China and Russia, who would win?

Yeah the Akula looks way bigger than the typhoon there!!.and the typhoon is supp to be the biggest sub ever!!..

The Akula is a SSBN hunter while the typhoon is a SSBN right?..

Akula is a hunter killer. Typhoon is a SSBN. I'm pretty certain though a US Ohio class has never been tracked on patrol. They are literally quieter than the surrounding ocean.
Not sure where the UK trained US sub captains comment came from. Maybe in WW2 era ?
I know the US and UK Navy have a big difference in career paths for sub officers. Early on, a UK sub officer specializes and sticks to it. In the US Navy it's a catch all program. All the sub officers are nuclear trained and know all of the detailed aspects of nuclear propulsion. UK Navy it's more like Star Trek, engineering officers who just run the engine room and don't ever stand officer of the deck along with the tactical line officers who operate the ship but don't have the in depth nuclear training.
I know the US shared most of it's nuclear technology with UK. UK uses US designed sub launched ballistic missiles for example. Early sonar was invented in the UK but again we're talking 50 years ago. Ship for ship capability, I think they are a pretty equal match. But as was pointed out earlier the US must have at least 3 times as many. Training wise they're both far ahead of any other Navy. Russia included. A typical US/UK sub is at sea training or deployed far more often than other navies. They don't call it arduous sea duty for nothing. Most Russian subs sit at the pier for lack of maintenance. On paper they are good but a sub is nothing without a well trained crew. They are very expensive to upkeep. A single boat from either navy could decimate an opponent's surface fleet. But the only nuclear sub to ever sink an enemy in combat was a UK boat in the Falkland Islands war.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Can i ask do you have the best trained army?
Best trained navy?
Best trained marines?
Best trained airforce?

Best operational units?
Best weapons?

Devilwasp, you obviously don't know the United States of America if you're asking these questions. And you haven't read the history of thst great nation either! Yes to all of the above. You should know that. What in your right mind would you make such a dubious opinion in regards to the United States having the best forces, weaponry, and technology than any other force in the world. That includes Russia, China, Britain, France and all of the rest of what you can name off the top of your little head. There is nobody on this Earth who can out-rank and have superior equipment than the United States. If you think I'm wrong then tell me who is stronger, why, and how!

China would win because they are smarter and stronger than Russia. But Russia has bigger tanks and would probably use nuclear technology before China.

Originally posted by BJonesLHS

Originally posted by Starwars51
Okay, so this board seems to be full of people who are certain that both of these countries are superior to the US military - so the logical next question is, which would prevail?

They share a massive border, so extensive ground combat is likely - as well as some sort of nuclear exchange.

Do you think other countries would intervene on one side or another?

Who (given the ever deteriorating state of Russia's convential forces) has the best ground/air forces?

Please, share your thoughts....

Okay, first of all, I'm going to disagree with your first statement that you have made. Yeah, people believe that these two countries are superior to the United States Military, but they are not! The United States has the best military, technology, and weaponry than any other country on this Earth as far as our intelligence can view. The only reason China may be in one's head is because of the massive number of citizens China has. Today, China has approximately 380,000,000 available military manpower. That is approximately 100,000,000 more than the United States' overall population and about 306,000,000 more than the United States' military manpower. However, the United States will not risk the lives of millions of troops in such of a massive army war with China if we do have war with them. Most of all, we will be using missiles and top secret weaponry to fight the Chinese. You are talking about nuclear missiles, rockets, sub-launched cruise missiles, air-launched cruise missiles, possibly biological weapons, and our top secret weaponry will come to use duirng this time.

According to Russia, if you have forgotten, the Soviet Union has broken up in the early 90's and it's been over 10 years that Russia has been a sitting-duck. They still remain with a minute number of power, but they aren't as much as a superpower as they were before the Soviet Union crumbled. Today, Russia has approximately 40,000,000 available military manpower. And knowing Russia, they may have a different tactic in pursuing the Chinese. Since they are close in border, the Chinese will end up storming onto the Russian territory and fighting. So they would have no choice, but fight using troops. In regards to the Russian troops, they will get completely whiped out if they decided to enter the Chinese territory of vice versa. But more than likely, there will be troops fighting a war between Russia and China. As I have said early in this post, the United States will take a different approach in a war like that. Again, they the U.S. will use missiles and firepower more than they would be risking the lives of military troops.

In this case, there would be several of countries to intervene and support the the Russians. But again, you are talking about competing against a massive amount of soldiers if you have a ground war with the Chinese.

According to the two nations Russia and China, in regards to ground forces, I have already mentioned that China is approsimately 380 million strong in ground forces. That includes their Army, Navy, and airpower. In regards to airpower, the Russians have a fairly strong airforce, but again, the Soviet Union broke up over ten years ago and it caused Russia to get weak and not as strong as they used to be in the past. But, knowing the size of the Chinese military, they may also out-number Russia's airforce as well. But again, Russia cannot stand a chance against China's army since they share a massive border. But in regards to the United States who is the strongest superpower on Earth will take a different approach to fighting China and that will be using weapons of mass destruction.

Any proof of that? I see way too many people posting "oh, we have secret weapons... oh, we DO have the best millitary" but with no proof. I strongly believe that Russia has the best technology in the world. Russian space shuttles can lift the most weight into outer space. Helicopters and planes beat yours.... And they have a rocket that reaches the US with the US anti-missle system being only 28% I think, efective against it. Sending you 5 or 6 will be sure to shut you up.. Russia's technology is the only thing holding you're country at bay from trying to conquer the word. China on the other hand, has the Manpower. In the case of the war, China is sure to stup the US. the US does not have too many weapons superior to China (who's weapons are mostly of Soviet decent), and their manpower is extraordinary, so that should be enough to stop you once more.

I don't think that the question itsself is adequate. There is no way to test, there is no reasonable facts to be put forward. There are no tactics to base the plans on. This thread and most like it will turn into a pointless opinionated game of ping pong very soon, if not already.

Originally posted by Lucifer340

China would win because they are smarter and stronger than Russia. But Russia has bigger tanks and would probably use nuclear technology before China.

How old are you really??

Originally posted by BJonesLHS
Devilwasp, you obviously don't know the United States of America if you're asking these questions. And you haven't read the history of thst great nation either! Yes to all of the above. You should know that. What in your right mind would you make such a dubious opinion in regards to the United States having the best forces, weaponry, and technology than any other force in the world. That includes Russia, China, Britain, France and all of the rest of what you can name off the top of your little head. There is nobody on this Earth who can out-rank and have superior equipment than the United States. If you think I'm wrong then tell me who is stronger, why, and how!

1.best equipment...USA
2.best training...debateable...I'd put my money on the EU..the smaller the force the more attention/money one can spend on indivisual training.
3. Best Air Force...by sheer size and quality of tech ..USA...best trained..again debateable..
4. Best Navy....Size and deployability/infrastructure...USA..

well you get the general picture...the US has the best equip but thats far from being the a entity capable on taking on say Russia+China+India..forget rest of the world...they'd be caught in pincer wars,sandwich battlefronts etc etc. everywhere

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by BJonesLHS
Devilwasp, you obviously don't know the United States of America if you're asking these questions. And you haven't read the history of thst great nation either! Yes to all of the above. You should know that. What in your right mind would you make such a dubious opinion in regards to the United States having the best forces, weaponry, and technology than any other force in the world. That includes Russia, China, Britain, France and all of the rest of what you can name off the top of your little head. There is nobody on this Earth who can out-rank and have superior equipment than the United States. If you think I'm wrong then tell me who is stronger, why, and how!

1.best equipment...USA
2.best training...debateable...I'd put my money on the EU..the smaller the force the more attention/money one can spend on indivisual training.
3. Best Air Force...by sheer size and quality of tech ..USA...best trained..again debateable..
4. Best Navy....Size and deployability/infrastructure...USA..

well you get the general picture...the US has the best equip but thats far from being the a entity capable on taking on say Russia+China+India..forget rest of the world...they'd be caught in pincer wars,sandwich battlefronts etc etc. everywhere

Hmm, and the S doesn't have anything like Iraw on their hands at the moment now does it?
Besides, truthfuly, how many textbooks that you've read to give you that info have had the american flag on the cover? If any at All?
Best airforce in tech, is no doubt, Russia, just to kill one.
You're sounding like a colledge dropout who watches Top Gun for breakfast on wednesdays and fridays so far mate, impress me.

Nah he is correct the US does have the largest airforce and by quite a bit, it also has the largest navy and most land vehicles. China does beat the US in one area and that is infantry numbers. Russia ranks second in all those three areas and has the 13th largest infantry force in the world. The US is 6th for infantry in terms of sheer numbers if i remember correctly. This is based on 2001 stats.

Originally posted by BJonesLHS
Devilwasp, you obviously don't know the United States of America if you're asking these questions. And you haven't read the history of thst great nation either!

Yeah great nation, last time i checked you held the worlds worst FF record.
What a history.

Yes to all of the above. You should know that. What in your right mind would you make such a dubious opinion in regards to the United States having the best forces, weaponry, and technology than any other force in the world. That includes Russia, China, Britain, France and all of the rest of what you can name off the top of your little head. There is nobody on this Earth who can out-rank and have superior equipment than the United States. If you think I'm wrong then tell me who is stronger, why, and how!

Ok, the US navy has ALWAYS been beaten by the russians in antiship missiles FACT.
Germany has up till ww2 had the best trained army in the world, now we've taken thier spot due to thier low army number but if they beat us then we wouldnt be down heartned.
Germany has always been able to make superior guns to every one in the world.
Russian's have always been undertrained but after WW2 they had the best field rifles.: AK series.
The gurkhas have always been one of the best if not the best trained troops in the world, train the SAS stuff and their own stuff.

Originally posted by Mishka

Any proof of that? I see way too many people posting "oh, we have secret weapons... oh, we DO have the best millitary" but with no proof. I strongly believe that Russia has the best technology in the world. Russian space shuttles can lift the most weight into outer space. Helicopters and planes beat yours.... And they have a rocket that reaches the US with the US anti-missle system being only 28% I think, efective against it. Sending you 5 or 6 will be sure to shut you up.. Russia's technology is the only thing holding you're country at bay from trying to conquer the word. China on the other hand, has the Manpower. In the case of the war, China is sure to stup the US. the US does not have too many weapons superior to China (who's weapons are mostly of Soviet decent), and their manpower is extraordinary, so that should be enough to stop you once more.

I don't think that the question itsself is adequate. There is no way to test, there is no reasonable facts to be put forward. There are no tactics to base the plans on. This thread and most like it will turn into a pointless opinionated game of ping pong very soon, if not already.

Interesting point about the US Ballistic missile defense system. Fortunately the US has missiles that are 100% guranteed to defeat the non-existant Russian national ballistic missile defense system.

People don't realize that conflicts are not fought in message boards or on spec sheets. You can have assets that on paper have impressive capabilities, but if you (like Russia) can't support, deploy, purchase in signifigant numbers, or train operators effectively you might as well not have that system. On paper, some system from the rest of the world appear to be better than similar US systems (for example Russia has a few copies of larger cargo planes), but no one can compare with the US's ability to utilize the available systems to achieve their goals.

Well, I thought this topic was about China and Russia, and not America...

Between Russia and China, neither could really do much to the other in an offensive war. It would end in a stalemate.

China does probably have the better force then Russia this time, though. China has better Flankers then Russia does at this point, with improved avionics which they've received from European nations, as well as Israel. Although China's airforce still has a limited number of fourth generation fighters, I doubt Russia could really put many more in the area at this point. China obtains more each year, as well.

On the ground, I'd say the Chinese have superior tanks and have developed superior artillery to the Russians.

Manpower would go to the Chinese. Training wise the Russians may still have an edge, but that's probably not going to last.

I think its more interesting to look at who has more political strength. The world really has more interest in China economically then Russia. I think Europe would probably show more favor to China. America, on the other hand, may support Russia (at least to the point where Russia was even with China, like with the Iran-Iraq war). China right now is a greater potential threat to American dominance than Russia. I think most of the players in the region, such as India, Japan, Australia, and South Korea would end up going against China for similiar reasons.

Yeah great nation, last time i checked you held the worlds worst FF record.
What a history.

You keep saying this, Devilwasp, but I've yet to see it explained.

Germany has up till ww2 had the best trained army in the world, now we've taken thier spot due to thier low army number but if they beat us then we wouldnt be down heartned.

I really don't think the UK can claim the title of the best trained force. I don't think anyone can rival Israel there. No one has come close to proving their capabilities as the Israelis.

Where does any European nation get off calling itself well trained? The UK hasn't done anything but send small numbers of troops to aid in America's wars, unless you count the Balkans, which wasn't really much. Argentina wasn't even as dangerous as Iraq was the second time around.

Honestly, if America got to send just 8,000 marines into every military operation we'd look like the best trained military force by far. European nations have had the luxury of sending their elites to represent them.

Most of Europe keeps conscript armies that are under-funded. The UK and France have been the only exceptions, with the second only making the switch recently.

Germany has always been able to make superior guns to every one in the world.

Germany had its time as a military superpower. It was impressive, but its over. Germany can't just suddenly start producing weapons like Nazi Germany could.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You keep saying this, Devilwasp, but I've yet to see it explained.

You keep thinking you have the best history in the world, deal?
Best to see what exsplained?

I really don't think the UK can claim the title of the best trained force. I don't think anyone can rival Israel there. No one has come close to proving their capabilities as the Israelis.

Not really, all are conscipts and thier infantry officers train for 4 months ours for 14 and a half months.
British tank and artillery comanders train for 17 months thiers train for 7 months.

Where does any European nation get off calling itself well trained? The UK hasn't done anything but send small numbers of troops to aid in America's wars, unless you count the Balkans, which wasn't really much. Argentina wasn't even as dangerous as Iraq was the second time around.

Lets see sea harriers Vs mirages.
Sea harrier wins.
If you looked back in history you would see that europe has been the center of training for everyone.
Germany had the best army in the world, britian was only close iwht training nothing else.
They invented many tactics used today.
Also britian has faught in conflicts around the world.

Honestly, if America got to send just 8,000 marines into every military operation we'd look like the best trained military force by far. European nations have had the luxury of sending their elites to represent them.

If britain sent thier 6000 RMC' we'd look the best because of thier higher levels of training.
The europeans countries tend to be better trained since they are not going around the world fighting every one and are smaller therefore better trained.

Most of Europe keeps conscript armies that are under-funded. The UK and France have been the only exceptions, with the second only making the switch recently.

Still they are under funded yet still better trained.
Also irsreal keeps a conscript army and the UK and USA had them not that long ago.

Germany had its time as a military superpower. It was impressive, but its over. Germany can't just suddenly start producing weapons like Nazi Germany could.

They can, they have the reasources ,the man power, they have the tech and the logictics to supply them to almost everyone in europe, with help from some other countries.


[edit on 8-1-2005 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by Mishka

Hmm, and the S doesn't have anything like Iraw on their hands at the moment now does it?
Besides, truthfuly, how many textbooks that you've read to give you that info have had the american flag on the cover? If any at All?
Best airforce in tech, is no doubt, Russia, just to kill one.
You're sounding like a colledge dropout who watches Top Gun for breakfast on wednesdays and fridays so far mate, impress me.

HAHA thats the second time someone mistaken me to be a yankee doodle doo!! maybe I just come across that way..
Im pro Russia all the way don't you see my cool signature??!!
(and an Indian)
but you got to hand it to the americans they are the best tech force in the world today not because of the their innovativeness..but because they have the greenbacks to maintain such $hit in case of a war...
And btw I've watched topgun many times since I was a kid, and have always hated the ending, wanted the ruskies to win!!Sam with 'Airwolf' and another movie(forget name) where an american steals a russian stealth plane form russia and flies it all the way back to the US...
refuels somewhere in the arctic by landing on ice and tanking from a USN sub!!..

And btw heres a real shocker for the top guns fans/critics out there:

Have you ever thought abou the fact that there were NEVER ANY russian forces(air assests) deployed in the Indian Ocean EVER??!!
Infact the only time a USN carrier group came close to war in the Indian Ocean was when it moved into the bay of Bengal to intimidate the Indians who were whooping some paki a$$ at the time...Infact IMHO the russian fighters depicted in the movie could very well stand for IAF(Indian) jets on an intercept course..IAF pilots based at eastern command bases were briefed on anti-carrier ops and the jets were fitted with the exocet missile in case to US chose to breach territorial waters/airspace.I can vouch for that..Top gun was filmed in the 80s while the war was in 71...quite interesting aye??...

[edit on 8-1-2005 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Have you ever thought abou the fact that there were NEVER ANY russian forces(air assests) deployed in the Indian Ocean EVER??!!
Infact the only time a USN carrier group came close to war in the Indian Ocean was when it moved into the bay of Bengal to intimidate the Indians who were whooping some paki a$$ at the time...Infact IMHO the russian fighters depicted in the movie could very well stand for IAF(Indian) jets on an intercept course..IAF pilots based at eastern command bases were briefed on anti-carrier ops and the jets were fitted with the exocet missile in case to US chose to breach territorial waters/airspace.I can vouch for that..Top gun was filmed in the 80s while the war was in 71...quite interesting aye??...

[edit on 8-1-2005 by Daedalus3]

I also wonder how many people think the T-38/F-4 are Russian aircraft, considering that in virtually every US movie they are what the "Russians" fly.

You keep thinking you have the best history in the world, deal?
Best to see what exsplained?

America has dominated the air in every war we've been in. How exactly do we have the worst record anywhere?

Not really, all are conscipts and thier infantry officers train for 4 months ours for 14 and a half months.
British tank and artillery comanders train for 17 months thiers train for 7 months.

Training time isn't the only, or really even best measure of training.

Isreali soldiers are in an actual combat zone at all times. No amount of training can actually beat out true combat experience.

Lets see sea harriers Vs mirages.
Sea harrier wins.
If you looked back in history you would see that europe has been the center of training for everyone.
Germany had the best army in the world, britian was only close iwht training nothing else.
They invented many tactics used today.
Also britian has faught in conflicts around the world.

The Iraqis had Mirage fighters, and plenty of Russian planes. They had real combat experience in them, as well. They weren't a threat in the air, and neither was Argentina.

And everything you're talking about was over half a century ago. Besides, the German tactics weren't exactly that creative. They've been used throughout history. Take a look at the Blitzkrieg. You'll find its almost the same thing say, Alexander the Great did, or even the Mongols.

If britain sent thier 6000 RMC' we'd look the best because of thier higher levels of training.
The europeans countries tend to be better trained since they are not going around the world fighting every one and are smaller therefore better trained.

How does not fighting give Europe better trained troops? Does anyone honestly believe that sitting around a base, or even going on peacekeeping missions is the same as being in a warzone? I'd say no one has fought as many wars as America in the past half century.

And being smaller does not always equate to better trained. It's only a matter of funds, and the amount spent per soldier.

Still they are under funded yet still better trained.
Also irsreal keeps a conscript army and the UK and USA had them not that long ago.

The only European nation that could come close to calling itself better trained is the UK.

And while Israel keeps a conscript army, they also live in a far different environment. For a Western conscript, it's an annoyance. For an Israeli, they can actually see that they're fighting for their survival. If they go to war, they'll be facing the entire region.

Besides that, they also get to carry out more live operations than any other military.

They can, they have the reasources ,the man power, they have the tech and the logictics to supply them to almost everyone in europe, with help from some other countries.

The resources? They don't have the cash or technology to rival America's military. Logistics? They couldn't even deploy more than a few thousand troops from Germany at a time.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
America has dominated the air in every war we've been in. How exactly do we have the worst record anywhere?

Worst friendly fire record of all countries, and in WW2 it was a joint british and american venture there.

Training time isn't the only, or really even best measure of training.

Yeah it plays a mojor factor though.

Isreali soldiers are in an actual combat zone at all times. No amount of training can actually beat out true combat experience.

Yeah, good point but against who?
Officer courses here fight war games, granted thier not real they do give recruits a taste.

The Iraqis had Mirage fighters, and plenty of Russian planes. They had real combat experience in them, as well. They weren't a threat in the air, and neither was Argentina.

In iraq they where fighting with F-15's,F18's,Tornado's and the such.
Aregentina where fighting a sea harrier that is substancially lower in class than the mirage.
It was down to the level of training.

And everything you're talking about was over half a century ago. Besides, the German tactics weren't exactly that creative. They've been used throughout history. Take a look at the Blitzkrieg. You'll find its almost the same thing say, Alexander the Great did, or even the Mongols.

Actually they invented a tactic using modern weapons, alexenader didnt have a panzer back then did they?

How does not fighting give Europe better trained troops? Does anyone honestly believe that sitting around a base, or even going on peacekeeping missions is the same as being in a warzone? I'd say no one has fought as many wars as America in the past half century.

You have no idea where they have fought have you?
Hell britian alone fought in india, korea, malaya, palestine, the Suez Canal, kenya, cyprus , aden, radfan, suez, borneo, vietnam, northern ireland, oman dhofar, falklands, gulfwar, bosnia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, gulf war.

And being smaller does not always equate to better trained. It's only a matter of funds, and the amount spent per soldier.

Actully no, its the syllabus and how its taught.
Smaller the force, the more money can be spent on them.

The only European nation that could come close to calling itself better trained is the UK.

Exscuse me??
The finnish armed forces are the best in the world at moutain combat, if not then soldiers from around the world wouldnt be going there to learn from them.

Besides that, they also get to carry out more live operations than any other military.

Yeah, i've seen thier "operations" and what happens.

The resources? They don't have the cash or technology to rival America's military. Logistics? They couldn't even deploy more than a few thousand troops from Germany at a time.

Exscuse me!
The HK MP5 alone is renowned around the world as the most used CT weapon.
The G36 is used around the world.
The G36 alone is renowed as the best rifle in the world compared to the ahem "rifle" SA80 , M16, AK47.

Worst friendly fire record of all countries, and in WW2 it was a joint british and american venture there

You'll have the worst friendly fire record when you go to war the most, and do the hardest fighting.

Yeah, good point but against who?
Officer courses here fight war games, granted thier not real they do give recruits a taste

Gulf War Iraq was not the joke you seem to think, and I've shown that over and over.

Either way, America has huge military exercises. We probably have more than any other nation in the world. We can create the best simulations. We can put our pilots in the air the longest.

In iraq they where fighting with F-15's,F18's,Tornado's and the such.
Aregentina where fighting a sea harrier that is substancially lower in class than the mirage.
It was down to the level of training.

If I listed to you, and most other non-Americans on this forum the F-15 couldn't stand up to anything but a Mig-23, and that'd be on a good day.

Actually they invented a tactic using modern weapons, alexenader didnt have a panzer back then did they?

Not having a tanks doesn't mean much. The basics of warfare are still the same.

Alexander would form a wedge with his cavalry, go through a gap in the line, and attack the rear. The blitzkrieg concentrates on one point in the enemies line, and attacks from behind.

You have no idea where they have fought have you?
Hell britian alone fought in india, korea, malaya, palestine, the Suez Canal, kenya, cyprus , aden, radfan, suez, borneo, vietnam, northern ireland, oman dhofar, falklands, gulfwar, bosnia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, gulf war.

Most of the fighting done by Europeans has been in support roles. A few thousand being in the Gulf during the Gulf War isn't quite the same as a few hundred thousand Americans being on the front lines against Saddam's Republican Guard.

Actully no, its the syllabus and how its taught.
Smaller the force, the more money can be spent on them.

The more money can be spread out among troops. The US has a far higher budget, and can afford to spend the same amount a nation like the UK does (if not more) and still keep many more soldiers.

Exscuse me??
The finnish armed forces are the best in the world at moutain combat, if not then soldiers from around the world wouldnt be going there to learn from them.

While I'm not completely aware of Finland's military, I fail to see the point you're making. I'd think a nation like Finland would pretty much concentrate on using their surrounding geography to their advantage. So, you'd end up having a force specialized to fight a certain way. They should be better on average in the mountains than Americans.

Yeah, i've seen thier "operations" and what happens.

I think its pretty damn amazing how few civillian and soldier losses their are considering they're operating in a hostile urban environment.

Exscuse me!
The HK MP5 alone is renowned around the world as the most used CT weapon.
The G36 is used around the world.
The G36 alone is renowed as the best rifle in the world compared to the ahem "rifle" SA80 , M16, AK47.

Honestly, what's the point here? They can make a gun on par with the M-16, or AK-47. I mean, even if we ignored the fact that it was made way after those guns, what's so impressive about it? It's pretty cheap to make. It's not like designing something as complex as a Raptor.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You'll have the worst friendly fire record when you go to war the most, and do the hardest fighting.

With the forign forces and with forces that do just as much as the US do?

Gulf War Iraq was not the joke you seem to think, and I've shown that over and over.

It was in no way near as bad as the falklands.

Either way, America has huge military exercises. We probably have more than any other nation in the world. We can create the best simulations. We can put our pilots in the air the longest.

Thats due to the US being paranoid and supplying its military with rediculous amounts of money.

If I listed to you, and most other non-Americans on this forum the F-15 couldn't stand up to anything but a Mig-23, and that'd be on a good day.

With or without the AWAC's support?
With or with out the best missiles?

Not having a tanks doesn't mean much. The basics of warfare are still the same.

Yeah, but the details change.
You dont cavalry charge a machine gun post do you?

Alexander would form a wedge with his cavalry, go through a gap in the line, and attack the rear. The blitzkrieg concentrates on one point in the enemies line, and attacks from behind.

Yeah, break through tactic.
Blitzkrieg was mostly the speed of it.

Most of the fighting done by Europeans has been in support roles. A few thousand being in the Gulf during the Gulf War isn't quite the same as a few hundred thousand Americans being on the front lines against Saddam's Republican Guard.

EXSCUSE ME!
The UK alone used most of the RM,RN,RAF and a large chunk of the army.
If we compared how much was used percentage wise by each country i think we would find UK forces being used more.
I also dont think the falklands war was supporting any one but the UK.

The more money can be spread out among troops. The US has a far higher budget, and can afford to spend the same amount a nation like the UK does (if not more) and still keep many more soldiers.

Yeah you spend so much money KEEPING these soldiers equiped but not the same amount on training.

While I'm not completely aware of Finland's military, I fail to see the point you're making. I'd think a nation like Finland would pretty much concentrate on using their surrounding geography to their advantage. So, you'd end up having a force specialized to fight a certain way. They should be better on average in the mountains than Americans.
[/quoe]
Yeah, in arctic conditions they are the best.
They concentrate on using advantages.
The point is they are exstremely good at that and are well trained.

I think its pretty damn amazing how few civillian and soldier losses their are considering they're operating in a hostile urban environment.

The few that have occured are not exsactly up to UN laws.

Honestly, what's the point here? They can make a gun on par with the M-16, or AK-47. I mean, even if we ignored the fact that it was made way after those guns, what's so impressive about it? It's pretty cheap to make. It's not like designing something as complex as a Raptor.

They make guns great, they make them better than any.
Gun makeing is an art its not as simple as just sticking some gun powder in a tube and aiming it at someone.
The XM8 alone is made by HK and is supposed to be the US's new rifle.

With the forign forces and with forces that do just as much as the US do?

That's the problem. They don't do anywhere near as much as Americans do. The 8,000 British troops in Iraq weren't used in the most important operations. They weren't given the most dangerous towns to occupy.

It was in no way near as bad as the falklands.

The British had numerical, and technological advantage all across the board. It wasn't even close. Argentina had no combat experience. It doesn't come close to Iraq in any way.

Thats due to the US being paranoid and supplying its military with rediculous amounts of money

You know, this statement served no purpose. It basically just agreed with my statement. American soldiers practice, and get more of the real thing than anyone else.

With or without the AWAC's support?
With or with out the best missiles?

Russian AWAC's and missiles are inferior to America's, so who cares?

Yeah, but the details change.
You dont cavalry charge a machine gun post do you?

Tanks are modern day cavalry.

Yeah, break through tactic.
Blitzkrieg was mostly the speed of it.

If you're an idiot who accepts what they read in a text book at school, yea. The Germans used a particular attack style. If you don't know that, you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

EXSCUSE ME!
The UK alone used most of the RM,RN,RAF and a large chunk of the army.
If we compared how much was used percentage wise by each country i think we would find UK forces being used more.
I also dont think the falklands war was supporting any one but the UK.

The British only used 28,000 men on the ground in the Falklands. That was a long time ago, as well. It was a small operation in comparison to Iraq. The British weren't going up against a massive force of tanks, artillery, and SAM's.

Yeah you spend so much money KEEPING these soldiers equiped but not the same amount on training.

As I said, we can put them through more exercises, and simulations than anyone else. They also see actual combat more than anyone else.

Yeah, in arctic conditions they are the best.
They concentrate on using advantages.
The point is they are exstremely good at that and are well trained.

Well trained at a single aspect of warfare. Americans train in every environment imaginable. We have the luxury of having pretty much everything in our nation geographically. Finland couldn't stop America becauase they're good in the mountains.

The few that have occured are not exsactly up to UN laws.

No army conducting a military operation could stay within the UN's laws. They could be stretched to fit just about anything.

They make guns great, they make them better than any.
Gun makeing is an art its not as simple as just sticking some gun powder in a tube and aiming it at someone.
The XM8 alone is made by HK and is supposed to be the US's new rifle.

I doubt they make them better than anyone. And while it's not simple, it's also nowhere near as complicated as making something like the Raptor.