It seems that one of the most vague comparisms one can make in general history is judging how capable one army is compared to another. My opinion is that casualty-casualty ratios are the way to go, but what are the opinions of you people.

I think before Modern time it was The one that had most Soldiers that would win, Now I Think it is the one with the Best Teknology.
So i would say Look at the one with the most and best Teknology, But of course i don't mean Countrys (Exept Israel) with just a few Millions Against Some one like Iran Or SomeThing. or something.

By creating a topic that doesn't have the word "best" in it.

Casualty ratio don't really tell the story, though. Vietnam is a prime example of that.

The "best" way to compare the "best" army is by comparing "fighting power".
It is balance between moral authority, knowledge base, and physical power.
They need to be balanced and strong, one cannot work without the others. Have a look at many "great" armies of today, and you'll see some massive shortfalls.

There are many facets to what makes a good fighting force and as a result there is not one single factor by which one can get an accurate comparison in my limited opinion. Training, equipment, doctrine, experience, will etc all of these are equally important and none is exclusive of the others.

If you think about it, there are so many factors to any military, that it's almost impossible to compare them...There are always wild card factors, advantage of terrain, maybe a few spies..I dont think it can be done with even 90% accuracy.

The "fighting power" method is the accepted realistic method used by ABCA Corps to rate a units effectivness.


Note: ABCA is Australia, Britain, Canada, The United States and New Zealand.

Thanks for that Nick... something else to learn more about.

well there it is...Thanks for that, Nick.

Don't worry about it fellas. Just more useless stuff to sleep through in officer training