NationStates Jolt Archive

Wich European nation has the most powerfull military of them all in your oppinion?

Pick one from the poll and state wich one you think has the strongest military and why in a post here.


Not all European nations can be on the poll, so if yours is not on the poll pick the option 'OTHER'.

HA! Polls are for squares!

If Russia counts, I'd say them still.

I'd say the UK. They are sorta the strongest by default, as they have been proven in battle many times over. Their army has seen lots of action in the Falkland Islands, Sierra Leone, Cyprus, and now in Iraq. Besides, their navy kicks ass. They have the greatest amount of aircraft carriers (three) after the US (twelve).

Mystic - I disagree. You can't say the UK has the best military, because we haven't been in any real wars for quite a while. (a real war being one where might have actually had a chance of losing (as in, not Iraq))

If Russia counts, I'd say them still.
No contest Russia wins by a mile.

If Russia counts, I'd say them still.ditto!

Mystic - I disagree. You can't say the UK has the best military, because we haven't been in any real wars for quite a while. (a real war being one where might have actually had a chance of losing (as in, not Iraq))
Still, the Brits fough independently of Americans. While US troops were heading north, the Brits stayed around Basra, Iraq's second largest city, and it had several units of Iraqi troops guarding it. Besides, it was the first time since WWII that Britain was in a tank battle. They won, of course.
Anyhow, other than limited air support, there was no help or hindrance from the Americans. The Brits took Basra by themselves.

Still, the Brits fough independently of Americans. While US troops were heading north, the Brits stayed around Basra, Iraq's second largest city, and it had several units of Iraqi troops guarding it. Besides, it was the first time since WWII that Britain was in a tank battle. They won, of course.
Anyhow, other than limited air support, there was no help or hindrance from the Americans. The Brits took Basra by themselves.
Good point. But didn't do too well against the IRA.

Still, the Brits fough independently of Americans. While US troops were heading north, the Brits stayed around Basra, Iraq's second largest city, and it had several units of Iraqi troops guarding it. Besides, it was the first time since WWII that Britain was in a tank battle. They won, of course.
Anyhow, other than limited air support, there was no help or hindrance from the Americans. The Brits took Basra by themselves.
Two blind monkeys with learning difficulties could have taken Basra. The Russian army is the strongest in Europe.

Still, the Brits fough independently of Americans. While US troops were heading north, the Brits stayed around Basra, Iraq's second largest city, and it had several units of Iraqi troops guarding it. Besides, it was the first time since WWII that Britain was in a tank battle. They won, of course.
Anyhow, other than limited air support, there was no help or hindrance from the Americans. The Brits took Basra by themselves.
yes,The UK would win a war vs Iraq...No,It does not proof they are the top military in EU.

Good point. But didn't do too well against the IRA.
Which is surprising. The Brits successfully put down an insurgency by the Malays not long before. They even had the Mai Mai under control for a while.

The Russian army is the strongest in Europe.Exactamente.

I must vote other...cos there is no Russia option.

Two blind monkeys with learning difficulties could have taken Basra. The Russian army is the strongest in Europe.
WAS the strongest in Europe. Now its just a bunch of coke addicted sixteen year olds with rusting tanks. I mean, it can really be that bad.

The Russian military would be the strongest in Europe... if Russia actually was in Europe, that is.

Probably the UK or Germany. Why would you put Ireland? We only have about 20,000 soldiers who are used only in UN peacekeeping duties. Our Navy is fisheries policing a helicopter rescue service and our Air Corps (not even an air force!) is a joke. Their newest planes are from 1960s Italy. We don't need a big military.

The Russian military would be the strongest in Europe... if Russia actually was in Europe, that is.
Well, most of Russia's population is in the European part, as is its industry and economic centers. Many of their resources, such as their oil fields, are east of the Urals, too.

Probably the UK or Germany. Why would you put Ireland? We only have about 20,000 soldiers who are used only in UN peacekeeping duties. Our Navy is fisheries policing a helicopter rescue service and our Air Corps (not even an air force!) is a joke. Their newest planes are from 1960s Italy. We don't need a big military.

Many Irish people here so if they want to pick there nation then fine, they can.
I only put in Éire because it is a part of Europe and has a military.

Well, most of Russia's population is in the European part, as is its industry and economic centers. Many of their resources, such as their oil fields, are east of the Urals, too.

That does not really matter, for the most part Russia is not in Europe, I never think of Russia as a European nation and I also dont think Turkey and Israel are European nations also. MMany would not agree but there you go.

I think Russia has the most powerful military in Europe.
After that it probably will be the UK, then countries like Spain, France and Germany. If Turkey is in Europe then also Turkey.

Belgian Army is doing fine in setting up campings and shooting dolphins in the Mediterranean, or racing drunk in Afghanistan or protecting those dam**d (excuse me for the word) American nuclear weapons we never wanted in our country. With 'we', I mean the people.

Ok, I'm a Belgian.

Ok, I'm a pacifist.

id say the U.K we got the best tank's in the world (challanger's beat abram's) were called great Britain which says it all and we have the ardest ruffer's in the world much more ruff than them taliban bad boy's......but France has nukes :(

What I wonder is why anyone would care which is the strongest military in Europe. It is irrelevant as any European military action will be carried out either through the EU or by NATO. National military is sort of an obsolete concept in Europe.

Having said that, Russia, then it is between the UK and Germany.

O course Britain is strongest. The German and French armies are typical of countries who dont need or want to fight battles, and remember round one of Afganistan? The Russians might have the most amount of troops, but they are very poorly equipped still and lack technological advancements of new weapons like the SA-80 and F-15's

Saying the russians arent in europe, defidentally france. Lets look at it compared to its two biggest competitors, Britain and Germany.

Germany: France has better army equipment(MBT is arguable), but less of it. However, the germans have no navy to speak of, and the French air force is much stronger than the german one, which pretty much gives France the win in the category. Not to count nukes as military, but France of course has nukes, and germany doesnt.

Britain: The closer opponent. Despite its long strength, the british navy is diminishing in power, and the two navies are very close in power. As well, the two nations airforces are similar. The French already have the Rafale in service(albiet only in the navy), and the eurotiger is better than any helicopter the british use, though its not yet in service(Dauphins and Gazelle's get the job done for now). As for the army, everyone knows the infamous problems with the SA-80's, while the Famas has a very good service record. The Leclerc is less armoured, but faster and stronger hitting than the C2E(L30 vs L52 cannons), and as opposed to germany, the numbers are quite even in army size. Its a closer battle, but the French take the win on the ground, while stalemating in both air and sea...and again, not counting nuclear force, but the French nuclear weapons program is stronger than britains, mostly because of its SSBM's.

That does not really matter, for the most part Russia is not in Europe, I never think of Russia as a European nation and I also dont think Turkey and Israel are European nations also. MMany would not agree but there you go.
Well, even when one classifies them as a European country, their military is poor. It was once second to none, but the problem was that virtually all of the Soviet resources went into the military. After it fell apart, market reforms took over. It was a choice to use the factories for a better military, or consumer goods (the classic guns vs. butter dilemma). They chose goods, and the military decayed. Of course, Russia after communism was much too poor to sustain that military.

Actually the UK has a much smaller military than Germany :P

http://www.globaldefence.net/deutsch/europa/deutschland/deutschland.htm

http://www.globaldefence.net/deutsch/europa/grossbritannien/grossbritannien.htm


German Army:
112.856 soldiers
850 battle tanks
5.500 armored vehicles
477 howitzer
212 armed helicopters
350 helicopters

German Air Force:
46.701 soldiers
443 combat aircraft
87 transport aircraft
102 helicopters

German Navy:
19.420 soldiers
50 combat aircrafts
45 helicopters
13 frigates
20 patrol vessels
12 submarines
20 mine warfare vessels

Medical Corps etc.:
59.828 soldiers
22.715 medical personnel
9.567 other personnel (i.e. educators)

Germany has obligatory military service of 9 months

currently 93.000 conscripts
Active: 262.750 (reduction to 250.000 by 2010)
Reserves: approx. 400.000
Civilians: approx. 130.000 (reduction to 75.000 by 2010)




British Army:
109.500 soldiers
386 battle tanks
3.326 armored vehicles
180 howitzer
177 armed helicopters
144 helicopters

British Airforce:
48.900 soldiers
231 combat aircraft
79 transport aircraft
136 helicopters

British Navy:
42.400 soldiers
6.800 marines
6.800 air wing
50 combat aircraft
126 helicopters
3 aircraft carriers
11 destroyers
21 frigates
9 patrol vessels
22 mine warfare vessels
16 submarines

Actives: 200.800
Reserves: 262.000
- Army: 190.00
- Air Force: 44.000
- Navy: 28.000
Civilians: 98.400
Territorial Army and Auxiliary Force: 30.000


France has a significantly larger military than Germany. Both countries, France and the UK, have higher expenses for their military than Germany. This is probably due to both of them having professional armies, without obligatory military service.

As for the army, everyone knows the infamous problems with the SA-80's, while the Famas has a very good service record. The Leclerc is less armoured, but faster and stronger hitting than the C2E(L30 vs L52 cannons), and as opposed to germany, the numbers are quite even in army size. Its a closer battle, but the French take the win on the ground, while stalemating in both air and sea...and again, not counting nuclear force, but the French nuclear weapons program is stronger than britains, mostly because of its SSBM's.
I think that aside from being unable to be fired from the left shoulder, most of the problems of the SA -80 were solved in the A2. In fact tests conducted in some extremely harsh conditions have shown the A2 to be one of the most reliable rifles in use today, even more so than the tried and tested M-16 and M-14 series. And when you consider that it always had a reputation as being supremely accurate I'd set it against the french bugle any day.

It's debatable whether the Leclerc is a better tank than the challenger. As was mentioned on the tanks thread the leclerc uses an autoloader which puts it at a severe disadvantage. A smoothbore possibly does give better capability versus modern tanks than a rifled gun but I think that the differences in armour possibly compensate for that.
However I think the chief reason why the British army would win is the experince they have. People say that they didn't do well in Ireland or that Basra was a walkover, but all these jsut contribute to their comabt effectiveness in future operations. I can't imagine there is any real substitute for actual combat for turning an army into an extremely effective fighting force.

... and I also dont think Turkey and Israel are European nations also.an important par of Russia is on Europe,
Israel WTF????

Hey, can someone link me to the relevant history and geography pages? I missed the part where Russia was part of Europe.

an important par of Russia is on Europe,
Israel WTF????
I think Israel is part of Europe only insofar as it is included in the Eurovision song contest, though why that should be the case is beyond me.

So you missed the part where the Ural Mountains were the point that marked the end of Europe? Russia is a mainly European country, I consider myself a European and it's where I'm from. Also, MysticMindanao-I pray you never again insult the men I served alongside. You, having never served a day in your life, have no right to ever insult the men who wear the uniform of my country. The Russian military as it stands today would tear every other European military military to shreds.

I think Israel is part of Europe only insofar as it is included in the Eurovision song contest, though why that should be the case is beyond me.
so if next year they have Brazilean guest singers ... :confused:

so thats how you become EU member... :D

Hey, can someone link me to the relevant history and geography pages? I missed the part where Russia was part of Europe.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/europe_ref01.jpg
If you look over to the right hand side of the map, there, in Black Large type is the name of the country. Russia.

Ein Deutscher']Actually the UK has a much smaller military than Germany :P

http://www.globaldefence.net/deutsch/europa/deutschland/deutschland.htm

http://www.globaldefence.net/deutsch/europa/grossbritannien/grossbritannien.htm


France has a significantly larger military than Germany. Both countries, France and the UK, have higher expenses for their military than Germany. This is probably due to both of them having professional armies, without obligatory military service.
I voter other cause of Russia...

otherwise It would clearly be France.

so if next year they have Brazilean guest singers ... :confused:

so thats how you become EU member... :D

No way. :eek:
Our singers are too good for the Eurovision contest even if they suck.

so if next year they have Brazilean guest singers ... :confused:

so thats how you become EU member... :D
Nice try, but I think you'll find that the nationality of the singers makes no difference. I think we won a few years back with a Canadian singer. Now Brazilian song-writers on the other hand ...... :)

Err... Russia's in... Russia. Besides manpower doesn't equal strenght.

I go with BRITANNIA!

The russina military is overrated. Maby forty years ago it was the best in Europe but now it is just wreck. Soldires have to pay bribes to keep from being beaten and supplies are never deliverd. The chechan wars proved that. Even the MAfiya is entrenched in the army with coruppt officers and such but my vote is France with Britain.

Err... Russia's in... Russia. Besides manpower doesn't equal strenght.

I go with BRITANNIA!
You actually think that the top 3 countries in Europe differ much in equipment and technology?

Outside Russia I would have to say UK. They can project power over the horizon. Most European nations cannot do this on there own. Maybe the French. They do have an aircraft carrier. But still is the UK overall. Like always.

I really wonder how Austria came into that poll. It shouldn't even be mentioned under "military". It's a joke, nothing else. Heck, I wonder who voted for it, rofl. Must have been one of those brainwashed kids we have here, who serve their 8 months of service (soon 6 months) and then leave thinking they are super soldiers, those exist... scary.

Let's see...

Years ago, when most of the people in NS were either still in diapers or not even born, Austria bought 24 Saab Draken from Sweden, at that time the Draken was already outdated (and I think Sweden is still laughing at us). Must have been Sweden's "Sale of the Century".

Not that many years ago Austria bought used Leopard 2 tanks from the Netherlands. The Dutch had two options, either find an idiot to buy those, or to sink them in the sea as makeshift breakwaters or something like that. Now who bought those?

And the sale of the 21st Century... Austria bought, or better said ordered, 18 or 19 F-2000 Typhoon (the Eurofighter). The reason is, that Austria has to defend itself from terrorists (official reason from the government). The Typhoon is not yet in serial production (there are 8 pieces in the German AF, and those 8 managed to have 300 flight hours counted together in 2004, most of the time those things are in some hangar and get repaired). Since there is no production model yet, and the Saab Draken is so old that only 6 or 7 still fly, Austria has leased several old F-5s from Switzerland.

I wonder how 18 or 19 F-2000 could protect Austria's airspace, when 24 Draken back at the Slovenian war weren't able to do that. Back then, a Yugoslav MiG flew into our airspace and flew a few turns over one of our biggest cities, then the pilot flew back home. Some 10-15 minutes after the MiG had left the airspace, the Draken were in the air.

I also wonder against who those should defend us? Terrorists? Oh yes, there is the scenario in the government that something like 9/11 could happen to Austria too. Some crazed nut could fly an Airbus into one of the buildings in Vienna. But the problem is, first of, the response time is way too small to react to something like that (if not even the USAF managed it, what makes the brass here think they can?). Also if they shoot the Airbus down, it'll most likely fall on Vienna, and you'd have a few hundred or even thousand dead there anyway, depending on where it'd hit. But first, they'd even have to hit it. (And I wonder who'd attack Austria like this anyway. If we start talking terrorism, I'd be more concerned about some idiot blowing himself up in one of our subways in the early morning hours.)

Which may be a problem. Since, when we bought the Draken, those flew around for a few years without missiles. Then the government bought an upgrade and finally our interceptors had Sidewinders.

Also, if you take the Pandur APC (highly praised by the generals)... well... it rains into that thing. Most tanks have no camouflage painting and are just painted unison green. Soldiers have no camo BDUs either, they were unison green. Several years after I was in bootcamp the government decided to buy some used bodyarmor from the US (first time body armor was issued for troops in Austria, and regular drafted units don't even get those). Same goes for the helmets. We still use the US WW2/Korea/Vietnam model, only a few selected so called "elite" units got the new US kevlar helmet.

So called "elite" units around here, when doing a drop with a chopper, disembark the chopper and remain close to it, in a pack; one RPG-7 would take them all out.

But then again, when I was a green recruit, some NCO once told me "Well, if someone attacks us we can hold them off for some 20 to 30 minutes."

And people wonder why I left this ridiculous militia (no, they don't deserve being called an army or military) *was 8 years in it* The only good reason to stay was... where else can I blow up stuff? Where else can I fire a 120mm cannon and get away with it? That was fun, but the rest? Pure incompetence.

Story time about incompetence:

I was driving this major with a Puch G (our version of a Jeep) and there were large puddles ahead. I told him that he might want to close his window, because, well, water tends to spray up. Oh boy, he yelled at me and told me to stick to driving.

Well, we hit the puddle. and afterwards the top of his green uniform was brown. He didn't say one single word.

Or another one...

Excercize in the field. We're entrenched for the night. Night falls. Then there's movement on the line. A couple of cars comes right up at us. They stop, people climb out. Our lieutenant and I consider, then our platoon opens up with everything we have, since well... they came from the enemy position.

Well, guess who we "killed". A general and his staff on unannounced inspection. But those idiots had to drive up to our front line...

Or...

Air raid training Austrian style...

Group of recruits close to the end of boot (where no one gives a damn anymore). Order comes "air raid!", everyone ducks, except one guy. I go "WTF!" and ask him why he's still standing. He goes "I'm a tree." One of the other recruits jumps up, runs up to him and hides behind him. "I'm behind the tree!" And then the killer... my "XO" walks up to the "tree", raises his leg and goes "and I'm a dog."


I think, back when the EU was created they said "Ok, now we just need an asshole." And Austria quickly had the hand raised (which seems to be a common phenomenom here *eyes 1938 and the Anschluß*) and went "OH! We can do that!"

Switzerland, now that's a military...

Since the question asks for most powerful instead of largest or strongest I have to go with the UK and France getting a mention. Military power is the abilty to project military stegnth where needed, and while the Germans and Russians have larger and stronger militaries, the Brits have more projectable military force. The Germans are pretty much confined to projeting their military internally and agasint their neighbors while the Russians are having difficulty projecting force internally (Chechkneya). Nukes screw up questions of military power, but I think it reasonable to ignore them since for the most part the countries on the list cannot derive much power from their nuclear arsenels for political reasons.

Russia.

If you put any of those nations up against them, Russia would come out on top.

A fraction of their former power, maybe, but a fraction enough despite aging equipment and logistics problems.

France could at least equal the UK, as well.

I think Israel is part of Europe only insofar as it is included in the Eurovision song contest, though why that should be the case is beyond me.

I once had an Israeli official take offence that Israel had been listed in a Swedish Foreign Ministry report under a section labelled "Middle East". He insisted that Israel was moved into the "Europe" section!

Regarding the question at hand, I believe as Russia is not to be included, probably France. France has a large military which is well equiped. It also has nuclear weapons that are more sophisticated than UK (and obviously Germany doesn't have any), so it probably could be considered more powerful due to this in some measures. I guess the answer is different depending on how you measure military power (mansize, weaponary, tactical ability etc etc)...

Belgium rules!

We got four minesweepers (actually we sold one). A few infantry divisions, backed up with ligth tanks. But all you guys owe us: the C-130 was a Belgian plane. Fear the raw power of the new logistic army of Belgium.

that one is simple: they all do. the European Union kicks ass and takes names!

As Britain proved time and time again in wars against the French in the past, numbers do not equal victory. The British Army in recent years has more experience of offensive actions than most European nations. Add to this their vastly more flexible overall capabilities and equally high-tech equipment, and you have one of the most capable armies in the world, let alone Europe. I would rank Sweden higher than France, actually. I'm not sure why...

However, all these pissing contests serve nothing but making the EU even more inefficient than it is already. What's the point of petty penis size comparisons, exactly? The European nations will never be going to war against each other ever again -- indeed, in a matter of years they won't have the authority to make foreign policy decisions at all.

Besides. Everyone knows that the Grand Empire of Luxembourg could conquer the entire solar system if they wanted to. They're just waiting for the right moment...

Ahh screw individual armies, lets get a single European Army.. it would be cheaper, bigger, and better.

PS: My tiny country (Portugal) has managed to keep itself independed for 900 years, despite having a natural enemy (Spain) four times bigger, right next to its door. How we managed this? Mercenaries, gentlemen..

Good point. But didn't do too well against the IRA.

Shame there's no smilie to depict someone laughing hysterically ;)

Not to sure if you're aware of this but the Brit troops in Northern Ireland were / are constrained by very tight rules of engagement which, for example, meant that a trooper had to not only be fired upon but shout a verbal warning to his assailant before returning fire... by which point the waste of space that had fired at him would have typically handed the gun to a kid to go and hide, knowing full well that that the Brits would be unable to legally engage him.

The Brits were in N.I. as support to the police, no more, no less; if it were a case of open warfare, PIRA and their ilk would have been dead and buried within months, if not weeks, of their arrival.

Of course, all of this information is easily found through Google, though I'm guessing you weren't interested in looking...

Ahh screw individual armies, lets get a single European Army.. it would be cheaper, bigger, and better.

PS: My tiny country (Portugal) has managed to keep itself independed for 900 years, despite having a natural enemy (Spain) four times bigger, right next to its door. How we managed this? Mercenaries, gentlemen..

At the risk of hijacking: by having the wealth of Brazil to plunder to pay the British with. (At least that was the case with Napoleon.)

At the risk of hijacking: by having the wealth of Brazil to plunder to pay the British with. (At least that was the case with Napoleon.)

lol. Indeed. Regretfull as it is, that is true, but I was refering to even more ancient wars, were we hired Swiss and german mercs to fight the spanish in the 17th century, brit mercs in the 13th, and french in the 12th (without them, i'd be hablando espaniol)

i'd vote RUSSIA

If Russia is counted as a European country then it's them. They're not the best trained or equipped military, but their sheer numbers make up for that. Other than that I think it's the UK. Though France made the sensible decision to create their own nuclear program that isn't dependant on America so that puts them at a major advantage.

Ey! What about Holland? We have special ops who are considered to be better than Navy Seals :rolleyes: and we got some cheesy Leopard 2A6 :D

Well it's quite clear. Despite the "UK centrism" in this thread, France has the best military of Europe. Russia is not a European country, since only a tiny part of Russia is actually in Europe. The vast majority of Russia is in Asia.

Israel is also not in Europe, neither is Turkey (although some politicians say it is... ridiculous).

France has the largest military. Regarding power projection, I'd say that all countries could project power like the UK does. The difference is that most European countries prefer to not act like a world police and stick to their own borders or only use their military outside their own borders, if the UN or NATO (screw them) asks for it. The UK is very willing to use it's military in pretty much any war - legal or illegal - and thus has the downside of being used way too often, having little backing in the population and being unwelcome in the countries it "invades".

Much unlike other countries like Germany or Sweden, whose soldiers are largely welcome as UN peacekeepers in the regions where they are for humanitarian reasons.

Have you forgotten what the Finnish people did 1939-1944? We withstod the russians totally outnumbered.

Have you forgotten what the Finnish people did 1939-1944? We withstod the russians totally outnumbered.

Indeed, very impressive. It is to our eternal shame that we were so lacklustre in offering any official assistance.

Have you forgotten what the Finnish people did 1939-1944? We withstod the russians totally outnumbered.
Have you forgotten what Germany did in WW2? It stood against a mass of countries, especially 4 superpowers - UK, France, Russia and the US - and it only lost the war due to Hitler being a complete maniac and inept at military planning. The Finnish may have protected their country from the Russians - this however doesn't make it the strongest military :p

Besides that, what happened in WW2, has little relevance today. Since all European militaries have been greatly reduced in size.

Ein Deutscher']...
Besides that, what happened in WW2, has little relevance today. Since all European militaries have been greatly reduced in size.
Agreed. For some reason I suspect we'd have our hands more than full if the Russians decided to pay us a visit today.

If Russia is counted as a European country then it's them. They're not the best trained or equipped military, but their sheer numbers make up for that. Other than that I think it's the UK. Though France made the sensible decision to create their own nuclear program that isn't dependant on America so that puts them at a major advantage.
I think that numbers of nukes won't help you win anything; I'm of the belief that in a nuke fight everybody loses.

I think that numbers of nukes won't help you win anything; I'm of the belief that in a nuke fight everybody loses.
I also think that the less countries own nukes, the better. Germany has the requirements for nukes fulfilled, but we don't need nukes and we don't want nukes. Owning nukes only makes the world more dangerous. Unless we are threatened by a country that has nukes (as is happening with US vs. Iran and US vs. North Korea currently), I am happy that we are among the civilized nations who do not need and want nukes.

Still, the Brits fough independently of Americans. While US troops were heading north, the Brits stayed around Basra, Iraq's second largest city, and it had several units of Iraqi troops guarding it. Besides, it was the first time since WWII that Britain was in a tank battle. They won, of course.
Anyhow, other than limited air support, there was no help or hindrance from the Americans. The Brits took Basra by themselves.
Yes but it wasn't a war.
The reason it wasn't a war isn't because the US was winning it for us (hahaha), but because the "opposition" was a small number of poorly armed militia men.

Why is this the subject of a poll? Aren't there some facts here? like size of military, equipment, experience etc?

Ein Deutscher']You actually think that the top 3 countries in Europe differ much in equipment and technology?

No. But they speak English and that won the vote.

No. But they speak English and that won the vote.
And they were able to "show off" their "superiority" against mighty foes such as Iraq and Afghanistan *cackle*

Ein Deutscher'] The UK is very willing to use it's military in pretty much any war - legal or illegal - and thus has the downside of being used way too often, having little backing in the population and being unwelcome in the countries it "invades".

Much unlike other countries like Germany or Sweden, whose soldiers are largely welcome as UN peacekeepers in the regions where they are for humanitarian reasons.
That's all well and good, but it ahs very little relevance to which country has the strongest military.
I think it is wrong to say that The British military lacks public support, rather that people people have opposed the wars themselves. In this hypothetical situation pitting european country versus European country we must ignore issues like this unless we are prepared to go into the specifics of what this hypothetical war entails. Likewise that the British army may not have been welcomed with open arms by all in Iraq has very little bearing on a future conflict like this, unless you suppose that people would automatically receive the French as welcome liberators?
Whatever your feelings on the Iraq war, you can't deny that it has furnished the British military with valuable combat experience which is unrivalled by any other European country.

This looks like a penis measuring contest.

Wouldn't it be more important to look into the future and see if the individual nations give up their armed forces and become a unified Federal force under the EU?

I'm thinking way beyond NATO. I'm thinking of an EU force with common equipment and a central EU command - not under the command of any one EU component nation.

Considering how everyone seems reticent to completely hand over control to a central authority (well, some like it, and some don't), would they then take the next step and dissolve their local militaries into a common military?

Why is this the subject of a poll? Aren't there some facts here? like size of military, equipment, experience etc?
It's only there because it lets others know how people are voting, that is by nations. The size, equipment etc. is for the posts and if you want to talk about that then feel free to do that here, it is the only way to find the true military power of Europe I think. Most people vote because of patriotism and is not based on military facts like size, equipment etc. they should however.

It's only there because it lets others know how people are voting, that is by nations. The size, equipment etc. is for the posts and if you want to talk about that then feel free to do that here, it is the only way to find the true military power of Europe I think. Most people vote because of patriotism and is not based on military facts like size, equipment etc. they should however.
I already posted the facts, namely that size and equipment wise, France's military is best, next comes Germany and then the UK. However people are ignorant of the facts :p

This looks like a penis measuring contest.

Wouldn't it be more important to look into the future and see if the individual nations give up their armed forces and become a unified Federal force under the EU?

I'm thinking way beyond NATO. I'm thinking of an EU force with common equipment and a central EU command - not under the command of any one EU component nation.

Considering how everyone seems reticent to completely hand over control to a central authority (well, some like it, and some don't), would they then take the next step and dissolve their local militaries into a common military?
Yeah we could debate your system for a unified european force, but there are so many unknown quantities and hypotheticals that it would make for a very boring discussion. It's a lot more fun to have a 'penis-measuring' contest as you put it and discuss the actual potency of existing military forces. :) At least that's my opinion.

Ein Deutscher']I already posted the facts, namely that size and equipment wise, France's military is best, next comes Germany and then the UK. However people are ignorant of the facts :p

Of the various European nations, which ones have the greatest capability to land ground forces ashore anywhere in the world, in credible numbers?

To make this a more interesting thought exercise, imagine a scenario where the UN wants to enforce some UN resolution against North Korea (concerning IAEA violations), and somehow the US just doesn't want to get involved.

Leaving out the ridiculous nature of the hypothetical situation, imagine the various European nations wanting to put "their best foot forward".

Of the European nations, which of them would have the best capability to move their forces to the Korean Peninsula, and land them ashore, and invade North Korea (with suitable naval and air support).

No first use of nuclear weapons in this scenario, so all those fancy nukes are out of the equation.

Of the various European nations, which ones have the greatest capability to land ground forces ashore anywhere in the world, in credible numbers?

The UK, of course.

No European nation could do this, North Korea has an army many times larger than any European one.

A concerted effort between the nations could probably do it, relying on British naval force and combined land/air engagements.

Do the Europeans have any conventional ICBMs/global strategic bombers a la US? They'd be well useful...

No European nation could do this, North Korea has an army many times larger than any European one.

Quantity does not = Quality.

"A disorderly mob is no more an army than a pile of building materials is a house."

The UK has a fleet of subs with SLBMs, and I believe France does, too.
In addition, the UK has their own brand of cruise missiles. Sky Shadows, or Storm Shadows - I can never remember the name.

No European nation could do this, North Korea has an army many times larger than any European one.

A concerted effort between the nations could probably do it, relying on British naval force and combined land/air engagements.

Do the Europeans have any conventional ICBMs/global strategic bombers a la US? They'd be well useful...

When the US invaded Iraq this last time, it used a force smaller than the Iraqi Army. Size is not as important as capability.

Of the various European nations, which ones have the greatest capability to land ground forces ashore anywhere in the world, in credible numbers?

To make this a more interesting thought exercise, imagine a scenario where the UN wants to enforce some UN resolution against North Korea (concerning IAEA violations), and somehow the US just doesn't want to get involved.

Leaving out the ridiculous nature of the hypothetical situation, imagine the various European nations wanting to put "their best foot forward".

Of the European nations, which of them would have the best capability to move their forces to the Korean Peninsula, and land them ashore, and invade North Korea (with suitable naval and air support).

No first use of nuclear weapons in this scenario, so all those fancy nukes are out of the equation.

I don't think any European 'power' could do it. It might be hard for even the USA, if they had to ship all their troops there from mainland USA. Of course, launching an attack from South Korea would make it easier.

Answering your question though, I'd say the UK has the best cabability to move their forces there. Taking out N. Korea when there- I think not.

When the US invaded Iraq this last time, it used a force smaller than the Iraqi Army. Size is not as important as capability.
Thus why the so-called experience from fights vs. inferior opponents such as the Iraqi army or the Afghanistan taliban, does not constitute valuable combat experience in my opinion. Most of what the US did was to simply bomb the whole country to the stoneage, march in and declare victory. That doesn't take much besides a strong air force.

Regarding NK, I think no European country can do this. If it were by air, Germany has a pretty large contingent of transport aircraft. The UK has 3 aircraft carriers, however this alone does not move their military to NK. Considering that the UK is still slightly remote in it's location and that it is not overly large, I doube that the UK could do it any better than other European countries.

Ein Deutscher']Thus why the so-called experience from fights vs. inferior opponents such as the Iraqi army or the Afghanistan taliban, does not constitute valuable combat experience in my opinion. Most of what the US did was to simply bomb the whole country to the stoneage, march in and declare victory. That doesn't take much besides a strong air force.

What's your point? You can't win a war without air superiority.

Believe it or not, the air force counts as part of the military.

What's your point? You can't win a war without air superiority.

Believe it or not, the air force counts as part of the military.
That's the issue. The US won it single-handedly through air superiority. Nothing else mattered. Thus why the campaign was titled "Shock and Awe" from the overwhelming show of air superiority. Compared to the US, all other countries who took part in the Iraq war pale in comparison. No other country had this amount of soldiers and air force in and around Iraq. Thus the often cited combat experience that US and UK troops are supposedly gaining there, is not existent in my opinion.

Ein Deutscher']That's the issue. The US won it single-handedly through air superiority. Nothing else mattered. Thus why the campaign was titled "Shock and Awe" from the overwhelming show of air superiority.


.....so?

Would you rather they called it Blitzkrieg?

Ein Deutscher']Thus why the so-called experience from fights vs. inferior opponents such as the Iraqi army or the Afghanistan taliban, does not constitute valuable combat experience in my opinion. Most of what the US did was to simply bomb the whole country to the stoneage, march in and declare victory. That doesn't take much besides a strong air force.

Regarding NK, I think no European country can do this. If it were by air, Germany has a pretty large contingent of transport aircraft. The UK has 3 aircraft carriers, however this alone does not move their military to NK. Considering that the UK is still slightly remote in it's location and that it is not overly large, I doube that the UK could do it any better than other European countries.

Hmm. The last time around, Iraq had over 16,000 surface to air missile launchers, and 7000 anti-aircraft gun positions. Modern French radar, and it was all networked over a Chinese fiber optic network.

We did engage ground forces this last time with ground forces (something that we also did during the first Gulf War). Those forces engaged had not been previously softened up by air power. We did, however, choose the time and place of the engagements - something the Iraqis could not do. Having a JSTARS aircraft revealing the location and movement of every enemy vehicle in the theater all day and all night is a rather unfair advantage.

As far as ground forces in Iraq go, the UK seems to have done as well or better than the US forces.

So, if we make the round assumption that we need to achieve air superiority first, before sending in the troops to take advantage, which European air forces could subdue North Korea?

None. Neither military is large enough to single-handedly subdue NK.

Ein Deutscher']None. Neither military is large enough to single-handedly subdue NK.

OK, then we have a slightly different hypothetical.

UN trying to enforce resolutions against Israel. US opting out - abstaining.

Which European country could subdue Israel (assume no US aid to Israel)?

I havent read all pages, but in my opinion:


Strongest Army: Germany
Mainly because they were right at the border of communism for so long, meaning they built up a huge land-based force
However they clearly lack in the potential to attack other countries, since all their technology is based on Defense, i.e. many Submarines and Jets, barely any Battle Ships or Bombers

Strongest Defense: Switzerland
The country is filled with defense potential to no end

Strongest Navy: UK
No real doubt here :D

Strongest Air Force:
Tough one.... for attacking other countries I would say toss-up between France and UK

Would you rather they called it Blitzkrieg?
It would be appropriate I guess. After all it didn't take much other than a few bombs to scatter the demoralized Iraqi military. The Shock was however achieved due to the torture and mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners and civilians, as the whole world knows today. Good job btw. Not.

OK, then we have a slightly different hypothetical.

UN trying to enforce resolutions against Israel. US opting out - abstaining.

Which European country could subdue Israel (assume no US aid to Israel)?
None. Israel has nukes :p

Otherwise, any of the 3.

Then it would appear that Europe's armed forces are largely for its own defense, and perhaps some occasional intervention of a small nature overseas (or on the continent).

Not for any real projection of power (beyond something small like going to Ivory Coast, or intervening in the Balkans).

Then it would appear that Europe's armed forces are largely for its own defense, and perhaps some occasional intervention of a small nature overseas (or on the continent).

Not for any real projection of power (beyond something small like going to Ivory Coast, or intervening in the Balkans).
It would appear that you got it.

Then it would appear that Europe's armed forces are largely for its own defense, and perhaps some occasional intervention of a small nature overseas (or on the continent).

Not for any real projection of power (beyond something small like going to Ivory Coast, or intervening in the Balkans).
That is exactly correct. At this time at least. However with the development as it is, I guess a unified European army will be more suitable to act like the US army does.

Not all European nations can be on the poll, so if yours is not on the poll pick the option 'OTHER'.
Do I have too? :(

The Belgian army is very crappy.

Hey a little patriotism please...

Oh Dierbaar België, oh heilig land der vaderen,...

Who am I kidding? We should take our four (three) minesweepers and gloriously sweep the mines of the Northsea. With some luck we might find one of WW2, about the same year as our minesweepers.

And it suprises me they still give us important missions, like the one in Estonnia and all, protecting three countries with a couple of fighters. :)

We are good in dropping supplies, but then again we only have three decent planes or so to do that.

LOL

who said Austria?

I've met their army, they are so poor they aren't allowed to play with NATO

and they are all old fat men or teenagers

LOL

who said Austria?

I've met their army, they are so poor they aren't allowed to play with NATO

and they are all old fat men or teenagers

I still remember their feeble attempts at roadblocks.

Sheesh. Why do most European countries even have a military now? It's not like they're going to attack each other now.

Probably a consolidated EU force, no bigger than the current French or UK or German military (not all three together - just one), would be an inexpensive and more effective alternative.

Probably a consolidated EU force, no bigger than the current French or UK or German military (not all three together - just one), would be an inexpensive and more effective alternative.
But then we would be small and all the others will laugh at us. We will be powerless against the big bullys and can't play with the big boys. :(

I still remember their feeble attempts at roadblocks.

Sheesh. Why do most European countries even have a military now? It's not like they're going to attack each other now.

Probably a consolidated EU force, no bigger than the current French or UK or German military (not all three together - just one), would be an inexpensive and more effective alternative.

a consolidated force wouldn't work. The british hate the french, the french hate the british, everyone thinks the italians are more worried about the way they look than fighting, and everyone hates the germans.

a consolidated force wouldn't work. The british hate the french, the french hate the british, everyone thinks the italians are more worried about the way they look than fighting, and everyone hates the germans.

wait a second - I'm always hearing about how much nations should work together - from Europeans - and now you all can't get together on something this simple?

It kind of goes with the territory of having a large conslidated nation and economy.

You all should work on a common language, too. Remember, it's not the size of the force - it's how futuristic and asymmetrical it is.

I know that we do have some here who were in the military, so how many of you served in the Armed Forces of whatever country you're from? Just out of curiosity.

I did.

I know that we do have some here who were in the military, so how many of you served in the Armed Forces of whatever country you're from? Just out of curiosity.

Yes, I have. We have conscription here, so it's the law... and it still is (except they used to call up absolutely all males, unlike today).

Cool. Are you two German and Austrian, respectively? I served 4 years in the VSR.

wait a second - I'm always hearing about how much nations should work together - from Europeans - and now you all can't get together on something this simple?

It kind of goes with the territory of having a large conslidated nation and economy.

You all should work on a common language, too. Remember, it's not the size of the force - it's how futuristic and asymmetrical it is.
Something this simple? You are just joking, but here's somekinda answer. (I'm pretending you were being serious)

I'm not quite sure you realise what level of national sovereignty the nations of the EU are willing to give up. The EU is far from a unified state and substantial sovereignty still remains with the EU’s member governments. And I don't think this is going to change drastically in the near future either.

EU has just now made a decision about the European rapid reaction force. It's not stronger than some 60.000 men, and meant for for peacekeeping or humanitarian aid missions, but it's a start. I don't think any nation is willing to totally give up their national army though. I'm willing to bet it's not about fear of being attacked by another EU state though.

That language thing kinda revealed you were just taking the piss. :)


And I have served in the army Hylian peoples... but so do 82% of Finnish males... so nothing special there.

I'd say either the UK or France, probably the UK, but it's too close to call, and if both were pitted against each other, it really could go either way.

Cool. Are you two German and Austrian, respectively? I served 4 years in the VSR.

No, I'm a Swede. Military service wasn't so bad actually, I still have friends from then.

Incidentally, you can work out how our military is certainly not the strongest in Europe from the Defence Force's website: www.mil.se If you click the UK flag, there's limited English-language information.

No, I'm a Swede. Military service wasn't so bad actually, I still have friends from then.

Incidentally, you can work out how our military is certainly not the strongest in Europe from the Defence Force's website: www.mil.se If you click the UK flag, there's limited English-language information.


But I also thought Sweden hadn't been involved in a war in like 300 years, since the Northern War against Russia. I've heard that the Swedish military doesn't have too many problems, because like Ireland, Sweden keeps to itself and is peaceful.

But I also thought Sweden hadn't been involved in a war in like 300 years, since the Northern War against Russia. I've heard that the Swedish military doesn't have too many problems, because like Ireland, Sweden keeps to itself and is peaceful.

Maybe around 200 years I guess.

Yes, we are neutral. But, doesn't stop us needing a military... especially as you consider the cold war is not long dead (and think of our location in relation to the then USSR)... plus, (this is debatable), it's said we do not have a big enough population to support a fully professional army of the size required to defend the country.

Maybe around 200 years I guess.

Yes, we are neutral. But, doesn't stop us needing a military... especially as you consider the cold war is not long dead (and think of our location in relation to the then USSR)... plus, (this is debatable), it's said we do not have a big enough population to support a fully professional army of the size required to defend the country.


Yes, but Soviet battle plans never really dealt with an invasion of Scandinavia, aside from maybe Finland. Anyway, Sweden seems like a nice country, and the terrain there in many places would be crappy for Soviet or Russian forces to engage in, because of how we rely on armor and such. Central Europe was much better terrainwise for our tactics. I served in the Artillery for 4 years back home. What was your specialty?

The Leclerc is less armoured, but faster and stronger hitting than the C2E(L30 vs L52 cannons),

The Brit rifled 120mm gun isn't 30 calibers long, its NAMED L30, like the FAL was the L1A1, and the SA80 is the L85, the FN-MAG L7 and so on, the Brits name everything "L" something.

I'm not sure what the exact calibre lenght ratio is, but its definatley higher than 30.

In fact I think the current service tank gun is L30A1, and that would be a very strange calivre ratio, don't you think? ;).

It's debatable whether the Leclerc is a better tank than the challenger. As was mentioned on the tanks thread the leclerc uses an autoloader which puts it at a severe disadvantage. A smoothbore possibly does give better capability versus modern tanks than a rifled gun but I think that the differences in armour possibly compensate for that.


The Leclerc uses a GOOD autolader that most likely is a lot more capable than a human loader while moving in rough terrain. Not much fun juggling a 40 kilo tank gun round in a bouncing and jostling tank. The autoloader is also a fast one, and it won't tire and slow down like a human will after a few engagements.

The disadvantage is more that a three man crew is one less man helping out with maintenace, keeping watch and looking out for enemies when camped or unbuttoned.

The French tank gun has one clear advantage over the Brit L30, it can use standard NATO tank ammunition, the Brit rifled gun cannot.

British ammunition development has lagged behind since they cannot keep up the development costs (to few customers), and it is therefore likely that the BA will switch to a smoothbore gun if possible. Although it is uncertain if it really will be viable to rebuild the Chally 2 ammunition stowage for that, since the original ammo comes spearated into projectile/propellant bag and the standard NATO rounds come as unitary.

despite Labours attempts to screw it up the UK's military is still the best trained in the world our special forces are second to none even hollands i'm afraid we have the best attack helicopters in the world (Apache's modded by the bristish to be better than the americans version) britains airforce is slightly out dated but the JSF should deal with that but the eurofighter is a waste of space who would we use it against. Cant remember who mentioned it but our navy is very close to the French in capability we may have more aircraft carriers than anyone except the Americans but our aircraft carriers are tiny unlike the french and can only use harriers any way which would lose everytime to pilots who could fly better than the argies but our subs are the best in europe. plus every one seems to forget the will to fight. unlike most militarys the Uk's forces don't fight for their country or morals ingeneral the fight for a stubbornpride in their mates and their country dont forget that the UK is the only country in europe not to have been invaded with any succes since 1066

forgot to say Challenger 2 best tank in the world bar none Lynx fastest helicopter in the world bar none uk best military in euroupe bar none we kick the french Russian Germans and every one elses ass lol not that were goin to war wiv em again

The Leclerc uses a GOOD autolader that most likely is a lot more capable than a human loader while moving in rough terrain. Not much fun juggling a 40 kilo tank gun round in a bouncing and jostling tank. The autoloader is also a fast one, and it won't tire and slow down like a human will after a few engagements.

The disadvantage is more that a three man crew is one less man helping out with maintenace, keeping watch and looking out for enemies when camped or unbuttoned.


The problem I have with an autoloader is that it's one more thing to break - and when it breaks, you're not going to fix it in the field.

Having that extra man around when you need to change a track pad is a good thing.

I'm still iffy on the future of tanks. Given the advent of overhead weaponry like the BLU-108 submunition, it's already been proven that a tank can't survive (even multiple tanks together can't survive) being hit by them - and each of the warheads within the BLU-108 only weigh 5 pounds.

Catch any tank made by any country with the BLU-108 submunition, and it's as good as dead - whether it tries to run or stand still.

The French tank gun has one clear advantage over the Brit L30, it can use standard NATO tank ammunition, the Brit rifled gun cannot.

what makes the Challenger two the best in the world is that its rifled barrel enables it to engage togets other than other tanks thus suporting the infantry with much more acurate of HEAT and Ordinary shells
the only round smoothbore is suitable for firing acurately is SABOT all other rounds are too inacurate

So you missed the part where the Ural Mountains were the point that marked the end of Europe? Russia is a mainly European country, I consider myself a European and it's where I'm from. Also, MysticMindanao-I pray you never again insult the men I served alongside. You, having never served a day in your life, have no right to ever insult the men who wear the uniform of my country. The Russian military as it stands today would tear every other European military military to shreds.

Actually, according to my experience your guys would run out of spares and sell off all the fuel on the black market pretty fast.

But hopefully things have improved since '95...

Almost j/k.

On a more serious note, Russia has no ability to fight a real war with anything it doesn't have a land border with today. The paper army looks more impressive than it is since most of those inventory tanks have been stored for so long they need major overhauls to run, wich costs money you don't have.

Some gear is impressive (LR SAM's and SP AA is very good f e), but these late systems are available in woefully small numbers. Total inventory of T-90 tanks is well below 100 f e, and Tu-160 are acquired at a rate of 2 per year, no more.

Foreign capital, and expert help, is needed to clean up old Soviet nuclear bases since you cannot afford it yourself.

Training for conscripted personell is generally appalling. Dedovshina f e is something that needs to go away. If you kept up with the news from Rodina several officers have been implicated in using conscripts as slave labour and those who can afford it bribe themselves out of service.

But to be fair, the move to using "Kontraktniki" is slowly starting to offset this.

what makes the Challenger two the best in the world is that its rifled barrel enables it to engage togets other than other tanks thus suporting the infantry with much more acurate of HEAT and Ordinary shells
the only round smoothbore is suitable for firing acurately is SABOT all other rounds are too inacurate

No, the thing that makes the Challenger good is the TOGS. It is a much better thermal system than anything on the Leopard or the Abrams.

The gun on the Challenger isn't necessarily any better than the Rheinmetall 120mm - who needs HEAT when you have APFSDS?

If you want a sensible and informed viewpoint on some of Europe’s militaries take a look at Clan Smoke Jaguar’s threads, not only do they go over all branches but actually do have a basis in fact. Germany has no power projection beyond it’s own borders in any manner beyond what it managed in Afghanistan and that wasn’t an independent effort. The only European power with the capability to provide sustained combat operations anywhere in the world is the UK.
Now for the last time Russia is not part of Europe, or do you consider Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco to be part of Europe just because it happens to be on the edge of the map, and even if it were its military capabilities are pathetic, go look at what happened in Grozny.
I think the vast majority of a country has to be within a single area for it to be part of that continent, which is why just because you can see the tip of Australia on a map of Asia it's still considered a part of Oceania. Unless you go by Alien Born's method of continent allocation.

The Russians acted far to hastily due to political muscle flexing, they lack a strong logistics chain and an intelligent command structure. When they assaulted Grozny and found they were being opposed by organised and well-armed forces did they alter their plan? Did they change tactics immediately and stop just driving on in to a meat grinder? No! They just kept marching on and that’s why they got their assess handed to them on a plate.

The Turkish military is a joke, someone near the start thought it had great capability being beaten only by France, Germany and the UK, yeah right. Now, everybody go read CSJ’s thread about real world militaries because you might actually learn something.

As somebody already pointed out the only reason the PIRA wasn’t bitch slapped back to church was because it would have been a complete disaster for any government, soon as the SAS started being effective against the PIRA and preventing people from getting killed by being proactive it was labelled as suing revenge killing tactics due to some unfortunate timing in one of their operations. After that point it was never used in an offensive role, one it had plenty of experience in doing.
The Malayan Emergency was an undeniable success in every respect, had British forces been allowed to operate under similar rules of engagement then you can be sure that the position of the British Army would have been contested at great cost, confusion regarding rules of engagement is why Bloody Sunday occurred. Soldiers are not policemen, they’re not trained for it.

[i]Note the P on PIRA, which stands for Provisional Irish Republican Army. The PIRA were truly capable and grew stronger as Whitehall tied the hands of the forces supposed to be doing their job.

Yes, but Soviet battle plans never really dealt with an invasion of Scandinavia, aside from maybe Finland. Anyway, Sweden seems like a nice country, and the terrain there in many places would be crappy for Soviet or Russian forces to engage in, because of how we rely on armor and such. Central Europe was much better terrainwise for our tactics. I served in the Artillery for 4 years back home. What was your specialty?

This is not true.

To allow the Baltic fleet to dash into the Atlantic areas of both Sweden and Denmark were slotted for invasion (coastal artillery in these regions had decimated such attempts if not defeated). Polish marines were f e alotted to invade Denmark, while Russian marines out of Kaliningrad were to assault Skåne. Also, moving through northern Sweden had probably also been attempted to circumvent Norweigan fixed defenses and strike towards their naval bases as they played an important part in exercising sea control over the GIUK gap, something wich was vital to the REFORGER (both USMC and Royal Marine units were destined to support Norway to protect these).

So, any plan for WW3 not involving Scandinavia would have had to;

1; to accept that the Baltic fleet would remain bottled up in the Baltic sea.

2; nearly uninteruppted REFORGER transports reinforcing Europe.

Both I find extremely unlikely if the big dance had started.


As for my (unasked for) specialty, I was an air force base defense doghandler, or "Spetznas bait" as we called orselves. ;)

PRUSSIA!!!

(hehe... i'm studying that now in AP Euro. definitely a kickass military in the 1800s. now its... gone. yeah.)

my votes for other, cause israel is basically a european country with a whole ot of internal fracked up problems. since veryone is in the reserves till they're 55, my vote's for the country with the 4-mil person military force.

The problem I have with an autoloader is that it's one more thing to break - and when it breaks, you're not going to fix it in the field.

Having that extra man around when you need to change a track pad is a good thing.

I'm still iffy on the future of tanks. Given the advent of overhead weaponry like the BLU-108 submunition, it's already been proven that a tank can't survive (even multiple tanks together can't survive) being hit by them - and each of the warheads within the BLU-108 only weigh 5 pounds.

Catch any tank made by any country with the BLU-108 submunition, and it's as good as dead - whether it tries to run or stand still.

I still think "clear disadvantage" is a bit strong. :)

A good modern autoloader has both positives and negatives.

I'm very satisfied with that Sweden choose the Leopard 2S though (were returning the leased 2A4's and running with our 120+ 2S (Strv 122).

As for top attack munitions, f e the 122 has reinforced top turret armour that can handle several types of these (lightweight artillery or air delivered ICM-DP types, heavy stuff is to powerful of course), and the Russians have started to mount ERA on the top aspect of their turrets as well.

Israel is developing an active countermeasures syste, against top attack munitions as well, so the race isn't over yet.

"The tank is dead, long live the tank!" ;)

what makes the Challenger two the best in the world is that its rifled barrel enables it to engage togets other than other tanks thus suporting the infantry with much more acurate of HEAT and Ordinary shells the only round smoothbore is suitable for firing acurately is SABOT all other rounds are too inacurate

Uhm...

No. There are plenty of HE rounds more than accurate enough available for smoothbore guns. Tight fit and fin stabilisation combined with advanced sights can nearly perform miracles. Ask the Russians, they make the best HE rounds currently (they actually have a higher specification accuracy demand for HE-F rounds than they do for APFSDS).

The rifled barrel however cannot fire APFSDS without a complicated counter-rotatong SABOT wich leeches energy fromthe round to work (the fins would create much drag on a spinning penetrator), therefore APFSDS is inferior due to concept. For HEAT its the same. Britain doesn't even use HEAT (spin acts against the jets focus so it loses penetration), they use HESH.

Besides, Western MBT (including C2) are optimised for engaging other MBT's, and APFSDS is the primary tool for that today anyway, so...

I still think "clear disadvantage" is a bit strong. :)

A good modern autoloader has both positives and negatives.

I'm very satisfied with that Sweden choose the Leopard 2S though (were returning the leased 2A4's and running with our 120+ 2S (Strv 122).

As for top attack munitions, f e the 122 has reinforced top turret armour that can handle several types of these (lightweight artillery or air delivered ICM-DP types, heavy stuff is to powerful of course), and the Russians have started to mount ERA on the top aspect of their turrets as well.

Israel is developing an active countermeasures syste, against top attack munitions as well, so the race isn't over yet.

"The tank is dead, long live the tank!" ;)

The problem is that ERA works against HEAT rounds - the Skeet round out of the BLU-108 is an explosively forged penetrator that detonates at a considerable altitude above the tank.

It's not like the ICM - it's a bigger round. Six B-52 destroyed two divisions worth of Iraqi armor in OIF as they steamed out of Baghdad to meet the Marines - and none of the 2000 vehicles (mix of tanks, APCs, and trucks) made it - something like 32,000 casualties - all from a single pass - all from smart submunitions that home in on you instead of simply scattering.

I don't think the US plans on fighting tanks with tanks. They have something else in mind. I would bet that other nations have the same idea - that they'll do the asymmetric thing - because a tank on tank fight is a toss up at best.

Europe is no longer a military power.
Those days are long gone.

Europe is no longer a military power.
Those days are long gone.
The hell it is! We still hold some of the finest military regiments in the world.
It will be no joke in the future when some war nation attacks a European nation, you'll see.

Originally posted by North Island
The hell it is! We still hold some of the finest military regiments in the world.
It will be no joke in the future when some war nation attacks a European nation, you'll see.

Hell ya! The Redcoats will throw a bayonet charge and break the lines while the dragoons under Gen. Featherbottom round 'em up! :rolleyes:

Hell ya! The Redcoats will throw a bayonet charge and break the lines while the dragoons under Gen. Featherbottom round 'em up! :rolleyes:
Are you from Europe? If so how can you say that Europe has no modern military, Some European militaries hold forces that even the U.S. would have a VERY hard time to fight. Europe is a force to be recond with.

Actually, according to my experience your guys would run out of spares and sell off all the fuel on the black market pretty fast.

But hopefully things have improved since '95...

Almost j/k.

On a more serious note, Russia has no ability to fight a real war with anything it doesn't have a land border with today. The paper army looks more impressive than it is since most of those inventory tanks have been stored for so long they need major overhauls to run, wich costs money you don't have.

Some gear is impressive (LR SAM's and SP AA is very good f e), but these late systems are available in woefully small numbers. Total inventory of T-90 tanks is well below 100 f e, and Tu-160 are acquired at a rate of 2 per year, no more.

Foreign capital, and expert help, is needed to clean up old Soviet nuclear bases since you cannot afford it yourself.

Training for conscripted personell is generally appalling. Dedovshina f e is something that needs to go away. If you kept up with the news from Rodina several officers have been implicated in using conscripts as slave labour and those who can afford it bribe themselves out of service.

But to be fair, the move to using "Kontraktniki" is slowly starting to offset this.


As far as I know, something in between 100-300 T-90s are in service in the Far Eastern military district. Dedovschina is a serious problem, which is why I transferred out of line units, and I caught a bit less because I was enlisted-conscripts catch the worst of it, and the conscripts are usually from the lower classes of societs. I saw the news from Volgograd about men from the 20th mutinineering, which wasn't surprising. The 20th always had a reputation. Out of curiosity, what is your experience with our military? I was an artilleryman myself.

Originally posted by North Island
Are you from Europe? If so how can you say that Europe has no modern military, Some European militaries hold forces that even the U.S. would have a VERY hard time to fight. Europe is a force to be recond with.

I know I was exaggerating too much there, but still the American military spends 840 billion dollars on defense, and has superior manpower to most European nations combined.

The whole rifled/smoothbore argument will soon be academic any way as the British army IS looking to convert to the standard NATO smoothbore. Still I reckon we must have got our money's worth from it kicking the asses of Iraqi tanks at long range with HESH rounds and stuff.

The problem is that ERA works against HEAT rounds - the Skeet round out of the BLU-108 is an explosively forged penetrator that detonates at a considerable altitude above the tank.

It's not like the ICM - it's a bigger round.

ICM-DP isn't the same as ICM. ICM isn't for use against protected vehicles at all. Trucks ok, but thats about it. :)

Regarding ERA, thats true for first and second gen ERA, but the Russkies (and others) now produce third gen that do have the ability to effect all types of penetrator when functioning.

Do a search for Kontakt-5 on Google.

As for EFP's, those are exactly what BONUS uses f e, so no news for me there, however, the rather smallish 2,5kg submunition wont penetrate more than ~150mm RHA reliably, and there are armour upgrades resistant to that today (as on Strv 122 that has ~180mm KE RHA with the addon armour).

This is an area where the Abrams is behind the curve in today, top armour is rather thin (comparatively).

And try to use those B-52 against a capable AD and see those birds go down in flames.

I don't think the US plans on fighting tanks with tanks. They have something else in mind. I would bet that other nations have the same idea - that they'll do the asymmetric thing - because a tank on tank fight is a toss up at best.

Cant really agree that that matches the experience as of late... armour is very much a part of modern combined arms warfare. The "Medium" or Stryker brigades f e are NOT intended to rough it up with enemy mechanized forces.

But I'd agree nobody (except perhaps China) is gearing up mainly for a large scale conventional war any more.

As far as I know, something in between 100-300 T-90s are in service in the Far Eastern military district.

Should have been more specific, meant the T-90M, wich is the one being manufactured today... Although the Russian M doesn't seem to have the welded turret though, weird.

I believe there's 90 M's in service with an annual procurement rate of 30, hinting at that this is mainly to get enough in service to evaluate the system and train enough mechanics and instructors to maintain the export effort.

[QUOTE=Hylian Peoples]Dedovschina is a serious problem, which is why I transferred out of line units, and I caught a bit less because I was enlisted-conscripts catch the worst of it, and the conscripts are usually from the lower classes of societs. I saw the news from Volgograd about men from the 20th mutinineering, which wasn't surprising. The 20th always had a reputation.

It really got that "18th century" Prussian feel to it. ;)

Its not good for troop morale if they feel like the "rejects" of society forced to serve.

The FFL (who pride themselves on taking "rejects) is different since the people who serve actually volunteer.

Out of curiosity, what is your experience with our military? I was an artilleryman myself.

A Russian UN-contingent in Bosnia. They drove their convoy into a village and sold the petrol from the trucks... then called in the Danes for a refill to be able to continue on their way...

As for my personal "MOS", I wrote that in an earlier post in the thread, I served as an airforce doghandler (Närskydd/Hundförare), but that wasn't what I was doing in Bosnia, I was there as a civvie at the time.

I will readily admit that this was the low-water mark of Russian military affairs of the post-cold war era, things have gotten better since then in most places.

To expand on the leclerc a little, while having one less man in the crew is a disadvantage, it gains a sustainable high ROF(12rpm), a greater fire on the run capability than any other MBT in the world, and its very easy to change what type of ammunition will be used. Also, the LeClerc has the most advanced electronics of any MBT in the world, the Galix system is the best smoke system of any MBT, and the French are pretty much recognized as the kings of laser finders on tanks.

[QUOTE=Hylian Peoples]As far as I know, something in between 100-300 T-90s are in service in the Far Eastern military district.

Should have been more specific, meant the T-90M, wich is the one being manufactured today... Although the Russian M doesn't seem to have the welded turret though, weird.

I believe there's 90 M's in service with an annual procurement rate of 30, hinting at that this is mainly to get enough in service to evaluate the system and train enough mechanics and instructors to maintain the export effort.



It really got that "18th century" Prussian feel to it. ;)

Its not good for troop morale if they feel like the "rejects" of society forced to serve.

The FFL (who pride themselves on taking "rejects) is different since the people who serve actually volunteer.



A Russian UN-contingent in Bosnia. They drove their convoy into a village and sold the petrol from the trucks... then called in the Danes for a refill to be able to continue on their way...

As for my personal "MOS", I wrote that in an earlier post in the thread, I served as an airforce doghandler (Närskydd/Hundförare), but that wasn't what I was doing in Bosnia, I was there as a civvie at the time.

I will readily admit that this was the low-water mark of Russian military affairs of the post-cold war era, things have gotten better since then in most places.


You are correct, of course. The mid 90's, particularly after the disaster in Chechnya the first time, really marked the lowest point for our military since WWI. By the time I entered things were getting better, in terms of treatment, training, equipment, etc. The new program of military reform I can only hope comes off successfully, it appears promising. I just hope Putin doesn't destroy the economy. What's your opinion of the Ka-52?

What's your opinion of the Ka-52?

Its an interesting platform, but gunships isn't my thing, I know to little about its avionics and peripheral systems to make a judgement. :)

So you missed the part where the Ural Mountains were the point that marked the end of Europe? Russia is a mainly European country, I consider myself a European and it's where I'm from. Also, MysticMindanao-I pray you never again insult the men I served alongside. You, having never served a day in your life, have no right to ever insult the men who wear the uniform of my country. The Russian military as it stands today would tear every other European military military to shreds.
It's not your fault that the Russian military is how it is. There are several reasons why it is that bad. One of them is the collapse of infrastructure. The "shock therapy" meant that the significant economic infrastructure that supported the miltary collapsed. It was unable to sustain such a huge army after 1991. Another reason was the end of the Cold War. The withdrawl from Eastern Europe and Afghanistan meant that the Soviet Union had no need for such a massive military. The military required of Russia was one to make it a regional player, and not an international one, as Russia had no international committments. And of course, the politicians have not cared about the military as much as they used to. Military spending is getting a boost from Putin this year, but it is still only about $20 billion, far lower than what its former rival, the US, currently spends on its military.