WWI Performance Power Rankings

1. Germany
2. United Kingdom
3. France
4. Russia
5. Ottoman Empire
6. Austria-Hungary
7. Italy

Is this accurate?

Attached: caricature_map_of_europe_1914_by_keithwormwood.jpg (1146x940, 419K)

0. United States

It's hard to gauge Russia because their army was the most powerful on paper, but their logistics and leadership were fucking awful.

Brusilov Offensive was impressive though.

>1. Germany
>2. United Kingdom
>3. France
>4. Russia
>5. Ottoman Empire
>6. Italy
>7. Austria-Hungary

Russians finally had someone decent commanding them, and Lenin hadn't started his infamout chimpout yet.

>top 3 countries are germanic
Why are Germanics so good at war bros?

Not really. Are you talking per man or what? Overall fighting and casualties inflicted on the enemy, scaled somewhat by enemy quality? If the latter then it should be:
>Germany
>Russia
>France
>Austria
>Britain
>Italy
>Turkey

If the former:
>Germany
>France
>Britain
>Russia
>Austria
>Italy
>Turkey
But the gaps aren't huge at all, after all Italian and Austrian soldiers could still go to the Western Front and do reasonably well.

Fuck off, French are LATIN bulls.

Attached: napoleonphysicaldescription.jpg (1726x146, 146K)

>French are LATIN bulls
WE

I feel like the Ottomans don't really get the respect they should. While yea they definitely weren't top tier they repulsed the British at Galipoli and were pretty well trained IIRC. They had also just been rocked by a few wars unlike the Western Powers which were pretty fresh for WW1. The fact they held out as long as they did is really impressive to me

Switch France and Britain, switch A-H and Ottomans, and then yes

1. Germany: No one denies the military might the Germans had, being able to 1 v 2 UK and France and work with their allies to force Russia to an early treaty.

2. UK: This is probably the most debated spot on the list with the two primary contenders being UK and France. IMO the early battles the British fought were enough to prevent the Germans from reaching Paris at the start of the war and the blockade placed on Germany is often regarded as one of the most influential aspects in forcing the German surrender.

3. France: I think most people understand the fact that if France was solo against Germany than it would've been an exact repeat of the Franco-Prussian War. However, the necessity of assistance shouldn't disregard the achievements of the French. They contributed the most on the ground of all the allied nations and are barely edged out by the UK.

4. Ottoman Empire: Another contentious placement that is usually fought for between the Ottomans and Russia. However, since Russia dropped out early and since the Ottomans had a solid stand at Gallipoli, I give them spot 4.

5: Austria-Hungary: I'm sure ranking these guys above Russia isn't the most popular idea ever proposed. However, with their major part in starting the war and participation on several fronts puts them here in my books.

6. Russia: I only have Russia ranked this low for their surrender in 1917. Dropping the war early is a huge deminishment imo. That, and the fact that they performed poorly through majority of their time spent in the war

7: Italy: look, we all know why Italy is here
They had one major front and they still almost even screwed that up.

Russia btfo the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary though

Well

Germany beat Russia, Russia beat Austria-Hungary, Austria-Hungary beat Italy

Russia and France did more than the UK.

France mainly focused on the western front occupying the quiet sectors, more British forces where on other fronts. Frances navy sat in the Mediterranean.

Just not true.

>other fronts
irrelevant, the british winning in namibia and palestine did nothing to change the outcome of the war
>French navy sat in the Mediterranean
So now British forces on other fronts is a positive but the French navy on other fronts is an indictment of France according to you, hmm...
The French navy's presence in the Mediterranean is what kept the sea-lanes open there, if it wasn't for them then Anglo operations in the North Sea would have been weakened by the need to divert forces to the Mediterranean. It was a useful and important objective, which is certainly more than can be said about the Anglo invasions of some random deserts.

If Germany was so great, how come they lost?

I'd stick France over the UK just because of the sheer level of troops France committed to match the Germans, but in terms of effort they're about equal.

>irrelevant
It caused the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, who were a major player in the Central Powers.

And here the anti german shitposters come.
And if thats a real question just read about what was happening in Germany in that time.

you cant be in first place if you lost, you fucking shithead

back to /pol/ wehraboo scum

>back to /pol/ wehraboo scum
Im just a german guy posting on /his, i hardly go to pol. Just if theres some kind of happening in the US and I need infos on it.

>Russia btfo Austria
>Huge manpower and artillery advantage
>Loses to Austria until Brusilov

If they had continued winning I'd flip it but Russian success was fleeting and came too late to save them.

They only reason they didn't keep winning was because Germany came and bailed them out

When you say performance power, do you mean how effective they were at fighting?
Is this by k/d

>be Russia
>Surrender

>be France
>rely on British supplies and troops

Follow your leader, fascist scum.

What's the reason for putting ottomans higher than Austria? I know the austrias performed poorly and got humiliated by serbia, but didn't their troops carry the main load on the eastern front (although under german leadership)?
They also held their own against Italy at the same time, while about the ottomans I only really know that they fucked up sarikamish, genocided armenians and managed to survive gallipoli, though I'm probably missing a lot.

the fuck? who said i was a fascist?

>things fascists say on the internet when called out on their fascism

You're feeding the troll.

>Germany
>Russia
>France
>Austria
>Britain
>Italy
>Turkey
Probably something like this. The bong navy got their shit pushed in at Jutland and the whole force the Dardanelles thing was a disaster, not to mention their anti-submarine efforts were typically feeble. On land they were pedestrian at best.

Russia was dumb and poorly equipped, but they did inflict plenty of casualties. Same with the Austrians.

France was the backbone of the Western Front clearly.

Turkey gets credit for repelling a direct assault, but as it was the bongs they don't get too much credit.

Italy just never overcame any obstacles it seems, and then got screwed at Versailles. They had a bad war.

oh right my bad.

>The French navy's presence in the Mediterranean is what kept the sea-lanes open there, if it wasn't for them then Anglo operations in the North Sea would have been weakened by the need to divert forces to the Mediterranean. It was a useful and important objective, which is certainly more than can be said about the Anglo invasions of some random deserts.
This. The Japanese made a strong effort in the Med as well, indicative of how weak the bong navy truly was, as it was the Japanese who also handled Asia, and were angry afterwards after the bongs refused to give them consideration... which led to the Asian humiliations a couple decades later once the Japanese figured out how weak the bongs truly were. .

>this meme
Are you urging him to start another World War or something? Because that's what Hitler is known for, not for killing himself, dude.

Attached: 1495782100689.gif (250x195, 801K)

Maybe swap Ottomans and Austria-Hungary, The Austrians performed pretty well on the Italian front. Only notable Ottoman achievement i can think of is Gallipoli.
Pretty good list overall though.

>be France
>rely on British supplies and troops

>be france and bongistan
>rely on the USA for everything

Whiter than you Muhammad

Attached: 757.jpg (1022x547, 56K)

Fresh for Ww1 , is that a joke?

This , Gallipoli was more shit tier bong planning , auxiliary troops , and misfortune. The Turks lost a lot more lives which doesn't bode well for a defending force

Because God hates this world

Britain put 50% more money and supplies into the war effort than usa

Germany isn't a world

Hitler lived on and didn't die according to the cia

Yet

At the cost of importing foodstuffs from countries and being $4 billion in debt to the USA.
> By the eve of the First World War it has been estimated that 58 per cent of its calorie consumption was shipped in, the proportions in 1909–13 including 78.7 per cent for wheat and flour, 35.7 per cent for meats, 56.2 per cent for cereals, 68.7 per cent for bacon and ham, 62.3 per cent for butter, and 74.7 per cent for cheese

>Whereas in 1913 the US and Canada accounted for 34.7 per cent and 22.5 per cent of Britain’s wheat and flour imports, by 1918 the figures were 52.3 per cent and 25.1 per cent. For bacon and ham the percentages rose from 44.9 and 5.8 to 83.7 and 15.2; for other meats from 1.6 and 0.1 to 31.2 and 5.0; for dairy produce from 0.2 and 10.4 to 37.8 and 20.6. According to a food ministry appraisal of the 1918 prospects, ‘supplies from North America. . . are vital

>The Turks lost a lot more lives
????

They bought it

1. Germany
2. UK
3. France
4. United States
5. Russia

Doesn't change the fact that Britain was dependent on America for foodstuffs and raw materials to fund its war effort properly in the first place, and went from a creditor nation to a debtor nation, while the USA became the reverse.

>The bong navy got their shit pushed in at Jutland
By forcing the German navy to remain in port for the rest of the war?

When were the US in debt?

>IMO the early battles the British fought were enough to prevent the Germans from reaching Paris at the start of the war

Stop with this meme
Britain was irrelevant on the Western Front until the Somme
In 1914, the BEF numbered 100,000 men while both France and Germany had over 3 millions each on theater
Anything they did before 1916 could have easily be done by any other French unit had they not been there

Claiming their "bonus" presence was necessary for stopping the Germans is like claiming that these small irrelevant Free French and Polish units that took part in the D-Day landings in WW2 were necessary for the success of the landings

>France mainly focused on the western front

That's wrong tho
France fought on every front except the Eastern and African ones
And France was the leader nation on the Western and Balkans fronts (two out of the three most important theaters of the war) while Britain was more focused on irrelevant af theaters like East Africa and the Middle East

Ones a savage, always a savage

Good German is a dead one

1. Germany - Without a doubt the best military performance of the war
2. UK - France would have lost without their assistance, their naval blockade starved Germany and they funded Italy's war effort. Their military performance was average, but they led the entente to victory
3. France - Kings of the Western Front
4. Austria - Fought on multiple fronts until 1918, despite early losses
5. Russia - Basically a tie with Austria, but they got their butts kicked by Germany and collapsed into revolution

POWER GAP

6. Italy - Unable to defeat a severely weakened Austria even after backstabbing them, needed Entente assistance

Attached: 1493091615143.jpg (735x959, 146K)

99% of Russian defeats were caused by (((German))) stab in the back

Attached: teuton scum.png (1692x1608, 1.55M)

I feel Italy is a bit understated if anything, Cadorna was a fucking idiot (that said fighting in the Julian Alps is insanely difficult). On the other hand, Ludendorff did claim the first time he actually felt defeat was after the 2nd Piave, and that was around the time the Spring Offensive was stalled. Personal ranking:
>Germany
>UK/France (tie)
>Russia
>US
>Ottos
>Italy
>Austria-Hungary

The British land forces were the best trained army in 1914. The BEF literally ended the German offensive and pushed them back across the Aisne. The BEF is the only reason WWI wasn't over by Christmas.

God's wrath for what they did to Belgium.

>The BEF literally ended the German offensive and pushed them back across the Aisne.

Pretty sure it's the French who did that in the First Battle of the Marne

Before WW1 the USA was a net debtor nation, by the end of it it became a net creditor. Speculation is mainly from the massive railroad expansions that occured during late 1800s.

>United States

More info:
>In the last war the position of the United States was changed from a debtor to a creditor nation. Another great change war in the position of Germany, where economic exhaustion at home, the loss of foreign assets, and the reparation payments were major causes of the great post-war inflation. After this war the United States will be the only large creditor nation. Some younger countries, such as Canada and Argentina, which will also come out of the war in a creditor position, will pro ably in the longer run again become net capital-importing and interest-paying countries. The most striking change will be in the position of England; she will enter the post-war period as a debtor country after having been for more than a century the world's leading creditor.
Williams, John H. “Policies of the United States as a Creditor Nation.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, vol. 20, no. 4, 1944.
.

1 Germany
2 France
3 UK
4 Russia
5 A-H
6 Italy
7 US

This

Read a book please

Pretty accurate, although I'd say France the UK should switch spots. The British played a relatively small part early in the war which I'd consider the most important phase of the western front. France would have likely lost without British aid, but they pulled most of the weight in the West until about 1916. The rest is accurate though, everyone below the top three were either completely dismantled at the end of the war or had an almost negligible role. Even though Germany lost, they do deserve 1st since they were all but destined to lose but still managed to come within an inch of victory. Russia is a bit weird, but they do deserve a solid 4th place.

It was irrelevant
Maybe if the Bongs had taken them out in 1914 it would have made some difference, but winning against the Ottomans in 1918 did nothing other than secure some Anglo territorial campaigns.

>Germany was the bes........

Attached: Spring Offensive.png (261x643, 141K)

>it's another Veeky Forums doesn't know that they are just as deluded and cringey as /pol/ episode

Can we all agree Romania did the least of all participating nations?

If we're taking all participating nations, then Honduras literally did nothing aside from declaring war.

The Russians actually told Romania not to join the war, because they knew that Romania would instantly be invaded if it declared war on Germany, and they didn't want to devote any soldiers to defending Romania. In other words, the Russians preferred having Romania as a neutral buffer zone instead of as an ally in the war. However, the Romanian government didn't listen for reasons I'm not entirely sure of.

The actual Romanian army was simply out-of-date, with few if any machine guns, armed mostly with single-shot breech-loading rifles. They frankly had no business getting involved.

16-17 was also British forces launching pointless offensives to draw more germns from french lines

The French demanded them to start doing something though so they delivered

There where more British divisions in Italy a more important front than greece and the French numbers are unknown for the Macedonian front. The french tagged along with the other theatres as well

t.

Attached: el atrocidad.jpg (660x839, 82K)

was it autism

They were facing countries with populations and industrial capacity many times their size. Same reason they lost in World War 2: Electric Boogaloo

>per man
>Turkey is last
user...

So being dumb makes you good at war. Really makes you think.

>the absolute state of Veeky Forums

They almost won though. Thats why they're in first.

Shit, forgot pic.

Attached: worldcrisis.png (1360x593, 253K)

Well, there's this if you just want to measure the Western Front. French inflicted 3.2 million casualties on the Germans, the Brits around 2 million on the Germans. Plus perhaps 0.1 million more for sea action.

Aside from this, per a quick glance on Wikipedia (Eastern Front and Caucasus Campaign pages), the Russians inflicted 1.6 million casualties on the Germans, 4.4 million on the Austro-Hungarians, 0.6 million on the Ottomans. The Americans around 0.25 million on the Germans. The Italians, (Italian Front page) 2.3 million on the Austro-Hungarians. The Brits (Ottoman casualties in WW1 page) inflicted some 1 million casualties on the Ottomans. There's other stuff to consider like British-French participation in the Macedonian Front, but those are the big ones.

As for the Central Powers, the Germans inflicted 7.6 million casualties on the British and French, per the above image, plus maybe 0.2 million on the Italians, 0.3 million on the Americans (Western Front page), 0.1 million on the Belgians, and 0.3 million on the Romanians. The Ottomans (Middle Eastern Theater page) inflicted ~1 million casualties on the British and Russians. The Austro-Hungarians inflicted ~2 million casualties on the Italians (Italian Front page), ~0.3 million on the Serbs/Montenegrins, ~0.2 million on the Romanians, and judging by their share of POWs (Eastern Front page) some ~3.5 million on the Russians. So not dividing by nationality at all, the major powers 'score':

>Germany: 8.5 million
>Russia: 6.6 million
>Austria: 6 million
>French: 3.2 million
>British: 3.1 million
>Italy: 2.3 million
>Turkey: 1 million

>>Germany: 8.5 million
Shit, that should read 14.5 million. I forgot to include the ~6 million they inflicted on the Russians.

>1. Germany
>They lost

Put France over Britain

What's your numbering method?

Russia would crush Austria/Ottomans, one vs one. Germany carried Triple Alliance hard.

Number of casualties inflicted on the enemy. It's not a very good one.

Austria is underrated. They were the majority presence in the East and Balkans and inflicted millions of casualties on the Russians in addition to holding off Italy for most of the war. They weren't a WW2 Italy tier second stringer, they were a primary belligerent and did okay despite fighting on three fronts continously.

That said any one of the three pillars of the Entente (France, Britain, Russia) was far more powerful than Austria, while Italy alone was almost as powerful going by population and GDP.

Bulgaria was the best minor belligerent.
>provide vital overland rout for German supplies to Ottomans
>invade Serbia from the rear during the fourth Austrian attack, inflicting over 150,000 casualties (mostly prisoners) for the cost of 37,000 and collapsing the Serbian front
>do the same to Romania and do well again, nabbing another 100,000 enemy casualties (mostly prisoners) on exchange for 30,000 of your own while capturing a bunch of food, land, and fuel
>hold stalemate with several hundred thousand Allied troops with army half their size in Salonika for months; they have thousands of men die of disease and have tens of thousands of others evacuated from the theater for illness because of shitty sanitation while you're chilling
>get assault by Allies
>hold line for four years besting Brits and French in several battles because they expected you to fold like a house of cards (Salonika battle casualties between Bulgaria and the Allies will ultimately roughly equal each other)
>ultimately require 750,000 Allied soldiers from every major Allied power to be diverted to Macedonia to beat you with limited support from Germs
And all this AFTER THE two devastating Balkan Wars against all their neighbors.

>implying any fascist would bother to deny being a fascist on an anonymous imageboard

faggot

t. fascist