That is true... without America's manpower Great Britain could barely launch two second fronts on Europe along... look at how many British participated in Normandy than American.
Printable View
That is true... without America's manpower Great Britain could barely launch two second fronts on Europe along... look at how many British participated in Normandy than American.
muhahahahaha
portuguese the portuguese :D
nationalism is good.
but it was the portugueses front that germans attack after that they lost the war :D
Well, the French and Serbians were overwhelmed; The Britsh had a good navy and technology but relied on levies of young men and were not exactly proffessional; America joined in later so it wasn't exactly ''fair''. I would say Russian, because they held against the Germans, Hungarians and (I thought they fought against the Russians as well) Ottomans. Of the Centrals, it was obviously Germany. They had a massive army, good technology, a fairly good navy and a good (but failed) strategy. The Hungarians were relatively weak for such a large empire and the Ottomans were much too weak. Mainly because they lost their elite-corps, the Jeni Cheri long ago and had to rely on German troops and weaponry.
Serbia deserves credit for fighting like lions at a tremendous disadvantage. No nation suffered more than Serbia in WWI. It's worth noting that after the Central Powers crushed Serbia, Field Marshal August von Mackensen erected a monument to the fallen Serbian soldiers and said, "We fought against an army that we have only heard about in fairy tales."
Overall, however, I would certainly have to say the British Empire. While British leadership bordered on terrible rather often, they introduced a large number of tactical and technical innovations which helped the Entente win the war. Additionally, as has been said many times in this thread, the dominion forces were superb--largely I believe because their generals were non-professional and not wedded to any military doctrine and simply tried to be effective.
I would say however that all of the Entente armies were a joke compared to the German army.
Besides the French, who else fought as long during WWI than the British for the Allies?
Between the French and British, I'll side with the British because of the rigorous training standards its soldiers had to go through and as aforementioned, the speed and accuracy with which its soldiers could fire their rifles.
Best allied fighting force in WW1. Why the USMC of course :thumbsup2
Soviets indeed had the great army that could rival the Nazi's powerful war machine ... proof are one of the bloodiest battles in man kind ... from Stalingrad to Kursk to Berlin itself ... when these 2 behemoths clashed it was taking no prisoners ... only blood !!!
Prince
Wrong war dudeQuote:
Soviets indeed had the great army that could rival the Nazi's powerful war machine ... proof are one of the bloodiest battles in man kind ... from Stalingrad to Kursk to Berlin itself ... when these 2 behemoths clashed it was taking no prisoners ... only blood !!!
I think quite a few people haven't caught on we are talking about WWI (1914-1918) not WWII (1939-1945)
I'll list the allies/entente members for you:
Russia
France
British Empire
USA
Italy
Serbia
Those were the main ones, anyway. But only Britain and France were on the allies for the entire war.
I dont see why Russia isnt getting much mention in this thread, they contributed a huge number of troops. Even if the troops were worse than the western allies on average they really do deserve mention because of sheer size.
Of the western allies it's pretty close. Early on France had a bigger contribution than the British because the BEF was pretty small. Towards the end of the war the British were better because they increased numbers and started to use better tactics. They also had tanks.
And as has been said, the reputation for the British dominion troops (Canada, ANZACs) also highlights that the British were pretty good.
Personally I think they did a pretty big part of the war effort. The Brusilov Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusilov_Offensive) in particular was pretty impressive. They also dealt to the Austro-Hungarians largely by themselves (Italy was fighting a smaller fraction than Russia was), and killed a fair few Germans. Its a shame the revolution happened, because they would have been pretty damn helpful if they had kept on fighting.
But i'll agree that Britain was probably more effective than Russia...
Russia had the best General on any side of the war, but their army was of abysmal quality. If Brusilov were CinC in the west, he'd have broken the western front and pushed the Germans back onto their home soil within 6 months of taking command. That he did what he did with what he had is one of the wonders of WW1.
Russian armies were no worse equipped than western armies for most of the war, and often had better equipment than the Austro-Hungarian forces. The Brusilov Offensive was also stopped once the German sudarmee counter-attacked (it was still a brilliant achievement).
That said, besides some of the dominion generals (Monash, Currie), the Entente generals on the Western Front were garbage.