Matrix Games Forums

Hi folks!!

What is the best army in the world?
I don't mean size or weapons, I mean the whole army.

My opinion is:

1. Israel army (All time number 1)
2. Finnish army (1939-1942)
3. German army (1939-1943)
4. Afghanistan guerilla forces (80's)

What do you think?

Canadian Army (yes I am biased).

Able to leap tall buildings with no bound (politicians are cuting costs by eliminating modern innvoations like "bounds", even a single new one).

Faster than a speeding locomotive, just watch how fast we try show up where we can't possibly be prepared to go. Hey just cause you can't actually see us for numbers doesn't mean we aren't there).

Yes it's the superman army from Canada (or at least that's what Ottawa thinks of it).
What else can you say about a country that uses gear that didn't cut it 30 years ago. Pay that isn't impressive, how DO they get people to join? Tours of duty that are so constant our troops would be better off not getting married at all (if you are in a fighting unit, take a lot of pictures so you can identify that vaguely famliar man or woman calling your name).

Yep I would stack Canada up against anyone out there. Who else can claim the ability to win wargames against the US (we can eh), and do it as poorly equipped as we normally are.

German Army 38-43

Finnish Army 1939-2002

1. Finland 1939-1945. Now we have "puolustusvoimat"(Defence forces), remember?

2. Vietminh/kong 40´s, 50´s, 60´s and early 70´s. (can you call them an army?)

3. Israel. Gotta love those Merkavas.

4. Red army. Who could not love those poor, fatalistic bastards?

I would object to all the pro "Finnish" nonsense but they are so like Canadians eh.
Hard to hate someone that's like us:D

Turks 1914 1918

...or the modern era (1900-)? If it's the best of all time, it's either the Mongols led by Genghis Khan and his successors, or Philip/Alexander's Macedonians. In the modern era, I gotta rate the Central Command's US/Allied air/ground forces deployed in the 1991 Gulf War as the best of the 20th Century. IMHO, they could've beaten ANYBODY. We may never see another force (of that size and combat power) deployed again, at least in our lifetimes.

Argh. KG Erwin beat me to it.

I had decided on the Mongols and Macedonians while I was shaving.

The organization, strategies, tactics and skills of the Mongol army is so impressive it's scary.

The La Grande Armee of 1803-15
Red Army 1944-1945

Originally posted by Belisarius
The organization, strategies, tactics and skills of the Mongol army is so impressive it's scary.

Dang, then lets send them in the take care of the Iraqi's, with UN sanction, of course. Mebbe the Iraqi's will resist and the Mongols will raze their cities ! We could send them into North Korea too.

Dang, then lets send them in the take care of the Iraqi's, with UN sanction, of course. Mebbe the Iraqi's will resist and the Mongols will raze their cities ! We could send them into North Korea too.

The Mongols in their hayday all ready had taken both


Back before the days of Atomic weapons and complex diplomacy you didnt take over an area because they pissed you off you took over an area because it was their.

Fallschirmjager,

Yes, of course, you are correct. I was merely poking fun at the use of present tense in that post and also poking fun at the typical brutal but effective tactics pursued by the Mongols where cities which resisted were razed and their entire populations massacred once captured.

Also poking fun at trying to compare armies of any particular period in history to another period's.

one wwII - present infantry batallion with enough ammo could annihilate the entire mongol horde.

1. Hannibal Barca of Carthage (actually, I'm a fan of the Romans) and his "troops" (remember Cannae?)

2. Gurkhas (ok, I have a kukri on my shelf) - not an army though.

3. The Finnish Army of 1939-40 (The Molotov's cocktail is now a drink - how much can one do with so little? Still applies... taxes you know...

4. Samurais (just watch the documentary "Seven Samurais"

5. The early Roman army

6. Alexander (I'm not that familiar with the guy, though)

--Mikko

Les the sarge said,

Yep I would stack Canada up against anyone out there. Who else can claim the ability to win wargames against the US (we can eh), and do it as poorly equipped as we normally are.

AUSTRALIA has also kicked USA's *** regularly, eg:
1) Every year at the RIMPAC Naval exercises, Australia has sunk a US aircraft carrier despite being protected in it's Carrier Battle Group!
2) Every Year at the Kangaroo exercises we have caused major upsets. Not too long ago we managed, through deception, to hide an armoured and Infantry battalion (despite USA's satellite coverage) and when the USA attacked what they thought were our positions they found them to be empty!! Imagine their further shock when they were attacked from their rear/flank and destroyed (according to the umpires)!!
3) recent events in Afganistan show how a smaller and well trained and led force (SAS) can produce results far beyond that of a larger equivalent (rangers/seals).
4) in Vietnam, Gen W. Westmoreland (Comd. Allied Forces in Vietnam)

ordered a training school, based on Australian SAS methods, for Americans and other troops

.

Other soldiers think of the jungle as being full of lurking enemies. Under our system, WE do the lurking

.
5) etc

Just a few things to take into account!
Of course I may be a little biased

1-2-3-4-5 Alexandre the Macedonian : Macedonian phalange !

1-2-3-4-5 Roman army empire : their cohortes stormed the civilized world.

1-2-3-4-5 Wermacht 38-41 : blitzkrieg.

1-2-3-4-5 La grande armee : Napoleon's redefinition of strategy in battle.

1-2-3-4-5 91's Golf war : USA redefine the battlefield with the domination of air-power.


"1-2-3-4-5" is just that I am not able to choose a particular order, too different timelines....

Spanish Army of 1808....

No one else captured a French Army that year

Depends on what era and for what mission. Today, the US Army. 1980's for COIN and small ops, the South African Army. For large wars, the US or Soviet army.

Armies rise and fall in quality. The Russian Army of 1918 was not the Russian Army of 1914. Armies are often terrain specific. The Wehrmacht of 1939-44 was very high quality for its for Europe and North Africa. Put them in, say Burma, chasing Wingate's guerrillas, and I trow they would flounder and fail.

troopie

I think some people here are mistaking powerful with superior.

I have nothing against the US specifically, but remove their nuclear shield and make them fight with Canadian gear and I think just about any army could beat them.

As for the Aussies, weeeeeeell considering the only way to tell the difference from a Canuck and an Aussie if to wait for one of us to speak.
I am more than happy to say the Aussie's can whoop some major butt.

I have avoided mentioning the Israelis, not because I don't think highly of them, but look at their opposition....it's easy to look good fighting the worlds most useless opponents (sorry if I offend any in the Arab community), but you have to admit, when have you ever NOT gotten the snot beaten out of ya by the Israelis lately.