Whoops, I stand corrected...Hmm...I originally thought that any tank, particularly the heavy MBTs of today would be unable to be used frequently and effectively in a thick jungle environent, no matter what doctrine is used, without serious, hindering deficiencies in place...Or at least, a T-80, a LeClerc or an Olifant would have virtually the same operational issues as an Abrams stuck in Da Nang or wherever.Aussie Digger said:
Which is the best army in the world?
- Thread starter AnonymousDoe
- Start date
- Status
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Don't get me wrong Winter, there are operational issues that need to be overcome if you're going to operate tanks in a jungle. This not only includes actually manoevering the vehicle in such close country, but also includes such things as the engine filtration system (an issue that is equally important though different in Desert environments), internal temperatures (which affect the crew) inside the tank in the jungle climate etc. I was on a course once, where we operated M113's at Canungra in Queensland (the Australian Armie's Land Warfare centre). This training area was the primary training area where troops underwent their pre-deployment training for Vietnam, due to similar climate and environmental issues. The temperature inside the M113's was on average 52 degrees. Try operating in those conditions some time, it's not easy. Guys often went down with hyperthermia and literally fainted "behind the sticks"... However despite these difficulties the benefits of tanks still outway the difficulties in employing them. Both sides in Vietnam operated tanks of varied sort. As I mentioned, Australia used British manufactured Centurion tanks (the tank on which the Oliphant you mentioned was based). America used M-48 tanks and the NVA used PT-76 and T-54/55's. As you can see a pretty wide variety of tanks were successfully used by both sides. This is one of the recent examples I'm familiar with. The Australian Army has also widely operated M113's in East Timor which has some very foreboding jungle environments and has been extremely pleased with it's performance, unlike the ASLAV (Australian LAV -25) which has shown much less off-road ability than was expected...
The problem the US had with using tanks in Vietnam had more to do with the strategic decissions being made rather than tactical. Vietnam is almost a textbook example of how NOT to fight a war. As I've mentioned in other threads, tanks are useless without supporting infantry. Successful employment of tanks demands they be utilized as a maneuvering element.
So getting back to the original question of which army is best...... The US Army is without question and in any scenario. We aren't talking about who's brave, tough, or has the coolest uniforms. We aren't talking about one on one soldiers either or wether or not SAS is better than SF. Second place doesn't count in a military engagement by the way
Where do the others fall into place?
2. Russia-Natural resources, industry, and a vast supply of military men.
3. China-See above
I think one must remove political considerations when measuring up forces. There well may be places the US, China or Russia may or may not choose to employ military foces based on local/global political consequences. Russia for example could completely and utterly crush and devastate France, Great Britain or Germany in a matter of days, while neither Great Britain, France or Germany pose any manner of serious threat to destroying the Russian army or it's ability and or resources to make war. However Russia will possibly never just outwardly attack any of those countries because of geopolitical considerations, if nothing else. This is how I would grade who's who in military capabilities. Bravery, Toughness, etc. are all fine attributes but a great military none of them make.
So getting back to the original question of which army is best...... The US Army is without question and in any scenario. We aren't talking about who's brave, tough, or has the coolest uniforms. We aren't talking about one on one soldiers either or wether or not SAS is better than SF. Second place doesn't count in a military engagement by the way
Where do the others fall into place? 2. Russia-Natural resources, industry, and a vast supply of military men.
3. China-See above
I think one must remove political considerations when measuring up forces. There well may be places the US, China or Russia may or may not choose to employ military foces based on local/global political consequences. Russia for example could completely and utterly crush and devastate France, Great Britain or Germany in a matter of days, while neither Great Britain, France or Germany pose any manner of serious threat to destroying the Russian army or it's ability and or resources to make war. However Russia will possibly never just outwardly attack any of those countries because of geopolitical considerations, if nothing else. This is how I would grade who's who in military capabilities. Bravery, Toughness, etc. are all fine attributes but a great military none of them make.
Just a minor addition to the issue of tanks in jungle warfare.
Australia used the Centurions in a very effective manner in Vietnam. The operational tactics of that conflict are still used in parts of armour training in the US - specifically how Australia had developed an approp small combined arms solution designed around the armoured column.
Centurions were often used to clear the way with cannister shot, and even though RPG's were present, the use of the troops in aggressive patrolling as part of the forward movement neutralised the threat.
Without pretending to be "a Guderian", I would hazard a guess that a lot of the armoured vehicle losses in Iraq to RPG's are due to poor force integration and a failure of aggressive patrolling by lead ground elements.
Australia used the Centurions in a very effective manner in Vietnam. The operational tactics of that conflict are still used in parts of armour training in the US - specifically how Australia had developed an approp small combined arms solution designed around the armoured column.
Centurions were often used to clear the way with cannister shot, and even though RPG's were present, the use of the troops in aggressive patrolling as part of the forward movement neutralised the threat.
Without pretending to be "a Guderian", I would hazard a guess that a lot of the armoured vehicle losses in Iraq to RPG's are due to poor force integration and a failure of aggressive patrolling by lead ground elements.
yutong chen
New Member
There are alot of trees in Vietnam, a lot of trees. Didn't an Abram got stopped by a telephone pole in LA, or what it a government official speaking fiction to the public. No wait two Abram.
All you guys are wrong, equipments doesn't matter, skills does.
Aussie Digger, didn't North Vietnam won the Vietnam war, with crapy equipments against a super power.
All you guys are wrong, equipments doesn't matter, skills does.
Aussie Digger, didn't North Vietnam won the Vietnam war, with crapy equipments against a super power.
Contrary to popular opinion, Vietnam is far from being completely covered by jungle. An M1 has never been stopped by a telephone pole, I think you guys are confused with the film of an M60 that some guy stole and drove through Los Angeles. An he knocked down alot of telephone poles during his joy ride. Ultimately he drove the tank over a 4 foot tall concrete highway divider which trapped the tank.
I agree skills are important but they aren't the most important and wont mean much if the technology gap is very big.
North Vietnam certainly won the war, but not militarily. In fact the North Vietnamese had their butts handed to them every single time they chose to engage Americans in a military action. Look at the statistics of North Vietnamese KIA's and American KIA's. The American military wasn't even allowed to fight the North Vietnamese properly, Hanoi wasn't bombed for years and it wasn't because of their lousy air force (poor training, poor equipment etc). I always have to laugh when people bring Vietnam up because they are foolish enough to think that America "lost" the war militarily when nothing could be further from the truth.
I agree skills are important but they aren't the most important and wont mean much if the technology gap is very big.
North Vietnam certainly won the war, but not militarily. In fact the North Vietnamese had their butts handed to them every single time they chose to engage Americans in a military action. Look at the statistics of North Vietnamese KIA's and American KIA's. The American military wasn't even allowed to fight the North Vietnamese properly, Hanoi wasn't bombed for years and it wasn't because of their lousy air force (poor training, poor equipment etc). I always have to laugh when people bring Vietnam up because they are foolish enough to think that America "lost" the war militarily when nothing could be further from the truth.
Hmm you cant just say America is the best or pakistan is the best cause each nation has its abilities
Like for jungle warfare my vote goes to malaysian Troops their rangers dont lead the way (like the americans do) the blow up anything in the way.... Even america,the uk,and australia train in the jungle warfare school in malaysia and their special forces are not a joke... try searching for PASKAL the GGK, and PASKAU and you will know why....
INDONESIA has the KOPASKA which as you might know has been in combat non stop for the past 20 years.... so experience wise they have em...
America has the weapons and their way of winning is blow everything up and hope the enemy dies... an expensive way of fighting... i personally think they are overated...
China has lots of troops but in terms of combat im quite skeptical they do more flood prevention than real combat training
India and pakistan... you all please stop going im better than you or the other way round its so childish
Israel ---- ok before i say anything i hate israel but they are good at what they do cause they stick to the plan and go full force at it. Take the arab-israel war they blew the crap out of the egyptian armour and they are really good in city fights... for obvious reasons......
Like for jungle warfare my vote goes to malaysian Troops their rangers dont lead the way (like the americans do) the blow up anything in the way.... Even america,the uk,and australia train in the jungle warfare school in malaysia and their special forces are not a joke... try searching for PASKAL the GGK, and PASKAU and you will know why....
INDONESIA has the KOPASKA which as you might know has been in combat non stop for the past 20 years.... so experience wise they have em...
America has the weapons and their way of winning is blow everything up and hope the enemy dies... an expensive way of fighting... i personally think they are overated...
China has lots of troops but in terms of combat im quite skeptical they do more flood prevention than real combat training
India and pakistan... you all please stop going im better than you or the other way round its so childish
Israel ---- ok before i say anything i hate israel but they are good at what they do cause they stick to the plan and go full force at it. Take the arab-israel war they blew the crap out of the egyptian armour and they are really good in city fights... for obvious reasons......
While much of what you say is true Paxter, the thread was about which Army is the best in the world. It matters little who is best man for man, or who is best in some splinter skill if you are measuring the abilities of an Army. gf0012 summarized it best earlier in this thread. You have to measure the capabilities of an army in terms of force projection, logisitics and the ability to carry a fight to the enemy wherever that enemy may be.
While the Americans may be overated there, isn't a country in the world that could stand up to an all out war with America.
While the Americans may be overated there, isn't a country in the world that could stand up to an all out war with America.
Paxter,
Pax, the majority of western special forces do exchange tours, nobody “trains†anyone else. As for jungle training, the last time we trained in the Malaysian jungles was during Konfrontassi. We tend to do our jungle training locally, or with the Brit SAS in Borneo or currently in ET. Falantil currently do upskill training in Jungle warfare with Aust troops as we consider them the best in region. They have been at war for over 25 years and were never challenged as units by Kopassus - who are quite good in Indonesian terms.
Kopassus elite units were actually trained by the Aust SAS. Their ordinary units are nothing special. It’s the CT Units (Units 21/81) that are exceptional, and they do exchanges in Australia. There is more to it than this, what you are talking about is information that is popular in the public press, but has little reality with what happens
That’s fine to believe it, but generally views need to be supported. I’m interested in what you base this on and whether you have some direct military experience that can be used to help qualify your opinions.
China might have large numbers of troops, but I wouldn’t assume that they are primarily just a para-military and civil support model. Troop quality in any large army without constant training will be an issue.
Hating a country doesn’t qualify as a reasoned response. Read the rules. We seek reasoned and reasonable debate in here.
What the heck? Everyone is bragging about their own Military to be the best. I say Macedonia has the best trained soldier since they are Greek. BTW before you start believing in me, their total armed forces numercially are about 16000. Enough to beat, India, Pakistan, Australia, China or for that matter US. :roll
It is all because they are greek and Greeks kick arse of enemy in every fight. :help
Please do not shout on me, I just read it on their defence forum.
It is all because they are greek and Greeks kick arse of enemy in every fight. :help
Please do not shout on me, I just read it on their defence forum.
amit21mech
New Member
To know whos is best...lets start 3rd World war...and its compulsary for every nation to take part otherwise we will not discuss them here.... Heeeheee heeheee....ummmm...not funny???...I am sorry
My message just got deleted it could of been because of what i said but Any ways i was just saying that the Greeks did loose Half of there Cyprus to Turkey in there last war !!! The Best Army would have to be The US Army i still think that it is the only nation which can launch an atack on a global scale and fight without its economy suffering to an extent!!! they have the Logistic, Tech Size quality and above all the funding to do what they wishSoldier said:What the heck? Everyone is bragging about their own Military to be the best. I say Macedonia has the best trained soldier since they are Greek. BTW before you start believing in me, their total armed forces numercially are about 16000. Enough to beat, India, Pakistan, Australia, China or for that matter US. :roll
It is all because they are greek and Greeks kick arse of enemy in every fight. :help
Please do not shout on me, I just read it on their defence forum.
:usa :nutkickObviously It is true and I agree completely with you. I was only sarcastic when talking about 16000 strongest guts&bolts of Macedonian Military and that they are greek makes them super-human.adsH said:My message just got deleted it could of been because of what i said but Any ways i was just saying that the Greeks did loose Half of there Cyprus to Turkey in there last war !!! The Best Army would have to be The US Army i still think that it is the only nation which can launch an atack on a global scale and fight without its economy suffering to an extent!!! they have the Logistic, Tech Size quality and above all the funding to do what they wishSoldier said:What the heck? Everyone is bragging about their own Military to be the best. I say Macedonia has the best trained soldier since they are Greek. BTW before you start believing in me, their total armed forces numercially are about 16000. Enough to beat, India, Pakistan, Australia, China or for that matter US. :roll
It is all because they are greek and Greeks kick arse of enemy in every fight. :help
Please do not shout on me, I just read it on their defence forum.
I am sorry i thought you mistakenly wrote up the 16000 lol i though you actually meant like 160 000 or more lol !! i thought there was bit of sarcasm !!Soldier said:Obviously It is true and I agree completely with you. I was only sarcastic when talking about 16000 strongest guts&bolts of Macedonian Military and that they are greek makes them super-human.adsH said:My message just got deleted it could of been because of what i said but Any ways i was just saying that the Greeks did loose Half of there Cyprus to Turkey in there last war !!! The Best Army would have to be The US Army i still think that it is the only nation which can launch an atack on a global scale and fight without its economy suffering to an extent!!! they have the Logistic, Tech Size quality and above all the funding to do what they wishSoldier said:What the heck? Everyone is bragging about their own Military to be the best. I say Macedonia has the best trained soldier since they are Greek. BTW before you start believing in me, their total armed forces numercially are about 16000. Enough to beat, India, Pakistan, Australia, China or for that matter US. :roll
It is all because they are greek and Greeks kick arse of enemy in every fight. :help
Please do not shout on me, I just read it on their defence forum.
U.S army has the best equipment in the world and decent training, that gives them an edge over other armies. but against an army wif similar equipment and training, they might face defeat.
German army arguebly has the toughest training in the world, if any of u ever get a chance to go to mountain warfare school in germany, u won't doubt me.
PLA has very high moral, there were lot of examples of soldiers fighting to death wif their teeth and bare hands during vietnam and korean war(commies do a good job at influencing their soldiers). but after 2 decades of peace, it is doubtful if the chinese still have the will to fight to death.
Russian army, i don't no wut to say about this army. it used to have one of the best trained and highest moral during the soviets. but due to lack of funds, training has dropped to minimal and soldier's pay is low. the effectiveness overall is degraded alot (u can see during the first cheychen war), but recent conflicts have showed signs of a better army.
German army arguebly has the toughest training in the world, if any of u ever get a chance to go to mountain warfare school in germany, u won't doubt me.
PLA has very high moral, there were lot of examples of soldiers fighting to death wif their teeth and bare hands during vietnam and korean war(commies do a good job at influencing their soldiers). but after 2 decades of peace, it is doubtful if the chinese still have the will to fight to death.
Russian army, i don't no wut to say about this army. it used to have one of the best trained and highest moral during the soviets. but due to lack of funds, training has dropped to minimal and soldier's pay is low. the effectiveness overall is degraded alot (u can see during the first cheychen war), but recent conflicts have showed signs of a better army.
Considering the fact that the Germans train their mountain warfare troops with Norwegian special forces, I find that an odd comment.
I'd question whether Germany does have the toughest training in the world as well. The quality of the training is impacted upon by various issues:
experienced battle tested officer cohort
volunteer or conscripted army
whether the nation is in a state of conflict or whether they have a benign military environment
frequency of combat to finesse doctrine
when their current warfighting doctrine was last updated and when it was last actioned
how often they do dissimilar combat training.
on the basis of the above, I can think of 5 other countries which rate higher by a considerable margin.
For sheer quality of training, I'd argue that the British Army has the best Infantry trg in the world - the most diverse battle testing and the most diverse experience out of any nation in the last 250-300 years.
No other nation comes remotely close to their win ratio.
german soldier's physical requirement is higher than the british soldier. u should go to germany to see their troops, u can tell juz by looking at them they r extremely well trained. i served wif the canadian army reserves, and i have to admit they made our guys look lk boy scouts.gf0012 said:
british army do have a lot of experience, b4 iraq and afganistan, they were fighting against the IRA in northern ireland, which gave them alot of expericence at counter-terrorism. in recent afgan operations the royal marines were more effective at finding talibans and Al-quadas than their american counterpart possibly due to better experience and training. if there is one army that comes close to german, it juz might be the british. although france seems to have decent training for their troops as well, their foreign legion is one of the best infantry unit in the world, comparable to U.S army rangers. but im not sure of the other units.
also german army has equal, if not better quality tanks and armor vehicle than US army, remember this is not juz a comparison by infantry but also equipment.
Sandhurst does produce quality soldiers that not only can fight properly but technically achieve higher performance by following correct protocols, ie they know Warefare from its core, they are not only trained in combat but how to present your self when questioned by TV crews , LOL How to cover your A** when your caught lol ("Bart Simpson: I Didn't do it!!"). but they are taught about people and cultural sensitivities and how to behave around them to treat people with respect regardless of what and who they are!! i only know about Sandhurst IOFT And officer related training in the three Services!!gf0012 said:
Pathfinder what about the SAS !! there requirements to be the best of the best !! i think its like 4-6 years brilliant record with the RArmy, RNavy, RAF and be able to get through some back breaking mental testing, and then the actuall testing which is a killer Sych training torture interrogation with sleep depravation tiredness fatigue starvation even i think electric shocks. oh rite the cold weather !!! they do Hill climbing and heck alot of it !! these tests are administered in remote mountainous regions of scotland!!
- Status