Most Militarily Powerful Country in WWI? - Historum

magykconquerer · May 11th, 2012, 03:31 PM

What country/empire do you think had the most powerful military (army, navy) in World War I.

I think the Germans had the most powerful army.
The British had the most powerful navy.
Overall, the Germans (My opinion) had the most powerful military in WWI.

Larrey · May 11th, 2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magykconquerer

What country/empire do you think had the most powerful military (army, navy) in World War I.

I think the Germans had the most powerful army.
The British had the most powerful navy.
Overall, the Germans (My opinion) had the most powerful military in WWI.

There's a time factor involved. The armies of 1914 were nothing like the armies of 1918. While Germany seems pretty given as the most powerful single national army in 1914, by 1918 it was far from it.

**dagul** · May 11th, 2012, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larrey

There's a time factor involved. The armies of 1914 were nothing like the armies of 1918. While Germany seems pretty given as the most powerful single national army in 1914, by 1918 it was far from it.

It's the same as Germany in 1938 and by 1943.

**Guaporense** · May 11th, 2012, 05:04 PM

Germany had still the single most powerful army in the world in 1918 and also in 1943. Though the fact was that in both cases the German army was fighting multiple armies simultaneously that could also replace many more casualties than the Germans could.

In WW2, in the Eastern front, for instance, the Germans inflicted 4 times more casualties on the Soviets, however the Soviet manpower generation capacity was 6 times greater. So that the German strength in the Eastern front continually declined relative to the Soviet strength and by 1944 the Soviets had a massive numerical superiority which combined with their casualty replacement capability enabled them to maintain the strategic initiative.

magykconquerer · May 12th, 2012, 05:37 PM

Germany's manpower was pretty much a lot less than their Russian counterparts. So, they were basically outnumbered, yet they had better technology equipped and better training.

the Chief · May 13th, 2012, 02:58 PM

Technology can be a double-edged sword. The Panther may have been technologicaly superior to the T-34 but the T-34 was good where it had to be especialy when it was given the 85mm gun. If Panther could have been mass-produced at the rate of T-34 maybe the inevitable could have been held off longer.
Someone more knowledgable than I has said that the Mk!V should have been churned out like the Shermans and T-34s were and Panther and Tiger forgotten.

pugsville · May 13th, 2012, 05:00 PM

Production of Tanks was just one of the problems. Short of manpower to crew, and Oil to drive them around. Manpower in the factories, resources to fuel the factories.

Having a more mass producible tank does not translate automatically into more tanks and panzer divisions.

athena · May 13th, 2012, 06:57 PM

Quote:

The Germans military organization is the world's model, at least from the standpoint of immediate accomplishment of results, and therefor we can hardly do better than to emulate it in its perfect working. It was effected in its minutest detail by the very essence of scientific thought and application. In that organization every tongue fitted its groove, every tooth its socket. We have seen how the Kaiser's marvelous soldiers carried their banner to the very outskirts of Paris in August and September, 1914. It is the Great God efficiency, to which the Germans were required by their commanders to pay the homage of worship-and it behooves us either to effect a thing that will operate as well or to copy theirs. The fact of the world at war has silenct the erring lips that declared against the necessity for preparation against disaster, like that of Belgium and Servia.

J.A.B. Sinclair, Surgeon, United States Navy, Portland, Oregon Recruiting Station, Portland, Ore.

This speech is recorded in the book of the National Education Association- Addresses and Proceedings Portland, Ore. 1917 Vol LV

This is my favorite subject and the war is what our public education in the US to include vocational training. However, the best weapon anyone had was patriotic citizens, so the focus of education remained good citizenship. Not until 1958 did we completely replace our liberal education with Germany's model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose. I think this defends the notion that Germany was was the most powerful Country in WWI, until the US entered the war.

The greatest advantages the US had, was US education prepared everyone for independent thinking, so if one of our leaders was taken out, another would appear, kind of the heads of the Hydra of Greek mythology. Also our large population and ability to feed the allies, and the fact that our factories were not bombed.

It should be said that until the Korean war, the US always demobilized after a war, and therefore, always started out behind. I took at least a year for the US to mobilize for WWI and WWII. However, since Eisenhower and the adoption of German models of bureaucracy and education, we are the greatest military power in the world, but there is might not always be true. Just know it is so, because we imitated Germany, and it might be argued, the Germans were as they were because their institutions made them so. Actually we might question who really won the war?

athena · May 13th, 2012, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pugsville

Production of Tanks was just one of the problems. Short of manpower to crew, and Oil to drive them around. Manpower in the factories, resources to fuel the factories.

Having a more mass producible tank does not translate automatically into more tanks and panzer divisions.

And Afghanistan is essential to oil pipelines, so we are now going to help them modernize. Isn't that nice of us?

Larrey · May 13th, 2012, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by athena

This is my favorite subject and the war is what our public education in the US to include vocational training. However, the best weapon anyone had was patriotic citizens, so the focus of education remained good citizenship. Not until 1958 did we completely replace our liberal education with Germany's model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose. I think this defends the notion that Germany was was the most powerful Country in WWI, until the US entered the war.

And yet paradoxically, when the AEF properly went to war against the Germans in 1918, it did so equipped by the French army, fighting like the French army, and the British army as well for that matter (except when Pershing though he knew better than either, and got a fair few of his men killed in the process), and defeated the Germans.

As for the idea of being the ones thinking for themselves, frankly it sounds like any other army. The French self-image is largely created around the idea of themselves as independent-minded fixers, and the WWI epitome of that ideas is the image of the "poilu", master scrounger and of getting comfortable in the most impossible situations.

You can find some wonderful UK instruction films on how they would fight a German invader in 1940, and their supposed real advantage would be British independent thinking, unlike those German automatons — while we know that the Germans of that Nazi army at the time were the real pioneers at small unit tactics, and making sure individual soldiers were trained to take initiatives to keep missions going.