Best army of WW1?

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
Englander
Member
Posts: 677
Joined: 12 Aug 2003, 21:55
Location: Blighty

#151

Post by Englander » 24 Apr 2005, 00:07

panzerkrieg wrote:
Panzer6 wrote:Of course the Germans were the most powerful in ww1. They had to face the French, Russians, and the British for three years. They then had to face a fresh USA even with Russia out. They had almost usless allies that were really only good at their strategic positions. When they had their army free on the East it was way too late as Germany was totally exhausted. Even then, the French and the British were scared to face the full power of Germany. The Allies were strong, I agree but the Germans were stronger. They just had bad timings and bad luck.
Perfect...couldnt agree with you more
1914-1918

MARABA
Banned
Posts: 91
Joined: 22 Feb 2005, 22:43
Location: WAGRAN

6

#152

Post by MARABA » 25 Apr 2005, 14:16

[quote="Kaan Caglar"][quote="Sokol"]Turkish warrior spirit? Where was it in Kumanovo, during the Balkan Wars of the years prior to WWI? The Serbian and Ottoman armies met pretty much head-on, each having no knowledge of the other, and it was a wild melee from the start. The Ottomans were mauled.

Agreed, also the classic example of how the British as a seemly norm,
treated non-English troops..

Heard Gallipoli was one of the reason that Australia and New Zealand
became Commonwealth and no longer Dominion?

Gallipoli might be popular with US people, cause of our own history with
British troops and like?


The Argus
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 11 Oct 2004, 11:23
Location: Melbourne Australia

#153

Post by The Argus » 26 Apr 2005, 17:36

What a question... and what a responce!

Good lord, 11 pages.

Who was the Best?

For my money I subscribe to the viewpoint of those in the best position to make that judgment for themselves, the typical Australian view as per Bean, was that the best army in WWI, would have had a German Staff, Australian officers, British NCO's, Turkish enlisted ranks and a French field brothel... (the last was unpublished by Bean).

It might be avoiding the question to some extent, but its still about as accurate as any other opinion. 'Best' changes from day to day, and our view is coloured by the history we read. That history is always biased, if only by the authors imagination and scope, our impressions of that work are equally clouded by our our own views and imaginations. When ONE person writes a comperhensive history of every division in every army of the war, and we've all read the book(S), then we might, just might be competant to make some tentitive conclusions about who was the best of all/at all times.

Till then...waftam

shane.

turk
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 11 Apr 2005, 23:30
Location: turkey

#154

Post by turk » 17 May 2005, 06:38

german army.olsa ottoman army in galipoli

User avatar
us11thairborne
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 01 Apr 2005, 04:42
Location: United States

#155

Post by us11thairborne » 18 May 2005, 23:43

Germany

Afrika-limited, however strong under Colonel Lettow Vorbeck
Europe-strong
Pacific-limited
Oceans-limited
Middle East-average

Overall: German Military was limited in MANY regions, however their discipline, and determination to win, helped Germany secure many victories, Afrika especially. Even though Germany was not as well equipped and did not have the most troops, Germany had the best military of World War I.

User avatar
Two Litre
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 11 May 2005, 23:46
Location: London

#156

Post by Two Litre » 19 May 2005, 15:00

Africa? Britain employed colonials. the Indians even ran away at one point.

Gallipoli - Turks suffered most casualties despite having the strong points of ridges and hills. Splendid evacuation from the peninsula while the British 13th assigned the rearguard:

The Helles withdrawal took place only after one of the most ferocious Turkish assaults of the campaign. The Turks did not want the Allied troops to escape without loss as at Anzac and Suvla, but his assault against the British 13th Division holding Gully Spur was met with tremendous resistance: the Turkish losses were never revealed. 164 British casualties were the price of ensuring the complete withdrawal of over 35 000 men from Helles.

(Other theatres)

Palestine Front - February 1915 to December 1917

British General Allenby's timely implementation of Prime Minister Lloyd George's directive to capture Jerusalem by Christmas 1917. He did so, with two weeks to spare.

Mesopotamian Front - November 1914 to October 1918

These include the many epic struggles fought along the banks of the River Tigris; from the seemingly unstoppable advance of the British throughout 1915 to the resurgence of their Turk opposition in 1916 culminating in the British humiliation at Kut-al-Amara in April 1916.

British fortunes revived however with the appointment of Sir Frederick Stanley Maude as regional Commander-in-Chief, as success after success finally led to complete British victory in the region in October 1918.

Frederick Maude C in C

A cautious and consistent rather than spectacular commander, Maude - known as 'Systematic Joe' - nevertheless led his forces in a series of victories up the Tigris, starting with the Second Battle of Kut right up to the capture of Baghdad on 11 March 1917.

Maude's continuing unbroken run of victories ensured that no scaling down of operations in Mesopotamia could feasibly be considered as Maude's reputation grew in the Muslim world.

Thus British operations were widened to stem threats from Turk forces on the Euphrates, Diyala and Tigris rivers. April 1917 saw Maude triumph again, at Samarrah and he continued his offensive at Ramadi and Tikrit.

General Barrett proved his worth:

Expeditionary Force 'D' had proven to be far more successful than anyone imagined. The 'ever victorious army' as it would become known, had managed to capture a major Turkish city without a single defeat along the way and with relatively few casualties. In India, the success of 'D' led some to begin to dream of a greater prize - Baghdad.

http://www.king-emperor.com/article2.htm

marksy64
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 28 Oct 2016, 17:08
Location: USA

Re: Best army of WW1?

#157

Post by marksy64 » 29 Oct 2016, 18:17

Never in the history of war did a one hundred thousand men army ( Canadians ) make such a huge impact on a war, Canadian innovation in war fair far out did the Germans, Sir Arthur Currie was a great and the first modern General, The Canadians perfected the creeping barrage, the first to give their men maps so they knew were they were going, Decentralize command by making the platoon independent and could work on its own, each platoon had a machine gunner, a engineer, sapper, sniper and so on, they knew a bout artillery and its affect on German artillery instead of firing at men, 83% of the German artillery was taken out by the time the vimy battle even started, flash spotting, sound rangeing all perfected at vimy, They spear headed every attack after vimy along with Australian troops on some occasions, The big German spring offensive, well the Germans attacked but went by the Canadians on both sides, and why, because they got their ass handed to them every battle against the Canadians and that's a fact, What makes me laugh is how *** Personal comment removed by this moderator *** who just can not get over the fact that the Germans lost, twice, and to blame others for their own decision to fight on two fronts and then tells us all they had the best commanders lol, really, who would fight on two fronts ? not a good commander, All these inovations are universal now, all the armies started to do this, *** Personal comment removed by this moderator *** I am American so I do not have any problem saying the Canucks had the best army in ww1, and for you to be arguing a bout it makes me feel sorry for you, this is all facts, it can be researched, try it, you have a computer, then you have *** Personal comment removed by this moderator *** who is saying Canadians killed P.O.W.S, Of course they did, I do not blame them because they were attack army, no attacking army is going to take prisoners , you can not put them anywhere, What are they suppost to take them with them while they are attacking *** Personal comment removed by this moderator ***, Do some research before you come on here and cry a bout how great the German army was, Name one battle the Germans won against the Canadians after Vimy, NONE, and do not say you guys were out numbered that's just insane, The Canadians were out numbered and still kicked butt.

*** Post Edited. T .Duncan ***

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Best army of WW1?

#158

Post by Terry Duncan » 29 Oct 2016, 19:55

marksy64, please do not insult other members here just because you do not like their views, it is against the rules and tends to lead to flame wars that serve no purpose. T Duncan

User avatar
Guaporense
Banned
Posts: 1866
Joined: 07 Oct 2009, 03:35
Location: USA

Re: Best army of WW1?

#159

Post by Guaporense » 30 Oct 2016, 02:45

The Italians were the best performing. Managing to hold the might of Austria for several years, while the incompetent French British Commonwealth and Americans couldn't defeat the German army in the west for 4 years despite massive strategic advantages (they should have been in Berlin by 1916 if fhey were competent). The Russians actually performed well given the state of the country's industrial development as well. Overall I have these impressions, I might change them over time.
"In tactics, as in strategy, superiority in numbers is the most common element of victory." - Carl von Clausewitz

User avatar
donwhite
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 01:38
Location: Australia

Re: Best army of WW1?

#160

Post by donwhite » 30 Oct 2016, 11:15

National sensitivities aside, military competency and the multiple battles of the Isonzo don't gel very well. See Mark Thompson's "The White War: Life and Death on the Italian Front 1915-19" for a perspective. As for the 'might' of Austria - didn't the flower of its military bleed out in Galicia in '14 before Italy's entry? A look at the comparative balance of forces on the Italian Front would be interesting as well.

Cheers

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Best army of WW1?

#161

Post by Sheldrake » 30 Oct 2016, 18:23

It depends on how define "Best Army". Perhaps in the same way that we look at sports teams.

One way is to look at who won the competition.

Overall the Armies of the British Empire has to be counted as a winner. The British were the only European Entente nation whose army had not been broken. In 1918 they recovered from the German offensives and got a second wind. In 1918 the BEF took as many prisoners as all other allies combined. They ended the war with the worlds largest - and only independent air force. Their combined arms tactics were effective in mobile warfare and included the innovative use of technology. The British ended the competition very strongly.

The Australians and Canadians provided excellent army corps within an army of some 5.5 million, but they were just a corps d'elite providing nine out of 50+ divisions on the Western front. Vimy Ridge was a well conducted attack, but the tactics used were those developed by the BEF on the Somme and not confined to the CEF.

The BEF were the "winning team" so there is a good reason to call us the best

OTOH You can look at the performance of trams in matches and their individual components. There is no doubt there was much to admire about the German Army. It was the strongest army in 1914. Statistically Germans were more effective than the Entente powers. Their stosstruppen tactics caught the imagination. They won their matches against the Russians Italians and French.

User avatar
Tanzania
Member
Posts: 927
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 14:59
Location: Benghazi / Libya

Re: Best army of WW1?

#162

Post by Tanzania » 31 Oct 2016, 17:54

.

Hi Sheldrake,

Maybe you are right in what you are listed.

But try to see it from another perspective. What would happened when the British Army have to
fight against France, Russia, Germany, Italy, USA . . . and all the other countries in the world which
were `persuaded´ to start also War against Britain.

Honestly; - would you think Britain were also be able to continue a war for four years?

Cheers Holger
.
“Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. . . . All History was a
palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary” – G. ORWELL 1984

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Best army of WW1?

#163

Post by Sheldrake » 01 Nov 2016, 00:56

Tanzania wrote:.

Hi Sheldrake,

Maybe you are right in what you are listed.

But try to see it from another perspective. What would happened when the British Army have to
fight against France, Russia, Germany, Italy, USA . . . and all the other countries in the world which
were `persuaded´ to start also War against Britain.

Honestly; - would you think Britain were also be able to continue a war for four years?

Cheers Holger
.

Britain didn't have to fight against all those countries in WW1. However, for much of the period 1808-1813 Britain fought mostly alone against Bonaparte's Europe, And between June 1940 and June 1941 against Hitler's Europe.

Armed force is comprised of the physical, conceptual and moral components. Whatever the strength of the German army and its tactical competence its senior leadership showed very poor strategic judgement.

User avatar
Tanzania
Member
Posts: 927
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 14:59
Location: Benghazi / Libya

Re: Best army of WW1?

#164

Post by Tanzania » 01 Nov 2016, 04:18

Britain didn't have to fight against all those countries in WW1. However, for much of the period 1808-1813 Britain fought mostly alone against Bonaparte's Europe, And between June 1940 and June 1941 against Hitler's Europe.
That´s not an answer to my question; . . . and no answer is also an answer. . .
(And I also understand that this is up today a sensible question for the most English people.)


Armed force is comprised of the physical, conceptual and moral components.
I agree with your mentioned points.


Whatever the strength of the German army and its tactical competence its senior leadership showed very poor strategic judgement.
I agree also. Germany have had in his military history never been so successful with its aggressive global imperialisms like Great Britain.

But we have digressed from the topic.
“Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. . . . All History was a
palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary” – G. ORWELL 1984

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Best army of WW1?

#165

Post by Sheldrake » 01 Nov 2016, 20:28

Tanzania wrote:
Britain didn't have to fight against all those countries in WW1. However, for much of the period 1808-1813 Britain fought mostly alone against Bonaparte's Europe, And between June 1940 and June 1941 against Hitler's Europe.
That´s not an answer to my question; . . . and no answer is also an answer. . .
(And I also understand that this is up today a sensible question for the most English people.)


Armed force is comprised of the physical, conceptual and moral components.
I agree with your mentioned points.


Whatever the strength of the German army and its tactical competence its senior leadership showed very poor strategic judgement.
I agree also. Germany have had in his military history never been so successful with its aggressive global imperialisms like Great Britain.

But we have digressed from the topic.
No we haven't . An Army is comprised of Conceptual, Physical and Moral components. The Germans fashioned a flawed force with a fatal weakness in strategic conceptual level. German failure taints whatever admiration one may have of its tactical doctrine and equipment/

#1 The Germans were blind to any strategy other than annihilation. They gambled recklessly in 1914 and 1918.
#2 The Germans grossly under estimated French resolve in 1916 and US determination in 1917-8
#3 The Germans underestimated the British.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”