Which is the best army in the world?

[demirturk]

Hi people, I will not say that Turkey has the best military as it has not. But, it is the most succesful military in guerilla warfare. We have fought and beaten pkk ( a separetist group) in southeastern Turkey. The fight costed 30,000 lives , mostly guerillas but it was and still is a success story for Turkish military. Fighting against a determined force of well equipped and trained foe who are fed and assisted by your neighbouring countries and so called NATO allies was a tough mission.Therefore, I believe we deserved an honoured place in any military rating.
I aggree that US has the most powerful military as they are technologically advanced but China is coming along and Russia is not far behind.Pakistan and India have good sized standing armies and they are worth of their ancestors.UK has the military tradition necessary for a good military power and the gadgets.Japan is not making much noise but we all know that they are warriors and have technical knowledge.So are the Germans. Israel is good but without US assistance they can not survive in today's battlefield although I have to admit that their equipment is 1st class.The rest I have no idea of.
I will appreciate your thoughts.

Demir

 

[adsH]

I personally like the Turkish Armed forces they are highly professional, and i must say they have a strong tradition, there equipments are mostly upto date, but the best thing about them is that they are NATO members and they have unrestricted (so to say) access to military hardware. i would have to agree with you on the fact that The Subcontinent has had its share of military traditions, the Muslim mughuls have been the Main empire in that region that actually displayed an enormous amount of organization and sophistication (father of battle feild Rocket technology, Tipu Sultan). Musharraf the COAS of Pak Armed forces grew up in turkey i'm sure he's enjoying his vacation in Turkey :lol.

demirturk" welcome to the ~Forum

 

[Salman78]

US Army is the best. Either its traning or firepower, mobility or experience. Noone even comes close. Whats bothering them now a days is shortage of man power as their commitments around the world increase.

 

[ashoaib]

American, German amd Japnese.

 

[Jonny]

Well I have to disagree with the people who say the United States Army is the best army in the world, their friendly fire record is appalling. Hell they even shot down a British Royal Air Force plane in the 2nd Gulf War as well as attacking several of our convoys with their A10's :? Plus they napalmed their own troops in Vietnam.

It really depends on how you define "best" does that mean most powerful or best trained? If it was most powerful it would be, China, US, Russia & North Korea. If it was best trained I would have to go with the European Countries...ofcourse i'm going to say the British Army is the best trained army in the world because i'm a Brit, closely followed by the German Army.

 

[Gremlin29]

Well I have to disagree with the people who say the United States Army is the best army in the world, their friendly fire record is appalling. Hell they even shot down a British Royal Air Force plane in the 2nd Gulf War as well as attacking several of our convoys with their A10's Plus they napalmed their own troops in Vietnam.

mhm......

Well first of all, the US Army hasn't shot down a single Royal Air Force jet (if they did I'd like to to know with what), nor does it own a single A-10 and they've never owned an aircraft that could drop Napalm....at least not since WWII.

Best means just that, best. Army A versus Army B. Army B wins and is therefore the best.

I can't even conceieve of how you could consider the Chinese the best Army. Their technology is decades behind, take their MBT as an example. It is in comparison to the big 3 western tanks (M1, Leo II, Challey) 3rd rate. They aren't fully night capable and haven't got organic day/night/all weather attack aviation. In all respects they are truely outclassed by the Americans and Russians. On a qualitive basis they are outclassed by just about every western/european army. The single most impressive quality of the Chinese Army is it's potential to field vast numbers of troops...but their economy and industry couldn't sustain the necessary numbers to offset the qualitive advantages of the US.

As far as best trained, I'd argue there as well. I've trained with the Brits, and the Germans among a whole host of others. The Brits were good, but I never walked away feeling they were "that" good. The Germans didn't impress me and if anything I was disappointed.

As a professional soldier, I'd list the Russians as the last army I would want to face.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

mhm......

Well first of all, the US Army hasn't shot down a single Royal Air Force jet (if they did I'd like to to know with what), nor does it own a single A-10 and they've never owned an aircraft that could drop Napalm....at least not since WWII.

Best means just that, best. Army A versus Army B. Army B wins and is therefore the best.

I can't even conceieve of how you could consider the Chinese the best Army. Their technology is decades behind, take their MBT as an example. It is in comparison to the big 3 western tanks (M1, Leo II, Challey) 3rd rate. They aren't fully night capable and haven't got organic day/night/all weather attack aviation. In all respects they are truely outclassed by the Americans and Russians. On a qualitive basis they are outclassed by just about every western/european army. The single most impressive quality of the Chinese Army is it's potential to field vast numbers of troops...but their economy and industry couldn't sustain the necessary numbers to offset the qualitive advantages of the US.

As far as best trained, I'd argue there as well. I've trained with the Brits, and the Germans among a whole host of others. The Brits were good, but I never walked away feeling they were "that" good. The Germans didn't impress me and if anything I was disappointed.

As a professional soldier, I'd list the Russians as the last army I would want to face.

Russian army has been greatly weaken since the fall of Soviet Union. Training and morale is at all time low, small arms are frequently stolen from barracks. In the war with Chenchnya today, Russians lose 5 to 12 men per week on the average. Youths are avoiding drafts. Today's Russian army is like an old lion, once mighty and strong, now just a shell of its former self.

The best army in the world today in terms of combat strength would be U.S army. Advanced equipment, battle experience are just the few things cannot be matched by any others in the world. But based on individual training, British and German would be superior to U.S.

 

[redsoulja]

Obviously America , Germany/Britain/Japan for n place, 3rd place is Russia and othe rEuro powers liek France, then come the 3rd world countries....
remember quantity is nota s good as quality

 

[doggychow14]

i think the list would be
offensive capability
1 usa
2 Russia
3 England
4 China



Ability to repel invasioni
1 usa
2 russia
3 china
4 england

 

[highsea]

Well first of all, the US Army hasn't shot down a single Royal Air Force jet (if they did I'd like to to know with what), nor does it own a single A-10

Gremlin, I think Jonny was referring to the British Tornado that was mistakenly shot down by a Patriot Missile Battery in the opening days of GW2 near the Iraq-Kuwait border (March 23, 2003). And you're right, the A-10 is Air Force, not Army.

 

[Jonny]

I apologise for mistaking the US army with the airforce with napalming their own troops. I remember on the build up to the war in Iraq, our news channels were interviewing British soldiers who were saying they were more scared of being attacked by American's than Iraqis :? They were asking their families to send over British flags to put on their tanks etc...unfortunaltely it didn't protect them.

Everyone seems to say how fantastic the United States Military is, but if you look at it their war record from the start of the last century it isn't brilliant. They entered world war one in 1917 when everyone else had been fighting since 1914, they entered world war 2 in 1941 when everyone else had been fighting since 39. The Korean war ended in a stalemate (I know the Brits were in Korea as well but meh), Vietnam ended in defeat and now it looks like they're incapable of dealing with Guerilla warfare effectively in Iraq.

 

[Gremlin29]

Really Jonny, you need to brush up and understand historical facts.

You wont find a historian that would argue that it was the United States entry into WW1 which caused the capitulation of the Germans.

Much of the above is true concerning WW2. From 1939 to 1941 the combined allies could not stop the Germans, it was in fact the US entry into the "european" war at that stage which forced a favorable conclussion. In fact, the French are responsible for allowing WW2 to start in the first place. Britain and France both sat idly by ignoring the treatise both countries had signed at Versailles and allowed the countries they pledged to protect to be taken over by the Germans. If the US hadn't entered WW2 Britain would have capitulated and France,....well they capitulated after 6 weeks of fighting.

Korea? Gimme a break, and maybe read a book or 2 about that war. For starters, that was not a "US" war, it was a UN war. Secondly, UN forces pushed the North Koreans back so far so fast the Chinese got nervous and threw a million of their own troops into the battle. At that stage, the Chinese/North Korean front was only able to stop the UN advance and stall the front. The conclussion of that war was that North and South Korea basically retained their original border lines. What part of that is a defeat?

Vietnam....again you demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of warfare. US armed forces completely and soundly defeated the North Vietnamese in every way, shape and form. Remember, the North invaded the South? US forces kept South Vietnam free for 10 years, and they were only able to take the South after the US left. It's not the US military's fault that the South Vietnamese were incapable of maintaining their own sovereignty. Vietnam was a successful military campaign, but politically was unsuccessful.

If you want to look at dismal war records, take a look at the european armies. The only country in europe that was able to win a war was Russia, and even they needed massive help from the Ameircan war industry.

 

[Aegis]

Israel Army is the best,with great determination and able to overcome enemies 5 times their strength! They were well-train and equip too.

 

[neel24neo]

Vietnam....again you demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of warfare. US armed forces completely and soundly defeated the North Vietnamese in every way, shape and form. Remember, the North invaded the South? US forces kept South Vietnam free for 10 years, and they were only able to take the South after the US left. It's not the US military's fault that the South Vietnamese were incapable of maintaining their own sovereignty. Vietnam was a successful military campaign, but politically was unsuccessful

whatever you say of other US campaigns,this account of yours is ridiculous.if US forces had defeated north vietnamese,"completely",soundly",in every "shape" and "form",how in the world did they capture erstwhile saigon and rest of south vietnam?you say US left the battle to south vietnamese...dear friend,US forces left saigon only when the north vietmanese came knocking at your doors...do you mean to say that you ran away from north vietnamese?you see your opponents winning and suddenly you decide to quit?come on man,for all your succeses in world wars and korea,vietnam was a defeat.both militarily and politically.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

Really Jonny, you need to brush up and understand historical facts.

You wont find a historian that would argue that it was the United States entry into WW1 which caused the capitulation of the Germans.

Much of the above is true concerning WW2. From 1939 to 1941 the combined allies could not stop the Germans, it was in fact the US entry into the "european" war at that stage which forced a favorable conclussion. In fact, the French are responsible for allowing WW2 to start in the first place. Britain and France both sat idly by ignoring the treatise both countries had signed at Versailles and allowed the countries they pledged to protect to be taken over by the Germans. If the US hadn't entered WW2 Britain would have capitulated and France,....well they capitulated after 6 weeks of fighting.

Korea? Gimme a break, and maybe read a book or 2 about that war. For starters, that was not a "US" war, it was a UN war. Secondly, UN forces pushed the North Koreans back so far so fast the Chinese got nervous and threw a million of their own troops into the battle. At that stage, the Chinese/North Korean front was only able to stop the UN advance and stall the front. The conclussion of that war was that North and South Korea basically retained their original border lines. What part of that is a defeat?

Vietnam....again you demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of warfare. US armed forces completely and soundly defeated the North Vietnamese in every way, shape and form. Remember, the North invaded the South? US forces kept South Vietnam free for 10 years, and they were only able to take the South after the US left. It's not the US military's fault that the South Vietnamese were incapable of maintaining their own sovereignty. Vietnam was a successful military campaign, but politically was unsuccessful.

If you want to look at dismal war records, take a look at the european armies. The only country in europe that was able to win a war was Russia, and even they needed massive help from the Ameircan war industry.

For WWI, what Johnny said was basically true. The American didn't make a big as an impact as they think. German was already losing at the time and U.S entry into the war is somewhat a show move.

In Korea, the Chinese was very successful at first, due to lack of preparation from UN troops, after their supply line was stretched far down south they started to experience failure and it was on 38 parallel that a cease fire was declared for both sides were unable to gain much grounds. But Gremlin got one thing wrong, the number of Chinese forces in Korea never exceeded 6 hundred thousand at any given time.

I do agree with Gremlin's view on Vietnam. I think U.S was defeated politically rather than milltarily. U.S were successful at dealing great damages to North Vietnamese forces, in the final years of Vietnam war, the ratio of men to women in North Vietnam was 1 to 2. You can imagine how much the beating Vietnam took during the decade long war. But the war was unpopular at home, people rather enjoy their lives than send their son to war thousands of kilometers away. I think what defeated the U.S in Vietnam was politics and pure politics.

 

[Jonny]

Really Jonny, you need to brush up and understand historical facts.

You wont find a historian that would argue that it was the United States entry into WW1 which caused the capitulation of the Germans.

Much of the above is true concerning WW2. From 1939 to 1941 the combined allies could not stop the Germans, it was in fact the US entry into the "european" war at that stage which forced a favorable conclussion. In fact, the French are responsible for allowing WW2 to start in the first place. Britain and France both sat idly by ignoring the treatise both countries had signed at Versailles and allowed the countries they pledged to protect to be taken over by the Germans. If the US hadn't entered WW2 Britain would have capitulated and France,....well they capitulated after 6 weeks of fighting.

Korea? Gimme a break, and maybe read a book or 2 about that war. For starters, that was not a "US" war, it was a UN war. Secondly, UN forces pushed the North Koreans back so far so fast the Chinese got nervous and threw a million of their own troops into the battle. At that stage, the Chinese/North Korean front was only able to stop the UN advance and stall the front. The conclussion of that war was that North and South Korea basically retained their original border lines. What part of that is a defeat?

Vietnam....again you demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of warfare. US armed forces completely and soundly defeated the North Vietnamese in every way, shape and form. Remember, the North invaded the South? US forces kept South Vietnam free for 10 years, and they were only able to take the South after the US left. It's not the US military's fault that the South Vietnamese were incapable of maintaining their own sovereignty. Vietnam was a successful military campaign, but politically was unsuccessful.

If you want to look at dismal war records, take a look at the european armies. The only country in europe that was able to win a war was Russia, and even they needed massive help from the Ameircan war industry.

Pff forgive me for disagreeing but Britain had already defeated the German's once before America showed up in the Battle of Britain (World's first totally aerial conflict). The Royal Air Force was outnumbered and we were bombed to hell but we defeated the might of the Luftwaffe. Hitler was doomed to lose the war as soon as he invaded Russia not when the US entered the war so we would have been fine...plus we're an island and Hitler didn't have the capability to launch an invasion of Britain after he lost so many planes to the RAF.

And on World War One, the Brits and French had been fighting the Germans well, and we were giving the Germans one hell of a pounding. For example, The Battle of The Somme 1916, the Royal Artillery bombarded German positions for a week non-stop then detonated two high explosove mines under the German trenches killing hundreds. The British army went over the top gaining huge amounts of ground...granted 60,000 Brits were either killed or wounded when they got the order to attack but even so we pushed them back.
Yes the Germans had just freed up loads of German troops after Russia stopped fighting the Germans which could have led to the defeat of Britain and France if the Americans hadn't entered in 1917. But what annoys me is how everyone hero worships the US military..almost as if they're super human. They're not they just have a large army, they have the skill of any other regular army. Plus its odd how many civilians die when you supposedly precision bomb your targets.

Maybe i'm being a little harsh on the US, but you have to understand how angry some people get seeing movie after movie of America winning wars single handedly, battles and being portrayed as heros all the time. Perhaps that will change when the China - US war over Taiwan will start in 20 years or so. :?

 

[Gremlin29]

neel24neo, crack open a few books my friend. Saigon didn't fall to North Vietnam until 1975, IIRC all US combat forces were out by the end of 1974 however the US began "Vietnamizing" the war in a serious way in 1971 and through the subsequent years up through 1974 increasingly pulled more and more of it's troops out. That's hardly running from the enemy. The US didn't even wage full war on NV, Ho Chi Minh City and many many strategic targets in the North were hardly bombed and for most of the war were off limits to US bombers. Pathfinder is bang on right, it was a military victory and a total political defeat (if not blunder).

Yes the British defeated the Luftwaffe, without question the RAF gave them a good thrashing. In fact, it's generally agreed that the Luftwaffe never recovered fully. But Britain did not even scratch the surface in actually defeating the Germans at that time and would have strarved were it not for American convoys.

I can understand your annoyance that the contribution of your fine country to both wars is often minimized by movie makers. But revising history is a lie, and whether a lie is believed or not it's still just that, a lie.

There's also been a popular theory in the past 10 or 15 years that the Russians were actually the most responsible for defeating the Germans which is pure bunk. Yes their contribution was most critical and important but some would make it sound as if the allied effort was a sideshow in comparison. The Russians wouldn't have lasted were it not for the vast and endless supply of lend lease equipment and supplies they received BEFORE the US was even dragged into the war. Secondly, they were actually on the verge of actual defeat during the Germans Operation Zitadel in 1943 and the only reason the Germans lost that offensive was becuase of the allied invasion of Silicy drawing away IIRC 2 full Armies in the most critical sector.

If anyone here believes US soldiers are supermen, or superheroes that's their problem. If they don't like that so many consider it so, again that's their problem. Soldiers are soldiers the world over, it's the manner in which they are equipped, trained, supplied and employed that makes one army better than the other.

 

[armage]

You gotta give credits to the Isreal army :smokingc:
They probably have the most combat hours, their morals are high, very patriotic, and very determined.

 

[neel24neo]

The Russians wouldn't have lasted were it not for the vast and endless supply of lend lease equipment and supplies they received BEFORE the US was even dragged into the war.

could you give the accurate details of lend lease to soviet union before or after 1941?how much equipment was given to russia?what are the details of the equipment?or was it just oil?
all we hear of is the instances like the story of convoyPQ-17 and many more like that.besides,AFAIK soviets fought on with their weapons.i havent come across accounts of sherman tanks in soviet service...did america supply soviet union with any fighters?AFAIK they were fighting with mig-3,yaks and il-2s...
also understand that red army was enormous.to say that better part of 300+ divisions survived solely due to US lend lease doesnt make sense to me.
regarding vietnam,i had based my statement on some account about americans,rushing off saigon before the communist forces arrive...sorry i overlooked the fact that they were the last americans to leave vietnam.
but then you say you never bombed strategic sites in north vietnam,then what was "operation rolling thunder"?are you forgetting carpet bombing by B-52s?you guys even bombed laos("operation breakfast"),secretly.what about bombing of hanoi(by the way,ho chi minh city is saigon)and haiphong?
talking about victories,american forces may have repulsed the north vietnamese in offensives like tet,but the significance of those battles is that america as a country lost the will to fight a war.also you cannot say for sure that you defeated north vietnamese comprehensively.they were never really put out.they just withdrew into the jungles.sorry friend,i cannot call that victory.victory would have been,if you had taken hanoi and brought entire vietnam under your control,but you didnt...

 

[Gremlin29]

I'll dig up facts and post here regarding materiel supplied to the Russians. As a matter of fact, the US supplied them with M4 Shermans, M3 Lee's , M3 (light tank) Stuarts and a tremendous amount of transport trucks (some 10's of thousands IIRC). The number of divisions the soviets had in the field is insignificant to a degree, they were sending men to battle without weapons in the beginning.

Absolutely the US bombed Hanoi (sorry, I mixed up Saigon/Ho Chi Minh city with Saigon) but on a very limited basis and in fact most of the North through much of the war was off limits to US aircraft. The US never attempted to cross into North Vietnam either, the intent of the conflict was to maintain soverignty of South Vietnam.