NationStates Jolt Archive

How the HELL are India and Pakistan on this poll, and the US isn't? They're freaking 3rd World countries with nukes and run-down Soviet equipment, who in their right mind would even consider that they have better militaries than the US?

How the HELL are India and Pakistan on this poll, and the US isn't? They're freaking 3rd World countries with nukes and run-down Soviet equipment, who in their right mind would even consider that they have better militaries than the US?


Someone that went to a Government funded school with a hatred of a Country they know little about outside of what said Government has taught. About sums it up I think.

Europeans say Americans are brainwashed, atleast our colleges are not ran by our Government.

The British contanstly fight the IRA, and have troops all over the COmmonwealth looking out for people. It's not quite as intense, but combined with rigorous training I believe you get a better soldier at the end.
not even close to the way israel fights
israel also has best guns and equipment the US, Israel, and the world for that matter have to offer.
backed up by Mossad which pwns all (enough said)
and Krav Maga again pwns all

In EVERY SINGLE war or series of wars France has been in, France has either surrendered or been defeated.
Not entirely true. They took out the Cote d'Ivoire military pretty handily a few months ago. :p All the while insisting that their unilateral action was justified, while the multilateral action in Iraq was wrong. :rolleyes: How typically French.

Australia undoubtedly

Israel, but if Germany were on the poll I'd vote for that.

Because they have fucking awesome tanks, which can go at 80 mph. Nuff said.

In EVERY SINGLE war or series of wars France has been in, France has either surrendered or been defeated.

Hmm...

Like the 100 years war? 30 years war? World War 1? Algeria? Gulf War 1? Cote D'ivorie?

Despite its losses, France has still always remained a potent force in the world. If you want to use old examples though...

US victories?(No ceasefires count, ala korea or 1812)

1898- The US builds up its navy to a point where it can pick on the weakest european power, in its own hemisphere. The US fakes a reason for war, and takes over a number of spanish colonies.

World War One: Very little fighting, and given very bad ratings by most in the war. Overwhelming numbers of fresh troops, after most actual fighting is over, give the US a mostly symbolic victory.

World War Two: The shining moment of US victory, mostly won through cash to allies(russia). The US, again with overwhelming numbers of badly rated soldiers, overwhelms the tiny percent of germans in France, and still not beating the russians to berlin, who faced 85% of the german military.

Gulf War one: Hundreds of top-notch aircraft obliterate the obsolete airforce of saddam hussein, and then his ground forces.

Not exactly a huge number of victories, and even so, only one is actually something to be proud of(ww2), which france eventually won too. French losses have almost always been the fault of the commanders, not the troops. On the contrary, the US has many good leaders, but not so great soldiers. The French have shown them quite capable in the wars of today, fighting against insurgents and whatnot, while america isn't getting a great record. Less is to be put on commanders these days, more on the quality of troops. Even if you don't think France is the greatest military, its really hard to find unbiased arguments to prove it being actually bad, history being one of the few ones.

(Ohh, and someone said China has an army of half a billion people. I would really like some of what you are smoking. China has about three million in its military, not 1/12th of the world population.)

Hmm...

Like the 100 years war? 30 years war? World War 1? Algeria? Gulf War 1? Cote D'ivorie?

Despite its losses, France has still always remained a potent force in the world. If you want to use old examples though...

US victories?(No ceasefires count, ala korea or 1812)

1898- The US builds up its navy to a point where it can pick on the weakest european power, in its own hemisphere. The US fakes a reason for war, and takes over a number of spanish colonies.

World War One: Very little fighting, and given very bad ratings by most in the war. Overwhelming numbers of fresh troops, after most actual fighting is over, give the US a mostly symbolic victory.

World War Two: The shining moment of US victory, mostly won through cash to allies(russia). The US, again with overwhelming numbers of badly rated soldiers, overwhelms the tiny percent of germans in France, and still not beating the russians to berlin, who faced 85% of the german military.

Gulf War one: Hundreds of top-notch aircraft obliterate the obsolete airforce of saddam hussein, and then his ground forces.

Not exactly a huge number of victories, and even so, only one is actually something to be proud of(ww2), which france eventually won too. French losses have almost always been the fault of the commanders, not the troops. On the contrary, the US has many good leaders, but not so great soldiers. The French have shown them quite capable in the wars of today, fighting against insurgents and whatnot, while america isn't getting a great record. Less is to be put on commanders these days, more on the quality of troops. Even if you don't think France is the greatest military, its really hard to find unbiased arguments to prove it being actually bad, history being one of the few ones.

(Ohh, and someone said China has an army of half a billion people. I would really like some of what you are smoking. China has about three million in its military, not 1/12th of the world population.)

wow thats amazing well lets go through them one by by

i'll ignore 100 years and 30 years because they are all sorts of messed up with side changing and alliance shifting and the what not, also for sake of time.

WW1 US enters late (shouldn't even had bothered) actually does comparitivley well for an new green army fighting against hardcore veterens. Learn tricks of the trade quickly and by end of war start to stand out by themselves

WW2 US provides backbone for combined bombing offensive, help defeat german/italian combined army in africa, invade normady and break through german resistance in france. Despite being surronded outnumbered out equiped and under supplied 101st holds out against panzer attacks at bastogn, all while also fighting the japanese in the pacific.

algeria- well done puts those africans in their place

how do you get to count the gulf war as a victory but it means nothing for the US?
and if you get to count Cote D'ivorie then we can count greneda and panama.

The reason the US military is strong is technology. The soldiers are not as well-trained as many other armies. Because of safety reasons the US troops are not allowed to shoot as much on firing ranges like many European armies do.

In TRAINING I say UK or France. The French calmed Cote d'Ivoire up in no time. It is a myth that the French are weak. They were the key player for the allies on the western front. That's why they lost so many men, while the US lost less than in the civil war. Hmmmm...

The US Army is weak while the airforce and navy is very strong. No one has a navy to compare, so they do have technical superiority. By 2030 China will probably have a nasty navy too.

"The world will tremble when China awakes" -Napoleon Bonaparte, Frenchman who almost the entire world needed to gang up against to beat. In my opinion the greatest military leader for the last 200 years. Again, he is FRENCH.

I am not French, but I am sick of all the crap people give them. France have dipsticks, like any country in the world. I support their stand against the Iraqi war. Why aren't people who claim they are chickens yelling at China and Russia, both opposing the war. No you wouldn't! China is the US biggest creditor.

I voted for UK since they have SAS, the greatest fighters in the world. They are nasty. I sure wouldn't like to be an IRA-terrorist facing the SAS. Ouch!

In general though, UK is cutting down on its military. Like everyone else. Soon they will probably disband SAS :( . Anyways go Brits and Frenchmen, my fellow Europeans!

wow thats amazing well lets go through them one by by

i'll ignore 100 years and 30 years because they are all sorts of messed up with side changing and alliance shifting and the what not, also for sake of time.

WW1 US enters late (shouldn't even had bothered) actually does comparitivley well for an new green army fighting against hardcore veterens. Learn tricks of the trade quickly and by end of war start to stand out by themselves

WW2 US provides backbone for combined bombing offensive, help defeat german/italian combined army in africa, invade normady and break through german resistance in france. Despite being surronded outnumbered out equiped and under supplied 101st holds out against panzer attacks at bastogn, all while also fighting the japanese in the pacific.

algeria- well done puts those africans in their place

how do you get to count the gulf war as a victory but it means nothing for the US?
and if you get to count Cote D'ivorie then we can count greneda and panama.

Gulf war was a french victory, as well as a US victory. Neither counted.

I put Cote D'ivorie as one example of its peacekeeping these days. US gets Grenada, etc, as well, I agree, though those were both pretty small american ones.

My point was, nobody always wins, or always loses(At least not any of the major nations). I agree that the US has had victories(ww2), and France has too(ww1), etc. I just wanted to disprove the theory that France always loses.

The reason the US military is strong is technology. The soldiers are not as well-trained as many other armies. Because of safety reasons the US troops are not allowed to shoot as much on firing ranges like many European armies do.

In TRAINING I say UK or France. The French calmed Cote d'Ivoire up in no time. It is a myth that the French are weak. They were the key player for the allies on the western front. That's why they lost so many men, while the US lost less than in the civil war. Hmmmm...

The US Army is weak while the airforce and navy is very strong. No one has a navy to compare, so they do have technical superiority. By 2030 China will probably have a nasty navy too.

"The world will tremble when China awakes" -Napoleon Bonaparte, Frenchman who almost the entire world needed to gang up against to beat. In my opinion the greatest military leader for the last 200 years. Again, he is FRENCH.

I am not French, but I am sick of all the crap people give them. France have dipsticks, like any country in the world. I support their stand against the Iraqi war. Why aren't people who claim they are chickens yelling at China and Russia, both opposing the war. No you wouldn't! China is the US biggest creditor.

I voted for UK since they have SAS, the greatest fighters in the world. They are nasty. I sure wouldn't like to be an IRA-terrorist facing the SAS. Ouch!

In general though, UK is cutting down on its military. Like everyone else. Soon they will probably disband SAS :( . Anyways go Brits and Frenchmen, my fellow Europeans!

Basically agreed. The US is the strongest because of numbers + technology.

Ill list my top military picks.

1. US: This one should be obvious; excellent training, numbers, high tech equipment, well-funded, able to be mass deployed fairly quickly.
2. Israel: well trained, excellent combat experience, high tech equipment
3. South Africa: I listed this partly because of major funding boosts from the new Democratic government, and some interesting equipment. (Rhino mobile artillery, Rooivalk attack helicopter, Rooikat wheeled tank, Oliphant(sp?) MBT)
4. France & Germany: I listed them becuase I consider their militaries to be one of the best in the world as far as equipment is concerned. I also listed them together since they co-develop and use the same equipment. (Tiger Attack helicopter, etc.)
5. Great Britain: Long history of excellence, strong airforce and special forces.

Switzrland. Everytime I visit the country, I see military dudes all over training climbing etc. And we're talking about the best trained military in this topic. Britain comes close too. And the US...

Luxembourg.

The entire thread depend on wheather you look for per capita strength or overall strength. The US has a weak per capita military. For example 300million people and only armed forces around 500,000. Russia about 150 million have about a million men in its military. If you divide the efficiency of the US military on its population the per capita strength would not be high.

Israel doesn't show any major skills, they seem highly untrained for the missions they are given. Killing kids that throw rocks is not good PR. Plus they had bleeding Shermans until just recently. Shermans! A crappy tank made 60 years ago! The highest per capita efficiency is most likely held by Switzerland, Finnland, or some other small country with a strong army. It appears neutral states always have the strongest armies for their size.

Overall the US is the strongest military power, yet it has proven itself not to be of a very high standard. Much friendly fire compared to other high-tech armies. And please, France has one of the proudest military forces and it is a potent force. France has seen many defeats over time but so has all OLD nations. The US has existed for little more than 200 years as an organised country. France has a millennia old history.

I also came up with more French victories over the last few centuries: The coalition wars. They are sometimes counted as part of the Napleonic wars but they were fought before Napoleon's rise to power. If I am not completely wrong there were two subsequent coalition wars, both failing in their goal to defeat the revolution.

Very poorly trained and poorly led though, and a shocking intelligence agency to provide bad info. ;)
That's a load. The U.S. military is always training. Most realistic training money can buy in most cases.

Best thing about the leadership is that we don't depend on having a clear chain of command to carry out orders. In other words, a good leader will brief his men so that they can complete a mission in his absence. And so on down the line. That's not true in a lot of military organizations. There are those that pride themselves on secrecy and compartmentalization. That's a sure way to lose.

USA. More troops, tanks, planes and ships than most countries, better trained personell than almost any country, more advanced technology than any nation. The US military kicks ass.

Yet somehow they recently got their ass kicked by Australia in some war-games.

I voted Great Britain.

Here's the ranking (from me)

1) The United States, and no, not because I live in the States (hell, I'm born Irish not American). I'd the US because they go through training like crazy. From all the years I've lived with my dad in military bases from Germany to Washington state to Virginia, the soldiers are required to take two fitness tests each year to see if they are still in shape enough to face the physically and mentally tiring part of combat. Then there's the fact that the soldiers train along time, when not in combat, the yankee soldier will spend most of his time in three places, the bar, training, home. And the special forces (from what I've seen when my pops was in the Rangers) have a never ending amount of training. An initial year, then there's the jump school, sniping school. Years of training.

Then, the US military doesn't really have numbers, even in the middle east the US (12th largest army I think) was up against the 5th largest army (even though they were a joke) proving that numbers aren't everything. And then the US has the tech, and moral. Though the media will take the view of a small few and make it look like the view of a majority, most American soldiers take a pride in their country and want to kick the ass of any current or potentially-certain enemy to the States.

2)Germany. Those Germans have always had, and probaly will always have, some of the toughest soldiers in the entire continent of Europe. Since the Germanians beat the hell outta Rome, every enemy the Germans faced knew they were up against a bad ass...

3)Israel. Yes, Israel, that tiny hated-by-all country that once took on Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan (don't know if I missed on or not) and wonm and it didn't even have a professional army. Back when the Israeli state was founded and the Arabs jumped up to kick ass, but got smacked down by a bunch of farmers with a handful of real guns, but mostly homemade pipe guns. Those Israelis, for some reason, have been able to kick the crap outta each enemy. And the first time, where they were up against the biggest threat, they did it on their own.

4) China. Sheer numbers. No matter how much training or tech you got, when you send a couple divisions against an army made up of millions, you know you got a tough fight ahead of ya. Unless you got that giant mushroom maker...

Marksmanship, obviously. The US forces wouldn't shoot so many friendlies otherwise.
Marksmanship! Are you serious? You think poor marksmanship is the cause of friendly fire? Where did you say you were trained again?

The reason US troops have so many friendly casualties is most likely a "shot first ask questions later" attitude. That's the only way I can explain it. Honestly, the US has never defeated a strong determined enemy since world war 2. In both Gulf wars droves of Iraqis surrendered without making resistance, even Republican Guardsmen deserted Saddam. In Korea no one won, both sides failed to unite the country. Vietnam is the greatest defeat in US history, a peasant guerilla army defeated a superpower.

The US military is acctually heavily dependant on squad leaders and officers compared to most European armies.

Germany is not a very effective army. It does have excellent vehicles, but the fact that they employ conscripts and their training is not very much above average both UK and France surpass them.

If you count total strength, then yes the US is stronger than anyone else. Because of their airforce and navy. Just ground forces I say China. Over two million men and thousands of tanks. But again, I dislike comparing the militaries like this to figure out which one is the best.

French troops restored order in Cote d'Ivoire in just a short time while the US has struggled in Iraq for two years. France has 60million people and a strong military, plus it has nukes! And speaking of nukes, Russia still has the most powerful ICBM force in the world. With the new Topol M the Russians might make sure that no one is invulnerable to nuclear warheads. Russia of course does have a strong army but lack of funding has left it in decay. Soon Russia will have to rely on nuclear weapons as deterent from foreigners, like the US in the cold war.

Nukes aside, the US is NOT the most powerful miltary. Counted per capita(big population, not as strong military)

Just out of curiosity, where is North Korea?


Do they do anything else besides military training?

The reason US troops have so many friendly casualties is most likely a "shot first ask questions later" attitude. That's the only way I can explain it. Honestly, the US has never defeated a strong determined enemy since world war 2. In both Gulf wars droves of Iraqis surrendered without making resistance, even Republican Guardsmen deserted Saddam. In Korea no one won, both sides failed to unite the country. Vietnam is the greatest defeat in US history, a peasant guerilla army defeated a superpower.

....If you wanna go by military, the Viets got their asses kicked. Politically, the US lost miserably. Everyone wanted out and the country was divided, yadah yadah yadah. But that's not the military. But seriously, the yankees in Nam inflicted way more casualties on the Commies, and hell, the yankees were outnumbered in Nam too. Even in that final retreat the yanks did, the North sent an entire 200,000 man army against them, and that wasn't all the North had, it was just a small piece of the combatants...

Why are there so many countries that don't actually train their troops and have weak militaries(Russia, Hungary etc.) , but then real countries with real militaries don't appear?? (United States, Germany, China and I can assure you that ROMANIA has a much larger and better trained military than half of those countries that are in the poll.

....If you wanna go by military, the Viets got their asses kicked. Politically, the US lost miserably. Everyone wanted out and the country was divided, yadah yadah yadah. But that's not the military. But seriously, the yankees in Nam inflicted way more casualties on the Commies, and hell, the yankees were outnumbered in Nam too. Even in that final retreat the yanks did, the North sent an entire 200,000 man army against them, and that wasn't all the North had, it was just a small piece of the combatants...

Outnumbered? Country of 250 million against country of 70 million that is whole Vietnam doesn't seem to be outnumbered.

The entire thread depend on wheather you look for per capita strength or overall strength. The US has a weak per capita military. For example 300million people and only armed forces around 500,000. Russia about 150 million have about a million men in its military. If you divide the efficiency of the US military on its population the per capita strength would not be high.


I think, there is a little more troops in the US than the number you give. Your number is correct for active duty Army, but there is about another 750,00 Army personnel in the Reserves and National Guard. Thats about 1.2 mil total, just for the Army. Still need to count the Air Force, Navy, Marines, and in war time the Coast Guard.

Outnumbered? Country of 250 million against country of 70 million that is whole Vietnam doesn't seem to be outnumbered.

Funny, nobody has ever mentioned how EVERYONE in the US went to Vietnam to fight the VC and NVA. I guess I skipped over that part in my history book.

But still bigger country should have larger manpower which USA had.
This leads us to concluion that NVA and Vietcong won because of better strategy.

Or perhaps they won because they were willing to accept a casualty rate of 20:1 and the US military was prohibited by politicians from entering North Vietnamese territory.

In EVERY SINGLE war or series of wars France has been in, France has either surrendered or been defeated.

You idiot, think about the War of Spanish Succession, the Franco-Austro War, their assistance in the American Revolution (without which the nation of America would not exist). Consider the initial conquests of Napoleon and how utterly he owned everyone before he overreached. But that was not symptomatic of the nation, it was a typical emperor's trait. Also, it's very overstated that the French would have lost WWI without American assistance. That is grade A bull. The Germans, by the time of their last offensive, had tired troops, who had endured British tannks and French resistance every square foot of the way into France. It says nothing about them that they got close enough to shell Paris, because for starters, Paris is close to the German border anyway, and the Germans only got that far because they threw their WHOLE ARMY away by suicidally swarming Allied defenses. And yes, I am ranting. Think about that before you make claims you can't really back up.

Bullshit. US troops get more realistic training than almost any other country. They shoot more rounds in training than almost any other country. Anyone who knows anything about military matters knows that. Also they're very well led by their officers, perhaps not so well led by the civilian politicians.

Sadly, I have to agree with Botrosox that the British Military is better trained. The British fire fewer rounds because they are better at hitting targets . ;)

You idiot, think about the War of Spanish Succession, the Franco-Austro War, their assistance in the American Revolution (without which the nation of America would not exist). Consider the initial conquests of Napoleon and how utterly he owned everyone before he overreached. But that was not symptomatic of the nation, it was a typical emperor's trait. Also, it's very overstated that the French would have lost WWI without American assistance. That is grade A bull. The Germans, by the time of their last offensive, had tired troops, who had endured British tannks and French resistance every square foot of the way into France. It says nothing about them that they got close enough to shell Paris, because for starters, Paris is close to the German border anyway, and the Germans only got that far because they threw their WHOLE ARMY away by suicidally swarming Allied defenses. And yes, I am ranting. Think about that before you make claims you can't really back up.

Napoleon wasn't french, and the French were defeated by the British and Prussians in almost every battle the nations clashed in at the time. :S

Does everybody realize the status of Israel? Israel is Sparta right now. At the age of sixteen, every last person is given and trained with an UZI. On every field trip in an Israeli school, a teacher must stand by with a rifle, ready to shoot without the slightest hesitation anybody arousing suspicion. Israel does have a rich culture, but also think that it is through American assistance that Israel even survived the many wars they've fought with their neighbors. It's through that same assistance that they have nuclear forces. Also, its very likely that if they were conquered, (probable considering every last Middle Eastern nation hates them) they would revert to guerrilla warfare and simply go on as they always had. This is hardly the finest-trained army in the world, simply because a lot of its citizens are in a constant state of martial law, and they would definitely fight like terrified clams if they were actually put into battle, despite whatever nationalism they may have.

Napoleon wasn't french, and the French were defeated by the British and Prussians in almost every battle the nations clashed in at the time. :S

The Prussian military was slaughtered by the French before any large-scale battles ocurred, friend. And despite the fact that Napoleon wasn't French, he led a French army and ruled the French nation. Was Hitler German? Was Stalin Russian? You dont have to be the ethnicity of your country to bring it to glory. And also, about the Prussians and Germans, think of the entirety of Germany's TWO catastrophic defeats by Allied forces. And yes I do know that they conquered France in about two seconds. But that was because the French army was huddled behind the Maginot Line, falling prey to the urge to fight the visible enemy across the Rhine. They didn't stay mobile. The epitaph of many in military history. Despite Germany's record as a great military nation, as a nation of Germany they've only EVER won ONE real war.

Or perhaps they won because they were willing to accept a casualty rate of 20:1 and the US military was prohibited by politicians from entering North Vietnamese territory.
Actually isn't that 20:1 casualty rate affected a lot because civilian kills. And afterall NV won the war, so their strategy was better. It is not about who wins the battles or who kills more men it is about who wins to war.

Just to clear something up, I've spent about two years now looking for somewhere to give up-to-date info on United States military personnel numbers. The thing is there are few places that have numbers from less than 2 years ago, thus you have to reli largely on-out-dated info. I am sure there is somewhere that does give up-to-date info, but in my opinion the US Government likes to keep those figures largely a secret, and i don't blame them.

The UK, for instance, throws its pathetic numbers around like it isn't nothing, 215,000 Army personnel, of which less than 175,000 are Combat soldiers. The US Marines is bigger than the British Army, they have almost as many tanks, more APC's and Armoured Vehicles and more aircraft than the entire British Armed Forces. Not to mention the fact that the USMC is trained to a standard bridging on Special Forces.

Since we've accused that Botrosox guy of being a fake he hasn't said a word, funny that.

The Prussian military was slaughtered by the French before any large-scale battles ocurred, friend. And despite the fact that Napoleon wasn't French, he led a French army and ruled the French nation. Was Hitler German? Was Stalin Russian? You dont have to be the ethnicity of your country to bring it to glory. And also, about the Prussians and Germans, think of the entirety of Germany's TWO catastrophic defeats by Allied forces. And yes I do know that they conquered France in about two seconds. But that was because the French army was huddled behind the Maginot Line, falling prey to the urge to fight the visible enemy across the Rhine. They didn't stay mobile. The epitaph of many in military history. Despite Germany's record as a great military nation, as a nation of Germany they've only EVER won ONE real war.

Well, yes...but I'm not arguing that. I'm just arguing that the French military only succeeded because it came up against militarities of equally poor quality during the Napoleonic era. When it came up against superior forces (Britain, Prussia, Some Austrian contingents) it was defeated easily.

Outnumbered? Country of 250 million against country of 70 million that is whole Vietnam doesn't seem to be outnumbered.

Um, yeah, the States was ountnumbered. The US does have a pretty damn high population, but for that population, one small ass army. When the yankees went off to war with an army of draftees against a nation where pretty much every man over the age of sixteen had an AK and had combat experience against the Frenchies, those yankees were badly outnumbered.

An army of mostly draftees (the lack of a declaration of a state of emergency wouldn't allow enough professional soldiers to be deployed) against a massive force of militia Guerillas, terrorists, and a Standing army is not the best way to fight a war. And strange as it is, the yanks inflicted a hell of a lot more casualties. 1.5 million North Vietnamese soldiers were killed. (another 200,000 were reported missing in action by the Vietnamese) 58,226 American soldiers were killed. So yes, militarily in Vietnam, the United States kicked the living hell out of the enemy.

Marksmanship, obviously. The US forces wouldn't shoot so many friendlies otherwise.


You claim to have a military degree? If you did then you would know that marksmanship has nothing to do with friendly fire. Friendly fire is a result of poor situational awareness, not an inability to hit your intended target.

The fact that they're hitting the target that they think is an enemy is a sign that they know how to shoot...

Well, I voted Israel. they receive lot's of beating, and still put all of their neighbors to their place.

But if this was a "best military throughout whole history" it would definately be Lithuania. We owned in Middle Ages.

American grunt are very poorly trained, but there are such biaseds here at works it's pointless arguing.

Odd, that conflicts with what I've been told by folks I know who served in the Austrailian, Singaporean, British, Canadian, Belgian and German armies. The Aussies and Brits said the US troops were "as good" as their own, the Canadians grudgingly admitted that the US forces were better trained for high intensity combat than they themselves, but maintained they were better at peackeeping, the rest were very nearly in awe of US forces. In particular the Singaporeans I talked to, most of whom (25 or so) had been in exercises with the USMC.

"Friendly Fire=situational unawareness". 'Isanyonehome', you do live up to your name.

I would guess you haven't been in combat before have you? I haven't either, but i've read and heard enough testimonies to know why 'blue on blue's' occur quite a bit. I haven't been in combat and neither have you, but you obviously have no clue otherwise and can't empathize with those soldiers who have.

The gist of most of these 'blue on blue' incidents is about being scared and the enormity of combat getting to the soldier's mind. Put it like this: Your sitting out in the middle of the desert at 2 in the morning, its pitch dark and your on watch. The wind is howling round you and you have to squint your eyes. Your shivering and freezing because its minus 7 degrees celsius. You've just been through a village about a mile back earlier on in the day, you were shot at, spat on, shouted at and nearly blown up by numerous RPG's. Your know camped out in enemy territory and you can hardly hear yourself think because of the wind.
Apparently there's another patrol in the area, but HQ reckons they'd be in their LUP as they're radio is messing up on them. Your squinting into the night, straining in vain against the wind to hear anything...suddenly you hear a clink, something human...a goat? Another clink...muffled voices, hushed low but audible...nearby. Not a goat. More voices, sounds like there are loads, all around you...can't make it out...your squad is depending on you, if you mess up your all dead...what do you do? If you shout out you could give yourself away, if you move for a flare they'll see, your radio...they'd hear. Remember, that other patrol is supposed to be lying up...maybe its the enemy...

What would you do?

Don't make stupid comments, that what you should do.

The swiss, they are by FAR the best trained, Considering EVERYONE in the entire country is an expert marksman.

Funny, considering they have not had any part in any major war within the past couple of hundred years. They do have good knives and cheese, though, i'll give them that.

Russia, hands down. Not only are they in constant combat with the Chechens and other minor uprisings/ethical conflicts, but the sheer mass of the military and impossibility of conquering it makes it the most powerful and undefeatable nation in the world.

I would say Canada has the best army, I don't know about best trained. My opinon is that the best army barely ever fights. I am assuming Canada fights the least and is attacked the least of anyone on this list, so if someone else fights less, that's my choice.

If you can lose the least amount of people and keep your country safe, that's the best. Becuase that's the point of an army, to keep the country safe. And Israel isn't a very safe country, so how could their army be doing its most basic duty? An army's job isn't to go out and see who cna kill the most enemies, its to keep its country safe from enemies. I can see how killing the most enemies can HELP keep the country safe, but it doesn't help as much as being more neutral.

US does their job fairly well, as the US is relatively safe, but not as good a job as more neutral countries.

The gist of most of these 'blue on blue' incidents is about being scared and the enormity of combat getting to the soldier's mind. Put it like this: Your sitting out in the middle of the desert at 2 in the morning, its pitch dark and your on watch. The wind is howling round you and you have to squint your eyes. Your shivering and freezing because its minus 7 degrees celsius. You've just been through a village about a mile back earlier on in the day, you were shot at, spat on, shouted at and nearly blown up by numerous RPG's. Your know camped out in enemy territory and you can hardly hear yourself think because of the wind.
Apparently there's another patrol in the area, but HQ reckons they'd be in their LUP as they're radio is messing up on them. Your squinting into the night, straining in vain against the wind to hear anything...suddenly you hear a clink, something human...a goat? Another clink...muffled voices, hushed low but audible...nearby. Not a goat. More voices, sounds like there are loads, all around you...can't make it out...your squad is depending on you, if you mess up your all dead...what do you do? If you shout out you could give yourself away, if you move for a flare they'll see, your radio...they'd hear. Remember, that other patrol is supposed to be lying up...maybe its the enemy...

What would you do?

Don't make stupid comments, that what you should do.
Where's the Night Vision Goggles? You need a sentry in a position to challenge them. You need to be in defensive positions--cover and concealment. You need to have some interlocking fields of fire and it sounds like these guys aren't too worried about stealth. I say challenge them and get ready to shoot it out. Chances are pretty good that these are friendly, if not, they aren't ready to take on a company of Marines.

I'm putting my vote on Canada. US is good n all, but we get our arses slaughtered by the Canadian rangers in the war games round the great lakes.

Of course, that doesn't count the super-secret anti-zombie strike force that me, and a couple of others are currently training for the day the dead walk....


did I say that outloud?

I'm putting my vote on Canada. US is good n all, but we get our arses slaughtered by the Canadian rangers in the war games round the great lakes.

Of course, that doesn't count the super-secret anti-zombie strike force that me, and a couple of others are currently training for the day the dead walk....


did I say that outloud?

No, no the US doesn't get slaughtered, quite the opposite really. Last I heard, when my dad was in the rangers a few years back they did some war games, the American rangers pretty much slaughtered the Canadian guys, some of whom, after the fakey explosions went and the yankees rushed in and beat the hell out of the panicking Canadian soldiers. I think it was said before that even some Canadians feel the yanks are better in intense combat situations...

[QUOTE=HirgizstanWhat would you do?

Don't make stupid comments, that what you should do.[/QUOTE]

I'd call out the challenge from my fighting position, and wait for them to give the password. Thats standard procedure, drilled in during Basic Training. I'd also be watching them with my night vision goggles to see if there is an IR patch on their shoulder so I know they're friendlies. I'd also ask my buddy, who's awake to make sure I don't fall asleep what he thinks. Of course shit happens and friendly fire occurs. Its horrible but you can't stop it completely.

To all the people on here talking about friendly fire i want one to show me a military that has seen a good amount of combat and not had a case of friendly fire. I'm sure that will be a hard task if not impossible.

Actually isn't that 20:1 casualty rate affected a lot because civilian kills. And afterall NV won the war, so their strategy was better. It is not about who wins the battles or who kills more men it is about who wins to war.
Many people hold to this misconception. The defeat of the US military in Vietnam was a political defeat not a defeat in combat. The only strategies that played a major role in the defeat of US forces in vietnam were political strategies in the US.

Um, yeah, the States was ountnumbered. The US does have a pretty damn high population, but for that population, one small ass army. When the yankees went off to war with an army of draftees against a nation where pretty much every man over the age of sixteen had an AK and had combat experience against the Frenchies, those yankees were badly outnumbered.

An army of mostly draftees (the lack of a declaration of a state of emergency wouldn't allow enough professional soldiers to be deployed) against a massive force of militia Guerillas, terrorists, and a Standing army is not the best way to fight a war. And strange as it is, the yanks inflicted a hell of a lot more casualties. 1.5 million North Vietnamese soldiers were killed. (another 200,000 were reported missing in action by the Vietnamese) 58,226 American soldiers were killed. So yes, militarily in Vietnam, the United States kicked the living hell out of the enemy.
Fewer than 25% of US forces in vietnam, that is in country not in the entire military, were conscripts. Another of many misconceptions about that war.

Fewer than 25% of US forces in vietnam, that is in country not in the entire military, were conscripts. Another of many misconceptions about that war.
Only 50,274 of the men in Viet Nam were enlisted men, out of and overall 2.59 million men (2.59mil not at one time in Nam, most served a tour about as long as 1-2 years)

Only 50,274 of the men in Viet Nam were enlisted men, out of and overall 2.59 million men (2.59mil not at one time in Nam, most served a tour about as long as 1-2 years)
By enlisted men do you mean volunteers? Otherwise I can't make sense of your reply.

Enlnisted men, the ones who went to the recruiter to join the army, didn't a recieve a notice in the mail...

Usually, enlisted men refers to anyone not comissioned as an officer. As far as your assertion that only some 50,000 US servicemen in Vietnam were not conscripts goes, where did you get this number?

Usually, enlisted men refers to anyone not comissioned as an officer. As far as your assertion that only some 50,000 US servicemen in Vietnam were not conscripts goes, where did you get this number?

http://www.vietnam-war.info/facts/

Er, that's what the guys who go to a recruiter usually are. Officers have to go through college and stuff before becoming an officer...That site's got the number of officers as well, so I guess add a few thou to the number of non-draftee...

http://www.vietnam-war.info/facts/

Er, that's what the guys who go to a recruiter usually are. Officers have to go through college and stuff before becoming an officer...That site's got the number of officers as well, so I guess add a few thou to the number of non-draftee...
You mis-read or simply didn't understand what you saw. What it says on that sight is true(or close to true) but what it says is that 50,274 of 58,178 US servicemen killed in Vietnam were enlistedmen, and 7874 were officers. Scroll to the bottom of the page you cited and you will see, albeit inflated, the numbers relavent to the discussion we are having. *Where it says something like 2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers.*

still about this us army training bashing...

what about the navy seals, i've heard they have the toughest military training of all in the world?

You mis-read or simply didn't understand what you saw. What it says on that sight is true(or close to true) but what it says is that 50,274 of 58,178 US servicemen killed in Vietnam were enlistedmen, and 7874 were officers. Scroll to the bottom of the page you cited and you will see, albeit inflated, the numbers relavent to the discussion we are having. *Where it says something like 2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers.*

Whoops, my bad.....*awkward silence* Well, time to hit the old dusty trail...

"Friendly Fire=situational unawareness". 'Isanyonehome', you do live up to your name.

I would guess you haven't been in combat before have you? I haven't either, but i've read and heard enough testimonies to know why 'blue on blue's' occur quite a bit. I haven't been in combat and neither have you, but you obviously have no clue otherwise and can't empathize with those soldiers who have.

The gist of most of these 'blue on blue' incidents is about being scared and the enormity of combat getting to the soldier's mind. Put it like this: Your sitting out in the middle of the desert at 2 in the morning, its pitch dark and your on watch. The wind is howling round you and you have to squint your eyes. Your shivering and freezing because its minus 7 degrees celsius. You've just been through a village about a mile back earlier on in the day, you were shot at, spat on, shouted at and nearly blown up by numerous RPG's. Your know camped out in enemy territory and you can hardly hear yourself think because of the wind.
Apparently there's another patrol in the area, but HQ reckons they'd be in their LUP as they're radio is messing up on them. Your squinting into the night, straining in vain against the wind to hear anything...suddenly you hear a clink, something human...a goat? Another clink...muffled voices, hushed low but audible...nearby. Not a goat. More voices, sounds like there are loads, all around you...can't make it out...your squad is depending on you, if you mess up your all dead...what do you do? If you shout out you could give yourself away, if you move for a flare they'll see, your radio...they'd hear. Remember, that other patrol is supposed to be lying up...maybe its the enemy...

What would you do?

Don't make stupid comments, that what you should do.

Hello, you are agreeing with me. That is exactly why I believe friendly fire happens. Not because of poor marksmanship as a poster claimed. Its because combat is a murky situation and things arent clear cut.

I know the training behind calling out in combat, but what if the group i was describing aren't combat troops, they might be a National Guard Logisitcs formation, caught out in a storm. Of coruse they have thorough basic training, but they ain't combat soldiers so, like any normal person would, they would be scared and unsure.

I would call out aswell, its the only way in my opinion. I didn't include NVG's for the simple reason that not every unit has them, and nor can every unti guarantee they will work after being dragged, kicked and banged about in a rucksack, then exposed to a sand-storm. It depends on what model, but some would not hold up to that sort of punishment.

We can agree that combat is a murky business, but you'll find most freindly fire incident's occur through poor communication equipment, which is a major reason the British are sometimes on the receiving end of American blue on blue, because the British are trained poorly and have ineffective radio equipment with pretty much no way of contacting US Soldiers. Blue on Blue's happen in every Army, but i'm trying to say that it isn't down to poor training as most front-line soldiers will not be the victims or protagonists of blue on blue's.