re: Greatest military force between 1800 and the Present?

And, he couldn't have taken Mexico without R E Lee. They should put up statues of Lee.

quote:

---

Russian Army, 1943-1945.

---

Nope. They were very big and had some solid hardware, but the United States wasn't too far behind in sheer numbers...

And had far, far superior training, leadership, and so forth. The Red Army was fierce as hell, but they had lost a good chunk (probably the majority) of their capable mid-level and junior officers and NCO's by that point.

And, by an absolutely dominating margin, the world's best Navy and Air Force. And an economic and industrial base that dwarfed the USSR's by 1945.

Present military would wreck all of them, so.....

quote:

---

Napoleon was master of Europe at the height of his dominance.

---

And he lost it within a decade. He ran into a formidable army in fricking Belgium, right on his own damn borders.

quote:

---

Robert E. Lee had staved off multiple attacks against larger armies than his own.

---

That's more of a sign of a great strategist, not a great military force. If we're discussing military masterminds since 1800, then Lee is certainly in the debate, but not for this.

quote:

---

Hitler and his armies, at the height of their power, had conquered more land than any other European power in the history of the continent.

---

Rome, the Russians, Mongols, and the Huns would like a word in this, and they controlled it (especially Rome) for far longer than the Nazis ever did. A truly formidable army just doesn't fold like the Nazis did. The only reason the Mongols didn't completely sack Europe is they got incredibly lucky that Genghis died and they have a bizarre ritual to all travel back thousands of miles to elect a new leader.

quote:

---

Yes...they all ended up losing in the end but think of what they accomplished before attrition and manpower disadvantages started weighing heavily on their armies.

---

Think of all the great empires in history with staying power. When they were dominate, they were dominant for quite some time. The Germans may had the most prominent military for less than a decade. The British bitch slapped anyone who challenged their Empire for centuries. It took Spanish Armada to be defeated (very prominent for centuries too) for them to do this. The Nazi might isn't even close relative to their time period to what we, the British, the Spanish, the Romans, the Persians, the Egyptians, and the Assyrians had in their respected height of power. It's just not really comparable.

quote:

---

No way. It wasn't the German commanders fault that Hitler was nuts and made poor decisions.

---

Agreed, by 1939 Germany had built the greatest war machine the world had ever seen.

Obviously several tactical errors led to their eventual defeat in a "total war" context.

Seeing as total war is not possible anymore without annihilating the world with nukes, it would still be interesting to see what country would win in a limited weapons format.

quote:

---

OMLandshark

---

commie piece of shite

Greatest force = America today.

You tried to say you can't compare them all but that's like saying an all star football team from today wouldn't be a better force than the first Super Bowl champion because today's Allstar team wouldn't have accomplished anything. Doesn't make them not better than the first super bowl champs.

The only way to compare eras is by dominance.

Relative to their contemporaries?

Rome's legions under Caesar were invincible.

But America today without the rules of engagement would devastate any power on this earth, even if all other countries joined against us.