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.

 MarsNZ wrote:
I get the whole "Surrender Monkey" memes are real popular for some reason but Frankia/France should really be on the list.

Apart from WW2 - in which one could argue their allies left them behind while hastily fleeing the continent - they actually have a pretty extensive and successful military history from Tours to Verdun.

While the official French government surrendered, a government in exile with control of its colonies and oversee department was formed and continued to fight the war, won several major battle in North Africa and Italy before forming the official French government after the war. When Germany capitulated at the end of the war, this French government was there to sign it with the other allied forces. The idea that France surrendered and lost WWII is a slight exaggeration because of that. Officially, they won it. They just suffered catastrophic defeat at its start.

Not Online!!! wrote:

WW1 would have had an actual feasible possibility for a german landing. Hochseeflotte was waaaaaaay bigger then the Kriegsmarine in Ww2.

Can you define what you mean here by 'feasible' and 'landing'? The German Navy could have attempted to smuggle a small force of say, 40,000 men across the North Sea on cruise liners timed to an unexpected declaration of war sometime in July 1914, perhaps. They wouldn't have managed much else. At which point the German force would have been immediately cut off from resupply, surrounded, and forced to capitulate by the BEF (by far one of, if not the most professional force in Europe at that time).

Certainly prior to the actual immediate outbreak of WWI, the Fleet was on high alert and would have intercepted anything even remotely resembling a German army. The British public were fanatically alive to covering this sort of eventuality after Le Queux played his word games.

epronovost wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:
I get the whole "Surrender Monkey" memes are real popular for some reason but Frankia/France should really be on the list.

Apart from WW2 - in which one could argue their allies left them behind while hastily fleeing the continent - they actually have a pretty extensive and successful military history from Tours to Verdun.

While the official French government surrendered, a government in exile with control of its colonies and oversee department was formed and continued to fight the war, won several major battle in North Africa and Italy before forming the official French government after the war. When Germany capitulated at the end of the war, this French government was there to sign it with the other allied forces. The idea that France surrendered and lost WWII is a slight exaggeration because of that. Officially, they won it. They just suffered catastrophic defeat at its start.

Yes but the same could be said for Poland. Belgium, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, pretty much any occupied nation. Their militaries, which are the subject of discussion, were soundly defeated in the field. Another slight exaggeration would be implying France defeated the Axis in North Africa by itself after the armistice.

Not a great innings for France in this particular war but pretty unfair to judge their military history entirely on 6 weeks in the Summer of 1940.

 MarsNZ wrote:
I get the whole "Surrender Monkey" memes are real popular for some reason but Frankia/France should really be on the list.

Apart from WW2 - in which one could argue their allies left them behind while hastily fleeing the continent - they actually have a pretty extensive and successful military history from Tours to Verdun.

... and Vietnam!

Oh, wait...

Israel should really be on this list. If they ever lost a defensive war they flat out wouldn’t exist. Most of their conflicts are victories despite taking on multiple foreign powers. They have one true loss which resulted in them leaving Lebanon. They have a handful of stalemate/both sides claiming victory. They may not have a history that reaches as far back as Britain etc, but they have more or less been in conflict since day 1.

Russia

Defeated the Mongols
Defeated the Ottomans
Defeated the Nazis
Defeated Napolean
Defeated Japan (WW2)
Defeated Sweden

I voted for Germany/Prussia. . .

Since in your OP you linked Rome and Italy as one thing, I'm doing the same.

So. . . you have the Germanic tribes who for so many years were a thorn in Rome's side, replacing them eventually is the Holy Roman Empire with the German Landsknechte, who were renowned throughout Europe for fierce fighting, even so far as sacking Rome, and doing a lot of the fighting during the Italian Wars. Then there's the 30 Years' War, the Peasants' War and so many conflicts aside that establish a strong military tradition from the top of society to the bottom. Adding in later actions, leading up to the Unification in the 1870s, rapid colonization, to the point where from the 1870s to 1914, they developed an empire to try to rival that of England and France (granted they were clearly the third empire at that point).

Then there's of course fighting a 2 front war on two separate occasions, fighting for several years beyond expectations during WW1 and WW2.

Why no Romans? :(

 DominayTrix wrote:
Israel should really be on this list. If they ever lost a defensive war they flat out wouldn’t exist. Most of their conflicts are victories despite taking on multiple foreign powers. They have one true loss which resulted in them leaving Lebanon. They have a handful of stalemate/both sides claiming victory. They may not have a history that reaches as far back as Britain etc, but they have more or less been in conflict since day 1.

Good point. Theirs is probably the best military pound fot pound too

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:
I get the whole "Surrender Monkey" memes are real popular for some reason but Frankia/France should really be on the list.

Apart from WW2 - in which one could argue their allies left them behind while hastily fleeing the continent - they actually have a pretty extensive and successful military history from Tours to Verdun.

... and Vietnam!

Oh, wait...

Your forgot their ejection from their own colony in Algeria.

Yep. CCCP, for sure.

Russia did not defeat the Wehrmacht, or the Nazis. Russia did not defeat Japan in 1945.

The CCCP did.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I voted for Germany/Prussia. . .

Since in your OP you linked Rome and Italy as one thing, I'm doing the same.

So. . . you have the Germanic tribes who for so many years were a thorn in Rome's side, replacing them eventually is the Holy Roman Empire with the German Landsknechte, who were renowned throughout Europe for fierce fighting, even so far as sacking Rome, and doing a lot of the fighting during the Italian Wars. Then there's the 30 Years' War, the Peasants' War and so many conflicts aside that establish a strong military tradition from the top of society to the bottom. Adding in later actions, leading up to the Unification in the 1870s, rapid colonization, to the point where from the 1870s to 1914, they developed an empire to try to rival that of England and France (granted they were clearly the third empire at that point).

Then there's of course fighting a 2 front war on two separate occasions, fighting for several years beyond expectations during WW1 and WW2.

Hahahaha, landsknechte beeing worth something.

They are the chinese bootleg version of Reisläufer, copying strategy and weaponry, whilest still failing miserably against Reisläufer. Look at the swabian war / Schweizer war.


Also The HRE includes the czech, Belgians, dutch, germans, austrians and swiss, aswell as italians.

Out of these the victories for the HRE ought to be counted for the emperor, the habsburgs, ergo austria.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just to make a point about the British Empire, it's true that the later colonial period -- the so-called "Scramble for Africa" -- had the British with breech-loading rifles, Maxim guns and cannons against tribal warriors with muskets and spears.

The earlier period when the British conquered India was a lot more evenly balanced. The native armies not only had access to the same "modern" (of the time) weapons, they also had drill from European mercenaries, as well as vast numbers (though mostly formed and armed in antique style.)

Thus, battles like Clive's and Wellesley's were won against significant opposition, and this realistically was the situation until the later 19th century.

With all due respect to your first point, in the entire history of the world, nobody has ever said: we have better weapons and technology than these guys, we'd better not conquer them, as it's not a fair fight.

Had highly advanced African tribes turned up in a stone age Britain, they'd have happily pointed the Maxims at us. it's human nature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DominayTrix wrote:
Israel should really be on this list. If they ever lost a defensive war they flat out wouldn’t exist. Most of their conflicts are victories despite taking on multiple foreign powers. They have one true loss which resulted in them leaving Lebanon. They have a handful of stalemate/both sides claiming victory. They may not have a history that reaches as far back as Britain etc, but they have more or less been in conflict since day 1.

Again, Israel was another of those 50/50 nations. Modern Israel is a hard nut to crack, but Biblical Israel? They were always getting invaded or overrun.

So, sorry to say, that diminishes their success in my book


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Argive wrote:
Why no Romans? :(

They're under the Italy category.

But we're syill undecided as to Italy being the 'successor' to Roman achivements.

In my book it is, because Rome the city has endured for centuries, so there is that unbroken link to the past.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Laughing Man wrote:
I mean, if we're going off pure WLD here, Alexander the Great tops the list, given that he was never defeated in battle.

I was going to include Macedonia. but then I remembered Colin Farrell's mullet

Maybe if we looked as what was the most badass empire.

Problem is you can't compare British Empire to say Alexanders Macedonians or the Huns.. Its apples and Oranges.

Perhaps another discussion some mother time divided by eras/technology age maybe.
My vote went to the mongols simply due to the sheer landmass, population under rule given the very limited technology of its time. The messaging relay stations and laws were very smart and ahead of their game but also a throwback to the way Romans did things in parallel.

Not Online!!! wrote:


Hahahaha, landsknechte beeing worth something.

They are the chinese bootleg version of Reisläufer, copying strategy and weaponry, whilest still failing miserably against Reisläufer. Look at the swabian war / Schweizer war.

Just because people copied each other's tactics and armaments does not make automatically inferior. . . In that time period you had the Swiss, the Germans, and the Spanish Tercio who were all sought after for their military services. . . .And I was not in any way saying that the Landsknechte were the end all be all. I said they were well respected.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
Israel should really be on this list.

Again, Israel was another of those 50/50 nations. Modern Israel is a hard nut to crack, but Biblical Israel? They were always getting invaded or overrun.

 Argive wrote:
Why no Romans? :(

They're under the Italy category.

But we're syill undecided as to Italy being the 'successor' to Roman achivements.

In my book it is, because Rome the city has endured for centuries, so there is that unbroken link to the past.

If you count Rome as Italy, then Jerusalem is Israel, and Israel are definitely not badasses - they're just guys who spent 40 YEARS wandering the desert.

The existence of a city for centuries is not the same as having some sort of functional state for the entire duration. Italy is NOT Rome.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


Hahahaha, landsknechte beeing worth something.

They are the chinese bootleg version of Reisläufer, copying strategy and weaponry, whilest still failing miserably against Reisläufer. Look at the swabian war / Schweizer war.

Just because people copied each other's tactics and armaments does not make automatically inferior. . . In that time period you had the Swiss, the Germans, and the Spanish Tercio who were all sought after for their military services. . . .And I was not in any way saying that the Landsknechte were the end all be all. I said they were well respected.

You know how Swissgermans named Landsknechte?
Sauschwabe---> Pigswabian.
Why because swabians were the one to generate the most Landsknechte.
(ironically they also named us Cowswiss/ Kuhschweizer and both insults are still in use when we annoy each other , granted we swiss have transfered the use to somewhat refer to the whole "Big Kanton" Germany. )

Infact the war preciscly started because both sides were competeing within the mercenary market. Supposedly the Swabians insulted the swiss in a standoff over a river, which lead to a Urner crossing said river and burning down some stuff. Infact the whole war and a lot of skirmishes inbetween the bigger battles were instigated by insults thrown at each other.

The war ended in 13'000 dead HRE /Landsknechte vs 2'500 dead swiss, whilest the HRE was outnumbering the old confederacy 2:1

________________
This war also has kind of an ironic undertone since Swabians and swiss germans are about as close as you can get inbetween germanics.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
LOL. Lost half of one Continent to a bunch of rag-tag rebels. Lost an entire subcontinent to a dude who refuse to fight. Didn't have the balls to go against China in the 1990s. Had to be bailed out by America twice, or they'd the speaking German. Barely managed a fight over a little island near Argentina. Losers, never seem to have managed to ever win a fight against a real power.

Removed - Rule #1 please

I would have to go with the British for arse kicking over time. They lasted, notably prickly with the bill and the longbow, still prickly in the nuclear age.

Won nearly all the wars they were involved with, not successfully invaded for over 950 years, despite multiple serious threats, dominated the sea. Dominated the planet for almost a full century so that nobody wanted to take them on.
Kicked arse even when incompetently led because the basic soldiery is tougher than most. Rorke's Drift, Thin Red Line other feats largely due to managing through blunders. Extemely dangerous when the British are blessed (sadly rarely) with an exceptional leader.
Very, very, rarely ran away.
Kept it up for centuries.

The British kept every other European power in check, except Portugal whose Imperial possessions had a guarantee due to an alliance going back 600 years and ongoing, the oldest military alliance in history.

Lost the Empire due to a change of the conditions of the world, when all similar empires crumbled.

The British soldier is still a fine fighting instrument today. Our American cousins don't like to admit this but in exercises there are given 3:1 odds and still lose, time and again. There is an tournament between West Point and Sandhurst every year, The Americans had won only once as of my last update. Though I would not be surprised if post New Labour the 'safe space' generation if this has changed.

That being said. Israel is pound for pound the best fighting force on the planet, and that came from nowhere. And Germans give the British serious problems, though they stayed in the fight, mainly through superior organisation, the German soldier isn't better, but the staff corps consistently is.

I would argue however the the British take the top spot for achieving what was achieved in spite of their lacklustre commanders and political leadership. And when they have someone like Nelson, you just have to stay out of the water. Like Napoleon learned.

I found a book in Afghanistan on the history of the British (well, English) soldier going all the way back to Agincourt....

It was pretty impressive. The Tommy certainly has a very long and storied history.

The US has had some pretty lethal moments in handing out ass whippings, but overall track record of "success" seems 50/50 at best. Though I suppose the nature of post ww2 "war", a far cry from the Athenian style of putting all males to the sword, made goals a bit more difficult to achieve.

I don't know. Very interesting stuff. Military effectiveness has always been a sincere interest of mine.

Also, WW2 in Europe was won by the sheer sacrifice of the Soviet Union. The western allies certainly did their part, but the Wehrmacht was bled white on the Russian steppes, its best officers lying in cold graves by mid 1943.

There is no chance in hell the US could have won that war on its own.

I might have to hand it to the Canucks. They've never lost a war!

 Orlanth wrote:
I would have to go with the British for arse kicking over time. They lasted, notably prickly with the bill and the longbow, still prickly in the nuclear age.

Won nearly all the wars they were involved with, not successfully invaded for over 950 years, despite multiple serious threats, dominated the sea. Dominated the planet for almost a full century so that nobody wanted to take them on.
Kicked arse even when incompetently led because the basic soldiery is tougher than most. Rorke's Drift, Thin Red Line other feats largely due to managing through blunders. Extemely dangerous when the British are blessed (sadly rarely) with an exceptional leader.
Very, very, rarely ran away.
Kept it up for centuries.

The British kept every other European power in check, except Portugal whose Imperial possessions had a guarantee due to an alliance going back 600 years and ongoing, the oldest military alliance in history.

Lost the Empire due to a change of the conditions of the world, when all similar empires crumbled.

The British soldier is still a fine fighting instrument today. Our American cousins don't like to admit this but in exercises there are given 3:1 odds and still lose, time and again. There is an tournament between West Point and Sandhurst every year, The Americans had won only once as of my last update. Though I would not be surprised if post New Labour the 'safe space' generation if this has changed.


That being said. Israel is pound for pound the best fighting force on the planet, and that came from nowhere. And Germans give the British serious problems, though they stayed in the fight, mainly through superior organisation, the German soldier isn't better, but the staff corps consistently is.

I would argue however the the British take the top spot for achieving what was achieved in spite of their lacklustre commanders and political leadership. And when they have someone like Nelson, you just have to stay out of the water. Like Napoleon learned.

We can also operate on a shoestring while the yankees tend to depend on billions of dollars worth of kit. Not putting them down here by any means, but kit and equipment wise we're like the poor kid at school on free lunches compared to the spoilt guy with the new trainers, yet we still generally end up with better numbers.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


We can also operate on a shoestring while the yankees tend to depend on billions of dollars worth of kit. Not putting them down here by any means, but kit and equipment wise we're like the poor kid at school on free lunches compared to the spoilt guy with the new trainers, yet we still generally end up with better numbers.

If only that were true, even the Americans are paragons of spending efficiency compared to the British. Furthermore our spending priorities are notably skewed. Our soldiers are, and have been, decent in spite of this not because of this.

 Orlanth wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:


We can also operate on a shoestring while the yankees tend to depend on billions of dollars worth of kit. Not putting them down here by any means, but kit and equipment wise we're like the poor kid at school on free lunches compared to the spoilt guy with the new trainers, yet we still generally end up with better numbers.

If only that were true, even the Americans are paragons of spending efficiency compared to the British. Furthermore our spending priorities are notably skewed. Our soldiers are, and have been, decent in spite of this not because of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA80


Like this one?
I mean by all means america literally wastes money, it seems like their tanks use money as literal fuel. That said, atleast they manufacture rifles that actually , you know, work.

Doesnt that kind of prove my point? and you're preaching to the converted mate. there are much better rifles out there that we could've, and should now be looking at. however, the L85 gets more stick than it deserves. its definitely not as bad as its portrayed in the media, especially since the upgrades. it has a lot of decent properties, the bullpup design is much better militarily than the conventional layout of the M4 variants for example.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Doesnt that kind of prove my point? and you're preaching to the converted mate. there are much better rifles out there that we could've, and should now be looking at. however, the L85 gets more stick than it deserves. its definitely not as bad as its portrayed in the media, especially since the upgrades. it has a lot of decent properties, the bullpup design is much better militarily than the conventional layout of the M4 variants for example.

TBF: Germany also recently learned that they can't produce rifles anymore sooooo.....

And no it does not, because your military wasted loads of money on NON-functional rifles, literally. As for the bullpub, not a fan off, well not of the Steyr one anyways.
Then again i also would like to talk to the hero that designed the barrel on my STGW90. I mean you can literally throw the whole rifle around but dare to look strange at the barrel of it, instantly a banana in it.

really? thats interesting seeing as H&K are one of the biggest weapon manufacturers outside the US.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
really? thats interesting seeing as H&K are one of the biggest weapon manufacturers outside the US.

Well, it was a combination of:

A: Corruption and interest of politicians.

B: Terrible planning and purchase politics of the Bundeswehr, which tbh, the german army atm can't even find enough guns for a Parade visit of foreign statesmen.

C: Completely ignored all experience that frontline soldiers had

D: Consequently replaced the G3 model with the G36 which is just bad supposedly.

This is on top of the terrible standing the BW has in their society, the terrible and questionable support of Veterans, the constant underfundedness and equipment lacking, etc.
Heck they sent their tanks with Broomsticks instead of barrels to a Nato training.

Ironically this was also the year one of their politicians threatened us with the "cavallery" if we would not stop the Banking secret.....

Speaking as a Canadian, we do take pride in being able to maximize the quality of small elite forces but we also do so with the understanding that we don't have the population base or political will to do otherwise.

It's always kind of sticky to talk about the reasons why, but after WW2 Canadians never stopped thinking about how many Canadians would inevitably killed in any foreign conflict they entered - so in addition to a very American sense of wanting to win every war we enter, we also want to be, without question, doing something worth the lives of all the people who'll inevitably die in the attempt. Because we always assume if even one soldier dies its going to be the one we care about most.

So I don't think we're as militarily successful as we could have been, or as much as some countries in this list, but I don't think we want to be?

The nomination is appreciated, of course!

 Grey Templar wrote:
Similarly, the US invasion of Canada during the War of 1812 was more of an indictment of the bad shape of the US army at the time and not any special skill on the part of Canada. Incompetent baboons would have been capable of conquering Canada with what the US had at the time, the US generals showed absurd levels of failure.

Is that how it gets characterized in American history classes? I admit our version is hardly impartial but we at least gave your boys some credit regarding tactics employed, territory gained and reclaimed, etc.

Had a whole unit on it in high school, wish I could remember the details but it all bleeds together with the attempts to take Montreal and Quebec during the Revolutionary War. It's be fun to compare textbooks this far in the future.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
We can also operate on a shoestring while the yankees tend to depend on billions of dollars worth of kit.

Given that America is basically paying for the security of the world, sure... But if you were to go back to paying for the world's blue water military, it'd be the other way 'round.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Doesnt that kind of prove my point? and you're preaching to the converted mate. there are much better rifles out there that we could've, and should now be looking at. however, the L85 gets more stick than it deserves. its definitely not as bad as its portrayed in the media, especially since the upgrades. it has a lot of decent properties, the bullpup design is much better militarily than the conventional layout of the M4 variants for example.

Hrm, the L85A1 deserves everything it got. The A2 is a far more reliable and functional weapon, but the A1 really was as bad as it was made out to be

On the topic of Bullpups, they are compromises, they can be more compact than traditional layouts for the same barrel length, but tend to be a bit more awkward to manipulate with atrocious triggers that hamper accuracy. They are preferred by forces spending most of their time in vehicles and buildings where space is at a premium and engagement distances very short, but many, if not most forces that adopt bullpups tend to transition back to a traditional layout rifle later (e.g. France, NZ, etc which are transitioning to AR pattern rifles from HK and LMT). As is, between the M4 and the L85, overall length is about identical due to the M4s shorter barrel relative to the older M16 and L85 with their 20" barrels. I have a Tavor SAR and a Beretta CX4 I both really enjoy (both bullpups), but if I'm having to try and hit difficult targets or do lots of weapons manipulations I'd much rather have something like an AR/M4.