mop it up.

German's never defended along the Magiont line to my knowledge they defended at the Seigfried line a set of fortifications that were centered around small pillbox's ect, compared to the Maginot's massive constructions.

Reasons the German's held them for so long is partially they had The Best troops in Europe and they also had the Best ( individual like Tank V Tank ) Armor in the world which greatly contributed to the German's ability to defend well ....

And i certainlly agree it would have taken longer then six days .. But even with Japanese Tank destroyers they certainly fell short did they not ?

[United Marxist Nations]

Prussian army during 19th century. The best the world has ever seen.

What about Napoleon's Army?

[Rahwa]

Prussian army during 19th century. The best the world has ever seen.

What about Napoleon's Army?

I thought about it too but Prussia became really an unstoppable force late in 19th century.

[United Marxist Nations]

The Germans successfully delayed Allied offensives in Italy, and later along the Maginot line.

I will grant that Japanese armor was substandard, but that wasn't the tank the Kwantung Army had, it had: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_97_ShinHoTo_Chi-Ha

I can't find specifics on what all the other armored vehicles that were there, but it's probably fair to assume that some of them were tank destroyers.

EDIT: Even with all the shortcomings of the Japanese defense, it still should have taken more than 6 days to completely mop it up.

German's never defended along the Magiont line to my knowledge they defended at the Seigfried line a set of fortifications that were centered around small pillbox's ect, compared to the Maginot's massive constructions.

Reasons the German's held them for so long is partially they had The Best troops in Europe and they also had the Best ( individual like Tank V Tank ) Armor in the world which greatly contributed to the German's ability to defend well ....

And i certainlly agree it would have taken longer then six days .. But even with Japanese Tank destroyers they certainly fell short did they not ?

Of course they fell short, but pretty much any military would have.

At Metz the Germans did. Most of those best troops and tanks were along the Eastern Front.

[Imperial City-States]

German's never defended along the Magiont line to my knowledge they defended at the Seigfried line a set of fortifications that were centered around small pillbox's ect, compared to the Maginot's massive constructions.

Reasons the German's held them for so long is partially they had The Best troops in Europe and they also had the Best ( individual like Tank V Tank ) Armor in the world which greatly contributed to the German's ability to defend well ....

And i certainlly agree it would have taken longer then six days .. But even with Japanese Tank destroyers they certainly fell short did they not ?

Of course they fell short, but pretty much any military would have.

At Metz the Germans did. Most of those best troops and tanks were along the Eastern Front.

Very well , there Were a Large amount of Elite troops moved into France prior to the Normandy landings , This included Several Waffen SS Divisions ill try and find which units in particuallar if you want

[Cyllea]

To an extent, North Korea.

Instantly, I'm most likely going to get bashed, but whatever. People like to display the North Korean military as a pushover. This is far from the truth. Should a war happen, North Korea would almost instantly take most of South Korea. There are tunnels to Seoul, artillery constantly pointed at major South Korean cities and a 10 million man army, the largest in the world personnel-wise. USA and Japan would intervene and start to win the war. Their equipment is better. However, every single North Korean would be fighting against USA. There is no plausible way USA could provoke a war with North Korea and take over without tens of millions of American deaths and possible nuclear bombings. The North Korean troops are MUCH better trained than American troops. They have large amounts of military equipment such as tanks, heavy artillery, ect. So while they would lose the war, it would be much like the OP's post about Germany in the second world war. The Americans would pay dearly for every inch of land they take.