mysterious
New Member
LOL. This guy never stops playing second fiddle! :cop
Which is the best army in the world?
- Thread starter AnonymousDoe
- Start date
- Status
I haven't heard much about them.
The SSG has conducted a number of counter terrorist operations quite successfully. The rescue of Pakistani children from Afghani Northern Alliance terrorists. Recent operations against Al-Qaeda are also going good.
However I agree with you that during the wars, the Pakistani army has not used this asset as it should have.
Shamayel, I do not remember reading anywhere if NSG was involved in Indo-Pak war, but Para Commandos were, to disrupt the rear lines of Pakistani forces. MARCOS were used a lot in Sri-Lanka war and they are famous for their Croc tactics and are still used in Kashmir. NSG is used for anti-terror operations only (though I may be wrong) and all i can remember when they were used last was when some terrorist took over some temple in Gujrat. I think only one NSG guy died and another injured and all the people were saved. Again, every man is made and trained, it depends on how your superiors decides a mission. Success of a mission is almost 75% on that decision.shamayel said:
mysterious
New Member
American Army is obviously the best. This is due to their active role in modern warfare (building up experience), superior equipment n technology, better idea of war scenarios, etc.
My Choice would be:shamayel said:
1: US (Only because they have the best arms)
2: Russia (Not well equipped but still the second most potent)
3: British (Very well trained & dedicated Soldiers with advance technology)
4: France (Same like British)
5: China (Too many numbers obselete, unreliable equipment but still deadly)
6: India/Pakistan (Putting them in league together otherwise there will be a flame...lol)
6: Germany
7: Japan
8: Brazil (Very respectable Numbers & equipment)
Top Armies in the World:
1. U.S.A (Best-equipped, best trained, army size)
2. China (Sheer numbers, increasingly modernized)
3. Russia (Well-equipped, size, training)
4. Britain (training, well equipped)
5. France (training, well-equipped)
6. India (Sheer numbers, modernizing, advanced weaponry, artillery)
7. Germany (training, well-equipped)
8. Israel (training, among most technologically advanced, small #'s though)
9. Japan (modern, highly efficient force, training)
10. Pakistan (relatively large-force, training)
11. Australia (training, advanced/modern weaponry)
12. Turkey (modern weaponry, size)
13. North Korea (Sheer numbers)
14. South Korea (modern, efficient)
15. Iran (relatively big army)
1. U.S.A (Best-equipped, best trained, army size)
2. China (Sheer numbers, increasingly modernized)
3. Russia (Well-equipped, size, training)
4. Britain (training, well equipped)
5. France (training, well-equipped)
6. India (Sheer numbers, modernizing, advanced weaponry, artillery)
7. Germany (training, well-equipped)
8. Israel (training, among most technologically advanced, small #'s though)
9. Japan (modern, highly efficient force, training)
10. Pakistan (relatively large-force, training)
11. Australia (training, advanced/modern weaponry)
12. Turkey (modern weaponry, size)
13. North Korea (Sheer numbers)
14. South Korea (modern, efficient)
15. Iran (relatively big army)
mysterious
New Member
I think I'll go with Indus' rating but wud rather put Israel n Pakistan a lil higher in the rankings! :idea:
i still think its not this way
it depends on so many factors other than the latest arms and man power. like the where r u fighting (make the japs fight in afghanistan without any allied help and u'll have the results
)
, whats the economic strenght of ur country etc and more over
u can judge forces which have been engaged in war recently , but not those who havent fought since WWII :!:
it depends on so many factors other than the latest arms and man power. like the where r u fighting (make the japs fight in afghanistan without any allied help and u'll have the results
), whats the economic strenght of ur country etc and more over
u can judge forces which have been engaged in war recently , but not those who havent fought since WWII :!:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Indus, the Australian army lacks too many capabilities and is too small to be counted amongst the top 10 armies of the world. I'll back our soldiers skills against any army in the world, however we're too small to be compared against modern capable armies. Unit v Unit capabilities however are a different story. Give our army 3 years however and several of our brigades will be as capable if not more capable than just about any other similar unit in the world.
The qs. is not of ratings! The Qs. is of situations. If it with aerial support ill go for USA. If u give a situation that the army is caught up in a city then israel hits the sky. If u want a gurilla war then Vietnam did a great job. Suicides have been seen in Japan to avoid imprisonment. PAKISTAN ARMY IS GOOD IN OVER ALL. pakistanis are brave...strong...well traned...better equiped and commited.our army is excellent for the country's defence.even if they do bomb karachi the US Army will face hell in punjab's thousands of villiges where the villigers will happily give cover to the PAK ARMY. Even if our G-3 is not lesser in wieght then the american M-16s they still kill dont they. if the communication sets are broken or dammaged the US soldiers will be definately captured or slain.
dabrownguy
New Member
Pak army isn't THAT well armed. Compare them to Indian forces. IA is armed with INSAS to the teath, T-90 tanks and Arjun on the way. Don't forget the large hele fleet that covers their back.
The Watcher
New Member
dabrownguy who is comparing pak armed forces with indian? we have higher standard, sorry.
yutong chen
New Member
Depends, If you put a M1A2 in Vietnam it would be useless. I think Pakistan should go before India.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Tanks of any sort would not be useless in Vietnam, they simply have to be operated in a different manner. Australia deployed 48 ton Centurion tanks to Vietnam when we fought there and they proved extremely successful. M1A2's would be even better because of their thick armour. The Centurions were successful because they were employed as mobile fire support system for the infantry rather than in a tank on tank type role. Their armour was sufficient to repel hits from RPG type weapons and the machine guns and "canister" rounds they fired enabled 1 tank to provide more firepower than that able to be generated by an entire infantry platoon. Time and time again Australia attacks on fortified Vietnamese positions were successful and cost very little (Australian) lives precisely because of the tanks being involved. The lesson here showed that unsupported light infantry cannot stand up to armour on it's own, even when anti-armour weapons are available. It also showed (again) that thick jungle is no great obstacle in the employment of armour. It simply has to be operated in a different way to how it is normally operated. Cheers.
- Status