I think we shouldn't look at all-time biggest, but rather who achived the most.

Genghis Khan (he certainly conquered the most km2)? Alexander the Great (though that didn't last for long)? Rome?

1.) The U.S. mainly entered the 20th Century wars to contain communism...... korea, vietnam, etc.... 2.) America never fought in a surrounding like vietnam and the vietnam had underground trails from the war before giving them an already advantage.... 3.) Any war is hard to win.... and as i recall it the Canadians haven't been a big influence in any war...? 4.) Without America Germany Might own all of Europe and Africa..... Maybe America by now..... 5.) America Won in Africa, and Europe.... and the British Airforce That *Defeated the Louweffe had AMERICANS fighting for them because they were low on troops..... 6.) Your a Dumbass Aslan

I must say what about the American Revolution? The Americans beat the strongest army in the world and The British Couldn't handle Peasants..?

@BusDespres

The British army, even at the height of the Empire, was never all that strong. We've traditionally had one of the smallest armies in Europe (at least before WWII). Add to that the fact that the British Americans rebelling over not having any representation in parliament had quite a lot of support back home, and it's a wonder it took as long as it did.

@ Octavious

You do make a good point but hardly armed... and scavengering things of the british is what the americans did... i mean they were peasants.... what won us that war was our tactics.... like ambushing convoys and so forth

@Busdepres

I hardly think the British colonists would have described themselves as peasents. There were a fair few former British soldiers in the mix, including the oath breaker George Washington, and a lot of working class. What won you the war was a general dislike by British troops to fire on fellow British subjects, widespread support for the revolutionaries in many parts of Britain, and a lot of what can only be described as cheating from the French. Of course, you were pretty good fighters in your own right, but that's only to be expected from a bunch of Brits who were properly pissed off.

How can you make a that long list and forget the French and the Germans? And how can you leave the Soviet Union that far down?

While the armies of every other European nation consisted of scared, conscript peasants with incompetent nobles commanding them, Napoleon's Grande Armée consisted of free men willing to fight for their country, and officers who gained their positions through merit. Despite the impression one might get from British propaganda, Napoleon didn't start any of the Napoleonic Wars. In fear of the liberal revolution spreading to their own countries, every major European power declared war on France. Five wars were fought initially, and France won them all, conquering most of continental Europe. Over-ambition became the bane of Napoleon, however. After the disastrous invasion of Russia, the downfall was not far away. Europe - and the oppressive British Empire - would have looked very different if it had not been so.

And then there are the Germans, of course. Politics aside, the Wermacht was the most impressive war machine of the entire 20th century. After the First war, and after the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was humiliated. Twenty-one years later the tables were turned. In just a few months, German combined arms rolled through Poland, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and France, completely overwhelming all opposition. The German troops, their equipment, discipline and morale far outmatched everyone else. Brilliant German generals like Guerdian and Rommel got plenty of opportunities to prove their worth. The Royal Air Force and Royal Navy were barely able to prevent an invasion of the United Kingdom. The Germans would probably have won, and been able to force the English and Americans to accept a peace treaty, if it had not been for - yet again - the Russians.

The Red Army was entirely unprepared for Operation Barbarossa. Stalin had purged most of the officers a few years earlier, equipment was lacking, logistics was lacking, and with the western front won, Germany could focus all its power on gaining lebensraum in the east. But despite its flaws, the Russians were prepared to give everything to defend their motherland. With help from the Russian winter, they were able to eventually grind the German war machine to a standstill in late 1941. For two years, Stalin was begging the British and the Americans to open a second front in the west. But apart from good intentions and supplies, there wasn't much help to be had, and the Russians had to do everything themselves. The key was the Russian industry. Through the 1930s, while depression broke the economies in the West, Stalin's five-year plans had transformed Russia from a backwards agricultural country to be on par with many of its neighbours. So during the war, factories were re-purposed to build military equipment. The small city of Chelyabinsk, dubbed Tankograd, eventually produced more tanks than all of Germany. With 35000 T-34 tanks (the best tank in the world at that time), excellent artillery, 400 divisions of infantry and brilliant generals like Zhukov and Konev, the Red Army was able to push back the Germans. By the time the Allies finally landed in France, the war had already been won on the east front. The Red Army had already reached Poland, and the race to Berlin was on.

Israel number 3 overall? Really? They kicked Egypt's ass, which, analogized to sporting terms, is roughly along the lines of thumping the French national hockey team. I'll give them quality performance against substandard opposition in '67. But number 3 overall? What about classical Persia, who beat the Romans like a rented mule more often than not? Or the Franks/French, pretty much any time between ca. 300 CE and 1916, the true bad-ass mofos of European land wars. The Zulu? The Inca, who conquered half of South America, using only infantry marching along at 14,000 feet?

OK for everyone who keeps saying the us didn't matter in world war two. Without our war materiel supplied to britian and Russia they would have lost, that simple without us entering Africa the British would have been rolled by Rommel. Without our invasion of Italy and France more troops would have been on the eastern front

I dispute that the 20th century was Russia's, even accepting his logic that the most significant event of the century defines whose century it was. I would argue that the Japanese victory in the Russo-Japanese war had far more significance than the Soviet Revolution. For the first time since the Mongols (or the Ottoman encroach into the Balkans, depending upon how you wanted to define it), a European power was beaten decisively and had to surrender territory to a people independant of the European cultural tradition. The death knell of the age of empires was sounded at Tsushima and Mukden.

1. Indubitably, the US played a critical logistical support role in the victory of the Red Army in the European phase of WWII. That said, Africa, Italy, and even France were more or less sideshows to the real war, the one between the Sovs and Nazis. And, after Stalingrad, there was absolutely no chance in hell that the Nazis could have won. Frankly, I don't think they could have won after the Sovs weathered Barbarossa; once the Siberian production got up and kicking, the difference in manpower and materiel between the Soviets and the Nazis was too great for a Nazi victory in a true war to the death.

2. The US's real achievements in WWII happened in the Pacific War. Midway is as catstrophic a defeat as any modern state has suffered. MacArthur's reconquest of New Guinea is maneuver warfare to rival anything Feldmarschall Rommel did in North Africa. That said, the US never was going to lose the Pacific War, once Japan decided to go after Pearl Harbor. Japan's best choice would probably have been to chill out on China for a bit to mollify American opinion out of the various embargoes and go after Siberia in accord with the Nazis. Failing that, had the Japanese just gone after the Southwest Pacific and made the battleship-heavy American fleet come after them in the Phillipines while they still had their veteran pilots and the technologically superior air force, the massive defeat in the Marianas might have persuaded America to negotiate a deal. There always was a strong current of distate with our occupation of the Phillipines, and we might have cut them loose.

Not all of Napoleon's army were volunteers. At first, many of them were conscripts which pissed off many of the conservative areas of France. And by the time the Napoleonic Wars really started, but before Napoleon took the throne. France was more of a conservative, elitist republic, sort of like but Britain without a King. Also France were the first to declare war on Austria and Prussia in 1792; but then again, this was due to threats from both countries, and specifically the Brunswick Manifesto.

The Pacific War was won as soon as it started. America's industrial output massively outstripped Japan's (I think it was somewhere around 15 to 30 times Japan's output).

Japan had to declare war with us. Otherwise they couldn't take Indonesia and Malay. If they attacked these It was war with the us. But to keep their war machine going they needed the rubber and other resources of these areas. So as soon as they'd embargoed steel rubber petroleum and other goods war was a foregone conclusion

And They were sideshowws intentionally who would you rather have invade you? Russia or the us in terms of necessity to the war cause the west was more vital. You see the nazis admitted defeat as soon as they lost Italy and Africa by then the Maxis were simply looking for the best overlords

How come no one has mentioned the Tang and Song armies of the post-classical period? They were able to conquer a huge empire in Central Asia while kyeeping control of the central provinces of China and defeat multiple forces with each their own fighting styles (Mongols, Tibetans, Uigurs, Liao, Jin etc). The Tang and Song were able to produce huge amounts of iron (rivaling Britain's output during the Industrial Revolution) and had a high level of technology when compared to the rest of the world at the time. The Song even built an army about the size of America's current military and held off better armies on huge frontiers for decades before succumbing to a wave of invasions. For their many centuries of Asian hegemony, I believe they deserve a spot on the top 10 armies of all time.

Centurion- I buy that Japan had to go to war with the US if they were going to continue trying to digest China south of Manchukuo. I think Pearl Harbor was a strategic disaster, however. Had the IJN limited its attacks to the Southwest Pacific area, and assuming that the six extra carriers used against Pearl would have made the initial strike at the Phillippines much more devastating, they force the USN to try and retake the Phillippines at the end of a long supply line, and with naval doctrine that still centered upon the supremacy of the battleship. I feel confident in saying the IJN of April, 1942, supported by land-based air and fighting close to their own bases, would have thoroughly demolished any American fleet that would have been sent out to recapture the Phillippines. After that battle, Japan might have been able to cut a deal with the US to the effect of US retains supremacy in the eastern Pacific and trade rights with the Chinese, and Japan's conquest of Indonesia, the Phillippines, Malaysia, and the rest of western Pacific, excepting China, is recognized. Long run, I think the disparity in industrialization was too great for Japan to win, if America entered a war to the death. But if Japan could have successfully framed the war into a dispute over who would be the Western Pacific's colonial master, there might have been room for negotiation.

Your not factoring in American belief of racial superiority they probably wouldn't deal with Japan after war was initiated

Israel:
1: Is the only country to successfully fight a war against guerrillas.
2: Has never lost a war.
3: Has achieved all of it's objectives. The IDF's primary aim was always to survive.
An army is measured by success.
4: Has an excellent Intel Dept.

2: They have international backing for most things, and it is their more powerful allies standing behind them that protect their interests.
3: No they haven't: Palestine still exists.
4: They got caught assassinating people - that's not great! The whole point of covert missions is that you do them without others being able to track it back to you

@ BusDesperes. I'm not saying that Canada belongs anywhere on a list of greatest militaries ever. (Far from it.) But relative to our population we don't do too badly in wars.
In WWI Canadian forces fought in the Somme, Ypres and Passchendale and captured Vimy Ridge where the British and French both failed.
In WWII we also played a sizable role. I realize this is disputed, but it is a Canadian who is credited with shooting down the Red Baron. Also Canadian forces participated in the D-Day landings, and in fact on the first day of the Normandy invasion Canadian forces managed to push further than British or American forces against heavier opposition (except at Omaha beach where opposition was the heaviest.) Canadian Forces were also responsible for liberating parts of Belgium, particularly the Scheldt region and nearly all of the Netherlands.
Canada still has somewhere between 2500 and 3000 personnel deployed in Afghanistan.
Over the years Canada has also participated in any number of UN peace keeping missions, and the idea of peace keeping was first developed by Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson.
Sorry for the rant and also going slightly off topic. Just yeah, don't tell Canadians we've never played a major part in any war. We don't like it.

No one did.

And ftr the red baron was ww1

Arrr. yes he was! I knew that. Just, absent mindedness.

1. What guerrilla war did Israel successfully prosecute?

2. Maybe you should look and see what happened in Malaya in the 50's, or the various Anglo-Maratha wars, or check out Roman history before you claim that israel is the only military to defeat a guerrilla insurgency.

@ centurion1, I was replying to "BusDespres" who said "as i recall it the Canadians haven't been a big influence in any war...?" I suppose it's possible I misinterpreted what he meant by it.

Canada has an army?

ROFL

Wow, we've never heard that one before!

The Canadian army is highly respected in the UK. I'm surprised after all the help Canada has given to the US it it's recent military adventures it is not more respected there as well.

Instead of debating WW2 production look it up. Different sources are different in detail but all show the same pattern. Over all US GDP out produced all other belligerents combined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II How ever tanks and artillery tubes the USSR out produced even the US. The reason they could do so is because the US supplied them with 90%+ of their trucks, which the US produced at least as much as all others combined. Also the USSR produced very little in way of ships reducing other needs for steel. Aircraft the also US equaled all of the other allies combined, and USSR was a major recipient of aircraft. In short, without US production the UK and the USSR could not have replaced all their losses they suffered at the outset of the war.

Also note that the Candians in areas produced as much if not more than the UK.