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.

 JohnHwangDD 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.

Given that America is basically paying for the security of the world

I'm not sure 'America's security' and 'the World's security' are quite the same thing.

 Ketara wrote:

 JohnHwangDD 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.

Given that America is basically paying for the security of the world

I'm not sure 'America's security' and 'the World's security' are quite the same thing.

You're either with us, or against us!

'Murikkka!

My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'

You have drill sargents? We just use NCO candidates

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'

Had a couple EOD mates while I was in, and in a general sense, sure, they (and we) have a lot of toys, but most of the time my friends who were called out to defuse/disarm or otherwise "unboom" a boomy situation, they'd used tried and true methods, like rocks, or shooting it.

On the flip side, while I was in, I knew plenty of people who couldn't survive without loads of gizmos and toys, but I do agree with your point: many of y'all commonwealth types have my personal respect as y'all operate without a lot of the big spending (and occasional big spending blunders) that we do in the US, and in many ways, operate quite well.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'

You have drill sargents? We just use NCO candidates

That's one hell of a PASS/FAIL promotion test...

I mean, being blown into red mist is a hell of a way to fail.

OTOH, ensuring they can do EOD work is a sure way to ensure that every NCO can be cool under pressure.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'

You have drill sargents? We just use NCO candidates

That's one hell of a PASS/FAIL promotion test...

I mean, being blown into red mist is a hell of a way to fail.

OTOH, ensuring they can do EOD work is a sure way to ensure that every NCO can be cool under pressure.

Keep in mind we do learn, how to handle most stuff but since we are built as a militia army, we kinda just use often more a compressed Rank and duties system.

I mean the highest you can get is general.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'

You have drill sargents? We just use NCO candidates

That's one hell of a PASS/FAIL promotion test...

I mean, being blown into red mist is a hell of a way to fail.

OTOH, ensuring they can do EOD work is a sure way to ensure that every NCO can be cool under pressure.

Heard a story from a Royal Marine of a cautionary tale from a grenade throwing exercise, this was from the 80's when they had the budget to use actual grenades. One marine didn't seal his cuffs, pulled the pin and the grenade slipped as he raised his arm tho throw it, and went down his sleeve. The sergeant watching simply said "you're dead" and dodged behind the safety barrier.
Quite a mess apparently.

Oof. That's a bad way to go

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Oof. That's a bad way to go

We have heard stories here about bets beeing made who would throw them the closest and show Courage.

Then there is also the story of my grandfather who's squad mate had some serious bad blood with his superior and decided during a life ammo training to shoot at the superior.


In short, i guess military training has a tendency to bring out the worst / dumbest in people.

 Orlanth wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'

You have drill sargents? We just use NCO candidates

That's one hell of a PASS/FAIL promotion test...

I mean, being blown into red mist is a hell of a way to fail.

OTOH, ensuring they can do EOD work is a sure way to ensure that every NCO can be cool under pressure.

Heard a story from a Royal Marine of a cautionary tale from a grenade throwing exercise, this was from the 80's when they had the budget to use actual grenades. One marine didn't seal his cuffs, pulled the pin and the grenade slipped as he raised his arm tho throw it, and went down his sleeve. The sergeant watching simply said "you're dead" and dodged behind the safety barrier.
Quite a mess apparently.

Sounds like that could be a tall tale. I cant see a grenade falling down a sleeve, unless he had wizard robes on or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
My comment wasn't meant in a negative way really. I've worked with my counterparts in yankee EOD, and the amount of kit they had was crazy, compared to us. They had a gizmo that they wired into training ieds which would make a loud bang and tell the operator if they messed up, whereas we don't tend to use things like that when we could just have some grizzly staff sgt stood over you saying, 'you just killed yourself'

You have drill sargents? We just use NCO candidates

That's one hell of a PASS/FAIL promotion test...

I mean, being blown into red mist is a hell of a way to fail.

OTOH, ensuring they can do EOD work is a sure way to ensure that every NCO can be cool under pressure.

Heard a story from a Royal Marine of a cautionary tale from a grenade throwing exercise, this was from the 80's when they had the budget to use actual grenades. One marine didn't seal his cuffs, pulled the pin and the grenade slipped as he raised his arm tho throw it, and went down his sleeve. The sergeant watching simply said "you're dead" and dodged behind the safety barrier.
Quite a mess apparently.

Sounds like that could be a tall tale. I cant see a grenade falling down a sleeve, unless he had wizard robes on or something.

Training dress at the time was very baggy and had fastenable sleeves

If you throwaway rules of engagement, but refrain from using WMDs (of any variety) the modern US Military is completely capable of going into pretty much any country and reducing it's infrastructure to rubble within months. Of course that's only if you go full scorched earth and don't give a damn about civilian casualties/collateral damage, which would never happen. I don't know if any other country has the global force projection to do that. Russia could in eastern Europe and the Caucasus at least. China could in east Asia probably.

Historically the British Empire was the largest followed by the Mongols, but neither lasted at their respective peaks for more than a century. The Roman Empire was much smaller, but controlled a more densely populated and culturally diverse region for centuries.

I think historically I would have to go with the British Empire.

On the subject of Mongolia, doesn't Subutai still hold the world record for being the commander with the most amount of won pitched battles?

Germany? But no Russia or Soviet Union? God look at what the Soviets accomplished during the Civil War - not only defeating the counter-revolutionary/reactionary armies but a multitude of foreign interventionist forces.

And god I wish Wehrabooism would die out.

 blood reaper wrote:
Germany? But no Russia or Soviet Union? God look at what the Soviets accomplished during the Civil War - not only defeating the counter-revolutionary/reactionary armies but a multitude of foreign interventionist forces.

And god I wish Wehrabooism would die out.

Now don't get me wrong but Russia had a really mixed performance, especially before the Soviet union and let's just not forget that Afghanistan first and foremost was a Soviet Failure.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Germany? But no Russia or Soviet Union? God look at what the Soviets accomplished during the Civil War - not only defeating the counter-revolutionary/reactionary armies but a multitude of foreign interventionist forces.

And god I wish Wehrabooism would die out.

Now don't get me wrong but Russia had a really mixed performance, especially before the Soviet union and let's just not forget that Afghanistan first and foremost was a Soviet Failure.

That's true but if we're going on 'mixed performances' then most of the powers shouldn't even be up there - especially not Germany.

 blood reaper wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Germany? But no Russia or Soviet Union? God look at what the Soviets accomplished during the Civil War - not only defeating the counter-revolutionary/reactionary armies but a multitude of foreign interventionist forces.

And god I wish Wehrabooism would die out.

Now don't get me wrong but Russia had a really mixed performance, especially before the Soviet union and let's just not forget that Afghanistan first and foremost was a Soviet Failure.

That's true but if we're going on 'mixed performances' then most of the powers shouldn't even be up there - especially not Germany.

Problem is germany kicks around since 1871.
Before that you have a bunch of german states mixed german states (cough Proto switzerland cough) that have a range from outstanding to highly questionable, F.e. Alot of people harp on for prussia, completly forgetting that they 2 times had phases were they got trounced hard and one time a significantly smaller nation threathened to start unification against monarchies in germany.

Before that you have the HRE which actually has a fairly decent statistic until Napoléon kicks it around.
And no the HRE IS NOT KRAUTLAND.

Kinda missing the Ottoman and Mughal empires as well. DAMN they kicked a lot of ass.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Kinda missing the Ottoman and Mughal empires as well. DAMN they kicked a lot of ass.

Ayy until they tipped over.
Then they just kinda vegitated in losses.

Interesting thread, but it would have to be a much more narrow question to answer. Too many variables.

1) Is it strictly nation, or culture? As many existing nations were part of other countries or cultures before now, etc. (i.e the Rome/Italy issue...with the expanse of Rome being far greater than the mainland of Italy, etc.)
2) Is it based on wars vs. time in existence (i.e. Israel would top the charts)
3) Is it based on any certain continguous form of government, etc?
4) And how are defining success? Successfully carrying out an aggressive attack or war, or managing to defend oneself long enough to survive, etc.
5) Are we counting proxy wars, Cold Wars, advisors, etc. (adding more wins and losses to both the Soviet Union and America etc.)
6) Does the quality of the opponents matter? While generally overstated it's common to dismiss any engagement between a more technology advanced nation and a lesser advanced nation.
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.
8) Are we taking into account genuine impact of a nation (i.e. are we counting countries which inspired, impacted and informed the future of warfare well beyond their own abilities?)

Intriguing but too vague to really weigh in on, methinks.

 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.

Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.

Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.

Actually, the uk did "better" then, as in their policy in india regarding food.

Ah, there's the old angry-dismissal...classic. Solid argument.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.

Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.

Actually, the uk did "better" then, as in their policy in india regarding food.

Classic Axis apologism.

The Bengal Famine killed about 2.1-3 million people, a horrendous death toll - but largely the result of the Japanese seizing Burma.

Germany killed maybe 1.5 million Roma people alone. Then we've got 3 million Poles murdered in a variety of fashions. Added to that is the Hunger Plan in Ukraine (aimed at exterminating 20-30 million Soviet people,
but only ended up killing 4.2 million Soviet citizens, and around 3.3 million Soviet POWs (out of 5 million taken).

We've not even gotten to the rest of the 27 million Soviet dead, or the rest of the 5.5-6 million Jews.

 blood reaper wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.

Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.

Also don't forget a very important thing, alot of western occupied or allied countries did collaborate with the germans in delivering jews. F.e. France or most notably hungary but also romania, Holland, the Belgians etc.

Bulgaria was an exception insofar they didn't Budge, aswell as parts of the italian army.

 Elbows wrote:
Ah, there's the old angry-dismissal...classic. Solid argument.

I provided a semblance of a counter argument to your old fashioned axis propaganda. But we can go into detail,

> German defeated largely weakling powers and sick men in 1939 and 1940. It outnumbered the Allies at France and was fighting a country riddled by political chaos
> Germany was not alone in the war and was heavily reliant on its allies (it could have never fought in the Soviet Union without Romanian oil, for instance)
> Germany's greatest victories were against a recently industrialised and chaotic state that, once reorganised, smashed the Germans
> Germany regularly suffered higher casualties than its enemies in the field on the Western Front

I would advise reading David Glantz or 'Wages of Destruction', they go into excellent detail about the disastrous nature of the German warmachine.

 blood reaper wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.

Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.

Actually, the uk did "better" then, as in their policy in india regarding food.

Classic Axis apologism.

The Bengal Famine killed about 2.1-3 million people, a horrendous death toll - but largely the result of the Japanese seizing Burma.

Germany killed maybe 1.5 million Roma people alone. Then we've got 3 million Poles murdered in a variety of fashions. Added to that is the Hunger Plan in Ukraine (aimed at exterminating 20-30 million Soviet people,
but only ended up killing 4.2 million Soviet citizens, and around 3.3 million Soviet POWs (out of 5 million taken).

We've not even gotten to the rest of the 27 million Soviet dead, or the rest of the 5.5-6 million Jews.

How about you check the numbers again of the death toll of famines caused by the british colonial regime in india again, i didn't just talk about the bengal famine.

Also i would be the last to appologise for the axis but blaming everything evil on them is cheap and objectivly wrong.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I
7) Are we talking about heroic deeds and quality of the soldiers themselves, or just the end result? This really muddies the waters because - despite offending people - Germany, for instance outperformend almost every other nation in WW2 by almost any metric, but were obviously defeated.

Except in bombing, production, strategy, tactics, equipment, science, Germany did outperform its enemies in its capacity to massacre civilians with roaming death squads and make horrendous strategic mistakes.

Actually, the uk did "better" then, as in their policy in india regarding food.

Classic Axis apologism.

The Bengal Famine killed about 2.1-3 million people, a horrendous death toll - but largely the result of the Japanese seizing Burma.

Germany killed maybe 1.5 million Roma people alone. Then we've got 3 million Poles murdered in a variety of fashions. Added to that is the Hunger Plan in Ukraine (aimed at exterminating 20-30 million Soviet people,
but only ended up killing 4.2 million Soviet citizens, and around 3.3 million Soviet POWs (out of 5 million taken).

We've not even gotten to the rest of the 27 million Soviet dead, or the rest of the 5.5-6 million Jews.

How about you check the numbers again of the death toll of famines caused by the british colonial regime in india again, i didn't just talk about the bengal famine.

Also i would be the last to appologise for the axis but blaming everything evil on them is cheap and objectivly wrong.

That should be made clearer. It is undeniable that the British engaged in utterly loathsome practices in India, but we are speaking about war-time.

And the Axis were responsible for the vast majority of crimes in WW2. We haven't even gotten to the situation in China. Needless to say, sow the Wind, reap the Whirlwind.

Not wartime? Bs excuse, war in Afghanistan f.e. corresponded directly with food shortages and that is just one exemple.

As for the vast ammount of crimes, of which Japan alone probably has done higher numbers due to the nature of the Land war in China.

"And the Axis were responsible for the vast majority of crimes in WW2. We haven't even gotten to the situation in China. Needless to say, sow the Wind, reap the Whirlwind."


Look at me, i piss at common judical tradition and implement vendetta again.....
By going to the equal level of morals or non morales you lose.

Don't claim a morale high horse, you might find someone with a hallberd to rip you down from it.