Without wanting to get into a huge debate over it, Bismarck was talking about the British army over 60 years later - thats a long time after the Napoleonic period, and just because he said it doesn’t make it true - Napoleon was forever dismissing the British and Wellington yet it didn’t stop them wupping his arse.
Wellington’s army in the peninsular war is regarded by many as the finest (in relative terms) army this country ever produced - Wellington himself was incredibly proud of his “Scum of the Earth”.
Similarly the British army in general at the time did stand as probably the most effective fighting force of its day - in terms of equipment men and tactics other countries may have been superior in certain areas, but what the British excelled was combining sufficient quantities of all three.
So i’d agree with Lizard - its the British Army.
For the record thats probably why we still don’t like talking about the war of Independence. Not because you didn’t deserve to win - you were fighting for your right to freedom etc. and earnt it the hard way - but because we still can’t work out how on God’s earth you managed to beat us!
The difference in technology is part and parcel of war. I don’t think you can really adjust by it. Militarily, the North Vietnamese could never beat us. They never conquered South Vietnam until we left. And the US wasn’t trying to invade and conquer North Vietnam, so it’s not like you could say they stopped a US invasion.
Don’t get me wrong - as a whole, North Vietnam beat us, but if you just look at the North Vietnamese army and the Vietcong, they never could.
“Militarily, the North Vietnamese could never beat us.”
What’s that supposed to mean? I think the military objective of the North Vietnamese was to cause the foreign invaders (first the French, then the Americans) to leave their country, and to unify the country under communist rule. An objective which they obtained. If the kill ratio of us to them was higher, well are you also counting the ARVN? And even so, what does it matter? We sustained horrible casualties in a lot of wars and battles we “won…”
I’d have to say the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia under Lee.
No one else has ever given us 4 solid years of strong opposition. We’ve had some longer wars, but never was the US Army as close to defeat than it was at Manassas (1 & 2), Gettysburg (1st and 2nd days), Chancellorsville, Fredricksburg, et cetera.
I think maybe you are misreading these books. The ACW was the FIRST modern war, but I would not say it was the most modern, that just doesn’t make sense.
The reason that casualties were so high was that the weapons had advanced well past the tactics. Existing tactics of the time dictated closing with the enemy and then massing fire in several volleys before proceeding to the bayonet charge. Rifled muskets meant that the effective range of the defenders was now 5 times greater than had existed when the tactics were devised. Now, rather than exposing the attackers to 2 or 3 effective volleys from the defenders, they were exposed to 10 or more before they reached the line of defenders.
Further, I can’t imagine that anyone would consider a war where vast numbers of people are killed as being “advanced.” The point of war is not to kill as many people as you can, it is to acheive your polical objective while killing the LEAST number of people. Modern weapons allow the tactical and political objectives to be met while killing far fewer people than in past wars.
After the first early parts of the war (the French Somua was better than the PkWII for instance), you are correct. But I will point out that was in the SECOND World War. In the FIRST World War, the Imperial German armies tank (the A7)sucked. The MkIV was far superiour, and even more so it’s later incarnations.
The T-34 was- for it’s cost- one of the best tanks of WWII. It was easy to make, and for a while the best medium tank on the field. However, the Panther was better, and was still better than the T34-85.
The Sheramn had it’s advantages also, including ease of manufacture and reliability. But, tank to tank, it was inferiour to the german tanks. However, it wasn’t “tank to tank” it was more like “10 Shermans, one P51 Mustang, and a battery of artillery vs one Panther”. Given those odds, I would not bet on the Panther.
The purpose of an army is to take and hold ground and to exert its will by force. Tell me; who ended up holding the ground in Vietnam? The mission of the North Vietnamese was to take and hold the country. They succeeded in doing this. Therefore, they won. The mission of the United States was to prevent them from taking over the country. They failed to do this, and so they lost. Case closed. Wars aren’t determined by body count, they’re determined by who ends up with the marbles. If, like the NVA or the Red Army, you lost a lot of people on the way, well, you just paid a high price for victory. It’s still victory.
However… the OP asks what the best UNIT is. The NVA, or the Wehrmacht or whatever, is not a “unit.” A “unit” is an individual formation - the Third Infantry is a unit. Charlie Company’s a unit. An artillery battery is a unit. A fighter squadron is a unit. The best unit ever faced by American forces would almost certainly be an elite unit they faced in WWII - say, Germany’s top commandos, or the Japanese naval aviators of the early Pacific war.
Heh, well that’s a touchy subject, considering the OP specifically asked about armies of other countries.
Even still, you have to keep in mind that no matter how effective Lee was as a commander, never was the US Army close to defeat. Lee was for the most part fighting only 1 US Army formation, the Army of the Potomac. Also, the last time that it was truly capable of defeating the AotP was in 1863, so it was really only ~18 months of strong opposition. After that, the rebs were just fighting to stay alive.
Given a commander of similar effectiveness to Lee, the US Army would have whipped the Army of NoVA into the ground rather handily. (IMO)
And RickJay, you’re splitting hairs. While the header of the OP may say unit, if you read the post, it clearly encompasses much larger entities (IJN, etc.)
What do you mean the obstacle course was down there–does it not exist anymore? I only ask because I read something about that particular Legion course not to long ago.
Also, do you have a cite regarding the U.S. Marines’ time? Not that I have any reason to doubt you. It’s just that I have a friend who was a ja-- um, who was a Marine, and I like to share little factoids like this with him from time to time.
Reminded me of a good quote by Ho Chi Minh (or one of his aides): “…for every 10 of us you kill we may kill only one of you, but in the end, it is you who will tire first.”
I’d certainly rate the North Vietnamese up there with the Sioux, Apaches and Seminole in terms of Guerilla Warfare.
The Chinese Army faced in the Korean “Police Action” managed to inflict a pretty humilating defeat on the Marines… which brings up another good quote attributed to Major General Oliver P. Smith, “Retreat Hell! We’re just attacking in another direction.”
Yeah, I guess I should’ve said something like “best military force”
And I don’t buy that ultimate victory means anything in the case of the Vietcong or the NVA. That conflict was not a total war - i.e., they “won” for political reasons, not military ones. War and politics are intrinsically linked, and the Vietnam War was not decided through combat. Had we been willing to carry it that far, there is no doubt that we would’ve eventually won. The U.S. Army did much, much better against the Vietcong than earlier Japanese and French forces had. In fact, the VC were pretty much wiped out as an effective fighting force by 1972, and all fighting after that was done by the regular North Vietnamese Army. That’s something no other military had ever been able to achieve in the region.
I still haven’t heard anything to dissuade me from my choice of the 18th century British Army. We may have ultimately lost some conflicts or battles over the centuries, but no other army, navy, or air force defeated us so consistently.
