which was the best army of World War One
>>1217799
british
no jokes
tanks, and all the other inventions
>>1217805
[sounds of losing to T*rks in the distance]
>>1217805
Nope.
While the Germans had excellent small unit tactics with the introduction of the Sturmtruppen, I don't really know if I can say that any one army was the best for WWI. But one thing is for sure, it wasn't the Austro-Hungarians, Italians, or Russians.
>>1217805
Unironically this.
By the end of the war, they were executing combined arms offensives with creeping artillery barrages and armor working in concert with air and infantry to slice through German lines like a hot knife through butter.
At the beginning, Germany. By the end, Britain.
CANADA
>>1217872
Basically Britain.
Who had the best infantry?
>>1217840
Dad?
>>1217799
Germany
>>1217799
Germany was by far the most efficient army in the war. Given that they were fighting a two-front war, propping up the Austro-Hungarian lines constantly, and lacked the combined industrial power of the Entente, they did fucking well. Their small unit tactics were also excellent in many ways.
>>1217799
AMERICA AS ALWAYS
FUCK YEAH
>>1217799
Germany basically took on the entire world allied with some slavs, t*rks and tartarshits, and at some point they were actually winning, let that sink into your head.
>>1218913
Bulgaria basically took on the entire world allied with some krauts, t*rks and tartarshits, and at some point they were actually winning, let that sink into your head.
>>1218973
Bulgarians are actually German fucknut, so you didnt actually change anyrhing there.
>>1218845
>not believing in tanks
They were living in the past towards the end. They still did a very good job but this mistake makes them out of the competition
German > Britain > France > Russia > Turkey > Austro-Hungary > Italy
>>1219014
Not believing in tanks? The Germans made tanks. They didn't have the industry anymore in 1918 to make enough to matter and yes, some high ranking generals didn't think they'd be useful enough to bother diverting what resources were available.
They were definitely not "living in the past" while innovating on small unit tactics while being drained dry. Most generals at the time (French, British, and American included) didn't see the use of tanks as being worth it so you can't declare that the Germans were a special case.
>>1217799
France
>>1219034
Nah
they got their act together by the end, but at the beginning they were clueless
they were still wearing Waterloo tier shit in 1914
![lancer_german].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/68j6UGr.jpg "lancer_german].jpg")
>>1219126
are those real uniforms? The combination of those shining breastplates and helmets with the rifles makes it look really anachronistic...then again I guess that's a theme running through all of WW1 which is one of the reasons why it's so fascinating.
British Regulars > Sturmtroopen > French Stubborn Fuckers > Everyone Else > Conscripts from all sides > That one time Germany sent a bunch of teenagers to die in Belgium
>>1217808
>implying
>>1219151
>British Regulars
t. tommy atkins
>>1219151
British Regulars > Sturmtroopen
such perfidy
>>1219126
>It's the CURRENT YEAR and people are still wearing cuirassier breastplates!
Still the best disciplined of all the armies in the war. Unlike what modern memes would imply they were no cowards.
>>1219151
>ww1 was fought 100 years ago
>brits still salty
cmon, everyone and their mothers agree Stoßtruppen were not only the best ww1 soldiers but a unit ahead of it's time.
post1917 British
no question
>>1219203
the 'stormtroopers' employed by germany were ultimately detrimental to the german war effort
wonder why?
because it was not at the tactical level that their strength came, as they brought nothing new
everyone and their mother employed these tactics late in the war
and the likes of the french or russians had experimented with them already in 1915
what the germans did was take the best men, and put them into frontline spearhead units
now that is perhaps a sound move in theory, and might have worked in a different conflict
but in ww1 with its relatively high rates of attrition and casualties it meant that the best and the brightest, the cream of the crop, the veterans, the elites, would grind down with every offensive
and for what? the spring offensives were a failure
>>1219203
Anon, you don't understand something.
They were very few but also very, very well trained and equipped, when Germans revised schleiffen plan they've took into account that to defeat BEF they'll need local numerical superiority of 7:1.
Stormtroopen were effective and very "modern" formation but British regulars simply had something nobody else had - good training and years of experience.
Then again there was just 100k of them and they quickly bled out.
>>1219151
>French Stubborn Fuckers
If this applies so should stubborn Ruskies too.
>Germans waited until 6 August for the right wind conditions. At 4 am, at the same times as regular artillery started firing, German forces used poison gases against the defenders. Thinking that all of the defenders were dead, Germans started advancing. Fourteen battalions of Landwehr - at least 7000 infantry men - were participating in that attack. When German infantry reached the first line of defense, they were counter-attacked by what was left of 13th company of the 226th Zemlyansk regiment (about 60 men). Surprise attack and bloody clothing (Russian soldiers were coughing blood up because of poison gases destroying the lung tissue) put Germans in the state of shock and made them run. The five remaining Russian guns opened fire at this point aiming at the running mass of Germans.
>>1219620
>Canada and Australia
Why?
Also the American army was badly outdated by the time we entered the war
>>1219665
>Canada
Muh Vimy Ridge (even though it was a side theater)
>Australia
Muh Galipoli (even both the British and the French outnumbered ANZAC)
Vimy Ridge and Galipoli are glorified not because they were glorious, but because these non-nations needed something to glorify, something to make them feel they were anything other than reinforcements for the big boys.
>>1217799
Germans.
Fought the allies for four fucking years while carrying its own fucking side because Austrians and Ottomans suck.
>inb4 Prussia pro
>inb4 HRE
>>1219014
Dude, Tanks showed up in WWI during 1915. And they fucking sucked
>0 Suspension
>0 SUSPENSION
>Gas chamber tier quarters
>Armor is nice alright but prone to spalling.
>Broke down often
>Got stuck quite a lot.
Initially it was fucking terrifying but the Germans learned to counter them anyway. Hell they literally gave the German Field Guns - whose battlefield use has been usurped by Howitzers and indirect fire- a second life as tank destroyers.
Tanks really tookoff during the Interwar years.
>>1219665
>Why?
most (all?) canadian and australian formation retained the four units per tier ('square' division) when for example the british used the three units per tier ('triangle' division'), but retained the same divisional frontage - meaning more anzacs would be on the job
>>1218863
>>1219713
They were also only really used in piecemeal. They would have been devastating in mass attacks considering the German's lack of appropriate weapons to counter them (anti tank rifles were developed but they were far from common and if the battle is taken to your artillery support something has gone wrong), but generals never wanted to wait to build them up.
>>1219862
well there were several battles in which hundreds of tanks were deployed - soissons, cambrai (close to 500 each) for example
for a time when tanks total, absolute numbers were in the low thousands, that's pretty high and not really piecemael
>>1217799
>exceptional individual soldier training, willingness to adapt to new technologies, professionalism
Britain
>infantry tactics, fortifications, artillery
Germany
>offensive strategy
France
>keeping their shit together despite not having 10 men that speak the same language
Austria Hungary
>>1217840
Creeping artillery barrages were first used by the French tho.
>>1219902
>artillery
>infantry tactics
>Germany
no
definitely a big no for the former, that would be britain
and a smaller no because they weren't exceptional for the latter
>>1219620
Brit/American > German > French > Turkey > Italy > Russia > A-H
Fixed that for you senpai.
>>1219910
>Brit/American
Nigga americans had total 6 months in the war and initially ignored all the advices British and French gave them.
Also while Turkey did decently well against British/ANZAC, they've fucked up big time against Russians whole the time and Italy... Italy couldn't break A-H ffs.
>>1219910
Americans were the russians of the western front
>>1219908
>British artillery was better than the German one
bruh
bruh
The Brits had some good light cannons, but they literally had to unmount guns from dreadnoughts because they were so short on heavy artillery.
As for infantry tactics, the stormtroopers were more effective.
>>1219599
I think that the journey of the French Army through the war is an under appreciated one. Their army, entering the war, had a host of problems; insufficient artillery (especially heavy artillery), backwards uniforms, insufficient reserves, insufficient machine guns, an excessively offensive doctrine both tactically and operationally, constant suspicion and politicization of army affairs before the war due to it being suspected of being anti-Republican and reactionary, insufficient officers and NCOs, and poor maneuver training, as well as a host of other problems. The opening months saw the loss of the vast majority of their industrial capacity; figures run as high as 90% for coal production for example. And yet, they stopped the Germans, and fought for four years in the most vicious grinding war the world had seen up to that point. They suffered millions of casualties, higher than any other nation (except Serbia), but learned, improved, innovated, and by the end of the war were still arguably the primary army on the front. And this was all achieved despite being the second smallest population and third smallest industry-wise of the European Great Powers, and with their most important territory overrun. It isn't Soviet Union grade for recovering from catastrophe, but in my opinion their WW1 performance was probably the best of any of the Allied side, given their resources available and positioning.
They even provided a lot (most) of the weapons that the American troops used when they arrived in 1918; the AEF was fighting with mostly French weapons.
Also one has got to hand it to the Ottomans; they were a backwards, unindustrialized, multi-ethnic empire which had just gotten through losing multiple wars and had a whole host of military problems, but they managed to hold on for 4 year.
>>1220020
This is a ridiculous post, the French and the Turks had the two worst armies in the war,despite the french having very effective artillery and lots of tanks by the end of the war
>>1220059
Think of it as accomplishments despite having shit armes then.
For example how the turks fought on multiple fronts with hungry & badly equipped soldiers and still managed feats like annihilating the British expedition into Iraq and such.
>>1220059
Totally man, the French Army was definitely worse than the Italians, Russians, Austro-Hungarians, Romanians, and Portuguese, those great bastions of military competence during WW1.
>>1219908
Negro the Germans were early to realize the value of indirect fire, with howitzers n shiet.
Meanwhile British were still sucking tremendously to the field gun meme at the start of the war.
>>1219902
>>exceptional individual soldier training, willingness to adapt to new technologies, professionalism
Germany did all of those and better.
>>1220155
>the British Army's chief strategy was to get everyone else to fight for them.
typical-devious-anglo.jpg
>>1220159
memes aside I am British and I won't let patriotism blind me. Our tiny regular army at the beginning of the war was great because it was what it needed to be. But so were the regular Imperial German forces, and they blew the shite out of us in 1914 until they outran their logistics and finally got stopped.
Meanwhile our army was led by so many cunts we were bled white and had to fill our ranks with half-trained volunteers and colonials for the rest of the war.
It wasn't our army that won the war in 1918, it was bled white and gone. It was all our allies, and colonials especially, that spearheaded the final attacks.
For what it's worth. One-on-one not a single allied nation could have defeated Germany.
Not germany
>>1217799
The austro-hungarian.
>>1219947
british artillery doctrine was second to none, early equipment defficiencies nothwithstanding
and again, german stormtrooper tactics were nothing new, different, groundbreaking or never seen before
>>1220169
>Meanwhile our army was led by so many cunts we were bled white
Oh boy I was waitin for the Lions'n'Donkeys memery!
>>1219902
>keeping their shit together despite not having 10 men that speak the same language
>Austria Hungary
>>1221460
Svetozar Boroević did a excellent job at the Italian front at least, helped by the staggering incompetence of Luigi "everyone but me is incompetent' Cadorna of course
>>1217813
nope its definitely the british, everyone used small unit tactics to a degree (trench raids) the germans simply decided to make those tactics their primary offensive method, which required large numbers of specialised troops.
the british on the other hand devised a method of warfare that produced better results and could be used on a far larger scale, requiring less specialsed training.
the germans ran out of strurmtruppen units and the spring offensive petered out, the british offensive shattered the german line using regular troops not specialised units.
if one side needs specialised units to beat the enemy but the other an do it with its standard troops then the latter is superior.
and as a aside the BEF in 1914 was man for man the best army in the world, it was also rather small
>>1217849
at the begining britain, at the end britain.
>>1219875
and in the mass attacks of 1918 they were critical in breaking the german lines, offensives petered out when tank numbers ran down, normally after 3 days to a week, then as tanks were replaced, or recovered and repaired the offensives would be shifted to a new sector with tanks being used again
>>1221749
>produced better results
The better outcome for the allies was largely the result of the material and global strategic advantage so it's probably not the best criterion to judge the quality of the different doctrines. Do you think the outcome of the war would have been different with the British having the German doctrince and vice versa?
>>1220169
>Our tiny regular army at the beginning of the war was great because it was what it needed to be. But so were the regular Imperial German forces, and they blew the shite out of us in 1914 until they outran their logistics and finally got stopped.
our regular army stopped the germans cold at mons, withdrawing only because the french on both flanks were falling back leaving the BEF at risk of envelopment, every engagement between mons and the marne was a tactical victory, the british were then successful at the marne and then at first ypres despite 7:1 odds against them, sure most of the original force was dead by the spring of 1915 but it had taken down more than its number of enemy despite long odds against.
as for the idea that the colonials made up the bulk, or bore the brunt of the offensives in 1918 thats a nonsense, sure they played their role and did well, but did no better than the average british unit, they got first use in the opening assaults but mainly because the ANZAC units had been held in reserve during the spring offensive and had suffered less extensively.
>>1221777
the better results are that it produced better exchange ratios, and as it required less specialisarion could be carried out on a larger scale, german tactics concentrated their best troops into a spearhead and that lead to weaker follow on attacks and heavy attrition of the spearhead units,
british tactics were designed to let a average division achieve the same results as a german stormtrooper divison and that meant that the offensives could be sustained in a way that the german offensives couldnt be.
by any measure british doctrine produced better results, it may have required more resources, but the british shattered the german army, the germans gave it their best shot, and couldnt break the british army
>>1219018
this
>>1220123
You are putting Portugal who almost didn't fight at the war in the same category as countries who lost hundreds of thousands or even millions of soldiers. kek.
>>1221777
>Do you think the outcome of the war would have been different with the British having the German doctrince and vice versa?
It wouldn't be different if the British/allies had used German doctrine, because the allies would not have suffered as much as the Germans had when they employed their "stormtrooper" tactics.
Had the Germans used the British doctrines, they might have actually been somewhat more successful. Not "winning the war" successful, but perhaps their spring offensives would not have been such failures.
Concentration of force is good, but pooling virtually all of your experienced and combat hardened veterans and basically just sending them forward with no clear objectives, that's just poor.
>>1222975
>pooling virtually all of your experienced and combat hardened veterans
By the way I need to stress this, THIS is what the Germans had done differently. THIS is (mistakenly labelled) the "stormtrooper tactics" as used by the Germans. Literally everyone was doing virtually interchangeable stormtrooper/infiltration/small unit tactics. But basically only Germany coupled it with taking the experienced troops and putting them together on a large scale. Which might have worked in another war, but not in the dozens-of-divisions grand scale of the western front.
>no love for Serbia pride
>>1223012
>>1221460
Fun fact: the Austro-Hungarian Empire broke before its army did.
In fact the Austro-Hungarian army was fighting in other people's lands. There was no enemy soldier in AH when the war ended.
>>1219665
>>1219679
While European "soldiers" were fuck boy "men" from the cramped and disgusting city slums, big brave Canadian and Australian men born and breed in the harsh conditions of the coldest to the hottest most barren and torturous points on the Earth, they were the most able, fearless and most skilled warriors on the battlefields FOR SURE.
>>1223411
They're drunk kangaroo punchers and draft dodgers, anon, not the SAS or the Green Berets.
>>1222975
>their spring offensives would not have been such failures.
Any outcome other than a decisive victory including taking Paris and the Channel Coast would be a failure. The Spring Offensives achieved relatively large land gains, if anything they would have made smaller advances if they chose a less hazardous tactic. It was a desparate last resort throwing everything in they had and it failed.
>>1222975
>basically just sending them forward with no clear objectives
all my what
>>1219620
>Best troops
>Canada and Australia.
They were British cannon fodder. The Brits just elevated them because they needed more.
>>1223502
>all my what
"All of your whats" well describe the "objectives" of the spring offensives quite well. On paper they had them, but as soon as the plan was set into motion, the notion of clear and well thought out long term objectives disintegrated and the German leadership instead focusing on short term gains of dubious value and tactical objectives which kept changing virtually constantly. Ludendorff was especially terrible in this regard, for example during Michael he would change objectives on a daily basis (!!! daily !!!). This in turn led to the Germans achieving basically nothing in the greater scope of things. Sure, they advanced very far (well, relatively speaking) at many points - because the situation on the ground allowed them to, and that is what the commanders caught scent of, and pursued that particular axis of attack... because the allies were trading mostly meaningless ground.
>>1219620
And germany take the complete initiative for more than half of the war, bombing Paris using cannons, lose the war without a single enemy in his soil with the 4 army after being allied with the 6th.
>>1219620
anglo delusion knows no limits
>>1223597
>lose the war without a single enemy in his soil
that's an indictment of how badly they have lost more than anything
the allies did not even need to push into germany to beat them!
how poor is that
>>1223635
>Allies made peace instead of pushing till Berlin and dismantle the German empire
how poor is that
>>1218980
>Bulgarians are actually German fucknut
no, they are slavicised turks
t. German
>>1223671
>Have tea break, then dismantle German empire at Versailles
poor desu
>>1223552
That wasn't the fault of the German shock troops tactics, though, but more the failure of the high command to properly exploit the previously achieved breakthroughs.
>>1217799
If it wasnt for monash the first world cup would still be going.
Mony was our jew
