Which is the best army in the world?

[gf0012-aust]

I've seen German troops in training.

The Brits in the last 50 years have fought in over 20 different separate countries, ranging from specops, to insurgency, anti-terrorism and full blown theatre warfare. This has been in different countries, different climates.

Their officer experience is second to none - and I'd argue more rounded and better balanced than the US military. Their core soldier training is longer than the US and certainly longer then German regs

Germany has no battlefield exp since WW2, so the officer corp exp is well and truly gone, and even if they were alive, totally irrelevant. Germany has had minimal and in effect no active dissimilar combat exposure.

You can't even remotely begin to compare them against the Brits.
France has more active battle training and exposure than the Germans.

I've no doubt that they are effective - but there is no way that their lack of participation in modern combat techniques could be even compared to an army that regularly is tested under real bullets.

Miles vests just don't have the same impact as a real bullet winging its way towards you.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

I've seen German troops in training.

The Brits in the last 50 years have fought in over 20 different separate countries, ranging from specops, to insurgency, anti-terrorism and full blown theatre warfare. This has been in different countries, different climates.

Their officer experience is second to none - and I'd argue more rounded and better balanced than the US military. Their core soldier training is longer than the US and certainly longer then German regs

Germany has no battlefield exp since WW2, so the officer corp exp is well and truly gone, and even if they were alive, totally irrelevant. Germany has had minimal and in effect no active dissimilar combat exposure.

You can't even remotely begin to compare them against the Brits.
France has more active battle training and exposure than the Germans.

I've no doubt that they are effective - but there is no way that their lack of participation in modern combat techniques could be even compared to an army that regularly is tested under real bullets.

Miles vests just don't have the same impact as a real bullet winging its way towards you.

ya i guess ur rite. can't compare training wif real combat experience.
but when we train in the army, we don't use miles dat much, there is something called Simmunition(mostly we use it for MOUT training, on the fields we still use MILES)
have u guys ever served in the army? if so where and how long?

 

[gf0012-aust]

my background is a little different from Aussie Digger (he's a real one, )
I've worked on military projects for about 20-25 years, and have been attached to whoever is the lead "uniform"

so I've worked on subs, surface warfare vessels, ASW airborne projects, AEW, IFV, LRRP vehicles, remote communications, other armoured vehicle projects for foreign customers, aviation projects offshore, small arms ballistics, large ballistics (in a recoil evaluation project) and some other bits and pieces.

I've been shot at a few times though - which was not some of the happier moments in my life. I've also seen some of the unfortunate side effects of roadside bombs going off in public areas... which is why I get a bit cranky at people who treat war like a game - it's not, real people get hurt.

So my principle job is as a defence contractor/analyst. At the moment my brief is to work on renewable energy solutions and act as an agent for replacement mil vehicles to approved customers.

 

[Aussie Digger]

gf, German troops do have some operational experience. They have been deployed in Bosnia for years now and have probably been involved in some contacts since they've been there. There is nothing like training though, to provide professional troops. Combat does validate your capabilities, true, but it's not the only measure. As I stated when this board started, it's my opinion that the British Army is the finest in the world. I can't think of a professional armed force that can match their experience and operational capability and success.

 

[gf0012-aust]

gf, German troops do have some operational experience. They have been deployed in Bosnia for years now and have probably been involved in some contacts since they've been there.

Awfully embarrased now, I'd completely forgotten about Bosnia and the Germans.

I keep on thinking about their consititution and how they've changed in the last few years.

Good thing there's no german readers here - i'd be eating crow for quite a while to make up for it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

They're are also in Afganistan now that I think of it, just to rub it in...

 

[Pathfinder-X]

They're are also in Afganistan now that I think of it, just to rub it in... Pathfinder, I was in the Australian Regular Army for about 6.5 years. I served 5 years in the infantry, before I transferred to an Armoured Recon Regiment for the final 18 months of my service. What did you do in the Canadian Reserves?

i belong to New Westminster Infantry Regiment in British Columbia, this is my first year of service(9 months of service to be precise), next year im applying for military college and hopefully become a infantry officer.

 

[Red aRRow]

i belong to New Westminster Infantry Regiment in British Columbia, this is my first year of service(9 months of service to be precise), next year im applying for military college and hopefully become a infantry officer.

Nice. Sorry for being off topic but are you really a pathfinder?? :?
My dad did the pathfinder course from Fort Benning in 60s or something.

 

[adsH]

They're are also in Afganistan now that I think of it, just to rub it in... Pathfinder, I was in the Australian Regular Army for about 6.5 years. I served 5 years in the infantry, before I transferred to an Armoured Recon Regiment for the final 18 months of my service. What did you do in the Canadian Reserves?

i belong to New Westminster Infantry Regiment in British Columbia, this is my first year of service(9 months of service to be precise), next year im applying for military college and hopefully become a infantry officer.

What kind of courses do you have as options !! i would think military college would have alot on offer rite !!

 

[Pathfinder-X]

shamayel
i never been trained in U.S b4, so naturally i haven't attend the pathfinder course. im not even airborne qualified(hopefully within a few years i'll be)

adsH
it's called the Royal Military College, located in Kinston, Ontario. it offers almost same subjects available in civillian universities. the unique course is the military and strategic studies. oh there is another one, it's the military psychology and leadership.

 

[Mobeen]

us army is educated ohh really who said this such education which they have shown in iraq is that required to be the best army..NO
i think as china is moving and progressing in each and every field and adopting the policy of not interfearing in any other countries problem they will become more stable and more strong army in the world.
i think iraq and afgan war will efect usa army instead of becoing strong they lose gripp and deciplane in millitaray. : :cop

 

[gf0012-aust]

any army that doesn't start to educate it's military personnel in modern technology is going to lag behind.

look at the educational level of US troops circa vietnam, look at them now, and compare the weaps that are currently used.

education is critical on creativity - not copying and cloning. until a system is in place that enables creative development - then a military will not be operating at its potential.

look at any military that has not started to shift its technology curve after 1989 - and you have an example of a military that will be a moving target.

OTOH, just to add a controversial element into the mix (), I've always wondered why the US bothers to continue to educate chinese students when its apparent that on both sides there is a perception that future conflict will involve both. If china is the future enemy, then traning their youth seems awfully dumb to me.

 

[|||]

:help i'm new here so forgive me for any stupid things i say.With regards to which army is the best, i would say the US in terms of offensive tactics.However IMHO the Russians and the Chinese have the best army when it comes to defense of their homeland.

 

[gf0012-aust]

:help i'm new here so forgive me for any stupid things i say.With regards to which army is the best, i would say the US in terms of offensive tactics.However IMHO the Russians and the Chinese have the best army when it comes to defense of their homeland.

No such thing as a "stupid thing to say". We all have reasons for our statements.

I would question Chinas ability to defend itself as historically it has never demonstrated a capacity to do so with effect. The last time was against the Japanese and they were absolutely boxed up in a very short time. China is untested as a modern military power. It does not have the benefit of dissimilar combat training and fundamentally as a modern military, has only started to form up since 1989. Admittedly it has reformed rapidly - but that does not translate to a co-ordinated military that has a capacity to deliver military objectives under the principle of combined arms. I'm betting that the Spratleys is Chinas version of Germany in Spain of 1936. BUT, an invader would have to be awfully confident to even consider deploying against the chinese on their own soil. You can argue about China during the Korean War, but that was more due to the effect of a fragmented and unready US Army deployed for a war that was not readily planned for. Once the US let McArthur plan a response, they rolled the Chinese up. The smart thing was not letting McArthur nuke the Chinese - which is what he was itching to do as he saw China as the USA's future adversary. He must be rolling in his grave at the moment

Russia on the other hand is a formidable opponent and even though prior to WW2 did not demonstrate much military capability - has certainly formed up. No general with an ounce of sanity left in his brain would choose to invade russia (conventionally). Napoleon and Hitler learnt the hard way

 

[adsH]

"Napoleon and Hitler learnt the hard way"


I still think Education of a high level for the people we are talking about here is Not a Good or the most ideal idea for any Army. the Fact is An infantry soldier only need skills to fight and follow orders the manuals for the weapons and the orders are in a native language so its import to understand your own native language, and each soldier is trained anyway before he is deployed. the view here that a GI would need Higher diploma to operate a complicating piece of kit is just not rite at all. they need abit of intelligence, but basic education in the west suffices, for what they are and what they are expected to accomplish. tHe Commanding Officer should hold a Diploma of some-kind and should be well versed in extensive Warfare strategies, this is what we do here in the UK i am sure of it. the amount of time and money the British Military spends teaching Officers is Quiet large. I would say Officers are the Minds of the Fighting force where as GI are the Followers who should Be less educated then there superiors. or else you would mess up the hierarchy chain.

 

[mysterious]

The problem with the US army and other defense forces is that they havent fought a single war on their home soil in a long time! Fighting in other countries is easier when you dont have the fear of getting your civilians killed or military as well as civilian assets destroyed. That is why Pearl Harbour and 9/11 shook US to its roots 'cuz they are not used to fighting or experiencing setbacks of such types on their home soil. :cop

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't agree with that at all ADSH. The Australian Army is finding on operations that more and more decisions etc are having to be made instaneously by the lowly infantryman. This in-turn is requiring a greater degree of intellect from the soldiers, which is fostered through education. A smart soldier will always follow orders that are sensible and reasonable. A well educated "OR" might not follow a dangerous or stupid order, but that is a reflection on the officer giving the order, not the soldier refusing to follow such orders. Today in most militaries the equipment they are starting to oerate means that uneducated people will simply not understand how to operate such hig-tech devices. I'm not suggesting everyone in the military needs to be a Rhodes Scholar, however a high degree of intelligence combined with a sound education is likely to result in more capable soldiers, sailors or airmen, then the other way around. Cheers.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I would say Officers are the Minds of the Fighting force where as GI are the Followers who should Be less educated then there superiors. or else you would mess up the hierarchy chain.

The contradiction and counter to that is that often in western special forces cells/squadrons (in particular SAS/SASr/SBS)will be lead by a junior officer, if not a trooper. The seniority of the nominal leader has no leverage on an operation.

Outside of that scenario, Aussie-Dig is absolutely right, the complexity and speed of decision making reinforces if not necessitates a smarter trooper in the field.

autonomy is a greater issue now in contemporary terms than ever before..

 

[adsH]

I don't agree with that at all ADSH. The Australian Army is finding on operations that more and more decisions etc are having to be made instaneously by the lowly infantryman. This in-turn is requiring a greater degree of intellect from the soldiers, which is fostered through education. A smart soldier will always follow orders that are sensible and reasonable. A well educated "OR" might not follow a dangerous or stupid order, but that is a reflection on the officer giving the order, not the soldier refusing to follow such orders. Today in most militaries the equipment they are starting to oerate means that uneducated people will simply not understand how to operate such hig-tech devices. I'm not suggesting everyone in the military needs to be a Rhodes Scholar, however a high degree of intelligence combined with a sound education is likely to result in more capable soldiers, sailors or airmen, then the other way around. Cheers.

I said "they need abit of intelligence, but basic education in the west suffices"

i do think education is important i am not sure about the Army but i am sure about the Requirements of the Royal Air-force, which requires you to pass your Basic GCSE'S education which is like a minimum diploma of some kind!!, the Airforce has, what, i think!! is a multiple tear level tests which one of the Person who was sitting next to me was being put through he was not applying to become an officer. he had i think 16 exam each i think 2 or three hours, Pilot and Aircrews are 5 hours intensive. these tests are required to test the level of aptitude of prospectfull personnel. well he didn't pass his last exam missed it by a few points and ended up being rejected so i would say they have a pritty good ability testing regime here even for the lowest ranks. the poor guy was in tears he now has to wait for one year to take the exam again. i think the Army is alot more neady so it may be willing to take just about any one to fight as a Infantry soldier but i am not sure!!

 

[Gremlin29]

The US Army requires a fairly well educated individual to fill it's combat arms jobs (infantry, aviation, armor, artillery). From the new private on up these folks are required to learn and maintain a pretty high skill set. There's alot more to modern warfare than simply identifying a visible objective and telling soldiers to fight their way to it. It's standard practice (in the US at least) to brief soldiers at the lowest level on the overall objecives not only for the small unit (squad, platoon, company) but also the overall objectives of the battalion, brigade and division. This ensures that soldiers are able to understand the overall importance of their assigned objectices. This leads to the ability to adapt to the ever changing battlefield and is known as "initiative".

Getting back to the topic at hand I would still stand by my original statement that the US Army is without question the "best" army in the world. They have all of the elements needed to carry a fight to wherever the government see's fit. I would also point out that contrary to something mentioned previously, it is infinitely more difficult to carry a fight than it is to defend from ones homeland. I would have to argue with AussieDigger about the Brits, they aren't big enough to be in the top 5 I think, despite their quality.