strongest military after ww2?

[chuy]

I know the usa had the atomic bomb blah blah blah. but how about when the soviet union created theirs? It definitely closed the gap no? But even so, ussr did not have a way of transporting it. I would give the upper hand to the Soviets bevause someof you may say that the US had no production destroyed. Well, didnt the soviets evacuated moving production 1941 to the east behind the urals? Also, wasnt the soviet union still pumping huge amounts of tanks and equipment even towards the end of the war? And the soviets still dominated the ground with huge amounts of men and superior tanks. Many consider the t 54 being superior to the m46 patton and is2 being superior to the pershing- let alone is3. Now the americans do have air supremacy but dont you think waves of men and tanks are going to overwhelm the americans.

 

[JosephBaier]

With 'strongest' do you include the amount? Or do you mean best military all around even if they are very small?

 

[nymets1104]

I know the usa had the atomic bomb blah blah blah. but how about when the soviet union created theirs? It definitely closed the gap no? But even so, ussr did not have a way of transporting it. I would give the upper hand to the Soviets bevause someof you may say that the US had no production destroyed. Well, didnt the soviets evacuated moving production 1941 to the east behind the urals? Also, wasnt the soviet union still pumping huge amounts of tanks and equipment even towards the end of the war? And the soviets still dominated the ground with huge amounts of men and superior tanks. Many consider the t 54 being superior to the m46 patton and is2 being superior to the pershing- let alone is3. Now the americans do have air supremacy but dont you think waves of men and tanks are going to overwhelm the americans.

Are you referring to a hypothetical war between the US and Soviets immediately after WW2 (1945) or after the Soviet's first successful nuclear detination in 1949?

 

[chuy]

With 'strongest' do you include the amount? Or do you mean best military all around even if they are very small?

Yes but a small army has a chance? Why do you think one of the reasons china is no.2 in military power today? Just because of their sheer size. This answer reminds me of a thread I saw in another site-a while back matching up 5 navy seals against 1000 ww2 soldiers which I found pretty idiotic not saying your an idiot or anything but pretty funny how someone would pit up a scenario like that. Of course I go all the way with the ww2 soldiers. At the end of the day, the army with the smaller army cant afford to lose men.

 

[chuy]

Are you referring to a hypothetical war between the US and Soviets immediately after WW2 (1945) or after the Soviet's first successful nuclear detination in 1949?

Well not hypothetical war, just pitting their might up against each other. It does seem like a war but no. And yes after 1949.

 

[JosephBaier]

Yes but a small army has a chance? Why do you think one of the reasons china is no.2 in military power today? Just because of their sheer size. This answer reminds me of a thread I saw in another site-a while back matching up 5 navy seals against 1000 ww2 soldiers which I found pretty idiotic not saying your an idiot or anything but pretty funny how someone would pit up a scenario like that. Of course I go all the way with the ww2 soldiers. At the end of the day, the army with the smaller army cant afford to lose men.

Well I was just asking what you mean, greatest army in terms of performence per soldier or greatest army in terms of ****load of crappy stuff that overruns everything.
China is the biggest power but imo best soldiers are from austria. They have so few but they train them alot harder.

 

[Clowndoe]

I really don't like these hypotheticals so I'm going to be as non-committal as possible.

If you're talking about war between the Allies and the Soviet Union directly or shortly after WW2 such as in Operation Unthinkable, then I think Russia would have the upper hand for a long time. Contrary to belief, Russia was never the land of endless human resources (~160 million pre-war to 120 million for the US), especially not compared to China today. They certainly did not have more people than the UK and the US combined, especially after losing around 27 million people, including at least 9 million soldiers during the war. Compare that to less than 1 million deaths combined for the US and the UK. However, you combine Soviet armor with battle hardened PPSh-equipped soldiers and tactics that allowed them to crush Germany and I can easily see the Russians pushing the Americans and British accross the Rhine in no time, especially since the Russians are the only ones actually sharing that continent. After that, it's a bit of a toss-up. Again, the Soviet Union is likely far more exhausted from the war than the Allies. Although, if they could repeat the 1940 situation and successfully capture France, I think they'd have Europe in the bag. I don't think Overlord is going to work twice, not without someone distracting Russia in the East.

If you're asking who's been doing the best job in the second half of the last century, well, there's not really much to compare here. How am I supposed to know who would win between France and Russia based solely on first-world countries beating down on third-world ones? All we can say is United-States, Israel, UK > Vietnam (though they didn't "win" the war I don't think you can fault their K/L ratio) and Middle-East, Middle-East again, Argentina respectively. Considering how average Russia has done in Chechnya and Georgia, I don't think they're doing so well.

Who's the toughest single G20 country today? Again, too much conjecture. First of all, no nukes allowed, only an idiot would nuke someone he shares a planet with. In a Fox-only, Final Destination, no items match, I guess it's either the US or China. US combines a huge military with better soldier preservation shown in WWII. China has a bigger potential military, but we have no idea what they're capable of. For all we know they could have trained each as a Navy SEAL, or they could be a jobber-militia. One thing's for sure, neither is capable of invading the other across the sea. Any other country would need to be massively better than the US for its size to be able to take them on.

Finally, who does better per-capita? Again, there's no way of knowing which country has the best training, equipment, doctrine and leadership. We just don't have the data that can only be seen in war. I'd personally rather we not find out.

 

[chuy]

I really don't like these hypotheticals so I'm going to be as non-committal as possible.

If you're talking about war between the Allies and the Soviet Union directly or shortly after WW2 such as in Operation Unthinkable, then I think Russia would have the upper hand for a long time. Contrary to belief, Russia was never the land of endless human resources (~160 million pre-war to 120 million for the US), especially not compared to China today. They certainly did not have more people than the UK and the US combined, especially after losing around 27 million people, including at least 9 million soldiers during the war. Compare that to less than 1 million deaths combined for the US and the UK. However, you combine Soviet armor with battle hardened PPSh-equipped soldiers and tactics that allowed them to crush Germany and I can easily see the Russians pushing the Americans and British accross the Rhine in no time, especially since the Russians are the only ones actually sharing that continent. After that, it's a bit of a toss-up. Again, the Soviet Union is likely far more exhausted from the war than the Allies. Although, if they could repeat the 1940 situation and successfully capture France, I think they'd have Europe in the bag. I don't think Overlord is going to work twice, not without someone distracting Russia in the East.

If you're asking who's been doing the best job in the second half of the last century, well, there's not really much to compare here. How am I supposed to know who would win between France and Russia based solely on first-world countries beating down on third-world ones? All we can say is United-States, Israel, UK > Vietnam (though they didn't "win" the war I don't think you can fault their K/L ratio) and Middle-East, Middle-East again, Argentina respectively. Considering how average Russia has done in Chechnya and Georgia, I don't think they're doing so well.

Who's the toughest single G20 country today? Again, too much conjecture. First of all, no nukes allowed, only an idiot would nuke someone he shares a planet with. In a Fox-only, Final Destination, no items match, I guess it's either the US or China. US combines a huge military with better soldier preservation shown in WWII. China has a bigger potential military, but we have no idea what they're capable of. For all we know they could have trained each as a Navy SEAL, or they could be a jobber-militia. One thing's for sure, neither is capable of invading the other across the sea. Any other country would need to be massively better than the US for its size to be able to take them on.

Finally, who does better per-capita? Again, there's no way of knowing which country has the best training, equipment, doctrine and leadership. We just don't have the data that can only be seen in war. I'd personally rather we not find out.

Thanks for answering that. I greatly appreciate that. I also think the soviets couldnt just stop at berlin if they wanted to. At least I hear some positives from for the soviets some time around. I never hear soviets being a mighty of a country after ww2 because all the propaganda of americans areound these types of forums. Even today they still have effect.

How about the rediculous comment of me saying a PTRD penetrating a tiger from the top and killing the gunner. I know this is way off topic but I have TONS of questions and I dont want to spam the tripwire forums with idiotic subjects that I come up with. I do research but when I cant find the answer, I go to the forums.

I mean it is possible. What would be your take/reaction on that happening? We are talking about a weapon that was obsolete when germany rolled in the heavy tanks. Do you think twice of the weapon?

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

imo best soldiers are from austria.

I cannot agree with that. A typical austrian soldier is a conscript for a mandatory service of 6 months including a 4 week basic training. Pretty much the only thing soldiers learn here is how to chug huge amounts of beer...

Not that that's bad. I just wouldn't count them amongst the best in the world, and thankfully, there is not need for them to be.

 

[Clowndoe]

How about the rediculous comment of me saying a PTRD penetrating a tiger from the top and killing the gunner. I know this is way off topic but I have TONS of questions and I dont want to spam the tripwire forums with idiotic subjects that I come up with. I do research but when I cant find the answer, I go to the forums.

Derailing your own thread huh? That's cool.

You could look on Wikipedia and do basic math for a lot of the questions. Over there it says the PTRD has a maximum penetration of 35 mm, while a Tiger tank's top armor is of 25 mm. So I guess it should work, but then again how do you get a PTRD to shoot straight down at a tank? Who ever pulled that off would have to have balls of steel and move like a ghost's shadow.

 

[chuy]

Derailing your own thread huh? That's cool.

You could look on Wikipedia and do basic math for a lot of the questions. Over there it says the PTRD has a maximum penetration of 35 mm, while a Tiger tank's top armor is of 25 mm. So I guess it should work, but then again how do you get a PTRD to shoot straight down at a tank? Who ever pulled that off would have to have balls of steel and move like a ghost's shadow.

Yea I said that it would penetrate no question about that, I said what would be your "take/reaction" to it. Do you change your mind of the little cannon or still the chance from hitting it from the top is next to impossible. And there is a 10mm difference there. Certainly you can add a few angles so you are not shooting straight down. Very much possible in urban environment from stories high in a building.

http://www.wio.ru/galgrnd/atr.htm
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...MQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNF5RHkD7bIqByaVj26trOyANTpspg

First source says 35-40mm at 300m and second in page 34 of pdf 38mm at 333y(304m)

I can put more sources if you want. According to wikipedia, turret roof was 40mm-just pin point of what the bs41 could do at 300m. Just imagine how much more it can penetrate at about 11m (3 stories). I think these rifles have more potential than what people think. Under the right circumstances, the ptrd can shine.

But then again, it is just part of my denial

 

[Tomcat_ha]

The soviet union had hands down the most capable conventional army for a long time after ww2.
I'd say the west only really caught up by the 70's and 80's and even then they had several big vulnerabilities(moskits and shkval anyone?)

However what in the end matters are the exact details of the conflict. Who are the generals where is the war fought? Who attacks who defends?
Cases where a smaller army holds off a bigger army are almost always defensive wars.

 

[Clowndoe]

However what in the end matters are the exact details of the conflict. Who are the generals where is the war fought? Who attacks who defends?

Yep, not even any point in asking really, there are always more variables. So much of WW2 would have been completely different if not for relatively tiny tactical blunders. I don't think anyone expected May-June 1940 to happen the way it did beforehand, except for some of the German high command. There was no obvious indication that the Wehrmacht was that much better.

 

[Zakarro]

Don't forget about the H bomb that blew anything murica had out of the water.


Americans are delusional even till today, last conversation I had concerning American military power was with a modern grunt idiot who claimed and I quote "that America would destroy China in a week and china only has 80 fighter jets...."


I think this is beyond delusional. A country with billions and millions of soldiers only 80 fighter jets? All America has is technology, but guess what so did the third reich with their advanced engineering and scientists, did that make a difference? I don't think so.