Mexican army since Mexico became Mexico. The last time they were good they were the Aztecs (Mexica).
But part of this thread was that it takes into account the relative competence of both armies and then it is ones underperforming from there. The French army's disastrous inferior general staff, institutionally fatally inferior compared to the Prussian one, must be taken into account in deciding whether it "underperformed" or not. The French also did win some victories, such as Borny-Colombey, Coulmiers, Villepion, Villersexel, and Belfort.The french had plenty of advantages of their own that they failed to properly utilize due to their inferior general staff, they didn't win a single battle. That sounds like underperormance to me.
Huh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gembloux_(1940)
I mean the Germans didn't destroy the French, they were fought to a standstill, but it wasn't what anyone should call an ass whooping.
All very nice but the topic was not 1940 but instead 1870...You are wrong. There were battle wons. The Germans had their arse thoroughly kicked in Gembloux and Namur. While Sedan collapsed miserably, only 10 miles in Stonne and Le Mont Dieu another battle raged for three weeks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sedan_(1940)#Battle_of_Stonne
I'd add the US Army initial performance in Korea. There is a reason why when I was in basic training that there was a training class titled 'No More Task Force Smiths' to illustrate how absolutely FUBAR the TF Smith deployment and performance was and how the US Army wanted to never let it happen again.The humiliating and very costly performance of the US 8th Army in the fall of 1950 north of the 38th Parallel has always struck me as among the worst. That the UN forces managed to escape is about the only positive thing that happened.
I'd add the US Army initial performance in Korea. There is a reason why when I was in basic training that there was a training class titled 'No More Task Force Smiths' to illustrate how absolutely FUBAR the TF Smith deployment and performance was and how the US Army wanted to never let it happen again.
Well, since you want to bring that up, how about the French defeat at the Battle of Puebla?Mexican army since Mexico became Mexico. The last time they were good they were the Aztecs (Mexica).
Well, since you want to bring that up, how about the French defeat at the Battle of Puebla?
and things didn't go well for the Aztecs
No, that would qualify as the best underperformance. The worst underperformance would be akin to Finland vs. the USSR, with the worst underperformer being the Finns.
Sitting there during the phony war without training is part of the performance IMHO.Calling 1940 French performance underwhelming is wrong when you actually look at how little training the troops had.
IMO the only arab country that didn't underperform militarily during and post WW2 was Morocco. They underperformed politicaly.Looking at modern examples, the clear winners are the Kingdom of Italy, and all Arab countries in the post World War II era, though you can argue that Egypt should be excepted from the latter. Iraq is particularly horrible but none of the others are anything to write home about. The Italian World War II performance is (in) famous, but the same problems showed up in World War I, in their colonial wars, and in the 1866 war against Austria.
After those two, there is a big gap, though mention should be made of Mexico in the Mexican-American War, and the Republic of Vietnam.
Earlier, its harder to tell, because we don't have enough sources of information to determine who "should" be winning. The Song dynasty under performed, given what they could have put into action. Alexander the Great, the Arabs during the "righteously guided Caliphate" period, and the Mongols pretty much made everyone encountered look bad, the Mamlukes and the Byzantines being the exceptions.
They had months while sitting around and doing NOTHING. Germany had almost nothing in place to oppose the French but France pissed away all its time.Calling 1940 French performance underwhelming is wrong when you actually look at how little training the troops had.
Sitting there during the phony war without training is part of the performance IMHO.
That isn't really true. The French were training their troops throughout the Phony War. It happened that the Category B units were the last on the list for such training and the particular divisions attacked at Sedan had not yet gone through the training planned. Instead they had built up their fortifications. Now, they could have been trained instead, but I'm not sure that even a fully trained category B division would have been able to stop the elite armored units of the German army supported by a hefty portion of the full size of the German air force, without fortifications.... Ultimately the situation at Sedan could have gone better if the French had some additional troops there, maybe they position a 2nd Category B division, take council on the reports issued about the vulnerability of the Ardennes sector, and send some additional cavalry units into the Ardennes to make sure that contact is maintained with any German advance, but as it stood, the troops at Sedan were screwed regardless their level of training. And once they were gone, and the French counter-attack defeated, the problems of the French army meant that regardless of the quality of the troops it was difficult to coordinate an effective counter-response.They had months while sitting around and doing NOTHING. Germany had almost nothing in place to oppose the French but France pissed away all its time.
What's tragical about it is that even Grandmaison ( the zealous supporter of "the offensive at the utmost") knew and said many times that an offensive would not work without a locally superior artillery which would cover the infantry the whole time during its charge. And Joffre was really good at establishing defensive lines ( since he was an engineer officer). But the sacking of Constant in 1911 ruined the credit of a defensive plan. If he wanted to last, Joffre HAD to think "offensive". It was more a "political" matter than a military one. Joffre wanted to keep his position and he gave the government and the newspapers what they wanted.Regarding the French cult of the offensive, what brought about this doctrinal (idiocy) change? And what was the actual doctrine apart from 'attack with dash and elan!'