Ratio.

This is coolbert:

Any devoted reader to the blog disagree with this? From an Al Nofi Strategy Page CIC article # 121.

Enlisted to officer ration an indicator of how "good" an army is? Can it be this is so?

"Officer-Enlisted Ratio, European Armies, 1930"

"The number of enlisted personnel per officer has generally been a fair indicator of how good – or bad an army is . . .  During World War I it was by no means unusual for the ratio in most Armies to be 20- or 30-to-one. Of course some armies had much lower ratios, if only because they had too many officers whom they could neither fire nor provide troops to command. That is, they weren’t really very good armies."

RATIO OF ENLISTED TO OFFICER HIGH, A GOOD ARMY? RATIO OF ENLISTED TO OFFICER LOW, A POOR ARMY?

"Enlisted-Officer Ratio, Europe, 1930"

Army          Ratio

Belgium       18.3
Britain          19.3
Bulgaria       20.7
Czecho-        10.9
[slovakia]
France          13.9
Germany       22.1
Greece          12.3
Hungary        19.7
Italy              12.2
Poland           13.9
Portugal         6.4
Spain             7.6
Romania        10.7
Yugoslavia 13.8

German Reichswehr in 1930 that "best" army in the world? Certainly not the most powerful. Far from it. But manpower surely the best. Best of course that very subjective judgment. But using strictly the enlisted/officer ratio German Reichswehr the BEST?

coolbert.