NationStates Jolt Archive

Which current military do you think is the best, other than the US?

Nationalism FTW.

Isreal based on stuff like the 6 Day War. They overpowered enemies that far outnumbered them at least in declerations of war against them.

Best in what way?

Which current military do you think is the best, other than the US?

are they the best? :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :eek:

I think a much better poll would be "who's better at hugging and smiling?" :)

And the only poll option being, "EVERYBODY!!" :D

But instead you have to talk about who's better at killing each other. :(

I think a much better poll would be "who's better at hugging and smiling?" :)

And the only poll option being, "EVERYBODY!!" :D

But instead you have to talk about who's better at killing each other. :(

then think of it as "who's better at protecting one's people from harm" :)

Nationalism FTW.
Sweden, obviously.:D

Nah, just kidding, the only thing the Swedish military is good for is cutting it's budget every single time the politicians need more money somewhere else without taking it from something too many voters care about.

I have a feeling China has the most powerful military, US comes second. In terms of quality it's Israel, based on the merit that Israel still exists.

Best in what way?

As in the definition of the word 'best'. To be better than the rest.

France because it has it's OWN carriers, nukes and everything. It is the only European country capable of hurting the USA in a EU-US war. Why is China not on the list?

Hahaha~ I voted for myself X3

France because it has it's OWN carriers, nukes and everything. It is the only European country capable of hurting the USA in a EU-US war. Why is China not on the list?

They are, see option 8.

are they the best? :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :eek:
Yes *sighs*

I'd personally say that the British are probably a decent second place, seeing as we've got a very experienced and well-trained force that's got a very good proven track record in COIN operations, and in the more conventional side of warfare, too.

As in the definition of the word 'best'. To be better than the rest.

I know what "best" means. But what are they supposed to be better at?

If it is keeping ones people from harm like you posted previously, I would have say the Israeli military is the best, even more so than the US. The Israeli military has fought off two separate invasions, both times being drastically outnumbered. The US has never had to deal with an invasion (not counting the War of 1812 or the American Civil War) so no hard comparison can be made.

Is this best quality and best equipment or just plain ol' largest?

Is this best quality and best equipment or just plain ol' largest?

well of course quality and equipment matter more than just numbers.

Switzerland.

other than the US?

How does inventing Friendly Fire make the US the best?

Steenhuffel;13381846']How does inventing Friendly Fire make the US the best?
Because at least they can do it really well.

Isreal based on stuff like the 6 Day War. They overpowered enemies that far outnumbered them at least in declerations of war against them.
Yeah, 41 years ago. Rather more recently they failed to really achieve any of their initial goals against little more than a glorified militia in Lebanon.

Anyways, the answer to the OP is "NATO". But if you wanted to be nationalistic about things, then you'd have to specify exactly what you want to do with this military. They tend to have their strengths and weaknesses based on the likely conflicts they are going to face. The Swiss Army might be really good at holding a few lines in the mountain, but less good at sending tanks to take over Moscow. And the US for that matter is really good at blowing stuff up, but not quite as good at what happens afterwards - which these days is just as, if not more, important.

Costa Rica.

Switzerland is a close second

Papal Swiss Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Swiss_Guard) obviously look the best. And since you already established the US as the best military in the world (:rolleyes:) shouldn't the thread title be "second best military in the world?"?

Well then I would say the U.K or Israel would tie for second best in the world.
I'd say the UK, mainly because Israel's main job for the last 20 years has been subduing teenagers armed with rocks, and when they actually came up against Hezbollah 2 years ago, they got somewhat repulsed.

As opposed to the UK, which has done a decent job in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the enemy combatants, in the case of the Taliban, are well-motivated and quite well armed.

well of course quality and equipment matter more than just numbers.

Well then I would say the U.K or Israel would tie for second best in the world.

I'd say the UK, mainly because Israel's main job for the last 20 years has been subduing teenagers armed with rocks, and when they actually came up against Hezbollah 2 years ago, they got somewhat repulsed.

As opposed to the UK, which has done a decent job in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the enemy combatants, in the case of the Taliban, are well-motivated and quite well armed.

I suppose so. I want to rectify a mistake a made earlier, I said U.K "or" israel would tie, I meant "and".

Antarctica!

:sniper: :sniper:

:gundge: :gundge:

:mp5: :mp5:

I think the inclusion of "Apart from the US" is a bit odd. It somehow gives off the belief that America's military is in any way competent and would actually place in the top ten Nation's Military's.

I know what "best" means. But what are they supposed to be better at?

If it is keeping ones people from harm like you posted previously, I would have say the Israeli military is the best, even more so than the US. The Israeli military has fought off two separate invasions, both times being drastically outnumbered. The US has never had to deal with an invasion (not counting the War of 1812 or the American Civil War) so no hard comparison can be made.

Or the Japanese invasion of Alaska during WW2. Or Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Or the Spanish-American War. (to be fair we were taking lands from them but hey we tend to do that *cough* Native Americans *cough*)

Nope the US has never ever been invaded. Nope not at all.

Without the US, I'd have to go with China, or perhaps Russia.

Nope the US has never ever been invaded. Nope not at all.
It really hasn't. Pearl Harbour wasn't an invasion any more than Operation Gomorrah was.

And the "invasion" of "Alaska" was the landing on three little islands where there were basically no defenders. It's hardly what you can really call an invasion of the USA. Certainly not something to be compared with the attacks on Israel.

Which reminds me: why do people keep bringing those up? That was 40 years ago, and the most recent one (Yom Kippur) didn't exactly end in convincing brilliance. I actually have my doubts whether Israel could still defend itself against its neighbours today without dropping nukes on everyone, simply because Saudi Arabia and Iran would bankroll any attack and make it much more powerful.

U.S. as an actual military, with France and the U.K tying for in second and perhaps Russia in third. Give China a few decades and they'll probably be #1.

As far as effectiveness man for man goes, Israel is (Or at least was) astoundingly kick-ass. Al-Qaeda's not that bad either as a guerilla force, mainly because they're quite persistent.

I'd say Switzerland. Apparently they could mobilize faster than any other military. :confused:

Israel seems to have the best training regimen, from what I've seen on the Discovery Channel. :p

China probably has more manpower.

France because it has it's OWN carriers, nukes and everything. It is the only European country capable of hurting the USA in a EU-US war. Why is China not on the list?

What about the French carriers? Do they do round-the-clock ops? The embarked air wing seems a little weak, too. From Wiki...

Embarked air power comprised sixteen Super Étendards, one E-2C Hawkeye, two Rafale Ms and several helicopters. The Super Étendards carried out their first missions above Afghanistan on 19 December, executing reconnaissance and bombing missions, covering over 3,000 kilometers. Overall they carried out 140 missions, averaging 12 every day, dodging five Stinger missiles.

Sixteen planes averaging 12 sorties a day isn't real good. Not by American standards and we own War-at-Sea!

It really hasn't. Pearl Harbour wasn't an invasion any more than Operation Gomorrah was.

And the "invasion" of "Alaska" was the landing on three little islands where there were basically no defenders. It's hardly what you can really call an invasion of the USA. Certainly not something to be compared with the attacks on Israel.

Well, there was the War of 1812. Not that that was settled all that conclusively.

China probably has more manpower.

China has the most manpower in the world, by far. They just have little training or much modern weaponry.

I think the inclusion of "Apart from the US" is a bit odd. It somehow gives off the belief that America's military is in any way competent and would actually place in the top ten Nation's Military's.
What ten nations would you list ahead of the U.S.?

What ten nations would you list ahead of the U.S.?

<insert any ten random nation names in here, provided their military force consists of more than a man with a dog and a rock.>

<insert any ten random nation names in here, provided their military force consists of more than a man with a dog and a rock.>
Then I guess you'd be wrong.

Then I guess you'd be wrong.

Hehe, let's face it, U.S. military... fairly... how to put it in a flowery poetic term? "retarded".

Hehe, let's face it, U.S. military... fairly... how to put it in a flowery poetic term? "retarded".

As far as tactics and strategies against modern enemies go, the U.S. is losing it's touch. But man for man, soldier for soldier, and as far as technology and weapons go, there isn't much that can match the U.S.

OK. I wasn't certain. I didn't want to assume that just because their population was large that their military was. That's likely what their problem is in terms of inferior training; too many men to keep in line.

China's military is friggin massive; unfortunetly for China, the average Chinese soldier blows compared to the soldiers of European or American nations. Not enough training, decent officers, or money for weapons and the like.

China has the most manpower in the world, by far. They just have little training or much modern weaponry.

OK. I wasn't certain. I didn't want to assume that just because their population was large that their military was. That's likely what their problem is in terms of inferior training; too many men to keep in line.

Well, best in what sense?
America has the best Air Force and Navy, for any purpose, hands down. Followed by the UK then France and China.
If you are fighting a take them over and leave war, America also wins that. We took Baghdad and destroyed the Iraqi military in about a month. Obviously, we cannot occupy. Second is probably Russia, then the UK.
There are so many variables to consider that the question is useless. China, while having a huge standing army and decent equipment, couldn't even take over tiawan right now. They have no transport ships. And America and Japan and several other countries would step in to help them. Israel has the best counter-insurgency, defense, and probably the "best" army in the sense that their soldiers and equipment are all top noch. Its just really small.

So you'll have to make your question more specific.

Regardless, there numbers are great enough to make them the most significant fighting force on earth.
If they're at home. If they don't have enough boats to get them anywhere else, then they can be as significant as they want, there they still don't matter. ;)

OK. I wasn't certain. I didn't want to assume that just because their population was large that their military was. That's likely what their problem is in terms of inferior training; too many men to keep in line.

Regardless, there numbers are great enough to make them the most significant fighting force on earth.

They'd get completely plastered by any other major power - the Russians, US, French and UK could hand their arses to them due to their pretty ancient equipment.

Once again, it depends. Any nation could go invade China and get slaughtered. However, if China invades, then they're gonna get plastered.

Regardless, there numbers are great enough to make them the most significant fighting force on earth.
They'd get completely plastered by any other major power - the Russians, US, French and UK could hand their arses to them due to their pretty ancient equipment.

I'd personally disagree on the Israel point - half the point of COIN operations is to make the other side lose its' support in the general population, so that the situation calms down. It has completely failed to do this, and has had easily long enough to realistically do so.

But there we go.

True. But its the best in the sense that everyone else sucks too, so theres not much competition.

Well, best in what sense?
America has the best Air Force and Navy, for any purpose, hands down. Followed by the UK then France and China.
If you are fighting a take them over and leave war, America also wins that. We took Baghdad and destroyed the Iraqi military in about a month. Obviously, we cannot occupy. Second is probably Russia, then the UK.
There are so many variables to consider that the question is useless. China, while having a huge standing army and decent equipment, couldn't even take over tiawan right now. They have no transport ships. And America and Japan and several other countries would step in to help them. Israel has the best counter-insurgency, defense, and probably the "best" army in the sense that their soldiers and equipment are all top noch. Its just really small.

So you'll have to make your question more specific.
I'd personally disagree on the Israel point - half the point of COIN operations is to make the other side lose its' support in the general population, so that the situation calms down. It has completely failed to do this, and has had easily long enough to realistically do so.

But there we go.

If they're at home. If they don't have enough boats to get them anywhere else, then they can be as significant as they want, there they still don't matter. ;)

I'm quite sure they could mass-produce boats as well as soldiers.

And just imagine China under a draft.

China's military is friggin massive; unfortunetly for China, the average Chinese soldier blows compared to the soldiers of European or American nations. Not enough training, decent officers, or money for weapons and the like.
True, but the Chinese also don't value human life as much, so they'd be willing to use their numbers in ways other forces wouldn't.

While both the UK and France have credible claims at being the strongest military in Europe, I had to go with China.

I still think anyone who tried to invade Russia would lose pretty badly, but the Russians have a unique geographic advantage (space) that allows them to field a weaker military.

I'm quite sure they could mass-produce boats as well as soldiers.


Maybe, but not good ones. They'd literally get blown out of the water by the USN, the Royal Navy, Russia's navy, and Frances navy. They don't even have a carrier. It's a brown water navy, almost no blue water capabilities.

They'd get completely plastered by any other major power - the Russians, US, French and UK could hand their arses to them due to their pretty ancient equipment.

In the time it'd take for those militaries to shoot a soldier down, there'd be a new on in that soldier's place.

True. But its the best in the sense that everyone else sucks too, so theres not much competition.
Seeing as the UK successfully fought COIN operations in Malaya, Kenya and Northern Ireland, as well as fighting very well in Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the Balkans against guerrilla forces, and are doing fine in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd disagree with you there.

In the time it'd take for those militaries to shoot a soldier down, there'd be a new on in that soldier's place.
You don't shoot the soldier, you shoot the general. And the phone line. And the fuel depot. And the munitions factory.

Then you've got a bunch of men in colourful clothes, and I still win.

The U.S. wins hands down. Its fairly obvious.

To the blind and/or chronically Stupid.

In the time it'd take for those militaries to shoot a soldier down, there'd be a new on in that soldier's place.
Not really, since we'd just drop cluster munitions over the cities of China.

Seeing as the UK successfully fought COIN operations in Malaya, Kenya and Northern Ireland, as well as fighting very well in Rwanda, Sierra Leone and the Balkans against guerrilla forces, and are doing fine in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd disagree with you there.
Wow, i totally forgot about Britain. Thanks. Isreal pales in comparison to them.

I'd have to say Israel. Beating the Arabs four times is pretty good.

EDIT: Remind me to read OP next time.

To the blind and/or chronically Stupid.

The U.S. has lost a single major conflict in it's history. That's a track record most other nations can't match.

The only real problem with the U.S. military is it's leadership, which, to put it bluntly, pretty much sucks.

The U.S. has lost a single major conflict in it's history. That's a track record most other nations can't match.

The only real problem with the U.S. military is it's leadership, which, to put it bluntly, pretty much sucks.

And as far as I know, un-aided, you've won one war. Against a population that the military outnumbered 3 to 1.

I chose SA.

155mm G6 SPH
Rooikat & Ratel
Casspir & other mine-protected vehicles
Umkhonto SAM


Sweden would be my #2.

And as far as I know, un-aided, you've won one war. Against a population that the military outnumbered 3 to 1.

Unaided, more than that. You forgot the Spanish-American war, the Indian wars, and the Mexican-American war.

EDIT: Does the American civil war count? I don't think it does.

Anyways, it's quite difficult to win wars without help. It's pretty common in wartime for nations to ally with each other and pool resources and firepower, you know. That doesn't diminish any nation's armed forces, though.

For example; WWII might not have been won without the gigantic effort of the United States army. It also wouldn't have been won without the gigantic efforts of the Soviets, the British, and the various resistence forces all over the world.

War is, for the most part, a team effort, buddy.

Not really, since we'd just drop cluster munitions over the cities of China.

True, but massive bombing campaigns don't earn you much love.

To the blind and/or chronically Stupid.

Yeah I made a newb mistake and didn't bother to read the OP. Guess I am chronically stupid. :p

Unaided, more than that. You forgot the Spanish-American war, the Indian wars, and the Mexican-American war.

EDIT: Does the American civil war count? I don't think it does.

Anyways, it's quite difficult to win wars without help. It's pretty common in wartime for nations to ally with each other and pool resources and firepower, you know. That doesn't diminish any nation's armed forces, though.

For example; WWII might not have been won without the gigantic effort of the United States army. It also wouldn't have been won without the gigantic efforts of the Soviets, the British, and the various resistence forces all over the world.

War is, for the most part, a team effort, buddy.

Which, in hindsight, kinda renders this whole poll a moot point surely?

Unaided, more than that. You forgot the Spanish-American war, the Indian wars, and the Mexican-American war.

EDIT: Does the American civil war count? I don't think it does.

Anyways, it's quite difficult to win wars without help. It's pretty common in wartime for nations to ally with each other and pool resources and firepower, you know. That doesn't diminish any nation's armed forces, though.

For example; WWII might not have been won without the gigantic effort of the United States army. It also wouldn't have been won without the gigantic efforts of the Soviets, the British, and the various resistence forces all over the world.

War is, for the most part, a team effort, buddy.

To add to that, the United States also out-produced everybody else. Without our Lead-Lease and Liberty ships, Britain would have fallen. Without our Studebaker and Ford trucks, the USSR couldn't have rapidly advanced later in the war. Without our Grants and Shermans in North Africa the Brits would still be at a disadvantage, and without our massive bomber and naval fleets Japan wouldn't have been defeated.

As Ravea said, its a team effort.

Which, in hindsight, kinda renders this whole poll a moot point surely?

Not entirely. Militaries do, of course, depend mainly on their on stratagies and men for victory, not those of thier allies. I assume this poll is designed either on the assumption that if we were to pit any one national army faced off against another, which one would win, or which army is overall the most effective at fighting. Of course, it's nearly impossible to judge such things. Victory in battle often depends on terrain, strategy, and morale, not just fancy weapons or lots of soldiers. (Although that usually helps quite a bit.)

In my opinion, there's really no way to tell, but if we look at the different armies of the world (size, mobility, and tech and the like) we can at least make a somewhat decent guess on who would win in a fight.

Of course, suprises in battle happen all the time, as the Vietnam war proved, and the Iraq war seems to be re-proving.

Not entirely. Militaries do, of course, depend mainly on their on stratagies and men for victory, not those of thier allies. I assume this poll is designed either on the assumption that if we were to pit any one national army faced off against another, which one would win, or which army is overall the most effective at fighting. Of course, it's nearly impossible to judge such things. Victory in battle often depends on terrain, strategy, and morale, not just fancy weapons or lots of soldiers. (Although that usually helps quite a bit.)

In my opinion, there's really no way to tell, but if we look at the different armies of the world (size, mobility, and tech and the like) we can at least make a somewhat decent guess on who would win in a fight.

Of course, suprises in battle happen all the time, as the Vietnam war proved, and the Iraq war seems to be re-proving.

Ahh, the old "Who would win in a fight between Superman and Spiderman" school playground debates.

To add to that, the United States also out-produced everybody else. Without our Lead-Lease and Liberty ships, Britain would have fallen. Without our Studebaker and Ford trucks, the USSR couldn't have rapidly advanced later in the war. Without our Grants and Shermans in North Africa the Brits would still be at a disadvantage, and without our massive bomber and naval fleets Japan wouldn't have been defeated.

As Ravea said, its a team effort.

Urgh, imagine if the Nazis won WW2... :eek::eek::eek:

Fiji

Ahh, the old "Who would win in a fight between Superman and Spiderman" school playground debates.

Sup3rman, stupid.

Ahh, the old "Who would win in a fight between Superman and Spiderman" school playground debates.

No, that's not at all what I said. I don't remember comparing armies to superheros.

I said it's difficult to say who would win in a war. Nations these days rarely engage in conflict without allies and copious amounts of strategy. Obviously Mongolia probably wouldn't win a war against China on it's own. But say Mongolia had Russia, Japan, India and the U.S. on it's side; this improves Mongolia's chances of sucess tenfold. Even so, there's no real way to tell who would win; I'm trying to get the point across that War in extremely unpredictable and usually doesn't go the way anyone plans.

As a side note, the fact is that the U.S. military is not a bad army. It's weapons, training, and equiptment is supurb, for the most part. Leadership might suck every now and then, but that doesn't mean the U.S. should be considered lightweights in the field of battle.

Hmmm, I don't think anyone has given Canada enough credit. I mean they did make advances into the US during the American War of 1812, and during WW1 and WW2, Canadians were often used as shock troops by the UK especially during WW1, and quite often proved useful. Duh, I'm not saying we have the best military, but for what we have, we sure make it work. :p

Our SAS train the US special forces

Our RAF train the US Top Guns

And our Marines train the US Navy Seals

I think you could say for head of population that the British Forces are the best in the world and have been for centuries ;)

True, but massive bombing campaigns don't earn you much love.
In a war against the Chinese, who gives a shit?

Our SAS train the US special forces

Our RAF train the US Top Guns

And our Marines train the US Navy Seals

What?
Can I see some sources, other than joint exercises and the like?

EDIT: The British forces are highly competent and well equipped, and it is easy to make a case that they are the best in some areas, but your post is just stupid..... SEALs are Special Forces, why would the SAS train PJs, and why would Marines train SEALs?

Sealand.

Hezbollah

In a war against the Chinese, who gives a shit?

People who oppose needless slaughter.

Which current military do you think is the best, other than the US?
Taliban?

1989: Soviet troops pull out of Afghanistan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/15/newsid_4160000/4160827.stm)

Soviet troops are withdrawing from Afghanistan, nine years after they swept into the country.

Afghan victory 'could take 38 years' (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2141901,00.html)

British troops could remain in Afghanistan for more than the 38 years it took them to pull out of Northern Ireland. That is the bleak assessment by Army commanders on the ground in Helmand province.

Deadliest year for U.S. in Afghanistan (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21718436/)

Six GIs killed in ambush, raising number of Americans killed in '07 to 101

US Seeks More NATO Troops in Afghanistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-7228715,00.html)

As far as tactics and strategies against modern enemies go, the U.S. is losing it's touch. But man for man, soldier for soldier, and as far as technology and weapons go, there isn't much that can match the U.S.

You've not had a huge amount of experience with the real world have you?:rolleyes:

The phrase most commonly used about the US forces when I was in the British army was "all the gear but no idea".

Loads of nice shiny toys, but actual man on man soldiering? I'd take British, French, German, Australian, New Zealanders or South Africans over the US any time. We'd like your toys though.:D

the Internet of course :cool:

because Israel's main job for the last 20 years has been subduing teenagers armed with rocks, and when they actually came up against Hezbollah 2 years ago, they got somewhat repulsed.


still though they havent exactly been trained to deal with a milita have they? all they do is bomb a few houses and shoot a few kids now

Which current military do you think is the best, other than the US?In doing what exactly?

Taliban

What?
Can I see some sources, other than joint exercises and the like?

EDIT: The British forces are highly competent and well equipped, and it is easy to make a case that they are the best in some areas, but your post is just stupid..... SEALs are Special Forces, why would the SAS train PJs, and why would Marines train SEALs?

Why?

The Royal Marines are our Navy Special forces...they are not your average grunts and for the record my Uncle used to serve in the Marines...saw active duty in the Falklands and took part in training Navy Seals on numurous occasions.

It is a well known fact that the SAS train special forces units all over the world in various countries including the US

And as far as the RAF is concerned...it is the best airial fighting force in the world...undisputed

hardly stupid observations ;)

France ofcourse, they have grand cannons...

although russian tesla tanks rock too...

And as far as the RAF is concerned...it is the best airial fighting force in the world...undisputed
I'd dispute that.

Again it depends on what you're talking about when you mean "best". Put the RAF and the USAF against each other, and it's fairly clear who would win, for example.

Some of those Tornados are pretty old by now and probably outclassed by the US equivalents, as are the Eurofighters by the F-22s. The RAF doesn't have anything approaching the long-range transport capacity of the USAF. I'd also argue that the USAF has a better command-and-control and AWACS contingent at the moment, since their E-3s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry) had an upgrade that the British ones didn't get. And the Sentinels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon_Sentinel) still aren't in service, when the Americans had the E-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTARS) since 1986.

And that's not mentioning the difference the F-117s, B-2s and B-52s make when you try and bomb stuff. In fact, I don't think the RAF has any heavy bombers in service at all.

We can debate about the training, but neither of us knows enough about this to decide either way. But the fact that the US is doing virtually all the air support for British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq probably says all we need to know.

I'd dispute that.

Again it depends on what you're talking about when you mean "best". Put the RAF and the USAF against each other, and it's fairly clear who would win, for example.

Some of those Tornados are pretty old by now and probably outclassed by the US equivalents, as are the Eurofighters by the F-22s. The RAF doesn't have anything approaching the long-range transport capacity of the USAF. I'd also argue that the USAF has a better command-and-control and AWACS contingent at the moment, since their E-3s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry) had an upgrade that the British ones didn't get. And the Sentinels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytheon_Sentinel) still aren't in service, when the Americans had the E-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTARS) since 1986.

And that's not mentioning the difference the F-117s, B-2s and B-52s make when you try and bomb stuff. In fact, I don't think the RAF has any heavy bombers in service at all.

We can debate about the training, but neither of us knows enough about this to decide either way. But the fact that the US is doing virtually all the air support for British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq probably says all we need to know.

Im not talking about the technology used Neu...im talking about the skill of the pilots...the 'Red Devils' display team although not in active service are the best pilots in the world...gleaned from the best in the RAF...and America participating in most of the Air Support in Afghanistan and Iraq is just a matter of more resources and numbers than the skill of their pilots...it is a well known fact that the American Airforce is trigger happy bordering on incompetent...so your arguement to the contrary is somewhat flawed :)

Óglaigh na hÉireann
The Irish Defence Forces

No, that's not at all what I said. I don't remember comparing armies to superheros.

Forehead + Desk = Repeated Hammering.
They do... y'know... teach you in America right? They do have schools and things yeah?

Sweden, obviously.:D

Nah, just kidding, the only thing the Swedish military is good for is cutting it's budget every single time the politicians need more money somewhere else without taking it from something too many voters care about.

I have a feeling China has the most powerful military, US comes second. In terms of quality it's Israel, based on the merit that Israel still exists.

The Israeli military isn't very effective anymore, I'd rate it pretty low. The most powerful military in terms of man power, strength, organisation, discipline, and morale would be the People's Liberation Army. Having recently returned from China and seen the PLA, I can tell you that they are quite an impressive force. All volunteer militaries are always more effective than drafted ones, so the Chinese military takes the cake for largest professional army on earth. While technologically inferior to the United Kingdom or United State's militaries, I'd still say they could give us one hell of a fight if not defeat us.

Im not talking about the technology used Neu...im talking about the skill of the pilots...
Well, that's one neither of us can really assess. There's gonna be good ones and bad ones in both forces, and it's not necessarily something you can get purely though the design of training programs (which the two are exchanging information on anyways). Many NATO units routinely train together or engage in international maneuvres and exercises as well - German strike pilots are trained at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, for example.

Much is being made of the friendly fire incidents, but I think that's more a reflection of the sheer number of ground attack missions flown by the Americans. In often chaotic and confusing circumstances, with not enough sharing of timely information and not enough time to properly assess situations, accidents are going to happen. I don't really see how the Americans could change anything by themselves to make things better - the only option I can see is better sharing of real-time information by everyone involved, which they're working on. The only change they could do all by themselves is to the rules so their pilots only fire when things are absolutely certain, and some percentage of the time that won't be the case - so the ground troops miss out on air support. But that's not a question of training or skill.

That's a different issue to the trigger-happiness of US ground forces, by the way. You could improve that with some sensitivity and stress training and modified rules of engagement.

I'd say the UK.

for the best they get a lot of whoop-ass ..vietnam , somalia , iraq , etc :headbang: ;)

mm i hear france because they have nukes well let me say one thing if 1 nuke goes of then it won't matter what military is the best becasue then there wouldn't be a planet to wlak on anymore so let not talk about nukes futher france i doubt their military power i mean they could start with making better toilets i have been in france on vacation and personaly i am lucky to be jong cuz if i wasn't i wouldn't even be able to get the trash i just swallowed out you have to stand an do natures wish near the highway's

that much for france

isreäl would go for a first place they are indeed good
china is in the race because of its numbers but like sun tzu once said number do not tell the whole story
everyone forgets japan i notice dispite that they needed to disarm afther ww2they have one of the most expensive and most edvanced military in the world
i don't think anyone realises that holland is doing a lot of dirty work for usa in afganistan and holland has a pretty advanced military but just to small to be in the race other then that it is probably in tech standerst equal to usa
i belief that if the germans go with thier supertanks reputations like in ww2 they would do a great run ofcourse it is the question if they will be able to get such superior tanks again
other countries mmm
lets not forget that the islamitic extremists are very motivated and that alone is already a deadly weapon they outnumber and that is enough for them if neccesery they will come at you with scimitars problem is they have rpg's and ak-47's and lots of suicide bomers

in otehr words every military has its streght and weaknesses but i am afraid that
us would befirst as they have a pretty advanced military and still huge and somewhat balanced on al fronts thus land sea and air
israel would be second
i fear despite everything that japan would be second they too wouldn't mind charging with a katana if they have to but they have FAR better then that
then mm china is comming into the race
russia is devistated and the once greats ussr is no more they are out of the race then
dispite what i said france can't be ignored neither can the dutch and i would still fear the germans if i had to oppose them


hard choosing i'd go for israel in the end

note i am just a boy of 16 and i have no accual military strenght statistics to base my opinion on instead i had to base this on information i found on bbc/ wikipedia and hostorical lessons on school

There is an amazing thing called punctuation. You might want to look into it.

There is an amazing thing called punctuation. You might want to look into it.

I'm assuming your choice is Hungary.

BTW, I choose Israel.

Despite shrinking populations, most European nations have the ability to quickly mobilize a powerful, technological army capable of fighting off any opponent.

I chose the UK, simply because their power-projection is almost universally recognized as being #2 to the US. China may have a huge army, but their equipment is out of date, their air force still has planes designed in the 1950s and 1960s, and their navy wouldn't be able to stand up to the Royal Navy, let alone the US Navy. China is a rising star and over the decades will become very powerful, but right now, their military doesn't scare me too much. Russia doesn't have much of military either, but what they do have scares me. 20,000 tanks laying around in reserve, 6,000 nuclear missiles, and mandatory conscription for all young men (even though most get out of serving). Under Russia's new nationalist anti-democratic government, you just don't know.

At this point, Russia seems to be far more of a threat than China. China relies on the West for business; Russia is still a shell of what it once was economically, but they still have the leftovers of the massive Red Army.

i don't think anyone realises that holland is doing a lot of dirty work for usa in afganistan and holland has a pretty advanced military but just to small to be in the race other then that it is probably in tech standerst equal to usa
i belief that if the germans go with thier supertanks reputations like in ww2 they would do a great run ofcourse it is the question if they will be able to get such superior tanks again
Germany makes great equipment, but isn't willing to actually use it. Back in the Cold War you wouldn't have been able to make a list like this without the Bundeswehr somewhere close to the top, but it's been more than halved in size since then and without the Russians all the old plans and tactics are useless. So right now they've got decent equipment, and somewhat decent training but silly rules of engagement.

The Dutch are actually using a lot of German (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ct1uOjhuUuE) equipment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2). So the Germans are actually quite successful as far as the "supertank reputation" goes - but they just sell them, they don't actually use them.

Switzerland.

I like your thinking, did you know the Swiss have a navy? I was confused when i first heard it too.

As for Military it's hard to say.
US has some really good equipment,(this spoken from my friend in the Marines), but their soldiers are about poor to average at best.
UK has brilliant soldiers and officers and leadership but poor equipment to use in battle.
China has a monstrous size of infantry force, and a growing industry to support, again poor equipment and logical problems of mobilisation.
Russia from what other posters say have the advantage of working in harsh climates, and geography.
But before a war starts you need political power too, that's were armies can fail, if you lack your people's support any war fought will double your casualties, and lower morale drastically.

What?
Can I see some sources, other than joint exercises and the like?

EDIT: The British forces are highly competent and well equipped, and it is easy to make a case that they are the best in some areas, but your post is just stupid..... SEALs are Special Forces, why would the SAS train PJs, and why would Marines train SEALs?

The US has many special forces divisions, SEALs being one of them. I'm not sure if our Royal Marine commandos train your SEALs, but the SAS did train special forces groups like Delta Force, among others. The SAS were the original special forces, they were the ones who invented equipment like the flash-bang.

On the basis of being able to deploy the most technologically advanced with the most numbers, I would say the US.

I would give the UK first for the most professional military force, in addition to their military technology.

I give Russia 2nd place for just military technology, due to the fact that they have some great systems, but don't have the money to deploy them in any significant numbers.

As far as size, definitively China. They have the largest military in the world, and is it being modernized. Keep in mind that during the Korean war, the US and UN had the most advanced firepower, and as far as rifles, planes, bombers, artillery and systems; it greatly outnumbered the Chinese. However, they did prove that massive numbers will always win over technology and firepower. After all, they did push the US/UN forces all the way back from the Korean/Chinese border.

I like your thinking, did you know the Swiss have a nazy? I was confused when i first heard it too.
They have a few boats for the lakes, right?

The US has many special forces divisions, SEALs being one of them. I'm not sure if our Royal Marine commandos train your SEALs, but the SAS did train special forces groups like Delta Force, among others. The SAS were the original special forces, they were the ones who invented equipment like the flash-bang.
Actually, the Italian Decima Flottiglia MAS were the first "proper" special forces unit in the modern sense. They were basically like our SBS and sunk a couple of our ships with limpet mines (we got them back out of the sea, mind), and they were formed in 1939, before our Army Commandoes and the SAS.

Forehead + Desk = Repeated Hammering.
They do... y'know... teach you in America right? They do have schools and things yeah?

You have not backed up anything you've said. Please, try to in the future.

I thought the USA were renowned for having a terrible military?

I'm going to go with China because I've heard good things about those chaps (In a bad kind of way).

I thought the USA were renowned for having a terrible military?
Man for man, they're not the best, but they spend so much money on it that their artillery and planes and such are pretty damned respectable.

Not that they can really use them much, but there we go.

In regards to China...

Rather than mass cluster bombings as Yootopia (how very Yorkshire :P) suggested, surgical strikes would be massively superior in making Chinese cities fall. Hit the following in, say, Shanghai, in this priority:

1. Buildings of the Authority; police stations, the mayors office, any government run managerial building etc etc. These aren't things you can hide, although you need good HUMINT for them. Imagine a city of 20 million people with no effective cooperation between authorities? Can anyone say chaos?

2. To add to that, hit all electronics. Power stations, TV stations, radio stations, phone towers, etc. Makes it even worse.

3. Nail all roads and railways leading into the city with cratering weapons and bombs. Railway stations and state vehicle depots have to go, to. Perhaps, if you don't midn collateral, then petrol stations. Now...

Imagine a 20 million city:

1. With the authority's chain of command decimated.
2. With no effective ability for the police or military to patrol it.
3. No communications.
4. No power.
5. No way in or out througn major roads/railways; major roads destroyed.
6. Same with airports.

Absolute chaos. Amongst that, it can't be TOO hard to capture a city with a single airborne division, perhaps even a brigade. With correct HUMINT, it shouldn't be too hard for a combined British/American/Australian force to do what I just detailed, then land marines/paras/special forces to take over the city and establish their own control.

For the original OP... the question is hard. China, Russia, Israel all lack proper power projection, apart from people they border. Russia suffers from chronic under-funding and lack of repair; China by massive modern inexperience, a shitty airforce, and large corruption (Russia too, I guess) and initiative issues. Israel has massive media opposition, but they're good at doing what they need to do, even if they piss off everyone else.

Britain and France lack funding; and I dunno about France, but in Britain there is an established anti-military movement in the left wing media (which is huge), though its somewhat counteracted by THE SUN!!! (of course.) Furthermore, it seems that Britain - and France will likely be the same, values human life too much to the extent that even one casualty appears to be unnaceptable. Despite that, Britain and France have good training, good tech, motivated troops, and capable air/naval/sea forces.

The only three nations capable of landing an amphibious force on the East Coast of the USA are Britain, France, and Russia, which I guess makes them the top three. In regards to defending an amphibious American landing, Russia wins. The British submarine fleet is highly effective but too small, France doesn't have the anti-shipping power, but Russia: Russia has a large and powerful airforce (albeit somewhat out of date and badly kept), a whole array of anti-carrier weapons, a large shoreline (strategic depth) and highly motivated troops (on the defensive, anyway.) Also, geography.

Actually, the Italian Decima Flottiglia MAS were the first "proper" special forces unit in the modern sense. They were basically like our SBS and sunk a couple of our ships with limpet mines (we got them back out of the sea, mind), and they were formed in 1939, before our Army Commandoes and the SAS.

Yeah well, those Nazis don't deserve recognition. ;)

I think a much better poll would be "who's better at hugging and smiling?" :)

And the only poll option being, "EVERYBODY!!" :D

But instead you have to talk about who's better at killing each other. :(

DIE HIPPIE DIE!:sniper::sniper::sniper::sniper:

Take a shower!:D

Israel has to have the best by far. It takes real military merit to have such a small population and military compared to other countries and still stave off multiple enemy nations at once. Take the 6 day war for example, their enemies outnumbered them but they won nonetheless. In most RTSs I've played that is impossible.

The US has many special forces divisions, SEALs being one of them. I'm not sure if our Royal Marine commandos train your SEALs, but the SAS did train special forces groups like Delta Force, among others. The SAS were the original special forces, they were the ones who invented equipment like the flash-bang.

And the kill house. SAS is the best in the world, including anything thet US has.

the IDF (so what if I'm biased because I'm in it?).

the IDF (so what if I'm biased because I'm in it?).

You're the best but you can't beat a group armed with terribly inaccurate missiles and old soviet weapons?

I am caught between UK, France and Russia.

For this reason, I shall say NATO, as UK + France > Russia, for sure!

You're the best but you can't beat a group armed with terribly inaccurate missiles and old soviet weapons?

Have you tried that sort of thing recently?

You're the best but you can't beat a group armed with terribly inaccurate missiles and old soviet weapons?

Hizballah was not armed with "terribly inaccurate missiles and old soviet weapons", but with some pretty accurate new missiles supplied by Iran, after spending the last six years turning all of south Lebanon to a battlefield full of bunkers, tunnles, bombs, anti-tank ditches and rocket launchers. Hizballah is not a "group" but a well-organized semi-military that actually controls south Lebanon. After 6 years of "fighting" against groups like Hamas and Fatah, the serious problem the IDF had was to turn from one type of thinking to another.

Besides, Hizballah used to fire at Israeli towns since we got out of Lebanon in May 2000. Since the recent war, it didn't fire a single bullet (and don't even think about saying "UNIFIL" - They're impotents. Nasrallah is just terrified). So if the requested result is security for one nation's citizens - We got what we wanted.

I would have to say the UK and Israel. Both are quite effective and know what they are doing. The main British advantage against the US is, I my mind, that don't have that cowboy "shot first ask quetions later" mentality that the US forces have.

I would actually rate the Russian army as quite bad. Misserable conditions for the conscripts and somewhat inferior equipped. Also corruption problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Army#Crime_and_corruption_in_the_ground_forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Russia#Russian_Federation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedovshchina#Current_situation

I was in Russia with my High School class last year and we lived at our Russian hosts. One of the days we asked them about how they would feel when they would be conscripted to the army. Most of them was quite scarred and some of them even said that going to University was also a way to avoid military service, one would even try to bribe the drafting officer.

All of these facts is not the best basis for a strong military :(

And the kill house. SAS is the best in the world, including anything thet US has.

Apparently Britains prime ministers all spend time in the kill house. It must be comforting to know that if you are ever taken hostage some of the most violent men on the planet will soon be kicking a door in and blazing rounds mere inches from your head but never hitting you.

Yeah well, those Nazis don't deserve recognition. ;)
The Italians weren't really Nazis, but there we go. And aye, Decima MAS were involved in some extremely shady business as the war went on, which is a bit of shame.

the IDF (so what if I'm biased because I'm in it?).

really, cool! were you in lebanon?

Besides, Hizballah used to fire at Israeli towns since we got out of Lebanon in May 2000. Since the recent war, it didn't fire a single bullet (and don't even think about saying "UNIFIL" - They're impotents. Nasrallah is just terrified). So if the requested result is security for one nation's citizens - We got what we wanted.

Nasrallah afraid? lol, that dude is too busy getting new weapons to waste any one the Isrealis, i watched one of his last speeches, and he said something about having weapons that will "change the middle east", probably scuds, or WMDs

Nasrallah afraid? lol, that dude is too busy getting new weapons to waste any one the Isrealis, i watched one of his last speeches, and he said something about having weapons that will "change the middle east", probably scuds, or WMDs
To be honest, he's probably bullshitting there.

UK - I can't say anything else, being part of the UK Armed Forces?

To be honest, he's probably bullshitting there.

probably, but hezballoh has been known to pull off suprises
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982%E2%80%932000_South_Lebanon_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_rocket_force

probably, but hezballoh has been known to pull off suprises
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982%E2%80%932000_South_Lebanon_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_rocket_force
Aye, aye, they have a fair few Katayushas lying around. Whoopedy-doo.

Aye, aye, they have a fair few Katayushas lying around. Whoopedy-doo.

you underestimate them, as did the IDF, and look what happened to them

you underestimate them, as did the IDF, and look what happened to them
The IDF lost men to ambushes by Hezbollah, mainly because of the local knowledge of Hezbollah, not to rocket attacks, because the IDF have anti-missile defences, which, combined with the high inaccuracy of the Katayusha rockets, and the low stocks of better long-range munitions fired by Hezbollah, led to a few civilian casualties, but little more.

The IDF lost men to ambushes by Hezbollah, mainly because of the local knowledge of Hezbollah, not to rocket attacks, because the IDF have anti-missile defences, which, combined with the high inaccuracy of the Katayusha rockets, and the low stocks of better long-range munitions fired by Hezbollah, led to a few civilian casualties, but little more.

If it was little more, then why did they pull out, and not rescue their fellow soldiers ?, and the so called remains that hezballoh said they have

If it was little more, then why did they pull out, and not rescue their fellow soldiers ?, and the so called remains that hezballoh said they have
Because absolutely everyone was growing tired of their shit, from the whole of the EU, to the UN, to the people of Israel.

You can't run a state which essentially exists for the IDF's sake without the people in the country backing the IDF's actions, they lost that support, and didn't want any kind of sanctions from the EU, which we were extremely close to doing after the IDF decided to casually drop cluster munitions over villages nothing to do with Hezbollah.

UK - I can't say anything else, being part of the UK Armed Forces?

Yeah, right.

The scouts don't count.

definately china

It's a close one between the UK and France, if you'd ask me.

Sparta still has the best military of the world. Heck outnumbered a poultry thirty to one they held the line, faced with a force three times larger then there own allied army they won, and also who would pick a fight with a Spartan from 500 B.C.:p

But instead you have to talk about who's better at killing each other. :(

Yes, because if nobody had militaries, there would've been no Hitler.

Fact is, evil people will rise - and death is the only language they speak. Therefore, you must kill or be killed.

Survival of the Fittest.

"improvise, adapt to the environment, Darwin, shit happens, I Ching, whatever man, we gotta roll with it."

Sparta still has the best military of the world. Heck outnumbered a poultry thirty to one they held the line, faced with a force three times larger then there own allied army they won, and also who would pick a fight with a Spartan from 500 B.C.:p

Another Spartan from 500 B.C.?
This is madness!
Oh and for Jayate, Hitler proclaimed survival of the fittest ideal for his "Pure breed of Aryan peoples", that's partly why he went nuts and killed so many Jews and other minorities.
In fact one of the reasons which made Hitler so crazy was he was beaten by his father, suffered wounds in World War One. The treaty of Versailles didn't help either, but the main part that really got on the Germans nerves was the part in the treaty which said they must accept blame for starting world war one, which is nonsense and amongst other reasons Hitler played on this to gain power in Germany. Effectively Wars breed more Wars, someone has to stop somewhere.

The U.S. has lost a single major conflict in it's history. That's a track record most other nations can't match.
On the other hand, some nations have rather longer histories than the U.S. does... and the last major conflict that the U.K. lost was the American War of Independence...


Re 'friendly fire': One of the incidents in Afghanistan, in which the victims were Canadian troops, was due to a pilot with the radio callsign of "Psycho"... What sort of airforce allows people who'd choose that sort of callsign (or who'd have it chosen for them, as seeming appropriate, by others) anywhere near weapons in the first place!?!?

Oh, and here's a joke on the subject that was already going around during WWII ... and that was apparently invented separately by the British and by the Germans:

"When the British fire, the Germans duck;
And when the Germans fire, the Allies duck;
But when the Americans fire, everybody ducks!!"

I think we can all agree after the Russian Performance in Ichkeria that they are NOT the best military in the world.

Costa Rica.

Lichtenstein

israel next to the U.S. hands down look at there technology you can say that russia or china have large armies but it dosent depend on that anymore ita all about how you are trained and your technology exactly this also goes all the way back to the spartans or the romans or even alexander the great. common sense people

do you think it's obvious the USM is the best? That's just stupid, and so is the USM. When soldiers get bored (whatever war they are in; vietnam, iraq, korea, and so on) they just start doing stupid things like shooting innocents or torturing POW's. You've seen way to much US made warmovies. :upyours:the USM. War's pointless anyway.

US forces might have discipline issues but so does any large force of soldiers from any country, and war isn't always pointless, it is dangerous, but if faced with a dictator personally i'd rather have a war to overthrow that dictator than just accept it. But i see what you're saying and war in most cases is pointless, but it's very complicated too.

if you seriously think the UK or FRANCE has a better army you obviously have your head up your ass. the SEALS are far better than the SAS thats obvious by mission successes. just because the SAS has been around longer dosent mean shit. we also have army rangers and marine force recon. were not just about the lame ass marines and infantry. theres been rumor about the military redistributing new carbines called the XM-8 look it up its pretty nice. the U.S. military isnt just some nut case show or propaganda were still alive and rumbling and we can turn on our nukes and hydrogen bombs whenever we like

Which current military do you think is the best, other than the US?
do you think it's obvious the USM is the best? That's just stupid, and so is the USM. When soldiers get bored (whatever war they are in; vietnam, iraq, korea, and so on) they just start doing stupid things like shooting innocents or torturing POW's. You've seen way to much US made warmovies. :upyours:the USM. War's pointless anyway.

I don't care.

if you seriously think the UK or FRANCE has a better army you obviously have your head up your ass. the SEALS are far better than the SAS thats obvious by mission successes. just because the SAS has been around longer dosent mean shit. we also have army rangers and marine force recon. were not just about the lame ass marines and infantry. theres been rumor about the military redistributing new carbines called the XM-8 look it up its pretty nice. the U.S. military isnt just some nut case show or propaganda were still alive and rumbling and we can turn on our nukes and hydrogen bombs whenever we like

This is the sort of attitude that makes people hate the US, keep that in mind.

Russia still comes in 2nd in my opinion. They have a mess load of tanks, 9,200 of which are the T-72B which are far more potent than the ones we fought in Iraq, the export variant which had degraded armor, targeting systems, low quality ammunition, along with poor Iraqi tactics and training.

The Russian Air Force is extremely large and quite a potent force, showing off their capabilities in the second Chechen War when Putin decided to use a US v Iraq style assault with incredibly superior air power.

China, though powerful, would not be able to gain land against Russia and in a war would most likely loose its less inhabited areas to them, being that the huge populations in other parts of the country would be hard to control.

Russia is the only nation other than the US to maintain a strategic bomber force (the UK's V bombers already been phased out) and these strategic bombers can deliver very powerful and accurate ordinance anywhere in the world. And as I remember very recently those bombers started becoming aggressive again, flying very close to US and UK territory.

The Russian Navy has lost most of its blue water capability but under Putin and his seemingly designated successor I think he'll try to remedy that, but even as the Russian Navy is now it is still a blue water Navy and would probably smash most other Navies in the world, including a good amount of European ones. France, Britain, and perhaps Germany and Italy I think would probably be able to defeat the Russian Navy. China's People's Liberation Army-Navy wouldn't stand a fighting chance...

Plus the Russians still have the most nukes in the world... So there =P

Did the spartans ever conquer the Persians? How long did Alexander's kingdom last? You do realize the Romans had a rather large army, right?

Numbers aren't everything, but neither is technology. All three of the forces you name had some great leaders, and that counts for a lot too. And all of those forces did have some decent numbers (compared to their enemies), world history != 300.

Romans heavily relied on numbers, Verdune was wrong about that, definatly.

if you seriously think the UK or FRANCE has a better army you obviously have your head up your ass. the SEALS are far better than the SAS thats obvious by mission successes. just because the SAS has been around longer dosent mean shit. we also have army rangers and marine force recon. were not just about the lame ass marines and infantry. theres been rumor about the military redistributing new carbines called the XM-8 look it up its pretty nice. the U.S. military isnt just some nut case show or propaganda were still alive and rumbling and we can turn on our nukes and hydrogen bombs whenever we like

Considering that the uk helped set up navy SEALS & delta force you can't say much. Our SAS have also completed more successful missions than delta force, or have you forgotten Tehran. We also have a lot more special forces that just the SAS. We have SBS, in Afganistan before rangers, SRR, our counter-terror, and SFSG, our support. We have air units for just Special Force missions. Without our special forces you wouldn't have rangers, airborne forces or a good marine corps.

Remember, without the UK, there'd be no USA in the first place.

israel next to the U.S. hands down look at there technology you can say that russia or china have large armies but it dosent depend on that anymore ita all about how you are trained and your technology exactly this also goes all the way back to the spartans or the romans or even alexander the great. common sense people

Did the spartans ever conquer the Persians? How long did Alexander's kingdom last? You do realize the Romans had a rather large army, right?

Numbers aren't everything, but neither is technology. All three of the forces you name had some great leaders, and that counts for a lot too. And all of those forces did have some decent numbers (compared to their enemies), world history != 300.

are they the best? :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :eek:

yeah the USA is the best. the only reason i picked australia is becuase they have the best guerilla fighters:sniper::mp5::mp5::gundge:

Considering that the uk helped set up navy SEALS & delta force you can't say much. Our SAS have also completed more successful missions than delta force, or have you forgotten Tehran. We also have a lot more special forces that just the SAS. We have SBS, in Afganistan before rangers, SRR, our counter-terror, and SFSG, our support. We have air units for just Special Force missions. Without our special forces you wouldn't have rangers, airborne forces or a good marine corps.

Remember, without the UK, there'd be no USA in the first place.

And remember without a US, UK would be a nice addition to the European Third Riech...

I do remember a nice speech by Churchill about how he expected the US to have to beat the Germans should the UK fall.

And even after that, I'm pretty sure there's be no UK without a US but instead a United Kingdom S.S.R...

And remember without a US, UK would be a nice addition to the European Third Riech...

I do remember a nice speech by Churchill about how he expected the US to have to beat the Germans should the UK fall.

And even after that, I'm pretty sure there's be no UK without a US but instead a United Kingdom S.S.R...

And we are very grateful for US involvement in the Second world war, even if it was only because the Germans kept attacking US ships, and the US could have done more to be less isolated from Europe and might have prevented Hitler from ever taking power.
I'm sure the UK would have fallen to Hitler, but in fact it was Russia that did most of the work to win World War Two, for every 10 German soldiers that died in World War two 9 died in Russia. They deserve more credit for stopping Hitler, not the US, they helped the UK an awful lot, but now they're starting to drag the UK into every conflict they go into. That and the market forces in the US have far too much say in how the US government is run.
So in short yes the UK should be grateful, the Russians deserve more credit for stopping Hitler, and US market forces are too powerful in US, and they should make better films.

It depends at what, as several people have correctly stated. At defending their lands, I'd have to say Switzerland, considering you'd have to fight a massive proportion of their population, on difficult terrain, and their air force + anti-air defence is to be reckoned with. You couldn't really invade Switzerland as is, you'd have to nuke them a couple times first.

switzerland

The italians, of course!

We pay them a lot (Italy is 8th in the world military expense ranking, although its armed forces are quite small), and they don't do anything besides getting shot at in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon. No invasions (we wriggled it byzantinely through Iraq somehow), no attempted coups.

I like them the way they are... quiet.


anyway, in the post I said Russia, because
1.Italy wasn't an option
2.I wanted to piss off a lot of people
3.calling a monster of tank hull sporting a multiple rocket launcher with thermobaric warheads "Buratino" (that is the russian equivalent of Pinocchio) is simply a touch of genius

And remember without a US, UK would be a nice addition to the European Third Riech...

I do remember a nice speech by Churchill about how he expected the US to have to beat the Germans should the UK fall.

And even after that, I'm pretty sure there's be no UK without a US but instead a United Kingdom S.S.R...

We had to pay you back IN FULL for your help in WW2. We only stopped paying in 2006.

Brilliant help. If the Japs hadn't hit you at Pearl Harbour, you wouldn't even have got involved. The threat of invasion had pretty much passed by 1941.

I'm undecided and tend to agree with the notion that we can only discuss relative superiority in different fields. The nations I'd least like to see go to war in the relative future are Russia and China, particularly if they fight as allies - Both don't give a shit about human life and liberty, have massive NBC arsenals and projection abilities, and large militaries in terms of size and hardware as well.

Seeing as the UK successfully fought COIN operations in [...] Northern Ireland

Really? I don't remember them being very successful to be honest. What I do remember is them turning the entire Catholic population against them (from a very supportive position) within a matter of months. And the end of the whole thing being organised by the politicians (in particular Gerry Adams).

Counter-insurgency is VERY VERY hard to get right. Northern Ireland was not one of those times.

Really? I don't remember them being very successful to be honest. What I do remember is them turning the entire Catholic population against them (from a very supportive position) within a matter of months. And the end of the whole thing being organised by the politicians (in particular Gerry Adams).

Counter-insurgency is VERY VERY hard to get right. Northern Ireland was not one of those times.
I think that the fact that the IRA disarmed in the 1990s, although due to other factors as well, was, in part, due to the UKF. That said, you probably know better yourself.

if you seriously think the UK or FRANCE has a better army you obviously have your head up your ass. the SEALS are far better than the SAS thats obvious by mission successes. just because the SAS has been around longer dosent mean shit. we also have army rangers and marine force recon. were not just about the lame ass marines and infantry. theres been rumor about the military redistributing new carbines called the XM-8 look it up its pretty nice. the U.S. military isnt just some nut case show or propaganda were still alive and rumbling and we can turn on our nukes and hydrogen bombs whenever we like

This is the sort of attitude that makes people hate the US, keep that in mind.


They're jelous, that's why they hate.

I'm gonna give it to ya straight, i think that the UK are a bunch of wimps.

The only reason the UK are ahead in this poll is because they are one of the

only options that are 100% friendly with the US. If anyone disagrees with

me (which i'm sure some of you do) just quote me and state your response.

I'm open to debate.:)

I put china by the way, cuz they have almost eight times the population of

the US and they're communist, they have no respect for freedom or liberty.

I put china by the way, cuz they have almost eight times the population of

the US and they're communist, they have no respect for freedom or liberty.

But what good is a large military without effective transport? Often, wars are won by the fastest, not largest, armies. And the Chinese navy. Do they even have a good navy?

Also, China has 2.4 billion people? I thought it was closer to 5-6 times.

No, not even close. A 2007 estimate says 1,321 billion, but as with all things relating to large, beraucratic and kind of corrupt nation, it's very hard to tell. There are a lot of chinese both in China and abroard that never got counted by the censuses(sp?) and you must also decide if you want to take into the account that a lot of kids have either been hidden or killed in the past on account of the one-child policy.

I am surprise Japan isn't on the list. Their so call "self defense force" is actually considerably larger than the UK's navy/air force, and not a single bit less high tech either.

I am surprise Japan isn't on the list. Their so call "self defense force" is actually considerably larger than the UK's navy/air force, and not a single bit less high tech either.
But a lot less experienced in actually doing anything 'operational'...

...except against Godzilla and other gigantic monsters, of course... ;)

if you seriously think the UK or FRANCE has a better army you obviously have your head up your ass. the SEALS are far better than the SAS thats obvious by mission successes. just because the SAS has been around longer dosent mean shit. we also have army rangers and marine force recon. were not just about the lame ass marines and infantry. theres been rumor about the military redistributing new carbines called the XM-8 look it up its pretty nice. the U.S. military isnt just some nut case show or propaganda were still alive and rumbling and we can turn on our nukes and hydrogen bombs whenever we like

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:

Do Mummy and Daddy know you're not doing your homework and using naughty words like "ass" and "shit"?

I'm gonna give it to ya straight, i think that the UK are a bunch of wimps.

The only reason the UK are ahead in this poll is because they are one of the

only options that are 100% friendly with the US. If anyone disagrees with

me (which i'm sure some of you do) just quote me and state your response.

I'm open to debate.:)


Having exercised with and against US troops, I was not impressed.
Man for man our soldiers carried more, were more able to use their own initiative and were less likely to lose the plot when the going got really sticky.
Mind you that was 20 years ago, so I'm sure the Septics have improved since then :rolleyes:

I'm gonna give it to ya straight, i think that the UK are a bunch of wimps.
They didn't use to be wimps... do you remember the Falklands War?

The only reason the UK are ahead in this poll is because they are one of the only options that are 100% friendly with the US. If anyone disagrees with me (which i'm sure some of you do) just quote me and state your response. I'm open to debate.:)
I disagree. UK isn't 100% friendly with the US, it's simply the 51st state. ;) Well, at least when it comes to foreign policies and war, that is.

UK for several reasons:

They are a traditionally professional army and excel as such

They are under funded and abused by the government yet still manage to pull remarkable victories "out of the hat" e.g. Falklands

They are experts at Hearts and Minds

They are good peacekeepers.....

Yet when required can become incredibly aggressive (as the UK is a warrior nation)


Also the SAS have trained many other special forces groups all based on the SAS such as:
GSG9 (Germany)
Delta Force (US)
JTF-2 (Canada)
GIGN (France)
GOE-11 (Spain)
ETA (Greece)
SSF/SWU (Saudi Arabia)
Spetsnaz (Russia)
SAT (Japan)

The UK military have protected the UK from invasion since 1066. A pretty good record in my mind.

Actually, Britain has been invaded across the Channel numerous times, almost always successfully. Besides the 1066 invasion to replace Harold II with William I, there were invasions to replace Stephen with Maud (ultimately a failure), to replace Henry III with prince Louis (failure), to replace Richard II with Henry IV (success), to replace Henry VI with Edward IV (success), to re-replace Edward IV with Henry VI (success), to re-re-replace Henry VI with Edward IV (success), to replace Richard III with Henry VII (success), and to replace James II with William III (success; the only invasion from Holland rather than from France).
Since 1700, nobody has managed it.

replace Stephen with Maud (ultimately a failure),
Stephen won, and Matilda was English in the first place (her father was Henry i)

to replace Henry III with prince Louis (failure)
If it was a failure then why include it? I said that

The UK military have protected the UK from invasion since 1066. A pretty good record in my mind.

I didn't say that there had been no other invasions but that we had successfully beaten off all invasions.

to replace Richard II with Henry IV (success)
This wasn't an invasion

to replace Henry VI with Edward IV (success), to re-replace Edward IV with Henry VI (success), to re-re-replace Henry VI with Edward IV (success)
These were the Wars of the Roses, not a invasion from across the channel

to replace Richard III with Henry VII (success)
Battle of Bosworth Field was in the Wars of the Roses. Not a foreign invasion.

to replace James II with William III (success; the only invasion from Holland rather than from France).
William staged a revolution as he was a ligitimate successor to the English throne. It wasn't an invasion.

Since 1700, nobody has managed it.

Since 1066 nobody has managed to successfully invade England.

I'm gonna give it to ya straight, i think that the UK are a bunch of wimps.

The only reason the UK are ahead in this poll is because they are one of the

only options that are 100% friendly with the US. If anyone disagrees with

me (which i'm sure some of you do) just quote me and state your response.

I'm open to debate.:)
Err... you're wrong. There we go.

We're a force with real experience all over the world, from the Falklands, to Sierra Leone, to training in Norway, we can handle just about anything.

The fact that you put China, whose sum military record of the last 50 years is basically losing to some Indians and fighting incredibly well against... some monks... is pretty ludicrous.

Also - eight times the population of the US? No. About half that, tops.

Stephen won, and Matilda was English in the first place (her father was Henry i)


If it was a failure then why include it? I said that



I didn't say that there had been no other invasions but that we had successfully beaten off all invasions.


This wasn't an invasion


These were the Wars of the Roses, not a invasion from across the channel


Battle of Bosworth Field was in the Wars of the Roses. Not a foreign invasion.


William staged a revolution as he was a ligitimate successor to the English throne. It wasn't an invasion.



Since 1066 nobody has managed to successfully invade England.
In all of these cases, troops from the continental side of the channel crossed over to the British side and defeated the government's armed forces. All of these aristocrats were more French than English (except William, who was Dutch; Henry VII was the only one who spoke English as his first language), and the armies they brought with them contained almost no people from England at all. You only call them "legitimate" successors because they won.

Your claim was that the armed forces within Britain have been successful in keeping armed forces from outside from getting in. It doesn't really matter who is sending troops into Britain or why, the issue here was whether the troops in Britain can keep other troops out. In the last couple centuries, that has been true, but not, as you claim, for the previous 1000.

UK, and my reasoning can be summed up with three letters: SAS


They also are the only nation that can compete with the US when it comes to Navy and Air Force.

Anyone who thinks the UK are a bunch of whimps (Ted) needs to bone up on their history. The UK can kick anyone's ass. They also were the country to hold out the longest against the Nazis, and they did it without any military support.

They can maybe even take the US. Dont know whod win, but itd be bloody as hell and too close for their to be a winner, only losers.


EDIT: That and the UK has the Scotish. You dont fuck with those guys. As one of my history professors put it when talking about why Rome didnt expand further into Scotland, "For those of you who dont know, Scotland is a very mountainous region filled with crazy people."

UK, and my reasoning can be summed up with three letters: SAS
So you put the SAS up against, say, India. I'd still say India wins.

Fact of the matter is that the SAS can only do anything if it can be inserted and evacuated undetected. And even then, it can destroy or mark priority targets or generally make it easier for mainstream troops to do what they're supposed to do.

Ultimately every developed country has special forces that can do this. Even if the SAS can run a bit longer, shoot a bit more accurately or (being trained in the UK) stomach food that would poison others, that doesn't really tell us much about the overall strength of the military.

Anyways, everyone keeps asking what you need them for, so I'll make a few categories. Remember, the US is excluded.

All-out warfare, land borders
Russia. I'm not giving it to China because I think in terms of doctrine and experience, there is a lot of tradition from the Red Army which would give it the edge.

All-out warfare, with sea in between
Britain, probably.

Bombing the other into peacetalks
Britain again. More modern jets and more experience using them. The only other one that could come close is France.

Counter-Insurgency
I don't think anyone really does well with this sort of thing. Israel would be a candidate as would Britain - not because they performed that greatly, but because they've done it before. Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Indonesia for example also have experience, but lack the equipment and PR machine.

Peacekeeping
I'd have to go with Canada or France. Good sensitivity training, sensible rules of engagement and a lot of experience. Maybe Germany, Spain, Italy et al too if their parts of Afghanistan don't deteriorate much more.

Oh, counter-insurgency Id go for Israel. You dont fuck with the Massuhad.

In all of these cases, troops from the continental side of the channel crossed over to the British side and defeated the government's armed forces. All of these aristocrats were more French than English (except William, who was Dutch; Henry VII was the only one who spoke English as his first language), and the armies they brought with them contained almost no people from England at all. You only call them "legitimate" successors because they won.

Your claim was that the armed forces within Britain have been successful in keeping armed forces from outside from getting in. It doesn't really matter who is sending troops into Britain or why, the issue here was whether the troops in Britain can keep other troops out. In the last couple centuries, that has been true, but not, as you claim, for the previous 1000.

William was married to Mary, the daughter of James II. She was invited over by Parliament to take over the throne from the catholic James (since she was protestant). She had a legitimate claim to the throne (she was the next-in-line) and ruled jointly with William until she died. I'd hardly call that a foreign invasion. Furthermore there was very little fighting in actually england (although quite a lot in scotland, ireland and I think wales) since James II fled. Therefor I'd say that particular one is not a legitimate comparison.

I personally would argue that 1066 was the last 'real' invansion involving a complete replacement of the noble classes and take-over by a foreign power. Since then the others have been changes of the head of state by another member of the, albeit Norman, nobility, although many may have invovled foreign troops (generally mercenaries like most military forces were at the time). I think you can relatively safely say the England (and since the act of the Union, the UK) since the Tudor times.

For a thread that asks "Which military is the best?"...the statement "maybe Germany"...doesnt belong in any category you care to mention.
They are just plain arrogant, useless, undertrained and oversensitive.

Since the bodybag pictures of the Vietnam conflict, America has tried to prevent its soldiers from any situations whereby large numbers lose thier lives. The main thrust of this change of strategy has evolved into the "long range stand-off" bombing, which is why the only pictures of conflict seen on CNN is Tomahawks being fired. (Oh and bodybag shots are banned by the US govt-CNN/ABC/NBC arent allowed to show them).
American soldiers have little experience of hand-to-hand house clearing and the effects of this can be seen in some of the reports coming out of Iraq.

I am no armchair forum poster...I have experienced American soldiers up close and personal. They all patrioticly claim to be the best...but when push comes to shove..it doesnt matter how cool your glasses are..its the training that counts.

Oh, counter-insurgency Id go for Israel. You dont fuck with the Massuhad.
Mossad aren't really a counter-insurgency force, they're the Israeli secret service. The IDF do the counter-insurgency stuff, which they're OK at, although the fact that the majority of their opponents are armed with... rocks... makes the whole thing a lot easier.

I am no armchair forum poster...I have experienced American soldiers up close and personal. They all patrioticly claim to be the best...but when push comes to shove..it doesnt matter how cool your glasses are..its the training that counts.

The US probably has some of the best kit and toys (it does spend a LOT on it's equipment), but I was quite shocked when I say the training times. I believe (and I'll be honest, this was mostly gleaned from wikipedia), that the longest infantry training in the US army is the marines. Who get 13 weeks basic + 52 days infantry training. Basic training for non-infantry troops in the UK (ie minus any specialist training for specific roles) is 12-14 weeks. Basic infantry is 26 weeks, parachute regiments (army commandos) is 28 weeks and marines (who are, admittedly actually all commando regiments of the Royal Navy, not a seperate military branch) is 33 weeks... you can argue about quality of time over quantity of time spent, but to me, that's a quite scary comparison of the level of training received.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think Switzerland is the strongest country militarily... even if it is purely defensive. Every citizen has some military service, their troops (and pilots, which is important) are trained extensively in their borders and for mountainous combat... I've even heard that major roads of theirs are mined to blow in case of an invasion.

On top of all that, they have the Swiss Banks as a deterrent. Now, call me crazy, but I think that that sounds like the best military to me... but that might be my dislike of armies built to invade other countries. Still, I can't see someone trying (or succeeding) to invade Switzerland.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think Switzerland is the strongest country militarily.

What the fuck have you been smoking? Because I want some hahahaha

Switzerland wouldn't know what war was if it came and slapped them in the face...forever the yellow little fence sitter who relied on the rest of Europe to sort out the Germans in World War II

I have nothing but contempt for the 'do nothing' watchmakers...

The US probably has some of the best kit and toys (it does spend a LOT on it's equipment), but I was quite shocked when I say the training times. I believe (and I'll be honest, this was mostly gleaned from wikipedia), that the longest infantry training in the US army is the marines. Who get 13 weeks basic + 52 days infantry training. Basic training for non-infantry troops in the UK (ie minus any specialist training for specific roles) is 12-14 weeks. Basic infantry is 26 weeks, parachute regiments (army commandos) is 28 weeks and marines (who are, admittedly actually all commando regiments of the Royal Navy, not a seperate military branch) is 33 weeks... you can argue about quality of time over quantity of time spent, but to me, that's a quite scary comparison of the level of training received.

Australian Army full time it's 80 days recruit training and then on to initial employment training and when i hear like you point outabout the US training i was shocked too

William was married to Mary, [and blah blah blah...]
Not relevant to my point. The claim was that there has been a British "armed forces" analogous to what we have in modern times (modulo the obvious changes in technology etc.) defending the territorial integrity of the island with great success, all millenium long. Actually, even into Georgian times some constitutional theorists argued that it was ILLEGITIMATE for the government to maintain a "standing army" unless war with France, or Scotland etc., was actively ongoing.

And while that position did not consistently prevail, in fact the English military was usually (except during active wars) exceedingly feeble. So much so, that people who wanted to overthrow the government *routinely* raised forces on the Continent, invaded the island, and took over; this happened to England more often than to any other nation in Christendom.

Now, if it had been said that SINCE THE 18th CENTURY, British armed forces have consistently succeeded in defending the island, that is indisputable: the Jacobite invasions were hopelessly outmatched from the start, and nobody who is dissatisfied with the government has ever thought since then that it would be plausible to raise forces outside and force a landing; even Napoleon and Hitler, with most of the Continent's resources available, were deterred from trying it. But since the 11th century??? No, no, no.

EDIT: That and the UK has the Scotish. You dont fuck with those guys. As one of my history professors put it when talking about why Rome didnt expand further into Scotland, "For those of you who dont know, Scotland is a very mountainous region filled with crazy people."

Now look, I've had enough of this.
Can I just point out that the SAS are based in WALES, the Paras are trained in WALES, the School of Infantry Tactics Wing is in WALES, the battle of Agincourt was won by Archers who were WELSH, Rorkes Drift was won by the WELSH and if you think the scottish are scary you should meet Blodwyn and Maefanwy from Merthyr on a Saturday night.:p

"this happened to England more often than to any other nation in Christendom" was erroneous: I forgot Sicily. (If I'm going to be pedantic, better be scrupulously accurate.)

Rorkes Drift was won by the WELSH

Actually the 24th was recruited more from the South-Western counties than Wales. It was formerly the Warwickshire Regiment.

The 24th only had 11% Welsh soldiers.

Of the 24th B company at Roke's Drift:
49 were English,
18 Monmouthshire,
16 Irish,
1 Scottish,
14 Welsh,
21 of unknown nationality.

*EDIT* The Welsh are exceptional soldiers. I did not mean any insult to any Welshmen on this forum. I was correcting a common error.

Now look, I've had enough of this.
Can I just point out that the SAS are based in WALES, the Paras are trained in WALES, the School of Infantry Tactics Wing is in WALES, the battle of Agincourt was won by Archers who were WELSH, Rorkes Drift was won by the WELSH and if you think the scottish are scary you should meet Blodwyn and Maefanwy from Merthyr on a Saturday night.:p

Hahahaha!!

Cymru am Byth!!

And Guardsland you're talking sh!t...my great grandfather was at Rorkes Drift...his name is on the credits at the end of the Zulu film...and the regiment in question was predominantly Welsh...yes there was a smattering of others from the home nations...but a very small proportion :cool:

It is highly esteemed that the greatest army in the world by advancements and number would be china by far. Personally i like special ops and that is where the united nations swiss come in, awesomly of course
:rolleyes::mp5::sniper::gundge::headbang: *thats strong*

For a thread that asks "Which military is the best?"...the statement "maybe Germany"...doesnt belong in any category you care to mention.
They are just plain arrogant, useless, undertrained and oversensitive.
I was talking peacekeeping. And so far, they've been handling the situation in Northern Afghanistan fairly well. The whole debacle with the Afghan police notwithstanding, I suppose.

Switzerland wouldn't know what war was if it came and slapped them in the face...forever the yellow little fence sitter who relied on the rest of Europe to sort out the Germans in World War II
Actually, the Nazis did have a plan to take over Switzerland and then decided against it, among other things because the Swiss armed forces were (and are) a formidable defensive force in an even more formidable defensive position. The whole idea of having every male in the country trained with guns was that they can start an insurgency pretty much immediately. And you don't end that sort of thing in that sort of terrain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum

The best military in the world is Costa Rica's, because it doesn't exist :p

And Guardsland you're talking sh!t...my great grandfather was at Rorkes Drift...his name is on the credits at the end of the Zulu film...and the regiment in question was predominantly Welsh...yes there was a smattering of others from the home nations...but a very small proportion

My source for the numbers is the famous book: 'The Noble 24th' by Norman Holme

Look at the Regimental Museum of the South Wales Borderers if you still don't belive me then look at this:
http://www.rrw.org.uk/images/historychart.gif

It clearly shows that the 24th was the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment.

The Regiment was NOT predominatly Welsh.

My source for the numbers is the famous book: 'The Noble 24th' by Norman Holme

Look at the Regimental Museum of the South Wales Borderers if you still don't belive me then look at this:
http://www.rrw.org.uk/images/historychart.gif

It clearly shows that the 24th was the 2nd Warwickshire Regiment.

The Regiment was NOT predominatly Welsh.

The regiments base was in Brecon...wiki and other such sites records show that 19 of the 80 serving soldiers were Welsh...this is bullshit...My great grandad was John Williams who was awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery...from what my grandad tells is that records of that period as well as the story itself have serious flaws...at best they have the total of welshmen at 19 in any given record...but my grandad said his dad told him there were at least 45 of the 80 that were welsh...conscripted around 1873 when the base first moved to Brecon...so I would think he knows what he is talking about...considering he was there

One myth that can be dispelled though is that they sang 'Men of Harlech' again...a fabrication

I think Britain is a very good military with its snipers.
:sniper:

I decided Germany. Don't particularly know why other then they spend the most money on their military then anyone else (excluding US)

I believe they have some of the best tanks don't they?

I decided Germany. Don't particularly know why other then they spend the most money on their military then anyone else (excluding US)

I believe they have some of the best tanks don't they?

Pretty sure in terms of absolute funding, the Brits spend more, the French come a close second (although the stats are misleading, since they count to gendarmerie in that budget) and the germans are third. Not counting the US of course, which spends many times more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

EDIT: That and the UK has the Scotish. You dont fuck with those guys. As one of my history professors put it when talking about why Rome didnt expand further into Scotland, "For those of you who dont know, Scotland is a very mountainous region filled with crazy people."

And it's not worth having. But they are indeed crazy, one needs only look at their cooking to work that out.

South Africa? China? Really? why are they even on this list?

The regiments base was in Brecon...wiki and other such sites records show that 19 of the 80 serving soldiers were Welsh...this is bullshit...My great grandad was John Williams who was awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery...from what my grandad tells is that records of that period as well as the story itself have serious flaws...at best they have the total of welshmen at 19 in any given record...but my grandad said his dad told him there were at least 45 of the 80 that were welsh...conscripted around 1873 when the base first moved to Brecon...so I would think he knows what he is talking about...considering he was there

From the official history of the Regiment (compiled from people who were in it):

"Recruits for the regiment - like every other battalion in the British army - were signed on at recruiting depots across the country, and the 24th consisted of men from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. The most that can be said is that the Welsh connection had, by 1879, led to a rather higher proportion of Welshman in the ranks than was common elsewhere. Nevertheless, even the most optimistic search of the regimental roll can find only 19 men of B Company, 2/24th, with any sort of Welsh connection - out of a total strength of more than 80. Of course, there were detachments of numerous other units - including Colonial Volunteers - present at the battle, making a total garrison of about 145. So the Welsh contingent comprised no more than 15% of the total."

Another good indication of how many non-Welsh were in the battalion comes from the backgrounds of the VC winners (excluding non 24th of course):
Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead - Irish - Versailles
Corporal William Wilson Allen - English - Berwick-on-Tweed
Private Frederick Hitch - English - London
Private Alfred Henry Hook - English - Gloucester
Private Robert Jones - Welsh - Monmouthshire
Private William Jones - English - Bristol
Private John Williams - Welsh - Abergavenny

Out of 7 VC's:
1 Irish
4 English
2 Welsh

Other Defender's:
Colour Sergeant Frank Bourne - English - Balcombe (Sussex)
Sergeant Henry Gallagher - Irish - Eire
Private John Jobbins - Welsh - Monmouthshire
Private Evan Jones - Welsh - Monmouthshire
Private George Edwards - English - Bristol
Private John William Roy - Scottish - Forfarshire
Drummer James Keefe - English - London

Over all of my "survey"
7 English
4 Welsh
2 Irish
1 Scottish

The Regimental history also notes that due to the fact that the depot had been in Warwickshire before being moved to Brecon, many of the soldiers who were in Africa had never been to Brecon before.

One myth that can be dispelled though is that they sang 'Men of Harlech' again...a fabrication

Aye that's true enough

I decided Germany. Don't particularly know why other then they spend the most money on their military then anyone else (excluding US)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,435368,00.html
Germany's Army Feels the Pinch

With deployments in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Africa and now the Middle East, Germany's military, the Bundeswehr, is fast becoming the global service provider for German foreign policy. But the force is insufficiently prepared for its new tasks and, as it is about to embark to Lebanon on its next foreign mission, remains underfunded and poorly equipped.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,695612,00.jpg

Don't ask me where all that money goes. Anyways, as a percentage of the budget or of GDP the Germans spend very, very little. In the Cold War the Bundeswehr had a peacetime strength of about half a million, today it's about half of that, with 50,000 of that being conscripts who are hardly getting any training these days (conscription being done for political rather than rational reasons).

I believe they have some of the best tanks don't they?
KMW has some of the best tanks, and they sell them to many countries. The German army has the greatest number, but Spain, Greece, Turkey, Canada, Holland, Sweden and any number of other countries also use various versions of them.

http://www.kmweg.de/

The US probably has some of the best kit and toys (it does spend a LOT on it's equipment), but I was quite shocked when I say the training times. I believe (and I'll be honest, this was mostly gleaned from wikipedia), that the longest infantry training in the US army is the marines. Who get 13 weeks basic + 52 days infantry training. Basic training for non-infantry troops in the UK (ie minus any specialist training for specific roles) is 12-14 weeks. Basic infantry is 26 weeks, parachute regiments (army commandos) is 28 weeks and marines (who are, admittedly actually all commando regiments of the Royal Navy, not a seperate military branch) is 33 weeks... you can argue about quality of time over quantity of time spent, but to me, that's a quite scary comparison of the level of training received.


That's incredibly misleading as, first of all, the Royal Marines are an elite light-infantry force with, as you stated, a commando role. The USMC is an entire branch of the military, complete with its own tanks, aviation, and the like. The closest USMC equivalent to the Royal Marines is probably the Marine Recon Battalions. While the British Marines' training amounts to 33 weeks in all, not including optional advanced courses (ie. Mountain Leader, Swimmer Canoeist, Sniper), American Recon Marines go through 13-week basic training, the Marine Corps School of Infantry which is no longer 52 days but 59 (8 weeks and 3 days), then generally spend several years as standard infantry before attending the 8-week Basic Reconnaissance Course, 3-week SERE school, and 3-week Army Airborne School. Obviously not counting any time spent as an infantryman, Recon Marines undergo a total of 35 weeks and 3 days of training that is essentially the equivalent of Royal Marines Basic Training, though actually ends up being 2 weeks and 3 days longer. Of course, like the British Royal Marines, Recon Marines also have the choice to attend advanced optional courses, such as Scout Sniper training, ranger school, military free fall, and a host of other courses.

Then the Paras, who have, as you said, 28 weeks of training (as I understand it, it is a replacement to normal basic training within the British Army), as well as a 4-week pre-selection course. Their US equivalent are the Army Rangers, who now generally go through OSUT (One-Station Unit Training), which is a 16-week long combined basic training & infantry school. This is followed by 3 weeks at the Army Airborne School, and 4 weeks of the Ranger Indoctrination Program for most recruits, or the Ranger Orientation Program for officers and high-ranking NCOs. This is a total of 23 weeks, which is admittedly 5 weeks shy of the Paras' training, however Rangers are also required to attend the 9-week long Ranger School in order to gain any rise in rank, which leads most Rangers to have out-trained the Paras by 3 weeks.

You are correct in that British standard infantrymen train longer than US Army infantry, in fact by ten weeks. However, British Infantry only train about 4 weeks longer than Marine Corps infantry and, I would say, the British Army is more comparable to the US Marine Corps (minus any amphibious capabilities), though the Corps is still larger

I'm not trying to be a dick, and British troops have certainly demonstrated their prowess, but American soldiers, or at least the elite units, are not half as crappy as the picture that it seemed you were painting of them. Additionally, I would hazard a reasonable guess that the British Army is composed of the most thoroughly-trained conventional units in the world, but also that the capabilities of average American and British soldier are far ahead of pretty much anyone else and more similar to each other's than to any other.

<snip for the very long but very good and detailed explanation>

I'm not trying to be a dick, and British troops have certainly demonstrated their prowess, but American soldiers, or at least the elite units, are not half as crappy as the picture that it seemed you were painting of them. Additionally, I would hazard a reasonable guess that the British Army is composed of the most thoroughly-trained conventional units in the world, but also that the capabilities of average American and British soldier are far ahead of pretty much anyone else and more similar to each other's than to any other.

In which case I apologise, like I said, the knowledge I have managed to get was from wikipedia, which can of course be misleading.

You're right, equivalent for equivalent elite troops are probably about the same in term of training times and the US does have some very good elite units. I think using the elite training times was misleading as I was trying more to emphasis differences in basic training betweeen standard infantry. Of course, I think this differences may be in part due to different philosophies arising from army size. The British army is small, very small. To be effective it needs to make up in quality what it doesn't have in quantity both on enlisted and officer level (Sandhurst is, I believe, considered to be the best army officer training school in the world). The US army is a lot bigger and probably needs a higher training turn-over. Personally I think this does it a diservice as modern warfare is calling more and more for well-trained units who can deliver power at a point, rather than overwhelming forces in terms of number and firepower, but there are arguments either way.

As in the definition of the word 'best'. To be better than the rest.

The Dutch, UK and German forces win all NATO wargames. Yes, I'm in the Dutch military.

The Dutch and Brittish have the best trained "regular" footsoldiers. Israel must have the most experienced.

In man to man combat the US has one of the worst militaries, and also, power wise, you couldn't be farther from the truth claiming it's the most powerful one. At no point in recent time has another army thrown almost its full capacity at anything, there's no comparing. In Iraq the U.S. is close to 90% of occupying capability, and they're not doing such a great job. Not in tactics, not in man to man.

For example also, an american frigate can track 2 missiles in air at 1 time, but has the capability to fire 40 (which looses capability to track incoming and 38 outgoing) The dutch frigate HMS Tromp can fire 20 but track up to 80 missiles in air. With its modern anti missile weaponry it should be able to withstand a missile attack from 60 American frigates, while destroying the first batch of 20. Not to say using frigates against frigates is a bit 1900. Just having them says nothing. And honestly, that applies to 90% of the U.S. army/navy/AF.
Only big things not outdated are the VA class sub, the Abrams and the F18 (the F22 is more modern but will loose any dogfight to an F16/F18, it turns slower than a broken turntable)

Hope helpful ;D

Actually, the Nazis did have a plan to take over Switzerland and then decided against it, among other things because the Swiss armed forces were (and are) a formidable defensive force in an even more formidable defensive position. The whole idea of having every male in the country trained with guns was that they can start an insurgency pretty much immediately. And you don't end that sort of thing in that sort of terrain.


Also, why fight a difficult war for a country whose use would have been mostly to serve as a link between Italy and Germany when you got a direct border at the Brennerpass? (note that Austria had been annexed to the Third Reich).

This is largely a ridiculous question, as it fails to define what constitutes the "best". Every military has areas of particular strength. The US Military is, without a doubt, the most capable military in terms of power projection, and although they're taken their beatings in the last few years in Iraq and Afghanistan they're not by any means "terrible"; they just haven't been forced into any kind of crisis situation in years. Peace breeds complacency, and the defense budget has increasingly been spent on flashy toys like the YAL-1A and the Zumwalt-class. Part of the problem is that there are conflicting ideas over which direction warfare is going to take in the future, and that in trying to cover "all of the bases" (Decisive Conflict, "Police Actions", Homeland Security, etc.) the technology is all over the map. Honestly, a lot of those flashy toys will probably end up being highly useful in the future, but it's hard to envision a future where every new development fits into a single conflict.

Furthermore, believe it or not, but NATO still exists. If it ever came to true war between the future world powers (USA, China, India and perhaps Russia), it's hard to envision the EU not intervening. There may be a good deal of anti-American sentiment in Europe (more specifically, anti-Bush, which is entirely understandable), but I doubt NATO is truly going the way of the mastodon any time soon.

As an US citizen that lived in Beijing for 7 years, China's position in a war would be highly unstable. There is a tremendous amount of anti-government sentiment away from the cities, and it is hard to believe that the CCP will remain in power for much longer without making drastic changes to satisfy the populace. The Chinese military utterly lacks innovation, and their military exercises are more focused on teaching people how to somersault off of troop trucks than any kind of actual combat situation. The current invasion plan of Taiwan is labeled "the million-man swim".

People also seem to overlook the situation that exists in Asia. On one hand we have China, a nation that struggles to support at least 1.3 billion citizens at a meager standard of living. On the other we have India, the world's largest democracy and one that is increasingly equipping itself with top-of-the-line equipment and training from Russia and the USA; their Navy actually possesses a degree of power projection. People also tend to overlook Japan because of its extremely low percent-of-GDP expenditure on defense, but Japan maintains perhaps the strongest Navy in the region and their Air Force is no slouch, either. It is widely believed that these 3 Asian countries "check" one-another, as any 2 of them are strong enough to defeat the other in a war.

Of course there's the UK, a nation with strong naval traditions and likely the finest Special Forces in the world. There's also Israel, a nation with an excellent record of defending itself against the odds and extensive experience in urban warfare and counter-insurgency operations. The IAF is one of the most experienced air forces in the world.

In the end, however, this question is just bizarre. We should all hope that no major conflicts break out in the future, and that the next man with Hitler-like aspirations is just some whackjob in Sub-Saharan Africa whose reign of terror ends when a JDAM flattens his villa.

(the F22 is more modern but will loose any dogfight to an F16/F18, it turns slower than a broken turntable)
Are you sure? It's hard to actually find any figures, but vector-thrust does make a bit of a difference. Do you have any sources?

Fact of the matter is that within a properly organised air offensive the F-22 won't really have to get into dogfights. There'd be AWACS (and its own significant radar capability) to pick up hostile jets and fire ever more advanced long-range missiles at them, while suffering virtually no risk at all.

Of course, it's still too expensive to be worth it, but that's another matter.

The regiments base was in Brecon...wiki and other such sites records show that 19 of the 80 serving soldiers were Welsh...this is bullshit...My great grandad was John Williams who was awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery...from what my grandad tells is that records of that period as well as the story itself have serious flaws...at best they have the total of welshmen at 19 in any given record...but my grandad said his dad told him there were at least 45 of the 80 that were welsh...conscripted around 1873 when the base first moved to Brecon...so I would think he knows what he is talking about...considering he was there

*Ahem* Except that the British army was all-volunteer, without any conscripts, right through until a bit into the First World War...

On the other we have India, the world's largest democracy and one that is increasingly equipping itself with top-of-the-line equipment and training from Russia and the USA; their Navy actually possesses a degree of power projection.
Agreed, the Indian forces certainly deserve a place on the list of 'best' ones.
Considering that point, and their nation's increasing importance, one of the (relatively few) political matters about which I agree with Gordon Brown is that it's time to consider giving India a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

Which current military do you think is the best, other than the US?

Why other than the US? I don't think the US are even in the runner ups... Just the most active of all, lately.

France because it has it's OWN carriers, nukes and everything. It is the only European country capable of hurting the USA in a EU-US war. Why is China not on the list?

FRANCE!!! dont make me laugh, france had the bright idea of making a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, but with a nuclear subs reactor, so like everythin french made its underpowered and slow,

the UK has the most powerful army in the EU then its germany

*Ahem* Except that the British army was all-volunteer, without any conscripts, right through until a bit into the First World War...

conscripted...volunteered...whatever...a minor detail...stop being anal :cool:

*Ahem* Except that the British army was all-volunteer, without any conscripts, right through until a bit into the First World War...

Not until January 1916

conscripted...volunteered...whatever...a minor detail...stop being anal :cool:

Huh! A minor detail! heh sheesh.

Ancient...your right of course..The thread title is somewhat vague but it has generated 14 pages of debate.

One thing that really impressed me whilst working with US units is the amount of people it takes to do a comparable job to other nations. For example

...AWAC reciever station manpower:

Dutch 2 vehicles and 5 men (1 officer)
US 6 vehicles 15 men (3 officers)

Trunk communication Switching control:
UK 1 vehicle 3 men (1 JNCO)
US 5 vehicles 12 men (2 officers)
Germans-:upyours:-left all thier digital comms in Germany and couldnt do the job..went home.

The "specialisation" (SPC) of jobs is all good and well when there are enough people and cash to throw at the problem...but as soon as one of the kingpins falls out, the whole system shudders to a halt.

For talking about Britain's forces, This (http://www.regiments.org) is a useful reference site: It covers the history of all the land forces (Army, Marines, RAF Regiment, Naval Commandos, etc... including Militia, Territorial & Volunteer units, as well as the 'Regular' ones) of Britain, the Empire and the Commonwealth, from 1660 to the present day and has lots of links to other sites that are about specific units too.

Ancient...your right of course..The thread title is somewhat vague but it has generated 14 pages of debate.


I do not mean to disparage the OP, of course; anything that encourages this much debate is commendable. I was writing at 2 AM and didn't realize that I was coming off as an ass. :D

The Zoid from the 3rd district. Despite their large military presence they have totally gone unnoticed for ages. :)

are they the best? :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :eek:
lulz.

I love n00bs.

I'm not trying to be a dick, and British troops have certainly demonstrated their prowess, but American soldiers, or at least the elite units, are not half as crappy as the picture that it seemed you were painting of them. Additionally, I would hazard a reasonable guess that the British Army is composed of the most thoroughly-trained conventional units in the world, but also that the capabilities of average American and British soldier are far ahead of pretty much anyone else and more similar to each other's than to any other.

You come on here, with your facts and being all reasonable and that.
You'll never last:D

One thing is for sure, if it was a drinking contest the British would win.

The Zoid from the 3rd district. Despite their large military presence they have totally gone unnoticed for ages. :)

If you're going to bring anime into it, then I say the Earth Sphere Alliance Military.

If you're going to bring anime into it, then I say the Earth Sphere Alliance Military.

The Zoid have been depicted! In a.... cartoon... :eek:

I did not know that; they are probably less capable than I thought...

Im not talking about the technology used Neu...im talking about the skill of the pilots...the 'Red Devils' display team although not in active service are the best pilots in the world...gleaned from the best in the RAF...and America participating in most of the Air Support in Afghanistan and Iraq is just a matter of more resources and numbers than the skill of their pilots...it is a well known fact that the American Airforce is trigger happy bordering on incompetent...so your arguement to the contrary is somewhat flawed :)

I'm aware this is abit after the debate, but I must say that the American Blue Angel's (The eqivilent to your Red Devil's) could most likely prove a nice match for them.

I see a lot of US military bashing here, and while I am not a proponent in any way of how the war in Iraq is being carried out I see a very successful military at work. The same applies to the Israelis. The problem is not that the militaries of America and Israel are no longer effective it is that as a society we have decided that war now includes an entirely new diplomatic element. If you become a diplomat they do not train you to kill and blow things up so why do we expect our soldiers to be winning "hearts and minds"? A soldier's job is usually a destructive one and the more parameters you put on what he/she can and cannot destroy that less effective he/she becomes. Telling soldiers that civilian casualties are completely unacceptable opens up a new venue for the enemy to utilize. As long as the enemy look like a civilian they enjoy complete immunity until it is too late for the soldiers to react. I am not advocating the complete destruction of civilian populations, but I would go so far as to say, its war people die. The media has turned the stigma of war against itself and has put in our minds this outrage at the number of deaths. Due to advanced weapons systems, the number of civilian casualties has gone down incredibly and that should be celebrated. China cannot boast that, their technology is still based on mass killing with no regard for whom gets killed.

The current US involvement in Iraq demonstrates success. They toppled Saddam, and defeated the Iraqi Army. Thats war, what they are doing now is not war, its baby-sitting with guns. No modern army, other then the NAZIs, where good at that. The only reason the NAZIs where any good was because they were allowed to kill whomever did not submit to their command.

So when it comes to war fighting I would say US, Israel, and the UK tied for first.

If its number of soldiers to killing capacity you want then it would be the Boy Scouts. They are the second largest uniformed body in the world, right behind the Chinese People's Army, and I have never met a more destructive crew.

really, cool! were you in lebanon?

No, I was in high school back then, and plus I'm in military intelligence, not ground forces.

military intelligence

Still my favourite ever oxymoron:D

I voted UK for 3 reasons

1.The Royal Navy
2.Very highly trained and equipped troops
3.Trident

The British Army Soldiers are the best trained infantry in the world. No offence meant to Americans here, but your US Army soldiers aren't that great (Now the marines, they're different). US soldiers are sometimes drafted (correct?) whereas every British soldier volunteers to serve and die for the UK.
As for power... The British L85A1 is one of the best cityfighting weapons available: Compact and accurate, it is ideal for urban warfare (it was designed with the Northern Ireland troubles in mind). Otherwise, the combination of the Challenger Tank (world's fastest tank in its class) and the high-quality artillery/air support make the British army one of the best in the world.
Britain has never been successfully invaded for 10 centuries (no enemy soldiers have set foot in Britain) despite us being separated from the názis by less than 20 miles of water.

The British Army Soldiers are the best trained infantry in the world. No offence meant to Americans here, but your US Army soldiers aren't that great (Now the marines, they're different). US soldiers are sometimes drafted (correct?) whereas every British soldier volunteers to serve and die for the UK.
As for power... The British L85A1 is one of the best cityfighting weapons available: Compact and accurate, it is ideal for urban warfare (it was designed with the Northern Ireland troubles in mind). Otherwise, the combination of the Challenger Tank (world's fastest tank in its class) and the high-quality artillery/air support make the British army one of the best in the world.
Britain has never been successfully invaded for 10 centuries (no enemy soldiers have set foot in Britain) despite us being separated from the názis by less than 20 miles of water.
I agree with most of your comments (Yes, the Marines are indeed diffrent), but the US military, is, at least for the moment, an all volunteer force.

Then can we agree that when it comes to killing things the US Marines are pretty close to number one?

Then can we agree that when it comes to killing things the US Marines are pretty close to number one?

No British Marines are better, far better, once the British Marines invited a unit of American ones to come over and try the assualt course, (which is standard practise for British Marines) and they couldn't complete it.
Sorry but US Marines don't have the incentive to fight as well as the British ones.

I see a lot of US military bashing here, and while I am not a proponent in any way of how the war in Iraq is being carried out I see a very successful military at work. The same applies to the Israelis. The problem is not that the militaries of America and Israel are no longer effective it is that as a society we have decided that war now includes an entirely new diplomatic element.

It's hardly a new element. Recent example included Bosnia and Kosovo.

If you become a diplomat they do not train you to kill and blow things up so why do we expect our soldiers to be winning "hearts and minds"? A soldier's job is usually a destructive one and the more parameters you put on what he/she can and cannot destroy that less effective he/she becomes.

That is where you are wrong. This is one of the main differences between the UK forces and other forces; The UK forces train to do maximum aggression combat but also get trained in hearts and minds (this training has been around since at least the 70's)

Telling soldiers that civilian casualties are completely unacceptable opens up a new venue for the enemy to utilize. As long as the enemy look like a civilian they enjoy complete immunity until it is too late for the soldiers to react. I am not advocating the complete destruction of civilian populations, but I would go so far as to say, its war people die. The media has turned the stigma of war against itself and has put in our minds this outrage at the number of deaths. Due to advanced weapons systems, the number of civilian casualties has gone down incredibly and that should be celebrated. China cannot boast that, their technology is still based on mass killing with no regard for whom gets killed.

I've got to agree with you on that one. The media don't focus on the work that US (and other) engineers have done; for example rebuilding homes or water and power supplies. The media only focus on the "bad bits" such as the killing of civilians.

The problem in Iraq is, as you said, they enemy are indistinguishable from civilians. If you are in a truck and someone fires an RPG at you from the crowd what do you do? Shoot back and create a media fiasco, or just act as the clay pigeon? It's an almost impossible situation.

The British are much better at it of course due to 40-50 years of Northern Ireland.

The current US involvement in Iraq demonstrates success. They toppled Saddam, and defeated the Iraqi Army. Thats war, what they are doing now is not war, its baby-sitting with guns. No modern army, other then the NAZIs, where good at that. The only reason the NAZIs where any good was because they were allowed to kill whomever did not submit to their command.

Incorrect. The original plan (scrapped by Rumsfeld) for Iraq was a 4 phase operation. Phase 4 was about reconstruction. Rumsfeld was too "over excited" about the military aspect and refused to believe that we needed a reconstruction. He scrapped phase 4.

What we are doing now IS war. What do you think a war is? Are you in the military at all?

We are basically fighting sporadic urban battles and policing against terrorists.

The Nazi's were also often collaborated with (of course it varied from area to area) in genuine friendship. They did use the Gestapo lots though.

I'm not sure such friendly competition could really be interesting to see " who get the best army "
Last time the Foreign Legion and the Seals made à gauntlet in Guyana, the French beat them utterly and have to bring them back on the base.
Last time RAF anf Armée de l'Air made a fighting exercise, it was a 8-3 in favor of the French pilots.

So if I follow the logic of some guys there, the French are the best military ;]
Doesn't think it's the reality.

Because there's plenty different wars.

In peacekeeping, EU gets clearly the best troops, and UK-France-Germany are all well able to protect their assets.

China and India are still far behind, but work on closing the gap.

The IDF is a very good fighting force but are overlooked and prove it days after days.
Still, they are good.

Russia is not a good military power but remain effective by the simple reason that they have absolutly no fucking morality and no respect for freedom and life.

There's a rising military power you all forget:
Saoudi Arabia.
Actually, they put more money on their army than India or China, and they have access to the best US technology.
They have a far more professional army than the others Arabic states.
Something to closely watch, with great caution.

If I had to choose, I'd say that, on an historical perspective, the British are the best on the overall, last succesful invasion was three centuries ago ( yes it was an invasion, even if there was English on their side and legitimacy to act, the royal army face them and the invasion force was totally Dutch )
Still it's the longest in history.
Being an island help, but it don't make all.

Actually, the greatest military power as a projectionnal tool of destruction is absolutly the US one, for technology and money also.

As a peacekeeping and anti insurgency force, I tend to say France, because of the great work we have done in Côte d'Ivoire, after all we learned from the Rwandan brothel.

Well then I stand corrected on many counts, thanks for the info guys. It is always nice to learn something new.

It's hardly a new element. Recent example included Bosnia and Kosovo.


Go back further than that. Dealing with civilian resistance has been a part of warfare for centuries. Just look at the peninsular war in the Napoleonic era, where partisan fighters engaged literally hundreds of thousands of enemy troops, keeping them away from the front lines by attacking their supply wagons. Why? Because the french army lived off the land, did not do any sort of dipolmacy (hearts and minds or otherwise) and effectively tried to terrorise the spanish and portugese into submission. It didn't work and the resistance fighting a large part of their defeat. The allies (British, Portugese and Spanish) under the command of Wellington on the other hand, once they invaded France, made sure not to piss off the natives (paying for their food was a good start) and didn';t have the same problems.

Unless you're fighting a strictly defensive war against an outside invaded, you will always have to deal with civilians, it is never just about shooting the bad guys in the opposing uniform.

after all we learned from the Rwandan brothel.
Apparently your native tongue is not English. Look up the word "brothel": I do not think it is the word you intended.:D

No, I was in high school back then, and plus I'm in military intelligence, not ground forces.

military intelligence? damn you guys fucked it up!

Apparently your native tongue is not English. Look up the word "brothel": I do not think it is the word you intended.:D

Brothel, Whorehouse, big fucking mess.

I wasn't correct ? ( but I know I'm not good in English )

Rwanda was a huge mess, and we totally fucked up there, both the French only( operation Licorne ) and the UN intervention...but we learned a few things in the end, at the cost of a million lives.

About the Peninsula War, yup, those brave Portugueses and Spaniards peasants were instrumental in Napoleonic defeat, without 8 years of guerilla in Spain, Napoleon could have unleashed something like 300 000 or 400 000 more soldiers on other battle fronts...

The US cannot be called the best military in the world.

In an era when our soldiers can't get pork products, alcohol, porn or literature that is in opposition to Islam, you can't have that label. Politically correct armies are not great.

It's an absolute disgrace that we force our soldiers to live by the ridiculous religious laws of a country we have defeated. We should be telling them to get a Pork BBQ going whenever they want.

Brothel, Whorehouse, big fucking mess.

I wasn't correct ?
No, we don't use brothel or whorehouse to mean "big mess". If we want to use a sexual metaphor, we would say "the Rwanda screwup" or (more emphatic, and used a lot by the military) "the Rwanda cluster-fuck".

Yeah Hezbollah, if a muslim country invaded and conquered America, I'm sure that they would respect the various religious laws and operate under politically correct rules of engagement. Please. Only the Western powers act like bitches when they beat up on someone. We should not tell our troops that they can't drink or eat bacon because the muslims don't like it. It's sick.

The US military numbers in the millions. 4,000+ lives thrown away, tragic as it is, is really insignificant to the US military.

It's an absolute disgrace that we force our soldiers to live by the ridiculous religious laws of a country we have defeated. We should be telling them to get a Pork BBQ going whenever they want.

YOU did not just go there! so therefore, If a muslim nation invaded and conquered america, we should be allowed to what ever we want, without respect for your laws?!??!? and you havent defeated the country, just an inept goverment, unless you have forgotten, you've lost almost 4,000 soldiers, the major shia groups hate your guts, the iraqi people hate you or dislike you at the very least, and not to mention AQ who are still out there, and killing off american soldiers, and on the last bolded point, they should do whatever they fucking want? without respect for the host country, that type of talk just fuels AQ rhetoric

You have to be kidding.

Yeah Hezbollah, if a muslim country invaded and conquered America, I'm sure that they would respect the various religious laws and operate under politically correct rules of engagement. Please. Only the Western powers act like bitches when they beat up on someone. We should not tell our troops that they can't drink or eat bacon because the muslims don't like it. It's sick.

The US military numbers in the millions. 4,000+ lives thrown away, tragic as it is, is really insignificant to the US military.

if you can do whatever you want, why cant they, and who knows, there is a small chance they might :p, also how do you drink bacon?, also i tried it once not so good
PS:
if it numbers in millions, then why not send those millions to work in afganistan, instead of begging NATO allies to do it ?

You have to be kidding.

maybe i am, maybe i am not, but on what exactly am i kidding?

No, we don't use brothel or whorehouse to mean "big mess". If we want to use a sexual metaphor, we would say "the Rwanda screwup" or (more emphatic, and used a lot by the military) "the Rwanda cluster-fuck".

Cluster-fuck, I like this one !

For the next thread, about the million US soldiers, don't forget that only a quarter of your army could be used as a combat force, so 4000 it's not anything, not only on a humanitarian way, but also on a mathematical perspective.

Thus, it's obviously not like Vietnam, I agree on this, but the US Army as a professional force, with Afghanistan and Irak, is clearly not having enough troops...what would have been occured without NATO forces ?!