Which is the best army in the world?
- Thread starter AnonymousDoe
- Start date
- Status
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Hi guys, this is my first post apart from the members welcome thread. I'm tempted to say the Australian Army, but we lack so many capabilities that it'd be just plain wrong. I WOULD stack our infantry against any other nation's in the world though. If you disregard size, (which as they say has a quality all it's own...) then I'd have to say the British Army is the best army in the world. Capability needs to be measured by more than just "on paper" statistics, ie: numbers of tanks, artillery pieces, infantry battalions etc. The British have fantastic basic capabilities in training, infantry, armour, artillery, and support assets, Engineers etc. In addition you'd be hard pressed finding an Army with more operational experience. They've had a low intensity "war" going on in their own backyard for 30+ years. If you add the experience of Middle East and West Asia deployments like Oman, the Gulf wars and Afganistan, European deployments like Northern Ireland and Bosnia , African deployments like Sierra Lione, South East Asian deployements, ie: Malaya, Konfrontasi, East Timor and not to mention South American deployments such as the Falklands, well you've got a modern well equipped "First World" army which has fought at every level of war and won every time. I really fail to see how anyone else can match that. I'm not saying the British aren't without fault, but their track record speaks for itself. Cheers.
The definition of a powerful military is one that:
can project persistent precise power
can be deployed and fight in multiple theatres
can fight in those multiple theatres concurrently
has technical flare
has warfighting flare
is integrated into other combat elements, including air, navy, EW, C4i,
has technical advantages
has discipline
has the political will and intent of its government
actually does have a military doctrine
does have a willingness to wage war against its enemies irrespective of international pressures against its national interests
can apply absolute and final destruction on those who oppose it, but does not.
has the industrial base to continue to wage war at its choosing
has the economy to wage war, and keep its economy running concurrently
has a persistent electronic presence to integrate land, sea, air, space command systems
can deploy and control precision weapons system from unreachable platforms
can apply pressure concurrently at all tactical levels
has an evolving military doctrine, ie the flexibility to change doctrine at theatre level effectively and quickly
can rapidly change the threat mix
is within 25 minutes of precision striking any point, anywhere on earth if it chooses to do so.
there's more, but I guess you get the picture
Do you think that the number of men in an enemy army effects these parameters? :eek
btw, I'm not american.
can project persistent precise power
can be deployed and fight in multiple theatres
can fight in those multiple theatres concurrently
has technical flare
has warfighting flare
is integrated into other combat elements, including air, navy, EW, C4i,
has technical advantages
has discipline
has the political will and intent of its government
actually does have a military doctrine
does have a willingness to wage war against its enemies irrespective of international pressures against its national interests
can apply absolute and final destruction on those who oppose it, but does not.
has the industrial base to continue to wage war at its choosing
has the economy to wage war, and keep its economy running concurrently
has a persistent electronic presence to integrate land, sea, air, space command systems
can deploy and control precision weapons system from unreachable platforms
can apply pressure concurrently at all tactical levels
has an evolving military doctrine, ie the flexibility to change doctrine at theatre level effectively and quickly
can rapidly change the threat mix
is within 25 minutes of precision striking any point, anywhere on earth if it chooses to do so.
there's more, but I guess you get the picture
Do you think that the number of men in an enemy army effects these parameters? :eek
btw, I'm not american.
i rate armies on their morale.I never considered americans as good warriors.Instead of soo much technology they are the one's who kill their soldiers mostly themselves.They are worst when it comes to ground fighting or close combats.Their main strength is in their air force which always give them sucess in battles.Mostly they were beaten when it comes to ground forces.What happened to them in vietnam,what happening in iraq and afghanistan is prove of it.British and germans are good fighters and have good track record too.
when i talk of morale and bravery factor then i see pakistan,north kore forces infront with others.But when we talk of over all then force then certainly USA at the momment is best.I also dont rate israel in good armies.
in special forces no one can say that pak ssg is not good to counter anyother special force in any aspect.
taliban were best force when we talk of bravery only( i am no fan of them but its true).
when i talk of morale and bravery factor then i see pakistan,north kore forces infront with others.But when we talk of over all then force then certainly USA at the momment is best.I also dont rate israel in good armies.
in special forces no one can say that pak ssg is not good to counter anyother special force in any aspect.
taliban were best force when we talk of bravery only( i am no fan of them but its true).
Taliban army!!....man stupidity is not counted as bravery.
Look at what they are doing now....every day they kidnap some pakistani, indian or turkish and kill them or beat them up. They're a bunch of uncouth nitwits who needed to be sorted out.
But I feel that the northern "rapist" alliance is equally bad if not worse.
ok sorry for getting off topic. ......my opinion still stands..best army is Chinese. Superb artillery systems (PLZ-55) along with an assortment of accurate and deadly battlefield missiles..and large numbers to overwhelm the enemy.
Look at what they are doing now....every day they kidnap some pakistani, indian or turkish and kill them or beat them up. They're a bunch of uncouth nitwits who needed to be sorted out.
But I feel that the northern "rapist" alliance is equally bad if not worse.
ok sorry for getting off topic. ......my opinion still stands..best army is Chinese. Superb artillery systems (PLZ-55) along with an assortment of accurate and deadly battlefield missiles..and large numbers to overwhelm the enemy.
suleman, do you understand the difference between FIBUA and outright war?suleman said:
The US lost Vietnam because of political hampering of their military, If the military were able to use the normal ROE;s of warfighting they would not have lost.
The US NEVER lost a battle against the NVA. If you look at Vietnams history by people such as General Giap, even he admits that in a normal warfighting situation he was never able to beat american military groups.
The US lost the insurgency war - that is a completely different concept.
Likewise in a conventional war in Iraq or Afghanistan the US has not been beaten. They are now not in a conventional war. It is a geurilla war, no conventional army is used against guerillas. You should know that. Pakistan does not use regular army against guerillas. It uses spec force capability.
If you want to talk about how good the North Koreans are etc,,, then list me all the wars they have fought in and WON since 1950. They haven't been to war since 1953 so how can you even say such things? You are guessing,
They have no C4i, they have no EW, ECM. How is a stalinist army going to fight a modern war??
LOL, more men in modern war means more targets. Don't you remember what happened to Saddams Republican Guard? Have you seen the devestation a daisycutter or MOAB bomb does? 3 daisycutters can kill a division of men, one MOAB can kill an armoured brigade. We aren't even talking about nukes here.
I think you need to study a few more battles before commenting. Your lack of knowledge about modern warfighting and your prejudice is showing through.
As much as the americans may be unpopular, they are the most lethal modern army the world has ever known since Ghengis Khan, and since Rome.
Show me in every major conflict that they have been in since 1898 where they have lost the war. None, not one. They have lost battles, but NEVER the war.
Now, be honest, and look at how many India, Pakistan, China, N Korea have been in and won. In fact, if you add up all four countries wars in the last 110 years, they have less absolute battle experience than the US.
Don't let your prejudice colour your analysis. It diminishes all your arguments when you do.
Remember waging war is based on all of the military capability at a nations disposal, air, land, sea, space and C4i. When that is combined you have a military machine, if you don't - then you have men in uniform acting as targets.
yutong chen
New Member
US army *peep*, the only thing that helps them win is because of the air support, and cowardly enemy. Abram got blown up in Iraq with a anti-tank mine. Abram was stopped by a telephone pole in Los Angles on national TV. :cop :help
Admin Edit: Please do not degrade armed men of other countries as we all know how much hard work is put into making a soldier and how hard they train no matter which country they are from. Their dedication and willingness to fight for their country and fellow citizen is enough to pay them their due respect. Lets avoid using such terms that degrade an army in the future. Thank You.
Admin Edit: Please do not degrade armed men of other countries as we all know how much hard work is put into making a soldier and how hard they train no matter which country they are from. Their dedication and willingness to fight for their country and fellow citizen is enough to pay them their due respect. Lets avoid using such terms that degrade an army in the future. Thank You.
Yutong Chen, I had to edit your reply.
Please do not degrade armed men of other countries as we all know how much hard work is put into making a soldier and how hard they train no matter which country they are from. Their dedication and willingness to fight for their country and fellow citizen is enough to pay them their due respect. Lets avoid using such terms that degrade an army in the future.
We at defencetalk.com want peaceful and cool atmosphere and that is whats needed for good discussions. You are free to criticise but with some price called PAY DUE respect to party you are criticising.
THANK YOU,
Enjoy!
Please do not degrade armed men of other countries as we all know how much hard work is put into making a soldier and how hard they train no matter which country they are from. Their dedication and willingness to fight for their country and fellow citizen is enough to pay them their due respect. Lets avoid using such terms that degrade an army in the future.
We at defencetalk.com want peaceful and cool atmosphere and that is whats needed for good discussions. You are free to criticise but with some price called PAY DUE respect to party you are criticising.
THANK YOU,
Enjoy!
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
To those who think the US can only win a war because of Air support, who cares? Modern warfare is about 'jointness'. No one service (Army Navy or Air Force) can win a war by themselves. Every service is dependant on upon the other. Capability is therefore measured by the effects that this combined force can generate. What's the point of the best army in the world if it can be decimated from the air? What's the point of the best air force if your Army is unable to seize and hold ground? It is an interesting discussion to compare the relative strengths of various armies, but there are so many other variables that it's almost pointless. The Taliban is (or should I say was) the best army the world eh? It did not confront another conventional army or force. It was destroyed by the Northern Alliance with help from Western Special Forces and airpower. It couldn't even maintain it's combat capability against this. Imagine if a "real" army had been deployed against it. Cheers.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
To those who don't rate the Israeli's outside their own area of operations, have you forgotten the Entebbe raid? One of the best special operations I have ever read about. Cheers.
The objective of the guerilla war is not to win by anihilating an enemy. They more like to give the political or PR effect back home. that' s what i think the Iraqi guerilla aim for. furthermore, the well executed, continuing and frequent guerilla attack can give the occupation troops some sort of mental siege. They realize that an attack can come anytime from almost everywhere. This constant state of alert cause mind fatigue and reduce morale, especially if the soldiers have been on tour of duty for to long.
The Guerilla war also assymetric. Unlike the conventional war which have a clear drawn battle line of which to concentrate all the firepower, the guerilla war has no such thing. The probable area to cover is to large and this cause the strengh of the army to be disperse to a large area. And the most important aspect is, the guerilla tactic cannot be effectively apply outside owns border, since the guerilla depend on locals for supply and informations, unless they could find an area where the locals is symphathatic to their cause.
The Guerilla war also assymetric. Unlike the conventional war which have a clear drawn battle line of which to concentrate all the firepower, the guerilla war has no such thing. The probable area to cover is to large and this cause the strengh of the army to be disperse to a large area. And the most important aspect is, the guerilla tactic cannot be effectively apply outside owns border, since the guerilla depend on locals for supply and informations, unless they could find an area where the locals is symphathatic to their cause.
and that (as you say) is why the Brit/Australian/Malay methods worked in "Konfrontassi". The way that the war was fought was reversed onto the enemy.Awang se said:
Read carefully what i wrote.I analyzed millitaries and then i also admitted that US certainly is best at the momment when u talk of overall force.If u have doubts then send US troops to afghanistan for full scale war with talibans without airforce and settalites,u will know the difference.No matter how bad they were but they were good fighters and i dont care if u believe it or not.Wins in war are not decided just on breaking the lines but in holding the targets and mantaining the hold.Gurilla warfare is a type of war no matter irritating for u.US forces were beaten and beaten badly in Vietnam and must accept it,and they ran from there.shamayel said:
I still say that when we talk of overall strength USA is currently in dominating position and much coz of its technology.
suleman, you obviously are subjected to anti US propoganda wherever you live. For the record, the US was not even remotely beaten in Vietnam militarily. Name one battle in which the NVA was able to capture and hold an objective for an extended period of time, or even one single battle in which the US conclusively lost. You can not name one because they never did lose a battle or campaign.
The Taliban is an ineffectual little band of raggedy men plain and simple. They are brave I will admit without reservation but that means very little since they have absolutley no tactical skills to speak of.
There is some completely misguided conception that US soldiers are neither brave, nor particularly good fighters but that is absolutely rediculous. I attribute That type of hyperbole to 3rd world countries that are nothing but jealous of everything American, wealth, prosperity, freedom and the will and capability to carry a fight to wherever and with whomever they choose. If you want to see what a single US combatant is capable of doing to Taliban forces, I recommend you read up on CPO Roberts of Roberts Ridge fame. I've seen the Predator video of CPO Roberts battle with a well entrenched and heavily defended Taliban stronghold. He accounted for 40+ KIA Taliban all by himself, no air cover, no high speed high tech equipment, just plain old US lethality and superior skills and training. So 1 US troop drops in on the middle of a Taliban stronghold and wipes out 40+ armed Taliban and somehow I am supposed to believe that Americans are neither brave nor particularly good fighters without their air force? Gimme a break.
Finally I do have doubts, let's send the US military without the Air Force or Navy and while we are at it let's forget about the Geneva Convention and basic human rights (both of which are foriegn ideals to the Taliban). If US troops could fight without these constraints as the Taliban do, the Taliban would cease to exist in ...about a week I would guess, assuming they didn't run and hide in some neighboring country of course.
The Taliban is an ineffectual little band of raggedy men plain and simple. They are brave I will admit without reservation but that means very little since they have absolutley no tactical skills to speak of.
There is some completely misguided conception that US soldiers are neither brave, nor particularly good fighters but that is absolutely rediculous. I attribute That type of hyperbole to 3rd world countries that are nothing but jealous of everything American, wealth, prosperity, freedom and the will and capability to carry a fight to wherever and with whomever they choose. If you want to see what a single US combatant is capable of doing to Taliban forces, I recommend you read up on CPO Roberts of Roberts Ridge fame. I've seen the Predator video of CPO Roberts battle with a well entrenched and heavily defended Taliban stronghold. He accounted for 40+ KIA Taliban all by himself, no air cover, no high speed high tech equipment, just plain old US lethality and superior skills and training. So 1 US troop drops in on the middle of a Taliban stronghold and wipes out 40+ armed Taliban and somehow I am supposed to believe that Americans are neither brave nor particularly good fighters without their air force? Gimme a break.
Finally I do have doubts, let's send the US military without the Air Force or Navy and while we are at it let's forget about the Geneva Convention and basic human rights (both of which are foriegn ideals to the Taliban). If US troops could fight without these constraints as the Taliban do, the Taliban would cease to exist in ...about a week I would guess, assuming they didn't run and hide in some neighboring country of course.
I guess the only way to find out is going out and see for urself. The Taliban claim is unnofficial. the official word from the US army seems to contain some lies lately. It's hard to know though, unless we can capture the battles on film (tell me if there's any). The US did what the Soviet did previously, by limiting the media coverage. The news is obviously single sided. I wonder if the Taliban will follow their Chechen counterparts by filming their operations and post it on the net. But I guess the US will find the site and shut it down, just like Azzam.com.
suleman I appologize. 
Regarding Vietnam, North Vietnam losses exceed 1,000,000 (excluding civilians). US loses were 55-56,000. I'm not sure I understand how those numbers show or support the notion that the US was soundly defeated militarily? Again, I urge you to look at Roberts Ridge which definately demonstrates what a single US serviceman could do against Taliban forces that are setup in prepared defensive positions. He was executed after he was captured, can you imagine how up in arms the rest of the world would be if US forces summarily executed surrendering Taliban?
Regarding Vietnam, North Vietnam losses exceed 1,000,000 (excluding civilians). US loses were 55-56,000. I'm not sure I understand how those numbers show or support the notion that the US was soundly defeated militarily? Again, I urge you to look at Roberts Ridge which definately demonstrates what a single US serviceman could do against Taliban forces that are setup in prepared defensive positions. He was executed after he was captured, can you imagine how up in arms the rest of the world would be if US forces summarily executed surrendering Taliban?- Status