# History's Greatest Army?



## Remius (12 Mar 2008)

Not sure what all the criteria would be. 

I would say Alexander the Great's Macedonians.  They had superb leadership, conquered the known world in 10 years and spread Western ideals and philosophy across the globe.  They were adaptable to change and able to face foes several time their numbers.

Any takers?


----------



## ghyslyn (12 Mar 2008)

the mongolians

everyone always refers to them as "a barbaric horde"

but once you think about it, against the romans they were almost always outnumbered, they were utterly nomadic so really it wasnt an army representing a nation, but just a group of people called an army, moving cities. not to mention their technology was way before their time, especially for their bows.

now when youre ordering a couple of thousand foot soldiers, who have a shield, a short sword and 2 javelins each, what are you going to do against an army of enemy mounted archers?

nothing

perfect example of this is crassus' infantry against parthian mounted archers at the battle of Carrhae, if you dont know the result, lets just say, major parthian victory, crassus was captured and to kill him they poured melted gold down his throat as a sign that roman greed will never reach parthian riches


----------



## timma (12 Mar 2008)

I would have to say the German army in WW2. Their blitzkrieg tactics were revolutionary, they had highly trained Infantry , and they had IMHO some of the best tanks in WW2. Ex Panther, Tiger tanks. Normandy, for example,  saw the Allies with an overwhelming superiority in  everything yet the Germans still fought on and inflicted heavy casualties against  the Allied armies. Their only downfall  was Hitler and later in the war, his unwillingness to yield an inch of ground and being mistrustful of his High command.


----------



## infanteer-it (12 Mar 2008)

Well you're gonna have to specify 'some' criteria heh otherwise it is entirely subjective. Fighting ability? Land conquered? Strategies? Definetely the Macedonians are up there. Pound for pound the Spartans were the best fighters. Then you have the superb organization and tactics that were the Roman army which allowed them to retain most of the land they conquered unlike Alexander who frequently lost many of his conquests not long after taking them. 

I'm going to go with Spartans, just because I wish someone had groomed me to be a warrior from a young age. Hah!

Edit: I assumed "History's Greatest Army" meant ancient history.


----------



## ghyslyn (12 Mar 2008)

Hewitt said:
			
		

> I would have to say the German army in WW2. Their blitzkrieg tactics were revolutionary, they had highly trained Infantry , and they had IMHO some of the best tanks in WW2. Ex Panther, Tiger tanks. Normandy, for example,  saw the Allies with an overwhelming superiority in  everything yet the Germans still fought on and inflicted heavy casualties against  the Allied armies. Their only downfall  was Hitler and later in the war, his unwillingness to yield an inch of ground and being mistrustful of his High command.



2 things, 1: the blitzkrieg tactic was revolutionary, but not their tactic, they didnt invent it, they just adopted it, and 2: at the beginning of the war France actually had the best tanks, and the most tanks, but they didnt use them properly(comparing the german blitzkrieg use of tanks to the french maginot line of tanks, keeping a tank in one, obvious position for defence isnt an effective use of its power)


----------



## timma (12 Mar 2008)

Do you know who actually invented the Blitzkrieg tactic?


----------



## ghyslyn (12 Mar 2008)

Hewitt said:
			
		

> Do you know who actually invented the Blitzkrieg tactic?



I don't, but if I remember well it was used during the spanish civil war.


----------



## Remius (12 Mar 2008)

infanteer-it said:
			
		

> Well you're gonna have to specify 'some' criteria heh otherwise it is entirely subjective. Fighting ability? Land conquered? Strategies? Definetely the Macedonians are up there. Pound for pound the Spartans were the best fighters. Then you have the superb organization and tactics that were the Roman army which allowed them to retain most of the land they conquered unlike Alexander who frequently lost many of his conquests not long after taking them.
> 
> I'm going to go with Spartans, just because I wish someone had groomed me to be a warrior from a young age. Hah!
> 
> Edit: I assumed "History's Greatest Army" meant ancient history.



I would say the Spartans may have been History's finest warriors but as far as armies go they we'rent that hot.  They were very good on their home turf but beyond that they were not.  The Thebans I believe manhandled them with newer tactics, the Spartans being very inflexible beyond their traditional way of fighting.


----------



## TCBF (12 Mar 2008)

- Man for man, possibly the Army of The Confederate States of America.


----------



## ghyslyn (12 Mar 2008)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I would say the Spartans may have been History's finest warriors but as far as armies go they we'rent that hot.  They were very good on their home turf but beyond that they were not.  The Thebans I believe manhandled them with newer tactics, the Spartans being very inflexible beyond their traditional way of fighting.



Sometimes the traditional way is the best way, if you ask me I find the phalanx to be the most effective tactic until the late medieval era


----------



## Danjanou (12 Mar 2008)

Ok if we’re going to do this ( and I personally hate these cyber Johnson measuring contests) lets set some criteria.

First should be period in history, otherwise comparing the Panzer Mk VG  Panther to a Hoplite is just going to get silly.

At the very least lets divide historical aspects into 3 distinct areas

1-Modern say post industrial revolution to present, (and one could easily argue splitting this again into up until mid 1930’s and after)

2- Introduction of gunpowder weapons say mid 1th-14th century up until the end of the Napoleonic Wars 

3- Ancient- Herodutus up until and including  the end of the Crusades.

These are as noted very general  but at least give us a place to start. 

Second offer examples of why, weaponry and/or innovative use  of ( English long bow fro example). A specific effective tactic ( British development of platoon volley fire in the 1700s).

Third lets keep it civil and relatively on topic.


----------



## Remius (12 Mar 2008)

ghyslyn said:
			
		

> the mongolians
> 
> everyone always refers to them as "a barbaric horde"
> 
> ...



Were you talking about the Huns or the Mongols?  Although effective the Huns were defeated in the end by the Romans and didn't last very long after.  The Mongols certainly rank up there (they never really faced teh Romans as they appeared some 500-600 years after Rome fell), I had overlooked them.

You talk about Crassus and the Parthians, one battle.  The Romans had difficulty with them for sure but the Parthians had just as much trouble with the Roman provinces they tried to conquer.  Also Trajan and Severus (who probably dealt the death blow to the Parthians) had great success against the Parthians.  the Romans were eventually able to adapt whereas the parthians couldn't.


----------



## Remius (12 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Man for man, possibly the Army of The Confederate States of America.



Good call on that one as well.  Imagine had they been better equipped and financed...


----------



## Remius (12 Mar 2008)

ghyslyn said:
			
		

> Sometimes the traditional way is the best way, if you ask me I find the phalanx to be the most effective tactic until the late medieval era



Not really.  The Romans steamrolled over the greeks. By that time the Greeks were using Philipps Macedonian Phalanx formation (the most effective of its kind).  The Spartans began their decline at the Battle of Leuctra (an interesting battle that highlights the Spartan's weakness) at the hands of the Thebans.  They were never able to recover.  Philipp's Macedonian Phallanx was introduced after and was very dominant until the Romans tactics and formations smashed it.


----------



## Remius (12 Mar 2008)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Ok if we’re going to do this ( and I personally hate these cyber Johnson measuring contests) lets set some criteria.
> 
> First should be period in history, otherwise comparing the Panzer Mk VG  Panther to a Hoplite is just going to get silly.
> 
> ...



Ok, sets a few parameters.

1.  Modern- Pre-1930's I would go with the Confederate army.  Post- The current US military machine.

2.  Intro to gunpowder  era 11th to 1400ad- I'd say Edward III's English army.  Proffesionalised, adaptable and effective.

3.  Ancient- Alexander's macedonians followed closely by the Roman Army pattern after Marius' reforms.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Mar 2008)

I've noticed that no one has mentioned the Canadian Army of WWII. Do they not deserve an honorable mention at least?
My reasons:
1. They did not fight to conquer, but to liberate;
2. Canada was one of three countries to have their own "Beach" (JUNO) on D-Day and if I am correct, if Juno beach hadn't been taken D-Day may have failed;
3. The fought against the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS, and were ultimately victorius. The Canadian Army was allegely praised by Rommel.....can anyone confirm this?

Just the thoughts of a Canadian soldier....


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Mar 2008)

This is a very subjective matter with no one correct answer, in my opinion at least. It seems to me that one of the key criteria would be the enemy the army fought. Other factors could include the exploitation of the available technology, the quality of the national and military command structure and the ability of the candidate army to maintain and sustain itself.

And to add a different flavour to this, both the Incas and the Aztecs deserve serious consideration, as does Shaka's  nineteenth century Zulu army.


----------



## ballz (12 Mar 2008)

I have very limited knowledge in this stuff, so here's the impression your everyday high school is put under, with absolutely nothing to really back it up:

1. Modern Era, the US army is almost unstoppable based on the fact that they have all the latest technology and a whole load of it. When it comes down to quantity, the US leads in everything. That'll happen when you spend 3 trillion dollars on it.
2. The Gunpowder Era, to me, I think Napolean's French army. Other then a bad break with the weather and one bad decision, this army could have won any battle.
3. The Romans.... you don't rule the world for 400-800 years for nothing...

My insight isn't anything to value much, but I just wanna throw out my 2 cents worth


As for recognizing the Canadian Army.... I'm sure we've all read the article by a Brit about how we're the perpetual wallflower. It's 100% true, and while I believe we are the best trained army, and pound for pound I like our chances with anybody, we just don't have the money flowing into our military to go and take over any country at will like the US. That being said, I don't think we'd be an easy country to take over, so thats comforting.


----------



## KJL (12 Mar 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> Other then a bad break with the weather and one bad decision.....
> 
> 
> As for recognizing the Canadian Army.... I'm sure we've all read the article by a Brit about how we're the perpetual wallflower. It's 100% true, and while I believe we are the best trained army, and pound for pound I like our chances with anybody, we just don't have the money flowing into our military to go and take over any country at will like the US. That being said, I don't think we'd be an easy country to take over, so thats comforting.



Haha thats a nice way of putting it!

Does anyone know where this article is? Haven't heard and Id be curious to read it


----------



## Danjanou (12 Mar 2008)

If we're going to look at our own, I'd put my tuppence on the Cdn Corp in WW1 post Vimy. Perhaps the best large unit on the Western Front.

OS I was wondering when someone would take off the Eurocentric blinders. I Agree Shaka's reforms are well worth a mention on our list. He took what was basically a weak small tribal organization and in the psace of a generation transformed it into one of the best examples of a completely militarized society, and magnificent and deadly fighting force.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Mar 2008)

Hewitt said:
			
		

> Do you know who actually invented the Blitzkrieg tactic?


The Germans invented "Blitzkrieg" as we know it today


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Mar 2008)

My vote would be (modern era) the Red Army of WWII. They mastered operational art and defeated a very modern and well-equipped Western Army on the way to Berlin.


----------



## ballz (12 Mar 2008)

KJL said:
			
		

> Does anyone know where this article is? Haven't heard and Id be curious to read it



for you my good fellow, and anyone else who hasn't read it yet:



> Sunday Telegraph Article From today's UK wires:
> 
> Salute to a brave and modest nation - Kevin Myers, The Sunday
> Telegraph LONDON
> ...


----------



## TCBF (12 Mar 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> My vote would be (modern era) the Red Army of WWII. They mastered operational art and defeated a very modern and well-equipped Western Army on the way to Berlin.



- And they did it after having executed a large part of their effective officer corps only three years before they were invaded.  Hence their horrific losses.


----------



## Koenigsegg (12 Mar 2008)

Although the Red Army was very good, I would not say they were the greatest because of how they fought.  They certainly made use of what they had (numbers), but to such a degree that they were throwing lives away.  They knew the Germans had limited supplies and ammunition, so if they kept throwing men at the German lines eventually something good would happen.
But for being masters of the cold, they have my vote.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Mar 2008)

This thread is retarded.  I vote for the Transformers because they had the Allspark....


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Mar 2008)

Clearly the best Army in history is the US Army. ;D


----------



## Red 6 (12 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - And they did it after having executed a large part of their effective officer corps only three years before they were invaded.  Hence their horrific losses.



Agreed TCBF. At the moment I'm reading (coincidentally) "Life and Fate" by Vassili Grossman, which is a biographical novel of World War II, specifically the campaign for and around Stalingrad, as seen through the lens of the Russians who took part in the battle. One of the underlying themes is the purges and how Stalin and his henchmen thoroughly gutted the command structure of the Red Army. Another aspect of the Red Army's defeat was how completely it was controlled by the commissar system.

cheers, Mark


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Mar 2008)

Other than the Transformers, the Red Army (as an ARMY, not as individual divisions), was large enough of a thinker to have operational art to a science.  It wasn't simply a matter of pounding head on into the Wehrmacht that won it the war (that method failed miserably in 1941-42).  By late 42 and especially by mid 1944, the Red Army was able to fool the Germans time and again,able to meet most of their aims.  Their losses weren't only due to useless tactics at the lower level, but because of the steadfastness and ability of the Wehrmacht to inflict those losses.  In the end, with or without D-Day and the strategic bombing campaign, the Red Army was destined to defeat the Wehrmacht.

And for the record, Decipticons rock.


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 Mar 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This thread is retarded.  I vote for the Transformers because they had the Allspark....



What, not this one?


----------



## the 48th regulator (12 Mar 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This thread is retarded.  I vote for the Transformers because they had the Allspark....



Pfft,

G.I Joe from 25 years ago whupped Cobras aise from this side of the Globe to the other.

The Roman Army Under Julius Ceaser for the aspects of the Infantry, Theodosius' army commanded by Stillicho and his use of the Calvalry.

As for the term Barbarians, the Mongols were not the ones referred to as Barbarians, the Germanic Tribes were for their _Barbas_, the beards they wore.

Other than that, the only other one I see is the 48th Highlanders in the 90's, specifically the First Platoon of Alpha Company, fondly known and feared for their name "The Regulators".

Such prowess they had...

dileas

tess


----------



## marshall sl (12 Mar 2008)

Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, A Coy 1 Platoon 1 Section  circa 1977-1979 even with Danjanou in it!!!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Mar 2008)

Pffft
you guys know SFA if you have listed all the above. Everyone knows the greatest army of all time is the CBLA (Cape Breton Liberation Army) under that god of a tactician General John Cabot Trail. :


----------



## CougarKing (12 Mar 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Pfft,
> 
> As for the term Barbarians, the Mongols were not the ones referred to as Barbarians, the Germanic Tribes were for their _Barbas_, the beards they wore.



Apparently the Mongol hordes never met Asterix and Obelix the Gauls with their tribe's magic potion!!!!  ;D

Or the knights of NITZ who have a SHRUBBERY!!!!!!!!!!!  >


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 Mar 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Pffft
> you guys know SFA if you have listed all the above. Everyone knows the greatest army of all time is the CBLA (Cape Breton Liberation Army) under that god of a tactician General John Cabot Trail. :



And the Royal Cape Breton Air Force.


----------



## RTaylor (12 Mar 2008)

I was playing World of Warcraft, my guild is the best army around.

-joke-

I'm not sure, but the current US Army if they fought like armies did long ago (without fear of reprisal or much care of how they won) would be 1 nasty dish to go around.


----------



## ghyslyn (12 Mar 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> As for the term Barbarians, the Mongols were not the ones referred to as Barbarians, the Germanic Tribes were for their _Barbas_, the beards they wore.



Really? I thought it was greek for "stranger"

edit:

1.	a person in a savage, primitive state; uncivilized person.
2.	a person without culture, refinement, or education; philistine.
3.	(loosely) a foreigner.
4.	(in ancient and medieval periods)
a.	a non-Greek.
b.	a person living outside, esp. north of, the Roman Empire.
c.	a person not living in a Christian country or within a Christian civilization.
5.	(among Italians during the Renaissance) a person of non-Italian origin.
–adjective
6.	uncivilized; crude; savage.
7.	foreign; alien.


----------



## the 48th regulator (12 Mar 2008)

ghyslyn said:
			
		

> Really? I thought it was greek for "stranger"
> 
> edit:
> 
> ...



Who were the Greeks?

dileas

tess


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (13 Mar 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This thread is retarded.  I vote for the Transformers because they had the Allspark....



I'll raise you one General Veers AT-AT legion on Hoth.  They could pretty much pwn anybody.  Even a Jedi had to run before them.

The Normans should be considered as well, along with the Roman army from the time when Scipio _Africanus _ was in charge against the Carthaginians until the later battles when they crushed the Diadochi (the Macedonian Successors).  They ran the table around the Med against some pretty tough opponents.  Later Roman armies were great as well, but those battle-hardened legions of the Punic Wars carried Rome through some dark times.

Back to your regular scheduled programming.


----------



## Danjanou (13 Mar 2008)

marshall sl said:
			
		

> Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, A Coy 1 Platoon 1 Section  circa 1977-1979 even with Danjanou in it!!!



Also known as the recruit depot for the Rhodesian Light Infantry 8)

BTW Dave and I were in 2 section under Haggis and later Ian.

You know I was going to use my special mod decoder ring to move this tho mil history as a serious topic, but as the fridge tech has ignored my pleasit's staying here in radio chatter. It gets any worse and I'll move it to the chat room.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (13 Mar 2008)

The Winner is 

Johnny 7 - One Man Army 

http://users.rcn.com/ed.ma.ultranet/dr6s.jpeg


----------



## Steel Badger (13 Mar 2008)

Does anyone else remember the Bognor Liberation Army and it's affiliated youth group: the Bognor Youth.

Used to hotly contest Meaford in the day under its Massey ferguson driving leaders Gene and Cess Pool.  Not to mention the naval arm under their cousin tide? Somthing about tax on beer and LCBO hours.

"Forward brothers! There is a Massey Ferguson in heaven for each of us!!"


----------



## Hibbsie (13 Mar 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Pfft,
> 
> As for the term Barbarians, the Mongols were not the ones referred to as Barbarians, the Germanic Tribes were for their _Barbas_, the beards they wore.



  Actually the word Barbarian comes from the Ancient Hellenes. It was a blanket term used to describe anyone that did not speak Greek because the sounds they made sounded like 'bar bar bar'


----------



## redleafjumper (13 Mar 2008)

In response to two earlier posts, the Germans may have been the first to implement blitzkrieg tactics but British officers Major General JFC Fuller and Captain Basil Liddell-Hart were certainly the first to write about the concept.  Even Guderian credits these two in his writings as being the inspiration behind what became called the blitzkrieg tactic.

The greatest army?  That's easy - the one you are in.

Cheers,


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Mar 2008)

Hibbsie said:
			
		

> Actually the word Barbarian comes from the Ancient Hellenes. It was a blanket term used to describe anyone that did not speak Greek because the sounds they made sounded like 'bar bar bar'



Who are these Helens?

This is all greek to me...

dileas

tess


----------



## Hibbsie (13 Mar 2008)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Who are these Helens?



I'm sorry that this is straying away from the actual thread - the Hellenes are the Greeks. In short, the Romans came in contact with a tribe known as the Greeks. they then called every other group of people of the same culture the "Greeks". This name eventually turned into what the rest of the world (except Hellenes) call that country.


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Mar 2008)

Hibbsie said:
			
		

> I'm sorry that this is straying away from the actual thread - the Hellenes are the Greeks. In short, the Romans came in contact with a tribe known as the Greeks. they then called every other group of people of the same culture the "Greeks". This name eventually turned into what the rest of the world (except Hellenes) call that country.



Yes yes, the Greeks Colonized parts of Italy, the Romans admired them, then proceed to conquer them which initiates the reign of the greatest Empire...

I still will stick to my definition.

Veni, vidi, vici

I have Google too folks....oy vey.

dileas

tess

oh ya, for the Scolars


The word "barbarian" comes into English from Medieval Latin barbarinus, from Latin barbaria, from Latin barbarus, from the ancient Greek word βάρβαρος (bárbaros). The word is onomatopeic, the bar-bar representing the impression of random hubbub produced by hearing a spoken language that one cannot understand, similar to blah blah, babble or rhubarb in modern English. Related imitative forms are found in other Indo-European languages, such as Sanskrit barbara-, "stammering" or "curly-haired."

How it came into being is the same everywhere.  However, Who took it everywhere?


----------



## Infanteer (13 Mar 2008)

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> In response to two earlier posts, the Germans may have been the first to implement blitzkrieg tactics but British officers Major General JFC Fuller and Captain Basil Liddell-Hart were certainly the first to write about the concept.  Even Guderian credits these two in his writings as being the inspiration behind what became called the blitzkrieg tactic.



Nope.  This was inserted by Sir Basil - most modern histories are quite critical of how cozy the egos of captured German officers and British theorists who supervised the "after-the-fact" memoires got.


----------



## Thompson_JM (13 Mar 2008)

My Vote is the Rebel Alliance....

not one, but two death starts destroyed, plus at least one super star destroyer, AND they killed the Emperor, and got Vader to be good again right before he kicked it.


Lets see the Romans do that.....     :


----------



## redleafjumper (13 Mar 2008)

Infanteer, I will concede that it is disputed as to whether or not Liddell-Hart inserted himself into Guderian’s biography; however, it is certainly not in question that MGen Fuller, who collaborated with Liddel-Hart in the 1920’s in writing about armoured warfare, was credited in Guderian’s book Achtung Panzer.  See this entry in the online Encyclopaedia Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9035631/J-F-C-Fuller


Joerg Muth writes that Guderian translated Liddell-Hart and Fuller’s works into German in 1927, see his writing on the matter here:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen2.htm


Guderian was certainly familiar with and influenced by the writings of JFC Fuller and Basil Liddell-Hart.  It is clear that these writings are about what came to be called blitzkrieg.

Cheers,

Redleafjumper


----------



## FascistLibertarian (13 Mar 2008)

Yeah the spartans got beaten because thebes had a good military leader who changed tactics.
The spartans did not adapt in later battles.

The Manchu army was pretty badass, as was the the Ashanti army (who kicked the UK's butts a bunch of times).

And its not eurocentric as much as the fact that armies which had leaders who had access to previous military writing tended to be better.


----------



## Jack O. (13 Mar 2008)

I'm going to go ahead and side with The Borg on this one, your primitive human armies are no match for the Collective.


----------



## TN2IC (13 Mar 2008)

Coporal For Life Army?


----------



## medicineman (13 Mar 2008)

The Army of Darkness??!!

MM


----------



## CougarKing (13 Mar 2008)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> The Manchu army was pretty badass, as was the the Ashanti army (who kicked the UK's butts a bunch of times).



If you are seriously thinking about the Chinese Qing Dynasty banner armies as being unstoppable, then you seriously need some professional help.  ;D


----------



## FascistLibertarian (13 Mar 2008)

Im thinking more around the time of Nurhaci and the beginning of the Qing period. There was a decline in the 18th century and in the 19th the banner armies as a system failed, but they were able to conquer and hold China. ;D
Nurhaci did a lot of the same types of things as Shaka and Genghis Khan.
No army is 'unstoppable' and Im not saying they were, but the sheer size and organization of the green standard and banner armies I think makes the Manchu's worthy.


----------



## medaid (13 Mar 2008)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> No army is 'unstoppable'



The M.I is unstoppable! Come on you apes! Do you wanna live forever!  :threat:



 ;D


----------



## FascistLibertarian (14 Mar 2008)

If I didnt read startship troopers while all the other 15 yr olds were chasing girls I wouldnt get half the inside jokes on this site....
Still Id rather of had the girls....


----------



## Danjanou (14 Mar 2008)

Ah well frack it if you can’t beat em join em.



			
				54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> The Winner is
> 
> Johnny 7 - One Man Army
> 
> http://users.rcn.com/ed.ma.ultranet/dr6s.jpeg




I used to have one of those when I was a kid. I was the envy of every other rugrat and juvenile delinquent on the block. With the firepower and range of it the ability to bruise and take out more eyes than the rest of the kids combined was awesome. Just thing of it as a trainign GPMG.








http://www.landlcollectables.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=1199_1200&products_id=1000712

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuvqPMWv8YU

I looked them up on eBay recently, cannot believe the price.


----------



## Burrows (14 Mar 2008)

ballz said:
			
		

> 1. Modern Era, the US army is almost unstoppable based on the fact that they have all the latest technology and a whole load of it. When it comes down to quantity, the US leads in everything. That'll happen when you spend 3 trillion dollars on it.



Except, you know.  China and India kinda have you beat in quantity of people that can be fielded, and last I checked guns don't walk by themselves.


----------



## TCBF (14 Mar 2008)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> If I didnt read startship troopers while all the other 15 yr olds were chasing girls I wouldnt get half the inside jokes on this site....
> Still Id rather of had the girls....



- You probably look more or less the same as you did way back when.  Those girls probably don't.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (14 Mar 2008)

You guys are all wrong.  It's the Legion of Frontiersmen!

Contact Mike O'Leary for more details!


----------



## Danjanou (14 Mar 2008)

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> You guys are all wrong.  It's the Legion of Frontiersmen!
> 
> Contact Mike O'Leary for more details!



I thought Journeyman was head of their fanclub?  8)


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Mar 2008)

Kyle Burrows said:
			
		

> Except, you know.  China and India kinda have you beat in quantity of people that can be fielded, and last I checked guns don't walk by themselves.


And nukes don't discriminate ;D


----------



## Journeyman (14 Mar 2008)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> *I thought Journeyman was head of their fanclub? *  8)


And I've always thought that a lightning rod on a church showed a decided lack of faith....I suspect that _one_ of us thought wrong  ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Mar 2008)

CSA 105 said:
			
		

> You guys are all wrong.  It's the Legion of Frontiersmen!
> 
> Contact Mike O'Leary for more details!



Maybe if I joined them I could get another medal.


----------



## Yrys (15 Mar 2008)

Only 1 from them ?

Not very ambitious, are you  ?


----------



## Journeyman (15 Mar 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> *Maybe if I joined them I could get another medal.  *


  You could be a "strategic advisor" and claim to have saved some Middle-Eastern Kingdom   

Nevermind, that one's been done already   >


----------



## Danjanou (15 Mar 2008)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You could be a "strategic advisor" and claim to have saved some Middle-Eastern Kingdom
> 
> Nevermind, that one's been done already   >




 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Danjanou (16 Mar 2008)

Third Division and the attached 2nd Armd Bde did well that day OS. Came closet to reaching their objectives of any of the invasion divisins and Juno had the second highest casualties of any of the beaches after Omaha. Something we can be proud of, mind I'm biased 2 uncles were there. Still put the 1st Cdn Corps under Currie as the best field force we've had. 

BTW Brian if you have a CFAT to study for why are you trolling the net? We're not giving you the answers. 8)


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (16 Mar 2008)

Temper-tantrums aside, is it too late to vote for The Scourge of God?!?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization

Incredibly successful in their time, often despite being out-numbered, out-equipped and far from home ...


----------



## TCBF (17 Mar 2008)

Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> ... despite being out-numbered, out-equipped and far from home ...



- The Canadian phrase for which is "On Active Service."


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (17 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - The Canadian phrase for which is "On Active Service."



/snicker/


----------



## ghyslyn (19 Mar 2008)

Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> Temper-tantrums aside, is it too late to vote for The Scourge of God?!?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization
> 
> Incredibly successful in their time, often despite being out-numbered, out-equipped and far from home ...



Nice to see someone who agrees with me


----------



## CE621 (19 Mar 2008)

The Cinderella army,often out numbered,under equipped and far from home.


----------



## Danjanou (19 Mar 2008)

CE621 said:
			
		

> The Cinderella army,often out numbered,under equipped and far from home.



or in other words, almost every military force we've deployed to a foreign shore.



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> - The Canadian phrase for which is "On Active Service."


----------



## Lard of the Dance (19 Mar 2008)

Sadly, only one person seems to have nominated the Canadian Army. I do as well! We've always done as much or more than our allies in battle. Disagree? Open a book! Numbers and technology don't make an Army great. The Americans had their losses with technology and numbers in their favour. Russians are purely numbers and have always been so. So, I nominate the Canadian Army(past and present) as the greatest Army............ we've done it all! That being said, I do recognise the Romans, Brits, Germans and USMC as top notch. Bring on the debate!!


----------



## Shec (19 Mar 2008)

The Fantasians - Dogged,  Ubiquitous, Chimerical, Invincible


----------



## Lard of the Dance (19 Mar 2008)

The fantasians? Fought against them a few times in Gagetown, just can't remember ever seeing them.


----------



## the 48th regulator (19 Mar 2008)

Lard of the Dance said:
			
		

> The fantasians? Fought against them a few times in Gagetown, just can't remember ever seeing them.



Oh how I hated to those Fantasians.  Always attacking on weekends, with their nighttime ambush attacks, and the sinister way how they always looked like our support and RSS staff.

I curse them all!

dileas

tess


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Mar 2008)

Thank you for your support, Lard of the Dance!!
I stand by my comments....the Canadian Army is the greatest Army. It is not has not ever been a conquering army (ie the Hun, Alexander the Great etc) but an army of Liberation.....surely there is not a nobler calling than being a member of such an army?
The Spartans would have adamired 2PPCLI at Kapyong, Korea. The Romans would have admired Juno Beach.
And now the Taliban fear the Canadian Army!


----------



## Red 6 (21 Mar 2008)

A lot of interesting and thought proovking comment5s here. On the other hand, quite a few are out in left field. Here are my thoughts:

What makes a "great army?" Is it an independent field army that fights under its own command? Is it a coalition partner that is part of a larger force? What lens are you looking through when you decide? Is it the army that is most copied in terms of tactics and standards? This is all very subjective. Most folks look back into popular memory when they formulate their own answer. Certainly in the United States, World War II is the "standard" when we as a nation think about this. Looking through that lens, the US Army of that period was unmatched in its operational art, and tactical skill. Add the strategic level with multiple theaters with very different demands and conditions, and it's clear that there are very strong arguments for this line of reasoning.

However, (and this is a BIG however) in the long perspective of western military history, I believe the Frederick the Great's Prussian army ranks as the most influential. Frederick was a military giant. German officers of World War II had an ironical nickname for Hitler - GröFaZ (Größer Feldherr aller Zeiten) Translated into english, it means "Greatest military commander of all times." In reality, Frederick the Great may well be the true bearer of this title. 

cheers, Mark


----------

