WW1 POWER RANKINGS FROM BEST TO WORST
come r8, deb8, h8 etc. (not including minor powers)
>Britain
>Germany
>France
>USA
>Russia
>Austria-Hungary
>Italy
>Ottoman Empire
>>749440
Ottoman Empire lower than Italy? Are you sure about that?
>>749458
As soon as I posted it I felt unsure about it, difficult to judge, Italy took Libya in 1912 from the Ottomans, both kind of sucked arse.
For what reason would you say Ottoman comes above Italy?
>>749472
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Caporetto
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign
>Britain
topbait
>>749440
>USA
Wait, they were in WW1?
The United States joined late during the war after a civilian ferry got btfo'd, they got into it during 1917.
They contributed little, except death. Americans are good at dying, and taking credit.
>>749488
Yeah I know about Gallipoli but that was a horrific offensive against well dug in Italians, the rankings cover the war as a whole.
>>749485
yeah, that is pretty horrific but so is the terrain, plus I don't really see Ottomans doing any better in the same situation
>>749489
What would you put at the top? Tanks are pretty damn innovative and led the way for Blitzkrieg tactics
>>749506
Pretty much this. I can't think of anything they actually did in WWII aside from stopping the Soviets from taking over the rest of Europe after they stomped Hitler. Oh, and they lent a few tanks or something.
>>749440
>Top tier
Germany
>Decent Tier
Japan
France
Belgium
Austria-Hungary
>Just Stop tier
UK
Italy
Ottoman Empire
Russia
>>749440
>No Canada
>>749515
Yes, let's talk about who has the largest army, and which army had the highest 'quality'.
What purpose does that serve? A statistic debate? Useless to have a power ranking unless
we consider what they actually did during the conflict.
>>749557
Not even a fucking country.
>Shining example of military efficiency tier
Germany
>Brave and resilient tier
France
>JUST tier
Russia
>"My untrained civilians will replace my excellent albeit annihilated regular army with no drawbacks whatsoever TALLY HO LADS KITCHENER'S ARMY WILL SMASH THE HUN" tier
>British Commonwealth
"Tactics are for scoundrels; gentlemen advance towards the line while at a leisurely pace and/or playing football" tier
>British Commonwealth
>"Wot? Parachutes for our pilots? No, no, that will only make our lads in the air fight halfheartedly" tier
British Commonwealth
>>749440
>Germany
>France
>US
>Britain
>Austria
>Italy
>Russia
Ottomans are inclassable since they did horrible under the ottomans but raped the Brits as Turkey
>honorary mention: Serbia
>>749440
>Britain
Had a small professional army at the beginning of the war. Turned a massive volunteer/conscript army into a competent fighting force by 1918. Major player in the end victory.
>Germany
Majorly overrated. Falkenhayn fucked up badly. Verdun was a clusterfuck. 1915 strategy in the east was very effective. 1918 was another colossal fuck up.
>France
Took the brunt of the German offensive. Managed to stay in the war even though their army mutinied in 1917.
>USA
Only made an impact in 1918. Refused to be under direct allied command. Thousands of lives wasted learning how to not walk into machine guns when the Brits and French could have told them that for free.
>Russia
Absolutely useless. Brusilov offensive aside, they got absolutely smashed.
>Italy
How many battles of Isonzo. Useless. Had to be bailed out by French and Brits.
>Austro-Hungary
Finished by early 1915. Propped up by Germany for the whole of the war. Their military leader Conrad was a grade A idiot.
>Ottomans
Muh Gallipoli. Useless sickman of Europe that got curb stomped by the Brits and French later in the war.
>>749440
Of those countries, clearly the USA. On the winning side with the least amount of casualties.
>>749614
>Ottomans are inclassable since they did horrible under the ottomans but raped the Brits as Turkey
Turkey doesn't count since it wasn't controlled by the AI.
>>749829
>On the winning side with the least amount of casualties.
Well, yeah, obviously. They were in the war for the least amount of time, only about a year and a half.
>>749871
>Sat back watching a bunch of inbred monarchs playing Risk with actual human lives, intervenes at just the right time to ensure the outcome they wanted with the least loss of life to it's own citizens.
I guess politics don't count in this power ranking
>>749507
Germany is top without a doubt
>>749960
how the hell is Germany top?
>Fucked up the Schlieffen plan.
>Verdun was absolute chaos.
>Took a battering at the Somme.
>Fucked up Spring Offensives in early 1918.
>Everyone hated Falkenhayn who was out of his depth with his 1916 strategy.
>Unrestricted U-boat warfare led to US entry into the war.
>>749440
>implying the US wasn't a minor power in WW1...
why do you think there haven't been any good ww1 fps games? The US got involved by the time the war was over and as such there's no market for it in the 13 colonies...
>>749557
Canada will never be addressed in world history
it's just something we have to accept
>>749517
>Oh, and they lent a few tanks or something.
I think you're vastly understating the amount of supplies and equipment that the US provided for the soviets
Look it up, soviets woulda had a much harder time if not for the US
>>749987
Stop being an edgy faggot, no nation would have done better with the odds the Germans faced
>>749829
>The USA was one in the winning side with the least amount of casualties.
You do know Japan fought in the side of the Allies so the technically have the least amount of casualties.
>>749994
Demand has been increasing steadily for it. People are fed up with WWII and getting fed up with Vietnam. I'd expect solid WWI, Civil War and Revolutionary War FPS games coming soon, looking at recent trends heading towards minimalist and old-fashioned realism.
>>749440
Even as a Brit myself, I have to admit that the UK outside of India was a fucking joke. The Empire had already started to crumble. The meme about us ever being the world's strongest power is silly as well. We got BTFO by the Zulus and the Boers.
>>750078
>Schlieffen plan
They overestimated their own strength and underestimated the French. They thought it would Sedan all over again.
>They failed to take the Meuse heights at Verdun. Falkenhayn's policy of attrition didn't work as the Germans lost just as many men as the allies.
>The focus in 1916 should have been finishing off the Russians. The Russians were on life support and were waiting to be crushed. They easily could have traded space in the West for winning in the east.
>They had no overall strategy for March 1918. (Michael) It was just some vague conception about driving the British into the sea. If done right,this operation was their best chance of winning. Instead of smashing through the British Fifth Army, they decided to widen the attack to the north against the Third Army around Arras in which they got heavily rebuffed.The operations after this never carried the same intensity and threat.
Granted, the Germans were up against the odds but they knew this when they started the war. There were still many missed opportunities which they failed to capitalise on.
>>749440
>no romania on the list
>forgetting about everyone's favorite distraction
>>750116
>"Hinges? Why should we have such fancy nonsense on our ammo crates? We could just nail them shut!"
>>750078
As we all know Germany was invaded by France and had no control over the odds. They lost 1.7 million people for no gain.
>>749440
I'd say it's pretty stupid to compare radically different countries and campaigns on such a vague scale but, whatever, I'll bite...
In terms of overall effort, I'm always consistently amazed about just how well Germany was able to compensate for its significantly less-competent allies, outlast massive blockades and fight two-front conflicts and still be able to sit atop of their own production demands in both of the world wars.
Everyone else, with perhaps the exception of the States and their sheer advantage in practically all fields, has their own fair shares of merits and catastrophic blunders in WWI, and are pretty much incomparable to the German war machine.
>>750116
The British did pretty well in the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, albeit against the weakest major belligerent in the war.
>>750131
>romania joins
>romania is defeated 2 weeks later and reparations keep the war going for extra 3 months
>>749440
>Germany
>France
>USA
>GB
>Russia
>Ottoman
>AU-HU
>Italy
>>749557
We will never get our credit for either of the world wars.
>>749507
>well dug in Italians
bruh, italians in gallipoli
>>749548
>>Just Stop tier
>UK
So weird to think about how much they fucked up
But i agree they consistently rank among the worst
>>750196
literally my favorite part of WW1 history
>Britain and France heavily pressures Romania to join
>Tons of pro romanian propoganda
>Romania believes all the rimming it's getting from the Entente means they are worth anything
>Declare's war on Germany
>German's proceed to gain more clay and hardly notice
I'd put it
>GERMANY
>FRANCE
>USA
specifically because Germany was in a horrible position fighting a multi front war but was able to hold on for relatively long. France was able to recover from a sneak attack and didn't embarrass them selves and the U.S mostly because although they came in late their large supply of food and guns + ammo tipped the war heavily in the Allies favor. I could see Britain moving the U.S out just because they fought longer but I do feel like the U.S' contributions to the war get ignored a lot
>>749507
>Gallipoli
>well dug in Italians
You mean the Ottoman empire.
>>749548
>top teir Germany
So good they surrendered at the end
>>750288
So good they almost successfully fought a war on two fronts while almost consistently gaining more clay at the earlier stages of the war.
The aftermath of WWI was done simply to punish Germany for being so good at war.
>>750125
>they started the war
when will this meme finally die?
>>749507
>yeah, that is pretty horrific but so is the terrain
Which is why Italy getting btfo when Austria had contained every offensive in the same terrain was doubly embarrassing.
>>749657
>Finished by early 1915.
This is wrong. What finished them was the Brusilov offensive, and despite that they were still able to hold three fronts and provide most of the manpower to wreck Romania and Italy in 1916 & 1917.
>>749440
I guess I'll make my power rankings. I've just started to get into WWI, so here are mine (from worst to best):
>Russia
Honestly, they weren't economically or militarily prepared for a war at all. Their leaders were weak, and their government was destroyed. They couldn't into intelligence or code, either. That being said, the Russian revolution is a really cool thing to study in its own right, and I'm a bit of a Sovietboo, so some good things did come out of this.
>Italy
I don't know that much about Italy's involvement yet, but I fucking hate Italy so here's where I'm ranking it.
>Austria-Hungary
The incompetence of their general staff astounds me. The country was unprepared for war, and couldn't adapt. Pretty much unforgivable. Austria-Hungry might actually deserve Russia's place.
>Ottoman Empire
Their ability to adapt to modern warfare and the toughness of their troops despite being a failing empire is impressive as fuck.
>USA
The USA didn't do too much, but they really learned and adapted their military from the other countries during the war, and were able to field a modern army without any problem upon entry to WWI, which is incredibly impressive, especially since they had a bunch of really poor shows in their several previous wars, two of which were against Indians and Mexican gangs. If their involvement came earlier, then I might rank them higher.
>France
All of the countries on the Western front were unprepared, but France was the worst by far. They managed to get a very good senior general staff eventually, but the mutinies of 1917 put them behind the other nations.
>Britain
They had a good, modern army, and it only got bigger and better during the war.
>Germany
I wouldn't understand why anyone wouldn't rate Germany as number 1. Amazing military and diplomatic pre-war planning (although much of it was wrong), excellent development of doctrines and willingness to experiment by the general staff.
>>750686
>Russia below Italy
>A-H below Ottoman Empire
Other than that it's an ok list.
>>750692
Switching Russia and Italy makes sense to me, because of Italy's lack of importance in the war and the fact that Italy has been just the absolute shittiest place since Rome fell.
>A-H below Ottoman Empire/Turkey
I think it's a pretty subjective decision. The romance of a medieval sultanate fighting in a modern war appeals to me, and their defense at Gallipoli is straight up heroic.
The repetitive incompetency of the A-H just pisses me off. They got rekt by Serbia. SERBIA. The irony of it just depressing.
>>749548
>Germany
>any tier other than "good try"
Are you German?
>>750961
Power rankings aren't just "let's list the belligerents who won then the belligerents who lost"
>>750686
>>749657
>>749596
What's with all this placing Russia in the same category as Italy, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottomans?
Even before Brusilov decided to kick ass, the Russians were wiping the floor with Austria-Hungary and Turkey, and that isn't at all hyperbole.
After encircling and crushing the Austrians at Premyszl/Galicia and the breaching of the Carpathians, Russia was in a position to sweep into Hungary and knock A-H out of the war 3 years early. As usual, it was the Russian high command fucking up and wilfully ignoring reports of an enormous German build-up to the north that completely ruined what had been up until that point the most successful Entente theatre of the war in Europe.
Ditto for fighting against the Ottomans. When the Turk high command wasn't happily sending its troops in summer uniforms to die of frostbite in the mountains ala Italy, they were being just generally incompetent and being constantly outmanoeuvred and outgunned by the Russians *on their own territory*.
It's honestly really depressing when you see how many gains Russia made against A-H and the Ottomans, but how utterly dwarfed those gains were by Germany ass-fucking them at damn near every battle. Considering how much even the British and French struggled against the Krauts, it was inevitable that Russia was going to be curbstomped by Big Willy and the Feldgrau Boyz.
>Shining example of the superiority of the Anglo race tier. Tally ho chaps, for King and country!
UK
>edgy katana kid who still gets shit done tier
Germany
>piss on rags to fight off gas tier
British Commonwealth
>held their ground tier
France
>doomed from the start but did their best tier
Serbia
Belgium
>JUST tier
Russia
Italy
>Did you even try? tier
Austria-Hungary
>Literally Who? tier
Japan
Romania
USA
>unclassifiable since their one victory was absolutely stunning compared to the literal retardation of every other engagement they fought in tier
Ottomeme Empire/T*rkey
>Germany
p-p-please ban your evil devil guns (while we use chemical gas) tier.
>>749440
In all seriousness I would place Germany in the first place, the Brits just send in wave after wave of fresh recruits to France and escalated the war enormously, more of them and French died in the western from than Germans, and Russia, France and Britain barely managed to defeat Germany, even though they had far less troops and Bavarian princes charging without orders
>France
>France
>France
the rest are runners up
>>750346
>almost
>almost
>so good
>>750686
>They had a good, modern army, and it only got bigger and better during the war.
They suffered a massive drop in quality of troops after the tiny BEF got btfo. It certainly did not 'only' get better.
>I wouldn't understand why anyone wouldn't rate Germany as number 1.
>Amazing military and diplomatic pre-war planning
>... although much of it was wrong
lel got me good
>WW1 POWER RANKINGS FROM BEST TO WORST
Britain, from a minor player in terms of numbers on the ground they had grown to become the number one military of the war by its end
France, did most of the heavy lifting for most of the war, only in the last stages of the war were they overtaken by the British
> a small gap
Germany, cannot possibly be higher than those who had defeated them, got the win in the east but ultimately a lot of "almosts" in their plans, but "almost" is not good enough
>a big gap
Russia, couldn't duke it out in the long run but still more than bloodied the nose of Austria until the Germans stepped in and ramped it up
>another small gap again
Austria-Hungary, they weren't as terrible as "popular" history makes them out, but mostly they couldn't hack it in the east
Turkey, isolated wins don't make up for pretty much having already lost by the turn of 16/17
>>751092
dis anon knows
>>749937
>least loss of life to it's own citizens
Thanks for the laugh.
>>749548
>Decent Tier
>Japan
Why? Didn't they overrun German colonized islands with no garrisons
>>749507
>Blitzkrieg tactics
Holy shit.
>>749506
The problem with talking about American involvement in WW1 is that you'll fail for one of two lobbies and you know which ones these are.
American contributions to entente's victory in WW1 were:
>providing relatively cheap credits to France and Britain
>helping in blockading Germans(not THAT big deal given British superiority on seas but it turned the balance of powers from "German fleet is dangerous but they won't win decisive battle" to "German fleet won't even engage in small skirmishes")
>delivering around 500 thousands soldiers(out of total million that arrived to France, half of them took part in fights)
Of course they were pre-war military entering pretty serious war, so the beginnings were very poor(also because of dumbassery) for Americans but bigger numbers of them were right in time of later stages of Plan Michael and whole 100 days offensive where they've fought more or less war they were prepared for. While they weren't 100% needed to win those campaigns, they've certainly ensured that the war didn't drag until 1919 or even 1920.
>>750346
>almost
>
>
>>750547
Its not a meme. They were dumb enough to give Austro-Hungary a blank cheque to deal with Serbia. They knew this action risked a major war but did it anyway.
>>750598
Maybe finished is too strong a word but they were definitely incapable of fighting in the East without massive German support. Conrad and Falkenhayn both knew this. Germany had to change its entire strategy for 1915 because Austria was getting wrecked. Falkenhayn wanted offensives in the West but because the Austrians were so close to collapse, he was forced to intervene in the East.
>>751092
Agree with much of that. Yes, they were better than Austria but thats not saying very much at all. They were lucky the Germans did not pursue an Eastern policy in 1916 otherwise there exit from the war would have come a year earlier.
