- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Greatest military force between 1800 and the Present?
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:04 pm to Mizzoufan26
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:04 pm to Mizzoufan26
quote:
US Chair Force Today
fify
1
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:11 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
If the British came in during the US Civil War and fought both the Union and the Confederacy, on their own, neither side would have stood a chance.
I beg to differ. The Union Army in May 1865 was the best equipped, best led, and most experienced fighting force in the world at that time. It was in the Civil War that the U.S. Military finally attained parity with its European counterparts.
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:13 pm to TheAlmightySmash
The Waffen-SS may have not been the greatest force, but it might have been the most fierce and fanatical next to the Praetorian guard. Those guys almost never retreated, took tons of casualties and fought to the last man. Not to mention their physical requirements and training and priority of receiving the best and most modern of modern equipment made them some damn elite units.
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:14 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:15 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
The British had a very good army, but they were pretty small and would have been facing much, much larger (and much more battle-tested, especially post-Gettysburg) forces on their home turf. And these were modern forces for the time with some great leaders. It would have been lightyears more difficult than those skirmishes in the Orient and South Asia they were screwing around with at the time.
I just don't think that most people really see that our skirmish in the Civil War was pretty much no larger in the grand scheme of things than the Spanish Civil War was last century. Lee may have figured some shite out, and I'm sure both sides would have let their feud go for a few months if the British came in to kick some arse.
But the US wasn't nearly as united as it is today. If it was, I'd say it would be a safe assumption that Lee would have fought for the Union. The loyalty back then was to the state first, and then to your country. 90% of America was loyal to their state first at the time; now it's the opposite where 90% of us are loyal to our country first and our state second. The Civil War completely changed our national identity in this regard. I think some of you are letting your political affiliation with the US not see through the full ramifications of the scenario I'm proposing.
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:20 pm to glassman
quote:
Crossing from Britain into France is the greatest military achievement of all-time. It wasn't easy and so many brave men from both sides and many countries lost their lives.
Agreed about D-Day. In hindsight, I think the Germans could have won the Battle of Britain had they changed tactics. A German-occupied England would have never made Overlord possible...
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:20 pm to Mudge87
Obviously the United States Marine Corps
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:24 pm to OMLandshark
You are comparing the casualties of the Civil War with those of the Spanish Civil War? That's kind of dumb. One was fought with rifled muskets and cannon while the other was fought with semi-automatic rifles, machine guns, and dive bombers.
And our little skirmish? Two percent of our population perished in the war. That would be the equivalent of several million Americans today. And I think you are overestimating the British Army. The English did not have an army like ours in 1865. We had more men and industry. Plus they were all veterans. The British hadn't seen combat since the Crimean War a decade earlier.
And our little skirmish? Two percent of our population perished in the war. That would be the equivalent of several million Americans today. And I think you are overestimating the British Army. The English did not have an army like ours in 1865. We had more men and industry. Plus they were all veterans. The British hadn't seen combat since the Crimean War a decade earlier.
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:26 pm to RollTide1987
The Mongols under Genghis Khan
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:30 pm to RollTide1987
US Navy right now
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:30 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Greatest military force between 1800 and the Present?
Leonard Fournette.
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:34 pm to RollTide1987
Germans WWII by a landslide.
They made several frick ups in strategy that lost them the war, but their military was ridiculous.
They made several frick ups in strategy that lost them the war, but their military was ridiculous.
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:37 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
You are comparing the casualties of the Civil War with those of the Spanish Civil War? That's kind of dumb. One was fought with rifled muskets and cannon while the other was fought with semi-automatic rifles, machine guns, and dive bombers.
And our little skirmish? Two percent of our population perished in the war. That would be the equivalent of several million Americans today. And I think you are overestimating the British Army. The English did not have an army like ours in 1865. We had more men and industry. Plus they were all veterans. The British hadn't seen combat since the Crimean War a decade earlier.
First off, the Spanish and American Civil Wars had comparable casualty rates as well as percentage of their citizen's lives lost. That's the point. It's completely comparable. Yes the instruments used were different, but in the grand scheme of the world at their respected times, the outsiders just thought "Hey, technology in war is greatly changing. Let's see how this works out so we can better utilize this technology when we go to war again." (although granted there was a bit more motive for outsiders to help different sides in the Spanish Civil War).
And also, the Americans hadn't been to war in over a decade when the Civil War started either, so moot point there.
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:45 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
I just don't think that most people really see that our skirmish in the Civil War was pretty much no larger in the grand scheme of things than the Spanish Civil War was last century. Lee may have figured some shite out, and I'm sure both sides would have let their feud go for a few months if the British came in to kick some arse.
But the US wasn't nearly as united as it is today. If it was, I'd say it would be a safe assumption that Lee would have fought for the Union. The loyalty back then was to the state first, and then to your country. 90% of America was loyal to their state first at the time; now it's the opposite where 90% of us are loyal to our country first and our state second. The Civil War completely changed our national identity in this regard. I think some of you are letting your political affiliation with the US not see through the full ramifications of the scenario I'm proposing.
I know that the American Civil War doesn't get much play outside North America, but...
The British simply didn't have the numbers to do anything like that to the United States by the 1860's. They relied on proxies and local armies pretty much all throughout their empire for a reason. The United States had 30% more people than Great Britain by 1860 and was closing the gap in industrial capability.
The British conspicuously did not have a large standing army. The American army was about the same size prior to the Civil War as the British army. They would have been laughed off the continent by the Union forces in 1865. Something along the lines of what the Kaiser's general staff said in 1914 when asked what he would do if the British joined in the French..."We'll send police to arrest them."
Concerning loyalty, consider that 13 much more disparate and much different colonies banded together not eighty years beforehand (and again thirty years after that) to fight almost that exact scenario.
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:48 pm to RollTide1987
The Army of Northern Virginia.
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:51 pm to OMLandshark
The only correct answer is Germany during WII. Medium size country almost takes over the entire world with only Japan and Italy (ITALY) for allies. It literally took the entire world to the brink, and we would all be speaking German if it were not for some of Hitlers prideful blunders.
Honorary mention goes to the British empire, followed by modern U.S.
Honorary mention goes to the British empire, followed by modern U.S.
Posted on 9/29/15 at 9:59 pm to Retrograde
quote:
The only correct answer is Germany during WII. Medium size country almost takes over the entire world with only Japan and Italy (ITALY) for allies. It literally took the entire world to the brink, and we would all be speaking German if it were not for some of Hitlers prideful blunders.
Let's take nukes out of the equation, who is going to stand up to us? Our military strength is greater than the rest of the world combined. Not to mention we have preestablished bases all over the world to launch from. I don't see how the Nazis are more powerful than us in our respected times.
Posted on 9/29/15 at 10:06 pm to RollTide1987
I realize this is from way before 1800, but.......
The GOAT force ever assembled
The GOAT force ever assembled
Posted on 9/29/15 at 10:11 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
I don't see how the Nazis are more powerful than us in our respected times.
Take nukes off the table.
If you are suggesting that we (like Germany) decided to completely breach our non-aggression pacts with allies (e.g. EU and S. Korea). Then even with 20 aircraft carriers we would struggle.
Posted on 9/29/15 at 10:20 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
I can see grading REL on a curve but Napoleon and Hitler <<<<<< the armies that beat them.
REL had a few states up North to contend with and he was never able to take any territory of note.
France and Germany were defeated by multi national coalitions and dominated entire continents.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News