Matrix Games Forums

I register my Vote for the US Army 1941-1945.. They Won , and they did it across Oceans, Nobody else even comes close to what makes an Army Great , Aside from Heroic Stands like Bastogne, and Unbelievable Assaults like Iwo Jima , Normandy, It was the only Army that could operate with it's own Equipment, ( not that I am knocking lend lease, but lets face it , if the US wasn't equiping the rest the allies , they wouldn't have been in the war ) , In ANY Terrain , ANYWHERE on the Planet and do it with co-ordinated Land, Air, and Sea units that could actually be kept supplied , and did it with lower casulities than anybody else, while inflicting higher casulities than anybody else.
You can agrue that other Nations had better Soldiers if you want, Better tanks or planes if you want, better shoelaces , I don't care..But if the Category is "Army" then the overwhelming power , logistics, flexibility, and winning tactical and strategic planing of the US Army can NOT be matched. No other Army fought in as many areas , in as varied terrain , with longer supply lines and won, and had a better record for being humain in their treatment of the enemy.

Umm.. yeah, if you'll limit it to U.S. Army 44- ~50 I think you have a point.

U.S. Army, Class of '41 was nowhere near what you mention A lot happened in those three years.

Originally posted by AmmoSgt
I register my Vote for the US Army 1941-1945.. They Won , and they did it across Oceans, Nobody else even comes close to what makes an Army Great , Aside from Heroic Stands like Bastogne, and Unbelievable Assaults like Iwo Jima , Normandy, It was the only Army that could operate with it's own Equipment, ( not that I am knocking lend lease, but lets face it , if the US wasn't equiping the rest the allies , they wouldn't have been in the war ) , In ANY Terrain , ANYWHERE on the Planet and do it with co-ordinated Land, Air, and Sea units that could actually be kept supplied , and did it with lower casulities than anybody else, while inflicting higher casulities than anybody else.
You can agrue that other Nations had better Soldiers if you want, Better tanks or planes if you want, better shoelaces , I don't care..But if the Category is "Army" then the overwhelming power , logistics, flexibility, and winning tactical and strategic planing of the US Army can NOT be matched. No other Army fought in as many areas , in as varied terrain , with longer supply lines and won, and had a better record for being humain in their treatment of the enemy.

YAAAA!!! yippy!! *waves US flag* :rolleyes:

I'd have to say the the Russian Horde near the end of WW2. They covered the most ground and took more losses than most of the other armies.

If taking the most losses and getting your own troops killed is what makes an Army Great , ahh hmmmm ok , The Russians .
But if the criteria is taking care of your own Troops, and minimizing your own losses, while inflicting the most damage and losses on the enemy, Then I'm back to the Americans. I think that to be "Great" as a minimum, You have to have at least 1 Rifle per Soldier, I know this sounds sorta PC, but sending troops into combat telling them to share the squad Rifle and to pick it up if the Guy carrying it gets killed , could effect the self-esteem of the folks not chossen to carry the Rifle to start with.

Originally posted by AmmoSgt
... could effect the self-esteem of the folks not chosen to carry the Rifle to start with.

Hmmm ... now that's a quandary.

Do I want to be the guy who gets the "squad rifle" first or last ?

I think it's likely a moot point. The only difference, probably, is whether or not you actually have a weapon in hand at time of death ...

Though not an "army" but as a ground combat unit, I want to submit the USMC from 42-45. The Marines and Japanese troops each fought with a great deal of tenacity. Having to come ashore and root out the Japanese troops from their bunkers took a hell of a lot of guts. Storming beaches and jungle combat is pretty intensive, doing it successfully is phenominal.

Originally posted by AmmoSgt
If taking the most losses and getting your own troops killed is what makes an Army Great , ahh hmmmm ok , The Russians .
But if the criteria is taking care of your own Troops, and minimizing your own losses, while inflicting the most damage and losses on the enemy, Then I'm back to the Americans. I think that to be "Great" as a minimum, You have to have at least 1 Rifle per Soldier, I know this sounds sorta PC, but sending troops into combat telling them to share the squad Rifle and to pick it up if the Guy carrying it gets killed , could effect the self-esteem of the folks not chossen to carry the Rifle to start with.

Well they were on the winning side and they did scare the crap out of America for 40 or so years.

How can you all forget the British Army???? I don't think I have seen one answer as that.

The British army are easily the best trained in the world right about now, and what we lose in numbers we make up in tactics, strategy and training.

This being the modern british army BTW.

Thanks for everybody!

I think my question was too big and wide, sorry about that. My own idea was 1900-2000 but I didn't say it.
But I think we got good answers for every era!

Commander
Per aspera ad astra

How any army with the resources of the US or Soviet Union could have lost a war?

The Americans - I must admit - did develop good tactics _late_ in WWII and used their manpower very well, meaning they cared about their manpower unlike some other warring nations... But, seriously, put the ... Arabs in the same position as the US in the 40s and they could not possibly lose. Really.

--Mikko

Originally posted by msaario
How any army with the resources of the US or Soviet Union could have lost a war?

The Americans - I must admit - did develop good tactics _late_ in WWII and used their manpower very well, meaning they cared about their manpower unlike some other warring nations... But, seriously, put the ... Arabs in the same position as the US in the 40s and they could not possibly lose. Really.

--Mikko

I concur, no special feat performed by the American/Soviet people, only their resources.

You could trade the American people with African tribes people and they still couldn't lose.
The Soviets, since they were invaded had a harder time.

Don't forget the Finns almost beat the Russians. The only thing the Russians had was their almost unlimited manpower.

Best army of all time? Spartans, 500BC

Originally posted by Nemesis
Best army of all time? Spartans, 500BC

OH Man - you beat me to it. I love the "Come back with your shield or on it" idea.

Also, the German army WW1 and 2 - if you've read Rommel's book "Infanterie greeift an" (Infantry Attacks) then you understand war was a frame of mind to them. At one point he talks about a group of officers getting together for fun - Raiding an enemy unit across the river at night. Not like us Americans where war is a dirty job to get done, then come home.

Figmo

tuuuuttt for its time : the macedonian army under philippus2 fater of alexander the great.

traditional greek armies only had hopilites

the macedonians introduced cavalry arcers those 8meter spears instead of the 4meter greek ones and they copied alot of greekdoctrine[and perfected it]

philippus2 /alexander the great's armie was the best for its time ever.

NOT the fins, they where grossly underestamated by stalin and they where crap at offense as seen in 1941-44.if you count the fins in you could just as well name the germans

Originally posted by screamer
NOT the fins, they where grossly underestamated by stalin and they where crap at offense as seen in 1941-44.if you count the fins in you could just as well name the germans

Couple things for you to know...dont NEVER call Finnish/Finland crap, can lead you to major war easily and you could a little bit tell why you think in that way also and not just banging it out loud...

We WERENT and We ARENT crap!

if you would have payed attention you would have noticed that i mean that they WHERENT VERY GOOD AT OFFENSIVE OPPERATIONS. defence the where great versus the russian hordes as seen in 39-40 and 44

I did notice that, but i disagree that we would be remarkable bad in offensives of Continuation War. Finnish army quickly reached its old border line and continued the offensive deep into Russian territory before war did get stabilized. We arent crap...we did beat the crap out of russians

Originally posted by screamer
if you would have payed attention you would have noticed that i mean that they WHERENT VERY GOOD AT OFFENSIVE OPPERATIONS. defence the where great versus the russian hordes as seen in 39-40 and 44

Not quite. In Winter War finns lacked the means to be in the offensive. They didn't have the artillery-support, the manpower, the air-suppor or the tanks and trucks. In the continuation war, finns did have the means, and they were highly suucessful in attacking east-Karelia.