Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Before I go into my rant I want to state that I am specifically referring to America's Army as being overrated, primarily by Americans, not the Air Force, Navy, or Marines. Ignorant Americans love to go on about how we saved Europe in WW1 and WW2. This is simply untrue and not only it is untrue, America has never achieved decisive control of a territory by means of an army without significant aid from Allies. In my opinion the greatest armies since the 19th century were France under Napoleon and the Werhmacht of the Third Reich. Soviet Russia would be notable due to the sheer massiveness of their forces, but they lacked the superior training and tactical prowess of Napoleon's forces and the Werhmacht.

Looking back at the major wars America has been in.

American Revolution - Engaged only a fraction of the English army which at the time was not arguably the best army in Europe. At the very least they certainly lacked the most prestigious units. America would have been hard pressed to win without French aid and the developments of more pressing events in Europe that required British attention.

The American Civil War - Interestingly, this war featured the largest and bloodiest battles that America has ever engaged in and, correct me if I'm wrong, the bloodiest civil war any Western nation has engaged in. From a military standpoint all the war showed was that the North won due to superior manpower and resources despite excellent Southern generals and superior riflemen.

World War I - America lost over 100,00 men to this war and did help contribute to the defeat of the Central Powers, but England, France, and even Serbia contributed much more to the Entente. The Central Powers were bloodied and near defeat by the time America entered the war and the knowledge that America could provide millions of fresh soldiers in addition to the widespread flu pandemic contributed more to Germany's surrender than any involvement by the American army.

World War II - This is the war widely thrown about to highlight the cowardice of France and the greatness of America. France did not perform exceptionally poorly during the war, they were caught off guard by a numerically superior, motivated, and highly trained force. France had to choose between surrender and slaughter. Ironically, America would experience a similar event in the early days of the Korean War when "inferior" NKPA forces drove back ROK and US armies to the Pusan perimeter and nearly seized control of South Korea.

America never faced the full might of Werhmacht which was fighting a two front war and was being severely depleted by the numerically superior Soviet forces. The American army contributed greatly to Germany's defeat, but no more than the Soviets did and in my opinion much less, seeing how Americans fought alongside British and other Allied forces whereas the Soviets were left to fend for themselves.

America also never faced the full might of the Japanese army in a major land engagement. A significant portion of the Japanese army was in Manchuria on guard against Soviet incursions. America played a massive role in defeating Japan, but success in the Pacific theater can not be solely attributed to the army. America's navy was superior, the Marine Corps performed splendidly, and the Soviet threat distracted a large part of the Japanese army significantly weakening Japanese holdings. And of course, Japan was struggling to hold onto their territories in Korea, Manchuria, China, and SE Asia which required a great deal of manpower and had already cost Japan many lives.

Germany lost Europe when they attempted to invade Russia. They lacked the resources and manpower to successfully capture and control Russia west of the Urals. America simply sped up Germany's inevitable defeat. America's victory in the Pacific was more due to naval and air superiority than it was to an impressive army.


The Korean War - At the start of the war America's army was unfathomably weak and unprepared. The war ended in a truce and the army managed to successfully defeat both the NKPA and Chinese forces, but by no means on their own. The ROK army's incredible bravery at the start of the war was critical to stalling the NKPA's advance and made the war actually winnable. American naval and air superiority was absolute and allowed the army to move unmolested. Chinese forces performed very well during the war despite lacking mechanized supply lines and any form of air support. Strictly speaking, the American army did not perform very well against what should have been an inferior opponent.

Vietnam War - It is an undeniable fact that American forces dominated the war and won nearly every major engagement. The VC and other communist forces fought bravely and fiercely, but they were little more than a ragtag group of guerrillas that could do little more than harass a proper army be it Soviet or American. I am not saying American veterans of the war did not fight bravely but nearly every physical advantage was on their side. They should have dominated and they did so for the most part. America simply lost the will to fight and simply didn't understand how to properly go about that war.


I don't consider the Gulf War or the current War on Terror to be major wars due to their relatively small scale in comparison to prior wars.


The American army has never defeated another major power by achieving control over a territory without aid of allies and extenuating circumstances in their favor. That said, since WW2, America has had by far the finest Navy and Air Force in the world which, thanks to massive technological advances, make them one of the most powerful, if not the dominant, military power on the planet despite having a relatively small army.

So your saying that the allied forces would have won if America wouldn't have entered WW 1&2.

And you forgot the Spanish / American war.

That's impossible to say. It is possible to look at the facts and see that America's contribution to both wars is exaggerated. At worst they shortened the war, at most they tipped the scales.

Amaya wrote:The American Civil War - Interestingly, this war featured the largest and bloodiest battles that America has ever engaged in and, correct me if I'm wrong, the bloodiest civil war any Western nation has engaged in. From a military standpoint all the war showed was that the North won due to superior manpower and resources despite excellent Southern generals and superior riflemen.

Only three Generals in the Civil War are worth calling excellent. Two of them come from the North. What the South had was a large number of capable and talented generals facing off against a number of incompetent northern generals for the first few years of the war.

World War II - This is the war widely thrown about to highlight the cowardice of France and the greatness of America.

Well come on, what jokes are funnier than French surrender jokes? Nice that you only think of the European theater btw (granted most everyone does). There was this ocean called the Pacific and there was a war there too. Against the Japanese America and China were pulling all the weight.

France did not perform exceptionally poorly during the war, they were caught off guard by a numerically superior, motivated, and highly trained force.

False. France outnumbered Germany in every catagory, had superior technical ability in most areas, and the vast majority of the German military was more poorly trained than the atrociously trained French forces.

America never faced the full might of Werhmacht which was fighting a two front war and was being severely depleted by the numerically superior Soviet forces. The American army contributed greatly to Germany's defeat, but no more than the Soviets did and in my opinion much less, seeing how Americans fought alongside British and other Allied forces whereas the Soviets were left to fend for themselves.

Frankly I don't think Germany ever had it in them to win a prolonged war with anyone. Of course, had they not invaded Russia they might not have had to fight one.

America also never faced the full might of the Japanese army in a major land engagement. A significant portion of the Japanese army was in Manchuria on guard against Soviet incursions. America played a massive role in defeating Japan, but success in the Pacific theater can not be solely attributed to the army.

Fact: There were more Army soldiers in the Pacific than Marines.

Fact: Given the nature of the Pacific Theater, Japan throwing its whole army into fighting off Island hoping is somewhat of an unrealistic goal. I doubt they could have made the boats to move that many men and keep them supplied. They were already having problems.

That aside, the Navy is really what won the Pacific War, but I'm unsure if you're using Army to refer to the US Army or just the US military in general.

Few military powers have defeated a major rival by achieving control over a territory without aid of allies and extenuating circumstances in their favor.

Fixed that for you.

Not really sure what you're arguing here. Americans think more of their military legacy than is warranted? IDK. I think that's true for just about every nation.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:And you forgot the Spanish / American war.

Not a major war and Spain has never possessed an impressive army.

The whole point is that america doesn't need a large army, really, at this point. I mean... we're a continent away from the other superpowers.

If any European or Asian power wanted to attack us, it would mean moving troops across the oceans, where our superior Naval and Air forces would be able to engage them. We shouldn't be fighting wars overseas anyway, so it doesn't matter if our standing ground forces are smaller.... we will never need to use them in defense anyway.

LordofHats wrote: Americans think more of their military legacy than is warranted? IDK. I think that's true for just about every nation.

It is, but its good to remind people of that.

The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.

In my opinion the greatest armies since the 19th century were France under Napoleon and the Werhmacht of the Third Reich.

So the two armies you picked as the best both lost in the same fashion, attacking Russia in the winter ....don't know if that would make the best list for me.

Horst wrote:The whole point is that america doesn't need a large army, really, at this point. I mean... we're a continent away from the other superpowers.

If any European or Asian power wanted to attack us, it would mean moving troops across the oceans, where our superior Naval and Air forces would be able to engage them. We shouldn't be fighting wars overseas anyway, so it doesn't matter if our standing ground forces are smaller.... we will never need to use them in defense anyway.

That's the exact type of thinking that almost cost South Korea its freedom and led to Vietnam's fall to Communism, and it highlights why America has never had and will never have an impressive army. It simply doesn't need to.

The only reason to have a powerful army is for invasion and occupation, two things Americans detest. Even during the Cold War Americans loathed the notion of large army spread across the globe. For whatever reason, Americans have no real imperialist designs or tolerance for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deathshead420 wrote:

In my opinion the greatest armies since the 19th century were France under Napoleon and the Werhmacht of the Third Reich.

So the two armies you picked as the best both lost in the same fashion, attacking Russia in the winter ....don't know if that would make the best list for me.

They lost due to their leader's arrogance and strategic failings, not because they were poor or inferior armies. No one can invade Russia in the winter, it is absolute idiocy.

An army is only as good as the people leading them, it should be taken into account. So then we can take off Korea,Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan from your America list.

You also forgot to mention the Mexican American war.

Amaya wrote:The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.

And almost all of them regularly used allies in their wars. Take the Romans for example. Its commonly overlooked how often the allied themselves with the enemies of their enemies in order to defeat them. Persia did the same thing, as did the Greeks. Wars often only involves one or two major powers but its rare to find a war where its just those powers. Allies are quite common in war. Ceaser had numerous Gaelic allies. William the Conqueror hired numerous mercenaries and French nobles to help him and his Normans. Alexander the Great had these Greek guys who totally had his back.

Impressive? The US military made it possible to move over a million men and all the millions of tons needed to supply and equip them across the English channel. I can count the number of times in history has a military crossed the English channel and been successful in their invasion on my hand. In the Pacific we did the same thing dozens of times. That's impressive and the Pacific makes the English channel look like a kiddy pool.

No one can invade Russia in the winter, it is absolute idiocy.

If you think its winter that really caused those invasions to fail then you need to go read more history. Also, Germany didn't invade in the winter. As an aside, both those winters (1812 and 1941) were actually quite mild. Russia's size is the problem not its winter (and German tanks kept breaking down due to Russian dust clogging the air filters in the engines that doesn't really help). EDIT: Russian winter is as much a hyped myth as France always surrendering and no where near as funny when turned into a joke.

Also my last comment on this thread. I'm pro USA but not a nutter, so I say this only as my exit strategy. If WW3 popped off you don't think our dirty sneaky government would nuke everyone preemptively. I call that a win...kinda.

Deathshead420 wrote:An army is only as good as the people leading them, it should be taken into account. So then we can take off Korea,Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan from your America list.

Perhaps you should read and comprehend my original post before replying because I specifically state the following:

1) Korea does not prove that America has a powerful army. It merely shows that America can defeat a technologically inferior force.
2) Vietnam does not prove that America has a powerful army. It merely shows that America can achieve repeated tactical victory over a inferior foe while failing to achieve any of its strategic goals.
3) I state quite clearly that Iraq and Afghanistan are wars too small to be relevant in this discussion.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:You also forgot to mention the Mexican American war.

That was not a war, it was an atrocity and a forgivable abuse of a nation that did naught to deserve it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

Amaya wrote:The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.

And almost all of them regularly used allies in their wars. Take the Romans for example. Its commonly overlooked how often the allied themselves with the enemies of their enemies in order to defeat them. Persia did the same thing, as did the Greeks. Wars often only involves one or two major powers but its rare to find a war where its just those powers. Allies are quite common in war. Ceaser had numerous Gaelic allies. William the Conqueror hired numerous mercenaries and French nobles to help him and his Normans.

Impressive? The US military made it possible to move over a million men and all the millions of tons needed to supply and equip them across the English channel. I can count the number of times in history has a military crossed the English channel and been successful in their invasion on my hand. In the Pacific we did the same thing dozens of times. That's impressive and the Pacific makes the English channel look like a kiddy pool.

No one can invade Russia in the winter, it is absolute idiocy.

If you think its winter that really caused those invasions to fail then you need to go read more history. Also, Germany didn't invade in the winter. As an aside, both those winters (1812 and 1941) were actually quite mild. Russia's size is the problem not its winter (and German tanks kept breaking down due to Russian dust clogging the air filters in the engines that doesn't really help).

You're talking about military achievements, not the achievements of the ARMY. The ARMY is only a single branch of the military. No one is denying that America has a strong military, it just has a relatively weak army.


Winter was the primary reason both those invasions failed. Perhaps you should read more history. Both forces had poor supply lines, lack of winter clothing, and German vehicles were not equipped to deal with the freezing temperatures. I don't think you understand how significant the elements are upon footslogging infantry. The combination of the harsh weather and lack of supplies spelled defeat for the Germans.

Summary of why both Napoleon and the Germans failed in their invasions
1) Poor supply lines
2) Poor road system
3) Russian scorch earth policy to prevent foraging
4) The cold (neither force had proper cold weather garb)



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deathshead420 wrote:Also my last comment on this thread. I'm pro USA but not a nutter, so I say this only as my exit strategy. If WW3 popped off you don't think our dirty sneaky government would nuke everyone preemptively. I call that a win...kinda.

Nope, that's Israeli policy.


@LordofHats have you ever experienced sub zero temperatures?

Amaya wrote:The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.

How do you figure? What qualities did they have that place them over their modern contemporary in the US Army?

This reminds me of "greatest boxer of all time" threads on boxing/fighting forums.

Dude1: "Rocky Marciano is undefeated, ergo greatest ever"
Dude2: "No way, he didn't face the level of competition Ali, Sugar Ray or even Tyson faced"
Dude3: "yeah dude2, Marciano is top 5 greatest, but not best Joe Lewis is #1"
Spambot: "go to keylogger.com to make millions, I do it, so can all"
Dude1: "It wasn't Marcianos fault he dominated his era."
Dude4 : "lol mike tyson was greatest lol " post pic of holyfields partially eaten ear
Dude2: "just saying, it was a different time for the sport"
Dude1: "whatever nazi"

Topics like this are always tethered to subjective interpretations of history and can never be settled. Except on Deadliest Warrior where a fat kid with a computer, a douche with a slow speed camera and a dude in a lab coat can simulate it. With real science!

Persian conquests, Alexander's conquests, Rome's victory over Catharge and conquests, Napoleon's domination of Europe, and the Werhmacht's stunning victory over France and short lived hold over Europe are all more impressive than any land conquests America has ever achieved.

Thats not what I meant, what characteristic did these armies have that their modern equivalent doesn't have?

Also, how do you not put Mongols on your list, pretty sure they put even Napoleon to shame in terms of how much and how fast they conquered.

Amaya wrote:Winter was the primary reason both those invasions failed. Perhaps you should read more history.

Then explain how Germany and Napoleon invaded Russia in winter when they invaded in June and Russian winter doesn't start until mid October. Also, explain why its Russian winter that beat Napoleon when by the time temperatures started reaching freezing he'd already begun his retreat? Temperatures don't even drop bellow zero until November.

Both forces had poor supply lines,

Which was a much more critical factor in their defeat than weather.

lack of winter clothing,

This is somewhat of a myth as far as Napoleon is concerned. Napoleons army had winter clothing just not good enough winter clothing. That and their coats all used brass buttons. In freezing temperatures brass disintegrates.

and German vehicles were not equipped to deal with the freezing temperatures.

Which was the least of their mechanical problems in Russia. Especially since the Germans thought the invasion would be over by October. Even in 1941 no one really comprehended just how massive Russia is. German planners thought Moscow was 200 miles closer than it actually was, and failed to recognize that vital Russian rail lines were a different width than western European lines (meaning they couldn't use trains to transport supplies). Numerous other problems with the terrain didn't help.

I don't think you understand how significant the elements are upon footslogging infantry. The combination of the harsh weather and lack of supplies spelled defeat for the Germans.

I don't think you understand when winter starts in Russia, or that Napolean began retreating before winter hit Russia in 1812, or that the grounds for the failure of Operation Barbarosss began in August. That the Germans continued trying all the way into winter is irrelevant.

EDIT: Frankly I find your idolization of the Heer odd. The Wehrmacht I'd argue was all around worse than the Western powers bar Italy. They had an army of between 100 and 140 division. At any given time, 20 of those divisions only existed on paper. Half of them were under manned and equipped, and all but about 30 Germany divisions were pretty much photo copies to their WWI counter parts. The Germany army in WWII was not a modern army and not even a very good army. What it had were a handful of extremely well trained and equipped divisions who managed to use revolutionary tactics to break their opponents, i.e. they got one of the greatest strokes of luck in military history with a brilliant dash of genius (and some pepprica). By 1944, the Heer was finished and it was the Waffen SS pulling a lot of the weight (and getting a lot of the goodies from factories).

Compare that to the US Army, which managed to organize and execute a massive land invasion of mainland Europe and subsequently break line after German line for months and then defeat the German army in an almost picture perfect replay of the German invasion of France. All while maintaining its army across 3000 miles. That our invasion didn't really effect the outcome of the war doesn't mean the feat itself is unimpressive. I'd also point out the Wehrmacht never even managed to get an invasion across the English Channel out of the planning stages.

Ok, in WWI, the Germans new they already lost before the Americans even landed in France. The U.S Army's only major battle was in some forest near the german border and it took them weeks to take the whole thing.

Germany was beaten WAY before America even came in to WWI, the Germans were about to collapse, and there is no two ways about it. America just spread up the process by a tiny bit.

America could have just stayed out in Europe during WWII. Stay in the Pacific but not in Europe, even Romel said that Germany would lose the war several times and the first time he said that was at the start of 1943 (some time in January).

Poppabear wrote:Ok, in WWI, the Germans new they already lost before the Americans even landed in France. The U.S Army's only major battle was in some forest near the german border and it took them weeks to take the whole thing.

Are you suggesting that Operation Torch, the Battle of Cherbourg, the Falaise Pocket, or the invasion of Italy never happened? Or are we using some arbitrary definition of major battle?

Germany was beaten WAY before America even came in to WWI, the Germans were about to collapse, and there is no two ways about it. America just spread up the process by a tiny bit.

One can recognize the invasion of Normandy and the subsequent battles as being ultimately meaningless to the outcome of the war and still recognize it for the monumental feat that they represented was. No nation in history to that time had successful launched the entirety of its military power overseas and successfully won before like that. Let alone over the distances and with the numbers we're looking at in WWII. Its a huge testament to the ability of American military planners that they could execute a war across thousands of miles in two directions! And in WWII, those planners were Army.

even Romel said that Germany would lose the war several times and the first time he said that was at the start of 1943 (some time in January).

That would be during the Battle of Tunisia after Rommel was forced to leave the Afrika Korp to their fate by Hitler. Whether he actually meant it or if it was one of his rash statements is debatable ( I think he meant it).

Amaya wrote:American Revolution - Engaged only a fraction of the English army which at the time was not arguably the best army in Europe. At the very least they certainly lacked the most prestigious units. America would have been hard pressed to win without French aid and the developments of more pressing events in Europe that required British attention.

The British troops were the front line of a vast empire, and in terms of quality they were equal to just about anyone else. In fact, historians cite one of the biggest factors in their defeat was their reliance on mercenaries, particularly German troops, given a relative shortage of British redcoats.

One funny thing people forget is that the Revolutionary army lost about twice as many troops as the British, but kept itself going anyway. One of the important lessons in war is that much of what matters in winning is keeping your army together after tactical defeats, and it's in that that Washington and his army should be admired.

World War I - America lost over 100,00 men to this war and did help contribute to the defeat of the Central Powers, but England, France, and even Serbia contributed much more to the Entente. The Central Powers were bloodied and near defeat by the time America entered the war and the knowledge that America could provide millions of fresh soldiers in addition to the widespread flu pandemic contributed more to Germany's surrender than any involvement by the American army.

At this point I'm starting to wonder exactly what your method is for making your case. In the instance above the US victory can be ignored because their opponent didn't use his best troops, in this case it's because they arrived in the war too late to be a decisive factor.

World War II - This is the war widely thrown about to highlight the cowardice of France and the greatness of America. France did not perform exceptionally poorly during the war, they were caught off guard by a numerically superior, motivated, and highly trained force. France had to choose between surrender and slaughter. Ironically, America would experience a similar event in the early days of the Korean War when "inferior" NKPA forces drove back ROK and US armies to the Pusan perimeter and nearly seized control of South Korea.

France's army was numerically superior to the Germans, before you include the British Expeditionary Force. What's more, the ability of the French and British to keep their armies supplied and reinforced long term far outweighed the Germans. This led the Germans to opt for 'lightning war' out of desperation. As it happened, this led them to stumble, more or less, onto the principles of Blitzkrieg, which complimented their excellent tactical capabilities.

This is not to say the French didn't run a particularly terrible campaign. Because they really, really just didn't think through the implications of the technology they were employing, particularly what the mobility of the new weapons of war would enable armies to achieve. This was in large part to the hugely expensive and highly political nature of the Maginot line of defences, the powers that be would not have tolerated for one second any suggestion the line was a white elephant.

Once the two armies met, well unlike the open spaces of Russia, the French simply didn't have the countryside available to trade territory for time, and the Germans inflicted decisive defeat on them.

America never faced the full might of Werhmacht which was fighting a two front war and was being severely depleted by the numerically superior Soviet forces. The American army contributed greatly to Germany's defeat, but no more than the Soviets did and in my opinion much less, seeing how Americans fought alongside British and other Allied forces whereas the Soviets were left to fend for themselves.

The Soviets absolutely, without a doubt did far more. They killed 80% of all German casualties. But that's not to say the Americans didn't do well. Given the Americans were simply adapting some industry to wartime production, while the Germans and Russians were running total war economies, the Americans performed very well. And what's more, we can also consider how powerful their war machine might have been, if they had switched to a total war economy.

America also never faced the full might of the Japanese army in a major land engagement.

As modern and well performed as the Japanese navy was, their military was far less modern, and had nothing like the logistics capability of a modern military. Even with a disciplined and tactically capable officer corps, they were absolutely no match for any major power. Look at what happened when the Russians turned their interest to the Pacific theatre - they sliced through the Japanese land forces like a hot knife through butter.

There is no doubt that if the Japanese were to engage the US in land operations the result would have been nothing but absolute disaster for the Japanese.

A significant portion of the Japanese army was in Manchuria on guard against Soviet incursions.

Close but not quite. They were emboroiled in a meatgrinder insurgent war against Chinese forces, nominally the KMT but with most real resistance coming from the communists.

The Korean War - At the start of the war America's army was unfathomably weak and unprepared. The war ended in a truce and the army managed to successfully defeat both the NKPA and Chinese forces, but by no means on their own. The ROK army's incredible bravery at the start of the war was critical to stalling the NKPA's advance and made the war actually winnable. American naval and air superiority was absolute and allowed the army to move unmolested. Chinese forces performed very well during the war despite lacking mechanized supply lines and any form of air support. Strictly speaking, the American army did not perform very well against what should have been an inferior opponent.

The only reason the Chinese forces performed 'well' was because they were willing to throw so many bodies away (many troops were actually former KMT troops, sent off on basically suicide missions with the promise that an honourable death would restore the status of their families) A simple look at the casualties suffered by the Chinese relative to those they inflicted will tell you quite quickly that by any conventional view of what they lost compared to what they did, they in fact performed terribly. At the same time the American forces inflicted horrendous casualties, and avoided encirclement despite being overwhelmingly outnumbered.

Vietnam War - It is an undeniable fact that American forces dominated the war and won nearly every major engagement. The VC and other communist forces fought bravely and fiercely, but they were little more than a ragtag group of guerrillas that could do little more than harass a proper army be it Soviet or American. I am not saying American veterans of the war did not fight bravely but nearly every physical advantage was on their side. They should have dominated and they did so for the most part. America simply lost the will to fight and simply didn't understand how to properly go about that war.

Or more to the point, the way the war developed politically meant that victory was beyond it, as it would be beyond any army put into that position. How does anyone defeat an army that is resupplied from bases of operation you cannot advance on, and to whom any number of casualties simply do not matter?

I don't consider the Gulf War or the current War on Terror to be major wars due to their relatively small scale in comparison to prior wars.

Again, I really don't understand the terms your using to make your argument. The performance of the US army in both operations showed it is operating on a level that is not only beyond the Iraqi forces, but beyond any other army in the world, and by a very long way.

The American army has never defeated another major power by achieving control over a territory without aid of allies and extenuating circumstances in their favor.

That doesn't mean they couldn't. It just means they haven't had to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deathshead420 wrote: So your saying that the allied forces would have won if America wouldn't have entered WW 1&2.

I think that's pretty clear, by most people's study of the subject. In WWI, after Verdun and the Somme the Germans were just done. The Spring offensive was basically the last roll of the dice by a country who's logistic capacity had basically been ground into nothing by years of war against multiple opponents. The Americans made the inevitable end clearer to everyone, and therefore probably much sooner, but that's about it.

WWII, at least in Europe, was decided with the Russian's defeating the Germans. More than 80% of German casualties were suffered on the Eastern Front, everything else was really just a sideshow in comparison. The whole world should be greatful to the Americans for being in the war, because they were what stopped the Soviets driving on past Berlin and into Paris. The Americans saved the world from the Soviets, but not from the Germans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.

The US armed forces are the only army in the history of world for which it can be said that they can go anywhere in the world they please, and be confident of inflicting decisive defeat on whoever's army happened to be defending that place. I really don't see how you can dismiss that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:Winter was the primary reason both those invasions failed. Perhaps you should read more history. Both forces had poor supply lines, lack of winter clothing, and German vehicles were not equipped to deal with the freezing temperatures. I don't think you understand how significant the elements are upon footslogging infantry. The combination of the harsh weather and lack of supplies spelled defeat for the Germans.

Summary of why both Napoleon and the Germans failed in their invasions
1) Poor supply lines
2) Poor road system
3) Russian scorch earth policy to prevent foraging
4) The cold (neither force had proper cold weather garb)

You're leaving out the performance of the Red Army from 1942 onwards, which is a really, really weird thing to exclude.

In 1812 the French suffered defeat because after defeating the Russians they expected terms to be offered, and the Russians replied 'no, and enjoy the cold you French bastards.'

In WWII the Germans suffered defeat because after defeating the Russians with Barbarossa they were surprised to discover the Soviets had built a new army, that maintained an operational strategy vastly superior to their own.

Horst wrote:The whole point is that america doesn't need a large army, really, at this point. I mean... we're a continent away from the other superpowers.

The only reason the US keeps such a large military is because of those Canadians, just like the =][= no body expects the Canadians.

Amaya wrote:Before I go into my rant I want to state that I am specifically referring to America's Army as being overrated, primarily by Americans, not the Air Force, Navy, or Marines. Ignorant Americans love to go on about how we saved Europe in WW1 and WW2. This is simply untrue and not only it is untrue, America has never achieved decisive control of a territory by means of an army without significant aid from Allies. In my opinion the greatest armies since the 19th century were France under Napoleon and the Werhmacht of the Third Reich. Soviet Russia would be notable due to the sheer massiveness of their forces, but they lacked the superior training and tactical prowess of Napoleon's forces and the Werhmacht.

Looking back at the major wars America has been in.

American Revolution - Engaged only a fraction of the English army which at the time was not arguably the best army in Europe. At the very least they certainly lacked the most prestigious units. America would have been hard pressed to win without French aid and the developments of more pressing events in Europe that required British attention.

The American Civil War - Interestingly, this war featured the largest and bloodiest battles that America has ever engaged in and, correct me if I'm wrong, the bloodiest civil war any Western nation has engaged in. From a military standpoint all the war showed was that the North won due to superior manpower and resources despite excellent Southern generals and superior riflemen.

World War I - America lost over 100,00 men to this war and did help contribute to the defeat of the Central Powers, but England, France, and even Serbia contributed much more to the Entente. The Central Powers were bloodied and near defeat by the time America entered the war and the knowledge that America could provide millions of fresh soldiers in addition to the widespread flu pandemic contributed more to Germany's surrender than any involvement by the American army.

World War II - This is the war widely thrown about to highlight the cowardice of France and the greatness of America. France did not perform exceptionally poorly during the war, they were caught off guard by a numerically superior, motivated, and highly trained force. France had to choose between surrender and slaughter. Ironically, America would experience a similar event in the early days of the Korean War when "inferior" NKPA forces drove back ROK and US armies to the Pusan perimeter and nearly seized control of South Korea.

America never faced the full might of Werhmacht which was fighting a two front war and was being severely depleted by the numerically superior Soviet forces. The American army contributed greatly to Germany's defeat, but no more than the Soviets did and in my opinion much less, seeing how Americans fought alongside British and other Allied forces whereas the Soviets were left to fend for themselves.

America also never faced the full might of the Japanese army in a major land engagement. A significant portion of the Japanese army was in Manchuria on guard against Soviet incursions. America played a massive role in defeating Japan, but success in the Pacific theater can not be solely attributed to the army. America's navy was superior, the Marine Corps performed splendidly, and the Soviet threat distracted a large part of the Japanese army significantly weakening Japanese holdings. And of course, Japan was struggling to hold onto their territories in Korea, Manchuria, China, and SE Asia which required a great deal of manpower and had already cost Japan many lives.

Germany lost Europe when they attempted to invade Russia. They lacked the resources and manpower to successfully capture and control Russia west of the Urals. America simply sped up Germany's inevitable defeat. America's victory in the Pacific was more due to naval and air superiority than it was to an impressive army.


The Korean War - At the start of the war America's army was unfathomably weak and unprepared. The war ended in a truce and the army managed to successfully defeat both the NKPA and Chinese forces, but by no means on their own. The ROK army's incredible bravery at the start of the war was critical to stalling the NKPA's advance and made the war actually winnable. American naval and air superiority was absolute and allowed the army to move unmolested. Chinese forces performed very well during the war despite lacking mechanized supply lines and any form of air support. Strictly speaking, the American army did not perform very well against what should have been an inferior opponent.

Vietnam War - It is an undeniable fact that American forces dominated the war and won nearly every major engagement. The VC and other communist forces fought bravely and fiercely, but they were little more than a ragtag group of guerrillas that could do little more than harass a proper army be it Soviet or American. I am not saying American veterans of the war did not fight bravely but nearly every physical advantage was on their side. They should have dominated and they did so for the most part. America simply lost the will to fight and simply didn't understand how to properly go about that war.


I don't consider the Gulf War or the current War on Terror to be major wars due to their relatively small scale in comparison to prior wars.


The American army has never defeated another major power by achieving control over a territory without aid of allies and extenuating circumstances in their favor. That said, since WW2, America has had by far the finest Navy and Air Force in the world which, thanks to massive technological advances, make them one of the most powerful, if not the dominant, military power on the planet despite having a relatively small army.

Ignorance AND trolling in one post, you've outdone yourself.

American Revolution - Engaged only a fraction of the English army which at the time was not arguably the best army in Europe. At the very least they certainly lacked the most prestigious units. America would have been hard pressed to win without French aid and the developments of more pressing events in Europe that required British attention.

***You know we weren’t a country then right? That’s like taking Omaha and saying “well just because you sent troops you didn’t fight the ENTIRE WEHRMACHT so you’re really justa bunch of wussies.” Funny people don’t say that about the North Vietnamese.

Oh wait you missed a few wars and battles
1814: we won and smeared the British at New Orleans
Mexican American war. Obliterated Mexico with a minimal force.
Indian Wars.
Indians Wars II…this time it’s the Plains
Spanish American War

The American Civil War - Interestingly, this war featured the largest and bloodiest battles that America has ever engaged in and, correct me if I'm wrong, the bloodiest civil war any Western nation has engaged in. From a military standpoint all the war showed was that the North won due to superior manpower and resources despite excellent Southern generals and superior riflemen.

The South had more than its share of idiots as well. We don’t remember them as much because of Lee, and because Grant kicked the crap out of them in the Tennessee valley.

World War I - America lost over 100,00 men to this war and did help contribute to the defeat of the Central Powers, but England, France, and even Serbia contributed much more to the Entente. The Central Powers were bloodied and near defeat by the time America entered the war and the knowledge that America could provide millions of fresh soldiers in addition to the widespread flu pandemic contributed more to Germany's surrender than any involvement by the American army.

In the space of a year we committed almost 2,000,000 troops. That’s more than most countries except the Big Four. Indeed the major push by the Germans in late war that wore them out was because they needed to win before the US could bring in large numbers and tilt the balance. They failed.

World War II - This is the war widely thrown about to highlight the cowardice of France and the greatness of America. France did not perform exceptionally poorly during the war, they were caught off guard by a numerically superior, motivated, and highly trained force. France had to choose between surrender and slaughter. Ironically, America would experience a similar event in the early days of the Korean War when "inferior" NKPA forces drove back ROK and US armies to the Pusan perimeter and nearly seized control of South Korea.

America never faced the full might of Werhmacht which was fighting a two front war and was being severely depleted by the numerically superior Soviet forces. The American army contributed greatly to Germany's defeat, but no more than the Soviets did and in my opinion much less, seeing how Americans fought alongside British and other Allied forces whereas the Soviets were left to fend for themselves.

You know we didn’t show up until 1942 right? I’m sorry you’re disappointed that we didn’t gear up and somehow transport 5,000,000 troops to invade the Rhine River valley in 1937.
In the interim we supplied the allies and Soviets with material, weapons, food, and most of all trucks.

America also never faced the full might of the Japanese army in a major land engagement. A significant portion of the Japanese army was in Manchuria on guard against Soviet incursions. America played a massive role in defeating Japan, but success in the Pacific theater can not be solely attributed to the army. America's navy was superior, the Marine Corps performed splendidly, and the Soviet threat distracted a large part of the Japanese army significantly weakening Japanese holdings. And of course, Japan was struggling to hold onto their territories in Korea, Manchuria, China, and SE Asia which required a great deal of manpower and had already cost Japan many lives.

Yea we did.
Guadalcanal
Iwo Jima
The Phillipines
Okinawa
Did their entire army show up on the plains of Kansas and go mano O mano against Patton? No, much to our dismay, as it would have ended the war very quickly. Strangely enough, when fighting an island empire, most of the fighting is on…islands.

The Korean War - At the start of the war America's army was unfathomably weak and unprepared. The war ended in a truce and the army managed to successfully defeat both the NKPA and Chinese forces, but by no means on their own. The ROK army's incredible bravery at the start of the war was critical to stalling the NKPA's advance and made the war actually winnable. American naval and air superiority was absolute and allowed the army to move unmolested. Chinese forces performed very well during the war despite lacking mechanized supply lines and any form of air support. Strictly speaking, the American army did not perform very well against what should have been an inferior opponent.

Your ignorance of history is glorious. A small portion of army, marine forces, and allies effectively destroyed the entire North Korean army in the space of a few weeks. Even though heavily outnumbered they got it together after the surprise Chinese attack and stopped them cold.

Vietnam War - It is an undeniable fact that American forces dominated the war and won nearly every major engagement. The VC and other communist forces fought bravely and fiercely, but they were little more than a ragtag group of guerrillas that could do little more than harass a proper army be it Soviet or American. I am not saying American veterans of the war did not fight bravely but nearly every physical advantage was on their side. They should have dominated and they did so for the most part. America simply lost the will to fight and simply didn't understand how to properly go about that war.

Wait, I’m confused. Per your standard in the first post the Vietnamese are loser wimp wannabees because they didn’t fight the entire military of the US.

Amaya wrote:

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:And you forgot the Spanish / American war.

Not a major war and Spain has never possessed an impressive army.

Check your history there bud. Spain had the largest standing army in the world and dominated the 16th century. Ever wonder why everybody south of America speaks, well, Spanish?

Amaya wrote:The Persians, Greeks, Romans, French, and Germans all have had significantly more impressive armies throughout history than America ever had or even has today.

Your point is crap and patently wrong, but then again, evne if right...so????

Persians. Yea bad boys for awhile, building on an empire building on an empire. Then they lost.
Greeks? They only defeated one opponent, like evah (unless you count Italy in early WWII). Here's a list of short list of people who beat them: Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Turks, Germans, their own currency.
Romans. Well..yea...cause you know...they're Romans.
French. Really? Really? The state of France is 1-2 against Germany. Britain beat them about the head and face until Napoleon, and then beat them some more.
They did save civilization from Islamic crusades I'll give you that. Yea Charlie the Hammer.
Germans. The state of Germany is 1-2. Earlier German states were more bad boys true dat, but did lose to Napoleon often.

Ok I'm not siding either way here but all this "we" gak is nauseating. America has a population of over 300 million. Cut the 'we did this, we did that' crap.

FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:

Horst wrote:The whole point is that america doesn't need a large army, really, at this point. I mean... we're a continent away from the other superpowers.

The only reason the US keeps such a large military is because of those Canadians, just like the =][= no body expects the Canadians.

The world underestimates the awsesome might of a Tim Hortons fuelled military at its peril.