Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Most Powerful Military of All Time in Terms of Global Percentage
Aeb4ever    1/13/2006 1:20:45 AM
What was the most powerful military of all time in terms of global share of military power? For example, the USA is currently ranked at having about 53% of total naval power. I am referring in terms of all branches vs the world. My votes would be either the Mongols at height, Romans at height, English at height, USA after WWII, or USA after Cold War. Can’t make a guess at each countries percentage though. Fell free to add your own list or make a guess at the percentages of mine.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   NEXT
gf0012-aust    RE:GF not you are getting off topic   1/14/2006 3:55:28 AM
"Russia." bollocks. if Gt Britain had not made life difficult duting the first 2 years of Hitlers little misadventure - then the russian invasion would have occurred when he was militarily much more capable. belting the brits caused hitler to make a series of tactical disconnects. russia wasn't a significant influence on the radar screen for the first 3 critical years of ww2.
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:The US was a much smaller place when we cut our losses   1/14/2006 3:55:48 AM
"what colonies did they lose as a result of WW2? None. Nada, Zip Zero Zilch. britain lost nothing due to ww2 via conflict" umm...India for one, the Jewel in the Crown...they started to lose us as far as economically (trade moving to Asia region from Britain led Europe)/politically (ANZUS)/military (ANZUS), Canada started to branch out, America grabbed many of their smaller possessions as a direct result of WW2... And b4 you say they didnt lose India to military conflict, technically you may be right, but technically your also wrong as if it weren't for WW2 then the poms still would've been going strong and weren't f'k in the A and hence had to give up India (you think they had a choice in the matter and that if they did they would've given them up willingly? Like they did in countries like Ireland ey?)...
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:USA after WWII   1/14/2006 3:59:53 AM
you mean they had just a handful until the Russians got them whilst at the same time the Ruskies having a better Army than the US (albeit with the US taking the Naval and Air titles)...? Hardly...post-1989 the US was/is much more powerful than in post-1945...
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:GF not you are getting off topic   1/14/2006 4:15:15 AM
"bollocks." bullocks? im starting to think your a pom! ;) "belting the brits caused hitler to make a series of tactical disconnects. russia wasn't a significant influence on the radar screen for the first 3 critical years of ww2." you mean Russia (and America) weren't significant for the first 3 years of WW2 whilst the Germans were rampaging everywhere until the Ruskies and Yanks were involved and THEN the tide turned... With all due respect to the poms, they simply held out until the cavalry arrived then took up the back seat... Honestly, they buggered off in Norway cos the French were leaving (and due to the dire situation in France), they failed (at first) miserably in Nth Africa from a smaller force led by the Desert Fox and then and only then when America got into the foray thru Lend Lease and direct involvement and Germany being occupied by a bigger fish did the tide turn. Example, Operation Battleaxe ring a bell as to how the poms went early on in Nth Africa... They retreated in France, Norway and 'just' managed to hold off the Luftwaffe to prevent an invasion that was almost certainly not going to happen and that if it did it would've been halfhearted and defeated in 1940 (they did practically nothing in 1939 during the phony war), they failed in Nth Africa in 1941 and after that Russia and America took control...
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:The US was a much smaller place when we cut our losses   1/14/2006 4:18:54 AM
"And b4 you say they didnt lose India to military conflict, technically you may be right" no, not technically, I am right. they didn;t lose them to conflict - india was granted independance. the fact that poms were bankrupted has got nothing to do with it.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:GF not you are getting off topic   1/14/2006 4:26:50 AM
"Honestly, they buggered off in Norway cos the French were leaving (and due to the dire situation in France), they failed (at first) miserably in Nth Africa from a smaller force led by the Desert Fox and then and only then when America got into the foray thru Lend Lease and direct involvement and Germany being occupied by a bigger fish did the tide turn. Example, Operation Battleaxe ring a bell as to how the poms went early on in Nth Africa... They retreated in France, Norway and 'just' managed to hold off the Luftwaffe to prevent an invasion that was almost certainly not going to happen and that if it did it would've been halfhearted and defeated in 1940 (they did practically nothing in 1939 during the phony war), they failed in Nth Africa in 1941 and after that Russia and America took control... " do you seriously think that the US would have got involved if Hitler has steamrolled the poms in 1939? of course not - they were not remotely interested at that point in time amd congress was divided. A high percentage of congressmen wanted nothing to do with it. arguing that the brits didn;t hold the line until 1942 is disingenuous at the minimum - and due to your sometimes incoherent hate of the poms - I suspect venality more than balanced analysis. If germany t bones the poms in 1939 the whole game changes and germany has a free hand and a free land based aircraft carrier that makes any other nations attempt to fight back incredibly difficult. it would have given the germans the nominal 3 years that they needed to roll east - and I suspect that without a divided front and with complete american disinterest, that russia would have been shattered in considered progressive tactical steps rather than emotional surges of sieze and hold.
 
Quote    Reply

fall out    RE:The US was a much smaller place when we cut our losses   1/14/2006 4:36:05 AM
"no, not technically, I am right. they didn;t lose them to conflict - india was granted independance. the fact that poms were bankrupted has got nothing to do with it." yes it does because they were bankrupt BECAUSE of WW2!! If it weren't for that military conflict they wouldn't have ""given"" India their independence...
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    This argument has gone way off track   1/14/2006 8:17:55 AM
The British are not even truly worthy of consideration in this case(sheer military power), since even the Germans, a regional power was almost able to crush the British. British power lies in economics and diplomacy, not just military might. If we were to only count military power, then the British empire would only be the marginally strongest power leading a pack of very closely matched powers.
 
Quote    Reply

mithradates    RE:The real comparison   1/14/2006 8:20:31 AM
"the mongol empire starts at Genghis Khan - not at Kublai Khan, thus there is no Chinese Empire for this period. It is Mongolian. Just because Kublai adopts a chinese dynastic name later on in life doesn't convert the empire to a chinese one." When I refer to the Chinese empire(actually it should be empires), I meant the native Jin and Song Dynasties that were overthrown by the Mongols. In the period that I'm referring to cultural assimilation of the Mongols by the Chinese hadn't yet begun.
 
Quote    Reply

mond    Historical objectivity   1/14/2006 9:34:02 AM
Mithradates and Fall Out. If you wrap yourselves any tighter in your nations flags you will cut off completely the flow of oxygen to your brains. It never ceases to amaze me how the Anglophobes use WW2 as a club with which to beat Britain and simultaneously laud the Russians to highest Heaven. August 23 1939 Ribbentrop and Molotov signed the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression Pact. In brief summary: if Germany attacked Poland, the Russians would not come to its aid. This guaranteed Soviet neutrality in case of a German war in the west. In addition, there was a secret protocol in the pact (admitted by the USSR in 1989) that as a ’reward’ for Hitler’s free hand at conquest, the Soviets would receive Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Poland would be divided between them. In other words, after France fell, whilst the Americans were pursuing a policy of isolationism (no intention what so ever of joining the war), the Soviets were sitting on their hands waiting for Britain to be crushed. Very noble. Is it not ironic that after Germany invaded Russia the first thing Stalin called for was aid from Britain? This was indeed delivered by the RN and Merchant navy, at great cost in life, known as the Arctic convoys. Your nationalism has clouded any objectivity you may once have had!
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics