Worst Military Power

[Justin States]

DELETED

[UED]

I know, but the North Koreans would almost definitely use a far higher percentage.
So this "unorganized militia" is one of the possible reasons why no one invades merica?

No one wins against rednecks armed with their freedoms, no one...

lol

Excellent spelling!

Please point out what I've spelled wrong, and try not to be so baity about it

It said They where shit, unless it was meant to be spelled like that

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

Still, America would have more 'unorganized militia' than North Korea has people.

I know, but the North Koreans would almost definitely use a far higher percentage.
So this "unorganized militia" is one of the possible reasons why no one invades merica?

No, i think it has more to do with the logistics of invading the third largest country in the world with deserts, forests, tundras, mountains, swamps, etc and crazy weather. It also helps to have most of the world(Europe, Australia, Japan etc) as allies and have the largest, most powerful conventional military the world has ever known combined with vast military potential and huge resources.

I'm sure if it came down to it, armed insurgents could cause a headache, especially in such places Montana where everyone not from Montana is an alien invader. I'm sure maintaining a huge supply line across a huge sea and across a continent against a heavily armed hostile populace would be difficult, though.

[UED]

I know, but the North Koreans would almost definitely use a far higher percentage.
So this "unorganized militia" is one of the possible reasons why no one invades merica?

No, i think it has more to do with the logistics of invading the third largest country in the world with deserts, forests, tundras, mountains, swamps, etc and crazy weather. It also helps to have most of the world(Europe, Australia, Japan etc) as allies and have the largest, most powerful conventional military the world has ever known combined with vast military potential and huge resources.

I'm sure if it came down to it, armed insurgents could cause a headache, especially in such places Montana where everyone not from Montana is an alien invader. I'm sure maintaining a huge supply line across a huge sea and across a continent against a heavily armed hostile populace would be difficult, though.

I said possible, but thanks for confirm my thoughts

[Zaldakki]

He did order a replica of Napoleon's crown and equipped his armies with exact copies of the uniforms worn by the Grande Armée.

He soo did

Lolz.

[Dracoria]

lol
No, the T-34 was considered superior to german tanks by the germans. General Alfred Jodl admitted the germans had difficulty destroying T-34. The Russian KV-1 was also strong, its only weakness was engine failure, like the Tigers the germans made.
So you are wrong
If it wasn't that the rest of the Russian tanks were !@#$ stupid, all non T-34s were bad

I believe German 50mm guns on their panzers couldn't scratch t-34's because of its sloped armour on all sides. Of course, it was pretty 'crap' if you discount the performance (to the shock of the Germans, it didn't even have an instruction manual!). Imagine a Chinese built car. But it worked

The Panzer I and Panzer II were horribly outdated by the time they faced real armor. The T-34s mostly met IIIs and IVs on the frontline, both initially fared poorly (the IV was an infantry tank, III was a battle tank with too light a main gun) until the IV was outfitted with an antitank gun and became a rough match. Panthers tended to do pretty well but were easily outnumbered, while the Tigers were a terrific way to leave abandoned German technology on the side of the road to be captured. In all honesty, tank destroyers and antitank guns were a much greater threat to T-34s on the eastern front than other tanks were.

Long story short, German tanks just weren't equipped to fight something with equal armor and had to be reinforced to fight an actual tank-hunting tank. Similar situation early Shermans found themselves in against Panthers and Tigers.

[Shofercia]

Not really, also, you leave out the T-80U, which probably outclassed any other tank in the world.

Which preformed poorly in Georgia, taking higher causalities then any western tank in the same Time period.

Only T-72s and their variants, and T-55s were used in the Ossetian War. Have you a bullshit source for me to discredit?

http://samlib.ru/m/marchenko_r_a/q1.shtml

Ossetians: 10 T-55s and 5 T-72s
Russians: up to 150 T-72s
Georgians: up to 180 T-72s and up to 20 T-55s
[Maybe there were some on the Abkhaz Front, but I doubt that.

If you are referring to David Axe's source, that is incorrect.

Russia's 58th Army, hardened from bloody fighting in Chechnya, led the charge into South Ossetia. Scores of low-slung T-80 tanks, armed with 125 mm cannons and sporting scalelike reactive-armor blocks that explode outward to deflect incoming fire, made quick work of Georgia's older, but nearly identical, tanks. One Georgian tank unit lost 400 out of 500 soldiers, according to an Ossetian soldier and blogger fighting for the Russians. But tank killers from the Georgian infantry, armed with unidentified guided missiles--allegedly of Israeli origin--sparked a minor panic and a major diplomatic row between Russia and Israel, when they destroyed several T-80s, apparently by punching right through the reactive armor. The possible secret? A twin warhead: one charge to set off the reactive blocks, another to punch through the tank's steel hull.

Georgia didn't have any T-80s that were usable. There was a false report during the war that should've stated "1 tank from tank battalion destroyed" but someone was giddy, and left the first part off, leading to... interesting results: "tank battalion destroyed"

Not sure why Axe jumped on that. Additionally, in order for tank killers to act in that manner, they had to separate infantry from tanks, which never happened for the Russian Army. Furthermore, no losses of a T-80 were reported, which is understandable, since they didn't participate in the war.

[Kalmarium]

Didn't Paraguay's leader believe he was Napoleon or something

He did order a replica of Napoleon's crown and equipped his armies with exact copies of the uniforms worn by the Grande Armée.

Well if I had it my way, I'd let the guy win that war just for the lolz

[Justin States]

DELETED

[UED]

So most of us are in agreement that the Soviet tanks aren't that bad

[Yupun]

USA during the cold war...

Korean War: draw when they clearly had way more weapons and superior technology... (lost over 1000 aircrafts wtf?)

Vietnam War: better technology and way more gear yet they lost they couldnt even get a draw? (also lost over 1000 aircraft?)

But after that they stated to do better but still politicly i dont think they do much right...

[Dracoria]

Still, America would have more 'unorganized militia' than North Korea has people.

I know, but the North Koreans would almost definitely use a far higher percentage.
So this "unorganized militia" is one of the possible reasons why no one invades merica?

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - often attributed to Isoruku Yamamoto, even if there is no direct evidence he said it.

[Kalmarium]

lol
No, the T-34 was considered superior to german tanks by the germans. General Alfred Jodl admitted the germans had difficulty destroying T-34. The Russian KV-1 was also strong, its only weakness was engine failure, like the Tigers the germans made.
So you are wrong
If it wasn't that the rest of the Russian tanks were !@#$ stupid, all non T-34s were bad

I believe German 50mm guns on their panzers couldn't scratch t-34's because of its sloped armour on all sides. Of course, it was pretty 'crap' if you discount the performance (to the shock of the Germans, it didn't even have an instruction manual!). Imagine a Chinese built car. But it worked

That's because German (and American) tanks were built on the principles of supporting infantry and breaking through defensive lines, not to go up against other tanks.

[Justin States]

.

[United Marxist Nations]

So most of us are in agreement that the Soviet tanks aren't that bad

The T-80U was just as good, if not better than its Western counterparts.

[United Marxist Nations]

So most of us are in agreement that the Soviet tanks aren't that bad

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THERE BULL!@#$

No, no they aren't.

[UED]

USA during the cold war...

Korean War: draw when they clearly had way more weapons and superior technology... (lost over 1000 aircrafts wtf?)

Vietnam War: better technology and way more gear yet they lost they couldnt even get a draw? (also lost over 1000 aircraft?)

But after that they stated to do better but still politicly i dont think they do much right...

The Chinese had far more superior numbers, outnumbering the Americans more than 4-1, plus the South Korean allied troops were total !@#$ compared to their NK counterparts.

In Vietnam it was the Viet Cong doing some hardcore troll warfare

[Alouite]

Fascist Italy had a hard time invading a tribal Ethiopia, so they get number one.

[Oaledonia]

he T-80U's ATGM outranged any Western tank.

I lol'd
Remember that the claimed "5000 meter" range of the Sniper was credited to a guidance system invented in 2005.

[The Great Warrior Rivers]

USA during the cold war...

There wasn't even a war. It was an arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

[United Marxist Nations]

he T-80U's ATGM outranged any Western tank.

I lol'd
Remember that the claimed "5000 meter" range of the Sniper was credited to a guidance system invented in 2005.

No, it isn't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M119_Refleks

[UED]

Fascist Italy had a hard time invading a tribal Ethiopia, so they get number one.

That has already been confirmed, but let us mock the Italians one more time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass

Brilliant eh? The attacker is outnumbered and outgunned, the Italians lose more than 75% of their army.

[Justin States]

DELETED

[United Marxist Nations]

No, no they aren't.

"No, no they aren't."(mimicking)

Alright then, how were they?

[Kalmarium]

USA during the cold war...

Korean War: draw when they clearly had way more weapons and superior technology... (lost over 1000 aircrafts wtf?)

Vietnam War: better technology and way more gear yet they lost they couldnt even get a draw? (also lost over 1000 aircraft?)

But after that they stated to do better but still politicly i dont think they do much right...

1. It was a large see-saw battle with no single end in sight. The US wanted to push (and did) the North Koreans to obliteration, and create a united capitalist Korea, while China, with it's far greater manpower in the war, wanted a good buffer state against the west (which now they're probably regretting).
2. Vietnam was lost because the American government failed to see that the North was fighting more for Vietnam itself rather than spreading communism, and despite our superior tech and firepower, they simply had more resolve than us to win. You can't win a war if your own people don't support.