What, in your opinion, was or is the strongest military in the

US military on the 27th of July 1991, maybe the Soviets had more nuke power though

Probably the Soviet Union. With 50 000 nukes or whatever I'm pretty sure they could take Rome or Alexander the Great.

Shit thread.

>>1472049
Are we talking relative to its time, or on an absolute scale?

>>1472059
Either so long as you give a reason for their pick

>>1472049
The USA before other nations developed the Atom bomb

>>1472049
Prussia

>>1472085
Even with nukes the US military was probably weaker overall than the soviet one

In absolute terms, the present day United States military. Technology > all

>>1472119
This. End of thread.

File: 1469333433264.jpg (122KB, 532x1500px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 532x1500px

>>1472049
Romans: Did what nearly no other states (of that time) could do, take the loss of an army.

Mongolians: just read what they did

USA: As of right now, you cannot make the statement "The United States could take on the entire world" without the importation of 10^27 tons of european asshurt to your computer, but the fact that it is even up for debate should tell you that the USA is incredibly powerful compared to the "relative index" of powerful nations in the past. Now, this is talking about a broad scale, as in population, economic power and military size, sans nuclear warheads, which kind of shit the bed as far as any noteworthy scale goes. The only thing that could fuck up the US doomsday machine would be US citizens refusing to fight or other things.

>>1472119
>In absolute terms
of course modern militaries will be better
why even mention it?

>>1472119
We have to assume op means for their time. The Roman army night as well be a rabble of children against ww2 tech, obviously, but only an idiot was suggest that makes the retroactively weak.

>>1472119
I'm pretty sure cold war USSR would be able to just nuke the shit out of the current US military and there isnt a whole lot they could do about it. In absolute terms

>Relative to the time period
Rome after the Marian Reforms with Sulla, Caesar or Pompey could probably beat any army for the next 1000 years only upgrading their equipment with what they salvage off of armies they defeated.

>All time strength
Probably the USSR at its peak when they started ramping up nuclear arms production and pumping out millions of tanks and AK's, obviously modern military technology would put modern countries ahead but most countries these days still use soviet technology, the difference is here they'd have the backing of the largest industry the world has ever seen and some of the largest manpower pools ever but without any of the restrictions of a modern day democracy,

>>1472144
And the US could do the same.

>>1472049
In relative terms probably the mongols. Proportionally they caused more deaths than any other force in history

I love russia guys, but isn't the population barely 150 million? Not many soldiers for the grinder compared to many states desu

I hate to sound like such a Wehraboo but I would honestly nominate either the Wehrmacht or Red Army. In the biggest war of all time, they were the strongest contenders.

Although I'm partial the Mongols as well.

The United States wields more power than any state ever has, ever.
The USA could annex North, Central and South America with relative ease and has global supremacy economically.
There has never been a country which has so thoroughly owned the rest of the world.
Outside of absolutes, I would say the Romans, perhaps the Abbasid or Umayyed Caliphate, pre-split Mongol Empire, and Tang China, probably.
There might be more but I can't think of others right now.

>>1472151
True, but since the USSR physically just had more nukes they win in absolute terms, even though it means basically nothing

>>1472170
The difference is that they can access the full manpower of a country that size being an autocratic form of government, they say conscript and bam they have an army of 50-60 million where as a democratic like america would have much more issues trying to force their entire country to rise up and fight without imposing big restrictions

>>1472154
>USSR
>Population: 293 million (Jul 1991)

Combine that with a government that has a history of total mobilization and war, and you've got a goddamn juggernaut.

>>1472110

Not him, but:

Forces in Europe 1945? Almost certainly in the Soviet favor.

Total forces worldwide in 1945? Almost certainly in America's favor. The U.S. still had enormous forces, entire army corps, that were sitting in America for lack of transport.

And that's not even getting into the larger U.S. war economy, which means that a war dragging on is likely to increasingly tilt in America's favor.

>>1472183
Fuck, I meant to reply to >>1472170

>>1472181
>but since the USSR physically just had more nukes
Source? I always thought they maintained parity with each other.

>>1472177
>The United States wields more power than any state ever has, ever
This is true but we're talking purely military, and the existence of nukes fucks it up a bit since both the Us and USSR have had or currently have the ability to wipe out the whole of human civilization

File: 555px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png (37KB, 555x405px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 555x405px

>>1472184
The Red Army in 1945 was the largest military force that has ever existed

>>1472186
pic related

>>1472203
A chart isn't a source my dude.

>>1472058
shit thread? you gave a real shit answer

>>1472206
Fair enough, this is the course data for the chart

"Global nuclear stockpiles, 1945-2006," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 62, no. 4 (July/August 2006), 64-66

Better question

What was the best military from

>Before 500 BC
>500 BC - 0 AD
>0 AD - 500 AD
>500 - 1000
>1000 - 1200
>1200 - 1400
>1400 - 1600
>1600 - 1700
>1700 - 1800
>1800 - 1900
>1900 - 1930
>1930 - 1960
>1960 present

Have fun spending 30 minutes answering this question

I can help a bit. Persia, Rome, Mongols, British Empire, French Empire, German Empire circa 1900's, USSR 1945, USA now, fill in the blanks.

>>1472210
Thanks broseph.

>>1472210
Source* how did that happen

>>1472203


>The Red Army in 1945 was the largest military force that has ever existed

No, it was not. It was the largest ARMY that ever existed, but total men in the military was larger in the U.S. than in the USSR in 1945, although a lot of that are naval personnel, unlikely to be helpful in a large scale war in Central Europe.

And then, of course, there's the quality advantage. Unthinkable was scrapped, but the planning, based on performance appraisals against a common German enemy, estimated roughly twice the effectiveness of a British or an American division vis a vis an average soviet one. Even just looking at an organizational chart, you'll be forced to note how much better equipped the Americans are, sporting almost twice the artillery, and considerably more armored support at an infantry division level.

>>1472218
Yes but you had nearly endless manpower to draw from and you didn't have the restrictions of a democracy, if there really was a war in 1945 Stalin would have salted the entire german country side and left nothing for the americans and brits to advance into and then they'd hold all of eastern europes families hostages while they forced the non soviet men they conquered to charge in the millions at the western armies, yes the west might win but it wouldn't even be worth it. The soviets had a regime that had absolutely no remorse for human life and they had the largest resource reserves in the entire world.

>>1472218
It seems you are correct. Retracted then

>>1472211
These dates seem arbitrary. Before 500 would certainly be Egypt or perhaps Assyria.
500-1BC/1AD (there is no 0 you fucking idiot) could be quite a few states. Rome didn't even reach its peak until the 110's AD.
This list is retarded, basically, and there aren't concrete answers until you got oddly specific with he more modern dates.

>>1472241
I said mongols you bastard

File: 1376547257651.jpg (56KB, 804x750px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 804x750px

>>1472218
>based on performance appraisals against a common German enemy, estimated roughly twice the effectiveness of a British or an American division vis a vis an average soviet one.
Certainly not in 1945. By then, the Soviet army was performing just as well, if not better, than the allies in the west. They also did better against the Japanese. And keep in mind the USSR was fighting the elite of the German army.

>>1472233
The armies before 500AD were all pretty similar so just pick the best ones, you obviously have Macedon, Persians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Romans, Chinese Dynasties, Alexander Successor Kingdoms, Great Caliphates etcs that were all pretty similar for several hundred years with the only major changes being tactics and generals commanding the armies.

>>1472211
>USSR 1945
>German Empire circa 1900's
>USA now
>defeating purpose of exercise
anyways, mongols is obv 1200-1400, German Empire USA and USSR in their years, Persia before 500 BC, Rome 500BC-0AD, British Empire 1800-1900, and French Empire 1700-1800. Beyond that, I'd say Charles V's Spanish Holy Roman empire for 1400-1600.

File: 1259197911481.jpg (46KB, 454x454px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 454x454px

>>1472257
>The armies before 500AD were all pretty similar
Antiquity is probably the period in History when armies were the LEAST similar.

>>1472058
This.

>>1472119
This if nukes aren't a factor.

After that probably Mongols.

>>1472256
>Completely forgot China, Korea and Southeast Asia

Good job Mavrody

>>1472266
I don't mean similar to one another but in terms of the time separating different empires and armies time isn't much of a separator as it is now. Take an army from 500AD and pit them against an army from 200-300 years earlier and it wouldn't be a stomp in the slightest. Take an army led by Pompey and he could probably fight with that army for the next 500+ years and still win

>>1472280
I'd be deeply interested to see what would happen if Romans faced medieval lancers.

>>1472226
you seem to believe that the russians of this time period are completely immune to seeing all of their male relatives die

what the government can do and what it can get away with are two different things

>>1472279
What about them?

>>1472282
They would do what romans always did, adapt

>>1472282
They were great at adapting military tactics, they certainly knew how to handle cavalry when they faced some of the tribes that were more inclined to mounted combat, the advancements of metallurgy would put the romans behind a bit but it wouldn't be a lost cause.

>>1472293
They would probably start using pike formations, just like europe did in the middle ages

>>1472279
>Korea

u wot?

>>1472306
I still get really hard at picturing them maintain the maniple formation and using the large scutum while using the tactics that Caesar used during the civil war Battle of Pharsalus where the legionaries used their pila to spear the cavalry in the face.

The crusaders were never defeated whenever they had their heavy cavalry.

>>1472319
Probably wouldnt have been that great against medieval heavy lances. I was more imagining a a centre made of pike squares or a macedonian phalanx with maniples and cav on the wings

>>1472324
They managed to fight elephants, I think they could adapt fighting heavy cavalry. Get a good roman general at the head like Pompey or Sulla and they wouldn't be outmatched in the slightest

>>1472330
Elephants are (literally) a very different animal to heavy lancers. Fair point though

>>1472336
They are a different beast entirely but they managed to adapt their tactics and make the elephants essentially useless and they even adopted them in their armies later. The romans were one of the most adaptable empires ever just because of the nature of their political system

>>1472344
>The romans were one of the most adaptable empires ever
I agree, thats what i've been saying. I was thinking spitballing about exactly how a roman legion would have adapted to deal with lancers

File: us_military_bases_outside_us.jpg (449KB, 1291x785px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 1291x785px

>>1472126
USSR has always been extremely weak on the naval front though - not much force projection (save for the nukes) even at their peak, especially in winter, when all their warm water ports were locked up by NATO. They kinda lived on the ability to threaten to bulldoze Europe, but during that time, the US (which, with a vast navy and bases all over the planet, had and has the best force projection the world has ever seen) would have bombed them into the stone age.

I suspect, for any meaningful answer to OP, you'd have to create a rather complex chart of who was the most powerful in any given century. As, yeah, comparing modern armies to ancient ones is pretty meaningless.

>>1472256

>Certainly not in 1945

When do you think Unthinkable was planned, anon?

> By then, the Soviet army was performing just as well, if not better, than the allies in the west.

You're kidding, right? It was advancing at comparable speeds and taking a hell of a lot more losses at a time when force split in the Heer was nearly even.

>They also did better against the Japanese.

By what possible metric can you say this? They overran the half-equipped Kwangtung army where they could surround them? As opposed to where narrow terrain limited U.S. firepower as they fought island by island?

> And keep in mind the USSR was fighting the elite of the German army.

Keep in mind you pulled that 'fact' out of your ass, and there is no recognizeable pattern to deploy elite vs non-elite units on any particular front that guys like Glantz or Porch could pick up.

>>1472386
>You're kidding, right? It was advancing at comparable speeds and taking a hell of a lot more losses at a time when force split in the Heer was nearly even.

The soviet leadership picked it up at the end, every single top soviet general was leagues better than any western general

>>1472394

I'm curious as to what metric you're using to make your incredibly broad blanket statement.

I would also point out that in a lot of observable metrics, perhaps not to generalship, but to a lot of the ancillary qualities associated with generalship, like accuracy and speed of communication up and down the ranks, the west had the Soviets beat rather badly.

>>1472398
In terms of just what the soviets had to work with, they completely outmaneuvered the germans in the last year of the war and crushed them in several battles.

>>1472293
The big thing would be that Romans didn't have stirrups, and the underarm lance allows a cavalryman to impart a ridiculous amount of force.

>>1472403

And how does that prove good generalship?

I mean hell, the Americans also completely outmaneuvered the Germans in France and crushed them in several battles. From your statement of "in terms of what the Soviets had to work with" implies that the motorized supply and logistical trail that the Americans were using somehow takes away from the generalship involved, and that the Soviets are superior for doing more or less the same thing. That's pretty ridiculous, and a testament to Soviet poverty, and even more extreme German poverty, not much to do with leadership at all.

>>1472085
Disagree.
Nuclear bomb was devastating but had two flaws at the time:
Extreme cost and time to produce
Extremely low radiation

Warheads weren't really stockpiled until much later.

>>1472455

Not that guy, but the primary cause of deaths in nuclear weapons has always been assumed to be in the blast. They emit surprisingly little radioactivity unless you attack a payload of more unstable isotopes.

>>1472455
Delivery was also a flaw, as was its low yield relative to the effort and time needed to produce it

>>1472465
For Fat Man and Little Boy about half died in the blast or shortly after and half died from everything else

>>1472119
except the Taliban
and NVA

>>1472506
Both had their militaries absolutely BTFO by the US

>>1472241
>Rome
>Persia
>British Empire
>French Empire
>Abbasid Caliphate
>etc, etc
These aren't nation states at all.

>>1472241
I fucking hate Americans and their history lessons.

>>1472049
US military

File: Battle of New Orleans aftermath.jpg (76KB, 317x677px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 317x677px

>>1472211
>British Empire
>Strong

File: WW1 Africa.png (32KB, 281x672px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 281x672px

>>1472211
>British Empire
>Strong

In a relative sense or an absolute sense?

Relative: The Mongol Army during the reign of Kublai Khan

Absolute: The Current US military

>>1472738
>Absolute: The Current US military
Only if you dont count nukes

>>1472144
The modern missile defense system of the USA could probably take out a good chunk of those

>>1472144
USSR missile systems were shit-tier. Modern defense systems would take out any that could even get off the ground.

File: 1454892915444.jpg (16KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 210x240px

>Control f "Grande Armée"
>zero results

>>1472752
>>1472764
Probably, but not enough. They had ~50000 thousand nukes remember, and really they could detonate them anywhere and still wipe out the human race

currently US

>but [insert pre-gunpowder army here] was the bravest and manliest and most intelligent

the US army can still kick its ass (any modern army can).

US.

>>1472750
You can count nukes and US would still be lot stronger. Soviets may have had more nukes, but US still has a very large, capable, actively maintained, tons of stockpile in there.

>>1472049
If you want just a direct answer to your question, the US.

but probably a better question would be who was the strongest military compared to any of their contemporary peers in history, which I'd throw my hat in for the Romans, who's only challengers were Persia and Han China, and multiple wars with Persia consistently showed Rome coming out on top.

>>1473645
Question remains which is stronger, Romans or China.

Because the debate is contentious, the answer cannot be either.

The rightful answer would be the Mongols. If you're looking for relative power difference.

>>1473655
China had better weapons

Romans had better armor

China's bureaucracy had better domestic management

but Romans had better diplomacy and transportation

so it's hard to judge

>>1473655
>>1473645
China has always been a gigantic faggot in war. They constantly got beaten by their tiny neighbors. Romans would pulverize them.

>>1473663
>China had better weapons
>Romans had better armor
[citation needed]

>>1472055
Nuke power barely matters when both countries can obliterate the world at any given moment.

>>1472145
>soviet industry
>bigger than the industry of america and western europe

are you retarded?

Why is this even a question? It's obviously the United States of America, if you're not counting nukes (USA and Russia could both wipe out the earth with nukes, so they're on par with each other).

>>1474031
This, Chinese are the kings of jobbers

File: France vs the world and wins.jpg (729KB, 1701x2005px) Image search: [Google]

729KB, 1701x2005px

>ctrl f "Grande Armée"
>no results

They defeated the entirety of Europe, and their forerunners did the same while France was still in revolution.

>>1472049

The American/NATO/Soviet complex.

Nuclear monopoly was at one point unique only to the United States of America.

>>1474845
>Grande Armée
>post a pic of the French Revolutionary wars
wew lad

>>1472049
NATO

>>1474892
>doesn't read the entire post
wew lad

File: Atomic_bombing_of_Japan[1].jpg (2MB, 4918x2918px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4918x2918px

>>1472049
The United States, particularly in the immediate aftermath of World War II, is the single powerful state that ever existed.

The people in this thread who say Soviet Union apparently have bought into Cold War propaganda. The USSR was never really as big of a threat to the US as it was depicted: the Soviet Union could not possibly compete with the US, militarily or economically, let alone be a greater power. That rhetoric was partially hyped up to justify and continue the military industrial complex.

The US continues to be the largest military power, keep in mind that World War was not that long ago, albeit that is much weaker now than it was after WW2, it still gets to call the shots to a large extent and is still the most powerful state to exist on Earth.

>>1474992
follow up to this, if we're talking in terms of the context of the times that military powers were in, then it would be something of a toss-up between the Mongolian Empire, the British Empire, and the United States. If you want to go back further, then the Roman Empire and its contemporary Chinese empires would be somewhere up there.

If we're talking in absolutes though, then the US easily. The US, again, in the aftermath of WW2, was in a position of unparalleled power in terms of sheer global domination. The closest thing to them would probably be the British Empire, which I guess is somewhat appropriate seeing as how the US essentially took over (or tried to, to varying success) territories of the British, and even recruited the British as a sort of junior partner (special relationship anyone?) in world domination.

The British Empire, however, did not have nukes and aircraft carriers.

>>1474845
>Grande Armée
>it suffered terrible losses during the French invasion of Russia in 1812
Does russia blow everyone the fuck out?

>>1475110
Are there any weapons in history that were the equivalent of atomic bombs, ie so immensely destructive compared to existing weaponry that to challenge the owner is unthinkable?

>>1475172
>French take Moscow
>Russians chimp out and burn the city, iand also burn their own crops and infrastructures
>thousands of Russians die of starvation as a result
>"hahaha ivan yuo of genius! we are victorious!"

>>1475180
Greek fire was pretty scary, especially since it could burn on water, but it was hard to make and rarely used

File: Britain's false empire.png (477KB, 886x2414px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 886x2414px

>>1475110
>British Empire
Using gatling guns, advanced rifles, and combined arms against spear chucking tribes doesn't make you strong whatsoever.

File: america26.png (1MB, 1592x1136px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1592x1136px

>>1475202
getting raped by nguyen and dong doesn't make you a superpower, sanchez.

>>1474833
>USA and Russia could both wipe out the earth with nukes

no they couldn't, that's not how nukes work

>>1475222
>mig-21
>grad mlrs
>btr


>outdated
>1965

Roughly
French army 1792-1815
British navy 1815-1922
Russian army 1815-1871
Prusso-German army 1871-1918

>>1475180

Based on what I know though, there are a number of weapons and tactics that gave people an "unfair advantage" so to speak in the context of their times.

The British Empire essentially rode off on the success of the industrial revolution. The quote "Whatever happens, we have got. The Maxim gun, and they have not." (Pic related) backs this (pic related), but there were other side effects of being the most successful industrialized nation that contributed to this: more nourished population, more powerful economy, etc.

Kind of like how it's not just nukes that puts the US miles ahead of everyone else.

In terms of single identifiable revolutionary military capabilities, the Mongols would up there because they were just about undefeated with horseback archery.

The Ottomans would be noteworthy as well as because their use of canons and gunpowder sort of marked a new era, as Constantinople' walls essentially became meaningless.

The Romans had superior organizational methods and engineering as well.

The Greeks under Alexander would be there as well. There is no real technological advantage that they had: they were just really fucking good at fighting.

>>1475202
No, actually, it fucking does, seeing as how they existed at the same time.

>>1475222
I don't understand how people can't grasp modern warfare and distill it to this meme

>>1474031
Both Rome and China had their share of fuckups and successes. Rome got fucked by the Huns, now imagine having the Huns as your neighbors for thousands of years. That's what being China was like.

>>1475250
>No, actually, it fucking does, seeing as how they existed at the same time.
Existence =/= Strength

Monaco exists but the state has no military.

>>1475255
>Rome got fucked by the Huns
The Huns got fucked up so much by Rome that Attila himself tried making a pyre right on the battlefield to kill himself. And that was when Rome was weak and collapsing on its own.

>now imagine having the Huns as your neighbors for thousands of years. That's what being China was like.
That's exactly what makes it embarrassing. They should have gotten used to this kind of warfare and adapted to it.

>>1475255
>Rome got fucked by the Huns

They got paid off by the East, raided a handful of cities and then went west. Then they got beaten to a stalemate by a pathetic ragtag bunch of barbarians, then almost got wiped out by malaria in the marshes of Italy and then their leader died by choking to death in his sleep. Within half a decade they had vanished as a threat due to civil war and the remaining ones fled back east towards the Black Sea where they cowered before being cucked out of existence.

The Huns are one of the most overrated threats in history.

>>1475265
>china so buttblasted by the huns they just built a wall to keep them out

>>1472241
>nation-states

>>1475202
This is a bait image, but in case anyone takes it seriously
The fact isn't Britain dominating tribals that makes them an empire, it's defending that land from others. Anyone can scare some natives with fancy weaponry, but not everyone can hold it against other real nations

>>1475260
What the hell do you think "military strength" refers to exactly?

Is it whose armies can deadlift the most or some shit?

Saying "oh well it's not fair, the British had machine guns" is like saying "oh well it's not fair, the US used nukes on Japan" - no shit it's not fair, the question is about who has the greater capability and power.

I invite you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Camar%C3%B3n

The french foreign legion is pretty based.

>>1472351
>Greenland
what the fuck

>>1475284
>retreating to your island is strength

>>1475285
While Britain was shooting nearly defenseless tribesmen, Prussia was consecutively waging war against Austria and eventually France, both of which were formidable foes.

While France and Germany were brutally fighting WW1 in Europe, the anglos and their foreign slave soldiers in Africa (along with Belgium, France, and Portugal), despite greatly outnumbering their foe, were defeated time and time again by German Askari.

>"b-but muh navy!"
Your navy doesn't mean shit when your forces get ravaged every time they're on land (see Napoleonic Wars).

>>1475387
Refresh my memory, who won WW1 again?

>>1475404
France

>>1475387
Willy did say "if the British Army invades, I'll have them arrested." The navy isn't known as the Senior Service for nothing.

I think a better question would be "what was the strongest military compared to its contemporaries?"

Otherwise modern militaries are clearly stronger than pre-modern, just from technology.

>>1475172
Logistically it is extremely hard to invade. Maybe nowadays it wouldn't but at the time it would've been a logistical fuckfest to get supplies from france all the way over across the entire continent over to Moscow in the middle of a Russian winter.

File: strangelove gum.gif (428KB, 500x322px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 500x322px

>>1472119
Technology won't help you if you don't have leaderswith good strategic thought

File: polar bears.jpg (87KB, 960x663px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 960x663px

>>1475364
Greenland is really strategic. Tons of aircraft take the polar route because it's shorter. It's also close to Russia and Europe.

>>1475172
Everyone except the mongols.

>>1472058
>country A being able to destroy the world 1001 times is somehow superior than country B who is able to destroy the world only 1000 times

>>1475194
This.

Russia would probably be better off today if Napoleon had conquered it and installed puppet there.

>>1475404
Nobody.

>>1475194
>country invades Russia
>Russians chimp out and burn the cities, iands also burn their own crops and infrastructures
>hundreds of thousands of Russians die of starvation as a result
>"hahaha ivan yuo of genius! we are victorious!"
Fixed that for you.