Which is the best army in the world?

[mysterious]

Yeah it is the best army and perhaps in the last century or so, its only drawback is what you've said in your own post "to carry the fight to wherever the government sees fit"!! When the war comes to one's home soil, then its entirely a different ball game, when one's own civilians, military and civilian assets are at risk. For me, it's no big deal fighting a war a million miles away where the only loss you can suffer is a soldier or two on the battlefield or a humvee or an APC which is minimal when you compare that to what your opponent has at stakes!! :cop

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yeah it is the best army and perhaps in the last century or so, its only drawback is what you've said in your own post "to carry the fight to wherever the government sees fit"!! When the war comes to one's home soil, then its entirely a different ball game, when one's own civilians, military and civilian assets are at risk. For me, it's no big deal fighting a war a million miles away where the only loss you can suffer is a soldier or two on the battlefield or a humvee or an APC which is minimal when you compare that to what your opponent has at stakes!! :cop

Myst, I think you are being too dismissive and need to study battles in a bit more depth.

So Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Atilla the Hun, The Ch'in, none of those did anything impressive as they were fighting in foreign lands?

Have a look at all the acknowledged military leaders and they all won their laurels fighting in other climes...

The country that can deploy and fight demonstrates a sound comprehension of logistics - and it's logistics that often determines the progress and outcome of continental conflict - let alone intercontinental conflict. What you are saying defies and contradicts everything that is taught in military colleges from Sandhurst, St Cyr, St Petersberg etc...

 

[mysterious]

I'm not saying that its not a skill or there's something too bad about fighting a war on foreign soil. It has its own merits but all I said was that, things are more different if one fights a war on one's own soil and there is much more at stake. I dont think I would compare Medieval battles or heroes over here with the US. :smokingc:

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm not saying that its not a skill or there's something too bad about fighting a war on foreign soil. It has its own merits but all I said was that, things are more different if one fights a war on one's own soil and there is much more at stake. I dont think I would compare Medieval battles or heroes over here with the US. :smokingc:

The US has fought on it's own soil, there was the little incident over tea, taxes and tipple that caused the initial ruction with england. The US has also fought a couple of wars against Canada. Admittedly the canadian stoushes weren't as life threatening as the war for independence, but it happened nonetheless. At the other end of the CONUS they also got involved in a little brouhaha with Mexico (and by association Spain)

Normally, convention dictates that the defender does have more to fight for and thus the battle is harder for the intruder. But war is a funny thing. It changes at Zero + 1 and then other elements and forces decide to intervene.

But, I get your basic point. I just don't like things oversimplified - and this subject is one of the most complex out there. It's a bit like P.A.F.s comment about China being able to whoop US buttocks whenever it wants to - I don't mind the emotion, but the reality and analysis will render that belief into very visible fractures and fragments in very short order. patriotism is such a mongrel.

 

[mysterious]

Notice, that in my first post to which you replied I said that 'in nearly a century' the US hasnt fought a war on its own soil. War of independance and others were a long long time back! But I agree with you about P.A.F's post, it was rather childish without realities being taken in to consideration. :smokingc:

 

[adsH]

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.

Gremlin i did agree with your comments till right at the end! lol !! you had to say that, I and we (As Brits) have always acknowledged Our selves as a small Populous nation, like wise Our Professional Army has always remained small but it never stopped the British empire to rule nearly half the world in its imperial days, See what you see is Numbers but what i see is tactics employed by those numbers, there is a totally different mind sets here!! you can not deny that, any nation, on the face of this planet would hesitate, even to threaten us, we may be small but not insignificant and Our Armed Forces Do pack a Big punch !!!

I'd say gone are the days when only Land armies Played a Big part in warFare

 

[gf0012-aust]

Our Professional Army has always remained small but it never stopped the British empire to rule nearly half the world in its imperial days, See what you see is Numbers but what i see is tactics employed by those numbers, there is a totally different mind sets here!! you can not deny that, any nation, on the face of this planet would hesitate, even to threaten us, we may be small but not insignificant and Our Armed Forces Do pack a Big punch !!!

I'd say gone are the days when only Land armies Played a Big part in warFare

well, maybe not half. actually a quarter. Great Britain controlled 1/4 of the world at the peak of its power. The largest empire the world has ever seen.
The Mongols OTOH controlled the largest contiguous empire the world has ever seen.

I'm not so sure on the isssue of the death of large land armies force on force - The African sub continent has yet to run it's course, there ares till too many outstanding disputes and scores to settle there - and not a lot of modern militaries present.

At the end of the day, you can only sieze land and hold it with a large force - a basic requirement that was fundamentally miscued in Iraq (a clear case of suits not listening to uniforms and the uniforms (as is want in all democracies) accepting the punch to the chin by the suits so as not to sully the suits and their version of history.

/cynical hat off
/oversimplication off

 

[Gremlin29]

Don't get me wrong adsH, I agree that the Brits have a tremendous military however I can't agree with your idea that size is unimportant. Britain ruled a large realm with a comparitively small force however those were days when seapower was the sole source for projecting power and those days are long gone. In any case this topic is so wide open for debate that there's no real clear and obvious winner/answer.

The US doesn't even have a large land army comparitively speaking. Look at WW2 to reallize the full potential that America has when fully mobilized for all out conflict. Now translate that into the larger population of today coupled with the economics and technology. I think people have been sullied into believing that the tiny force employed in Iraq is an all out war effort on the part of America and nothing could be farther from the truth. Politically speaking the US may be on a war footing of sorts, but the military and the country itself surely aren't. People in the US are living the same type of lifestyle they were prior to 911 with a few very very minor exceptions.

 

[SABRE]

It is not a proper question to ask "Which army is best?"

Some are best when they are equiped with better technology e.g: USA, Israel

Some are best at their man power e.g: Pakistan, China, Iran

To me the best army is the one with the man power. Bravery counts because it remains permenent & technology expires.
So all the nations with better man power have the best army.

I personally will choose Pakistan, not for patriotic reasons but because the defened Pakistans borders from hot deserts of Sindh & Punjab (Thar Desert)
to Higher altitude of cold Siacheen glaciar. Also Pak army has now reached into Mountains of NWFP. These men are brave & best.

I'll count India in this catogary but they fail in various areas. In thar & Siacheen Sector Indian army seems to lose its mind. They start killing each other. Besides they stay their for 3 months & their posts are changed. So their will is week. Pak army changes once in 6months or so.

So its PAk, China & also Iranian army which are the best.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

It is not a proper question to ask "Which army is best?"

Some are best when they are equiped with better technology e.g: USA, Israel

Some are best at their man power e.g: Pakistan, China, Iran

To me the best army is the one with the man power. Bravery counts because it remains permenent & technology expires.
So all the nations with better man power have the best army.

I personally will choose Pakistan, not for patriotic reasons but because the defened Pakistans borders from hot deserts of Sindh & Punjab (Thar Desert)
to Higher altitude of cold Siacheen glaciar. Also Pak army has now reached into Mountains of NWFP. These men are brave & best.

I'll count India in this catogary but they fail in various areas. In thar & Siacheen Sector Indian army seems to lose its mind. They start killing each other. Besides they stay their for 3 months & their posts are changed. So their will is week. Pak army changes once in 6months or so.

So its PAk, China & also Iranian army which are the best.

too bad bravery won't do you much good when you are up against a better equipped foe. today's war is about using advanced technologies and tactics to win over your opponent, not about how brave you are. u juz can't fight an A-10 with a AKM rifle. for example, a brigade from 1st marine expeditionary unit could held its ground against a Iranian division, just because it has better equipments and training.
oh btw, army isn't the only factor in a war, airforce and navy are essential in conflict these days.

 

[Gremlin29]

Saber, think of it in terms of soccer. Does the "Best" team consistently lose games? Isn't the world cup winner considered to be the "Best" rather than the losing team with the great style?

 

[adsH]

grem i agree with you completely but No offense without sea power the US won't be able to wage war anywhere, you guys are on a completely different continent u could could wage a second war on Canda but then again they wouldn't put up much of a fight!! :lol, Pathfinder i am realy sorry its all a joke i know the Candian Armed forces are competent and Brave, I am only trying to Cut a Joke out of this potentially Volatile Piece of Conversation. the Point is Grem you need Sea Power thats what makes you global, you can't ship all those M1A1 / A2 out to Iraq excet borrow some from the Saudis, without Sea Power even tho, those are transported on massive supper Cargo ship but they need Protection too. without sea power it is virtually impossible to Supply and replenish to a large fighting force like the One in Iraq. Without Sea faring War ships you can't fly off Super Carriers to Bomb A hostile country at a moments notice, without Sea ships you can't have a feild Operational base to house Top level generals in a Hostile Area. with out a Effective large Navy like the US and the UK you can't Wage war. Army and Airforce depend on the Navy there is no way any one can ever say that Navy is not vital, it is the only tool that is effective when it comes to Surrounding and Controlling and collapsing the Economy by blockades, however AF and Armies are vital for land engagements and they are good for grabing and effectively control a piece of land, but i disagree with the Assertion that soldier counts makes a miltary most powerful if that was the case then china with i think 4 million pluss soldiers would of taken over Taiwan, it Is Not what you have its how you use it to fight a war that counts. Briton can still goto to War with any nation on earth useing its massive Naval force as a base of forward attack to eventually Crippling that countries infrastructure, i agree we would need to coverse locals to participate and get the American to help us secure the Ground with its 1 million armed (remember we stick together a Coalition :lol) forces but we still can still Beat any Nation and cripple it to its Bare feat based on the Naval power, lets leave Russia and china out of this shall we A true effective Blue water navy is vital for a serious National defense and Offense, and i would say the UK has a History of maintaining a good Navy, longer than any nation except the OTTOMANS the SPANIARD UMAYEDS, who were the main opponent superpower who were ofcource wiped out by naval strategies and well desinged ships even tho the Brits were considerably less and new then the Spaniards.

 

[gf0012-aust]

adsH, I'd have to disagree with some of your analysis.

SeaPower was critical prior to this century. It was the means to project power, it was the means to deploy land forces etc etc...

OTOH, SeaPower has not been usurped, but complimented by precision munitions. The US, if necessary could still deliver sufficient ordnance by air and land to overwhelm a nations capacity to wage war at a force majeur level.

Sea Power is supplementary to that. You don't necessarily need a navy to blockade a port, you just strike the port and then use your air capacity to seek and destroy any assets that sally forth (this is an oversimplification so that we can get a broad concept in place)

The US has the largest commercial intercontinental fleet in the world, they have the most extensive, and they have the capacity to project their combat assets at will due to EW and refueling. No other nation has the overall flexibility and capacity to do that.

Look at China, it was able to deliver 26,000 troops into Tibet in days. Their uplift is in no way comparable to US logistics.

Force projection is now about a combined capability, not just a force element. Take away the USN and the US job is much harder - but it does not remove their capacity to visit irreperable harm on an enemy.

The US navy is never more than 10minutes aaway from being able to drop ordnance on an enemy, take them away, and that changes to 15mins at an intercontinental level.

Mahans definition of a blue water navy (and is still considered to be the proper definition) is of any country that has a permanent fleet footprint in all of the worlds 7 major oceans. There is only one country that has a full fleet presence under that definition. After that it becomes regional, France, the UK, then Russia. In real terms, Indias navy is stronger than Chinas at this point in time. Japans Navy is close on actual capability to France and the UK, if they decide to move ahead with an air defence vessel (ie a CV) then the balance will shift dramatically. The UK has probably the second most capable navy in the wolrd, but is a shahow of itself. In actual fact, the USN reserve fleet is the second largest navy in the world. In terms of numbers, the 3rd largest fleet in the world is the USN merchant fleet. Add them all up and no other navy comes even remotely close. Take them away, and the US can still outstrike any country left who wants to wage formal war on them. It;s not as easy - but it's do-able.

 

[Gremlin29]

adsH makes some good points and really, (I know GF agrees) it matters not who's army, navy or air force is best. The real deal is the Air/Land/Sea battle. The US not only fully embraces the A/L/S, but the majority of it's training is towards fighting that type of war. Broken down by service, in the army at least we train and are equipped to fight as a combined arms team. This is why it's pure folly to send a battalion of AH-64's to east europe under the context of flying deep strike missions. The army, and more importantly those Apache units do not nor have they trained to operate autonomously and are quite literally fish out of water. It's akin to sending tanks to battle without supporting infantry, pure folly.

Obviously GF has had access to the cold hard facts of comparison. I don't think many people (including the average American citizen) fully and truely reallize the full destructive potential that the US maintains.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Grem, I only maintained that the British army was the "best" on a man for man basis, obviously there are quite a number of other armed forces in the world that maintained larger standard armies than Great Britain. The US obviously is the premier armed force in the world at present and is likely to remain that way. I would however argue that a British Formation would have a higher level of combat capability than a similar US formation.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

personally i think german soldiers are the toughest troops in the world with advanced MBTs and armour vehicles, but since they haven't had combat experience in almost 60 years(except those few firefights in bosnia), i agree wif aussie that the british is better, since they got experiences from Ireland, Afganistan and Iraq.

 

[Gremlin29]

Pathfinder, I've trained with the Germans and they are not in my opinion that great.

AussieDigger, I agree with what your saying to an extent. Perhaps comparing a company of basic grunts I would concede their are others out there that outperform US forces. But then again, some considerations must be met to conclude that the force as a whole impacts how the guy in a pair of boots conducts his mission. As an example, it's been discussed that the SAS are the finest Spec Ops formation in the world. That doesn't mean that others sux, as some countries defray their Spec Ops communities to be more specialized (US for example). So to a degree the way forces are utilized determines the overall effectiveness that they are expected to achieve. The MTO&E for a US division is quite a bit different from that of the Brits. You could look at the Canadian Army as an example as well. The Canadian Army doesn't even have organic aviation assets as they belong to the Air Force.

Perhaps it's the common language and linneage, but I do know that I will always be happy to have British and Australian troops by my side

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Pathfinder, I've trained with the Germans and they are not in my opinion that great.

AussieDigger, I agree with what your saying to an extent. Perhaps comparing a company of basic grunts I would concede their are others out there that outperform US forces. But then again, some considerations must be met to conclude that the force as a whole impacts how the guy in a pair of boots conducts his mission. As an example, it's been discussed that the SAS are the finest Spec Ops formation in the world. That doesn't mean that others sux, as some countries defray their Spec Ops communities to be more specialized (US for example). So to a degree the way forces are utilized determines the overall effectiveness that they are expected to achieve. The MTO&E for a US division is quite a bit different from that of the Brits. You could look at the Canadian Army as an example as well. The Canadian Army doesn't even have organic aviation assets as they belong to the Air Force.

Perhaps it's the common language and linneage, but I do know that I will always be happy to have British and Australian troops by my side

very true, it's not about how well a individual soldier is trained, it's about how well the army operates as a unit.

a american officer once stated that the candian army was "well trained and equipped at company level, anything bigger they have is inefficient." and i agree with him, our armours are obsolete, our helicopter fleet is tiny(yes the army does have one), our artillery r ineffective becuz of the small number. we might be able to gain the upperhand against the american at company level, but defeat is almost inevitable when put against anything bigger than battalion level.

 

[Awang se]

My friend in the Malaysian army rifle platoon have something to say about US army. In the recent training with US marines, they found something in the marines that they dont expect to find in the marine force recon. For example, once they shifted from open area to heavy jungle environment, they began to come close to each other. eventually they don't want to loose sight of their comrades. this make them vulnerable to ambush. My friend was quite impressed with their individual communication gear (something that we only dream to have) but instead they failed to used this to the advantages. maybe this marines is a rookie.

 

[srirangan]

The only way to judge the best army is a deathmatch each army against every other army. Now if an army can afford external help such as air support then that doesn't get excluded because this is a deathmatch with no rules. eheh

Winner:
1) USA

Survivors:
2) Russia
3) China/India (1 billion people in these countries, that alone guaruntees survival)

Well this is just my unbiased take..