next »

[Lorg]

Just wanted to see The post gun stats who thought who would win through war war 2 or so.
Feel free to argue Please use facts non fiction opinion is ok as long as you back it up with facts.
PM me if I left any major powers out.

[esamba]

Germany no doubts,they had numbers,they had talented comanders,they had modern weapons.And they where fighting against majority of nations such as superpower America,Russia and other such as free France,Belgium and so on.

[yan yan]

Germany no doubts,they had numbers,they had talented comanders,they had modern weapons.And they where fighting against majority of nations such as superpower America,Russia and other such as free France,Belgium and so on.

that is true but they were so focus on winning they did not care about what happed to there men so that is why they lost ww2

[Homers lament]

Man for man the Finish allies of Germany were in my opinion top soldiers in WW2. Out gunned, out manned, they fought the Russians to a standstill.

[Mylläri]

Man for man the Finish allies of Germany were in my opinion top soldiers in WW2. Out gunned, out manned, they fought the Russians to a standstill.

Funny you say that, check my username 

The Finns (with logistic support from the Germans) beat back a massive Soviet invasion in WW2.  They weren't a part of the Axis but rather had a common enemy with  Germany, after they defeated the Soviets they signed treaties with the Allies and then led the Lapland offensive which helped drive the Nazis from the Nordic countries. 

Aside from that I think  Germany had an incredible military capacity, but poor strategic planning.  Somewhat like the contemporary American military, the troops can carry out just about any mission and have it end in success but the leadership has their heads up their arses.  Frankly I don't consider the United States military forces to have been that great in WW2 (not taking ANYTHING away from the men who fought and died to include family members of mine).  In Europe,  Germany fell due to their blunders in planning and simply being overwhelmed on all fronts.  In the Pacific, Japan just lacked the resources to be able to sustain a long term war effort.  Very generalized view of things mind you.

Overall up to the end of WW2 I have to give the Germans the edge.  Since then there is none even comparible to the U.S. Military.

[cryptguardian]

Close call between Russia and USA; in the end voted for USA; successful use of the atomic bomb was pretty impressive for its time.

[Homers lament]

Close call between Russia and USA; in the end voted for USA; successful use of the atomic bomb was pretty impressive for its time.

I thought we were talking about the soldiers, not thier bombs. I'm from the USA, and yet the US troops were not all that. They ran hot and cold, as citizen soldiers tend to do. Russia likewise. What gave Russia it's power was the combination of Revenge, and knowing anything less than thier best, meant total defeat, and destruction. For the USA, it was Industral Strenght on a scale unheard of in other nations.

[Mylläri]

I agree, the usage of nuclear armaments is nothing to be proud of nor a reason why one should think they're better than another.  CG I'm not lumping you in with this crowd, I just get sick of people thinking that because the U.S. possesses and has used nuclear weapons in the past that we can be as belligerent as we desire with our military interventions.

Homer its funny that you bring up American "Industrial Strength" in this conversation.  The real reason America came out of the Great Depression was that most of the major European countries began rebuilding their militaries and infrastructure in the 1930's using American products.  We gave them what they wanted they gave us tangible financial assets like gold, silver, etc which FDR was already confiscating from his own citizens in an effort to restore the value of the crippled dollar.  Then once America entered WW2 we turned around and financed almost our entire war effort with the money we originally got from Europe.  Interesting how things worked out, eh?

[cryptguardian]

I thought we were talking about the soldiers, not thier bombs...

I interpreted the question "witch (should be "which") army do you think was the greatst (?typo: "greatest") post Gun army" as meaning which sovereign (as the choices listed are countries), yielded the greatest military might post-gun powder being used in waging war. This I interpreted as referring to, the sovereign's WAR MACHINE; weapons/equipment and such and not soldier appearances/personalities.  No need to be pedantic about it though  (by the way I'm not American).

I agree, the usage of nuclear armaments is nothing to be proud of nor a reason why one should think they're better than another.  CG I'm not lumping you in with this crowd, I just get sick of people thinking that because the U.S. possesses and has used nuclear weapons in the past that we can be as belligerent as we desire with our military interventions.

Don't worry George W. Bush has dispelled any illusion(s) I may have re: The USA with his "old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on...uhmm ah...shame on you. Fool me...uhmm...you can't get fooled again."  

[ShuFan]

What gave Russia it's power was the combination of Revenge, and knowing anything less than thier best, meant total defeat, and destruction.

I'd add sheer numbers and the 5 year plans to that list.

[Homers lament]

I'd add sheer numbers and the 5 year plans to that list.

Can't argue with that.

[mgandy]

I think this discussion all depends what time frame you are talking. If your describing when guns and modern weapons were introduced then I would have to agree with some of the posters and say Germany. However, if you talking in today's standard then I would have to state America with China catching up.

[Humble Hero]

I would say Finland up until 2002, by virtue of the fact that they could produce a man such as "The White Death" (If you're unfamiliar with his work, I would recommend googling it, makes for a good read.)

But seriously, for such a small, almost inconsequential nation, Finland managed to beat the mighty behemoth that was Russia to a standstill. They didnt cop out with any city leveling bombs either...

[Boydie]

If we are talking troop for troop.....

British troops have always been one of the best trained in the world. In WW1 they were famed for the 'Mad Minute'. The Mad Minute was when British riflemen fired 15 aimed bullets into a target at 300 yd within one minute using a bolt-action rifle, usually a Lee-Enfield but many riflemen could average 25 shots, while others yet could make 40 shots. German troops thought they were under machine gun fire.

The SAS, formed in the African campaign in WW2 had destroyed over 400 enemy planes on the ground in the African campaign, a significant achievement for such a small group of men (65 men I think), which did not go unnoticed. They had inflicted 7,733 German casualties in Europe. 4,784 prisoners were captured. 700 vehicles were destroyed or captured. 164 railways were cut. Seven trains were destroyed, thirty-three were derailed ( About 1500 S.A.S troops involved with 300 casualties.)  

Even to this day British troops are known to be some of the best trained in the world. My examples are to even join the Royal Marines, they have the longest basic training of any NATO force at 32 weeks, It used to be longer before the 90's but not enough men were passing the training course. But if you want to become an officer in the RM too officer training is a staggering 54 weeks. so some troops were train for 86 weeks which is staggering before any front line service.

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/royalmarines/training-fitness/royal-marines-training-course/index.htm

Plus WW2 couldn't of been won without the Royal Navy's sheer number of ships.

15 Battleships & battlecruisers, of which only two were post-World War 1. Five 'King George V' class battleships were building.

7 Aircraft carriers. One was new and five of the planned six fleet carriers were under construction. There were no escort carriers.

66 Cruisers, mainly post-World War 1 with some older ships converted for AA duties. Including cruiser-minelayers, 23 new ones had been laid down.

184 Destroyers of all types. Over half were modern, with 15 of the old 'V' and 'W' classes modified as escorts. Under construction or on order were 32 fleet destroyers and 20 escort types of the 'Hunt' class.

60 Submarines, mainly modern with nine building.

45 escort and patrol vessels with nine building, and the first 56 'Flower' class corvettes on order to add to the converted 'V' and 'W's' and 'Hunts'. However, there were few fast, long-endurance convoy escorts.

nuff said.

I could talk more but I feel I've made my point.    

[sunjian]

Just getting active.

Talking for troop to troop, the best trained would be those who really believe and are influenced to fight for the right reason. Protecting something or an excellent leader who can rally up the troops.

In WWII, I'd have to give this to Germany hands down. They were really strong and Hitler did push them. (Until they messed up)

Even though I dis-agree with the Germany Ideology back in the days.